Ted Strickland Transcript

December 2, 2005

Ted Strickland Transcript

George Nemeth: Hi. This is George Nemeth of Brewed Fresh Daily and I have quite a number of bloggers here with me for this session of Meet the Bloggers with Ted Strickland. I'm going to ask Ted to introduce himself and give a brief bio. And then, who would like the first question? Gerardo?

Gerardo Orlando: Sure.

George Nemeth: Alright. Make sure as you ask a question you introduce yourself and state your blog. Ted.

Ted Strickland: Okay. My name is Ted Strickland, six term Congressman from Ohio's Sixth Congressional District. Grew up in the country in Scioto County. In fact, grew up on a dirt road called Duck Run. Two other people grew up on that road that you may have heard of: Roy Rogers king of the cowboys and Branch Rickey, who integrated baseball. I'm one of nine kids. My dad was a steelworker with a sixth grade education. And the second of my siblings to finish high school and certainly the first to go to college. I had opportunities my siblings didn't have because I was the youngest of the sons and so things were a little better in our household by the time I came along.

I have a Bachelor's degree with a History major, Psychology minor. I have a three year Theology degree, Master's of Divinity. I have a Master's degree in Counseling. And I have a Ph.D. degree in Counseling/Psychology.

I have worked as a minister for a period of time and as an administrator at a child care agency that was operated by the church. I have taught at a small state university for a number of years. I have worked in a community mental health center as a psychologist. I'm licensed in Ohio as a psychologist. I worked at Ohio's maximum security prison for over a decade, working with severely mentally ill inmates.

I've never held another public office other than the House of Representatives. I ran four times before I won. I ran in '76, '78 and '80 and I lost. I ran in '92 and won with 51 percent of the vote. I lost in '94 with 49 percent of the vote. I was re-elected in '96 with 51 percent of the vote. Then I started getting 57 and 58 percent of the vote. So they changed my district dramatically. I retained one-third of my former district. I currently represent 20 of Ohio's counties, Appalachian counties. I represent the poorest people in Ohio. I serve on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. On that committee, I serve on the Health Subcommittee and the Energy Subcommittee and on the Trade Subcommittee. For the last two Congresses I've also served on the Veterans Affairs Committee. And that's it.

George Nemeth: Good intro. Gerardo?

Gerardo: Good morning, Congressman. And welcome. My first question involves the current administration's tax reform proposal that they got through this year. The idea behind it was to improve the tax situation for manufacturers in this state. So, they eliminated the tangible personal property tax, corporate franchise tax and then enacted the CAT, the commercial activity tax. Is this a step in the right direction? Would you build on it or do you have a different approach?

Ted Strickland: Well, I've talked with a lot of tax experts about what happened recently in Ohio. And what they tell me is that we simply do not know what the results of this tax change is likely to be. There are provisions built into the legislation, I understand, which will enable adjustments to be made if, in fact, the income to the state from the tax changes either exceeds or fails to meet expected revenue. So, I don't think we know for sure what the result's going to be. Its been described to me as jumping off a diving board and not knowing if there's going to be water in the pool or simply a concrete landing. So, I think, obviously, we have to see and monitor very closely what the results are.

Now, not all of the provisions of the tax changes kick in immediately, which also causes me incredible concern because it's difficult to be able to anticipate what the results may be two to four years into the future. It seems unwise to me to enact significant tax "reform" or significant changes in tax policy as a part of a budget process. Watching this from the outside, it seems to me that one of the primary motives was to get through a difficult budget period. And one of the ways they chose to do that was to make these significant tax changes. I think tax reform is the kind of issue that is significant enough that it ought to be dealt with as a free standing piece of legislation, but is entered into after very, very careful consultation in an attempt to identify the possible unintended consequences.

If I can just give you an example of one example that has been brought to me at the House, the CAT tax may be dealt with by an industry. My understanding is that Cargill is currently planning to build an ethanol production facility in Ohio, probably in Fayette County, Ohio. I've been told, and I haven't gotten this directly from any company official, obviously, but I have been told that Cargill has made it very clear that they have no intention of paying this CAT tax. That could mean that they could build the production facility and then choose to sell their product outside of Ohio as a way to avoid this tax. That would be an unintended consequence. I think there may be many affects of this tax that we can only, at this point, guess about. So, I find this something that has been accomplished by the legislature. It's something that needs very careful monitoring and I believe the legislature and the Governor should be prepared to make adjustments quickly, if necessary, if the negative consequences of what they've done turns out to be as severe as I think perhaps they could be.

Gerardo: Thank you.

Bill Callahan: I'm Bill Callahan, Callahan's Cleveland Diary. You just made the point in your introduction that you've represented 20 counties and some of the poorest people in the state, but none of those counties have been urban counties. And one of the things that's floating around is the question of whether, for example, another candidate with more of a base in a place like Cleveland would be stronger. What I'd like to know is if you have any defined ideas about the way you'd like to see state government relating both to inner cities, poor cities and urban regions that are different from the way state government's relating to them now, aside from schools and public education.

