Archive

Posts Tagged ‘John Adams’

Speech-Stifling Speaker Budish Strikes AGAIN!

February 25th, 2010 Matt View Comments

First it was Elizabeth Trisler, the talented high school senior who waited more than a year to receive praise on the floor of the Ohio House simply because Budish loves killing babies. And without the work of the Ohio Right to Life, the Ohio ACLU and Bill O’Reilly, lovely Elizabeth would probably still be waiting when she is elderly enough to watch Budish’s fuddy-duddy TV show in Cleveland.

But now, another storm is brewing, and it once involves free speech and former Navy SEAL Rep. John Adams, Ohio’s version of Chuck Norris.

As you know, Ohio House Democrats rarely allow Republican bills to get hearings. However,  they made a special exception for Adam’s HB 400, a proposal which would gradually eliminate the state income tax created during the Gilligan Administration.

But House Dems didn’t allow debate to start on this bill because they had epiphany about their statist agenda.

Instead, the goal was to have Ohio OBM Director J. Pari Sabety orchestrate something resembling a Stalinist show trial to beat up on gubernatorial candidate John Kasich, who has a similar proposal.

So on Wednesday in the Ways and Means Committee, with spokesidiots from various taxpayer-funded interests testifying against the legislation, the first full scale hearing started. To testify in favor was Jonathan P. Williams, the Director of Tax & Fiscal Policy at the conservative ALEC and well-known OU Economics Professor Richard Vedder.

With Williams flying in from Washington, D.C. and Professor Vedder traveling from Athens, they were both supposed to testify sometime during that morning session. And the Chairman, Rep. Tom Letson, was aware that Mr. Williams had a evening flight out of Columbus and had to leave by 4:30. Dr. Vedder had to depart by noon.

But as the clocked ticked away well into the afternoon, it became clear that they would not be allowed to testify at all. And while they couldn’t find time for two experts who traveled a great distance for the hearing, at least 8 people testified against…. even though it is tradition for supporters of bills to speak first. The show trial continued well into the afternoon, with only a brief intermission for a full-House session, with the committee continuing until 5:30pm.

What is Speaker Budish afraid of? Maybe he is concerned that brilliant Dr. Vedder would use his eloquent defense of free-markets and liberty to skewer big government Democrats? Vedder is an incredibly talented speaker, and during the question session he would certainly run intellectual circles around the lefty bumkins on the committee. It would be a blood bath, and Williams & Vedder wouldn’t even break a sweat.

The way House Democrats treated Williams and Vedder is inexcusable. Budish clearly is building a reputation for himself who will use his power over procedural matters to push his liberal agenda in the most petty and rude ways imaginable while silencing dissenters.

To correct this situation, does Armond really need Bill O’Reilly to knock him over the head again?

Here is Bill Cohen’s report from the Statehouse News Bureau:

Update at 7:40am: And leave it to Jim Siegel in The Dispatch to completely ignore what happened.

Armond Budish Abortion Controversy- An Awkward Wednesday

February 17th, 2010 Matt View Comments

After this story was covered by The O’Reilly Factor last week, Elizabeth Trisler, the winner of a national oratory contest was finally able to be honored on the floor of the House. Pro-abortion Speaker Budish was probably not looking forward to this day, and even called out extra-security to keep a close eye on about a dozen DANGEROUS CHRISTIANS watching from the gallery:

What gracious comments from Elizabeth! THIS is what Budish and the Democrats were so afraid of???

However when she said “I hope to see you all in the future”… I am hoping that after November we will NOT see many of the Democrats who were there on the House floor today. And after regaining the House majority and seeing how leadership can become drunk with power, hopefully Republicans will be respectful of the freedom of speech.

I overheard Rep. Adams explain to others about how proud he is of Elizabeth and that he was quite nervous during this presentation… which is understandable given all of the unnecessary heat and controversy created by Budish.

A hour later, Elizabeth was also honored in the Ohio State by State Senator Keith Faber:

And here is a picture I took with State Rep. John Adams, Sen. Keith Faber, and Elizabeth:

It was a pleasure to briefly meet Elizabeth and her mother today. I couldn’t imagine there would be many 19 year olds who would be that comfortable speaking with Bill O’Reilly to millions of cable viewers. It is fantastic to see she is using her God-given talents to fearlessly speak out on behalf on unborn babies.

