Jim Renacci

My Prediction: Jon Husted Isn't Finished Running for Governor. Here's my prediction: As soon as the dust settles from yesterday's election, Jon Husted will begin positioning himself to challenge Amy Acton for governor in 2030. After all, Husted kept his gubernatorial campaign account open, reportedly with more than $5 million remaining in it. I've always believed Husted's real ambition was to become governor of Ohio, not a United States senator. But he also knew that defeating Vivek Ramaswamy in a Republican gubernatorial primary would have been an uphill battle. So he took the Senate seat instead. Yesterday, after nearly $275 million was reportedly spent supporting Husted or opposing Sherrod Brown, including spending by outside organizations, Ohio voters delivered their verdict. And despite that financial advantage, Husted lost. At some point, Republican leaders and candidates need to recognize that money, endorsements, political connections, and name recognition cannot substitute for earning the confidence of voters. My hope is that Husted recognizes the message voters sent and considers a different career path rather than another campaign for governor. It's time for the next generation of Republican leadership in Ohio. We cannot rebuild the Republican Party by continually recycling the same political figures, relying on the same political insiders, and expecting different results. Republicans need fresh faces, new ideas, principled conservatives, and leaders who understand that the party belongs to its voters, not its political establishment. Yesterday wasn't just an election loss. It was an opportunity to change direction. The question now is whether Republican leadership is willing to listen.

America Is Still the Greatest Country in the world — And Our System Still Works! We are a strong country. We are a great country. And one of the greatest things about America is that the people, not the politicians, have the final say. Our Constitution gives us the right to choose our leaders, and our elections give us the opportunity to hold them accountable. Sometimes, when a president, a political party, or its leadership goes too far, the American people send a clear message. That message was sent loud and clear yesterday. I have always believed that our system of checks and balances, when respected and applied correctly, will continue to move our country in the right direction, regardless of which party or individual holds office. Our system worked again in this election. Whether voters were rejecting the direction of the Republican Party, the policies of President Trump, or the leadership that failed to listen, one thing is clear: The voters wanted change. And that is exactly how our system is supposed to work. We should never lose faith in the greatest system of government in the world simply because an election doesn't go our way. For Republicans, this should not be a time for excuses, finger-pointing, or blaming the voters. It should be a time for reflection, accountability, and rebuilding. The Republican Party can emerge from these losses stronger, wiser, and more committed to the conservative principles that made it successful. But only if we are willing to listen, learn from our mistakes, and put the voters ahead of political personalities. Winning elections is important. But respecting the will of the people and protecting the principles of our republic are even more important. Our country is bigger than any president, any political party, or any election. God bless America, and may we, as Republicans, have the wisdom and courage to learn from yesterday, rebuild our party, and move forward together.

The Ohio Republican Party leadership needs to do some serious soul-searching this morning. The idea that Donald Trump endorsed a candidate, so every Republican should automatically fall in line, is a direct rejection of one of our most fundamental Republican principles: the right of Republican voters to choose their candidates through a fair and open primary process. And if I hear one more party leader tell us, "We know best," my response is simple: Clearly, you don't. The Republican Party does not belong to its leadership. It does not belong to its donors. And it does not belong to any one elected official, including Donald Trump. It belongs to the Republican voters. For too long, party leadership has confused loyalty to individuals with loyalty to principles. They have tried to dictate who Republicans should support rather than allowing voters to make those decisions themselves. Hopefully, resignations will be submitted today, and the Ohio Republican Party can begin the difficult but necessary process of rebuilding. We are not the party of Donald Trump anymore. We must return to being the party of Republican principles, conservative values, and, most importantly, the Republican voters. Leadership should listen to the voters, not lecture them.

