Gov. John Kasich and the Republican lawmakers who control the General Assembly insist that they are doing what voters hired them last November to do …

Evidently this means that Ohio taxpayers want their state government to transfer wealth from middle-class, working-class, and poor families to the state’s richest individuals and businesses. They want their local governments and school districts to have to raise taxes and reduce services while laying off police officers, teachers, and other essential employees.

They must want Columbus to unload valuable state assets without much long-term return or public debate. They want to widen even further the disparities in Ohio’s tax system – relatively low state taxes, but above-average local taxes.

These are among the pernicious effects of the two-year state budget that the l egislature approved and Kasich signed last week. …

As they inflicted so much pain and sacrifice on their constituents in the name of fiscal responsibility, lawmakers rejected a budget proposal that would have cut their own salaries by 5 percent. Why penalize brave, effective public servants who are doing such a good job of representing the interests of all Ohioans?

But if you don’t share the regressive vision of Ohio’s future that Governor Kasich and GOP lawmakers have summarized in the budget, you might want to speak up – promptly and loudly – to challenge the new regime in Columbus. Otherwise, get ready for a lot more of the same.

The (Toledo) Blade

Court ruling on health care hits relevant points

The ruling barely gained notice, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati last week upholding the mandate to purchase health insurance, a key element of the overhaul signed by President Obama last year. This was the first federal appeals court to rule in the controversy. Most noteworthy was the presence of Judge Jeffrey Sutton in the 2-1 majority.

Sutton became the first appointee of a Republican president to affirm the constitutionality of the individual mandate. He concurred with the majority ruling of Judge Boyce Martin (a Jimmy Carter appointee), holding that the insurance requirement is a valid exercise of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause.

Critics of the new health care law argue that the mandate goes too far in attempting to regulate “inactivity,” someone choosing not to buy health insurance.

In his concurrence, Sutton made the apt point: “No one is inactive when deciding how to pay for health care,” the decision translating into higher costs for others who eventually subsidize medical care for the uninsured.

With the mandate, the expense is shared broadly, as insurance should be. Minus the mandate, people will be tempted to game the system, eroding an essential mechanism for curbing costs.

Worth emphasis, too, is Sutton’s point about the value of judicial restraint. He reasoned that it may be that the mandate proves flawed, yet its effectiveness isn’t a place for the courts to intrude. Lawmakers have the task of making needed repairs. They have been sent to Washington to make such choices and deal with the consequences.

Akron Beacon Journal