Ted Strickland: Well, I think many of the problems faced by people who live in the inner city of our great state are not unlike the problems faced by the people who live in the region that I represent. Poverty, the effects of poverty, the lack of opportunity have the same results. And looking at Ohio, I understand the basis of the question, but let me say that Democrats desperately need to win. Coming close in an election is not unlike coming close to an airstrip when you're trying to land an airplane. The results are tragic. And for a lot of years, Ohio has put forth candidates, and they've been good candidates. Lee Fisher's a good, dear friend of mine. Very capable, competent guy. I had a talk with Lee some months ago and I said, "Lee, in so many ways you may be a superior candidate to me, but we really need to win." Democrats have won in Cleveland. And they've won in Akron, and Toledo and Youngstown, Columbus. Democrats have been able to win our urban areas with good candidates. But they haven't won the election. So, we've had 46 or 47 percent when Lee Fisher ran for governor. We had 46 percent or so when Al Gore tried to be president and didn't even campaign in Ohio. Some others think John Kerry may have gotten over 50 percent, but officially he got about 49 percent. So, what we need to do is have a ticket that is capable of getting 50 percent plus one, or 52 percent. Maybe bring on some other constitutional office holders.

Now, why do I point that out? I point that out because I win in regions of this state where Democrats typically do not win at the state and federal levels. And I've done that while remaining true to my progressive Democratic beliefs and values. And it hasn't been easy. I told you I won with 51. I lost with 49. I won with 51. I worked my gluteus maximus off for years.

George Nemeth?: You can say ass.

Ted Strickland: Well, I'm trying to be scientific here.

George Nemeth: It doesn't mean you can't say ass, though.

Tim Russo: This is Meet The Bloggers, after all.

Ted Strickland: Yeah. Yeah. I worked my ass off for a number of years to establish a relationship with the people who live throughout the southern and southeastern, now the eastern part of Ohio. I can hold on to those voters as a gubernatorial candidate.

Now, I came to Cleveland nine months ago and I won't mention the name, but I talked to a very prominent Democratic leader in Cuyahoga County. I said to him, "Does it bother you that I'm from Appalachia?" And he said, "No." He said, "We want to win and some of us have determined that perhaps a Cuyahoga County based ticket is not the kind of ticket that is most likely to win."

Now, am I committed to the cities of this state? Absolutely. One of the things that I found out during my time with campaigning is that wherever you go in Ohio - you go to Youngstown. Youngstown feels like other parts of the state are getting more than their fair share and Youngstown's being neglected. You go to Toledo, you hear the same thing. I hear it here in Cuyahoga County. I think we need a governor who will try to pull us together to help us see that we are in this together. And that we ought not to be enemies, one region toward the other. But we ought to come together to try to fashion a common agenda that will benefit all of us.

And I can just make this commitment to you. That when my district was changed and I retained one-third of my former district - at the time the district was changed, I lived within about two to three miles from the southern end of a 350 mile district. I don't know that I'd ever been in some of the counties that I inherited. Columbiana County, for example. I don't think I'd ever been in Columbiana County. And I went up there and initially they all said, "Why should we elect someone from your area of the district because most of the Democratic votes are in Mahoning County and Columbiana County and Jefferson County and Belmont County. Why shouldn't we have someone from our region represent us?" And I said, "What you need to do is to give me an opportunity to prove myself."

And after a year, the newspaper in Columbiana County, which is not usually as friendly to Democrats, wrote an editorial and they said, "Ted Strickland is like daisies in the springtime. He's everywhere." And in '04, I did not have an opponent against me and my district was won by George Bush. So, in a district that George Bush won, the Republicans did not find it possible to get a credible candidate. I had no one on the ballot against me in '04, which made it possible for me to do a lot of things for the Kerry campaign.

So, a long rambling answer, I'll admit. But the fact is that this is something that the people in this region and other urban areas of the state will have to trust. And I just say to them the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. I think I've demonstrated throughout my public service that I'm a person who cares for people. And I'm not a person that's likely to be so provincial or regional in my concerns that I would neglect the cities. And I'll say this quickly. There's no doubt that Ohio cities have been neglected by state government in the past. I understand the reason for your question and your concern.

Bill Callahan: The actual reason for my question was to find out if you had any specific policy ideas that are different not from other Democratic candidates, but from the Republicans with respect to state policy on the cities and urban regions.

Ted Strickland: Sure. Investments. Targeted investment. Using the Department of Development in a very targeted way. There are certain regions of this state that are doing very well. There are other regions that aren't doing well at all. I think the effort should be directed toward the regions that are most in need of help. And that the economic development dollars should be directed and spent in those regions. I think that's one of the things we could do.

I also think we need to build on the regional strengths of our state. And we ought not to cannibalize each other. I think if something good happens in Akron, Cleveland should rejoice in that. I think if there's growth and development in job creation in Cleveland, then the folks in Akron should be pleased with that. You say stay away from the schools when I answer this question -

Bill Callahan: I said you're going to get asked that -

Ted Strickland: Yeah. But it's difficult to separate what's happening with urban education from everything else that you are concerned about in terms of economic growth and job creation. I think we need to look at the way we spend our transportation dollars. A lot of inner city communities are shut off from the larger world, almost, by the way the highways are constructed. And I think we ought to make sure that local communities are a part of the decision-making process when there are highways built.

