My initial post on the issue was skeptical, and, after I picked up a bit more info, turned against the tax incentive sporting goods retailer Bass Pro Shops would receive, in the form of 75 cents of every $1 paid in county sales taxes if it locates in Wood County, or in theory anywhere else in Ohio, under a bill that is nearing passage.

In response, as noted in this Friday post, the State’s Senate Finance Committee whined:

The (Senate Finance) committee, however, questioned why it took so long for opponents to weigh in. Gander Mountain, which has nine stores and 1,185 employees in Ohio, sent a letter to Mr. Taft on Tuesday asking him to “say no” to this provision, but yesterday marked the first time anyone has testified on the issue.

Scott Pullins, whose Ohio Taxpayers Association is involved in trying to stop the tax break, e-mailed me over the weekend and let me know what “took so long” means to these Ohio Senators:

The bill was introduced approximately 10 days before I testified. Testimony in the House was concluded last Thursday, March 16th. I was hired by a consulting firm to work directly on it last Friday, March 17th.

It passed House committee on Monday, March 20th. Passed the House, Wed. March 22nd. I testified on Thursday, March 23rd.

If I’m reading this right, the bill was introduced on March 13 (ten days before Pullins testified on the 23rd). Update: Scott just e-mailed and said the bill was introduced on March 14.

Cut the crap, Senators (and Representatives). You hoped to slide this by (and buried it in more comprehensive legislation) before opposition could coalesce, and, thank goodness, you got caught (how many other times haven’t they been caught?). The fact that someone has to watch your every move lest you betray the state’s taxpayers and give unwarranted breaks to favored businesses is a disgrace. The fact that a concerted opposition effort has to be mounted to stop the madness even when you’re caught dead to rights is even worse.

Pass the November brooms, please.

Since the BIIIIIIGGGGG Dispatch poll is out today, I think it’s appropriate to issue a timely reminder to those who are tempted to take these polls too seriously.

What follows this current commentary is a re-post of the entry from November 9 of last year (except the final paragraph, which is irrelevant), where I reacted to the real results of Reform Ohio Now (RON) Issues 2, 3, 4, and 5 vs. the two polls everyone was talking about coming into the contest.

The lessons:

• Don’t trust ‘em. In fact, those who do may make decisions they will later regret.
• If the polls indeed continue to err, they err by underrepresenting conservative points of view, and by a very significant amount.
• (especially applicable to a primary) There may be big differences between a poll of registered voters vs. a poll of likely voters.

I also notice that the Dispatch, while it polled about 50% more voters on the Republican side in this poll than it did in the RON poll, was a great deal more circumspect about how it did its polling this time vs. how they did it in November (perhaps it’s in the print edition, but no such detail accompanies the online piece). If I had humiliated myself as The Dispatch did last fall, I wouldn’t say much about my methodology either.

My biggest question about the US Senate race is this: Did the Dispatch name the four GOP candidates who were declared at the time they did the poll, or did they simply ask respondents who they favored without naming names? If it’s the former, it is indeed not good news for the challengers. If it’s the latter, it renders the poll virtually meaningless, as it fails to simulate what the voters will see when they cast their ballots (i.e., a list of what was four names, and what is now three). I personally believe it’s the latter (the Montgomery-Grendell result of 57-12 in the Attorney General’s race also leads me to think that they weren’t naming names), but of course we won’t know until The Dispatch tells us. After last year’s debacle, I doubt we’ll be hearing much.

Even at that, the fact that 34% of respondents remain undecided means that if one legitimate challenger emerges, he could (and I expect would) rake off a large majority of the undecideds and motivate others who are in an anti-incumbent mood. If the anti-incumbents turn out in droves, and Mike DeWine’s overconfident base stays home (perhaps discouraged by Jim Petro’s apparently impending defeat), it’s not over.

The other question I would have is if this poll was done on a mail-in basis as was last year’s poll on the RON questions. (answered in Update below — YES) Mail-in polls have notorious potential for error, and though it’s really not possible to get a handle on what directions the errors might be in, last year’s errors on the RON issues were decidedly in the direction of underrepresenting conservatives.