It's almost midnight in Ohio, and Democrats appear to be on track for a midterm rout across the country. Tonight's election results are sending a message that Republicans cannot afford to ignore. Are voters rejecting Republican principles, President Trump's policies, the way those policies have been implemented, or the candidates the Republican Party has chosen for them? Those are questions Republicans need to ask themselves, and the answers may not be what party leadership wants to hear. Blaming Republican and independent voters for exercising their right to choose is not the answer. Winning elections requires earning votes, not demanding loyalty. Here in Ohio, Amy Acton has defeated Vivek Ramaswamy for governor, while Sherrod Brown has defeated Jon Husted in the U.S. Senate race. Both Republican candidates received President Trump's endorsement and the backing of the Ohio Republican Party well before voters had the opportunity to make their choices in a primary. Those early endorsements sent a clear message to other potential Republican candidates: The party leadership had already made its decision. Would different Republican candidates have won tonight? Nobody knows. But that's exactly the point. When party leadership effectively determines the preferred candidates before Republican voters have a meaningful opportunity to evaluate alternatives, we undermine the very process we claim to defend. **Should the Republican Party choose its candidates, or should Republican voters?** I have long believed in closed Republican primaries, where Republicans choose their own nominees without interference from voters of other parties. I also believe the Republican Party should remain neutral in contested primaries and allow its members to make those decisions. The party establishment is not always right, and an endorsement should never replace the voice of the Republican voter. Republicans across the country, and especially here in Ohio, need to reflect on more than just tonight's losses. We need to examine our policies, our messaging, our candidates, and the process by which those candidates are selected. The voters are not responsible for delivering victories to the Republican Party. The Republican Party is responsible for earning their votes. **The voters have spoken. The question now is whether Republican leadership is willing to listen.** — Jim Renacci

Nothing in yet from Lucas County, Ohio. That is usually a strong Democrat County. What is going on in Lucas County?

If Republicans Lose on Tuesday, Who Is Really to Blame? With Election Day approaching, I have a question that I believe every Republican should be asking. If Republicans lose control of the U.S. House and Senate, and if Vivek Ramaswamy loses the Ohio governor's race to Amy Acton, whose fault will it be? Will Republicans blame the Republican voters who refused to support their candidates? Will they blame independents who decided to vote for Democrats? Will they call those voters RINOs, disloyal Republicans, socialists or even communists? Or will they finally consider the possibility that the Republican Party and some of its candidates have lost touch with the very voters they need to win elections? Somewhere along the way, we seem to have forgotten a fundamental principle of our representative democracy. Candidates must earn the votes of the people. The people do not owe their votes to the candidates or the party. Just because someone has an R after their name does not automatically entitle them to a Republican's vote. And just because a Republican voter chooses not to support a particular Republican candidate does not suddenly make that voter a Democrat. I have said repeatedly that I believe in Republican principles and policies. Limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, personal accountability and constitutional freedoms. But believing in those principles does not require blind loyalty to every candidate the party chooses to support. Perhaps the problem isn't the voters. Perhaps it's a party that has become more interested in demanding loyalty than earning trust. Perhaps it's a party that discourages disagreement, attacks those who question its candidates and sometimes tries to determine the outcome of primaries before Republican voters have spoken. And perhaps it's candidates who spend more time appealing to their political base than reaching the independent and undecided voters necessary to win a general election. Winning a primary does not guarantee winning a general election. And winning the endorsement of party leadership does not guarantee earning the confidence of the voters. I still believe in closed Republican primaries. I still believe the party should stay out of endorsing candidates in contested primaries. And I still believe Republican voters, not party insiders, should determine who represents them. If Republicans win on Tuesday, they should celebrate. But if they lose, they should do some serious soul-searching instead of immediately attacking the voters. Because in a democracy, voters are free to choose whom they believe will best represent them. The responsibility to earn those votes belongs to the candidates and their party. You cannot insult voters, dismiss their concerns, question their loyalty and then expect them to show up simply because you tell them they have no other choice. And you certainly cannot blame voters for exercising the very freedom Republicans claim to defend. If Republicans lose, maybe the first question shouldn't be, "What's wrong with our voters?" Maybe it should be, "What did we do to lose their trust?" Principles matter. Character matters. Candidates matter. And ultimately, the voters decide.

