Reassessing Ohio's Intel Investment: A Conservative Economic Perspective
Ohio is notorious among the States for investing large sums of money into economic development and business incubation to obtain negative growth over the last 30 years.
In the realm of economic policy, prudence must reign supreme. The decision-making process, particularly when it involves substantial taxpayer dollars, demands rigorous analysis, grounded in conservative principles of fiscal responsibility and skepticism toward government intervention.
Ohio's pledge of $2 billion in taxpayer incentives to entice Intel to establish a $20 billion computer chip manufacturing facility in New Albany is a case in point. While the allure of economic growth and job creation may be tempting, we must temper enthusiasm with a sober assessment of the risks and uncertainties inherent in such a venture.
The semiconductor industry, in which Intel operates, is in a state of flux. The dominance of Complex Instruction Set Computing (CISC) chips, upon which Intel has built its empire, is being challenged by the ascendance of Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC) chips, exemplified by the ARM architecture. Moreover, alternative technologies, including GPUs from Nvidia, are gaining traction, while the promise of quantum computing looms large on the horizon.
Against this backdrop, Ohio's bet on Intel's success appears increasingly precarious. The recent announcement of a delay in the opening of the Ohio plant underscores the inherent uncertainty surrounding the project. Such delays are not merely logistical hurdles but may signal deeper challenges and risks that warrant closer scrutiny.
Furthermore, the competitive landscape within the semiconductor industry is evolving rapidly. Companies like Nvidia and AMD are encroaching on Intel's territory, challenging its market dominance. Ohio's substantial investment in Intel overlooks the potential for disruptive innovation from these competitors and the risks associated with technological obsolescence.
Conservative economic principles dictate a cautious approach to government intervention in the marketplace. While targeted incentives may sometimes be warranted to spur economic development, they must be accompanied by robust cost-benefit analysis and safeguards to protect taxpayer interests. The efficacy of Ohio's $2 billion incentive package for Intel warrants serious scrutiny.
Moreover, the prospect of federal government intervention to prop up Intel's fortunes raises additional concerns. Such interventions run counter to conservative principles of free markets and limited government interference, and may distort market dynamics to the detriment of consumers and innovation.
The decision by the Governor DeWine administration to heavily incentivize Intel's proposed manufacturing facility in Ohio raises questions about the state's broader economic development strategy and its track record in attracting and retaining significant companies. While the promise of job creation and economic growth may be enticing, the reliance on substantial taxpayer incentives to lure corporations like Intel underscores a concerning pattern of short-sighted policymaking.
Ohio has struggled historically to incubate and retain companies that make a lasting impact on the state's economy. Despite its rich industrial history and strategic location, Ohio has often seen companies come and go, leaving behind economic uncertainty and missed opportunities for sustainable growth. The failure to cultivate an environment conducive to long-term investment and innovation has hampered the state's ability to compete in an increasingly globalized economy.
Moreover, the Intel investment represents a significant bet on a single corporation and industry, without sufficient diversification or consideration of alternative economic drivers. While semiconductor manufacturing may offer short-term benefits, the rapid evolution of technology and market dynamics underscores the need for a more diversified and resilient economic base.
The reliance on government subsidies and incentives to attract companies like Intel also raises concerns about the effectiveness of Ohio's economic development strategy. Rather than fostering a competitive business environment and investing in infrastructure, education, and workforce development, the state has often resorted to offering financial incentives as a primary means of attracting investment.
In light of these challenges, it is imperative for the Governor DeWine administration to reevaluate its approach to economic development and prioritize policies that promote sustainable growth and resilience. This includes investing in education and workforce training programs, modernizing infrastructure, and fostering a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship. By addressing these fundamental issues, Ohio can position itself for long-term success and attract companies that will make a meaningful and lasting contribution to the state's economy.
THE ABORTION CONNECTION
The irony of Ohio's economic trajectory being intertwined with political ambitions and contentious social issues cannot be overstated. Throughout its history, Ohio has seen fluctuations in its economic standing, often driven by political maneuvers and controversial decisions that have had far-reaching consequences for its citizens.
