Fact-Checking Jim Renacci's Wooster Debate Performance

In an effort to shed more light on the candidacy of Jim Renacci (R), who is the primary challenger to incumbent John Boccieri (D) for Ohio's 16th congressional district, we poured over every statement Mr. Renacci made during a Sept. 20, 2010 debate in Wooster, Ohio, sponsored by the Wooster Area Chamber of Commerce. Ideally, the local media would do this work, but since they either don't have the time or the will to do so, we will fill this void.

The debate featured the three candidates named on the ballot — Boccieri, Renacci and Jeffrey Blevins (Libertarian). What we discovered is that a great many of the accusations that Renacci makes are exaggerations, distortions or downright falsehoods. But was most surprising is that taking Mr. Renacci at his word for some of his policy positions leads one to an unusual conclusion — that he supports many Democratic ideas. Read on to learn more.

Opening Comments:

Renacci wasted no time in uttering his first falsehood — in fact, it came in his first sentence. He opened by stating:

"I'm a business man of 27 years, not a politician."

Well, according to his own website, Renacci served two terms as President of Wadsworth’s City Council from 1999-2002, and then served as Mayor of Wadsworth from 2004-2008. Unless you obtain these positions in Wadsworth by being randomly selected, Renacci ran for office and was elected — thus making him a politician. So don't fall for the old "I'm not a politician" line in this case, because it is false.

Right after this statement, Renacci then accused Boccieri of:

"voting 94% of the time with the Nancy Pelosi agenda."

This statement, which he made repeatedly throughout the debate and along with ads from the Republican Party and outside groups, has been made countless times on the campaign trail, needs to be more closely examined. Fortunately, PolitiFact, a Pulitzer Prize winning website that examines statements from politicians and evaluates their truthfulness, specifically looked at this claim. They rated the claim as Barely True, which PolitiFact defines as "The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression."

Please refer to the PolitiFact article about this claim for more specifics, but to summarize, the 94% number comes from a Washington Post database that represents "the percentage of votes on which a lawmaker agrees with the position taken by a majority of his or her party members," rather than the frequency with which they vote with a particular party leader. In other words, Boccieri is voting with his fellow Democrats 94% of the time, not Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Why is this not the same? Because House speakers seldom vote. In fact, Pelosi has voted a mere 94 times in the past two years, while Boccieri has cast 1,550 votes.

So how did Boccieri vote with Pelosi during the times she actually voted? PolitiFact did the math, and found that Boccieri voted with Pelosi in 77 out of 91 votes (they ignored three "quorum calls"), an agreement ratio of 84.6 percent. Much different than the exaggerated 94% that Renacci keeps stating.

It is also interesting to note that Minority Leader John Boehner (R), using the metric that Renacci is using (saying that a vote for your party is the same as a vote for your party's leader), has voted with Pelosi 52% of the time — a majority. The same is true of Mike Pence (R), someone that Renacci spoke highly of later in the debate. (source)

Finally, why are Republicans so intent on tying Pelosi, who represents San Francisco, to candidates all around the country? What is so bad about the first woman Speaker of the House?

Question 1:

Increased health care costs to employers ultimately are passed onto consumers through increased cost of their products. What is your plan to limit increases in health care costs and provide affordable solutions for employers and their employees.

This question, as you can imagine, produced a number of ridiculous statements from Mr. Renacci.

"We all know that John Boccieri voted for the Obama-Pelosi health care plan."

Can Republicans stop acting like they are in grade school. Obama-Pelosi health care plan. Really? The same goes with ObamaCare, which Renacci used later in the debate. These are nothing more than Frank Lutz phrases ginned up to scare and confuse voters. The bill is called the Affordable Care Act. While the final bill obviously contains a lot of policy ideas that both Pelosi and President Obama wanted, anyone who followed the health care debate at all realizes how many changes were made to the bill in Congress, especially the Senate. The final bill that passed did not have a public option, something President Obama had pushed for and Pelosi voted for and passed in the House version of the bill in November 2009. Heck, even former Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who is also a doctor, said he would have voted for the health care bill. Former Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole said he supported the Democratic efforts to overhaul the health care system.

One of the certainties of the plan as it was passed that it will drive costs up.

I've seen increases in health care costs anywhere between 28% and 69%.

These were two statements made by Renacci in relation to the health care bill. First of all, the assertion that the health care plan will certainly cause costs will go up is false. Predicting what costs will be in the future, particularly when they are affected by a new piece of legislation, is always speculative, but the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan organization that projects costs going forward, estimates that health care premiums will go down or hold steady for most people going forward. The CBO estimates that 4 out of 5 people who get their insurance through their employer will see savings between 0 and 3 percent range by 2016. Low-income people who qualify for new credits to buy insurance would see the biggest drops. The CBO does say that people who buy insurance on their own, but who don't qualify for government subsidies, could actually see their premiums rise by as much as 10 to 13 percent, but that's largely because they'll be getting beefed-up policies that would pay for more basic services, especially preventive care.

Where Renacci gets the figures of health care costs rising between 28% and 69% is anybody's guess. But this does raise an important point that I think a lot of voters who oppose the health care bill miss. It is natural to initially think when you hear that the Affordable Care Act costs approximately $940 billion that there is no way the government can afford to do this. But there is two points to remember.

1. The cost of the bill is stretched out over 10 years, so the average cost of the bill is $94 billion a year. But to put this in better perspective, let's look at the year 2016, the first year when the bill is fully functional. That year, the bill's cost will be about $160 billion, According to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, total health-care spending that year will be about $3.7 trillion. In other words, the bill's spending is equivalent to about 4 percent of what we'll spend in health care in a year, and it will be covering 30 million people. (source)


2. The other point that is tough to grasp is that you can spend money on something while simultaneously saving money. Let's use this example. Say you have old, drafty windows in your house. A window expert looks at them and determines that you are wasting about $300 a hear in heating costs because the windows are drafty. He recommends you get new windows to fix this problem. The windows cost $500 to replace. While the windows will cost more than the money lost on the old windows in the first year, it will save you money by the second year and every year after that. If you ignored the cost savings of installing the new windows and just looked at the cost of the windows itself, you may have said you couldn't afford to get the windows.
   