Principles Matter. Consistency Matters. And Religious Freedom Matters. Senator Bernie Moreno recently criticized Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, who is Muslim, questioning his religious beliefs and whether he understands that Jesus Christ came for our salvation. But here's my question for Senator Moreno. You endorsed Vivek Ramaswamy for Governor of Ohio. Vivek is Hindu. He has publicly stated that while he believes Jesus is a son of God, he does not profess the traditional Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God. So why is one candidate's religious belief apparently disqualifying while another candidate with different religious beliefs receives your endorsement? I am not defending Abdul El-Sayed or his political positions. Nor am I attacking Vivek Ramaswamy for his religion. I am questioning the consistency of the standard being applied. As a Christian, I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our Savior. But I also believe in the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits religious tests for public office. We should judge candidates by their character, qualifications, principles, policies and ability to serve the people, not whether they practice the same religion we do. If religious beliefs are going to be used as a political litmus test, then that standard must be applied consistently, regardless of whether someone has an R or a D after their name. You cannot condemn a Democrat for a religious belief while endorsing a Republican who does not share the very same Christian doctrine. That's not standing on principle. That's applying a double standard. And once again, this is why I believe principles and character must matter more than party loyalty. By Jim Renacci

I've been watching and reading social media posts from across the political spectrum, and something has become increasingly clear. Apparently, if you're a Republican but aren't 100% loyal to 100% of the Republican candidates, you're suddenly labeled a Democrat, a RINO, a socialist, or even a communist. Really? Whatever happened to a Republican's right to think independently and decide who deserves their vote? Is that no longer a Republican principle? If Republican candidates lose on Tuesday, will we blame Republicans who didn't vote for them? Or will we acknowledge that the majority of voters simply chose someone else? And here's a bigger question. Do we blame voters for exercising their constitutional right to choose, or do we hold the Republican Party accountable for a process that sometimes discourages competition and fails to properly vet candidates? Who should decide who represents the Republican Party? Party leadership or Republican voters? Should a Republican be expected to support a candidate simply because that candidate has an R after their name, regardless of qualifications, character, principles, or positions? And when did questioning a Republican candidate become an act of disloyalty? I have always believed in Republican principles. But believing in those principles does not mean blindly supporting every person who claims to represent them. Loyalty to principles should always come before loyalty to a candidate or a party. I continue to believe that closed Republican primaries are necessary. Republican voters should decide who represents their party. I also believe the Republican Party should NEVER endorse candidates in contested Republican primaries. Let the candidates compete. Let their records, qualifications, character, and positions be examined. And most importantly, let Republican voters decide. Party leadership is not always right. And when party leaders attempt to predetermine the outcome of a primary, they risk overriding the very voters they claim to represent. The party should support the voters' choice, not attempt to make that choice for them. Next Wednesday, after the votes are counted, there will be plenty of questions to answer. But perhaps the most important question is this: Does the Republican Party belong to its leadership, its candidates, or the Republican voters? I know where I stand. The party belongs to the people. And no Republican should be attacked for exercising the very freedom of choice our party claims to defend.

In politics, it's not about who YOU like, who YOU think is better, who YOU believe is unqualified, or who YOU think is the wrong candidate. It's about who gets the most votes. That's how elections work. And sometimes, the candidate you believe is best isn't the candidate the majority chooses. So stop the name-calling. Be civil. Understand that people have legitimate concerns, different opinions, and different reasons for supporting or opposing a candidate. Respect those differences and let the voters decide. You don't have to agree with someone's political choices to respect their right to make them. And here's something worth remembering: When you call someone names, you rarely change their vote. You rarely change their opinion of a candidate. But you absolutely can change their opinion of YOU. Disagreement is part of democracy. Disrespect doesn't have to be. At the end of the day, elections determine who wins. But how we treat people along the way says far more about our own character than it does about the candidate we support.