In the big race The Dispatch was concerned about, the poll gave Ken Blackwell an 11-point lead over Jim Petro. I think it’s really 20. We’ll see.
______________________________________

UPDATE: S.O.B. Alliance member Conservatorium e-mailed in response, tells us it was a may poll, and indicates what he did with it:

The SOB alliance may be interested in my experience with the very poll in question:

I received one of the mail polls. It was labeled “conservative” as if they knew that I was conservative, and they were purposefully getting a certain number of conservatives and a certain number of liberals. I promptly through it away. Why waste the time? Perhaps the problem is that conservatives throw theirs away, but liberals (in their infinite wisdom and knowledge of political action) knew that their response would affect someone as a tiny bit of a percentage in one of the question response’s publishing.

Thought you might want to know that I threw the poll away.

This is pathetic. After last fall’s debacle, why repeat the process, unless you are incompetent or attempting to affect the races by putting out the false info? Can you say “irresponsible”?
______________________________________

Re-Posted from November 9, 2005

Worse Than Worthless: Ohio Polls

Polls, Schmolls.

At least two polls on the Reform Ohio Now (RON) initiatives in the closing weeks of the race were so far off, it’s a wonder anyone involved with them would want to be seen in public.

The Ray C. Bliss Akron Institute Survey (from Swing State Project post; Bliss Institute press release is here) really needs to go into hiding for a while. Here is what their Oct. 26 survey of 1,076 Ohio residents (not registered voters, not likely voters) said:

Issue 2 (Absentee Balloting)–Favor: 63.8%, Oppose: 36.2%
Issue 3 (Campaign Contribs.)–Favor: 61.2%, Oppose: 38.8%
Issue 4 (Redistricting)–Favor: 43.5%; Oppose: 56.5%
Issue 5 (Remove Secy. of State from Election Responsibility)–Favor: 42.5%, Oppose: 57.5%

As Chris Berman of ESPN might say: “That’s why they have the election”:

• Issue 2 failed 36-64. The poll vs. actual difference was -28. (!)
• Issue 3 failed 33-67. The poll vs. actual difference was -28. (!)
• Issue 4 failed 30-70. The poll vs. actual difference was -13.
• Issue 5 failed 30-70. The poll vs. actual difference was -12.

Even given the sampling problem, and even given a likely tilt towards Democrats in the sample (which I can’t prove, but has been a nasty habit in a lot of recent polls), what besides incompetence, or a fervent desire to tell someone what they want to hear, regardless of the truth, can explain 28-point differences?

OK, maybe the Blissful Bunch is a bunch of partisan hacks comfortably secure in a university setting. But what explains The Columbus Dispatch’s poll of Oct. 24 through Nov. 3? It seems in reasonable order: 1,872 registered voters (note: NOT likely voters) and a 2.5% margin of error (again from Swing State; percentages sometimes don’t add up to 100% because of rounding):

Issue 2–Yes: 59%; No: 33%; Undecided: 9%
Issue 3–Yes: 61%; No: 25%; Undecided: 14%
Issue 4–Yes: 31%; No: 45%; Undecided: 25%
Issue 5–Yes: 41%; No: 43%; Undecided: 16%

The self-named “Central Ohio’s Premier Information Source” is eating crow by the kilo today. Even if you treat all Undecideds as “Nos,” the final “Yes” tallies were lower than the poll’s results wrong by 23, 28, 1 and 11 points, respectively.

How can this happen? There is one clue at the Dispatch’s poll link: It was a mail poll. The activist, pro-RON types may have been more likely to respond than typical voters. Even considering that factor, though, two of the four differences are still ridiculously large, and the third isn’t exactly tiny.

In 30 years of following election results, I don’t think I have ever seen poll vs. actual differences like this. I’m not even sure I’ve ever seen differences of more than 10 points, let alone 28. They’re supposed to be getting better at this, not going into the toilet. I could have thrown darts and come closer than Bliss and the Dispatch did.

So it’s safe to say that until we see proof otherwise, polls taken in Ohio are worse than worthless, and in fact can be assumed to be at least 10 points off, if not more, in a Democrat and/or liberal direction.