   The same is true with the health care plan. What people forget is that health care costs are out of control right now. So the debate shouldn't be about the cost of the health care bill. It should be about the projected cost of health care over the next decade without the health care bill and with the health care bill. And on that score, the health care bill wins easily. The Affordable Care Acts will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion over the next 10 years, and could save another $1 trillion dollars the decade after that, according to the CBO.

One final point. Renacci seems to be implying that provisions of the health care bill itself are currently driving up premiums. If this is actually happening to anyone that Renacci has talked with, they should contact the Department of Health and Human Services, because they are likely using the health care bill as an excuse to raise costs. As reported by the Chicago Tribune, the projected health care cost increases are primarily due to advances in medical technology, and an older workforce. The article reports that the increasing costs associated with an aging workforce has been exacerbated by the economic downturn because business "are hiring fewer younger people," whose premiums typically "absorb the costs of older employees."

Renacci went on to say this:

We need to repeal and replace that health care bill. We need to replace it with a bill that takes cares of cost. 85% of the problems are costs. We have one of the greatest health care systems.

His comment about taking care of costs puts him oddly in agreement with Boccieri, who voted against the House bill but in favor of the Senate version of the health care bill because the CBO said the Senate bill would lower costs more. We just demonstrated how the health care bill attacks the problem of costs, so Renacci's complaint makes no sense. He then follows this up with a doozy, saying that we have one of the greatest health care systems. That is just patently ridiculous. As we already talked about, America spends way more on its health care than any other country. And what do we have to show for it? Well, the U.S. currently ranks 49th in the world for both male and female life expectancy combined. About 1 in 8 U.S. births are premature, compared to only 1 in 18 babies in Ireland and Finland. And the Institute of Medicine says a lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States.

Renacci then offered up a standard Republican complaint of the medical system:

We practice defensive medicine. We really need a comprehensive plan to address tort reform.

First of all, in states where tort reform has been adopted, little to no difference in rising health care costs has been noticed. This is true in Ohio, where in 2004, the year tort reform was passed, the average premiums for employer-based family health plans were $9,590. By 2008, the premiums had risen to $11,425. Second, the Affordable Care Act did include tort reform legislation, as detailed by the Wall Street Journal. Ironically, the GOP.gov website listed the government's efforts to "to explore alternatives to tort litigation" as one of the "159 Ways the Senate Bill Is a Government Takeover of Health Care."

Question 2:

With our unemployment tracking higher than the national average, what in your opinion are the key initiatives that should be supported to improve the job picture in the 16th district.

Another theme that Renacci has been hitting on consistently during the campaign is the number of jobs that have been lost since Boccieri took office.

Over the last two years that Mr. Boccieri in office, we have been hemorrhaging jobs in the 16th district. We have gone from almost 6 1/2 to 12 percent when talking about job creation.

While the unemployment rate has certainly been higher in the two years (2009-10) Boccieri has been in office than it was in the year previous, claiming the unemployment rate doubled is quite an exaggeration. According to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the unemployment rate for Ohio's 16th district in 2008 was 6.35% (23,900 unemployed out of a labor force of 375,500). Over the two-year period of 2009-10, the unemployment rate was 10.31% (77,200 unemployed out of a labor force of 748,900). And if you just look at this year, the unemployment rate, through the month of July, is 10.26% (38,500 unemployed out of a labor force of 375,300). Now if you double the unemployment rate of 2008, you end up with an unemployment rate of 12.7%. That is a full two points higher than the current unemployment rate, which is a pretty significant mischaracterization. And if you take into account that the economy was bleeding over 500,000 jobs a month when Boccieri took office in January 2009, laying all the blame for job losses over the last two years on the 111th Congress is quite an exaggeration.

Sticking with his consistent theme of the importance of small businesses, Renacci stated:

67% of the jobs created in this country and in this district are created by small businesses.

We would need further clarification from Renacci about exactly what he was referring to with this statement. It is true that small businesses (firms with 500 employees or less) have created about 65% of the 15 million new net jobs between 1993 and 2009, but it should also be pointed out that when looking at the entire job picture, small business employ about half of the workforce. So if Renacci was referring specifically to the role small businesses are currently playing in hiring, he is accurate. If he is talking about overall employment, he overstates the role of small businesses.

Central to Renacci's economic argument is the following:

Businesses will not hire right now because they are concerned about predictability and certainty -- ObamaCare (raise costs between 28% and 60%); cap & trade (the CBO says it will be $1,200 increase per family and some studies say a cost to a business owner will be as high as 30%); taxes - has already approved $1.4 trillion in new taxes.

We've already talked about the notion that the health care bill has or will raise costs is false. As for the assertion that the CBO said cap & trade would increase the average family's utility bills by $1,200 seems to be come from nowhere. State Senator Bob Gibbs, who is running for Congress in the district to our south, made a somewhat similar claim, stating that cap & trade would cost families $1,761 a year. PolitiFact gave this assertion its worst rating of Pants on Fire. The CBO actually analyzed the bill that passed the House last year, and estimated that "the average per-household loss in purchasing power would be $90 in 2012 and $925 in 2050 and would average about $455 per U.S. household per year over the 2012–2050 period." So the CBO did find that there would be an increase in costs to the consumer, but it falls well short of Renacci's claim. In addition, the CBO has estimated that the cap & trade bill is a wash when it comes to job creation/loss, which is a far cry from the claims of this bill being a "job-killer."

Finally, Renacci's claim that Boccieri and the Democrats have already approved $1.4 trillion in new tax cuts is a case of needing to look a little closer at the details. It is true that President Obama's budget calls for an increase of $1.1 trillion in taxes, but this is spread out over the next 10 years. But this is not the important distinction. What needs to be pointed out is that the tax increases only come from couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 by not renewing tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush. In fact, Obama proposes to lower taxes on middle-class families and many businesses to the tune of $330 billion over the next 10 years. On top of that, Obama only proposes to increase the tax rate on the top income bracket to 39.6%, which is well below the 50% the rate was under President Reagan and significantly lower than the 91% they were under President Eisenhower.

Question 4:

What single policy change is most important to restore our economy?

Mr. Renacci claims:

The No. 1 concern that most Americans have is our out of control spending.

Well, it is hard to completely refute this statement by Renacci, as a lot depends on the exact question asked of the public, but a recent poll conducted by Newsweek seems to fly strongly in the face of Renacci's claim that the No. 1 concern of Americans in government spending. When asked this question: "Which one of the following do you think should have the higher priority for policy-makers in Washington right now," the answers were as follows:

37% Reducing the federal budget deficit

57% Federal spending to create jobs

6% Don't know

This is a full 20% percent more of the public, or a solid majority, that would like to see more government spending, not less, particularly if it means creating jobs. In other words, the public seems to be asking for another stimulus bill.