I think we need to focus on making sure that public transportation is available to people who live in the inner cities who may not be able to have a car, afford a car. And consequently may be incredibly limited in the kind of opportunities that would be available to them for jobs, for shopping, for recreation, for the full participation in our society. I think we need what I would refer to as an urban agenda that would include a lot of things. Health care concerns. Transportation concerns. Obviously, economic development issues as well.

Jack Ricchiuto: That's a good lead in to the next question, economic development. Jack Ricchiuto. My blog is JackZen.com. A friend of mine and she's, June Holly -

Ted Strickland: She's not only a friend of yours. She's a long, long, long time friend of mine.

Jack Ricchiuto: I understand that.

Ted Strickland: ACEnet.

Jack Ricchiuto: ACEnet. This is a woman who helped really incubate dozens and hundreds of small businesses, part of a really a major turnaround in your region and the question around that for me in seeing her work and seeing the major impact - there's still an ethos in the state around big business. We still romanticize the notion that if it's not - if we want a big impact, we have to start with something, a big institution. So, the emphasis on big business, I understand that and I empathize with it. There's tremendous strong logic in that.

The question I have is the question of what should be the state's role, posture, policy, strategy relative to developing, fostering, small companies, small business. Anything in that realm.

Ted Strickland: Sure. Well, I mean, I think if you were to talk to June Holly you would find out from June Holly that I have tried to be a part in this with her and with Ace Net in their efforts in Athens County and all of southeastern Ohio. She really has established a model that I think should be followed elsewhere.

What you say about big business is correct. I said to my constituents for a long time, we're never going to get an IBM headquarters in southeastern Ohio. But what is it that we can do that will be compatible with the needs of our region and the wishes and desires of our constituents that will enable them to start a small business. Let's participate collectively in doing so. Here again, the Department of Development in our state has lots of resources. We spend lots of money and we go on foreign trade trips to China and elsewhere to not much benefit, at least that I can see.

Jack Ricchiuto: Why is it they go over there to invest in small business and medium sized business there. What's the psychology behind that?

Ted Strickland: Well, I don't know. Maybe it's the allure of travel.

Jack Ricchiuto: I like it.

Ted Strickland: I like it, too, but I like to pay for it myself, rather than have the taxpayers pay for it. There are specific things I think that can be done to help people who want to make the efforts that you describe. Health care is certainly one of those areas where I think we could do a great deal more than we're currently doing to help individuals or small groups or small business groups to develop cooperatives so that they could have the joint purchasing of _____ at more affordable rates, for one. This is a huge - it's a huge thing. A lot of entrepreneurs that I talk with find concerns about health care to be perhaps the greatest obstacle they face in actually going out on their own, taking the risk and trying to establish something that's of lasting value to them. So, health care issues, targeted assistance from the Department of Development, having a place where people can go and learn about developing a business plan. And get advice regarding grants and financial resources that could be available to them if they make these attempts to put their skills and their talents and their desires to work.

I also think that we can do more to utilize the expertise that's available at our colleges and universities. I think there's a responsibility on the part of our institutions of higher education to be concerned about the communities, especially in which they're located. And to invest in those communities. I've been trying to say this to Ohio University in eastern Ohio for a long time. They've got a school of business. They've got expertise. Seems to me that there's some responsibility to their region. We've got these institutions all over this state. So, I think we ought to expect more out of them and encourage to develop these partnerships with the June Holly's of this world.

I also think - I was in Dayton last night. I talked with a fellow over there who has a company. He employs a few hundred people. It's an IT company of some kind that he's put together. He told me that the lowest paid person is the office manager who makes $46,000 a year. Most of his software developers make between $85 and $120,000 a year. He said, "One of the problems that I've had is that government programs tend to be targeted toward bricks and mortar." He said, "I don't own a building. I rent all of that kind of infrastructure that I need, but my investment is in people and their skills and their brain power." That made a lot of sense to me. So, do I have all the answers? Absolutely not. But do I understand that there are a lot of people in Ohio with incredible commitment to the public good. And with ideas and skills and talents that they would be willing to put to work if, in fact, they were given the kind of opportunity and forum and support that would be needed to accomplish that.

Now, you want me to make my answers shorter. I'm sorry.

George Nemeth: We've got as much time as you have. I'm just surprised more people aren't jumping in….

Tim Russo: You're a minister.

Ted Strickland: I was.

Tim Russo: Former minister. And at the rally in Columbus, across from the Reformation Ohio Revival on October 14, you said, "Religion is being used as a weapon to accomplish political goals. As I look at the New Testament, I see no indication that Jesus Christ tried to use the instruments of government to accomplish His kingdom on earth."

Ted Strickland: Yeah. I said that.

Tim Russo: But on your web site, it's sprinkled with all kinds of references to religion and values. In fact, the first line of your bio tells us how you posted a quote from scripture on the wall in your Congressional office. Is Ohio politics becoming a contest to find out who is holiest?

