Democrats and Poverty

Every once in a while we get e-mails from constituents that are entertaining. I recently received an e-mail that discussed poverty in America’s cities. I felt that this one was worth sharing – I hope you enjoy.

Below is a listing of U.S. cities and the percentage of residents below the poverty level (according to the U.S. Census Bureau).

1. Detroit, MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo, NY 29.9%
3. Cincinnati, OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland, OH 27.0%
5. Miami, FL 26.9%
6. St. Louis, MO 26.8%
7. El Paso, TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee, WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia, PA 25.1%
10. Newark, NJ 24.2%

There is a common theme with the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate – they have not elected Republicans mayors recently.

Detroit, MI – has not elected a Republican mayor since 1961.
Buffalo, NY – has not elected a Republican mayor since 1954.
Cincinnati, OH – has not elected a Republican mayor since 1984.
Cleveland, OH – has not elected a Republican mayor since 1989.
Miami, FL – has never had a Republican mayor.
St. Louis, MO – has not elected a Republican mayor since 1949.
El Paso, TX – has never had a Republican mayor.
Milwaukee, WI – has no elected a Republican mayor since 1908.
Philadelphia, PA – has not elected a Republican mayor since 1952.
Newark, NJ – has not elected a Republican mayor since 1907.

In the Spirit of Easter and Passover

In 2005, prayer came face to face with a federal judge – a judge who ultimately determined that sectarian prayer in the Indiana legislature should be banned. Ultimately, this meant that chaplains could not utter the name of any higher power while leading a prayer before the Indiana Legislature – including the name of Jesus Christ.

Recently, President Barack Obama announced his intention to nominate that judge – Judge David Hamilton – to a seat on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Due to Judge Hamilton’s ruling on prayer, this potential nomination is troubling.

In Ohio we faced a similar issue. As Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives I was faced with resistance on the prayers we offered before each legislative session. Like the Indiana case, Ohio legislators had offered prayer before each session for more than 100 years. The prayers were not limited to one religion or belief – we hosted guest chaplains from all faiths and religious backgrounds or affiliations. Yet, some wanted to censor the words spoken or worse, silence the prayers altogether.

I addressed the issue head on after much reflection and personal prayer. As the leader of the legislative chamber and a man of faith myself, I would not allow our prayers to be censored. Prayer is a time of reflection and guidance, not a time for political advocacy or personal opinion and diminishing or completely eliminate prayer prior to our sessions was simply not an option.

Thankfully, a higher court overturned Judge Hamilton’s ruling, preserving the liberties of free speech and religion, as protected by the first amendment. Unlike Indiana, we didn’t face the order of a Federal judge, but we did face the question and the challenge. Still today, I know that I made the right decision. We may not have faced the order of a federal judge, but we did confront the challenge.

It should be a concern to all that Judge David Hamilton is one of the first people President Obama turned to when looking for judicial nominees.

Jon Husted Announces Candidacy For Ohio Secretary of State

COLUMBUS, OH – State Senator Jon Husted (R-Kettering) today announced his candidacy for Ohio Secretary of State. Husted, formerly the Ohio House Speaker and now a State Senator, officially kicked off his campaign this morning.

The pivotal race will decide Ohio’s next chief elections officer, a position that encourages voter participation, oversees the elections process and administration of Ohio’s elections laws. Ohio’s Secretary of State also oversees corporate filings, including articles of incorporation and various business documents, and serves as a member on Ohio’s apportionment board.

“Every candidate for Secretary of State says they are going to ensure fair and impartial elections, but my promises don’t end there,” Husted said. “I am going to change the system,” Husted added. “We can do this by changing the oversight of our elections system to be one based on successful models working in other states with the input from local elections officials. It will be a bipartisan, decision-making process – leading to nonpartisan outcomes.”

Husted also sees the position of Secretary of State as an opportunity to change the state apportionment board process from a hyper-partisan, politically-charged environment to one that places more power in the hands of Ohio voters. 

“As Speaker of the House, I worked to change the partisan process of gerrymandering districts,”
Husted said. “Our current system allows the politicians to pick their voters, rather than allowing the voters to pick their public officials.”

Husted has the leadership, experience and vision to give him a formidable base for the office of Secretary of State.

A Montpelier, Ohio native, Senator Husted currently represents the 6th Ohio Senate district. Additionally, Senator Husted works at the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce, serving as the Director of Workforce Education and Employer Services. He is married to his wife Tina and has two children, Alex and Katie.