Question 5:

What role do you think quality education plays in creating jobs in Ohio?

In response to this question, Renacci had this to say:

Education needs to be moved back to the local level. States and local government need to be the ones who understand what is being taught in schools are how we are teaching our children. This is something that can't be done from Washington, D.C.

Trying to figure out exactly what Renacci is saying here isn't easy, but this seems to be a standard conservative position that removing government's role in something will make it better. I guess you could call it deregulation of the education system. Of course, I'm not sure how government is interfering with our schools. Does Renacci propose cutting of federal grants to schools? Does Renacci believe that the government should remove laws that protect against discrimination and insure an education for every American? Is he really advocating a kind of "every child for him/herself" mentality for our education system? Kind of an odd position to be taking considering he went to Indiana University of Pennsylvania, a public school.

Question 6:

Do you support or oppose the estate tax?

This one was a softball question for a conservative like Renacci. As you knew he would, he managed to slip in twice during his answer the phrase "death tax," another Frank Lutz word term meant to scare voters. Here is how Renacci answered this question:

I stand with the farm bureau and with small business with a 100% repeal of the estate, or death tax, as you would call it.

The government takes anywhere between 45 and 55 percent (in estate taxes)

It is important to make two points when it comes to the estate tax. First, the estate tax rates over the last nine years were set by the Bush tax cuts passed in 2001. As it so happens, the estate tax rates were phased down over several years and eliminated entirely for those who die in 2010, but it’s set to return in 2011 at levels that prevailed before 2001. So if Congress does nothing between now and Dec. 31 of this year, then someone who dies in 2001 with an estates worth more than $1 million would be subject to taxation at rates as high as 55 percent on amounts over that threshold. (source)

But this is unlikely to happen. The House, including Boccieri, already voted and passed a bill last December that would have permanently exempted estates of up to $3.5 million from taxation (effectively, $7 million for couples). The top rate would have been 45 percent. There has been trouble reconciling this bill with one from the Senate, so the exact rate of the estate tax next year is unknown.

The other point to make is that the estate tax only applies to millionaires, and if legislation is passed in the next two months, multi-millionaires, and the tax is only on the amount of money pass the designated threshold. To give you an idea of how few people the estate tax affects, if the bill that Boccieri voted for in the House became law, taxes would be levied on only 6,400 estates nationwide in 2011 -- about three-tenths of one percent of all those who die that year. If Congress doesn't act at all, 44,200 estates would pay taxes-- still only 2 percent of deaths expected in 2011. (source)

We will give credit to Renacci for stating the figures right in terms of the percentage that the government does take in estate taxes. But he didn't put the number of people that would be affected by the estate tax in any type of context, allowing the voter to think they might be subject to this tax, when the chances are slim to none.

Question 7:

What are your plans to stimulate economic development in this region and can those plans be accomplished without increasing the national debt?

Renacci didn't really have a plan to detail, he just gave the same three reasons he gave before as to why the economy is struggling:

ObamaCare is taking 28% to 69%. Taxes - if you don't know what your taxes are next year, you're not going to hire anybody. Cap & Trade - if you don't know what your utility bills are going to be, you aren't going to hire.

The only thing he said that even resembled some sort of policy was his desire to "bring jobs back with certainty and predictability." As we already detailed, the idea that health care costs are rising is false. The tax rates for next year have yet to be determined because Congress has yet to vote on a bill that would address the expiring Bush tax cuts. The main reason Congress hasn't acted yet is the same reason Congress hasn't acted on a lot of things — Republican obstruction. The same goes with the cap & trade bill. While the House has already passed its version of an energy bill, any efforts to do the same in the Senate are basically dead. And regardless of what happens, the changes in taxes, utility rates, etc., has almost nothing to do with the economy. The reason that employers aren't hiring is that consumer demand isn't there. And the best way to drive up consumer demand is to get more people employed. It would help if large, wealthy corporations would choose to invest their money in their business instead of just holding onto the money. And if history is any guide, the best way to get the wealthy to spend their money is to raise their taxes, not lower them.

Question 12:

The current stimulus program may fix unemployment in the short term, but what do you propose to maintain job growth in the long term?

It was clear from the start that Renacci was going to attack the stimulus bill, and the charges he levied were way off the mark. Here is his first miss:

The current stimulus program is money borrowed from China.

Another scare tactic from Renacci that is demonstrably false. While it is likely that a portion of the money used in the stimulus came from Chinese investors, most of the money came from right here in the United States. Rising domestic demand for U.S. debt allowed the government to sell more than $1.7 trillion of Treasurys during fiscal 2009. Those sales paid for billions of dollars of stimulus spending.

Renacci's next statement also made little sense:

When Boccieri took over unemployment was appx. 6 1/2 % now it as 12%; that is what the stimulus has gotten us.

We already talked about how this unemployment figure is an exaggeration and a poor measure of what has happened the last two years in terms of job growth. But Renacci has taken it to another level here. He is saying the stimulus bill itself has caused a near doubling in the unemployment rate in the 16th district. That is so laughably ridiculous that this statement should disqualify Renacci from ever becoming a member of Congress.

By any measure you want to use the stimulus package, or the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, has been a huge success. Taken as a whole, the CBO estimates by the time the all the money is spent from the stimulus plan, approximately 3.7 million jobs could be attributed to the Recovery Act. The CBO says the stimulus plan alone created up to 2.1 million jobs in the fourth quarter of 2009. Closer to home, nearly 26,000 jobs have been created in Ohio as a result of the stimulus plan, while 7,300 jobs were created in the 16th district in 2009.

Renacci then closed with this gem:

If we are going to do these kind of stimulus programs, they have to be directed to produce jobs.

Besides the fact that this statement really makes no sense, he seems to be agreeing that the stimulus bill was a good idea, since it created so many jobs.

Closing Statements

Renacci began his closing statement predictably enough, repeating the exaggerated claim that Boccieri has voted with Pelosi 94% of the time. But then he veered sharply off course, even for him, providing the most memorable portion of the debate for those in attendance. He fired off these three provocative statements:

Mr. Boccieri has stood in front of you once already and he told you that he "will not vote for cap & trade"

He also told you that he will not vote for health care for the first time around because it was too expensive, yet when it got to a point when the vote was needed, he voted for health care

Mr. Boccieri has lied to you twice.

Let's take the last accusation first. It is pretty rare to hear one politician call another a liar, particularly in Renacci's case, as we have already documented his propensity to be wildly off-base with some of his assertions. It is probably helpful to clearly define what a lie means. According to Webster's online dictionary, to lie means "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive."

With the cap & trade bill, we have heard repeatedly from Renacci that Boccieri told voters that he wouldn't vote for cap & trade. We are unable to verify this statement. An extensive search of the web does not find any instances where Boccieri is quoted as saying this, but that doesn't mean he didn't. But even if he did, Boccieri's ultimate vote in favor of cap & trade legislation hardly qualifies as a lie. In order for Boccieri to have lied about his position you would have to believe that when he told voters that he would vote against cap & trade, he actually knew that he would vote in favor of it. That seems pretty unlikely.

With health care, here we have a case of a Republican once again seeing the world as black and white instead of different shades of gray. This is certainly true when it comes to governing, as almost nothing is ever black and white. Boccieri voted against the House version of the health care bill because he felt it didn't go far enough to control costs. When he was presented with the Senate version of the health, he felt that enough cost controls had been added, and the bill would do more to go after fraud, waste and abuse. These were two different bills. I know this is something conservatives have trouble grasping, but creating legislation is a sausage-making process that sometimes leads to different conclusions (and therefore votes) depending on the bill's final language.

As for the notion that Boccieri voted for health care in the end because Pelosi needed his vote is both irrelevant and likely wrong. If Boccieri did vote for the bill because Pelosi asked for his support as a Democrat, is this supposed to be a revelation? As if Republicans haven't voted in lockstep on almost every piece of legislation the last two years? And since Renacci's positions are identical to your standard conservative Republican, it is pretty easy to assume he would do the same. But we were pretty confident that Boccieri was going to vote for the Senate version of the health care bill in January 2010 — a full two months before his final vote. Why? Because a member of his campaign staff said so in an email sent on January 9:

The Senate version of the health care bill looks a lot better than the House version. The overall cost is lower. The mandates aren't as strict, there is no public option, and we are working to fix some issues with medical equipment suppliers and the cuts to Medicare and Medicare Advantage. The Senate version was always going to be the framework for the final bill so we look for the conference committee version to be similar. John wants to vote for health care reform and we are definitely moving in that direction.

Everything in this statement meshes with what Boccieri said publicly about his reasoning to vote against the House bill and for the Senate bill.

To summarize this very long piece on Renacci's statements from the Sept. 20 debate, two things are very clear. One is that Renacci doesn't really stand for much, other than the standard Republican talking points. You could tell this by being in the audience. He only seemed comfortable when attacking Boccieri. When asked for policy positions, he struggled to articulate anything. The second is that most of his criticisms, which are the basis for his entire campaign, are either exaggerations or outright false. So taking these two things into account, it becomes very difficult to build a case for Renacci serving as a representative in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Video of League of Women's Voters Candidate's Night Oct. 19

The League of Women's Voters Candidate's Night on Tuesday, Oct. 19, was the last time that candidates for Ohio's 16th congressional district would debate each other before the November 2 election. We have video of the entire debate below:

Part I



Part II



Part III



Part IV



Part V

Watch Boccieri-Renacci Debate from October 18 in Canton

Watch First OH-16 Congressional Debate (Sept. 20)

Watch the first OH-16 congressional district debate (broken down into six parts) that was sponsored by the Wooster Area Chamber of Commerce and took place in Wooster on Sept. 20. We plan to fact-check and analyze some of the statements made during this debate in the coming days. Both Jim Renacci (R) and Jeffrey Blevins (Libertarian) got off a few doozies.

Part I:



Part II:



Part III:



Part IV:



Part V:



Part VI:

John Boccieri discusses the foreign-funded US Chamber of Commerce on Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Legal Issues Plague "Young Gun" Republicans

Under the category of news that isn't really news, a number of the "Young Gun" Republican candidates for the House are confronting serious legal issues. In our district, Jim Renacci has some questions to answer. The following is from the Democratic Congressional Candidate Committee:

Jim Renacci made millions of dollars as the owner and operator of nursing homes throughout Ohio. Republican officials thought Renacci would be able to tout his experience in health care – but did they know he endangered his nursing home residents to make more money while sheltering his income from taxes?

• A Renacci Nursing Home Patient Dies. In 2001, a woman died in a nursing home operated by Renacci after another patient with a history of verbal and physical abuse attacked her. The woman died two days later.

• Renacci Placed Profits Before Safety. In a deposition, the nursing home administrator testified that the center did not have sufficient trained staff to control aggressive patients but that Renacci opposed any attempt to remove those patients because it would adversely affect the income of the center. [Stark County Clerk of Courts, 2001CV00598]

• Renacci Sheltered $14 Million from Taxes. In 2006, Renacci was assessed nearly $1.4 million in unpaid state taxes, interest and fees after trying to shelter some $14 million in income. For years, Renacci fought the assessment after ignoring warnings from the Tax Commissioner of Ohio that it would impose fraud penalties on taxpayers who did not file amended returns and pay the taxes due. Politifact.com found “mostly true” the statements that Renacci “cheated on his income taxes” and was a “deadbeat.” [Associated Press, 4/13/10; Politifact.com, 8/27/10]

• Renacci received $34,000 from GOP Leadership. Renacci has received $34,000 from GOP leadership. [CQ Moneyline]

A funny, but sadly true billboard

Over past 32 years, Republican presidencies have created over 80% of U.S. Public Debt

We've talked about this before on our site, but Teabaggers should really support Democrats. Because if their number one issue is the national debt and government spending, there really is no comparison between the two parties. Problem is, they keep picking the wrong party.

Teabaggers Must Really Dislike Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan

Note that the tax rate on the top marginal tax rate under President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, was 91% between 1956-1960. In other words, the very wealthy only kept 9% of what they made. Under President Richard Nixon (Republican), the wealthy only kept 30%, while under the Ronald Reagan, another Republican, it was an even split. Talk about "spreading the wealth (or in Teabagger lingo, "socialism").

President Obama only wants to return the top marginal tax rate to 39.6%, what they were before President George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and well below that of Reagan. But again he is spreading socialism. Care to explain this Teabaggers?