And here is Elizabeth with Mike Gonidakis of the Ohio Right to Life. Without his help, today’s presentation would not have happened:

When it was all over, Elizabeth Trisler, with her big smile and perfect manners, defeated the Big Bad Bully Budish.

Bob Burney interviews Rep. Adams on the Elizabeth Trisler Travesty

February 9th, 2010 Matt View Comments

This afternoon, State Rep. John Adams of the 78th District spoke with Bob Burney on WRFD, a popular Salem Christian radio station in central Ohio, about how horribly Speaker Buddish has treated Elizabeth Trisler, the talented winner of the national oratory award from the National Right to Life.

Click here to listen.

Speaker Armond Budish’s phone number is (614) 466-5441 or you can reach his law office at (216) 245-0185. And his email address is .

Update @5:30pm: More Representatives are speaking out against this travesty:

“I am very saddened to learn of the Speaker’s decision to deny Ms. Trisler the opportunity to be recognized on the floor of the Ohio House,” said Rep. Peggy Lehner (R-Kettering) and former President of the Ohio Right to Life Society. “In a time when constructive public debate is in very short supply, as policy makers we should be in the business of lifting up young people who are willing to take a stand on the important issues of our day – whether we agree or not.”

“The statehouse is intended to serve the people of this great state, not any particular political cause or motive,” said Rep. Danny Bubp (R-West Union). “Because the legislature is charged with doing the people’s work, we should be lifting up young people who are willing to take a stand on the important issues of today.”

“I am proud that Ms. Trisler brought the first place award from this contest back to the Buckeye State,” said Rep. Jeff McClain (R-Upper Sandusky). “I hope that she will have an opportunity for the public recognition she deserves.”

“The fact that the simple process of presenting an award-winning teenager a resolution has become so distorted is reprehensible,” said Rep. Joseph Uecker (R-Miami Township). “This is a new level of partisanship, and regardless of anyone’s view about abortion, we should welcome the opportunity to honor Ms. Trisler for her achievements and leadership.”

Update @ 6:27pm: here is a copy of the speech Ms. Trisler used at the competition. It is well written. Also, considering it is about the respect for life, this controversy proves that the pro-choice movement is really only FOR abortion.

ETrislers 2009 Oratory Contest Speech

Budish Panders to the Pro-Baby Killing Lobby / Is a Tough-Guy with a Teenage Girl

February 8th, 2010 Matt View Comments

What an ass:

House Speaker Denies Pro-Life Teen Access to House Floor
Resolution to Honor Teen Oratory Winner Must Be Mailed

COLUMBUS – In an unprecedented act of partisanship, House Speaker Armond Budish (D-Beechwood) denied Shelby County teen Elisabeth Trisler a legislative honor routinely presented to others. Budish is refusing to allow Trisler on the House floor to accept a legislative resolution. The resolution, authored by Rep. John Adams (R-Sidney), honors her accomplishment as the National Right to Life Oratory Contest winner. Such honorary resolutions are routinely presented at the start of Ohio House legislative sessions to constituents, including those who win athletic championships or academic contests.

“Surely Speaker Budish can put aside his partisanship for 10 minutes to honor the accomplishments of a talented and optimistic teenage girl,” said Ohio Right to Life Executive Director Mike Gonidakis. “Perhaps his real message to Ohio’s teens is that excelling in public speaking isn’t worth being honored if their views are different than his.”

Trisler won the National Right to Life Oratory Contest held at the NRLC Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina in June, 2009. During the second half of 2009, Rep. Adams’s office worked to schedule the presentation of Trisler’s proclamation on the House floor, as is typical of such awards. The presentation was scheduled for Wednesday, February 3, 2010.

However, on January 29th, the House Clerk informed Rep. Adams’s office the presentation was canceled because the Speaker “had a problem with the subject matter.” The Clerk advised the representative’s staff to take the matter up with the Speaker. Speaker Budish supports abortion.

“The Ohio House chamber is a monument to the importance of oratory and persuasion on the great issues facing our state,” added Gonidakis. “Silencing someone because you disagree is a terrible lesson to teach teens. The Speaker should reconsider his unfortunately petty decision.”

“The Ohio House of Representatives is known as the ‘people’s house’,” said State Representative John Adams. “It is an outrage that Speaker Budish has decided to politicize and deny the presentation of a proclamation honoring national pro-life award on the House floor that was previously approved by the Speaker,” Adams said.

Maybe when Speaker Armondo Budish is showing retired seniors how how to knit on his silly TV show, he should tell them about how he horribly he treated a talented teenage girl, simply because it involves the issue of killing unborn babies. I’m sure that would go over well.