Ted Strickland: No. I'm not holy at all. But, I think there's a stark difference between the way that the religious right uses reference to morals and values and religious beliefs certainly than I do. I believe that the single greatest threat posed by the Bush administration, for example, other than the decision to take us to war, the single greatest threat of the Bush Administration is the purposeful, planful effort to erode the wall that should separate organized religion from public policy and from governmental decisions. I say that all the time. Maybe I say that because I do appreciate those who embrace and value religious and moral values. I believe religion is being used as a political weapon. It's being used, I think, to polarize our country, to divide people, to foster intolerance and discrimination. But I also think that there is another side to values, and to even religious beliefs. And I think those can call people together for the common good, can foster an appreciation of individual differences and can really value the pluralism that I think exists and ought to be celebrated within our society.

Now the reason that you'll find references, as you have mentioned, on my web site is that I am unwilling to concede to the other side, the ability to define for the larger population and for everyone else, what is, in fact, moral or religious values. So, I don't think you'll ever find me using religion as a way to encourage or foster intolerance of discrimination or hate or any of those things. But we cannot, we cannot just simply set aside - in my judgment - we just can't set aside matters that are very important to huge numbers of people and say that as a Democrat, that subject matter is off limits and I'm not going to go there. I think we need to go there. We need to engage the other side. And I would hope that we could have a discussion within our society about what does constitute moral behavior. And I think that's relevant. But I think it can be done in a way that celebrates differences of opinion and that is not exclusive, but rather inclusive. I mean, that's why I spoke at that rally. There were a handful of us there and literally hundreds across the street on the Capitol grounds. But, I wanted the media to see that there was a second opinion here. And that Rob Parsley and Ken Blackwell didn't speak for the larger body politic.

Adam Jusko: Adam Jusko, Now That's Progress. My question has to do with education, which I'm sure others will as well. You're probably very familiar with the fact that state funding has - or the manner of state funding has been declared unconstitutional multiple times, but nothing has actually been done about it because of the Republicans - if we don't do anything about it, then there's no power to really enforce it. If you become governor and you end up working with the Republican legislature, which could very conceivably happen, what would you do and what can you do to actually change the system of how schools are funded in Ohio?

Ted Strickland: Let me begin my answer by saying that when the original lawsuit was filed from in Appalachian County, Perry County, Ohio, I filed a Friend of the Court brief in support of that lawsuit. When the issue eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court, I filed a Friend of the Court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court. What I found out was when you do that with the U.S. Supreme Court, you've got to have many, many copies printed in a certain way by a certain company that costs many hundreds of dollars. And I did that. Paid for it out of my own personal resources. Not out of my campaign or not out of my office, but out of my personal resources, knowing full well that with this United States Supreme Court it was probably going to go nowhere, but I felt that it was important for me as a Congressman that felt deeply about this, to establish the record as to where I was.

Now, what am I going to do as governor? I tell people and I mean this sincerely. I'm going to be a law abiding governor and I'm going to work to make Ohio a law abiding state. Now, what does that mean? That means that we take seriously what the Supreme Court has said and the Supreme Court has given us some basic direction. They didn't establish a formula, but they've given us some basic direction. And that direction is we need to move away from a local property tax. The funding for elementary and secondary education by Constitution is a state responsibility. And over a period of decades, that responsibility has gradually been shifted down to the local level, increasingly to the local level. So, I'm going to tell the people of this state the truth about what's happening to education in Ohio. That we've got schools where they've terminated school breakfast programs ‘cause they can't afford to feed the kids. Where the libraries are open half time because there's one librarian for several schools. Where they've eliminated foreign language from the high school curriculum. Where they've terminated classes for gifted students. Where up to a fourth or more of the students never show up for class and no one checks on them because all the support staff has been eliminated. I'm going to try to communicate to the people of this state that we're never going to have a healthy economy. We're never going to be a healthy state if we don't address this issue. It's not something that we can choose to do or not to do. It's something that we must do in my judgment.

Now, you say we're going to have a Republican legislature. And most likely we will have. So, I will go to them and seek their support in doing what must be done and that shifting away from the local property tax, finding a more broadly based source of revenue so that it can be collected more fairly and distributed more appropriately. We need to establish, what I believe I would refer to as a floor in funding for our schools. And allow local districts then if they want to embellish or if they want to add to, let them go ahead and use their local property tax to do that. But that the state's responsibility is to provide a floor of funding for all of the students in this state.

Now, if the legislature doesn't go along, I'll conduct a continuous campaign against them as governor. I will conduct a continuous campaign.

Adam Jusko: And use your bully pulpit as governor?

Ted Strickland: Absolutely. Absolutely. I'm sorry.

Jack Richiutto: No, that's alright. Would you expect pushback from the local level around control? Can they still control their schools if the state is making that change to the funding?

Ted Strickland: Sure -

Jack Richiutto: And how would that play out in your administration?