4 Signs the Country Is Actually Moving to the Left

Written by Chris Bowers of The Daily Kos.

The rise of the tea party, and the pending Republican gains in Congress have led quite a few observers to declare that the country is shifting to the right ideologically. Those calls will only grow louder after the election.

The problem with these sentiments is that they are just flat out wrong. Completely inaccurate. Demonstrably false, and easily so. The country has shifted dramatically to the left from where it was 40, 30, or even 15 years ago. Many positions that were quite recently liberal and contested are now mainstream to the point of being unchallengeable (or, at least, it is shocking when they are challenged). Many others that were lefty-fringe positions only 20 years ago are now held by a majority of the country, or at least a substantial, mainstream minority. Further, the current incarnation of the Democratic Party has managed to expand public sector social investment spending to heights that are the equivalent of the New Deal and the Great Society combined.

Read more

Site changed for 16th District debate in Wooster

WOOSTER — Thursday’s storm has forced a debate featuring candidates for Ohio’s 16th District congressional seat to be moved to Wooster High School.

The debate will be in the Performing Arts Center at the high school, which is at 515 Oldman Road. Doors open at 6:30 p.m. The debate begins at 7. The event is sold out.

Read more ...

New Strickland poll shows Ohio Governor down three points

After a battery of recent public polls showed Gov. Ted Strickland (D) slipping in his bid for re-election, the Democratic incumbent released his own poll that shows he’s not dead yet.

Former Cong. John Kasich (R) led Strickland 48%-45% in large sample of 1,200 likely voters conducted September 7-9 and 12-14 by the Feldman Group.

Read more ...

Wayne County Democratic Party Fair Booth - Sept. 11-16

The Wayne County Democratic Party will have an exhibit booth at the 161st Wayne County Fair, http://www.waynecountyfairohio.com/ September 11-16. We invite one and all to drop by the booth to say hello, discuss the hot issues of the day and meet a few of the candidates. Information on all the Democrats running for office this November will be available. Various political paraphernalia will also be available for purchase. During your visit you may enjoy a multimedia slide show highlighting the activities of the past year of the Wayne County Democratic Party. We look forward to seeing you at our booth located beneath the main grandstand.

First 16th Congressional Debate Set for Wooster

WOOSTER -- The Coalition for the Support of Business and Jobs announced Wednesday a candidates' forum the organization is sponsoring in the race for the 16th Congressional District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Incumbent Congressman John Boccieri, D-Alliance, Jim Renacci, R-Wadsworth, and Jeffrey Blevins, Libertarian-Wadsworth, will square off in the 90-minute debate on Sept. 20 at the Arden Shisler Conference Center, 1625 Wilson Road, on the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center campus in Wooster.

Read more from The Daily Record.

GOP Tea Party: These People Could be in Charge

Posted without comment. This is a must watch:

What Happens When Teabaggers & Hate Radio Team Up

Regardless of your personal opinion about whether a Muslim community center (not a mosque, by the way) should be constructed two blocks away from "ground zero," the fact remains that the constitution and the law protect the right to do so. The fear-mongering and hate being spewed by the Radical Right has created situations like this -- in 21st century America.

Five Things to Know About Rob Portman

The Democratic National Committee has put together a website called "Five Things You Should Know About Rob Portman." It highlights his time as President Bush's Budget Director (which was obviously a failure), plus other facts that make him a very unbecoming candidate for Senate.

Wooster 912 Project Photo of the Week

Why feature photos from the Wooster 912 Project (or local Tea Party group)? Because these are the voters that Republicans candidates, including Jim Renacci, are courting, and these are the people that they will listen to if elected. I don't think enough people appreciate how radical the Teabaggers are, both in their views, and their tactics. Here is one titled Father & Son:

Yes, President Obama is being compared to Hitler. Now, this gentleman isn't comparing Obama to Hitler because he gives great speeches. Instead, he is implying that Obama has a sinister side, just like Hitler. What that sinister side is, you'll have to check with your local Teabaggers. But to think that someone would compare the first African-American president with a leader who executed ethnic genocide at a level never seen in the world is beyong disgusting. And the fact that this picture has been on the Wooster 912 Project website for close to a year speaks volumes to the principles of this organization specifically and Teabaggers in general.

Wooster 912 Project Photo of the Week

Why feature photos from the Wooster 912 Project (or local Tea Party group)? Because these are the voters that Republicans candidates, including Jim Renacci, are courting, and these are the people that they will listen to if elected. I don't think enough people appreciate how radical the Teabaggers are, both in their views, and their tactics.

Here is one titled Obama-Stuttering_Idiot:


This is what they have to say about a man who went from a State Senator to President in four years, defeating a highly-qualified candidate in Hillary Clinton then easily defeating Vietnam war hero John McCain. The same man who was the president of the Harvard Law Review. The same man many consider one of the best speakers, both on and off stage, in the history of the presidency. Yet this is the nonsense they believe in.

Would Jim Renacci Vote to Save Teacher and Police Jobs?

It would be interesting to hear what Jim Renacci would have to say about the bill recently passed in Congress that was nearly unanimously voted against by Republicans. The $26 billion dollar bill is fully funded, and according to the CBO would reduce the deficit by $1.3 billion over the next 10 years. This is a perfect Republican bill, right? Fully paid for, reduces deficit, and helps save jobs for middle class Americans?

So what's the problem? Two reasons. One, the modern Republican Party has no policy platform. Their only strategy is to vote against anything Democrats support, particularly if it might help the economy (therefore hurt their chances in the November election). The other reason is that the bill was paid for by closing tax loopholes for multinational companies that try to claim domestic tax credits. So Republicans, in essence, are choosing to protect large corporations who ship job overseas from paying their due taxes at the expense of teachers, police officers, firefighters and more.

It makes you wonder how self-proclaimed "job creator" Renacci would have voted if he was in Congress. Would he vote in lockstep with his Republican buddies? I imagine so. John Boccieri clearly showed who's side he is on by voting for this bill. And Americans understand this, as 60% support this bill.

Republicans Love Government Spending When on Weapons

In another case of blatant GOP hypocrisy, Republican members of the Senate are threatening to stop the ratification of the New START treaty, which is a significant breakthrough in the slowing down of the global arms race. Officials like Brent Scowcroft, George Schultz, Colin Powell, former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Reagan Chief of Staff Howard Baker, and former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.) have all urged the Senate to ratify New START. But what is the problem? Republicans want the Obama administration to spend more government money on weapons, including nuclear weapon facilities.