I like Vivek Ramaswamy. I've helped him with policy, I've supported him, and I believe he is the stronger candidate in the race for Ohio Governor. But the argument that Amy Acton is a weak candidate simply because she won't debate him is a weak argument itself. After all, John Husted has not agreed to debate Sherrod Brown. And let's not forget that Mike DeWine refused to debate me. I believe in debates. I participated in debates in every election I ran in, except against DeWine, who refused. I believe voters should demand debates from every candidate, regardless of party. But the reality is that campaigns currently get to make that decision for themselves. And when only about 22% of major congressional and gubernatorial races nationally have held or scheduled debates this election cycle, it's difficult to argue that refusing to debate is somehow unique to your opponent. We can't criticize Democrats for avoiding debates while giving Republicans a pass for doing the same thing. Principles have to apply equally, regardless of the letter after someone's name. On paper, Vivek is the stronger candidate. He has the background, policy positions, and arguments to make that case directly to Ohio voters. My advice to Vivek is simple: Stop making the debate the issue. Make the issues the issue. Tell Ohioans why your policies are better, why your vision is stronger, and why you deserve their vote. The best way to prove you're the stronger candidate isn't to complain that your opponent won't debate you. It's to give voters compelling reasons to elect you.

I Believe in Republican Principles and Policies More Than I Believe in Any Candidate or Political Party. I've been a Republican for most of my life. I've served in public office, supported Republican candidates, and worked to advance the principles that I believe make our country stronger. But somewhere along the way, I think we've confused loyalty to our principles with loyalty to individual politicians and political parties. I am a Republican because of what I believe, not because of who happens to be running for office or who happens to be leading the party. I believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, personal accountability, free enterprise, and the Constitution. I believe government should live within its means, protect our freedoms, and be accountable to the people it serves. Those beliefs don't change depending on whose name appears on the ballot or which party holds power. I can support a candidate's policies without defending their behavior. I can agree with a party's platform while questioning its direction. And I can criticize a Republican or the Republican Party without suddenly becoming a Democrat. Character matters. Integrity matters. Personal accountability matters. And principles should never become negotiable simply because someone has an R next to their name. Too often, we ask voters to defend the candidate or the party rather than asking candidates and parties to defend the principles they claim to represent. That's backwards. Political parties should stand for something bigger than the personalities leading them. Candidates come and go. Party leadership changes. Elections are won and lost. But our values should remain. I want Republicans to win elections. But more importantly, I want Republican principles to mean something when we win. And when Republicans abandon those principles, we should be just as willing to hold them accountable as we would a Democrat. Because if we abandon our principles to defend a candidate or protect a political party, what exactly have we won? I don't believe any candidate deserves blind loyalty. And I don't believe any political party should be above criticism. My loyalty is to my principles, not to a candidate or a political party. And I believe that's how it should be. If you disagree that's ok. I also support your 1st amendment right to disagree.

For those who follow the daily polls and political trends, the floor may have just fallen out from under the Republican campaign for Ohio Governor. And any Republican who fails to distance themselves from this ad risks taking on water as well. I have to give Jon Husted credit. He said he would not have run the ad. That was the right response. While he stopped short of outright condemning it, he made his position clear. Vivek Ramaswamy needs to pivot, and quickly. Stop defending the ad and start talking about his policies, his vision for Ohio, and why he believes he is the better candidate. If he chooses to double down, I don't see anything good coming from it. Here's what too many people in politics seem to forget: Voters don't always elect the most qualified candidate. They often elect the candidate they like, trust, relate to, or even sympathize with. You can have the strongest résumé, the best policies, and the most impressive background, but none of that guarantees victory if voters don't like what they see or hear. And when voters believe someone has been treated unfairly, sympathy can become a powerful political force. Elections aren't won simply by convincing voters that your opponent is worse. They're won by convincing voters that you're better. That is a lesson every candidate, Republican or Democrat, would be wise to remember.