Ted Strickland: I believe that public tax dollars should be overseen by the public. So, I support local school boards having the ability to oversee the local schools, as they do now. One of the things that troubles me, seriously troubles me about this, and I'm opposed to vouchers because I believe vouchers are inherently undemocratic. Vouchers allow public tax dollars to be used to fund private and parochial schools with no public oversight. So, local school boards determine curriculum decisions, they determine hiring practices and discipline practices and all of that. And that's as it should be. If public dollars are going to be used, then there needs to be public oversight. And I think vouchers, in my judgment, are unconstitutional. The courts may parse words and make nuances and so on and so forth, but to me they are just inherently undemocratic. So, I believe in the ability of local school boards. I think that's a healthy practice we ought to maintain that.

Gerardo Orlando: Just in the follow-up, I mean, I admire your willingness to take on what is a very controversial issue -

Ted Strickland: It is the central issue.

Gerardo Orlando: Yes. And in many suburbs, you're going to get some pushback where they already have ample tax dollars for their schools. But with this big challenge that we have, which is a Constitutional challenge and many other practical issues around it, are we at a time now when there's also potentially a big opportunity? And what I'm getting at is, you seem very open on the health care side to the huge opportunities that technology offers to sort of change the dynamic. And in education now you're seeing major universities where the students are using Podcasts, for example. Then obviously the Internet with Podcasting, with video, with high speed, there's an incredible opportunity where the state could organize around, let's say an advanced placement program on software programming or American History so that -

Ted Strickland: Let the record show I'm shaking my head up and down.

Gerardo Orlando: Right. So that every student in the state, regardless of what school you're from, can somehow get access to that at a cost that's so much lower. Is that something that you can push alongside this reform idea?

Ted Strickland: Let me tell you. I frequently do events from Washington. I've had as many as eight or nine different schools that are separated by 100 or 200 miles, interacting with me from Washington at the same time. I do that quite frequently. It's real time. Students are able to ask questions. I can present information to them. I mean, that's just an example of the kind of thing that is available now. Now, you take a school in a wealthy suburb. They may have - I don't know. I'm just throwing out a number. They may have 200 or more curriculum offerings for their students. You take a school in a poor Appalachian area or maybe in one of the inner city schools, they may have 60 or 80 offerings. There's no reason why that kind of expertise and material can't be shared. Absolutely.

I said to the City Club a week or so ago that I want to shake up the educational establishment. I believe that we're not just dealing with a funding problem in education, but I think we're dealing with an approach to education that fundamentally needs to be re-examined. I'm a psychologist. My wife is an educational psychologist. I, and we are convinced that what we are doing with education now is homogenizing it. We're failing to appreciate individual differences, different learning styles, different student needs. And that we need an educational system that adapts to meet the needs of the students, rather than requiring the students to conform to the needs of the educational bureaucracy. What does that mean? That may mean specialized schools. That may mean, in some cases, year round schooling. That may mean schools that are connected, as you suggest to a wealth of expertise and data that may be miles or hundreds of miles from their physical location. We need adequate funding for schools, but we also need to be willing to change the way we think about education.

George Nemeth: Is that what third frontier funding is? It's not third frontier anymore, sorry. But I mean that's originally the intention of it. Is that what the Issue One dollars are going to be going towards under your leadership?

Ted Strickland: I think it depends on who the governor is. I mean, I think the Issue One funding does provide a real opportunity to do some very creative and innovative things. The way that money was used, as you know, was initially fairly prescribed.

Bill Callahan: Well, can I have a follow up on that…

Ted Strickland: Sure, sure.

Bill Callahan: This actually goes to my next question. My reading of what we just passed is that it is quite proscribed, and I'm paying attention because I work for a network of community computer centers. And I had this discussion this morning at length with the director of our state organization. Our belief is that that money cannot be used to support education and training, that that's in the Constitutional amendment. We have a state, according to the Children's Partnership, that is 40th in the percent of households with a computer, and 35th in percent of households that have Internet access at all. As you know from your districts, we have large stretches of the state which do not have broadband. We have, in this city, which has very good broadband access, half of all adult citizens not using it, not being able to afford it. We have a variety of other access and participation issues. Do you think that, as governor, part of the technology program needs to be shifted away from universities and business development as its sole purpose, and start dealing with those issues? Do you think the state ought to be taking some responsibility in this area?

Ted Strickland: Yes. Yes. And I will agree with you that the monies are fairly prescribed, but not as much as they were. I mean, there was some loosening up. And I do believe that with the right kind of administration, there is some flexibility in how those monies can be used. I mean, let me say this to you. For several years in a row, I held an annual technology conference in my district and I had the full participation of 14 counties. I involved colleges and universities. I involved the small business community. And I involved individual, young entrepreneurs. We brought in people to talk specifically about the need to further expand access to broadband. On two of those occasions, we had a satellite hook-up with some folks in Fort Washington. That's on the very western edge of the state of Washington because they've done some very creative things out there in taking abandoned businesses and industrial facilities and so on and so forth and really trying to create higher tech, higher wage kind of employment environments for the people.

