Featured Article

Is Medicaid Expansion Really Necessary?

By Marc Kilmer

If you've turned on your TV lately, you've probably seen Governor Ted Strickland talking about why the federal government should be giving Ohio and other states a cash infusion. Much like the auto company executives who trekked to Capitol Hill late last year, Governor Strickland is going hat in hand to President-elect Obama and the new Congress asking for federal dollars. But why should the feds give the governor more money when he is still pushing for a costly and unnecessary expansion of state health insurance?

Read the full article

---

New at the Buckeye Institute

---

New Thinking on Taxes Needed

The Dayton Daily News reports, "[Outgoing House Speaker Jon] Husted believes [Governor] Strickland's grim budget outlook sets the stage for what he expects to come out of the governor's office next: a tax increase proposal."

In Ohio Needs More, not Fewer, Companies Like Skybus, Buckeye Institute fellow Sam Staley writes, "Ohio needs to streamline the business start up process and reduce the burdens on current and future wealth creators. An intermediate step might be to adopt one income tax rate for all Ohio households, and eliminating income tax obligations for low and moderate income households. A more radical and economically beneficial step would be to follow the lead of high growth states like Texas and eliminate the income tax altogether. This would help establish Ohio as the Hong Kong of the Midwest, demonstrating to investors everywhere that the state is serious about promoting and protecting wealth creation."

Back to top

Strickland Wants Feds to Foot the Bill

The Columbus Dispatch reports, "As states hemorrhage jobs and face massive budget shortfalls, five Democratic governors, including Ohio's Ted Strickland, have asked Congress and President-elect Barack Obama for $1 trillion in federal assistance."

In Stimulating a Bad Idea, Buckeye Institute analyst Marc Kilmer writes, "State officials like Governor Strickland ... want government to provide a variety of services, but they want someone other than state taxpayers to fund them. Essentially they want to give state residents something for nothing. It's a neat trick if they can pull it off."

Back to top

Eliminating the Union Secret Ballot 

"Look for a battle royale between business and labor in 2009 over the proposed Employee Free Choice Act. The measure, up for debate in Congress in 2009, would make union organizing easier. Businesses fear the impact of more unions on their bottom line," according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

In Eliminating Union Vote Unfair to Workers and Employers, Buckeye Institute fellow David Owsiany writes, "Under the current system, if 30 percent or more of the employees indicate interest in unionizing by signing an authorization card, union organizers may go to the employer and demand voluntary so-called card-check recognition. The employer may then either recognize the union or demand an election, which would be overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. The [Employee Free Choice Act] would end the ability of the employer to seek an election if a labor organizer presents the employer with the signatures of a majority of employees supporting unionization. This proposed mandatory card-check system, with no recourse for an election, would have a significant negative impact on employers and employees."

Back to top

Buckeye Institute in the News

Buckeye Institute 1851 Center for Constitutional Law Director Maurice Thompson discussed Stowers v. Boggs with 610 WTVN's Bob Conners. Buckeye Institute President David Hansen discussed Governor Strickland's request for federal bailout funds with 1370 WSPD's Brian Wilson.

The Hillsboro Times Gazette published David Kirkpatrick's op-ed on teacher unions.