Bigdogg;716320 wrote:We should make prisoners work for corporations like slave labor. Then we get more companies to move to Ohio for free labor and the consumers get less costly products and the corporations make even more profits. Everybody wins! Surprised Kasich has not thought of that one yet

Hyperbole aside I would have no issue with non-violent inmates working for the state to assist in paying for their stay. The less I have to pay the better!!!

tsst_fballfan;716347 wrote:Hyperbole aside I would have no issue with non-violent inmates working for the state to assist in paying for their stay. The less I have to pay the better!!!

Bring back the chain gang, eh?

BoatShoes;716301 wrote:Where do these untrue beliefs come from?

LJ;716310 wrote:Which untrue beliefs? An ex of mine's brother was locked up in Ross County Correctional for 15 years for armed robbery. He had his own TV (with cable) and stereo in his cell, was outside for about 6 hours per day, they had just taken away the weights because of fights with them and had multiple basketball courts.

I've been to visit someone at several state prisons and none of them had cable that I'm aware. I don't doubt that your example is true, just stating that not all prisons have cable. I also think that none of the prisons that I visited had a tv in their cell, but I'm not 100% positive on that.

FatHobbit;716378 wrote:I've been to visit someone at several state prisons and none of them had cable that I'm aware. I don't doubt that your example is true, just stating that not all prisons have cable. I also think that none of the prisons that I visited had a tv in their cell, but I'm not 100% positive on that.

It's all true at Ross Correctional, which is a state prison. Not sure if they have any murderers, but definitely rape, armed robbery and manslaughter.

O-Trap;716358 wrote:Bring back the chain gang, eh?

lol ... hmmmm ... ...maybe more along the lines of laundry service for state employee uniforms or something similar. A venture that would have low or no initial investment but would add a revenue stream or reduce costs to taxpayers.

The Indy State Penitentiary had cable on a 42" in their free room or whatever it was called.

Regarding prisons; I would like a law that dictates how much can be spent annually on a prisoner; and it should be whatever is defined as the poverty rate, minus 10%. The notion that we spend a couple tens of thousands per person more than is considered poverty level is absurd in my view. A prisoner should have no more allocated to him than that which we describe as poverty level and for whom there are many in the general populace who must survive at such level.
Too simplistic I know, but you get my drift.

QuakerOats;716464 wrote:Regarding prisons; I would like a law that dictates how much can be spent annually on a prisoner; and it should be whatever is defined as the poverty rate, minus 10%. The notion that we spend a couple tens of thousands per person more than is considered poverty level is absurd in my view. A prisoner should have no more allocated to him than that which we describe as poverty level and for whom there are many in the general populace who must survive at such level.
Too simplistic I know, but you get my drift.

Most of those costs are legal fees, and appeals.
Plus, you would have to have certain stages for each class of prisoner, such as a low security inmate vs. a high security inmate.

I agree on restricting what a prisoner has, but that has to be balanced against not ensuring the inmate becomes hardened even more. One reason for the 1993 riot at SOCF was the prisons felt most of their rights were being taken away. This, and other factors, led them to riot and rebel even more.

Finally, talking with my dad last night (who was a Lt. at SOCF for 25 years) cuts to the prison system overall are alright, but not to the big three places, nor should any of the prisons be privatized as prisons to him are like the police, is an inherit government function.
I'm all for saving money in the budget, but here I would disagree with budget cuts.

QuakerOats;716464 wrote:Regarding prisons; I would like a law that dictates how much can be spent annually on a prisoner; and it should be whatever is defined as the poverty rate, minus 10%. The notion that we spend a couple tens of thousands per person more than is considered poverty level is absurd in my view.

I think you have to differentiate what is spent on keeping them locked up and what is spent keeping them happy. I have no problem cutting spending on keeping them happy, but I don't want to cut so much from keeping them locked up that the guards are not able to do their jobs.

ptown_trojans_1;716474 wrote:Most of those costs are legal fees, and appeals.

Any idea what kind of legal fees are we paying for them?