I can also tell you this that when Colin Powell's son became head of the FCC and was interviewed - I don't know if you all are familiar with this - he gave an interview that was reported and he said this. And I'm quoting him, if not verbatim, practically verbatim. He said, "I'm not sure there is a digital divide." He said, "There may be a Mercedes divide. I've got it. You want it. You can't afford it." And he said, "I hope we don't use this concept of a digital divide to begin another big socialistic governmental program." Now, that's Colin Powell's son. I wrote him a letter and I invited him to come to Ohio and see the digital divide. And I castigated him for his callous remarks, showing total incompetence, in my judgment. Well, he wrote me back and lied to me. He wrote me back and told me that - and he sent me the transcript of an interview he had done where he had not used those words. But he sent me the transcript of the wrong interview because there was a second interview where he had actually made that statement.

So, going back to my Appalachian meetings and I'm trying to accommodate for the larger state and hope you understand that I'm making a sincere effort to do that. But for the last several years, my focus has been on my Appalachian district. And I realize that the highway system passed us by and the railroads have been dismantled in my region. And I've been doing everything that I can do as a Congressman to make sure that this technology and this form of communication and economic transactions doesn't pass us by. It's essential. And it is sad that a state like Ohio would produce the kind of statistics that you have shared here. It's a huge, huge problem.

One of the things that concerns me about becoming governor, if I become governor, is that the problems that exist are deep. They are not problems that are - they are not problems that are likely to have immediate payoffs in terms of immediate results. It's going to take us a while to catch up with this kind of situation that we've allowed ourselves to fall into.

Tim Russo: I've got a question that if I don't ask you this, my audience at my blog will kill me. It's, by the way, it's Buckeye Politics.net. My comments at the blog wanted me to ask you specifically, why did you vote for the bankruptcy bill in Congress given that it lost a medical emergency provision?

Ted Strickland: Well, my understanding of that bill is that the bankruptcy judge has significant discretion to consider the particular circumstances that are being faced by the person who has declared bankruptcy. If you look at my 11 year history as a member of the Congress, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a situation where I did not forcefully and consistently stand up for the least among us and most vulnerable in our society.

But I looked at this bill and I made a decision. I thought there were protections in there for those who were justified in getting this protection -

Tim Russo: Can you describe that protection as you would understand it exists in the law?

Ted Strickland: Well, the bankruptcy judge - my understanding of it is the bankruptcy judge can take into account the particular circumstances that that individual faces or the circumstances that evolved into that place in their economic life. And I think bankruptcy protection is important. I also think that it is important for a person who has made financial obligations, if they can, to meet those financial obligations. And I respect those who disagree with me. I mean, I had a lot of my Democratic colleagues from here in Ohio that I almost always vote in sync with. But I made a judgment and I'm not saying that my judgment is always perfect, but I made a judgment and I made that decision and I don't think it is inconsistent with the way I've tried to represent my constituents for 11 years.

Adam Jusko: The common wisdom right now would be that you and Ken Blackwell may be facing off in the general -

Ted Strickland: A frightening thought, isn't it?

Adam Jusko: Well, to some of us. The question I have for you - I mean, I could go on about Ken Blackwell for a long time, but the question I have is specifically about his candidacy in combination with the TABOR amendments or, which they'll be calling TEL, I believe they're trying to call the TEL amendment next year. I was hoping you could describe a little bit what that amendment is and also how you see this playing out with him sort of wrapping his arms around it. He's making it seem extremely simplistic in terms of the spending caps and that sort of thing. So, I'm hoping you can talk a little bit about that and, of course, what your role would be in sort of combating that in -?

Ted Strickland: Well, yes. I think Mr. Blackwell's amendment would have devastating consequences for our state. In a minute I'll talk about one provision of that amendment as I understand it, that I think is just so extreme that I think if the people come to understand it, they'll reject it.

I serve in the House of Representatives with some members from Colorado. In fact, Congresswoman Diane Beget and I sit next to each other on the Commerce committee. And you know what happened in Colorado. You know that they've placed a five year moratorium on their amendments, but we can talk with officials in Colorado who were at one time strong supporters of such a tax limitation provision and are now adamantly opposed to it and are willing to speak out about it.

But, the Blackwell amendment, I think, and by the way, I appreciate Betty Montgomery's position on this issue. I don't want to misquote her, but as I understand her position, she says this is an indication that the people who support such an amendment - I'm paraphrasing here - don't have confidence in their own leadership capacity. The Blackwell amendment, as I understand it, requires in order for the provisions of his amendment to be overwritten by a vote of the people requires a two-thirds vote, I believe, of the electors. The eligible electors. Not the people who actually show up to vote, but of the people who are registered to vote, which is a standard that would be, in my judgment, impossible to ever meet. So, it's really more of a straight jacket than I think most people understand and realize.

Tim Russo: Is it unconstitutional? I mean, would it be federally unconstitutional? How would you challenge it as governor if it passes? ‘Cause it's certainly possible that this passes and you become governor.

Ted Strickland: I know and that would be tragic. It would be tragic for whoever was governor. It'd be tragic for the state. But if it passes, I think it will do to Ohio what it did to Colorado. And that was result in severe cuts in the social safety net, severe cuts in higher education -

Tim Russo: So how do you challenge it if you're governor? I mean, how do you - do you just - are you forced to live in this straight jacket?

Ted Strickland: Well, if it passed and our Constitution was changed, the only alternative would be to go to the people and try to get it reversed. I think what we've got to do is try to defeat it over the next 11 or so months. And I mean, it has a lot of appeal. And obviously Blackwell is going to make this - I'm the "no tax guy" and so on. But I think we've got to try to explain to the people what this will mean in terms of the -

Adam Jusko: Would you spend some time doing that as part of your own campaign, trying to campaign against it?

Ted Strickland: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. In fact, I can't imagine if Blackwell is the candidate and I'm the Democratic nominee that that will not become perhaps the central - other than what I hear they're going to try to get an anti-gay adoption amendment, but I -

Tim Russo: Where'd you hear this?

Ted Strickland: Well, I mean, it's certainly being talked about that one of the ways they'll try to gin up their base again is to get an anti-gay adoption amendment on the ballot, which I would love to take on, quite frankly.

Tim Russo: That'd be quite a battle.

Ted Strickland: Yeah. Yeah. It will be. But there are literally thousands of children in this state. Not all of them newborn, White, healthy children who are in need of adoptive homes. I just think it would be mean spirited to be extreme for them to go in this direction. But, they've demonstrated that they'll do just about whatever they've got to do to hold on to power. So, they may foresee this. I hear it's been discussed.

But to answer your question, this amendment must be defeated. If it is passed, it will injure the state. I take some courage from the fact that the business community that tends to be Republican, also understands the danger faced by this amendment. And certainly the higher education community understands it. So, I think it'll be a Herculean struggle. It will obviously be the centerpiece of the gubernatorial campaign.

Bill Callahan: There has been what looks like an increasing amount of legislation in the last few years designed to override municipal initiatives, in areas like gas well drilling, predatory lending, and local control of residency requirements for municipal employees, which have passed in the Senate and House with some Democratic support. Is municipal home rule a significant issue, a significant aspect of public policy for you, and as governor, would you act on that assumption?

Ted Strickland: Yeah. I think the question you ask depends probably on the issue at stake. I think there are some cases where home rule obviously is very important, should be supported and preserved. I think there are probably other cases where - especially if there are matters that may involve Constitutional rights, I think the ability of a local group, municipality or whatever, certainly when it comes to matters that could affect whether or not a community was discriminatory in the decisions they made. I think -

Bill Callahan: Well, I just mean issues like control of gas drilling in municipalities.

Ted Strickland: Of what?

Bill Callahan: Gas drilling.

Ted Strickland: Oh. Gas drills.

Bill Callahan: Control of gas drilling, the ability to control predatory lending, and the ability of municipalities to impose residency requirements on municipal employees.

Ted Strickland: The first two I could support strongly. The third one, I have some questions about. And if I can just ask a clarifying question. Are you talking about the example requiring a member of a police force to live within the jurisdiction of the city or the municipality?

Bill Callahan:: Yes. There are currently about 400 local governments in Ohio that have some kind of requirement for employees to required to live within their boundaries.

Ted Strickland: Yeah. I have some problems with that because I think that that not only impacts the life of that individual employee, but I think that also impacts the potential of the family, the children of that person. I don't want to take a strong position here until it's been laid out for me. But I can tell you that based on the circumstances that you laid out for me, I would have some serious questions about whether or not I personally think that that kind of residency requirement is appropriate. Because I think it affects not just the person who is the employee, I think it could have a profound effect upon that person's family.

Bill Callahan: The question was, could it be within the right of the voters of a municipality to make that judgment?

Ted Strickland: And I'm telling you I'm not sure I could support that under those circumstances. I might, but I hadn't really thought a lot about that. But my initial response is that I think I would have some difficulty supporting that.

Gerardo Orlando: You've made this point in the past that the political discourse has been taken over by the extremes and that we need more pragmatic solutions. And I think that's certainly true in the cultural issues. But one substantive issue where this seems to have taken place is trade. You opposed NAFTA -

Ted Strickland: NAFTA, WTO. China being granted most favorite nation trading status.

Gerardo Orlando: Right. And you're very strong on that side, but then there's others in the Democratic Party and in this country, who understand or at least argue that free trade is also good for the country and the world economy. Is there any middle ground here?

Ted Strickland: Well, we argue about the choice of words because you use free trade.

Gerardo Orlando: Right.

Ted Strickland: And I don't want to play with words here.

Gerardo Orlando: Sure.

Ted Strickland: But I do think that what we have is not fair trade. And I don't think we have made the effort to apply the same standards to protect workers' rights and environmental rights that we have to protect, for example, property rights.

Gerardo Orlando: Right. And I understand that and that's the _____ _____ _____. Is that at all a practical _____ middle ground solution or is that saying other countries need to literally have the standards that we have otherwise we're not going to -

Ted Strickland: No, I don't think -

Gerardo Orlando: That doesn't seem like a practical solution.