WHY DO I POST WHAT I POST? I get asked that question occasionally. The answer is pretty simple. My goal isn't to make everyone agree with me. My goal is to share what I know, what I see, and what I believe to be the facts. To be honest, straightforward, and fair. And to keep doing it, even when people disagree. Over the years, I've learned something important. Not everyone who disagrees with me does so for the same reasons. There are people who look at the same facts and reach a different conclusion. That's okay. They love this country just as much as I do. They want what's best for their families, their communities, and our nation. They may weigh the facts differently, have different experiences, or simply see things from another perspective. I respect those people. They deserve the facts. They deserve an honest discussion. And they deserve respect, even when we disagree. I've had plenty of conversations over the years where someone changed my perspective, and others where I believe I changed theirs. That's how honest debate should work. But there's another group. People who have already decided what they want to believe, regardless of the facts. They've picked a side, joined a movement, and closed their minds to anything that challenges their position. For them, the conclusion comes first, and the facts only matter if they support it. I used to spend a lot of time trying to convince those people. I've learned that you can't open someone's mind when they've decided to keep it closed. But that doesn't mean you stop telling the truth. You keep presenting the facts. You keep asking questions. You keep challenging statements that don't hold up under scrutiny. And you do it without personal attacks or hatred. Because I've always believed that, over time, the truth has a way of coming out. History has shown us that the loudest voices aren't always the right ones. And just because something is repeated over and over doesn't make it true. A lie needs to be constantly defended, repeated, and explained away. The truth doesn't change simply because it becomes unpopular. So why do I keep posting? Because I believe facts matter. Because I believe honest debate matters. Because I believe we should be able to disagree without becoming enemies. And because remaining silent when you believe something is wrong isn't the answer. I've also learned that I don't need to win every argument. I don't need everyone to agree with me. And I certainly don't need everyone's approval. I'll continue sharing what I believe to be the facts. I'll listen to those who disagree. I'll acknowledge when I'm wrong. And I'll respect those who are willing to have an honest conversation. As for those who refuse to listen, I'll leave the door open. Maybe someday they'll walk through it. In the meantime, I'll keep posting. I'll keep questioning. And I'll keep standing for what I believe is right. Not because I expect everyone to agree. But because I believe the truth matters more than winning an argument. Jim Renacci

Republicans need to pay attention to what is happening with the next generation. These aren't just statistics. These are our children and grandchildren — and they will soon be the business owners, taxpayers, parents, community leaders and elected officials running this country. The numbers should get everyone's attention. According to Pew Research Center's 2026 data: • Among Americans ages 18–29, just 38% identify as Republican or lean Republican, compared with 54% who identify as Democrat or lean Democratic. • Among ages 30–49, Republicans also trail: 41% Republican/Republican-leaning compared with 49% Democratic/Democratic-leaning. • The situation among young women is even more dramatic. Among women ages 18–29, only 27% identify as Republican or lean Republican, while 66% identify as Democrat or lean Democratic. And Harvard's 2026 Youth Poll gives us another warning sign. Only 13% of Americans ages 18–29 believe the country is headed in the right direction. Just 25% approve of the job Republicans in Congress are doing — although Democrats in Congress aren't doing much better at 26%. Half of young Americans say people like them have no real say in government. Maybe instead of simply asking, "How do we get young people to vote Republican?" we should be asking a much more important question: Why don't they believe we represent them? These young Americans are worried about housing, inflation, healthcare, jobs, wages and whether they will ever have the same opportunities their parents and grandparents had. We don't have to abandon our principles to listen to them. We don't have to change our values to understand their concerns. But we do have to give them a reason to believe those principles and values can improve THEIR lives and THEIR future. Because they aren't some distant generation we can worry about later. They are our sons and daughters. They are our grandchildren. They are the next generation of American leaders. If the Republican Party isn't willing to listen to them, talk to them and address the issues affecting their future, we shouldn't be surprised when they look somewhere else. The future of any political party ultimately belongs to the generations that come next.

