Libraries urge Ohio to preserve dedicated funding
Ohio libraries are banding together in hopes of maintaining dedicated state funding House Republicans propose to eliminate.
Why it matters: Libraries stand to lose $100 million in funding over the next two years, a figure the Ohio Library Council says"could jeopardize the vital services that our communities rely on."
State of play: The state's Public Library Fund (PLF), established in 1985, originally directed a share of state income tax to fund local libraries.
Starting in 2008, Ohio set a new funding baseline at 2.22% of the state's total general tax revenue.
That share has declined since, dropping to 1.7% in the current 2024-25 budget.
Zoom in: PLF makes up about 17% of the Columbus Metropolitan Library's budget, per Kristin Sutton, the system's government relations manager.
Smaller libraries rely more heavily on this funding, