BY JOHN J. BYCZKOWSKI
The Cincinnati Enquirer
The Ohio economy is too good for this year's governor's election. Unemployment is resting at 4.3 percent, and a half-million more Ohioans are working than seven years ago. Output is strong, and incomes are rising.
Apparently believing you shouldn't try to fix what isn't broken, Ohio gubernatorial candidates Bob Taft and Lee Fisher each has painted himself as pro-business, supporting quality education as a means of training the work force of the 21st century, and advocating job creation through support of high-tech industries.
But two chronic issues in particular are defining the differences between the candidates and shaping their support: reform of worker's compensation rules and the rules governing how Ohioans sue each other and collect damages. Though there's no active legislative debate on either issue right now, each side wants the right man in place should the issues resurface.
Democrat Lee Fisher has gone to great lengths to project himself as pro-business, but has actively courted -- and received -- support from labor. Republican Bob Taft finds his backing coming from business groups such as the Ohio Society of Certified Public Accountants and the Ohio Chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business.
"Lee Fisher stands for working families in Ohio. Taft, on the other hand, represents big business and corporations in Ohio," said William T. Endsley, president of AFSCME Ohio Council 8, which represents 41,000 public-sector workers in the state.
He cites the candidates' views on such issues as worker's comp and health care. "Fisher has always been on record supporting decent wages and benefits for families in Ohio -- not just union workers, but all workers."
Though the candidates have many similar positions, "we happen to think Bob Taft would be a better candidate for the state at this time," said Clarke Price, president of the Ohio Society of CPAs.
He cited Mr. Taft's support for, and Mr. Fisher's opposition to, tort reform.
|
COMPARISON
|
|
What candidates advocate in high-tech dewvelopment.
|
To a point, the candidates are almost indistinguishable. One issue of importance to business is the deregulation of electric utilities, which promises competition for electric customers and lower rates. Both candidates support deregulation, with the near-identical caveats that neither local governments, consumers nor small businesses be hurt in the transition.
That lack of a dominating economic issue "says to me the economy of Ohio is bullish right now, and there's no major problem that would require the candidates to take opposite positions," said John Mahaney, president of the Ohio Council-Retail Merchants. The group has never endorsed a candidate for governor.
Says Dan Martin, political director of the United Steel Workers District 1 in Ohio: "We're having pretty good economic times right now. That's why we're looking at other issues like education and health care reform."
When the Ohio Chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business held its candidate interviews, members were naturally anxious to hear about the candidates' support for small business. "We think a lot of (the state's) economic development programming is not focused where it ought to be, and that's on small business," said Roger Geiger, state director of the NFIB.
Both candidates expressed strong support for small business.
The Ohio Society of CPAs puts a premium on "sound legislation, sound policies that don't put the state in debt," said Mr. Price. During interviews, "both candidates generally presented a platform that was fairly sound," he said.
A number of issues make up the bulk of the candidates' platforms on economic development, and there are just shades of difference between them:
Education: Both candidates discuss education in the context of training workers for the next century. Both candidates advocate greater linkage between the state's system of two-year colleges and the business community.
Worker training: The state administers dozens of programs for training workers. Both candidates have said they favor consolidating the programs to streamline access.
Edison Technology Centers: There are seven of these around the state, each dedicated to a different technology. Cincinnati's is the Institute of Advanced Manufacturing Sciences. Both candidates support expansion of these and greater ties to the state's businesses. Mr. Taft supports establishing an Edison Center for Information Technology. Neither candidate mentions what size investment he's willing to make, or where the money would come from.
Regulatory reform: Both candidates support forming commissions to examine and reduce the amount of business regulation in the state. "We will create a Common-Sense Council on Regulatory Reform to make government more business-friendly," says Fisher campaign literature. Mr. Taft says he'll "create a Governor's Office of Regulatory Reform to streamline and simplify state regulations."
The inventory tax: Both candidates support elimination of the tax.
An emphasis on high-tech business in economic development. Mr. Taft wants to expand tax credits on investment in pre-seed venture capital funds, and use state pension money for venture capital. Mr. Fisher advocated formation of an Ohio Entrepreneurs Assistance Network to help business startups.
Lacking a hot economic issue, the choice in this election comes down to some chronic issues and the candidates' histories.
For instance, AFSCME's Mr. Endsley fears a continual assault on the right of public-sector employees to collective bargaining. The Ohio General Assembly enacted a law protecting that right in 1984, but Mr. Endsley said there have been constant attacks on the law.
"We've been able to hold it off until today, but it doesn't stop the attempts to change or weaken the bill," Mr. Endsley said.
As a state senator, Lee Fisher voted for that law in 1984, and Mr. Endsley said he'd feel better with Mr. Fisher as governor rather than Mr. Taft.
It's on these kinds of issues where groups like the NFIB determined their endorsements. Small business wants tort reform and changes in the worker's comp system. "You can't placate the union crowd and placate us," said the NFIB's Mr. Geiger. "And you can't placate the trial lawyers and placate us."
The tort reform debate could heat up again soon. Ohio passed such a reform in 1996, limiting damage awards and instituting proportional liability (a defendant found half at fault, for instance, would pay half the damages). The Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers and the Ohio AFL-CIO have challenged the law, and the Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments Sept. 29. A decision is just weeks away.
Mr. Taft has supported tort reform, and has vowed to work a new law through the legislature if the 1996 reforms are deemed unconstitutional. Mr. Fisher has opposed the limits on jury awards as arbitrary.
Changing the worker's comp system is another chronic issue. To one side, change is "reform." To the other, it's "taking benefits away from people." And neither side forgets where the candidates stood last year.
Since Issue 2 on changing the state's worker's comp system was hammered in last November's referendum, business has toned down its calls for drastic change and the words "fine tuning" have been substituted for "reform." Still, the issue hasn't gone away, and if it does resurface, business wants Mr. Taft in the governor's mansion, and labor wants Mr. Fisher.
"Bob Taft supported Issue 2, and from our view, that legislation took away very much needed protections for workers injured on the job," said Richard Mason, executive director of the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers.
William Berga, president of the Ohio AFL-CIO, almost wishes Issue 2 was on the ballot this year, because it would help illuminate the differences between the two candidates. He recalled that in 1958, Ohio voters rejected a "right to work" referendum and voted out the candidates who supported it.
"If Issue 2 was on the ballot this year instead of last year, voters would be paying more attention to who was on their side," Mr. Berga said.