I’m seeing plenty of social media posts from Republicans telling people to “hold your nose and vote” for the Republican candidate because the other side consists of socialists, communists, or people who apparently hate puppies. What does that say about the candidate we’re being asked to support? Why not tell us what that candidate believes, what their voting record shows, and what their history says about their character? Give voters a positive reason to support them. Of course, sometimes that history is precisely what makes the candidate difficult to defend. I believe everyone should vote. People fought and died to protect that right. But exercising it does not require filling in every spot on the ballot. Leaving a race blank can also send a message: neither candidate has earned your support. When neither candidate represents your values and principles, I believe those values and principles should come first. For me, “holding your nose” and voting for the lesser of two evils is still choosing to support something you believe is wrong. When I shared that thought with a minister recently, he paused and said, “Hmm. I never thought about it that way.” Please go out and vote. Support candidates who represent your values, demonstrate good character, and earn your trust. If neither candidate meets that standard, you should not feel obligated to endorse either one. I understand that leaving a race blank means other voters will decide the outcome. But a party that expects our votes regardless of whom it nominates has little incentive to offer better candidates. And don’t accept the argument that the damage caused by the other side can never be repaired, while ignoring the damage a bad candidate from our own side can do. Our candidates should earn our votes. Our principles should never be the price of party loyalty.

Yes, people are frustrated with the cost of gas, food prices, utility bills, mortgage interest rates, and rising real estate taxes. In 2024, voters were frustrated with many of the same things. Prices were too high, and too many people felt the Biden Administration was telling them the economy was doing great when that wasn't what they were experiencing at the grocery store, the gas pump, or around the kitchen table. They rejected Democrats and put Republicans in charge. Now, two years later, many of those economic frustrations remain. Republicans can point to accomplishments. President Trump made securing the border a priority, and the Republican majority extended the 2017 tax cuts. But that doesn't change what many Americans are feeling financially today. If you're a Republican telling people everything is OK, you may want to pay attention. Voters know what they're paying for groceries. They see their utility bills. They know their mortgage payments and property taxes. People aren't stupid. They know what their own checkbook looks like. BUCKLE UP !!!!!!! The November elections are 34 days away.

STOP CALLING PEOPLE SOCIALIST BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU ABOUT OUR CURRENT ECONOMY A Pew Research Center survey found that nearly three in four U.S. adults believe our economic system unfairly favors powerful interests. That included 62% of Trump supporters and 85% of Biden supporters. So maybe we shouldn’t be surprised by a new Gallup poll showing that 43% of Americans now have a positive view of socialism. But here’s my read: I don’t believe 43% of Americans are necessarily endorsing a socialist economic system. Many may simply be expressing frustration with their current economic situation. That same Gallup poll found that capitalism is still viewed positively by 55% of Americans, while free enterprise and small business receive even stronger support. When housing, health care, food, energy and other everyday costs feel out of reach, the promise of a system that sounds “fairer” can have appeal. And people mean very different things when they use the word “socialism.” America already has major government-run social insurance and assistance programs, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. We have also seen government intervention in private enterprise, including the federal government's investment in Intel and its “golden share” arrangement involving U.S. Steel. Whether you call those policies socialism, government intervention or industrial policy, they demonstrate that our economy has never fit neatly into one ideological box. The answer for those of us who believe in free enterprise is not to call frustrated voters “socialists.” It is to demonstrate that free enterprise can deliver affordable housing, rising wages, economic mobility and greater opportunity. People have every right to be frustrated when gasoline, groceries, rent, mortgages, health care and other necessities consume more of their paycheck. And simply comparing today's economy to the Biden years isn't enough. Biden is no longer president. Voters made their decision in 2024, and economic concerns were an important part of that election. People who were unhappy then voted for change. People who are unhappy today are entitled to demand results today. That is the political lesson both parties should remember: voters don't live in yesterday's economy. They live in today's. Calling them names won't change how they feel when they go to the grocery store, fill up their car, pay their rent or make their mortgage payment. If you want their support, give them a reason to believe tomorrow will be better than today.

So, it’s election time, and data centers have become the latest political talking point. But here are a few questions I haven’t heard anyone adequately answer. Suppose a massive data center is built in your community. The developer pays for the buildings, roads, utility connections, and other infrastructure required for the project. In other words, the developer bears the upfront cost. The data center then begins consuming enormous amounts of electricity and, depending on the facility, significant amounts of water. The data center pays its utility bills, of course. But what happens to everyone else? If this new demand requires additional electric generation, transmission lines, substations, water capacity, treatment facilities, or other long-term infrastructure, who ultimately pays for those costs? Maybe your electric or water bill doesn't increase today or tomorrow because of the data center. But over time, if demand increases and billions of dollars of additional infrastructure must be built to meet that demand, doesn't some portion of that cost eventually find its way to other ratepayers? And here is an even bigger question: What happens if technology changes? We are making enormous infrastructure investments today based on what data centers currently require. But technology moves incredibly fast. What if today's massive data center becomes outdated, substantially less valuable, or unnecessary 7, 10, or 15 years from now because computing becomes dramatically smaller, more efficient, and less resource-intensive? What happens to all the infrastructure that was built to support it? Who pays for the electric, water, road, and other infrastructure if the demand that justified those investments disappears? That's the part of this discussion I think deserves much more attention. I believe America needs data centers. We need the computing capacity to compete in AI and the technologies of the future. But needing data centers doesn't necessarily mean we should concentrate massive numbers of them in one state or approve every project that comes along. Maybe the smarter approach is more strategic: locate them where the infrastructure and resources can support them, spread the risk geographically, and, where practical, encourage development on existing industrial or commercial sites that are underutilized rather than consuming enormous amounts of undeveloped land. I'm not against data centers. I'm against making massive, long-term infrastructure bets without first answering a very simple question: Who bears the risk if today's assumptions about demand, technology, and infrastructure turn out to be wrong?.

Does ANYONE remember the big Intel deal DeWine announced in 2022. I do. It was right before the 2022 primary. With great fanfare, the DeWine-Husted administration in 2022 announced the massive Intel project about 20 miles northeast of Columbus. It promised to be at least a $20 billion investment — and it promised to serve the strategic goal of bringing microchip production back to the United States. It came with a price. The DeWine-Husted administration said it would put up $2 billion in state incentives and JobsOhio pledged another $150 million. The project began to hit snags. At the start of 2024, Intel announced that it was delaying its construction timeline, citing sluggish chip sales. Hemorrhaging money in July 2025, the company announced that it was laying off 24,000 people worldwide, abandoning two construction projects in Europe and further delaying the Ohio project. Originally slated to begin production by the start of this year, the facility now won’t start making chips until 2030 at the earliest. As the problems grew, so did the DeWine-Husted administration’s entanglements with the chipmaker. This is government at its worst !!!!!!! Yet no one is talking about it anymore !!!!

PEOPLE FORGET..... Social Security is a social-insurance program, not an individual retirement account. Workers and employers pay payroll taxes into legally established trust funds, and most of that current revenue is used to pay current beneficiaries. Benefits provide partial income replacement after retirement, disability, or the death of a covered worker. When revenue exceeded benefits in prior decades, the surplus was invested in interest-bearing Treasury securities. Those securities are obligations of the United States, and Social Security’s trust-fund assets can be used only to pay program benefits and administrative expenses. Congress can nevertheless change the program’s taxes, eligibility rules, and benefits through legislation. The financial shortfall is real, but it is not simply the result of Congress “taking the money,” poor investment returns, or disability and spousal benefits being added without funding. Disability benefits receive an allocated share of payroll taxes, while spousal and survivor benefits are financed through the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance program. The larger problem is demographic and actuarial: Americans are living longer, birth rates have declined, and the number of workers supporting each beneficiary has fallen. Consequently, scheduled benefits are growing faster than the program’s dedicated revenue. Nor does “I paid in, so I want my money back with interest” accurately describe social insurance. Contributions do not create an individually owned account. They purchase protection against several risks—including disability, premature death, and living far longer than expected—and benefits are calculated under a progressive formula. Social Security is approaching a serious financing deadline, but it will not suddenly have no money. If Congress does nothing, depletion of the retirement trust fund’s reserves would require substantial benefit reductions because incoming payroll taxes would cover only part of scheduled benefits. Congress has many possible solutions. The longer action is delayed, the larger and more abrupt those changes are likely to be. Previous reform efforts have repeatedly become partisan political battles. That history helps explain the delay, but it does not eliminate the need to act.