Ted Strickland: No, no, no. I don't think anyone is saying that other countries have to have the exact standards that we have. For example, a minimum wage in Mexico would probably not equal - well, it almost would now with our minimum wage - but I don't know that we could expect the same minimum wage in Mexico that we would expect in our country. But I think we ought to expect the values that we embrace to be a part of our trade agreement. I mean, let me give you an example that may not exactly fit. But we don't allow people to travel to Cuba. We don't allow commerce with Cuba because they're an authoritarian Communist country. My God. What do we think China is? So, those -

Male Voice: But we wouldn't suppose that we could impose a Cuban embargo on every Communist country out there. Is that -

Ted Strickland: I think we ought to get rid of the Cuban embargo. But, I mean, I just use that as an example as the inconsistencies of our policies. Now, I think what we are participating in is the exploitation of people around this world. I went to Mexico several months ago. It was the tenth anniversary of _____ and I talked with people who worked in Juarez, Mexico and lived in - I mean, I grew up without indoor plumbing and I used to take my baths in the creek in the summertime and so on. I haven't always had a silver spoon in my mouth. But I saw poverty like I have never seen. I saw people living in shacks with dirt floors, working in factories, making $38 a week — $38 a week working in very modern factories. Now, I saw that with my own eyes. I talked with these people. I sat down and talked with people who were interested in developing effective unions. You mention the word and you're fired.

So I think what we are seeing is global exploitation. And this is a big issue. I think it would be possible to find common ground, or a middle ground. But I don't see that happening with our trade relations and our trade deals. And so, you know, would I be willing to hear something that was less than maybe what I thought was the ideal and what I consider a compromise if we could start moving in the right direction? Yes. But I don't see any evidence that those in charge of our trade negotiations are even willing to consider that.

Gerardo Orlando: I think that's true. What I sometimes find frustrating though is that those who oppose free trade agreements don't seem to be offering up "low hanging fruit" compromises that one would help illustrate that point. For example, two or three provisions that should be incorporated due to the labor code of countries that we're dealing with. So instead, it's an either/or situation.

Ted Strickland: I have voted for one trade deal. I have voted for one trade deal and that was with Jordan. And that's because that trade deal did have some moderate provisions in it that I and some of my friends felt like were moves in the right direction. I mean, this is a big deal because I think it's going to determine whether or not we perhaps become a second or third rate economic power in the decades to come. I fear for the future of this country because of what's happening. You sort of accused me, perhaps rightly, of taking a hard edge during an extreme position on this issue. But, I think there is a hard edge position on the other side as well.

Gerardo Orlando: Certainly. They seem to be - they're in power. They're -

Ted Strickland: They're winning, but they're winning by smaller margins. I mean, CAFTA passed by a couple of votes after the most -

Tim Russo: Let me ask you a quick question. What is your understanding of Steve LaTourette's position on that CAFTA vote?

Ted Strickland: Well, this is my understanding of what happened. Steve Latourette spoke vehemently against that bill and how bad it was and how it would hurt his constituency. And then he went in and he voted no.

Tim Russo: Right. So, what do you think happened?

Ted Strickland: Well, I think they said, "We need you, Steve." That's what I think happened. I mean, I've seen it happen. I sit there in the House from three until six A.M. when the Medicare bill was passed.

Tim Russo: What do you do on the floor between 3 and 6 a.m.?

Ted Strickland: Well, we were very quiet. Usually we're not all that quiet, but we were asked to be really quiet because we didn't want to give the other side any kind of emotional reason to say, well _____ them.

But, I think Steve sold out. But that's not the first time. That's not the first time. And, you know, one of the things that frustrates me about the so-called moderate Republicans who sometimes get support from labor organizations and others is that - well they give us a vote with amendments. They only give the votes that don't count. When it really counts, when it makes a difference, their leadership's going to get the votes they need.

Bill Callahan: That raises a good follow-up question on state government, where you'll be in a position of setting development finance policy. That's development finance policy with respect, for example, to investments in Wal-Mart installations. [Is that a handle on the trade issues with] China that you were talking about?

Ted Strickland: I think that - maybe I shouldn't say that. It's sort of a joke, but if there's an anti-Christ, I think it's Wal-Mart.

Bill Callahan: Well, they have a big distribution center with the state's support, as I understand, south of Columbus.

Ted Strickland: Have the big distribution center in my district.

Bill Callahan: Which got significant state support.

[Cross talk]

Ted Strickland: Absolutely. I mean, you know, there are what I would call high road jobs and low road jobs. And I think tax dollars, development dollars ought to be used to create what I would call high road jobs. Jobs that have living wages and decent benefits and so on and so forth. I represent counties where the unemployment has gone down and the poverty rate has gone up. What that means is people are being forced to work and continue to live in poverty. I don't think we ought to use development dollars to encourage that kind of job creation.

Bill Callahan: So, in your administration, the Department of Development will be seeking to withdraw state support from low road investments.

Ted Strickland: Well, let me put it positively. I would want those dollars directed towards efforts to create high road jobs. And there's a bill before the Ohio Senate that I strongly support. And that's to require employers in this state that have employees that are on public assistance to be identified. Of course, Wal-Mart's going to be probably at the top of that list.

George Nemeth: Ted, thank you for doing this interview with us. I appreciate it.

Ted Strickland: Thank you. I'll come back if you want me to.

George Nemeth: We'd like that, yeah.

http://www.meetthebloggers.net/ted-strickland-transcript/