More information about the campaign can be found at www.hustedforohio.com.

Ohio’s charter schools – an objective analysis

A new report published by the RAND Corporation assessing the effects of charter schools in eight states confirmed what school choice advocates have said for years – Ohio’s charter schools do not have any significant effect on nearby traditional public schools. The RAND report confirmed that charter schools do not “skim the cream”, by taking the best and brightest students from public schools when it comes to recruiting. Actually, children enrolling in charter schools have similar academic achievement levels as those attending district schools.

The RAND report notes no major difference in math and reading achievement among Ohio students transferring between charter schools and traditional public schools. The report further examines just the nonprimary charter schools and comments that the differences in Ohio are “indistinguishable from those of TPSs (traditional public schools).”

However, the report goes on to assert a significant variance in the quality of Ohio’s charter schools. The authors of the report offer two theories on this variance; that Ohio has a diverse group of charter school authorizers and that Ohio’s charter schools receive significantly less funding than their district peers.

The report recommends making Ohio’s charter schools and their authorizers more accountable for the school results and closing those schools that don’t perform. Just last week, Terry Ryan from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation made similar recommendations to the members of the House Finance and Appropriations Primary and Secondary Education subcommittee.

While I have been a leading advocate for giving parents and children a choice in education during my time in the Legislature, I also led the effort in holding charter schools to higher standards than Ohio’s traditional public schools as well as requiring improved oversight and governance. While the majority of Ohio’s charter schools continue to be successful in educating Ohio’s children, there must be consequences for those schools that fail to give children an adequate opportunity to learn.

As a longtime supporter of school choice, I’m pleased that this report has helped to dismiss the myths that the emergence of charter schools has adversely affected the quality and financial condition of traditional public schools.

To view the full RAND report, please visit:

 http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG869.pdf

Reducing Poverty

During the early 1990’s I was working on welfare reform policy in Montgomery County. In researching this complex topic, I discovered a study that identified a list of characteristics most common to people living in poverty. The study concluded that 90 percent of all people living in poverty met at least one of the following three conditions: failed to complete high school, had a child out of wedlock or suffered from either drug or alcohol addiction.

As a result of my interest in this issue area during my early career, I check the statistics that are released each year to see what progress has been made.

Recently, I read a 2008 report issued by the Montgomery County Family and Children’s First Council that cited similar conclusions to the study I read more than a decade ago. The 2008 study concluded that children whose parents graduated from high school, had them after the age of 20 and were married had only an eight percent chance of growing up in poverty. However, for those children whose parents did not meet the above conditions, the likelihood that they would grow up in poverty increased to an astonishing 79 percent.

So, where do we stand? Sadly, the trends are worsening.

In Ohio, only 44.1 percent of first-born children were born into a household where their parents were high school graduates, at least 20 years of age and were married—in Montgomery County that number was only 39 percent. Ten years ago these numbers were at 50.3 and 48.9 percent respectively and 52.6 and 52.4 percent respectively in 1990.

This data shows that the majority of Ohio’s first-born children are likely to be born into circumstances that put them at an exponentially higher risk of growing up in poverty.

Additionally, it seems that despite the best efforts of all interested parties to reverse these trends, the economics of poverty remain a complicated mix of personal choices, education and social issues. Although the report, which can be found in its entirety at www.fcfc.montco.org, was unclear in its recommendations for solutions, I would value your input.

What conclusions can you make about these trends? What should be done to address and/or alleviate these trends?

With Economic Issues Dominating the News, Pro-life Voices Seek to Draw Attention to Obama Policies

Guest Blog:  Paula Westwood, Executive Director
Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati

First to clarify the statement many grasped during the election to justify voting for this man: “Barack Obama is pro-choice, not pro-abortion.”

Those on both side of the abortion issue are “pro-choice.” The difference is what is being chosen-accepting chemical or surgical killing of an unborn child for any reason for anyone, or not. Thus the accurate distinction is pro-life or pro-abortion.

During the presidential campaign, Senator Obama publicly stated, “I’ve got two daughters. Nine years old and six years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

President Obama is pro-abortion.

 
A  legislative analysis from a Washington insider predicts that under Obama we will see extreme pro-abortion bills, such as the  Freedom of Choice Act (or Unrestricted Abortion Act) and its “evil twin” the  Prevention First Act (or Abortion Industry Support Act); smear attacks on pro-life pregnancy help centers, and more.