Here is how the world is seeing this tactic:

Many U.S. allies had assumed New START would easily be ratified this year. The treaty commits the United States and Russia to modest cuts in their long-range, ready-to-use weapons and extends a 15-year system allowing each side to check the other's nuclear facilities. It is the cornerstone of the Obama administration's attempt to "reset" relations with Moscow.

The treaty has been endorsed by six former secretaries of state and five former secretaries of defense from both parties, and nearly all former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces. French Ambassador Pierre Vimont said recently that after diplomats cabled home that the treaty could run into problems, "People ask us, 'Have you been drinking?' " Link

And yet Teabaggers in sizable amounts support Republicans. Again, how are we supposed to take this movement seriously?

GOP Job-Killing Agenda

From the Senate Democrats:

House Minority Whip Admits Economy is More Important Than Deficit

As we speak, Teabaggers are jumping ship from the Republican party after learning that House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has admitted that cutting taxes will "dig the hole deeper" when it comes to the deficit, but ultimately what is more important than the deficit is getting the economy going again.

In response to a question asking whether Republican tax cuts would hurt the deficit, Cantor said this:

What I said in the beginning is, um, if you have less revenues coming into the federal government, and more expenditures, what does that add up to? Certainly you're gonna dig the hole deeper. But you also have to understand, if the priority is to get people back to work, is to start growing this economy again, uh, then you don't wanna make it more expensive for job creators. Link

Here is the video:

Director of President Reagan's Office of Management & Budget Says GOP Caused Economic Apocalypse

For Republicans and many Teabaggers (see photo to the left), President Ronald Reagan is a hero and icon. But the truth is that Reagan oversaw a 189% increase in the national debt during his eight years in office. His economic philosophy of giving tax cuts to the most wealthy has led to the average American, which Teabaggers are supposed to epitomize, to pay the debt.

Well, some people are starting to realize what Reaganomics in general and what passes for current Republican economic policy specifically has and will do to this country. Joining this group is David Stockman, who was Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget. He published an op-ed in the New York Times on July 31. He outlines four deformations of the economic apocalypse, but this passage is the one that needs to be heard the loudest:

This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.

In 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts, matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administration’s hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces — the welfare state and the warfare state — that drive the federal spending machine.

Soon, the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget — entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans’ fiscal religion. Link

Jim Renacci and His Anti-Environmental Buddies

From MyDD:

In Ohio's 16th Congressional District, Rep. John Boccieri(D) is being challenged by Jim Renacci (R). Boccieri is an environmental champion who voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) and who received a 93% League of Conservation Voters score in 2009. In contrast, Jim Renacci erroneously believes that comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation, far from helping our economy, national security, and environment, would instead "amount to one of the largest taxes in American history, would cause electricity prices to skyrocket and would very likely bankrupt an enormous portion of our domestic energy industry."

While Renacci's anti-environmental views are not surprising, given the groups and individuals who support his candidacy, they are disturbing nonetheless. Let's look at a few of Renacci's key endorsements and sources of money.

Read more

"One And The Same"

Sometimes (OK, most of the time) political ads can be over the top. But in this case, the Republican/Tea Party association is exactly as it is portrayed in this video. There really is no difference in the two groups. Republicans have moved so far to the right, that the Republican Party that tried to impeach President Clinton now looks moderate.

Teabaggers Being Fooled by Sarah Palin Again

I continue to be astounding by the utter ignorance of most of the Teabaggers. They believe President Obama and the Democrats are out to destroy the country. Why they would do that, I haven't heard a good reason yet. But yet they get behind a political hack and grifter like Sarah Palin and believe almost anything she says.

Let's look at the Cap and Trade issue. Congressman John Boccieri voted for a climate bill that contained a form of Cap and Trade last year. Local Teabaggers like the ones pictured here think it is a threat to our liberty. Again, no rational reason to think this, but I guess because Obama supports it, it must be bad. But I wonder how they would feel if they knew (or would acknowledge) that cap and trade was a signature part of the McCain/Palin climate change platform during the 2008 election?

Seriously, this is one for the ages:


So as we've repeated over and over on this blog — the Teabaggers claim to have policy stances, but often they are in direct opposition to what they actually want. Throw in that they blame President Obama and Democrats for things that Republicans have done, it makes you wonder where this anger is coming from. Where was it when President Bush was running up the deficit and authorizing illegal wiretapping of American citizens? Why aren't they going after Palin for attacking American liberty? Very strange, isn't it.

Rob Portman in His Own Words

Here is just a sampling of the strange things Republican senatorial candidate Rob Portman has said. (courtesy of the DSCC)

On Ohio's economy...

“The economy here has been relatively strong since the Bush tax cuts.”

[Cincinnati Enquirer, 1/28/08]

On Privatizing Social Security...

“[It] can be a perfectly guaranteed and safe system.”

[Fox News, 6/18/01]

On the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis...

"I have a hard time imagining that that would have a real world impact on our economy."

[Portman Press Briefing, 7/11/07]

On When He Supported "Cap-and-Trade"...

"Private sector incentives, such as permitting companies to trade discharge outputs, can both reduce pollution and costs."

[Roll Call, 7/6/10]

Fundraiser for Common Pleas Judge Robert J. Brown August 5

Jean Mohr, David Broehl and John Johnson, Jr. invite you to a fundraiser for Common Pleas Judge Robert J. Brown, candidate for Ninth District Court of Appeals.

Date: Thursday, August 5, 2010
Time: 5-7 p.m.
Place:
SoMar Wine Cellars
211 South Market Street
Wooster, Ohio 44691

Suggested minimum contribution: $50 per person (no corporate checks)

Wine and Hors D'oeuvres will be served.

Please reply to 330-347-7439.

Video: What Wall Street Reform Means For You

The Party of Fiscal Responsibility - Democrats

Written by Jed Lewison from the Daily Kos.

In the 2001 fiscal year (which began in October, 2000 and is the last one for which Clinton was responsible), revenue was $1.99 trillion and expenditures were $1.86 trillion. (Figures are in 2005 dollars.)