FatHobbit;716541 wrote:Any idea what kind of legal fees are we paying for them?

BS like this .... http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/12/08/prisoner-sues-prison-movies/

But I assume ptown is referring to fees associated with appeals surrounding their case.

tsst_fballfan;716589 wrote:But I assume ptown is referring to fees associated with appeals surrounding their case.

I would have no problem cutting spending on fees associated with appeals for inmates. If it takes them longer to appeal, so be it. They aren't going anywhere.

ptown_trojans_1;716474 wrote:I agree on restricting what a prisoner has, but that has to be balanced against not ensuring the inmate becomes hardened even more. One reason for the 1993 riot at SOCF was the prisons felt most of their rights were being taken away. This, and other factors, led them to riot and rebel even more.

What "rights" were taken away? Food... water... shelter???

Are we talking about rights or comforts?

CenterBHSFan;716798 wrote:What "rights" were taken away? Food... water... shelter???

Are we talking about rights or comforts?

Read carefully. He didn't say their rights were ACTUALLY taken away. He said "the prisons felt most of their rights were being taken away." There is a difference.

O-Trap;716818 wrote:Read carefully. He didn't say their rights were ACTUALLY taken away. He said "the prisons felt most of their rights were being taken away." There is a difference.

A huge difference.

We live in an age of entitlements. People feel lots of things are "rights" that are not.

Back on topic: I understand the Buckeye Institute's concerns about putting local costs back on local governments this way but if Kasich had held some kind of hearing on this, I doubt any actual solution would have been reached. The locals would have argued against the cuts to their jurisdictions.

I'd like to see more cuts to state government that aren't being proposed in this budget...but I'm hopeful Kasich will eventually want to downsize things more. There is lots of fat and duplication in agency spending that should be trimmed. I'm guessing a lot of the cuts could be made through attrition and by consolidation.

As for locals and the problem this presents to them: I'd much rather have a local government figuring out what services they can/should provide, because the link between the government and the people is much closer. If someone really doesn't like that taxes are being raised too much in their community, they have more immediate recourse, including the ability to simply move to a nearby area that may not have taxes that are as high.

If all the taxation is coming at the state level (i.e. sales taxes, fees, etc.) it pretty much makes the entire state unfriendly. It's much harder to pick up and move out of state if you disagree with the tax structure than it is to move into a neighboring community.

O-Trap;716818 wrote:Read carefully. He didn't say their rights were ACTUALLY taken away. He said "the prisons felt most of their rights were being taken away." There is a difference.

I know.

I never implied that Ptown thought they were entitlements. At least, I didn't mean to type in a way that implied it.
In other words, that wasn't my intent.

I just get a kick at how many things are considered to be rights nowdays and what people will do when they don't get'em.

Like defecate in Statehouse hallways while protesting against legislation.

Mark Kvamme out as Director of the Ohio Department of Development. Kvamme will be appointed to a newly created “Director of Job Creation” post within Governor Kasich’s office.

Kasich bitterly blamed &#8220artisan politics” for the move, and as David Skolnick of the Youngstown Vindicator noted on Twitter, not the constitutional violation that Kvamme’s appointment was.

Pretty funny. I guess Kasich thinks he doesn't have to follow the constitution. Where is the Tea Party outrage? I guess it's ok if it's a conservative Republican knowingly stomping on the Constitution.

Writerbuckeye;716892 wrote:A huge difference.

We live in an age of entitlements. People feel lots of things are "rights" that are not.

Back on topic: I understand the Buckeye Institute's concerns about putting local costs back on local governments this way but if Kasich had held some kind of hearing on this, I doubt any actual solution would have been reached. The locals would have argued against the cuts to their jurisdictions.

I'd like to see more cuts to state government that aren't being proposed in this budget...but I'm hopeful Kasich will eventually want to downsize things more. There is lots of fat and duplication in agency spending that should be trimmed. I'm guessing a lot of the cuts could be made through attrition and by consolidation.