Obama’s legislation initiatives will increase the numbers of abortions nationally and internationally.

Through President Obama’s Executive Orders such as that overturning the Mexico City Policy, enacted January 23rd, we U.S. taxpayers will now fund abortions overseas, at an increase from $88 million to $545 million.

In recent budget pork piling, Obama also overturned the Kemp-Kasten Amendment restrictions against funding the United Nations Population Fund, which includes among its programs support for China and its one-child policy, forced sterilizations and forced abortions. The UNFPA will now receive $50 million.

But perhaps President Obama’s pro-abortion mindset is most evident in his  political appointments. Many are radical pro-abortion activists who have worked to further a relentless pro-abortion agenda; prime example Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama’s deliberate and determined pro-abortion record is not new. For a related historical timeline see the  Moral Accountability web site.

HUSTED ANNOUNCES PLAN TO CHANGE U.S. SENATE VACANCY APPOINTMENT PROCESS

COLUMBUS —State Senator Jon Husted (R-Kettering) today announced plans to introduce legislation that would change the way in which a vacant U.S. Senate seat is filled in Ohio.

The 17th Amendment of the United States Constitution gives the state legislature the authority to decide how to fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat. Ohio law states that when a vacancy occurs in the U.S. Senate, the governor may appoint the successor until the next regular election.

The recent appointment debacle led by now impeached Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and new revelations that appointed Senator Roland Burris may not have been completely forthcoming about the conditions for his appointment has demonstrated that the process for appointment has the potential for abuse. Ohio and Illinois have a similar process for appointing vacancies to the U.S. Senate.

“A vacancy in the United States Senate is incredibly important and shouldn’t be left to the discretion of just one person,” said Husted. “I am hopeful that this legislation would ensure Ohio voters have a stronger voice in selecting who represents them in the U.S. Senate.”

Husted’s legislation calls for a vacant U.S. Senate seat to be filled by special election of the voters. This proposed change would mirror current Ohio law regarding the way in which a seat left vacant by any member of the Ohio delegation of the United States House of Representatives is filled; and provides that the state of Ohio , not local governments, cover the costs of administering the elections.

The Governor’s budget and charter schools

By: William Sims, President and CEO, Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools
Columbus, Ohio

Currently a public charter-school student receives about $3,000 less in state funding than a district public-school student. On average, that’s approximately one-third less. Charter schools receive no support from local property taxes or for facilities. District schools have had access to more than $4 billion in facilities funding.

Now the governor wants to take another $1,400 to $1,500 out of that charter-school student’s backpack, leaving potentially half of what a district public-school student receives. I’d like to know how any charter school can survive with that kind of disparity and, by the way, while aspiring to academic excellence and responsible fiscal management.
Why should a public charter-school student be worth half of what a district public-school student is worth?

There is a constitutional imperative to provide equal access to a system of common schools throughout the state of Ohio. By any standard this education plan for charter schools is sadly, separate and unequal. One can only conclude that the governor has been planning for two years now to suffocate charter schools.

It’s surreal for the governor’s office to respond to this funding disparity by saying they have discovered some sort of “evidenced-based … unique business model” that magically makes this all work. Show me the model, and if it really does work, and I’ll show you hundreds of district schools that can easily afford 20 percent cuts in their “business models.”

There are more than 80,000 charter-school students in Ohio. If the governor’s plan succeeds in the demise of charter schools in Ohio, it will end school choice for more students than the combined enrollment of the Dayton and Cleveland school districts. Ironically, the state would then have to re-absorb all those students at the higher district costs for educating those kids.

“Separate but equal” was a quietly kept education model for decades in America before morality overcame prejudice. This kind of “separate and unequal” prejudice against charter schools cannot be allowed to prevail.

“Nothing in life is Fee”

Governor Strickland’s newly introduced budget contains $1,545,364,199 in new fees. Let me say, not all fees are bad, in fact a fee for service approach makes sense for many services. The problem with the Strickland fees is that the increased fee for your driver’s license is not going to fund the licensing process, it is funding the growth in government.

Take a look at the list below, I want to hear from you. Which fees do you object to the most?