This guy is my find of the day, and he is funny.

Here he is (go to bottom item at link) on the French demonstrations:

French Students Take to Streets Over New Employment Law

A new law aimed at reducing youth unemployment (currently 23 percent) by making it easier to hire and fire young workers has sparked an outcry of opposition from the intended beneficiaries. As many as 1.5 million people participated in street demonstrations to protest the “First Job Contract” law passed by Parliament.

Jacques Esse, one of the students leading the protest, denounced the law. “They are trying to take away our leisure and force us into boring jobs,” said Esse. “We need money, not excessive demands on our time.”

Esse contends that forcing young people into the workforce will have anti-democratic impacts. “Who will march in the streets to protest bad laws if everyone has jobs?” asked Esse.

Esse demanded that the government save his generation from a life of meaningless toil. “Our time and our minds should be free to create the new ideas needed for a new millennium,” said Esse. Esse proposed that corporations and the rich be taxed to provide stipends for young intellectuals like himself.

Asked what new ideas for a new millennium he has, Esse responded that his proposed stipends for young intellectuals was just the first of many he was sure would be forthcoming if he isn’t bogged down by a dead-end job and has the time to work on them.

….. and now they will pay dearly.

Investors Business Daily rips New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine for raising taxes after he said he’d lower them during the election campaign:

Gov. Jon Corzine joins his tax-happy predecessor, Jim Florio — and former President Bill Clinton — in a rogues’ gallery of Democrats elected under false fiscal pretenses.

Between election and inauguration, Clinton “discovered” a budget deficit worse than he imagined, and so the middle-class tax cut he campaigned on in 1992 had to be put on hold — forever, as it turned out — and income tax rates raised.

Similarly, Florio vowed not to raise taxes in his 1990 gubernatorial campaign, then slapped a $2.6 billion tax hike on New Jerseyans, the biggest in U.S. history. It made Florio a one-term governor.

Newly elected Gov. Corzine is the latest Democratic promise breaker — though the former Goldman Sachs CEO gets points for subtlety. Instead of restoring property tax rebates that were cut last year plus increasing them by 10%, as he promised, Corzine told New Jersey lawmakers he’ll increase existing rebates by 10%.

New Jerseyans pay the country’s highest property taxes, and the gimmicky rebate change may muddle some into thinking Corzine actually kept his promise. He didn’t.

“It took Gov. Corzine less than 90 days in office to break his central campaign promise,” Republican Assemblywomen Jennifer Beck complained. Nonelderly homeowners end up with only about $35 extra, say Republicans, but property taxes are up on average by over $1,300 per homeowner in the last four years.

Corzine is also breaking a pledge to fully fund state pensions, while hiking sales taxes by a percentage point and imposing a commercial property transfer tax, a corporate business tax surcharge and a cigarette tax hike, to name only some.

If I recall correctly, when he was in the US Senate, Corzine opposed any and all Bush tax cuts.

So excuse me if my sympathy level is reading “empty” for Corzine supporters who believed him about cutting state taxes, but who are now wailing and gnashing their teeth.
_________________________

UPDATE: Satirist John Semmens at Arizona Conservative tells us, in the top article at the link, how Corzine is REALLY going to fix New Jersey’s ailing economy.

In Afghanistan, Abdul Rahman won’t be executed for converting to Christianity, but may have to (read: probably will) leave the country:

An Afghan court on Sunday dismissed a case against a man who converted from Islam to Christianity because of a lack of evidence and he will be released soon, officials said.

The announcement came as U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai faced mounting foreign pressure to free Abdul Rahman, a move that risked angering Muslim clerics here who have called for him to be killed.

An official closely involved with the case told The Associated Press that it had been returned to the prosecutors for more investigation, but that in the meantime, Rahman would be released.

….. A Western diplomat, also declining to be identified because of the sensitivity of the case, said questions were being raised as to whether Rahman would stay in Afghanistan or go into exile in a foreign country.

The answer to the post’s question is “too much.”