In the 2009 fiscal year (which began in October 2008 and is the last one for which Bush was responsible, sans about $200 billion from the stimulus), revenue was $2.1 trillion and expenditures were $3.5 trillion. (The recession caused revenue to plummet from $2.5 trillion in the 2008 fiscal year during which spending was $2.98 trillion.)

So even if you discount the spending side by the amount of the stimulus (which Bush wouldn't have supported) that means under Bush, revenue increased 5% while spending increased more than 75% and we went from 4 straight years of surplus to a deficit of more than $1 trillion.

How does Bush's fiscal performance compare to Clinton's? Well, the 1993 fiscal year (the last budget of the first Bush administration) had revenues of $1.15 trillion and spending of $1.41 trillion. So under Clinton, revenues increased 73% and spending increased by 32% and the budget went from deficit to surplus.

And somehow Republicans want to argue they know how to handle fiscal policy?

Earth to Republicans & Teabaggers

Every time I hear Republicans and the Teabaggers rail about government spending and the deficit, with the implicit or not so implicit implication that Democrats caused this problem, I keep expecting to hear the words "just kidding." But these people are serious. In the case of the Teabaggers, they just don't seem to know any better. For Republicans, they are just lying.

To make the culprits of the rising debt easily identifiable, here are some handy graphics that illustrate exactly who has been the problem. Hint, it isn't Democrats.


Courtesy of PresidentialDebt.org

Source


Source

Armed with this information, I'm assuming that the Tea Party on July 10 in downtown Wooster was a demonstration against Republicans, who are by far the main culprits in our nation's rising debt. But before answering this question, maybe the Wooster 912 Project can address this — how can a group that rails against all things government hold a PUBLIC rally at a TAXPAYER FUNDED town square? Are we the only ones that see the hypocrisy here?

This would be a good time to bring out one of my all-time favorite photos showing the utter hypocrisy that is the Tea Party movement.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack talks renewable energy, farm issues in Wooster

Courtesy of Chris Kick of the Farm & Daily.

WOOSTER, Ohio –Touting a new agriculture and a new economy for America, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and U.S. Rep. John Boccieri, D-Alliance, spent the afternoon of July 19 touring some of the accomplishments at Ohio State University’s Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.

Their trip began with an introduction to the newly installed swing-10 milking unit at the Agricultural Technical Institute’s dairy barn — a $250,000 gift to the ATI from Dairymaster-USA.

Read more

Meet the Candidates Steak Fry August 20

The Wayne County Federated Democratic Women sponsor a Meet the Candidates Steak Fry Friday, Aug. 20, at Quailcrest Farm (2810 Armstrong Rd in Wooster). The event takes place from 4 to 8 p.m., with dinner served between 4:30 and 6:30 p.m.

Tickets are $16 per person and $6 for children under 12. Invite family & friends to take the opportunity to meet State and Local Candidates in a beautiful setting and enjoy a delicious meal.

R. S. V. P. by Aug. 10. by contacting Betty Schuler at 330-264-3710 or Donna Anderson at 330-264-0368.

Send Checks To:
Wayne County Federated Democratic Women
PO Box 832
Wooster, Ohio 44691

Letter to the Editor From Past WCDP Chair

Senatorial right-wing politicians have done their best to kill extension of unemployment benefits. This group, with their 'ultra-conservative tagalong' cohorts, are bent on crippling the middle class citizens, keeping people from paying mortgages and supporting their kids. These Senators don't understand that unemployment benefits are immediately spent right back into the economy and will help keep the economy rolling. They will buy kids clothes, pay mortgages, buy food putting their benefits right back into the economy.

The Party of NO and their “fringe followers” should remember just who got us into this mess in the first place. THEY DID - removing regulations on Wall Street which contributed to this economic mess. “Obstructionism” has DIRE consequences. The great American middle class is feeling those consequences.

“Tea-baggers” claim Congress does not read bills before they vote. This is not true. Congress not only reads the bills, they write the bills and offer amendments to the bills before they vote on them. In the Senate bills are read twice before the bills are sent to the appropriate Senatorial committees for review.

Tell the 'nay-saying' Senators to get back to work; to provide investment in non-fossil fuels power; to concentrate on progressing instead hanging onto the past failures. The former president allowed too many jobs to be sent overseas, too much deregulation of Big Oil, Big Banks, Wall Street and too much pandering to the Huge Insurance Industry.

Investments in solar power, wind power, natural gas power will certainly bring more new jobs to America. Cutting out the perks now being given to Big Oil will help pay for tax benefits for new environmental jobs. Investment in the environment will provide thousands of new jobs for the American middle class to move the economy forward.

Demand that the 'nay-saying' Senators get back to work and start working for progress instead of hanging onto the unworkable past. We have seen what Big Oil can do to our environment.

B. Jean Mohr

John Boccieri to Appear on CNN's State of the Union Sunday

Update: Here is the video from the State of the Union tv segment:



This Sunday, July 4th, Congressman John Boccieri (D-Alliance) will be participating in CNN’s State of the Union Sunday morning roundtable with Candy Crowley. Boccieri will be joined by Republican Representatives Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Mike Coffman (R-CO).

All three members of Congress are military members, recently elected. Their conversation will focus on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – discussing the strategies there, the sacrifices and the recent resignation of General Stanley McChrystal.

They will be speaking from experience as military members and will highlight how that experience has shaped their views on military issues as freshmen members of Congress.

CNN’s State of the Union airs at 9:00am and again at NOON on Sunday, July 4th.

We hope you can tune in for this special program.

Yes We Can Still Blame Bush

You know the so-called mainstream media is letting our democracy down when Comedy Central is constantly reporting stories and distributing facts that they will not. The latest example comes from the Daily Show's Jon Stewart, who makes the obvious case that we can still blame President Bush, because his failures were so immense, it will takes years, even decades to recover:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Blame
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Why Do Republicans Hate Americans?

Ed Schultz from MSNBC has a great take on the Republicans, and their seeming disdain for every American outside of those from big corporations. If you needed any more proof, their blockage of unemployment benefits, including to those for veterans, should be all you need:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Fundraiser for Christmas Run Pool July 9 Features John Boccieri

There will be a fundraiser for the benefit of Friends of Christmas Run Pool, which are the folks raising the funds that are keeping the Christmas Run Pool open this summer. The event will take place on Friday, July 9, from 5 to 9 p.m. on the street in the 100 block of West Liberty Street (between the square and Walnut). Several of the W. Liberty St. businesses are participating. At the El Rancho Grande, our congressman John Boccieri will be a guest server from 5 to 6 p.m. This is not a political event and John will be there to help raise $$$ for the FCRP only.