As for locals and the problem this presents to them: I'd much rather have a local government figuring out what services they can/should provide, because the link between the government and the people is much closer. If someone really doesn't like that taxes are being raised too much in their community, they have more immediate recourse, including the ability to simply move to a nearby area that may not have taxes that are as high.

If all the taxation is coming at the state level (i.e. sales taxes, fees, etc.) it pretty much makes the entire state unfriendly. It's much harder to pick up and move out of state if you disagree with the tax structure than it is to move into a neighboring community.

What I read from your post is that you anticipate more control of things at the local level, with less money available from the state. If your local government (city, village, township or county) decides to keep services at their current levels, it is a pretty safe bet they will have to raise taxes in order to maintain that level.

You mention taxes at the state level, and how if they are high it makes the entire state unfriendly. Do you anticipate that Kasich is going to lower taxes for the state of Ohio? I'll bet that doesn't happen in your lifetime.

stlouiedipalma;717215 wrote:What I read from your post is that you anticipate more control of things at the local level, with less money available from the state. If your local government (city, village, township or county) decides to keep services at their current levels, it is a pretty safe bet they will have to raise taxes in order to maintain that level.

You mention taxes at the state level, and how if they are high it makes the entire state unfriendly. Do you anticipate that Kasich is going to lower taxes for the state of Ohio? I'll bet that doesn't happen in your lifetime.

He has already said one of his goals is to eliminate the state income tax. I believe him and I'd love to see it happen. If Ohio would find a way to eliminate its income tax and become a right to work state (and not so tied to unions) you'd see the economy here blossom.

And local governments don't HAVE to raise taxes. Again, it's up to the people to decide and at the local level, they are closer (literally) to those who govern them than they are at the state. So I believe there's better communication between officials and citizens about what's really needed vs. what might be wanted but isn't affordable.

If your scenario came true, Ohio wouldn't have any incentives to offer businesses to relocate (tax breaks). The local governments could do it, though. Wouldn't that be something to see?

stlouiedipalma;717253 wrote:If your scenario came true, Ohio wouldn't have any incentives to offer businesses to relocate (tax breaks). The local governments could do it, though. Wouldn't that be something to see?

Actually, there are lots of incentives that aren't income taxes which would remain. There are fees and other costs associated with relocating a company (or starting one up) that could be waived; regulations could be relaxed in some instances, i.e. the EPA, and similar measures related to other business requirements could be done.

And the local governments would have just as much ability to lure companies with tax abatement packages, too.

But I think the key to turning around a poor business atmosphere has to begin at the state level and permeate down to the locals. For too long, Ohio has been stagnant as it hoped for a return of the 1950s and 60s style of manufacturing jobs, with union wages.

I'm very ready to try some new and maybe even radical (for some) approaches to get this state back on track. We have one of the best locations in the country, prime transportation hubs with the river and lake, along with highways, rail and airports, to be in the thick of most major business operations.

I'm very ready to try some new and maybe even radical (for some) approaches to get this state back on track.

As am I.

The problem is, that there are too many people who don't. They do not want to give up what they've become accustomed to.

It's going to take the steely conviction and backbone of people like Kasich and Christie and (God willing) any democrats who are open to innovation to apply pressure to the reigns and guide the horse in direction they want it to go. Alas, too many people are afraid of the potential "buck" and would just as soon not saddle up.
Add in the fact that many Ohioans don't even want to walk towards the stables much less muck the barn and we've got what we've got.

Which is exactly the reason that Ohio is in the shape it's in.

You could have had high-speed rail to help with your infrastructure as well.

stlouiedipalma;718139 wrote:You could have had high-speed rail to help with your infrastructure as well.

It wouldn't have paid for itself -- and it wasn't going to be real high-speed rail, because Ohio's tracks aren't built for it.

That program was a waste of money from the get-go. Look at cities with bus transportation now and Amtrak for the answer to whether it would be self-sufficient. The answer is one big, fat NO.

And you don't need high speed rail to transport goods, which is more important for economic development.