Kostyo On Ohio 76th District

Chamber Answers -

2011-10-09T19:39:00.000-07:00

Re: November 2011 General Election Questionnair

The following are my responses to a September 23, 2011 letter requesting my views to the proposed questionnaire. By request, each of my answers are to no more than 175 words.

1. What are the motivating factors in your decision to run for public office?

I have been a Findlay resident for nearly 50 years, having attended St. Michaels and Findlay City Schools some years ago. My family roots were planted in Findlay by my parents, who taught in Findlay City Schools and served in other community organizations. I have strong personal commitments to Findlay through my wife Shirley, our children, many friends who have touched our lives over the years and my law practice.

Our founders envisioned a government that works best when balanced by competing voices, a government that works through checks and balances. I want to bring a voice of balance to Findlay City Council. I have helped with successful petitions and referenda for issues important to Findlay citizens and businesses. These represent a voice for the people of our community. I have also seen how some local officials abuse their authority at substantial cost to local taxpayers. By my experience and professional background, I hope to bring a balance that makes our city work harder and better in serving the people of Findlay.

2. What are the most important priorities that you feel need to be set, should you win in November?

Our City must preserve essential police and fire services for our citizens while balancing continuing budget constraints. The new state budget threatens to cut local funding by 25% in fiscal 2012 and 50% the next year. These cuts will have the most severe impact on our most venerable citizens. I believe the answer is in asking neighbors to look out for one another. A city of neighbors looking out for one another is a better place to live and for business. This is a time when we must ask – what can we do for our City and our neighbors.

We must continue to address flood mitigation in an open and deliberate manner. Each step must be open to and invite substantial public input. We need answers that allow us to responsibly plan the future for our neighbors and businesses. I support a comprehensive remediation plan that incorporates engineering recommendations, residential properties purchased and converted to a mid-town park area while protecting downtown business property.

We must embrace our future together as a City of neighbors.

3. Of those priorities, what would you recommend we do – as a community – to address them?

As a City of neighbors blending individual and business interests, I believe we must address economic, public service, flood mitigation and other issues with open disclosures and discussion.

Our City Council must engage in the full public disclosure and discussion of alternatives to address our priorities to assure we are acting as stewards of the public trust in a local government of the people, by the people, for the people. We must invite public input and participation in our efforts to seek and selecting solutions.

Members of our Findlay City Council must seek to identify issues and provide clear recommendations with tangible results, including costs. Each part must be conducted with sufficient notice and at a time that is convenient and open to the public.

We must constantly ask what we can do for for our neighbors. If we try to help our neighbors, we, as a city, are all better for it. I believe this will strengthen every part of our community for people and business.

Tough Decisions

2011-03-26T17:19:00.001-07:00

The use of budgetary devices created, in part, through newly identified “tax cuts” termed “tough decisions” that practically effect politically ideological goals is a fraud on each Ohio citizen. While some may praise spending cuts justified by a plea of excuses premised on previously unspoken discomforts about seniority, pay and negotiating relationships of public employees; lost is the fact public employees and union workers are taxpayers, many pay property taxes, and their services define the character of our community and state.

In economic terms, public employees and union workers are vital consumers supportive of local business. The money each worker is paid goes to local stores or pay for services through a repeated re-invested necessary to support our local economy. The destabilization of the economic base supported by public employees and union workers during this time of severe economic recession and high unemployment is patently irresponsible. A long term economic recovery must be built on a foundation that supports the absolute necessity to provide the highest quality of education in our schools, providing essential services for the protection of citizens and guaranty quality workers for growth.

None of the statements issued by newly appointed politicos include a commitment that their tough decisions will result in the better education of Ohio school students, nor assure better police or fire protection. In their extended litany of excuses, our politicos identify no specific economic benefit for their actions. If they claim their difficult decisions will result in jobs, then what jobs, when, where and how much economic gain will result. They make no promise that local income, sales or property taxes will not be increased to compensate for “touch decisions” made in Columbus. All these “touch decisions” appear to create is a suspension of critical analysis and the probative examination of actions and consequences expected of well founded decision making.

The state of Ohio needs long term corporate and individual tax policies that provide education at the highest level; seriously address a broad range of jobs; expand business opportunities and award achievement. These goals cannot be leveraged against rights and benefits taken from public employees and working people. With the exception of the present state administration, public servants understand pay freezes, accepting reduces benefits, longer hours of commitment and the importance of the service each provides to make Ohio a better place.

Before the State of Ohio adopts the business policies proposed, including sale or long term lease of assets owned by Ohio citizens by buzz word jargon, we need to remember that bad business judgment resulted in the bankruptcy of John Kasich’s former employer. The State of Ohio cannot afford to a Wall Street type bail out of risks that results in private profit at public cost. Ohio citizens must demand that public resources that return tax money such as state liquor sales or oil and gas harvested at state parks be strictly accounted and paid to public accounts, supporting pubic service and re-investment in Ohio. We need to ask, what will be the result of these “tough decisions.”

Government That . . .

2011-01-20T18:22:00.000-08:00

Often it appears that political and economic discussions consist in the adoption of a primary premise which becomes a conclusion. Logic and facts, although claimed as primary, are cleansed into a reformed conclusion supportive of the assumed premise. Why, because in a juxtaposition of words, it just sounds good. It is the conclusion of a conclusion and thus, must be correct.

This is compounded when the greater part of popular discussion cannot be separated from punditry. There is a subtle seduction through which we tend to simply accept statements that have been repeated so many times that fiction gains acceptance as fact. Then again, such fictitious facts can become the conclusion of a conclusion and thus, must be correct.

Take for example the belief attributed to Thomas Jefferson that government is best which governs least. The fact is, while this idea may be in line with Jefferson’s opinions, no such statement is found in his writings. The real source may be Henry David Thoreau in 1849 or an 1837 editorial in The United States Magazine and Democratic Review.

Unfortunately, what John Quincy Adams called the Jefferson-Madison partnership was in purpose a limitation of “evil” federal authority over states in 1790-1791. The Jefferson-Madison limitation upon “a government that governs least” reflects the view that by limiting federal over state sovereignty the subjugation of individuals whose enslaved labor was necessary to preserve the plantation economy in tidewater Virginia and southern states could be maintained.

Then “big government” intervention threatened to end slavery. We know this because in 1790, Ben Franklin was a prominent signatory on a Quaker petition that urged Congress to question the slave trade and slavery in America. In the first open debate over slavery in the US history, Madison led the floor fight in the House to block any extension of federal authority and preserved the slave trade by strict interpretation of the Constitution and any extension of federal authority over slavery.

Today, the argument over “big government” intervention is used in many forms. The real question is whether and how American citizens are subjugated by such argument. Lost is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

John F. Kostyo

Editorial Endorsements and Fraud

2010-09-30T20:28:00.000-07:00

At one time the editorial boards of major newspapers included accomplished and broadly experienced journalists. The editorial staffs of respected national newspapers still include individuals who have earned advanced academic degrees, with honors, from nationally recognized colleges and universities or those who, by their recognized knowledge or skills or experience, can contribute probative analytic insights.

Most of the individuals who serve on major newspaper editorial boards have international experience in business, academics or other areas in addition to journalism. Many have taught or teach in a particular academic area at one or more major universities. On a periodic basis and in the interest of editorial credibility, the newspapers publish the full backgrounds of their editorial boards, including all academic accomplishments, noted research, articles and awards. There is particular interest in the continued review of these credentials as a necessary basis to support the editorials, analysis of issues and political endorsements.

Collectively, a credible editorial board is able to take the very best from its editors and substantially advance insights through editorial opinion. These individuals are able to draw upon their business experiences, advanced academic credentials, their journalistic experiences or practical accomplishment to critically endorse candidates or analyze complex issues. Without such credentials, readers must ask why an editorial statement should seriously considered.

The actual fact is, as the number of newspapers has declined, there has been an equal or even greater decline in the level of editorial merit that may or even should be attributed to surviving papers.

As the number of newspapers have declined, the merit of their editorial endorsements appears to have suffered most even as the papers rely on the pretense that such endorsements have serious merit. Such pretense, without critical review, is a form of self serving deception, a level of deception that appears to increase exponentially with declining newspaper circulations. The smaller the newspaper, the lesser accomplished its editorial staff or board and less credible any analysis or endorsement made. Moreover, if the history of past endorsements falls into a particularly noted or establish pattern, readers must question whether the writing is an endorsement or free political advertising in the pretense of opinion.

In the evolution of news writing and editorial analysis, newspaper readers must ask themselves whether the editorial staff of the paper and the editorial as written is anything more than a re-statement of political campaign statements. My review of recent endorsements made in many of the smaller papers throughout northwestern Ohio reveals little more than an anemic shuffling of campaign literature. Substantial questions about the support of past economic policies that provided tax incentives to export manufacturing jobs; undermine small business interests; trade investment of Ohio employee pension funds for personal bonuses; failures to disclose sources of funds or flat out lies made in campaign literature are not addressed. Is it possible that editorial boards simply believe that in an age of internet efficiency this information is not readily available? If so, the intentional or inadvertent absence or failure to address these questions is a critical flaw in the merit of editorial endorsements. I do not believe an endorsement should be a rubber stamp.

It is also well recognized that many regional or city newspapers have a particular political bias. Some have sought to step away from past political references. For example, in 1976 “The Republican Courier” of Findlay, Ohio sought to become “The Courier” in a showing of non-partisan independence. The showing is in all practical purposes a fraud when the paper has not found a way to balance the evaluation of political issues or candidates. Perhaps its editorial board is congenitally unable to do anything else – but then, a sub-literate rubber stamp should not be called an endorsement. Editorial integrity should demand more but then editorial integrity does not appear the purpose of such endorsements in the first place.

Slaying the Jabberwock

2010-02-11T14:43:00.000-08:00

In Democracy in America (Bk. II, Ch. 16: 1840), Alexis de Tocqueville addresses "How American Democracy has Modified the English Language" by allowing the play of words with multiple meanings to become common conduits of ambiguity. The insight is that American politicos play on the commonality of literary ignorance by using abstract verbalizations in substitution for words with real meaning. The consequence, according to de Tocqueville, is the creation of a verbal mythology in political language or speech that while appealing to the rank and file citizen is substantively meaningless.

Most pertinent is the now familiar formula followed by The Courier "Letter to the Editor" contributors who trace the flow of concepts from gullets, liberal legislators, arrogance, burgeoning government, spending programs, unfulfilled promises, ignoring the mandates of the Constitution and "the people." The collective combination seeks a self- fulfilling fantasy of awakened truth while having the substantive equivalence to that found in Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky."

Perhaps it is time to unseath our vorpal blades and once again slay the Jabberwock. In the engagement, it must be recognized that literal substance entails specific reference not vague rhetorical conclusions. The purpose is to invite meaningful discussion based on the citation of actual data, factual references that can be verified and exchanged so that each side of the discussion has a vested interest in reaching valid conclusions. Agree or not, we should be able to find common facts, common information and then determine how we are to find results.

If credible reference is made to electoral analysis, then meaningful discussion requires specific engagement of probative statistical data. Where writers may be deficient in comparative statistical analysis as apparent from recent submissions, there are numerous sources that can provide substantive explanations. Summary conclusions of key political events may only be seen as a disservice to credible discussion.

The United States Constitution serves as the instrument through which the institutions of our government are founded and our individual rights established and sustained. Reference made to particular powers or provisions bypassed or ignored within a constitutional context but without specification of the particular powers or provisions bypassed or ignored is meaningless punditry. References combined with the potential of unidentified ominous possibilities leaves much to the fanatical whims of undiscerning readers.

The United States Constitution contains specific articles, sections and even noted clauses. Meaningful discussion of powers or provisions in the Constitution requires citation. In this way, readers may note the concerns referred with trepidation equal to the insights of the writer; otherwise, we are simply left underwhelmed in the throes of exuberant verbosity.

I suggest that we can actually find and cite cases decided by the United States Supreme Court or published decisions of inferior courts. The fact that these are published means that we can read them. If there is to be a citation to a case, then we can refer to the case, read it and even find enlightening commentary. What we cannot do is to just cite the holding of a case without being forced to defend the holding. It is all to easy to suggest that cases have historic meaning but when subjected to critical review, the actual holding must be distinguished. I can at least say that when I attended law school at The Franklin Thomas Backus School of Law at Case Western Reserve University, we did study the United States Constitution, we used the Constitution and cases as precedent for an understanding of the Constitution and case law Constitutional history.

When reference is made to how Constitutional Law is taught, my suggestion is to dive into the two volumes of American Constitutional Law by Laurence H. Tribe. It may take a few cups of tea to absorb - I prefer that exacting blend of Darjeeling, India and Ceylon from Davison Newman & Co. deposited in Boston Harbour on December 16, 1773 or again on March 7, 1774.

My point here is to invite a step beyond the continued Dog-whistle profundity all too often found in this part of The Courier and similar publications in this area.