Since there will be many folks needed to help with this event, we are sending out the call for volunteers. People will be needed to help set up from 4 to 5 p.m. and to tear down and clean the area from 9 to 10 p.m. A few folks are needed to man the beer and wine garden that the FCRP will be setting up. It would be nice if there were a good representation of Dems there to show support for John in this re-election year.
[Submitted by Fran Grande Fuller, theranchwooster@sssnet.com)

Republicans on "Your Side" -- If you are Big Oil, Insurance or Wall Street

Local Democrats Part of 2010 Statewide Election Kick-off

Wooster Weekly News - There were two things that Jim Bird feared, as he got ready for the local 2010 Democratic kick-off efforts, June 5. His first fear was that nobody would show up and his second fear was that the keynote speaker wouldn’t make it.

It turned out he had nothing to worry about on the first account, as more than 30 volunteers showed up at the local headquarters eager to get to work. On the second account, he wasn’t as lucky. House Majority Whip Jay Goyal was sick and couldn’t make it after all.

Appearing unfazed after getting the phone call minutes before the 10 a.m. meeting was to begin, Bird took center stage and filled in for Goyal. He began by addressing what he considered the accomplishments of the Democratic Party and Governor Ted Strickland, including education and healthcare reform, a balanced budget, new energy laws, the GI Bill, NATO, Peace Corps, unemployment compensation, women’s suffrage amendment, Civil Rights, Social Security, and a jobs stimulus bill.

Read more

2010 Central Committee Reorganization; 2010 Wayne County Campaign Kickoff

The Wayne County Democratic Party kicked off the 2010 campaign season with a gathering on June 5 at Party headquarters. View a gallery of photos from the event.


On May 26, the Wayne County Democratic Party held elections to see who would be the new Party officers. View a gallery of photos from the event.

Teabagger Hero Rand Paul is Anti-American

Yes, it is hard to say the words (not really), but Republican Senate candidate (and Tea Party hero) from Kentucky Rand Paul is "anti-American." Why can we say this? Because he wants to throw out the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution. And where did he state this opinion? On Russian television, of course. Where else would you expect a potential U.S. Senator to speak his views on the United States Constitution?



You see, the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether or not their parents are U.S. citizens. There is no ambiguity about this. But here is some of what Paul says about this issue:

Paul recently suggested to a Russian TV station that the U.S. should abandon its policy of granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants -- even if they're born on U.S. soil.

Paul also said he's discussed instituting an "underground electrical fence" on the border to keep out unwanted elements, though he emphasized that he's "not opposed to letting people come in and work and labor in our country."

The real problem, Paul said, is that the U.S. "shouldn't provide an easy route to citizenship" because of "demographics." Link

I wonder what country Paul's ancestors immigrated from? Because unless he is of Native American descent, he is the result of immigration.

So we wait with baited breath the condemnation of Paul from the Teabaggers, who say the constitution is sacred. Isn't that why they are so adamant about having the government stay away from their guns (2nd Amendment)?

Glenn Beck Endorses Nazi Sympathizer

All this time, we were led to believe by the Teabaggers that President Obama was like Hitler. Or at least that is what some of the posters you see at Teabagger rallies showed. But lo and behold, it is Glenn Beck, one of the Teabagger heroes, who is on record promoting the work of Elizabeth Dilling, a well-known Nazi sympathizer who spoke at rallies hosted by the leading American Nazi group and praised Hitler.

And if this wasn't bad enough, Dilling was charged with conspiracy to overthrow the US Government with the aid of Nazi agents in 1944.

So when Glenn Beck and Teabaggers throw out words like fascism and Nazism to describe President Obama, the truth is they are just projecting — projecting their true feelings onto someone else.

Ohio Democratic Party Coordinated Campaign Kickoff June 5 at Local Headquarters

For the first time, the Ohio Democratic Party is working with the DNC, DFA, DCCC, and others, and all the Ohio candidate committees. Sharing information, sharing resources, including a great deal of money, all working together to share a win in Ohio this November.

The Obama campaign showed us that it could be done and how to do it. There is a great support system in place, loaded, locked, and beginning to rock. We are the silver bullets that can save Ohio, and turn Wayne County back to Blue!

The Invitation: On Saturday, June 5, at 10 a.m., at Wayne County Democratic Party Headquarters, we're hosting the Democratic Coordinated Campaign Kickoff Party with a Day of Action, part of a statewide event, and you're all invited. Turn out to see who is really committed to change and winning in Wayne. I'll go over how we're going to do it, what's been done already, and prove to you that it's doable. You know that we've done it before, and it's essential that we do it again, and we are going to do it together.

One featured guest will David Pepper, our candidate for State Auditor. He is one indication of the faith the Democratic Coordinated Campaign has in us. Our other guest is Ohio House Majority Whip Jay Goyal.

After the kickoff, we'll ask people to go door to door and talk to our friends and neighbors about why this election is so important. They'll receive all the training you need at the kickoff - no prior experience is necessary! You are all obviously invited to the event and to help canvass on this very important day!

These events are very important and need to have a lot of people there to show how strong we are this year. That being said I need everyone to help drive interest and attendance by making phone calls this weekend and over the next two weeks to get the word out to people. If we all can make calls and turn out a good crowd at these events it will go a long way towards winning in 2010.

Jim Bird
ODP Field Organizer
Ashland and Wayne Counties
330-987-7568

Ohio Added More Jobs in April Than Any Month in 22 Years

Ohio, like most Midwestern manufacturing states, has been hit very hard over the last decade or so, but believe it or not, the Buckeye state is leading the way back. For the month of April, Ohio led all states with job increases, adding 37,000 jobs, the most Ohio has added in 22 years. Part of the increase comes from the manufacturing and auto sectors, which added 44,000 jobs nationwide.

Ironic, isn't it, considering Jim Renacci, a car salesman, is like all Republican politicians, running around asking where all the jobs are. Well, Mr. Renacci, considering the Republican party that you are a part of, and more importantly whose policies you embrace, decimated Ohio with job losses, you should know where to find them. In the dustbin of failed Republican economic policies, embraced by President George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress during the last decade. As the Wall Street Journal put it — Bush on Jobs: The Worst Track Record on Record.