The Dispatch chart Steve referred to shows that from 1994 to 2002 the Initiative TEL would have reduced spending by about $16.4 bil over those 9 years, while the legislative version would have reduced it about $11.8 bil.
I've read the article in full. I'm left to assume that the initiative TEL would have reduced local government expenditures by $17.7 bil, the difference between the $34.1 bil grand total cited in the 2nd paragraph and the $16.4 bil state portion just noted, though the article doesn't specifically say that (very sloppy)
I don't know how many times I need to say this:
- The local portion of TEL was misguided and poorly written.
- Colorado has never had a local TEL and has done fine.
- Local communities have to control their own local spending. Mason shouldn't be letting Ashtabula's voters exercise fiscal control for them, and vice-versa.
So as far as I'm concerned, what is at stake is the $4.6 bil difference AT THE STATE LEVEL between the two TELs. The local part was NEVER going to happen.
That said, I think Ken needs to hold firm on the state part, because the legislators will play all sort of games with spending classifications if the entire state budget isn't brought under TEL.
Oh, and Bob Taft can KMA, just inform everyone that he's voting for Strickland, and get out of the way.