Jim Jordan - You Lie!

2009-11-14T18:57:00.000-08:00

As those of us who are greeted each morning with The Courier, we are never surprised to see the absurd statements of our putative U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan. Jim was at it again in Bluffton on Wednesday. This was reported in The Courier in the Thursday, November 12, 2009 edition. I suggest that at some point this swill must stop, unfortunately, area newspaper reporters do not have the fortitude to ask questions or think. Let me provide a little response.

We know that the United States must fully embrace a health care system that provides care for health, seeks to prevent illness and rewards practices for good health. We must also embrace health care as a moral imperative and duty to each American.

Mr. Jordan's views of health care are based on self-serving myths and his fulfillment of a do nothing political agenda. His statement that it is a moral question sounds good, but has no basis in fact or any morality associated with humanity. With reference to his defense of Joe Wilson, Jim Jordan is the person who is not being straightforward with his constituents.

It is now an established fact that nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published on September 17, 2009 by the American Journal of Public Health. The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993. Call this whatever you want, it is a moral statement.

Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those caused by many common killers such as kidney disease. An increase in the number of uninsured and an eroding medical safety net for the disadvantaged likely explain the substantial increase in the number of deaths, as the uninsured are more likely to go without needed care. Another factor contributing to the widening gap in the risk of death between those who have insurance and those who do not is the improved quality of care for those who can get it. The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured.

Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”

Jim Jordan lives in a world of delusion. The United States now ranks 31st in life expectancy according to the latest World Health Organization figures. This puts us up with Kuwait and Chile. The United States is 37th in infant mortality and 34th in maternal mortality. A child in the United States is 2 1/2 times as likely to die by age 5 as in Singapore or Sweden. An American woman is 11 times as likely to die in childbirth as a woman in Ireland. This is a moral wrong and travesty in human terms.

I suggest that we can use common sense to provide universal health care through a nonprofit national health plan. We can participate in a system that rewards good health practices, that cares for health. A system where each of us can allow the physician or medical provider of their choice to see a comprehensive – on line - medical record. This alone would dramatically reduce unnecessary tests, missed prescriptions, conflicting diagnosis and decrease medical malpractice claims without demanding the forfeiture of patient’s rights. We may not be told that our doctor is “out of network” or that the procedure is considered “optional” without a separate medical opinion that must be covered by the patient.

How much can we save? I suggest that the savings alone will pay for the system. The final fact is that for those Americans below the age of 65, health care may be questionable, for those over 65, health care improves dramatically – why – think about it. Yes, the answer is a government run health care system – that appears to care for health. Why should we have to wait until we are 65 years old before entitlement to that care? We need politics beyond scare tactics and patriotically worded answers beyond tea bags.

American health care is a moral issue that when placed in the lives of people, we “the people” do know better. Jim Jordan – You Lie.

Respectfully, John F. Kostyo

No Excuse

2009-10-09T06:48:00.000-07:00

It is a great new day for the United States, for the American People and for recognition that we have resumed a role of leadership in our world. Yes, this is in recognition that Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, is the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

With an invitation that you read Paul Krugman’s article in today’s New York Times entitled “The Uneducated American” we may expect to face again a question where American school students will be able to watch their President receive and deliver a Nobel Peace Prize address. Perhaps there will be another opportunity for local students to “op-out.”

Perhaps it is also time for schools to look for new educators and principals and superintendents. Is there little wonder why there may be consideration that those in favor of public education feel compelled to “op-out” of supporting schools that no longer support education?

This time, there is no excuse.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

2009-09-07T18:45:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday, September 8, 2009, President Barack Obama will address American school children from a classroom at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. He will commend dedicated teachers, compliment supportive parents and charge each student with the responsibility for their studies while telling them that remaining in school will help each realize the opportunities of a good education. He even plans to end the classroom “pep talk” with “God Bless you, and God bless America.” This is a message that may be feared and restricted by school administrators, school board members and concerned parents.

Certainly it is a message to be feared when delivered by a man reared in a single parent household and supported by grandparents. With this background, Barack Obama studied sufficiently enough to graduate from Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He was the president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. While his words and message may be lost on many educational leaders, most of whom may not fathom the academic rigor of a competitive university or law school, one may only wonder how many young people in our schools may study just a little more, work harder and seek to realize a greater part of that great evolution called the American Dream as the result of his words.

The word appalling should appear foremost in the Tuesday, September 8, 2009 lexicon of educational “leaders” who have dutifully followed the punditry of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others who claim a victory for conservative America by forcing school districts to decline participation, offer an “opt out” or require “parental consent.” Beyond this, it is more important for conservative America to make a statement by keeping their children out of school or away from this message than allow a Democratic President to tell their children that working hard in school and scholarship will allow them to realize the benefits of a good education.

As school superintendents and educators sort between the apples and oranges drawn in comparisons from similar addresses by Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush that were included in the school curriculums at the time, it is readily apparent that an address to students given by Barack Obama is different. It is considerably different when cloaked in the verbal apology of words that seek to shelter our students from the potential threats of socialization and politicization that President Obama represents. It may not foster the correct image that some may want of an educated person.

At a time when our schools and universities face ever greater challenges to educate individuals for competition in a world economy, President Obama’s message of education is compromised in the convenient naiveté of school administrators. The world economy is blind to political convenience or the sheltered innocence so desired by protective policies. The goal of education for our schools and universities must be to inspire and allow each student to achieve the highest level of learning and accomplishment possible. The critical question continues to be whether our educators and school administrators have the fortitude of character, wisdom and vision to allow that potential. When an address to American school students by our President becomes subject to parental permission slips, the failure of character, wisdom and vision is not found in our children.

As Respectfully As Possible -

WHO LET THE DOGS OUT?

2009-07-11T11:16:00.000-07:00

One must wonder how the suggestion that robust debate on critical issues is dependent on a well educated electorate entails a digression into pathological Pavlovian hyperbole. Let me be clear, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are an insult to Republicans and conservatives. Similarly, the engagement in abject idiocy as provided by the growling and barked responses of Mark P. Miller, Loren L. Pace, Lonnie H. Greer and Ryan C. McDonald are the actual plague that threatens critically necessary conservative thought and input into genuine political debate. The bottom line here is that no matter how insulting, reprehensible or ridiculous the attack dogs cannot help themselves.

Mr. Miller finds logical connections between Thomas Jefferson’s vision for the University of Virginia, the government of our founders, and agenda-driven science with the U.N.; a slur of his personal amusement in bumper stickers on foreign cars; innuendo about a control driven agenda; screaming or begging for an insurgent beheading and summary personal conclusions. More, Mr. Miller’s sub-literate meanderings fail to rise to the level of debate. It is possible that Mr. Miller missed his self-prescribed insurgent beheading and simply lobotomized himself.

Loren L. Pace engages in a diatribe of inconsistent references while begging the request for use of primary sources. Apparently, for Loren words like: “Democrat liberalism,” “leftists,” “secular progressives,” “socialistic, left-leaning indoctrination,” and “socialistic tendencies” have meaning beyond antiquated cold war jargon; although, such meanings are only found within his own edification. One must hope that the jargon is a substitute for carefully considered analysis. For Loren, this is considerably absent notwithstanding his extraneous appeals to unsubstantiated conclusions. Sorry Loren, you still missed the primary references, maybe best to stay in cold war politics or just look up ignoratio elenchi in your Latin dictionary.

An alternate dimension or parallel universe is embraced in the Rush and Sean fueled world of Lonnie Greer where the Outer Limits are alive and well at his house in Arcadia, Ohio. In these confines, Lonnie can witness the new socialist state rise from the pre-sophomoric rantings Hannity and Limbaugh. Lonnie is unique in imbecilic ability to accept the insights of two men who failed to complete a year of college against a graduate of Columbia University; a Harvard educated lawyer; President of Harvard Law Review, one of the most cited law reviews in the United States and a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. In this, he suggests that two men who have demonstrated no constitutional comprehension have greater insight than someone who actually read both the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution and graduated from an esteemed law school. Perhaps Lonnie should voice similar criticism of United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, Articles Editor Vol. 77; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Editor for 1 year before transfer to Columbia Law School; Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Managing Editor for Vol. 92 and Justice Antonin Scalia, Notes Editor for Volume 73; but, that would just be perceived as absurd or patently stupid. It is far easier for Lonnie to make statements with no idea about what he is saying or restricting himself to facts verifiable in the real world. The return of Star Trek has allowed Lonnie to investigate strange new worlds - by himself. The best suggestion for Lonnie is to seek professional help, add more padding to his walls or volunteer for an interview with a Washington Post Reporter.

For Ryan C. McDonald, we must hope that he does rediscover actual conservatism. Perhaps he may do this by separating political and economic concepts. Present review of our United States government reveals that we continue to enjoy life within the framework of a constitutionally based democratic republic. We elect our representatives in public and popular elections. Socialism refers to a number of theories involving economic organizations of state or cooperative ownership. There is no evidence that the present administration has advocated any such economic alternatives. Private rights and ownership have been preserved even with the infusion of public funds to re-capitalize private enterprise. No gifts were made; although, it is possible that Mr. McDonald would desire significant economic and manufacturing interests fail to remain consistent with the actual failure of Reagan and Bush economics. If we may seek to reclaim our roots, perhaps we need to actually study the words, acts and writings that motivated our founders rather than engage in romantic reminisces of conservative mythology. John Hancock, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, among others, were outlawed revolutionaries and traitors who were subject to hanging by British soldiers. Good conservative roots there for you Ryan.

The challenge continues to be a duty for “We the People” to be responsible for our experience under our constitutional democratic republic, particularly now that it appears – the dogs are out. Here boys! Sit – roll over – beg. Good dogs – don’t bite.

Dispelling the Myth

2009-06-21T10:38:00.000-07:00

The results are in and its time that they are released to the public. Over the past 58 years, “The politics of Democratic presidents have produced more employment and output growth, benefiting poor and middle-class families” while “Republican presidents have tended to focus more on containing inflation, which has negligible effects on real income growth near the bottom of the income distribution but substantial effects at the top.” In addition, the average unemployment rate has averaged almost 2 percentage points less and GNP growth has increased over 1 percentage point more over the same 58 years under Democratic presidents compared to Republican ones. These findings are according to Princeton Economist Larry Bartels (a self proclaimed politically neutral observer who last voted for Regan) from his most recent analysis on the political economy which can be found in his new book Unequal Democracy.

More research by Bartels’s colleague Paul Krugman (a self proclaimed “progressive” whose ideals align with the current Democratic party but more so with the socioeconomic policies of FDR) indicates that since 1973 the top .01% of American’s have seen their incomes increase five times while the median inflation adjusted income of “working class” American’s has not statistically changed by any observable amount despite the fact that the average worker’s productivity has increased by 50%. This means that there has been absolutely no money trickling down from the rich to the poor over the past 40 plus years which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that supply side economics is a myth that was sold to wealthy businessmen who read slanted op-eds in the Wall Street Journal that appealed to their own biases and funded campaigns who in turn implemented policies benefiting their backers.

These facts are important today because it is likely - if not inevitable - that the economy will continue to slide for at least the entirety of President Obama’s first year in office, however it must be kept in mind that these failings are not due to his policies but the failed republican economic policies during the Bush Administration. So it is crucial that the majority of the American people continue to push for current democratic efforts to reinstate a stable welfare state and eliminate the tax breaks for the top 1% of Americans.

by Stephen J. Kostyo

Robust Debate

2009-06-20T21:44:00.000-07:00

There is good reason why the words “We the People” begin the Constitution of the United States. These words evidence the legitimacy of our government in a consent of and from the people governed. It is in this eloquence that we witness the democratic vision of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson in our constitutional democratic republic.

In the words “We the People” there is a critical and constant reminder that the responsibility of government begins with us. As a result, robust debate is not dependent on the media, present administration in Washington or Congress. The debate of critical issues that confront our community, our state and country begin with and depend on - us.

With the responsibility of citizenship, there is a duty vested in each and every citizen to seek, engage and pursue information necessary for robust debate. If we are to seek and find solutions to our present economic challenges; develop renewable alternatives to limited fossil fuel resources; reform our health care system to care for health and achieve the highest level of education possible for each person, then we must force ourselves to step beyond the dog-whistle political punditry of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others who offer unsubstantiated conclusions rather than solutions.

Reference to dog-whistle punditry is not a compliment. It is a frequently used device that seeks acceptance of assumed facts. The term also describes a litany of appeals to assumptions that fail any scrutiny under critical review. At the same time, all too many never question.

If probative thought is sought rather a Pavlovian response, then reference must be demanded for reports from the Congressional Research Service, Council of Economic Advisers; or primary source material. The singular challenging fact is the sources do not exist for the conclusions made by dog-whistle politicos.