I worked at the House for two years, and can’t count the number of these resolutions that were passed out in the House. Is Budish and Ohio House Dems so insecure this election year that they are threatened by a high school student who wins an oratory award?

It was my understanding that a handful of Ohio House Democrats are pro-life, so what do they think now?

This pro-abortion position doesn’t fit well with Judaism, but Speaker Budish is a staunch liberal before anything else- Budish isn’t that Jewish, but he keeps his supposed faith around for campaign purposes. What a jerk.

John Adams on the Income Tax

February 2nd, 2010 Matt View Comments

Rep. John Adam, once again, lays the smack down on old man Joe Hallett and kicks his wrinkled ass… Navy Seal style. Oh the carnage!

In his January 24 editorial, “How will Ohio pay for its schools if it kills the income tax,” Joe Hallett raised many questions about my proposal to phase out the state income tax. Opponents and even some editorial columnists will attempt to mischaracterize my bill because they know propaganda is a successful tool, but legislative discussions should consist of substance, not political theater or shock value.

As a father of seven children, I am not willing to let schools in Shelby County or Ohio’s other 87 counties risk closure. Mr. Hallett, you are correct that the income tax was instituted in 1971 to aid schools, but you failed to mention that since that time, the state income tax has grown into an insatiable beast that feeds numerous areas of a bloated state government which consumes tax dollars that could be better spent. Since the 1970s Ohio’s tax burden has exploded going from the sixth lowest to the seventh highest, losing hundreds of businesses and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Contrary to your claim, I do not plan to “starve” the government of money but instead will reduce the wasteful annual average rate of spending. When looking at the last six years, total state spending increased in Ohio an average 2.4 percent while the General Revenue Fund averaged 4.5 percent growth. My plan cuts these two rates of spending growth in half and devotes the difference to phasing out the punitive and economically damaging income tax. Mr. Hallett, there are no spending cuts here.

Your argument that blames Ohio’s economic misfortune on the cold weather isn’t new but certainly is flawed. According to the 2009 ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitive Index, some of America’s northernmost (and coldest) states clearly outperformed Ohio’s economy. You overlooked that Montana ranked fourth and Washington ranked fifth for their economic growth, while North and South Dakota ranked 14th and 11th, respectively.

Although five of the nine states without income taxes have higher sales tax rates than Ohio, you also failed to mention that five of the “tax-haven” states are among the 10 most prosperous economies in the nation over the past decade. Believe it or not, Alaska and New Hampshire have neither a general income tax nor a sales tax, yet they still have schools and still pave roads. While you might rationalize why these states still prosper while Ohio flounders, the Buckeye State historically has had its own ace in the hole: a flourishing manufacturing industry…which just so happens to have packed up and relocated because our tax burden is too high.

Ohioans are well aware of our economic challenges, ranking 49th in economic performance over the past decade – beating out only beleaguered Michigan. Mr. Hallett, if you are happy with this economic status quo in Ohio, then you may continue to attack my plan to make Ohio a tax-haven state and bring about economic revitalization. However, I hope you and your readers will join in my efforts to create jobs today, and bring about a positive change in the way our state does business for generations to come.

“Oh snap!”

Instead of asking “How do we pay for schools?”, the question should instead be “How do we unleash entrepreneurs  to create jobs and build the type of wealth the state confiscates to pay for schools?” At the very least, Hallett should not write about the income tax when in his official capacity as as supposed “reporter,” since he is the leading defender of the gift from John Gilligan which keeps on giving.

Two Eldery, Moth-Eaten, Moldy Editors of Ohio’s 2 Largest Newspapers Defend Income Tax

January 25th, 2010 Matt View Comments

You know it is Sunday when Joe Hallett is once again proclaiming the good word… about taxes! And this week, he is joined in his chorus by editor emeritus Brent Larkin of The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Together, with more than 450 years of combined experience bloviating about state politics, they came out swinging today in defense of Ohio’s job-killing tax rates.

First, Mr. Hallett starts out with an assault on State Rep. John Adams, a kick-ass Navy Seal and principled conservative, who is finally getting a hearing on his proposal to scrap the income tax only because pathetic Democrats wants to use the opportunity to flog John Kasich, who also supports gutting the tax. Here is part of Joe’s column, which was perhaps ghost written by Gov. Strickland’s budget director/lesbian pirate Pari Sabety:

Here are some questions for John Adams, the live Republican state representative from Sidney, not the dead president from Massachusetts.