One striking example is the Cornhusker Kickback secretly orchestrated by then-Governor John Kasich and John Boehner, which propelled Ohio's economy from 23rd to 10th place. This backroom deal, which involved offering Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur a $30 billion green energy spending authority in exchange for her vote on Obamacare, (she was refusing to vote because Obamacare allowed taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions). The temporary boost in Ohio's economic ranking, fueled by the influx of federal funds, was short-lived and came at a cost—both politically and morally.
The association between Ohio's economic fortunes and contentious social issues, particularly abortion, further underscores the complexities at play. Intel's arrival in Ohio, while initially hailed as a boon for the state's economy, has raised eyebrows due to its support for abortion rights and involvement in passing issue 1, which enshrined abortion on demand into Ohio's Constitution. The symbiotic relationship between economic development and social politics is evident, with Ohio's economic ranking experiencing fluctuations in tandem with shifts in social policy.
The short-term economic gains resulting from Intel's presence in Ohio are undeniable, with the state's ranking soaring to 15th and expected to climb even higher. However, the sustainability of this economic boost is questionable, particularly given Intel's controversial stance on social issues and being the largest corporate sponsor of abortion and the potential ramifications of its failure. Should Intel falter, Ohio risks plummeting back down the economic ladder, reverting to a lower ranking and exacerbating existing economic challenges and will have one of the worst records in the nation on protecting life thanks to Intel’s reputed involvement with the passage of Issue 1.
The irony is that both of Ohio’s Republican Politicians that cast themselves as staunch conservatives on the pro-Life issue sold out Ohioans and the preborn - both times - for very short-lived economic gains. The promises never live up to the hype and are not worth turning Ohio into the Child Sacrifice and Child Mutilation Capital of the United States.
In essence, Ohio's economic trajectory serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the dangers of prioritizing short-term gains over long-term sustainability and the inherent risks of aligning economic development with political ambitions and contentious social issues. Moving forward, it is imperative for Ohio's policymakers to adopt a more balanced and prudent approach to economic development, one that prioritizes stability, resilience, and inclusivity, while navigating the complexities of political and social landscapes. Failure to do so may result in continued volatility and uncertainty, ultimately undermining the prosperity and well-being of Ohioans.
You are correct. The cult of MAGA does think very much differently then I. I occupy the space in the middle, not left or right and I expect the extreme elements of today to disagree with the position in the middle for we in the middle are few and conservative in the old definition of the word.
Constitutions as documents of governance should be difficult to amend and be outlines of government operation and the rights of the citizen, not traffic laws and noise ordnances. However, the method is what it is, and you can't put the goal post on wheels and move it around at the will of the ruling party to duck the will of the people. If issue ONE was so easy to defeat in 2024, why then did the Republican powers put it on an "off" year election and try to move the goal post on Amendments in a special election before the regular election? That smell blowing in from the right is really fishy as sensed from the middle of the road.
Redistrict the state out of the gerrymandered mess. clean out the gaff and corruption. End Citizen United and do away with the current campaign financing system. Elect people who adhere to the principles of compromise, civility (PC, polite curtesy), problem solving for the common good with learned understanding (smart people). Then you can think about what the constitution should say.
Yes, the numbers for November 2023 are correct as you indicated which is 49.63% of the reg. voters [7,988,132] which is down from 8,029,950 in Nov. 2022. I wonder where those voters went? The percentage in the BIG on year election was 52.32%. In Nov. 2020 the record was set with 73.99%. So what I am seeing is most election, have sub 50% turn outs. But the important part is more of the voters voted for the issue. and that means that it is the law of the land, and the MAGA cult rules of if I don't like the result of a fair, free and binding election then I will ignore it and complain. The problem is most of the elections are minority turn outs with respect to the total number of qualified voters over the age of 18. Which make a fine thing to use to pass an unpopular law while nobody is looking. If only the Republicans could figure how to make it rain hard on November 4th.