For “We the People,” Thomas Jefferson envisioned a university plan so broad, liberal and modern to merit public support and tempt even those from great distances. Jefferson’s proposed university was a place of study at the highest level with the greatest of world renowned scholars. In this “We the People” finds renewed vitality. The success of dog-whistle pundits like Limbaugh and Hannity evidence a failure of “We the People” to live up to the vision of our founders.

Even for “dog-whistle” followers we must hope that the level of inquiry and comprehension may exceed marginal high school acumen and failed college profundity. At the very least, it must rise above success through bombastic self-promotion, situational disregard for truth, gender and sex based bias, homophobia and bigotry. Perhaps we may instill in our children a level of intellectual curiosity or basic ability to think so they may survive one or two college semesters before undertaking leadership of the Republican Party.

Fear Again

2009-05-20T20:27:00.000-07:00

Time to gather the women and children, circle the wagons and batten down the hatches – we are in for a big one. You can bet that everything will hit the fan this time around. So -

Be afraid. Then, be more afraid because Jim Jordan and Bob Latta, Ohio 4th and 5th Congressional District Representatives, want you to be fearful that “cap-and-trade” in the Waxman-Markey Bill (The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) will cost jobs, increase energy costs, constitute an energy tax and drive manufacturing plants overseas to counties with lower environmental regulations. In response, it appears that Jordan and Latta propose – nothing – nada – zilch – zippo - only that they have “beliefs” and “feelings” based on hack studies from think tanks and pseudo-scientific reports funded by oil and coal industries. Such leadership should create fear – a fear that these do nothing politicians will – do nothing.

The fact is every part of their beliefs and feelings depends on the continued illiteracy of their constituents or that most are just too lazy to read the legislative draft of The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Heck, if that is too much, one may just read the U.S. House of Representatives “Discussion Draft Summary” of the Act.

The Waxman-Markey “Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” is designed to create millions of new clean energy jobs, save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars in energy costs, enhance American energy independence and reduce global warming. The Act has four parts: (1) clean energy in fuels, vehicles and an efficient electrical grid; (2) the promotion of energy efficiency through all economic sectors like building, appliances; transportation and industry; (3) limits on the emission of heat-trapping pollutants that contribute to “global warming;” and (4) a transition provision that protects United States consumers and industries while promoting green energy jobs in the adjustment to a green – clean – energy economy.

Hum – reading the Act or U.S. House “Discussion Draft” one can only wonder what Jordan or Latta are using as an authoritative legislative reference for their beliefs and feelings. Their statements of Ohio jobs lost, relocated manufacturing plants, sky-rocketing energy costs and tables without food are unsubstantiated conclusive fear mongering about the choice of putting food on the table or paying energy bills. The very best thing each citizen can and should do is – READ THE LEGISLATIVE DRAFT.

The Jordan – Latta objection to the Waxman-Markey “Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” that carbon taxes are better than cap and trade is just wrong. Paul Krugman, the 2008 Nobel Prize winner for Economics, states: “In principle, emission taxes and tradable emission permits are equally effective at limiting pollution. In practice, cap and trade has some major advantages, especially for achieving effective international cooperation.” Krugman: “The Perfect, the Good, the Planet” New York Times Op-Ed May 18, 2009. Waxman-Markey gives viable incentives for power industry polluters to reduce their emissions so they can sell excess permits issued by the government. The appeal for this is based on the fact that similar efforts have worked in the control of acid rain.

While Jordan and Latta believe that jobs will be lost. One must pause in quiet reflection to ponder what these legislative wizards have done to invite new clean energy jobs, or any jobs for that matter, into their districts. Nothing. The conclusion made that: “Any new jobs created will not even come close to compensating for jobs lost to this energy plan.” is mistaken. It is a conclusion made when doing nothing results in the same – nothing. It must be said that creating jobs requires action, strong and decisive action by entrepreneurs and business leaders who take action. There is no wallowing in the constraints of beliefs and feelings as those who see doing nothing as strong decisive action. Real business leaders share one great trait – they act.

If Jordan or Latta wish to be taken seriously perhaps they can seek to assist or simply foster establishing green energy jobs in the 4th and 5th Congressional Districts. There are profound and serious movements within major cities, on progressive college and university campuses and in schools to take steps toward greening their cities, campuses and schools. Perhaps the leaders of these movements have realized that doing nothing now will cost the citizens of Ohio and our country far more that working to build renewable energy sources and a smart electrical grid; build and renovate homes and businesses for greater energy efficiency; limit pollutants while protecting consumers and industry. Someone has to do this – sounds like – jobs.

The fact is that Jordan and Latta just do not get it. What they do know is that if you are afraid, you will need them to protect you. Who knows and they do not care from what – only that you react in fear. The protection we need is by demanding that we in the 4th and 5th Congressional Districts seek to lead in business, education, jobs and training necessary to build our economy, rebuild our businesses and refurbish our factories. At one time women did cut wood in Findlay, Ohio; then we discovered how to use our resources and abilities to compliment our communities, invite business and entrepreneurship. That time has come again in a new format. Fear can only guarantee our failure.
John F. Kostyo

Look Over There!

2009-05-18T20:00:00.000-07:00

On the counter as you entered our kitchen was a beautiful bone china cookie jar. It was a precious heirloom from my grandmother’s house. That cookie jar was even more precious when it was filled with my mother’s cookies. Of course, mom had rules that prohibited free cookie access. As a result, my sisters and I engaged in conspiratorial raids of that cookie jar.

The raids were well orchestrated collaborations with the single purpose of relieving the jar of its cookies. This included a location survey to determine the whereabouts of “mom.” Then one sister would distract “mom” while another sister or I raided the cookie jar. The distraction worked best when it completely encompassed my mother’s attention to provide sufficient time for a full cookie jar raid. When mom got close to the kitchen during a raid – the call line was: “Hey mom, look over there!” This made sure mom was looking anywhere but where the actual raid was taking place.

Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, GOP poet laureate Mike Huckabee, Michael Steele and the choir of Republican Pundits are on a cookie jar raid. Well, actually – they are more focused on the “Look over there!” part with a hope that we forget entirely about the cookies or jar. All they need to do is keep focus on the distraction – any distraction, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Whoever or whatever the distraction is – the answer Newt, John, Mitch, Mike, Michael and their minions offer is that it is not George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or anyone from the dishonored Bush Administration. Listen closely: “Look over there!” Anywhere! Forget the cookie jar.

Before we sold our souls to politics, political parties and rabid punditry, the United States was a democratic republic established by revolutionary founders under a Constitution. We lived in one nation under God who gave us moral strength in a home of the brave and land of the free. Our respect for “the rule of law” was a guiding light, a source of pride that blended with a sense of moral strength and patriotic furor. It was our defense of freedom, the blood of our founders, the greatest generation, our value for the rights of others, our respect for human dignity - all that made our country a land where laws and moral strength blended into a free and proud people. These are the actual cookies in the jar of democracy. Cookies so valued that we cannot live without them – even if we forget them for a moment.

Let’s deal with it straight up. Waterboarding is torture as a matter of fact and as a matter of law. There is no moral exemption. It is straight out illegal – a crime. It is a crime that does not survive the “good information” exemption. If you consider what someone may say during torture, truth appears secondary at best. It is a crime even when there may be some thought that torturing a terrorist who may be responsible for thousands of lost lives may be sold as morally just. It is not. This compromise cannot be accepted. There is no party excuse.

The point is we, the people of the United States, as a country that survives on the moral strength and blind justice of its laws and Constitution with no person above the law, cannot excuse torture. Nor can we protect those who chose to abandon our great history, our Constitution, our laws, our moral strength to allow torture. The choir of Republican Pundits are far more interested in politics than truth, the moral strength in the character of the American people or actual respect for our laws. If we keep listening, perhaps we will all end up just tossing our cookies. “Look over there!”
John F. Kostyo

The Smell of Conservative Values

2009-02-26T08:27:00.000-08:00

While growing up on Bell Avenue in Findlay, Ohio during the late 50’s and early 60’s, I witnessed difficult economic times and job layoffs. These were greeted with understanding neighbors borrowing sugar, a cup of flour and trading in children’s clothes. There was a time when the only money my parents had at the end of a month was enough to buy one Sundae at Diesch’s Bros. Ice Cream. It was wonderful. I once witnessed a dinner of Lake Erie perch exchanged for a few Old Dutch beers. Eventually the sugar, flour and clothes were paid back in one way or another and a mutual or shared responsibility was accepted. I believe this was repeated in many neighborhoods. It is what made where we lived then and grew up the very best place and the people there – neighbors.

It might be said that those were far simpler times. Then it seemed the worst thing that a kid could do was to hang from the cat walks at the old Producer’s Stock Yard on East Bigelow and fall into a big pile of whatever was piled up enough to fall into. Of course, by that point, there was no way to credibly deny where you were or what you were doing. You simply had to accept responsibility and fess up. A plea of excuses just did not work because the evidence of what you had fallen into was all too apparent.

A similar result occurs when Congressman Jim Jordan seeks to use the profound wisdom of Winston Churchill to obfuscate his shared responsibility with other Republicans for supporting years of pork spending, deregulatory duplicity and disastrous economic folly. It cannot be said that including billions of dollars in spending disclosed in alternate budgetary amounts, as done to hide Iraq war costs, contributed to a level of economic integrity consistent with our “first principles.” Equally, common sense consistent with our first principles tells us that it is schizophrenic to say that investment in local infrastructure makes sense for flood mitigation while supporting $40 Billion Dollars in stimulus cuts designated for municipal infrastructure improvements. Notwithstanding the denial of partisanship, Mr. Jordan and Congressional Republicans are using their re-found roots as born again conservatives - it is just – politics as usual – but we can smell the difference.

For those now between jobs due to layoffs, plant closings or just work slowdowns, the due time for our economy to return is yesterday not tomorrow. This was a responsibility we had entrusted through voting our conservative values. Our votes for Mr. Jordan are a mistake that we cannot afford to repeat. Congressman John Boehner has become an elected embarrassment. Unfortunately, many of those who espoused such conservative values lied or suffer selective recollection as it appears Mr. Jordan and House Minority Leader John Boehner are now forced to claim. It is wonderful to discuss free market economic theory and the use of tax cuts to achieve future prosperity. I invite tax incentives to promote investment and reward entrepreneurship. Yet a person who is not working and cannot find a job is not rewarded by another tax cut. The fact is that the Bush tax cuts hurt our economy and more cuts at this time will be even more disastrous according to Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Our first principles tell us that the billions of dollars pork’d out during years of undisciplined Congressional spending and purposeful market de-regulation are now the price tag left for “We the People.” If we are to invest again, let us invest our money in ourselves, re-building our communities from our infrastructure up, with flood mitigation, a re-engineered green energy grid and our schools for better educated children. That way some will have the integrity to abide by common sense or our first principles to admit when they have failed. Politicians like Jim Jordan and John Boehner can make any plea for excuses they want cloaked in the fragrant terms of fiscal responsibility; however, the smell remains from where they’ve been. Frankly, the smell of Republican swill is getting worse.

A Message of Hope

2008-11-16T18:44:00.000-08:00

As I began traveling door to door for the Barack Obama campaign, meeting Americans who were undercut by our country’s failed economic policies, I realized how important it was that Obama’s proposals be implemented to give these people a chance to achieve the American Dream. Unfortunately, during the course of this election and sadly even after its conclusion, the editorial pages of The Courier have reflected the divisive and often false opinions existing in our city.

Instead of listening to Senator John McCain properly denounce unfounded rumors about Barack Obama being a Muslim, many in Findlay refused to believe. Many also refuse to believe that Democrats want to reduce the number of abortions because when Senator Obama released a plan to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies in the United States, many of my fellow Pro-Life Obama supporters were considered “baby killers” by those in Findlay.

Then, little was said about John McCain’s plan to tax employer based health care as income and to comparatively insure 11.2 million fewer Americans; while Barack Obama’s proposal to lower the cost of health care premiums, with a provision allowing citizens to keep their current plans and doctors was equivocated to socialism.

And, while comprehensive reports indicated that not only would John McCain’s tax plan leave working middle class Findlay-ites paying more in taxes than under Obama’s plan, but eventually everyone would have to pay for the estimated 5.6 trillion more dollars John McCain’s economic plan (compared to Obama’s) would add to the national debt; opinions in Findlay stated that Obama would raise their taxes when his plan effectively reduced taxes for a majority of them.

Furthermore, the idea that “Barack Obama does not support Israel” is simply false. I recently attended the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Summit in Chicago where Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisor received a standing ovation from the most Pro-Israel audience you could imagine.

Let’s learn from our encounter with the Washington Post and construct opinions based on facts. And finally, let’s hope that President Obama will end the divisive partisanship evidenced in this paper’s recent opinions and reach across the aisle to serve a plurality of interests and restore our image as a world leader.