Department of Agriculture
Meat processing plant registration – current – $50.00; proposed – $100.00 $
Livestock transportation license fee – current – $25/vehicle; proposed – $125/ Vehicle
Livestock late registration – current – $0.00; proposed – $10/ vehicle
Rendering Plant license fee – current – $100/ plant; proposed – $300/ plant
Livestock operations late registration – current – $0.00; proposed – $100/ plant
Dealer employee license – expanded definition – current – $0.00; proposed – $20.00
Livestock license renewal – less than 1,000 – current – $10.00; proposed – $50.00
Livestock license renewal – up to 10,000 – current – $25.00; proposed – $125.00
Livestock license renewal – over 10,000 – current – $50.00; proposed – $250.00
Livestock appointed employee – current – $0.00; proposed – $20.00
Livestock licensed weigher – current – $5.00; proposed – $10.00
Small livestock dealer registration – current – $0.00; proposed – $25.00
Small livestock dealer late fee – current – $0.00; proposed – $25.00
Licence to feed treated garbage – current – $50.00; proposed – $100.00
Motor fuel quality civil penalty late fee – current – $0.00; proposed – $1,000/ day
Nursery stock collector/ dealer license – current – $50.00; proposed – $125.00
Nursery woody stock inspection – current – $50.00; proposed – $100.00
Intensive production acreage fee – current – $3.50/ acre; proposed – $11/ acre
Non-intensive production acreage fee – current – $2/acre; proposed – $7/acre
Nursery non-woody inspection – current – $30 + $4/ acre; proposed – $100 + $11/ acre
Non-licenced phyto-sanitatiary certificate – current – $0.00; proposed – $100.00
Compiance agreement inspections – current – $20.00; proposed – $40.00
*Medium Capcity Scale /Monorail /Animal Scale – current – $0.00; proposed – $100.00
*Grain Test / Precious Metal / Other small capacity – current – $0.00; proposed – $10.00
*Large Meters / Vehicle Tank / LPG – current – $0.00; proposed – $250.00
*Food Processing Plant fees – current – $0.00; proposed – $25 -$300 (based on sq ft)

Department of Commerce
Elevator inspection – current – $20+ $10/floor; proposed – $120.00
Elevator re-inspection – current – $125+ $5/floor; proposed – $120+ $10/ floor
Elevator certificate – current – $200 + $10/ floor; proposed – $220+ $12/ floor
Boiler inspector exam application – current – $50.00; proposed – $150.00
Boiler operations permit application – current – $50.00; proposed – $100.00
Annual boiler inspection – current – $45.00; proposed – $50.00
Biennial boiler inspection – current – $90.00; proposed – $100.00
Triennial boiler inspection – current – $135.00; proposed – $150.00
Quinquennial boiler inspection – current – $225.00; proposed – $250.00
Steam engineer operating license application – current – $50.00; proposed – $75.00
Steam engineer operating license – current – $35.00; proposed – $50.00
Mortgage broker application – current – $300.00; proposed – $500.00
Mortgage broker renewal application – current – $300.00; proposed – $500.00
Loan officer application – current – $100.00; proposed – $150.00
Loan officer renewal application – current – $100.00; proposed – $150.00
* Video service provider – current – $0.00; proposed – unknown
Real Estate Appraiser Fee – Initial – current – $125.00; proposed – $175.00
Real Estate Appraiser Fee – Renewal – current – $50.00; proposed – $100.00
Securities Fees – Dealer’s License – current – $100.00; proposed – $200.00
Securities Fees – Salesperson’s License – current – $50.00; proposed – $60.00
Securities Fees – Investment Advisor – current – $50.00; proposed – $100.00
Securities Fees – Investment Advisor Notice Filing – current – $50.00; proposed – $100.00
Securities Fees – Representative’s License $35.00 $50.00
Securities Fees – Partnership license transfer- fee per salesmen – current – $10.00; proposed – $15.00
Securities Fees – Partnership license transfer- fee per investment adviser – current – $10.00; proposed – $15.00

Cosmetology Board
License Restoration – current – $0.00; proposed – $45.00
1st offense fine – current – $100.00; proposed – $500.00
2nd offense fine – current – $500.00; proposed – $1,000.00
3rd offense fine – current – $1,000.00; proposed – $1,500.00

Board of Counselors and Social Workers
*License late fees – current – $0.00; proposed – $40.00
*License Verification – current – $0.00; proposed – $25.00
*Continuing Education programs – current – $0.00; proposed – $10.00

Department of Development
***Global markets – current – $0.00; proposed – $250.00