S.O.B. Alliance member Interested-participant noted yesterday that the practice of “honor killings” is deeply ingrained in Muslim culture. The practice usually involves murdering women who somehow dishonor their families, and a subset of that grisly practice is killing women who convert to another religion when they marry non-Muslims. I-P’s post was about Turkey, a Mulsim-dominated yet supposedly secular nation. Reports of honor killings surface from time to time in European countries with Muslim populations.

A religion that wants to be recognized as legitimate in the 21st century has no place for such barbarism. Though Mr. Rahman’s life appears to have been spared with judicial fig leafs, perhaps this marks the beginning of a turnaround. I hope no one minds if I pray that this is the case.

Why doesn’t anyone remember that the previous “recession” started in July 2000?

The Blade’s memory isn’t too sharp this morning — This is from an editorial primarily about the ongoing soap opera called “What Will Hillary Let Bill Say during the Next Two Years”:

In fact, the situation in 2000, with prosperity generally reigning in the country, the budget in surplus, and America’s foreign affairs situation looking reasonably bright, Mr. Gore might have been expected to roll into the White House.

The economy was deteriorating in the third quarter of 2000. GDP “growth” was a negative 0.5% (to see this, change the starting date on the interactive table at the link).

I have “recession” in quotes because, believe it or not, there never was a recession by the traditional definition, which is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. The third quarter of 2000 and the first and third quarters of 2001 were negative, but that’s it. There were never two quarters in a row, and overall growth during the five-quarter time frame involved was actually positive (less than 0.5% — not impressive, but more than zero).

Well of course nothing’s that easy. There’s actually a group of people that decides whether we’re in a recession:

By general agreement, the official determination of recession is left to the Business Cycle Dating Committee at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). The NBER is not a government agency; it is a private organization that works to further understanding of the economy. This non-profit, non-partisan organization employs hundreds of economy experts (university professors, mostly) to analyze and report on the U.S. economy.

Official, oschmicial.

At one point, there was some degree of economic consensus that the recession began in July of 2000 and ended in March of 2001 (2007 note: info at link was changed after publication of this post, and references to what was just noted are no longer there). By the time the “non-partisan” (uh-huh) NBER declared its end (third paragraph at link), the time frame had changed from March 2001 to November 2001.

How convenient.

This is why I tend to favor back-of-the-envelope definitions that people can understand, and more importantly that others can’t manipulate, as I believe happened with the gaming of when the last “recession” really occurred.

Regardless, The Blade is certainly wrong in characterizing the economic climate in the runup to the 2000 election as “prosperity generally reigning.” But, like most of the WORMs (Worn-Out Reactionary Media, known to most as The Mainstream Media), they have convinced themselves that general economic malaise started on January 20, 2001, the day of George Bush’s first inauguration.

______________________________________

UPDATE, Oct. 12, 2007: In the course of creating this post relating to reporter’s coverage of the 2006-2007 full-year federal deficit, I came across this link at NBER that gives plenty of evidence to those of us who believe that it blew the call it made on the timing of the so-called “recession.” That link contains this chart:

What the chart says is that the NBER somehow concluded that the “recession” started in March 2001, even though industrial production had peaked six months earlier (i.e., September 2000), and real sales seven months earlier (August 2000).

As to employment growth, a look at this BLS chart (also present at this BizzyBlog post) shows that subpar employment growth also began in the summer of 2000:

From the first reported loss of jobs in June 2000 through February 2001 (a nine-month period), the economy only added 612,000 jobs — a tepid performance well below the rate of growth in the workforce. Additionally, the unemployment rate started creeping upward in January 2001. The point is that meaningful employment growth ended, and the employment situation was deteriorating, starting in the middle of 2000 — well before the NBER’s March 2001 “recession” start.

The only reason the final factor of Real Income was going up during this time was because anyone who could was cashing in their stock options and taking their capital gains before things got worse in the stock market (which, of course, they did).

In sum, the trough, such as it was, clearly occurred in the summer of 2000. If NBER is going to insist that a “recession” occurred, the time period they have pegged is simply wrong.

A hair-razing event for a good cause in Grayslake, IL, north of Chicago:

(more…)