Stephen J. Kostyo

The New Ohio Economy - Green

2008-10-11T14:00:00.000-07:00

As the State of Ohio continues to lose its once great business and skilled manufacturing base, little has been proposed by our leading politicos about directing Ohio toward the future. I suggest that we address this future by taking a leadership role in “green” economic initiatives and manufacturing. This can be accomplished on a local and state level by calling upon and supporting existing Ohio businesses to engage in a coordinated establishment for the production of “green energy” components. These components can be utilized throughout the United States and exported for greater environmental stewardship.

It may be suggested that a business capable of fabricating vehicle parts and accessories may readily be re-tooled for the production of components for wind turbines, solar panel grids or harness wave energies. Equally, a manufacturer of wiring harness for vehicles or aeronautic use may well adapt to wiring harnesses for other efficient energy conversions. Certainly these tasks will take the efforts of many people who will require a level of skill and pay beyond that of minimum wage. The addition of skilled workers and infusion of long term capital will substantially advance our local or state economies.

Reference can be made to fundamental economic models that demonstrate when there is an increase in technology such as a more reliable and less expensive form of energy, the relative wealth of the effected community increases; wages increase and often there is an increase in employment. Try to think of Findlay, Ohio in the days of the natural gas boom around 1885. The discovery of natural gas deposits let to national marketing efforts advertising free gass with business leaders trying to "boom" the town. It may be noted that during such times overall business productivity increases causing either an increase in building capital and an increase of skilled workers into the community. This is a business model that we should welcome because the benefits are plentiful and the investment gives the prospect for a profitable return to our community.

I suggest that the State of Ohio can use funds collected from its businesses to create the future for business in our state, namely: the approximate 15 Billion Dollar residual Workers’ Compensation Fund. While made less by a lack of earnings on rare coins, off-shore hedge funds and disastrous economic failures of the present administration, significant funds remain that can be loaned to manufacturers to re-tool and build the factories where the components of green energy around the world can find their home in northwestern Ohio.

Many of our families, parents or grandparents work the ground to support and provide security for their families. We too can we begin to create the foundation for the next green economy. It is time that we begin to build the industrial and manufacturing base that will support the individuals, families, our communities and our state with the economic and political security necessary to preserve and continue the freedoms we enjoy. Now, if we could just find a few politicos with the vision and fortitude to open this path, I believe we can build our future from the ground up through adaptation and innovation. It is time to re-vitalize Ohio.

Efficient City and County Government

2008-09-30T18:45:00.000-07:00

On the evening of September 24, 2008, George W. Bush stated the United States economy is in “a serious financial crisis.” To this he added “America could slip into a financial panic . . . More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market could drop even more . . . . And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of American could lose their jobs.” [President’s Address to Nation, 9:01 PM EST September 24, 2008].

On September 25, 2008, Washington Mutual (WaMu), the nation’s largest savings and loan was seized by federal regulators and brokered in an emergency sale to JPMorgan Chase. This is the biggest bank failure in the history of the world and a big wrench into the gears of free market economic theory.

So – on September 25, 2008, our visionary Commissioners found an infamous date to impose two “emergency” sales taxes on the citizens of Hancock County. County politicos cannot wait for new offices. And it must be stressed that a token part of the sales tax increase may go to flood mitigation. In what some may described as a “smart move” is revealed a – government first – mentality that places buildings before people. Those who question Commissioner vision are challenged to obtain and review audits. The pretense of an audit begs the question of actual leadership.

Perhaps it is time of for our county and city leaders to consider consolidating overlapping city and county departments to provide more cost effective and efficient services to the citizens of Findlay and Hancock County. It may be suggested that for far too long Ohio citizens have paid a tax premium to maintain an antiquated and redundant system of townships, villages, municipal corporations and county governments. It is possible to preserve the identity of political subdivisions without duplicating cost inefficiencies entailed in the preservation of overlapping departments and service providers.

The good people of our townships, villages, cities and county deserve an efficient delivery of services to preserve their roads, infrastructure and human service needs. It is possible to consolidate and save tax dollars while making consolidated departments more linear in service to citizens. The point is not that government should be run like a business. The point is that the way government is run is the business of people not the preservation of inefficient divisions that redundantly hinder the delivery of services to people.

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

2008-09-29T20:34:00.000-07:00

The nature of our government established in The United States Constitution is always important and relevant. Of equal note is the fact that the form of government established by our Founders is and was truly remarkable.

I wish to suggest that our Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic. We enjoy an indivisible union of 50 sovereign states. We enjoy a democracy for the reason that people govern themselves. It is representative in that people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot. And of course, it is a republic because the government derives its power and legitimacy from the people governed, not a monarchy.

If we were to retrace the path of our founders, it might be discovered they understood the concept of “polis” or political things from the Greek city-state form of social organization. In the Platonic dialogues around 365 B.C. and Aristotle at about 322 B.C., Greek philosophers examined the conditions for people to take a rational and critical view of the relation between individual and collective society. Aristotle sought to inject “man” as a species of animal that possesses intelligence as found in collaborative groups to become a political animal. In the “polis” Aristotle insisted on political virtue and man-made laws that make up a constitution for the polis by using the word “politeia” which is the same word that Plato used in the title of his dialogue called the Republic.

In the course of that examination Aristotle and other philosophers noted that in the Greek city-states examined deliberations took place in face-to-face discussions among the people “demos.” Man-made laws “politeia” applied in city-states not ruled by monarchs. A republic, interchangeable with “politeia,” became a state where the people “demos” directly impact their government. Through man-made laws “politeia” the people “demos” ruled “kratos” themselves. Hence, people “demos” ruled “kratos” political organization “politeia” can be viewed as a demos + kratos (democratic) politeia (republic).

Our founders enjoyed the great virtue of classical studies that included Greek, Latin, Machiavelli’s The Prince, Grotius’ Law of War and Peace, Hobbes Leviathan, Locke’s Of Civil Government and some - The Bible. It is unfortunate that our Founders did not have the benefit of The Battle Hymn of the Republic (Julia Ward Howe 1861) or the Pledge of Allegiance (Francis Bellamy 1892) as their guide in 1787. Still, I have great faith that they realized what they were doing. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

We the People - Tax Time Again

2008-09-15T19:17:00.000-07:00

Our founders chose the words “We the People . . .” to establish the foundation of our democratic republic. The word “we” refers equally to all people. Our founders believed that all government begins and remains with the people.

“We the People” are the foundation of government. Without this, those we elected would hold some power above us as the people governed. American Independence was declared and the American Revolution was fought to forever end the subjugation of people to the government. When any part of our government presumes a voice superior to the people governed, “we the people” have the obligation to raise our voices. This is called – Democracy.

It is proper to question the decisions of our elected few to use a sales tax increase to fund prospective budget shortfalls and buildings when the Labor Department reports 605,000 jobs lost in 2008 with serious losses in manufacturing, housing, finance and other economic sectors. At this time of record foreclosures, consumers may not be buying much when challenged to cope with increased costs for housing, food and gasoline. This is particularly true for many families, farmers and our seniors on fixed incomes. Yet our county government must be immune.

At a time of declining sales, a sales tax increase for buildings is unlikely to inspire a counter-cyclical increase in spending. More it is a distraction from focusing on the essentials necessary to serve the people of Findlay, Hancock County and those who live within the Blanchard River watershed. A tax cannot be accepted as a substitute for long term leadership.

Flood mitigation is a priority for the people of our community. The preservation of services is also essential. There are no easy solutions. There are responsible steps we can take as a community. I believe we must use these challenges to become a better, more unified community where we use our very best attributes to invite increased sales and revenues in Hancock County, Ohio.

I believe that we – the Findlay/Hancock County community - must so assemble and present our resources – including the lowest sales tax rates in Ohio – to make the City of Findlay and the wonderful villages in our County as the place where the people of our state come to shop - for less. Why not? This will increase sales tax revenues while keeping our taxes low. It depends on where “We the People” fit into the plan of democracy as viewed by our local politicos.

Ohio Deserves Better From Candidates

2008-03-06T12:20:00.000-08:00

It is time we held political campaigns to principles consistent with our interests as the voting public. That is what we should expect of ourselves, but

Now, we know better. Through tactics xeroxed out of Karl Rove’s playbook, we have reminded ourselves that real politics is played upon the fears, prejudices, and the latent bigotry that shadows our past and threatens to condemn our future. On March 4, 2008, far too many Ohio votes were based on a politic of fear at 3 am; jobs lost through NAFTA and the fiction of executive leadership. We somehow mistake the direction of our fears and faults as the direction of leadership. In this, we are uncomfortably reminded that what is necessary to succeed politically is to call upon the perverse propensities of a negative campaign. In the aftermath, voters are left used rather than energized and renewed in a unity of patriotic vision. Of course, candidates move on.

There remains a part of our voting consciousness that derives pleasure in the toxic spew of politicos who may carelessly poison the great wellspring of a new generation inspired after years of irresponsible divisiveness. It is all too apparent that some politicians will do nearly anything to win a nomination even if an attack made now may be redirected more destructively in the fall. Ohio voters are challenged to find one meaningfully addressed issue in the wake of the all the appearances, speeches and challenges for substance that filled primary campaigns in the state. We lost the great ideals and optimism many once found in the 2008 Presidential campaigns. Once again, we have stripped away the thin veil of innocence held at the forefront of campaigns to revealed the truth that we are no more than what we may aspire to be and while we do, we can be made less by words. We are made less when reminded that we are at times the people we would wish not to be.

Is it not fair to ask who may have lost in the divisive attacks that so repulse parts of the electorate that they chose to vote against rather than for a candidate. We are promised that each and every one of us must now plan to be exposed to a “fuller vetting process.” Perhaps we in the electorate have been vetted enough and it is time to separate leadership from division, direction rather than destruction and vision from vetting. Must we now expect candidates to follow principles of attack as a substitute for political leadership. Politics without a continuous focus on solving issues becomes distorted into a stark reminder that dividing voters means victory. The politicos move on, promises are made and left without substance, and the voting electorate is left divided. We learn that politicos promise much, attack what is promised and solve nothing.

Perhaps we will have leadership again, the kind of leadership that seeks more actual jobs in Ohio not words that remind us of jobs lost; control of utility rate increases rather than the mere recognition of increased costs; support for our teachers and better education for our children; proposals for meaningful legislation to address the mounting tragedy of home foreclosures or programs that establish additional grants of funds to assure warmth for those who face ever harsher winter weather without heat. Is it possible to remember now whether these issues were addressed? Perhaps fear adds a level of warmth to a child of unemployed parents shivering without heat in a home subject to foreclosure. Perhaps we again need a leadership that can direct a unified political party and assist the legislature to focus on serving the people of this state rather than use them for the prurient purposes of political pandering. Perhaps we now need leaders less smeared by the remnants of divisive words silently endorsed with a healing brought by reaching out to others with open hands focused on service.

We must rise above the words and divisive manipulation of political candidates. We must rise above the threat of our own fears to live meaningful lives in service to our families, our communities and our country. It is shameful that we have to endure the message of our politicians and it is us who must now rise above it. Perhaps there is a thought that we will all just forget and consider politics as usual as – politics as usual. I chose to hope for a light in each of us that calls us to a higher aspiration. Would we not all be better people for it?

Stephen Kostyo - Obama Campaign Work

2008-02-24T17:36:00.000-08:00

Senator Barack Obama first inspired me, like many others, through his genuine charisma and great vision for the future of our country. This motivated me to study his policies and plans for our future. I enthusiastically saw the vision of what we can do for our country through his leadership. I then volunteered to help with his campaign in South Carolina over my winter break from college. While in South Carolina, other Obama volunteers, who included people of every nationality, creed and economic background, welcomed me and we became a great team.

At the Charleston Obama office, people volunteered themselves creating an energetic force of unity and purpose. The office included a very religious woman making phone calls from the front; a man who had flown in from Germany sealing envelopes for mailings; a young black man telling others about what brought him to volunteer; an old white man who came in at first to make a financial contribution; and a young French woman who spoke very little English was making posters. All as a blend of unity asking others to join in supporting Barack Obama’s Campaign.

While walking through Charleston handing out Obama campaign literature, I encountered a group of four older men on a rather run down street corner who stopped me and made sure they signed supporter cards. At the same time, they shared with me the stories of their family roots. On the other end of the scale, was a wealthy family with a long history of military service to our country and who took in volunteers like me with warm hospitality. All to support their friend, Barack Obama.

Now at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, I am part of the next chapter of the Obama Campaign. We have registered record numbers of students to vote in the primary on March 4, many have already voted. I am a witness to the fact that Barack Obama’s Presidential Campaign is more than “just words.” For me and many, many others, it is a new and strong awakening of our American Spirit. I invite you to join me on March 4 to restore our American values by voting for Barack Obama. Yes We Can!

Democratic Visions

2007-12-09T19:12:00.000-08:00

In a grotesque display of political pandering, Cliff Hite used the December 7 Republican luncheon to reveal the pretense of his purpose as our State Representative, raising money. The question each voter must ask themselves is how this perversion of our democratic vision results in representing people living in Alger, Dunkirk, Findlay, Kenton, New Knoxville, Ada, Fostoria, Forest and the many towns and villages between. It does not.

