How they vote and if they move.
In elections, millions of Ohioans choose who they believe will best lead their state.
When people decide to move, they use a predetermined set of variables to decide that they want to live somewhere else. These variables can be anything from wanting to live somewhere warmer to wanting to go somewhere where it's easier to get a job.
Recently, we learned Ohio isn't the most attractive state in the union.
Under state law, the General Assembly will be required to adjust congressional boundaries after the 2010 U.S. census. Even though the state is expected to gain population -- it added about 14,600 residents between July 2008 and last July -- Ohio will lose one congressional seat for sure, and probably two, because the 435 seats in the House are apportioned nationally.That's not good.
As a result, the fast-growing states -- Arizona, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina among them -- each will gain a seat in Congress, while states with relatively stagnant population growth, including Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania, each will lose a seat.
Ohio is the only state in jeopardy of losing two seats, according to an analysis of census estimates by The Plain Dealer. It determined that Ohio is 42,753 people short of securing 17 seats in the House.
Less congressional seats = less influence in the federal government. It means fewer Congressmen looking out for the best interests of the great state of Ohio.
In the most recent estimate released earlier this week by the U.S. Census, Ohio's population growth accounted for only 6% of the total growth of the 12 states that encompass the Midwest as defined by the census.
That means with all geographical factors being relatively constant, there are other reasons why Ohioans and Americans as a whole are avoiding Ohio.
These people are voting with their feet.
Ohio needs recharged. It needs revitalized. It needs to be seen as a new symbol of what it made it great for so long - a spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation.
This isn't something that can be fixed with a slogan. Ohio's economy hasn't been jumpstarted by any stimulus. And Green Jobs aren't going to right the ship.
Interestingly enough, two of the top five growing states, Texas and Florida, are states without an income tax. Some like to characterize the idea of eliminating Ohio's income tax as extreme. Well, those voting with their feet seem to disagree. Perhaps a more fair tax system has made these states more attractive. Because one thing is for sure, their weather sure hasn't changed.
This from a blogger who voted with his feet when his party controlled the entire State.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why you hate Ohio so much, but you're spinning the facts here (yet again).
Ohio's population has been growing, not increasing. The problem is that it hasn't been growing as fast as other States.
But Ohioans sure as heck are moving to Florida because it's easier to get a job there. The unemployment rate in Florida is higher than Ohio's.
The same Census survey showed that one of the top two fastest growing states in population is California, which also has one of the highest rates of unemployment and is known for having high, progressive taxes.
So you're taking a census story, misrepresented what it actually says, to promote a theory that the data strongly suggests lacks the very corrolation you are trying to create.
There's no evidence that State population growth is tied to tax structures and unemployment. In fact, quite the opposite.
Unemployment can often be tied to tax rates, particularly corporate tax rates. See California. If taxes are high, unemployment is tied to that, and jobs are elsewhere, I could see that people might potentially move. People might not necessarily be moving to Florida, but they are moving where there are jobs. Modern Esquire is taking stupidity and publically broadcasting it.
ReplyDeleteModern,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, thanks for visiting my blog as much as you do. It's appreciated.
Second, I assume this is a typo, and you meant DECREASING:
Ohio's population has been growing, not increasing.
Right. I acknowledge that when I c&p the quote that states population increased AND when I use the stat that Ohio's growth accounted for only 6% of the midwest's growth. Pretending I stated that Ohio's pop is decreasing to prove your own point is a strange debate tactic.
Correct about Florida. It is easier to get a job there, particularly when the economy recovers and Florida is well poised to recover faster than Ohio thanks to its friendlier tax structure for businesses.
Ohio isn't so lucky.
As for California, as I mentioned, there are many variables that determine where people go. I didn't delete them from the quote so my readers can get the full story.
Unfortunately, you miss my whole point about Texas and Florida. The point is that if the lack of an income tax is as extreme as some say, then it's a fair assumption that Americans would try to avoid those states. Clearly they aren't. They've developed a tax system, without an income tax, that has provided an environment that has clearly not dissuaded people from living there.
Make sense? Hope so.
Thanks again for reading!
the other thing other states have going for them is the weather. No changes in the tax structure will change that.
ReplyDelete