Department of Natural Resources
Well log filing – current – $0.00; proposed – $20.00
Dam construction filing – base – current – $1,000.00; proposed – $1,500.00
Dam construction filing – cap – current – $100,000.00; proposed – $500,000.00
Non-Resident landowner hunting – current – $0.00; proposed – Resident license fees
Waterways conservation assessment (nonmotorized boats) – 3 yrs – current – $0.00; proposed – $5.00
Waterways conservation assessment (nonmotorized boats) – 1 yr – current – $0.00; proposed – $1.50
Include horizontal measure on dam fee structure – current -$1 per foot of height of dam; proposed -
$6 per foot of height + $0.05 per width +$0.05 per acre of water
Energy extraction – Coal – current – $0.00; proposed – $0.08 per ton or $0.04 per ton based on DNR
determination
Energy extraction – Natural Gas – current – $0.00; proposed – $0.05 per MCF or 2.25% of value based on DNR
determination
Energy extraction – Oil – current – $0.00; proposed – $0.20 per barrel or 0.56% of value based on DNR determination
*ATV motorized trails registration – current – $5.00; proposed – $31.25
*ATV short term registration – current – $8.50/ 15 days; proposed – $11/ yr

Department of Health
X-Ray biennial registration – current – $218.00; proposed – $262.00
Dental X-Ray tube inspection – current – $129.00; proposed – $155.00
Subsequent dental x-ray tube inspection – current – $64.00; proposed – $77.00
Medical x-ray tube inspection – current – $256.00; proposed – $307.00
Subsequent medical x-ray tube inspection – current – $136.00; proposed – $163.00
Unit of ionizing equipment – current – $508.00; proposed – $610.00
Nonionizing radiation equipment- current – $256.00; proposed – $307.00
Subsequent nonionizing radiation equipment – current – $136.00; proposed – $163.00
Radiation assembler-mainteiner inspection – current – $317.00; proposed – $380.00
*Hospice Application fee – current – $300.00; proposed – $600.00
* Hospice Inspection fee-standard inspection – current – $0.00; proposed – $1,625.00
* Hospice Inspection fee-follow-up inspection – current – $0.00; proposed – $350.00
* Hospice Inspection fee-complaint inspection – current – $0.00; proposed – $850.00
Campground license 50 lots – current – $100.00; proposed – $145.00
Campground plan review $5000 – current – $350.00; proposed – $450.00
Campground plan review inspection fee – current – $225.00; proposed – $275.00
Agriculture Labor Camp registration – current – $75.00; proposed – $150.00
Agriculture Labor Camp late registration – current – $100.00; proposed – $166.00
Ag. Labor Camp housing – current – $10.00; proposed – $20.00
Agriculture Labor Camp late housing unit registration – current – $15.00; proposed – $42.50
Vital records request – current – $7.00; proposed – $12.00
* Nursing home certification fee – current – $170.00; proposed – $220- $270
* Nurse Aide training program-NATCEP initial appl fee – current – $200.00; proposed – $250.00
* Nurse Aide training program-train the trainer initial appl fee – current – $500.00; proposed – $550.00
* Marina license fee – current – $60.00; proposed – $100- $116
Pool – plan review 2000 sq ft – current – $1,300.00; proposed – $1,365.00
Pool – plan review special feature – current – $550.00; proposed – $577.00
Pool – equip/install 3 – current – $130.00; proposed – $136.50
Pool – replacement equipment – current – $40.00; proposed – $42.00
Pool – first pool license – current – $65.00; proposed – $95.00
Pool – addl pool license – current – $40.00; proposed – $50.00
* Private water supplies – new/altered PWS inspection fee – current – $50.00; proposed – $60.00
* Private water supplies – PWS Contractor registration – current – $145.00; proposed – $165.00
Child booster seat fine – first offense* – current – $25.00; proposed – $50.00
Child booster seat fine – subsequent offenses* – current – $50.00; proposed – $100.00

Department of Transportation
DOT Aircraft Licence fee cap – current – $750.00; proposed – No Limit