On the very same page that touted Hite’s rantings, The Courier reported that Ohio leads the nation in home foreclosures. Perhaps Mr. Hite believes it is appropriate to celebrate politics and fund raising while the Republican legislature buries its collective head from the results of its leadership.

Perhaps Mr. Hite could responsibly propose a plan where funds held for investment by the Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation and other Ohio state agencies – money from Ohio for Ohioans – is re-invested to support Ohio home ownership. If Ohio is to return to long term economic stability, that stability must start at the kitchen table for all Ohio citizens.

Perhaps Mr. Hite could evidence his leadership in efforts to reduce our taxes by proposing a reduction in state taxes added to each gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel. This may help families and fixed income seniors who save every penny to make ends meet to better make ends meet. It may also help family farmers, family farms and those engaged in trucking. In this way Mr. Hite could pay more attention to reducing taxes for living people rather than bantering about eliminating “the death tax.” It seems those living may appreciate the reduction more.

Through the vast reaches of his insightful leadership, perhaps Mr. Hite could team with U.S. Representative Jordan to spearhead a comprehensive plan spanning Wyandot, Hancock and Putnam Counties to control flooding of the Blanchard River. This would preserve the prospective investment of $90,000,000 in a new Findlay business sector. It might also spare the presently existing business district and those living in the flood zone from many more millions in property losses from another flood. Then again, it might be helpful if both representatives invested greater effort in pursuing funds to help people still trying to recover from the August flood and government red tape.

The fact there are so many possibilities that Mr. Hite cannot envision makes his pandering for money all the more disconcerting. Perhaps if he found a way to serve the needs of people living in the 76th District, his service alone would merit the financial reward he demands. For some, it may come down to money; for others, it matters more what can be done for people first.

Global Warming - with Stephen J. Kostyo

2007-11-11T07:53:00.000-08:00

The fact the citizens of planet earth are emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere at an alarming rate are now beyond valid dispute. The Noble Prize awarded Al Gore and a group of highly respected scientists is considerate recognition that global warming is a planetary emergency that demands our attention and action. The continued burning of coal and natural gases contributes to global warming, depletes our natural recourses and results in the dependence of the United States on other nations for scarce energy resources. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make breathing harmful in big cities and will jeopardize our living environments to an even greater extent unless we immediately change our current energy dependent lifestyles.

The issues of reducing greenhouse gases and global climate change were the primary focus of The Kyoto Protocol. This is a treaty negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997. In form, it is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change where countries that ratify the protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emission of the gases. The treaty expires in 2012. Talks have begun on a future treaty to succeed it. Unfortunately, the United States has not ratified this treaty.

The primary reason the United States has failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol must be attributed to the well funded realm of junk science. Critically deficient pseudo-scientific garbage concocted by scientists for sale, the term “junk science” is used to describe the use of these sophistic “studies” that claim to challenge or obfuscate the facts and causes of global warming. It is well established that energy companies have invested millions of dollars in such studies with the singular purpose of confusing the general public. In ultimate terms, this investment sacrifices truth for short term gains recognized in reduced oversight and regulation. In other words, the public good is sacrificed for private gain.

The Kyoto Protocol accomplished the goal of pinpointing the threat of chlorofluorocarbon emissions around the world. It showed that when a global problem arises we can take care of it. Unfortunately, neoconservative political influences in the United States have prevented ratification and compliance with Kyoto’s caps on carbon dioxide emissions. Fortunately, many cities and states have implemented Kyoto’s standards and we are beginning to see uniform collaboration to address this crisis. An effective way to stop the increase of greenhouse gasses is to hold companies who emit the greenhouse gasses accountable. There are large public companies that have established policies to cutting emissions, lower waste and recycle materials while saving money in the process. Progressive energy saving and recycling plans as those employed in many states set the example for other states and companies to follow.

Some people may not conserve energy in small amounts because they do not believe their efforts are worthwhile. It must be recognized that every action makes a difference and there are plenty of opportunities. For example, I recently noticed there were no recycling containers in McDonalds’ restaurants, so I simply carried my recyclable trash back to my dorm where it could be recycled. Energy conservation is as easy as adjusting the thermostat up or down two degrees depending on the season. If this is done consistently, these small measures would save vast amounts of resources and energy. The great result about conserving resources is that nearly all the time simple conservations save money. In fact, almost every family could save money if they knew how to operate their homes more energy efficiently.

By purchasing slightly more expensive energy efficient light bulbs home owners may save money in the long run and reduce their harmful emissions. Stereotypically, we believe that big coal burning industries are the main contributors to global warming, when actually fluorescent light bulbs in homes combine to produce as many greenhouse gasses as factories. Imagine all the phone books, junk mail, credit reports, and other items that can accessed electronically without actually using paper and eliminated. As a public, we need to inform ourselves about these measures among others that they can implement in everyday life to make a significant difference. Conservation can be found in simple things like not letting the water facet run while brushing your teeth saving water now essential to parts of our country that never before had such concerns. It is a matter of recognition and effort.

The effects of global warming are more far reaching than extreme storms, loss of land, and loss of wildlife; the main concern is for our fellow human beings. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all people are created equal.” As a nation we must also evolve as a people who work to advance this concept. Conservation allows more people to enjoy the earth’s resources equally.
It is time we make the concerted effort. The world will not end in our lifetime even if we do not change the course of past actions. At the same time, we should take the responsibility to promote a better quality of life for one another. We cannot continue to ignore caring about the environment. There is too much progress that can be made and every little bit does count. We can start a new era where global warming refers to our hearts instead of our environment.

This week, try to organize more people to make small concerted efforts to improve the environment and conserve our resources. It may simply be taking a responsible role in recycling. It starts with your decision to save the essential resources for living so everyone will have the chance to live in a healthier world climate. The world is what you do.

SCHIP - Caring for Others

2007-11-10T21:39:00.000-08:00

The saying goes: “Be nice to your children because they will choose your rest home.” I suggest we should pay greater attention to the health care of our children because as a generation, our care will pass to them. Our care for others is not some postulated political equation. With parents caring for children, as with parents caring for parents, there is a deep and abiding moral value found in our consideration and care for others. I believe this is an American value.

When our care for others, particularly low-income children living in the United States without health coverage, is combined with the highly charged realm of political hyperbole we all too often end up focusing on the jargon. Of course, this refers to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Possibly, rather than continue its bantered politico jousting, Congress may find that by changing the underlying funding mechanism for the program, SCHIP may continue to serve its original purpose covering the health care costs for low-income children while addressing the vast increase in the number and needs of low-income children. Much to their detriment, low-income children have not learned the socio-philosophical economic restraints to government referenced health care. These children just need medical care.

In its original 1997 form, SCHIP was enacted as a block grant program with a fixed annual funding level. The purpose of SCHIP was to help states pay for health coverage for uninsured children in families whose income is above levels that would allow them to be eligible for the state’s Medicaid programs as of March 31, 1997.

SCHIP has been a success; however, as a block grant program, it fails by design to address the escalating costs and needs of eligible low-income children. Congress did not anticipate the dramatic increase in health care costs and children in need over the last decade. At some point, SCHIP must be considered in the larger answer that our country must find to address our health care systems.

Common sense might suggest that if we responsibly address the health needs of low-income children now, these children may become healthier adults costing our health care systems less. Then they may contribute to our economic system; and, pay the taxes necessary to fund the Bush Administration’s adventure in Iraq and immense increase in our debt to China.

National Security at Home

2007-09-13T19:44:00.000-07:00

Our “national security” is a critical part of our daily concerns. The words “national security” must be more than political jargon to solicit our patriotic consent to foreign military actions rather than address the actual security of American citizens living in the United States. It is simple foolishness to believe the security of our nation is singularly dependent on evasively defined military missions in Middle East countries. Our “national security” is compromised by the failure of Congress and the Administration to responsibly identify and address threats to our individual security within the United States or effectively enforce our immigration laws.

The question we must ask is whether our “security” focused leaders have taken sufficient steps to prevent 19 more terrorists from entering our country and engaging in another attack. The 19 al Qaeda operatives had passports, visas and at least two were traceable from State Department INS TIPOFF watch lists. Each of the 19 operatives violated immigration laws while in the United States. None of these 19 operatives were stopped.

Each day thousands of illegal aliens enter the United States from Mexico or Canada without passports or visas. An estimated 12 million or more illegal aliens now living and work in the United States. In this number there is a subtle source for terror. “Terror” as in the execution of three Newark college students, forced to kneel against a wall and shot at close range by Jose Carranza, an illegal alien from Peru. The three students were victimized by the failure of state and federal tracking even after Carranza was indicted twice this year on 31 counts surrounding the sexual assault of a child and a bar fight. In New Jersey local authorities are not required to check immigration status of upon criminal arrests. What happened to national security for these three students?

Within the past week, the United States opened its borders to allow Mexican-domiciled trucks full access to our national highways. We must wonder where the priority of our national security is found in this action. Is this simply a policy choice of cheap goods and labor over the security of United States citizens? With millions of illegal aliens violating our borders each year from Mexico, allowing Mexican-domiciled trucks within our borders will merely provide the prospective for more comfortable travel accommodations.

Without control of our borders, the concept of national security is a political illusion. Without strong and comprehensive programs to secure our national borders, engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan will serve only as a distraction. It is unfortunate that our attention spans do not permit us to pay attention to illegal aliens within our country as potential terrorists.

We the People . . .

2007-08-10T12:39:00.000-07:00

With the prospect that the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis will result in months of investigation and controversy, we are uncomfortably reminded that we live in a democratic republic. This means that there is an even more uncomfortable answer to the responsibility of possible design, inspection and repair failures in our aging national infrastructure of which the I-35 Bridge is a catastrophic example. The answer is not found in an individual politician or political party; worse, the answer is in the starting point of our democracy – “We the People."

In the Preamble of the United States Constitution are the words “We the People of the United States . . .” Through these simple words the purpose and parameters of our government are established in the Constitution. It is “We the People” who form our government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty. While politicos bask in the clouded realms of verbal sophistry, legislative tweaking and analytic obfuscation overshadowed by hours of commentary, pseudo-expert explanations, theorizations, debate and the morass of fault finding, “We the People” suffer the final consequence of representative failures. When any part of our representative government fails us, we fail ourselves. “We the People” are responsible for our democracy.

It is unfortunate that events as the I-35 bridge collapse blur among the many other concerns and failures to address critical issues such as the health care, education, economic and security interests of Americans. In a democratic republic, we trust that our values are invested to serve the needs of the people; however, when there is a failure to address the formative basis of our government, the failure is our own if we are to accept responsibility in our democracy. We must accept the responsible to preserve our democracy by engagement in the democratic process.

Our elected representatives are responsible to “We the People.” If the democracy we share does not match the democracy that serves us, we can only look to ourselves for the answer. “We the People” must come first in the thought of democratic government. For far too long our politics have been given priority over our interests, but then we are responsible for that as well.

A Proper Dialogue

2007-07-26T19:35:00.000-07:00

With election year 2008 ahead, it must be suggested politicos seek a level of dialogue based on verifiable facts and simple courtesy. On this basis we may be spared from irrationally flawed comparisons as drawn between political parties and heinous historic regimes. I believe it is appropriate to advance the concept that such speech no longer belongs in our language as Americans. The fact that such words appear at all is disconcerting unless noted for the viscerally prejudicial level of ignorance and bigotry entailed in their comparative use.

I fully believe in the highest level of political discourse and debate. It is in this manner only that our democratic republic is possible. I acknowledge that some historic events may be subject to question; however, there are fundamental differences between democratic beliefs and the totalitarian regime of Adolf Hitler. By “totalitarian regime” is referenced a national population mobilized to support state sponsored ideologies intolerant of opinions not directed toward state goals. It may be noted that such regimes were sustained by single party control, control of business, repression of labor unions, restrictions on education, religious beliefs, religious practices, free discussion and abusive privacy violations by state sponsored surveillance.

I suggest totalitarianism is inherently abhorrent to our beliefs as Americans. I am proud that Democratic ideals include recognizing the innate dignity of each person, efforts to care for the poor and sick, a respectful tolerance of considered opinions, support of business, labor unions, education for all, religious freedoms and the protection of individual privacy.

The use of abjectly prejudicial terms that entail disdainful historic references reveals a level of bigotry that should be as much a source for concern as Islamic terrorists. Perhaps the most important part of our dialogue as Americans is to begin with the very strongest presumption that each citizen of our country is a vital part of our society. We must be compelled to seek and reach the highest level of debate critical to our celebration of the freedoms we hold dear. We must start with the belief that each person, regardless of political party affiliation, if any, holds their individual freedoms and love of country at the very heart of their patriotic beliefs. On this basis, we can invite our American dialogue to begin again.

