FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 30, 2015
The Buckeye Institute Praises Legislative Study Committee Recommendation to Freeze Alternative Energy Mandates
COLUMBUS, OHIO--The Buckeye Institute's energy policy expert today praised a special legislative committee's recommendation that the General Assembly indefinitely freeze Ohio's renewable energy and energy efficiency mandates.
However, the free market think tank expressed serious concern about Gov. John Kasich's statement that he might not support the recommended freeze on the alternative energy mandates, also known as Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards.
"Ohioans would experience higher energy prices and weaker economic growth if these mandates remain," said Joe Nichols, the Institute's William & Helen Diehl Energy and Transparency Fellow. "The government should not be picking winners and losers, which hurts Ohioans who can afford it the least -- poor and middle class families, minorities, and those who live on fixed incomes. Reintroducing mandates also makes it more difficult for companies to create jobs in Ohio."
On the governor's indication that he may not support the committee's recommended indefinite freeze, Robert Alt, President and CEO of The Buckeye Institute, said: "We shouldn't return to the policy mistakes of the Strickland administration by embracing another costly government mandate."
The energy mandates force Ohio utilities to buy increasing amounts of renewable energy and implement energy efficiency programs. The bipartisan, bicameral Energy Mandates Study Committee heard testimony from The Buckeye Institute about how these mandates negatively impact the state's economy and energy production.
Posted by Jason Hart September 30, 2015 @ Ohio Watchdog
State-to-state migration was a net drain of $1.2 billion on Ohio’s economy in 2011 and $1.1 billion in 2012. Almost 24,000 fewer IRS returns were filed in Ohio in 2013 than in 2011 as a result of Ohioans moving to other states.
Ohio’s net population and income losses resulting from state-to-state migration were both the nation’s seventh-worst in 2012.
A net loss of taxpayers in the early years of Kasich’s first term signals a serious problem for the state, since Ohio’s private-sector job growth has slowed since 2011. A rebounding economy has produced increasing tax revenues, but it’s only a matter of time until the next downturn.
RELATED: Ohio lost interstate migration battle again in 2014
Greg Lawson, a policy analyst for the free-market Buckeye Institute, said it’s normal for some Americans to move between states in any given year. That doesn’t mean policymakers shouldn’t be concerned about losing taxpayers to other states.
“The problem is that Ohio is failing to grow jobs and opportunities at a fast enough rate to keep many in the Buckeye state,” Lawson told Ohio Watchdog. “Ohio needs further tax reforms at both the state and local level and is in desperate need of regulatory and labor reform.”
Ohio’s high local tax burden is due largely to state-level policies. The Buckeye Institute and others have called for an overhaul of Ohio’s convoluted municipal tax system and laws giving expansive power to labor unions.
“Everything any level of government does that makes it harder to start a new business is a problem and contributes to an exodus of our best talent,” Lawson said.
Losing federal taxpayers to other states means fewer potential customers and job creators in Ohio, and a smaller tax base to bear the growing costs of state government.
The IRS tracks state-to-state migration for Americans who pay federal income tax by comparing Form 1040 filings from one year to the next. The agency’s most recent migration report analyzed tax returns filed in 2012 and 2013 to see where taxpayers moved in 2012.
Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Colorado and North Carolina had the biggest net migration gains in 2012. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California, Illinois and New York were the biggest net losers.
With the exception of Colorado, the five biggest winners in the interstate migration battle were states where right-to-work laws protect workers from mandatory union dues.
Ohio and all five of the biggest losers were forced-unionism states, where workers can be required to pay a labor union in order to have a job.
Ohio’s losses were big gains for the economies of several other states. The five states with the largest net income gains from Ohio in 2012 are listed in the following table.
|State||Net gain in Adjusted Gross Income from Ohio, 2012|
|South Carolina||$117 million|
|North Carolina||$105 million|
Ohio economy falling behind right-to-work neighbor Michigan - Ohio's ability to outperform Michigan's long-term job growth has been a silver lining around a cloudy Ohio economic recovery for years. No longer. Since December, Ohio's private-sector job growth rate is 0.2 percent, Indiana's is 1.5 percent, and Michigan's is 1.8 percent. Michigan and Indiana are both on track to create more jobs than Ohio does this year, despite having far fewer residents. [continue reading]
Ohio Medicaid spending is
skyrocketing under Gov. Kasich
Ohio Gov. John Kasich's presidential poll numbers may not be climbing much, but Ohio's Medicaid costs certainly have. (Read more)
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that language for a proposed constitutional amendment legalizing marijuana is misleading and must be re-written. (Read more)
We have held that requests for accommodation are protected acts…. Hurtt argues that he engaged in protected activity when he requested a reasonable accommodation and when he took FMLA leave…. But, the pertinent inquiry here is not whether Hurtt proved he had a disability under the ADA, or whether ISI had specific knowledge of Hurtt’s alleged disability, but rather, whether Hurtt showed a good-faith request for reasonable accommodations.
Wired tells the story of an Australian tribunal, which ruled that an employee was illegally bullied at work, in part because a co-worker had unfriended her on Facebook.
Transfer this case to America, and assume that the employee is claiming retaliation based on the unfriending. Supposed Employee-A complains to HR that Employee-B is sexually harassing her, and, as soon as Employee-B finds out about the complaint, he unfriends Employee-A on Facebook. Does Employee-A have a claim for retaliation based on the unfriending?
We speak of material adversity because we believe it is important to separate significant from trivial harms. Title VII, we have said, does not set forth “a general civility code for the American workplace.” … An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience…. It does so by prohibiting employer actions that are likely “to deter victims of discrimination from complaining to the EEOC,” the courts, and their employers…. And normally petty slights, minor annoyances, and simple lack of good manners will not create such deterrence….
A supervisor’s refusal to invite an employee to lunch is normally trivial, a nonactionable petty slight. But to retaliate by excluding an employee from a weekly training lunch that contributes significantly to the employee’s professional advancement might well deter a reasonable employee from complaining about discrimination.