You have introduced a bill to phase out the state income tax over 10 years. This year, the income tax will raise $7.6 billion, accounting for 45 percent of all tax revenue raised by the state. If you succeed in killing the income tax, how will you replace the lost revenue?

Are you prepared, Representative Adams, to raise the state sales tax by 6 cents to a national high of 11.5 cents on the dollar? That’s how much would be needed to replace revenue lost by killing the income tax. How do you think your friends at the Ohio Council of Retail Merchants and the National Federation of Independent Businesses would react to more than doubling the sales tax?

Are you willing to let schools in your home county of Shelby and others close? In the current two-year budget, the state is spending $14.2 billion from its general revenue fund on primary and secondary schools. That’s roughly how much the state income tax will generate during those two years for the fund.

Without the income tax, how will you keep schools open? The tax was instituted by the General Assembly in 1971 because financially ailing schools all over the state were closing. When Republicans asked Ohioans to repeal the tax a year later, the voters opted by a 69-31 margin to keep it.

The state of Ohio this year will spend $2,220 for every man, woman and child living in Shelby County, Representative Adams. Are you prepared to tell them they can expect to be less educated, less safe, less healthy and more inconvenienced because of drastic cuts of services that would result from killing the income tax?

At a legislative hearing last week on your bill, Representative Adams, you said: “This is falsely reported as requiring cuts in government spending. Government spending will continue to grow under my plan.”

How can that be, when you deprive government of one of its primary sources of funding? And isn’t reducing government spending by starving it of money a big reason why you want kill the income tax?

As Hallett remembers, when he was slightly-less old, Ohio was able to perform all the functions of government without an income tax.

Proposals to scrap the income tax always involve a series of benchmarks overtime, because even though the future is impossible to predict (as we saw with the recent economic collapse), the logic behind the econometrics are solid: That as Ohio reduces its income tax, it becomes a friendlier place to conduct business- Ohio’s population grows and businesses prosper. And as Ohio is slowly seen as essentially a tax haven for entrepreneurs and high net-worth individuals, the revenue that is collected- not just through a sales tax but perhaps with a slight increase in the CAT tax or property tax- would allow government to function perfectly well after a series of cuts in spending that are entirely possible and VERY necessary!

As to the question of education, it is clear that more money to school districts does not equate with higher tax scores and graduation rates. With private and religious instruction often costing a fraction of their public counterparts, an increase in an emphasis on school choice would save the state tremendous amounts of money.

But why would the cuts need to be specifically in education? Joe Hallett is simply using education to play on readers emotions, as it involve children and education. Let’s think about what else could be cut, that might not tug on your heart strings. For example:

- Repeal the recent state SCHIP and healthcare expansion

- Eliminate the Ohio EPA (a duplicate of the Federal EPA, except with an extra layer of unique, expensive red tape for business)

- Reform medicaid with cheaper alternatives like income care, and don’t pay for extra services, such as chiropractic. Or privatize the system entirely, by subsidizing private insurance plans of their choice or even fund HSAs.

- Eliminate the Department of Development, the epicenter of pork and corporate welfare. Stop wasting money on “green initiatives” and what not.

- Eliminate e-Tech Ohio

- Eliminate the Commission on Minoirty Health

- Reform state employee perks and pensions

- Implement House Republican Leader Bill Batchleder’s plan to restructure state government and easily save approximately $1 billion/year.

These are just a few ideas… I am sure there are plenty more ideas, but what do I know… I’m just some jerk blogger! But my point is, Joe Hallett is not intellectually curious enough to explore such possibilities.

Then, not to be outdone, Brett Larkin attacks John Kasich for his support of reducing and scrapping the state income tax… saying he is as EXTREME as Ken Blackwell! OH MY! THE HORROR!

But instead of a winning plan, Kasich has offered up a reckless one — a 10-year phaseout of the state’s income tax. And it will enable the governor to spend millions on an advertising message that his Republican opponent is an extremist who advocates policies that would destroy Ohio’s schools and universities, while punishing its most vulnerable citizens — especially children.

Ohio has never been a state to take big risks in electing governors. Three Republicans — Jim Rhodes, George Voinovich and Bob Taft — served as governor of Ohio in 32 of the 44 years from 1963 to 2007. All three were political moderates.