John F. Kostyo, Proud American and Democrat

Not Politically Correct - Damn

2007-05-27T09:48:00.000-07:00

Thank God, with my apologies to the Almighty, that we have become “politically correct.” The term “politically correct” is defined as language or behavior intended to minimize offense while conforming to considerations of civility in debate on public policy and issues.

A day does not go by without a friend providing me with some statement, cartoon or story about political correctness. My Christmas and other holidays are enriched by emails about the use of acceptable terms when expressing seasonal greetings. I actually enjoy this whimsical consideration of my friends.

I have problems with political correctness. At home and elsewhere, rather than suggesting a news story is “pure unadulterated bull $#*!,” I am forced to suggest it merely “challenges credible truth.” Rather than state that brain matter has been substituted with other substances in the course of neurological surgery, I am forced to allow comments as an “alternate opinion.” Political correctness requires the diminution of other references to the extent that comments of sub-literate representatives are allowed to pass as credible sources for factual reference without review of actual facts.

At times, with particular reference to certain elected officials or issues, this ordeal reaches a crescendo of explicative statements with words deleted to such an extent that the result is all but unintelligible gibberish. Of course, my family and friends are spared from a barrage of words and the considerable risk that the Almighty may wish to end my comments with an independent intervening lightening bolt.

What is lost in political correctness is a tolerance that allows for factual inaccuracy and the absence of logical rigor. In exchange we are exposed to a level of sophistry that would challenge Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. When news sources are not held to account, political correctness allows editorialists and reporters to use questionable facts and assertions that blur news with opinion in a quagmire akin to animal waste storage ponds.

We should demand more. The question is whether our news sources could actually rise to that aspiration and whether we could decipher the difference. Perhaps political correctness does have a purpose other than civility.

Historic References for the War Funding Debate

2007-05-01T18:55:00.000-07:00

With April 2007 as one of the deadliest months for US Forces in Iraq after declaration that “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” (White House Press Release, May 1, 2003), perhaps it is time to get some concepts straight. Informed debate calls for some understanding about the roles of the President and Congress. I respectfully suggest that a view offered without understanding of our constitutional process is little more than gibberish.

First, I suggest full reading of The Spirit of Laws (Montesquieu, 1748); James Madison’s Essays No. 47 and 51 and Alexander Hamilton’s Essay No. 69 in The Federalist, and at last The United States Constitution (Debates at Convention are optional.) To address the balance of Executive and Legislative power without historic reference is disingenuous.

As a matter of substantive constitutional law, the President may not wage war without congressional approval. This has been the case since the very outset of our nation. Article 1, Section 8 (11) gives Congress the power to declare war. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall wrote in 1801: “The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in Congress. . .” Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cr. 1 (1801), cited as authority in Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U.S. 1304 (1973). In 1973, Mr. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in Talbot “In my judgment, nothing in the 172 years since those words were written alter[s] that fundamental constitutional postulate. . .”

In summary: The Civil War ended by Presidential Proclamation. WW I ended by Joint Declaration of Congress. WW II ended by German Instrument of Surrender, May 7, 1945/July 5, 1945 and The U.S. – Japan Peace Treaty of 1951, ratified by the U.S. Senate. The Korean war “ended” by armistice on July 27, 1953, with no peace treaty. Gerald Ford declared an end to the Vietnam War and termination of all U.S. aid on April 23, 1975. In each event, Congress was intricately involved in the “politics” to terminate the legal state of war. The United States Supreme Court stated that termination of a state of war “is a political act” in Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948).

Article I, section 9 of our Constitutional vests authority in Congress to provide for “the common defense and general welfare.” It is constitutionally appropriate for Congress determine how to fund a war. The President as Commander-in Chief directs the military while funding comes from Congress. Even George Washington understood this balance during the American Revolution. The conflict is inherent and necessary to preserve our constitutional balance. See Hamilton, Federalist No. 69.

Perhaps when we first seek to understand and respect the constitutional balance established by the Founders, the term “patriotism” undertakes a deeper meaning than sophistic posturing. Perhaps adding some historic and constitutional intelligence will result in a more considered view. Perhaps, not.

The Importance of Being Imus

2007-04-11T14:31:00.000-07:00

The words spoken by Don Imus in reference to the Rutgers University Women's Basketball Team were wrong. The words, the concepts communicated of women through the words are reprehensible. The words spoken by Imus have no place in the course of human speech. In a choice of words, each person who heard or hears words as these is violated. The words violate us - each of us as people. The violation is to our human identity, to who we are and who we must wish to be as living beings. In Don Imus's choice to say or use these words, we are violated and made less for the experience. In the repetition by news sources and others, we must make sure that reporting and over-reporting does not allow any acknowledgment of legitimacy. Perhaps even the culture of Rap Music that uses similar references may find some way to evolve beyond the use of such words.

In the wake of Don Imus's statements, each of us has a choice to say - never again. It is not a matter of forgiveness, that Don Imus can say "I'm sorry." We can say we are or were sorry. There is a permanence in what was said even if we forget exactly what was said. In this, we may not be able to purge the words that were said from our consciousness because words that violate cannot be purged. We can seek to raise ourselves above what was said, heal ourselves and seek healing of each person we meet within that space in which we live our lives. We can and must make a commitment to force words and concepts out or our vocabulary and life experience. There are words and concepts that are deserving of extinction - we must add these.

With great regret, perhaps we have some need for words and events like Don Imus that make it necessary for each of us to stop - in shock, in a sense of anger and astonishment, take a step closer to that creature we seek to become and who we may wish to recognize as a human being. If Imus has any importance, it must be as a reminder - it is not what was done or said, but what we chose to do now that will make the difference.

Post Election - Thanks and Appreciation

2006-11-10T16:52:00.000-08:00

The words "Thank You" are all too brief to express the deep gratitude that I express to my family and all who helped in this campaign. We worked hard and found great success in our focus on issues. I am proud of our efforts and those who joined in the effort. We took many big steps toward building an orginazition. Many friendships were made and will continue. In a few words -

To all who helped - my thanks
To all who believed - my thanks
To all who encouraged - my thanks
To all who contributed - my thanks
To all who cared - we cared together
To all the needs realized - we share the realization
To all who worked - we worked together
To all who spoke up - we joined voices
We each grew and are better people for the journey
We take each moment - we begin again

2008 started yesterday - time to get started - all best - jfk

Kostyo Awarded "Friend of Agriculture" by OFBF

2006-09-01T11:15:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 28, 2006

John Kostyo Gains OFBF “Friend of Agriculture” Designation

(Columbus, Ohio) The Ohio Farm Bureau Federation (OFBF), the state’s largest farm organization, today announced that John Kostyo, Democratic Candidate for the 76th Ohio House District, has gained the coveted “Friend of Agriculture” award for supporting agriculture and agribusiness.

“I am humbled and overwhelmed to receive this honor,” Kostyo said. “With deep family ties in farming, I know that agriculture is Ohio’s primary industry, and understand the critical responsibility that lawmakers must accept to protect and strengthen agribusiness in our state.”

“One in seven jobs in Ohio is related to agriculture” said Jack Fisher, OFBF executive vice president. “When lawmakers support agriculture, they are supporting an $80 billion per year industry. They are helping provide jobs, economic development and affordable food for Ohioans.”

Fisher explained that about 80 of 99 Ohio House members and 12 of 17 campaigning Senate members received the “Friend of Agriculture” designation this year. He said that legislators were rated on overall support of agriculture, specific votes on bills such as eminent domain and ethanol, as well as support of local Farm Bureau activities.

John Kostyo’s experience with agriculture varies with all those matters that are faced by a lawyer who represents an extended farm family. He has assisted in groundhog “removal” and obtained recoveries on grain certificates; engaged in negotiations and acquisitions involving farm properties; addressed and resolved issues dealing with animal waste; building and equipment rentals; aggressive efforts to acquire farm property for private commercial development; resolved EPA concerns involving herbicide spills and fuel spills; dealt with various farm insurance claims and estate planning considerations. As a result of these experiences, John Kostyo understands the many pressing issues facing family farms.

“I hope to represent the interests of farmers, agri-business and agbiosciences in the 76th Ohio House District,” said Kostyo. Before we can have a second or third frontier, we must make sure that our first – agriculture – is on solid footing.”

“In each of the villages and communities that are in our district, we enjoy affordable home-grown foods that nourish us and are vital to Ohio. We need to focus on policies that protect and promote agriculture. This is a jobs issue. Agriculture is a way of life for many Ohioans and an industry indispensable to our daily lives.”

CPA Questions and Answers

2006-08-24T14:08:00.000-07:00

Recently, The Ohio Society of Certified Public Accountants provided questions on topics of importance to CPAs and the business community, the following are my responses:

1. In legislation pertinent to the working papers of private CPA firms performing audits of publicly funded entities subject to open records laws, I would support legislation requiring retention of working papers for a reasonable period of time. This is a step under full disclosure at all times as has been proposed. In the event a claim arises that specifically requires reference to the working papers, memoranda and related documents, I suggest these should be subject to in camera review and inspection by an appropriate judge or magistrate before other use. I believe there should be a balance that favors disclosure while maintaining the professional integrity of the CPA firm conducting the audit. Further, this will allow the audit to be conducted in a cost effective manner while preserving potential evidence in the case of alleged illegal activity within the publicly funded entity.

2. I would not support expanding the Ohio sales tax to include professional accounting, tax audit and consulting services.

3. I would support creating a CPA/client testimonial privilege to ensure the CPA, unless fraud is involved, could not be forced by subpoena to reveal verbal discussions (and notes regarding those conversations but no other written documents) with clients.

4. Do you support the new broad based, low rate Commercial Activity Tax?

No. I support a fair and balanced tax on commercial activity. I believe that the basic premise of a low rate Commercial Activity Tax is a good idea that needs to find enactment in good legislation. The critical balance to the CAT direction must be found in responsible and controlled state spending. The phasing out of franchise, personal income and tangible personal property taxes creates a more inviting framework of business tax laws for the state of Ohio. In the balance, the state must exercise monetary restraint to take advantage of these business tax changes. If manufacturing is to return to the State of Ohio, the state must act with fiscal responsibility.

It is now well recognized that the CAT does not apply equally to all business. It is particularly harsh on general contractors and merchants who have high commercial activities in contracts or sales with a high cost of goods, labor or materials involved in the activity. Moreover, if a business suffers a loss, it is administratively difficult or fails to account for lost business income.

I do not favor caving out industry exceptions or tax credits to the CAT, but believe some of the internal statutory language may be modified to allow enforcement of a business tax that is perceived as fair for all impacted business without complex credits or exceptions.

5. State Spending: If you could cut state spending, where would you begin and why?

I believe the first way to cut state spending would be to require all contractors who seek to perform services for the state or its agencies bid competitively on the work. I have practiced law in firms that performed work for the Ohio Attorney General. The work was preformed by associates who charged the state substantially more than may be charged by other firms. I believe that allowing competitive bidding by qualified firms would save our taxpayers millions of dollars each year. I suggest that those firms that seek state contract work deserve to make a reasonable profit while serving the public. At the same time, the public served should not be exploited by non-competitive fees.

The next area in which I believe state spending may be cut is by making our administrative agencies more efficient in procedures, requiring their conversion to acceptance of electronic documents as now done with some federal agencies and a reduction in the number of non-substantive filings and hearings. This would save the agencies time and expense while allowing those who deal with them to engage in more substantive matters.

As an elected representative, I would seek to find means to simplify administrative demands and procedures while maintaining a respect for substantive rights. I believe that we
can seek higher levels of efficiencies from our business and social agencies while allowing better service to the citizens of our state.

6. Do you support the new statutory cap on state spending that resets the spending cap every fourth year at 3.5 percent of the prior ceiling (Senate Bill 321)?

I do not support tax and expenditure limitations in our state. I believe these measures are traps cloaked in political gimmickry. I believe self control is always better than legal or legislated control. As a result, I strongly favor self-imposed aggressive tax and expenditure restraints. I am also concerned that the rapid substitution of legislation for what appeared to be an ill advised and badly worded TEL amendment to the Ohio Constitution will result in lengthy litigation about applications, definitions and unresolved but necessary interpretations. I question whether such legislation will truly serve the citizens of our state and a desire for new business and economic progress.

7. What are the main priorities you will focus on as a member of the 127th Ohio General Assembly?

The main priority that I will focus on as a member of the 127th Ohio General Assembly is to restore investment in business and job growth in our state. Without continued investment in new business and jobs, Ohio will continue to suffer the exodus of it citizens to more promising states. I have proposed a plan called “Ohio First” that requires the funds held by our state agencies to be re-invested in business in our state. Ohio First is a plan to invest Ohio resources in business that invests in Ohio.

