A Refreshing Speech from the Floor of the Ohio House of Representatives

I like his bipartisan tone but I don't agree with the point he makes suggesting federal spending reductions are a bad thing in this part of the article:

" Lawmakers can "beat our chest and say we need to cut more state spending," Dolan told the House, but all that does is force county-level agencies to ask for local tax hikes."

Is this a bad thing? Shouldn't local offices be running the show and not DC? These federal aid packages are essentially bribes to the State and local governments to run things how Washington wants or they don't get their money. If the money was raised locally they would be beholding to no one and could bring management closer to the people effected. Let the lobbyist spend their money locally at the State House and the town hall, at least the money goes into the local economy and not on K street. And the states would be rid of the lobbies that had no stake in their area. Also this goes back to the competition between the States as the founding fathers intended, allowing citizens and business to choose between States and selecting the one who's policies best suit their needs. If State and local taxes must be raised to make up for lost federal funds, and reduced federal taxation, I'm all for it.

Of course he is worried about getting reelected as well and tax increases wont sit well for incumbents voting for them. Perhaps a bit of survival instinct is at play in his speech, perhaps a lot of it.

Is this a bad thing? Shouldn't local offices be running the show and not DC?

It would also guarantee that the wealthy districts would have well funded schools and public services and that the poorer districts would have underfunded poorly run schools and really crappy public services.

"we have fundamental responsibilities to meet the needs of our citizens"

I suppose that sentiment is what makes him a "moderate" republican. The suggestion that all citizens are relevant is kind of old-fashioned, and predates much of the partisan madness.

The federalism appeal (subject of other comments, elsewhere) is relevent. Washington should do as little as possible, and always be the last, never the first or even frequent, resort when government intervention is sought or considered, obviously.

Among the problems is this,

"all that does is force county-level agencies to ask for local tax hikes"

which is false on its face, indicating or implying a presumption that spending by any government is by definition essential, not to be questioned, which has arrogant or imperious overtones when one pauses to consider the history of such statements elsewhere, including in many a state and municipal situation.

I don't know the politics of Ohio, but in my state, it's very common for the state to mandate actions from the county, but then delay payment to balance its own budget. I would bet (I must admit that I haven't done any research, and don't plan to) that the alternate "cuts" that are being planned, are really delays in payments to the counties.