Department of Public Safety
Out of state passenger vehicle registration –current – 0; proposed – total 2.5% of registration 2004
Up to 2,000 lbs – current – $45.00; proposed – $47.00
2,000-6,000 lbs – current – $70.00; proposed – $72.00
6,000-10,000 lbs – current – $85.00; proposed – $88.00
10,000-14,000 lbs – current – $105.00; proposed – $108.00
14,000-18,000 lbs – current – $125.00; proposed – $129.00
18,000-22,000 lbs – current – $150.00; proposed – $154.00
22,000-26,000 lbs – current – $175.00; proposed – $180.00
26,000-30,000 lbs – current – $355.00; proposed – $364.00
30,000-34,000 lbs – current – $420.00; proposed – $431.00
34,000-38,000 lbs – current – $480.00; proposed – $492.00
38,000-42,000 lbs – current – $540.00; proposed – $554.00
42,000-46,000 lbs – current – $600.00; proposed – $615.00
46,000-50,000 lbs – current – $660.00; proposed – $677.00
50,000-54,000 lbs – current – $725.00; proposed – $744.00
54,000-58,000 lbs – current – $785.00; proposed – $805.00
58,000-62,000 lbs – current – $855.00; proposed – $877.00
62,000-66,000 lbs – current – $925.00; proposed – $940.00
66,000-70,000 lbs – current – $995.00; proposed – $1,020.00
70,000-74,000 lbs – current – $1,080.00; proposed – $1,107.00
74,000-78,000 lbs – current – $1,200.00; proposed – $1,230.00
Above 78,000 lbs – current – $1,340.00; proposed – $1,373.50
Passenger vehicle registration – current – Varies; proposed -Current amount + $19.00 (for all)
Commercial vehicle registration – current – Varies; proposed -Current amount + $5.75 (for all)
Temporary tags – current -$10.50; proposed – $15.50
Late license renewal fee – current – $0.00; proposed – $10.00
Vision screening – current – $1.00; proposed – $2.00
Abstract fee – current – $2.00; proposed – $8.00

Engineers and Surveyors Board
*Out-of-state engineer license verification fee – current – $0.00; proposed – $24.00

Environmental Protection Agency/Natural Resources
Tire fee – current -$1.00 / tire; proposed – $3.30/ tire
Municipal Solid Waste disposal – current – $3.50/ton; proposed – $4.75/ton
Construction, Demolition and Debris – current – $1.70/ ton; proposed – $4.40 /ton

Supreme Court
Supreme Court clerk filing – current – $40.00; proposed – $100.00

Medicaid Fees
NF franchise fee – FY ‘10 – current – $6.25; proposed – $11.00
NF franchise fee – FY ‘11 – current – $11.00; proposed – $11.00
Hospital franchise fee – FY ‘10 – current – 0.00%; proposed – 1.27%
Hospital franchise fee – FY ‘11 – current -1.27%; proposed – 1.37%
ICF/MR franchise fee FY ‘10 – current – $11.98; proposed – $14.25
ICF/MR franchise fee FY ‘11 –

Medical Board
Duplicate certification – current – $0.00; proposed – $35.00
Interstate license verification – current – $0.00; proposed – $50.00

Public Defender
Financial responsibility reinstatement-1st offense – current – $75.00; proposed – $100.00
Financial responsibility reinstatement-2nd offense – current – $250.00; proposed – $300.00
Financial responsibility reinstatement-3rd offense – current – $500.00; proposed – $600.00
Court Costs – nonmoving trafic violation – current – $15.00; proposed – $10.00
Court Costs – misdemenor cases – current – $15.00; proposed – $20.00
Court Costs- felony cases – current – $15.00; proposed – $30.00
Surcharge on surety and appearance bonds – current – $0.00; proposed – $25.00
License reinstatement fee – current – $30.00; proposed – $40.00
License reinstatement fee after class F – current – $15.00; proposed – $25.00

Department of Taxation
Cigarette wholesale licensing – current – $200.00; proposed – $1,000.00
Cigarette retail licensing – current – $30.00; proposed – $125.00

* Rules
** Does not include DAS charges to agencies
*** Replacement fee determined on a case by case basis – regulations to be set in JCARR

SOURCE: Office of Budget and Management

Unemployment Hits Record High

Not in 22 years has Ohio’s unemployment rate been as high as it is now, 7.8 percent. This is a terrible statistic, but it is not the worst part of the story.

In the past 12 months, Ohio lost 118,000 jobs. Currently 465,000 people are unemployed and economists predict that number will go higher. But those are not just numbers, they are real people. They are families who are now struggling to make ends meet and they need hope, but even more, they need jobs.

A federal “stimulus” package is supposed to help, that remains to be seen. But Ohio needs its own plan. Governor Strickland offered a plan two years ago, the “Turnaround Ohio” plan. We expect an update on his progress with “Turnaround Ohio” this week in the state-of-the-state address,

How Ohio gets through the tough times will be the foundation for our state’s future, and if it is or is not a more prosperous future than the times we and the 465,000 unemployed people in Ohio are experiencing right now.