Second, I have stated that education is essential for the future of our state. This state must make the funding of education a priority. So often we say that our children are our future; however, it only appears that our children do not see their own futures in the State of Ohio. I believe that in education we find the singular key to open the door to Ohio’s future. I also believe that we must create an environment of cooperation between business and education that allows a promise of good jobs and prospects that gives each successive generation a reason to invest their lives and futures in our state. I believe that we must seek to educate each child from pre-school to the highest level of education each can achieve. In our state, we need the talents of many diverse people with as much respect given for good working people as those who excel at math and science. With this said, if we make educational funding a singular priority, we make every thing else fall in line.

8. In your opinion, what separates you from your opponent(s) (i.e. philosophical and/or background)? Why should Ohio CPS’s support your candidacy?

The primary difference that separates me from my opponent is experience. I have engaged in civil law practice representing business interests for nearly 25 years. I have taught college classes in Contracts and Negotiable Instruments for over 15 years at The University of Findlay. My legal practice has required experience in regulatory work; statutory and case law
interpretation; litigation; contracts and dispute resolution. I am pleased to have successfully argued several landmark cases before the Ohio Supreme Court and Ohio Courts of Appeal. I have successfully litigated hundreds of cases, prepared the documentation necessary to complete and closed real estate, business, commercial loan and multi-million dollar merger transactions. Much of this work has required the successful coordination of applicable law with accounting professionals. This is particularly important in preparing and advising in business formation, audits, merger and acquisition work. I have experience in business with businesses. My opponent has no noted business or legal experience.

Second, I believe my focus and understanding of economic issues critical to the 76th Ohio House District and the State of Ohio separate me from my opponent. I have proposed “Ohio First” as a plan for the investment of Ohio funds into Ohio business. In borrowing from a supply side economic model, my first effort is to allow investment in business and job growth. Growth will allow the good working people in a working state to get to work. Business and Job growth will invite workers to our state and serve as an incentive for our children to invest their futures in Ohio. The growth appreciated will bring more funds into commercial activity and wages that will, in cycle, allow responsible tax money paid to the state. This money can be used to restore education, service and balance to our state budget.

Third, my philosophy of government separates me from my opponent. I believe in a government dedicated to the recognition and preservation of unalienable rights is the purpose for government. The purpose for government is to protect individual rights and serve people. This view places a focus on individuals and service to individual needs that includes support for business owners and those who work for them. When I combine my skills from years of law practice, experience and desire to serve the interests of the citizens in the 76th Ohio House District, I believe that through my representation, people my District will feel they have a strong, balanced and fair voice in Columbus

AARP Candidate Questionnaire - Kostyo Answers

2006-08-23T13:16:00.000-07:00

LONG TIME CARE:

I strongly support redirecting funding from nursing homes to home and community based services.

I learned valued lessons about the importance of personal independence years ago in the course of my mother’s care for her mother, and later while caring for my mother. I understand that “home” has a significant and critical meaning of security for our aging parents and seniors. The ability of an individual to remain in their home serves as a continued guarantee of independence for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are the unalienable rights central to our Declaration of Independence and continue in meaning when not forfeited as we age by removal to nursing home care.

I support every effort to provide home and community base services like PASSPORT funded by Medicaid. These programs save invaluable individual independence and personal dignity that cannot be found in the very best nursing home facilities. Moreover, I believe PASSPORT and similar programs are a valid stewardship that save tax dollars in Ohio.

PRESCRIPTION DRUG AFFORDABILITY:

I strongly support establishing evidence based research to compare drug effectiveness.

To restore “health care” as our “care for health,” we must fully restore the dynamic of patient-doctor relationships. We must fully empower doctors to actively address and follow the care of their patients. All too often, patients’ services and prescription drugs are directed, if not dictated, by health insurance providers. Often, this means that prescriptions are issued for newer and usually far more expensive drugs.

I support empowering our state to take every competitive approach available that will allow doctors to prescribe the correct drug that can be obtained at the most competitive price. Our states must pool every resource to exercise strong purchasing power for bulk purchases of prescription drugs.

I believe we should eliminate every border or barrier, international or otherwise, that allows for the purchase of prescription drugs at the most competitive price available from drug manufacturers.

When we save on the cost for prescription drugs, we reduce the state cost for Medicaid. I see this as my duty when elected as a steward of our public trust.

HEALTH CARE:

I strongly support empowering state government to play an active role to insure that every Ohioan has access to adequate and affordable health care.

I believe we must direct and empower individuals to take active responsibility for their personal health. Common sense directs that healthy people at each age will require less medical attention and less medical cost from our health care system. As a responsible first step in a transition from our present “health care” system to a prospective or “care for health” system, we must direct and reward physicians and health care providers to practice preventive medicine. I strongly support requiring health care providers to reimburse for preventive medical expenses.

Whether by a system as recently adopted in Massachusetts or as proposed by United States Senator John Kerry, we must see that every American citizen and every citizen of this state has coverage for their health and care.

Endorsements - With Great Thanks

2006-08-15T16:58:00.000-07:00

It is a pleasure for me to share the great news of receiving endorsements and the considerate thoughtfulness of those who have taken the time and effort to engage in the process.

First, I must thank the National Association of Social Workers, Ohio Chapter, and the political action committee (PACE) for their endorsement. Social workers are critical to the many services and family supports on which our communities rely. More, social workers are daily involved in the recognition and protection of the most basic civil rights promised by our laws and Constitution. I am pleased to welcome the support and involvement of NASW Ohio members in my campaign and as experts on a range of social policy issues.

I am equally pleased to accept the endorsement of the Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE/AFSCME Local 4/AFL-CIO). OAPSE is more than 38,000 working men and women who daily perform services of our schools, Head Start programs, MMRD's and libraries in Ohio.

With equal enthusiasm I am pleased to accept the endorsement of the Ohio State Building and Construction Trades Counsel for their endorsement of my candidacy as State Representative for the 76th District. These trades are fundamental to a vision of rebuilding Ohio from within with living wage jobs and skilled workers whose labor is the pillar on which our communities are based.

Once again, my thanks. I look forward to the insights and assistance that I have received. I look forward to serving the great people of my District and this State.

Protecting Second Amendment Rights - Guns and Fly Rods

2006-07-07T14:22:00.000-07:00

While visiting the many villages and communities that are the 76th Ohio House District, a commonly asked question is where I stand on the 2nd Amendment. Where am I with guns? The answer is easy: The United States Constitution, the highest law of our country preserves and protects the right of law-abiding Americans to own firearms.

As a gun owner and hunter, I strongly support the rights of law-abiding Americans to own and keep their firearms in their homes. I believe as a gun owner, I have a duty to own and use firearms with care and conscious responsibility. While the firearms owned at the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted have changed, the basic right of Americans to own firearms remains a hallmark of our American freedoms. I value and support this freedom.

As a member of the NRA, Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever, I believe that responsible gun ownership includes a balanced respect for wildlife and the preservation of our wildlife habitat. As the local chair for the Findlay Chapter of Ducks Unlimited for several years, I am proud of the many dollars raised and invested to preserve Ohio wetlands. As a member of Pheasants Forever, I feel a sense of pride when driving past acreage reclaimed and preserved as wildlife habitat.

So – you may consider that I am a 2nd Amendment – Gun Owning – Hunting – Tree Hugger.

I also enjoy fly fishing – not that it is protected through an amendment to our Constitution, but I would not mean to offend sporting anglers. Hold up your fly rods proudly!

Farm Bureau - Questions and Answers

2006-06-23T08:12:00.000-07:00

Recently, I have received a Farm Bureau questionnaire. As a Farm Bureau member, I am pleased to provide the questions and my responses.

1. If you are elected in November, what will your top two or three priorities be as a new legislator?

My first priority is to restore growth to jobs and business in Ohio through my “Ohio First” plan or similar efforts. Second, I will seek to give our public school funding and education a clear focus and direction for educational programs and professionals. Third, I will seek to cooperate in the development of a comprehensive energy plan to increase investment, production and use of biofuels in our state. I also believe there is a great need to return funding to agricultural research to address beneficial uses of animal waste, including energy conversion programs.

2. The economic contribution of agriculture in Ohio is significant. What role do you see agriculture playing in Ohio’s future. In general, what experience have you had with agriculture.

I believe agriculture will continue to play a significant role in the future of Ohio particularly with a re-newed focus on biofuels. I believe that agriculture and agribusiness will play a key role in Ohio’s future through increased farm operations, crops and market opportunities that address emerging needs.

My wife is a farm girl whose family still farms in Seneca and Crawford Counties. She continues to maintain an active interest in family farm operations and ownership of farm ground. I am not a farmer. My experience with agriculture varies with all those matters that are faced by a lawyer who represents an extended farm family where each family member offers their own skills to the whole enterprise. I have assisted in groundhog extermination; recoveries on grain certificates; land negotiations and acquisitions involving farm properties; issues including animal waste; building and equipment rentals; aggressive efforts to acquire farm property for private commercial development; EPA concerns involving herbicide spills and fuel spills; dealing with various farm insurance claims and estate planning considerations. I need only go home to know there are many pressing issues facing family farms.

3. One of the most prominent issues for farmers in Ohio is the regulation of the livestock industry. The Ohio Department of Agriculture’s (ODA) permitting process is one of the strongest and most comprehensive in the country. What is your knowledge of the ODA permitting process? What are the most important challenges facing the livestock industry in Ohio?

I have read a great deal about the ODA permit process. I am familiar with and have dealt directly with legal issues pertinent to hog operations. I believe the most important challenges facing the livestock industry in Ohio is dealing aggressively with concerns about animal waste. I believe that if animal waste can be converted to beneficial uses such as energy or other materials that may be looked upon as a resource, a great deal of the concerns about large livestock operations may be alleviated. I believe that the challenge of the livestock industry in Ohio is to anticipate difficult issues and meet each potential criticism with a positive contribution to the state and people who live in Ohio.

4. An important issue facing elected officials in Ohio is farmland preservation. What direction do you see Ohio going with respect to farmland preservation? Would you support increasing state funding of farmland easements?

I am concerned about the preservation of family farms in Ohio. The farms that I am most familiar with, while significant in acres are still family farms. I understand that much can be done with a few hundred acres of farm land; however, unless the land is used for specialized crops or concentrated livestock operations, maintaining the acreage may not be practical or cost effective. I also understand that smaller farm operations are increasingly pressured by larger operations when competing for land to expand. As farming becomes more competitive, it may only be expected that interests will compete for the same land with the prospect that the owner with the most to gain will also invest the most in expansion. I believe there must be some active support over the next several years to assist family farmers to remain in business. I would strongly consider farmland easements or other zoning measures as factors in the assistance of a complete agricultural economic plan that includes tax and fuel incentives to assist family farmers and farm operations.

5. Would you agree that one of the state’s top priorities in the next General Assembly will be developing a comprehensive energy plan including increased use and production of biofuels, including ethanol and biodiesel?

Yes, I would suggest that one of the state’s top priorities for the past several terms of the General Assembly should have been the development of a comprehensive energy plan that includes biofuels, including ethanol and biodiesel. At the same level of priorities is the investment in agrifuel research to convert animal waste into usable fuel resources. Through research we can develop biofuel efficiencies competitive with petroleum based fuels.

I also favor the investment of state funds into research and engineering that will allow more efficient and effective use of technologies in planting and harvesting our crops. This includes using GPS plotting of fields and calculating the most efficient ways to run equipment to realize substantial fuel savings and greater crop yields. These technologies are here today and need to be expanded to their full potential.

6. A recent United State Supreme Court decision approved of a taking of private property for economic development by another private individual. In response, the Ohio General Assembly appointed a task force to study and clarify Ohio’s eminent domain law. Should the definition of “public use” in the eminent domain law be defined to include the taking of private property for economic development that benefits another individual?

I respectfully suggest that simply changing the definition of “public use” in the eminent domain laws of Ohio will not fully limit eminent domain laws from being used to include the taking of private property from economic development.

I believe that the use of eminent domain must be absolutely limited to a minimal level of government taking when necessary for new roads, schools and infrastructure. I do not believe the state should have any role in seizing private property to assist changes in ownership merely to accommodate private economic development. Simple common sense reveals a vast difference between a taking of private property for necessary public use and property used in private development.

My family was directly affected by the abusive use of eminent domain in a seizure of property. Elected governmental officials acted in the most crass and reprehensible manner without any reason. At times, simply the effort to stand up to defend owning property subject to eminent domain interests was questioned by elected representatives as un-patriotic. It is difficult to imagine this in a free and democratic society that values private investment in property; but, I do know this has been done in a number of cases as an effective way to assert undue pressure on land owners.

These experiences allow me to understand that we must change existing laws and re-direct our courts to focus on the critical importance of preserving private property as a Constitutional Right in the State of Ohio. At this time, the judicial presumptions in our state do not appreciably favor the preservation of private property interests in the context of eminent domain proceedings. Simply changing the definition of “public use” is not sufficient when viewed in the context of how cases are actually litigated.

It is my position that a public need must be shown to justify a public taking of property. If a taking is necessary, then the actual economic value of the property must be considered to compensate property owners before the taking can be justified. Far too often, property owners, particularly farm families, lose valuable property to allow for future governmental expansions rather than address current needs. Once private property is lost, its value is lost for generations. We must make sure that if property is taken, the property lost is dedicated to serve the public for generations or the taking cannot be justified. We must make sure that the taking of property is not done to assist private developers to realize indirectly what they cannot do directly.

7. How do you think the legislature should approach the challenge of funding K-12 education as well as higher education and research?

First, education must be approached as a priority rather than simply another budgetary segment. I have suggested that if we demand our state government to act with the same stewardship and efficiency as we expect of modern farms, this would contribute substantially to producing funds for public education. We must seek to educate each child from pre-school to the highest level of education each can achieve. I believe a great fault of our civic and political leaders has been to discuss education without a deep respect for the work of our teachers and the teaching profession. I would also suggest that many times, education is discussed as in academic study only in contrast to the practical skills necessary to operate equipment and maintain a farm operation.

The challenge of education is one of respect. We cannot expect to educate every child to become a nuclear or computer engineer. We can educate each child to accomplish the highest level of their individual potential. We must make the task of education one that makes sense to the people involved and fund them with the resources to accomplish the task.

Next, I believe we must relieve our property from the burden of funding public education. It does not make any sense for politicians to say they have reduced our income or personal property taxes only to find even greater burdens in local school levies and increased county sales taxes. We must follow the directions of the Ohio Supreme Court and relieve property from the burden of funding education. The fair way to fund education is a proportionate and balanced income tax. We can reduce property taxes and allow our teachers and educators to return to education rather than levy fund raisers. We all share an interest in the education of our children, each person, business and investor in our state. It is only fair that we share in the investment of our children’s future and the future of our state.

8. Why should the Farm Bureau support your candidacy?

I believe my background that combines civil, commercial and property law; representation of financial and business interests and agriculture gives me a unique and broad view with a practically understanding to represent issues important to Farm Bureau members. I have a long record of supporting business interests through nearly 25 years in civil law practice. Over that time, I have represented many farm families in difficult circumstances, resolved land issues and estates. My direct family focus on farm operations has helped me understand the ideas and concerns that face farm families. When I combine my skills from years of law practice, experience and desire to serve the interests of the citizens in the 76th Ohio House District, I can only think that through my representation the members of the Farm Bureau will feel they have a strong and fair voice in Columbus.

Thank you -

Border v. Homeland Security

2006-05-16T11:31:00.000-07:00

With all respect, I suggest the discussion about securing the borders of our country is misplaced. By public statements, our political leaders appear to give substantial attention to our border with Mexico and wink at Canada. While there is a critical problem with “illegals immigrants” crossing borders, our focus fails to acknowledge the actual issue of our homeland security. Once again, we miss the point.

The 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks came into our country through a security checkpoint system that they had analyzed and knew how to defeat. “The 9/11 Commission Report” reveals narratives about how the 19 al Qaeda operatives could have been watch listed; presented passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner; presented passports with suspicious indicators of extremism and made detectable false statements on Visa applications. Each of the 19 operatives made false statements to border officials to gain entry into the United States. Each of the 19 operatives violated immigration laws while in the United States. None of these 19 operatives were stopped.

I believe the American people do still remember how we felt on 9/11. It is time to target terrorist travel; invest in intelligence and security strategies that engage the lessons learned from 9/11. There are millions of illegal people who come into this country with passports and visa’s. They are now lost in America with little risk of detection. Let us pay these “illegals” the attention we failed to give before 9/11.

Perhaps sending “illegals immigrants” back to their country of origin provides a sense of comfort and feeling of success in short term political problem solving. Yet, these actions cannot be accepted as a responsible defense of our national security. There is a genuine difference between a person who violates our borders to become an illegal worker and an individual who enters our country illegally for purposes of commiting terrorist acts. We must recognize the difference in the enactment and administration of our border security laws. It is time our political leaders attend to necessary specialization in an integrated national security workforce; meaningful inter-agency cooperation and assurance that we have developed an institutional structure with sufficient expertise in intelligence and real security.

As a people, we cannot solve actual problems by allowing ourselves to be distracted by partial solutions that do not address the lessons left. Perhaps, with great regret, the lesson that should be learned from 9/11 has yet to be acknowledged and it is just easier to look south.

Thanks - The May 2nd Primary

2006-05-11T15:53:00.000-07:00

I offer my sincere thanks for all who took the time and effort to write my name in as the Democratic Candidate for the 76th Ohio House District. With each person I have met while visiting neighborhoods, events and organizations, I realize the great desire for change in the course of our state government. I believe there is a great desire in our district to return the purpose and focus of our government to the people.

The focus of my campaign is to address and serve the needs of people who live in the 76th Ohio House District. We have a district diverse in people, communities and pursuits but united in the necessity to find a single future. I see our future in the proud wisdom of our past acknowledgement that "In God, All things are Possible." We are called to begin again to make what is possible a part of our every day lives. We can and must do this -

Once again, my thanks to all who have supported me to this point and a focus on the great opportunity ahead. John F. Kostyo

Statements on the Issues

2006-05-11T15:21:00.000-07:00

Agriculture: My first plan to serve agriculture in the 76th District is to take the demands made on our farm families and apply them to our state government. We must take those values that allow stewardship of the land and place them into a stewardship of public trust. In this, I believe we must demand that our state government operate in an ever increasing efficient and cost effective manner.

A first step to accomplish this would be to require firms that seek to conduct business with the state engage in competitive bidding for the work. If we demand competition at every state level from those outside firms that seek to do business with the state we will realize a savings of millions in our state budget.

I strongly favor efforts to expedite the development and production of alternate fuels in our District that pass cost savings to our agri-business. These fuels include soy diesel, ethanol and other bio-fuels.

I favor the investment of state funds into research and engineering that will allow more efficient and effective use of technologies in planting and harvesting our crops. This includes using GPS plotting of fields and calculating the most efficient ways to run equipment to realize fuel savings and greater crop yields. These technologies are here today and need to be expanded to their full potential.

Eminent Domain: I believe that the use of eminent domain must be absolutely limited to a minimal level of government taking when necessary for new roads, schools and infrastructure. I do not believe the state should have any role in seizing private property to assist changes in ownership merely to assist private economic development. Simple common sense reveals a vast difference between a taking of private property for necessary public use and property used in private development.

My family was directly affected by the abusive use of eminent domain in a seizure of property. Elected governmental officials acted in the most crass and reprehensible manner without any reason. This experience allowed me to understand that we must change existing laws and re-direct our courts to focus on the critical importance of preserving private property as a Constitutional Right in the State of Ohio. At this time, the judicial presumptions in our state do not appreciably favor the preservation of private property interests in the context of eminent domain proceedings.

It is my position that a public need must be shown to justify a public taking of property. If a taking is necessary, then the actual economic value of the property must be considered to compensate property owners before the taking can be justified. Far too often, property owners lose valuable property to allow for future governmental expansions rather than address current needs. Once private property is lost, its value is lost for generations.We must make sure that if property is taken, the property lost is dedicated to serve the public for generations or the taking cannot be justified. We must make sure that the taking of property is not done to assist private developers to realize indirectly what they cannot do directly.

Tax Expenditure Limitations: I do not support tax and expenditure limitations in our state. These measures are traps cloaked in political gimmickry. I believe self control is always better than legal control. As a result, I strongly favor self-imposed aggressive tax and expenditure restraints. It is a sad statement when those who have failed to restrain taxes or spending over years in office somehow suggest voters conceal their irresponsibility and failures under an ill advised and badly worded amendment to our state Constitution.

TEL is a thinly veiled excuse offered to compensate for financial mismanagement and a political spree from years of pay-to-play politics in our state. This political gimmick, from evidence of its disastrous effects in other applications, will result in frivolous lawsuits; expensive special elections and take money from local communities, education, public safety, health care and child protections. Ohio needs real answers for real problems, not proffers that cover Republican mistakes and mismanagement. We need real change in our state now.

Education: This state must make the funding of education a priority. We must return professional respect and esteem to teachers and the teaching profession. My parents were teachers, my wife is a teacher, my sisters are teachers and I taught at the University of Findlay for over 15 years. While education and the teaching profession may be good political sport, most professional teachers have far more education than many of our esteemed politicians.In education we find the singular key to open the door to Ohio’s future.

We must seek to educate each child from pre-school to the highest level of education each can achieve. I believe a great fault of our civic and political leaders has been to discuss education without a deep respect for the work of our teachers and the teaching profession.We must remember that there should be as much respect for the professional who builds our schools and those who teach there; as much respect for those who plant our crops as those who process and serve us; we need to return respect to good working people as much those who excel at math and science. With this said, if we make educational funding a budgetary priority, we make every thing else fall in line.

Next, I believe we must relieve our property from the burden of funding public education. It does not make any sense for politicians to say they have reduced our income or personal property taxes only to find even greater burdens in local school levies and increased county sales taxes. We must follow the directions of the Ohio Supreme Court and relieve property from the burden of funding education. The fair way to fund education is a proportionate and balanced income tax. We can reduce property taxes and allow our teachers and educators to return to education rather than levy fund raisers. We all share an interest in the education of our children, each person, business and investor in our state. It is only fair that we share in the investment of our children’s future and the future of our state.

We must fund demands on education, find meaningful ways to measure the effectiveness of our schools and reward students and educators for superior efforts. I would support an end to voucher programs and charter schools that seek public money but are not subject to the same standards or demands as our public schools. These devices are clear evidence of the pay-to-play benefits derived from the corrupt Taft political culture. If a school falls below educational standards, I suggest using teams of experienced educational professionals who can go to the subject school or system, assess and determine reasons and needs then assist the school or system return to the level of education we want our state to achieve.

Health Care Reform: Our economy has hit a firm wall which necessitates responsible and focused reform to the manner and scope of health care. A basic level of health care must be considered a right of every citizen of our state and our country. No person should be left without the medical care, prescription drugs or preventive care necessary to maintain their lives. Small investments in preventive care can save costly visits to emergency rooms and prevent extended hospitalization.

As a society, we must recognize that the cost of extending basic health care to every citizen preserves life, liberty and allows all the pursuit of happiness. No person should be forced to choose between eating, paying rents or mortgages or paying for medical costs and prescription drugs. I suggest that providing a minimum level of health care to all our citizens will result in a far healthier population in our state with children and adults less dependent on emergency care when they do not have health coverage and then forced to file bankruptcy when they could not pay for the costs.

Ohio First - Economics and Jobs: The most important issue facing our state is the growth of business and jobs. We have an incredible range of opportunities in our state and it is time we seek to realize these dreams. My plan is called “Ohio First.” We must ask ourselves why in a state seeking business investment and growth, would we invest money somewhere other than back into the people and business who earned and paid that money? No farmer would plant seeds in another field hoping to realize a crop they could not harvest. We must become good stewards of our own resources and use those resources to realize our future.

If we want to grow business in Ohio, we must invest in ourselves. The very thought that Ohio fund managers would allow the investment of $215 million in an off shore hedge fund is incredible. Our first consideration for investment of Ohio dollars must be in Ohio. Even if that money is lost, the investment would create jobs and growth for the people and business who matter most right here at home. We are all too well aware that the sum of $215 was invested and lost in an off shore hedge fund. I believe that investing in Ohio First is far better than losing the money in Bermuda or the Bahamas.

It is possible to find some entertainment in Bob Taft's approval of his friend’s speculation in collectable coins. Collecting rare coins, stamps and baseball cards may be a lot of fun. My preference is for baseball cards and autographed baseballs. But these hobbies cannot be the place were Ohio Fund dollars are invested. Yet the amount of $50 million dollars of Workers Compensation funds was invested in rare coins. Of the $50 million dollars invested in rare coins, it appears some $13 million dollars got diverted with many thousands paid to Republican politicians. This money would go a long way if loaned to Ohio business entities for growth and repaid at market rate interest. Market rate interest is far better than the 2.5 % rate in which these funds are presently invested. Further, the 1 billion dollars reported lost in the form of potential investment returns during the last decade by relying on sub par investment managers for Ohio funds, as reported by the Oversight Commission, would go a long way to re-vitalizing business in Ohio.From this, comes “Ohio First.”

As the people and businesses invested in Ohio every day, why shouldn't Ohioans get the first preference for the investment of Ohio dollars - Ohio fund dollars - or at least a large part of the $15.7 or so billion dollars just in the Ohio Workers' Compensation fund. We can invest these dollars in new fuel resources like soy-diesel or ethanol or hydrogen fuel cells; new technology for business products, invite new business that promise family wage jobs and invite our children to return to our communities. These are opportunities we owe to the future of our State.My vision is to begin our future today.

It is time again to proclaim “With God, All Things Are Possible” and time to begin again making what is possible a part of our everyday lives - in Ohio.