A legislative plan to restrict future state government spending won't pack nearly the same punch as the constitutional amendment formerly pushed by J. Kenneth Blackwell, though some groups say it still goes too far.
Had it been in force, the GOP gubernatorial nominee's proposed amendment would have led to $34.1 billion less in state and local government spending from 1994 to 2002, according to the nonpartisan Ohio Legislative Service Commission.
But the new legislative version of his Tax and Expenditure Limitation would have reduced spending by just $11.8 billion over the same period, a Dispatch analysis shows.
The keys to the $22.3 billion difference: The legislature's proposed cap would not limit local government spending, nor would it apply to several parts of the state budget, such as property-tax reimbursements and funding for local governments.
The $11.8 billion reduction still would represent a lot of money, said Scott Borgemenke, chief of staff for Speaker Jon A. Husted.
"There's no doubt this is less restrictive than the initial proposal," he said. "The point of doing this was to get less restrictive."
I bet it was, Scott -- did you ever stop to think that the tax-payers of Ohio cannot afford a "less restrictive" plan?
My point about runaway local spending has been proven -- the road to serfdom leads through your local city council.
Rip up the floor boards and you find where the "Heart of it All" lies bleeding...
NOTE: It's big and I couldn't figure out how to post it, but this Dispatch graph lays out the particulars -- it ain't pretty.