In 2006, Ken Blackwell became the most conservative Republican gubernatorial nominee in at least a half-century — perhaps ever. And though Blackwell’s landslide loss to Strickland can be attributed to many factors — some beyond the candidate’s control — one of those factors was Blackwell’s support for a constitutional amendment called the Tax and Expenditure Limitation, which would have dramatically limited state and local-government spending.

Republican moderates hated it, as did educators. With GOP business leaders poised to oppose the TEL, the Republican-run legislature allowed Blackwell to save face by passing a version so watered down that it meant essentially nothing.

Nevertheless, the TEL cemented Blackwell’s reputation — fairly or not — as an extremist who advocated policies far from the mainstream. Of Cuyahoga County’s 1,434 precincts, several hundred enjoy a Republican advantage. On Election Day 2006, Blackwell outpolled Strickland in three precincts.

You may not be aware of my involvement in the TEL campaign, but I know more about the Amendment than most. In fact, in the heat of the primary battle against liberal Republican Jim Petro, I was responsible for writing the talking points in defense of the Amendment.

The TEL Amendment wouldn’t have “dramatically limited state and local government spending.” It would have capped increases at 3.5% or the rate of inflation, plus adjustments for population growth. It was an improvement over the impressive Colorado Tabor, as their amendment capped taxation, but it ultimately failed because: 1) It allowed voters to create an exemption for taxation for education. (The TEL did not) and 2) It had a “ratchet down” effect, where in bad economic times when tax collections were down, the mandate for the next year was kept at that lower level (The TEL never decreased spending.).

Blackwell campaign internal polling showed the TEL Amendment was actually wildly popular, even among so-called “Republican moderates”… as long as they weren’t moderate office holders who wanted to use the amendment as a weapon to support Jim Petro. The amendment, while perfect in concept, was poorly written because it did not properly define various forms of local government, didn’t differentiate between tax increases being acceptable if approved by a majority of all registered voters or only the voters who showed up on election day, and it would have been tied up in the courts for years.

So, Speaker Husted and Republican leaders had passed a so-called “legislative TEL”, which was attached to the end of tobacco legislation. So far, state budgets have not surpassed Blackwell’s limitations, because Ted Strickland likes to get more creative with spending: through bond issues, fees, and mandate-infested Federal stimulus dollars.

Mr. Larkin would be wise to speak to OU Economist Richard Vedder, who has written extensively about the fact that when states focus more resources on higher education, the state is actually worse off. To get the cost of higher education under control, it would be wise to eliminate grants, have all education loans handled through private banks, and have any money that does go for higher education follow the student… even if they wish to leave the state. Universities are never asked to reform or shed themselves of burdensome unions… and it is about time for a change.

Larkin and Hallett don’t even try to hide their ideology, and are clearly more interested in ad hominem attacks than a serious debate over policy. This is a serious disservice to their readers, who are currently living in a state that has been economically devastated by the very policies John Kasich wants to change.

John Adams vs. Joe Hallett

January 6th, 2010 Matt View Comments

The Navy Seal rightfully throws Hallett around like a pansy-ass Somali pirate:

As a Navy SEAL, I quickly learned the meaning of the phrase, “Lead, follow or get out of the way.” In his Dec. 20 column, “Term limits get in the way of lawmakers seeing big picture,” Dispatch Senior Editor Joe Hallett suggested that Gov. Ted Strickland’s leadership has displayed backbone.

Having a backbone is demonstrated by knowing how and when to say no to out-of-control spending.

Ohio citizens know that when there is no money to pay the bills, you don’t borrow more. Small businesses all over Ohio are surviving, and legislators who lack a backbone stick them with higher taxes and higher regulatory costs.

Please examine more closely Strickland’s $2 billion in cuts to the general-revenue fund. When examining the two-year, all-funds budget, one discovers it has increased by more than 10 percent compared with the previous biennial budget.

The “big-picture focus on Ohio’s greater good” is not lost among the new members of the General Assembly. “Rookies” have provided the policies to create an environment for new jobs to be created and others to be sustained. I authored House Bill 25, a complete restructuring of how Ohio does business in a more cost-efficient manner.

Government efficiency is fostered by the creation of jobs. Ohio is not competitive with the states that believe in less-expensive government and fewer taxes on job creators. A continual phase-down of the personal income tax will make us competitive again.

Ohio is a great state, and we need to make every effort to keep it great for future generations.

REP. JOHN ADAMS
78th Ohio House District
(Sidney)

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes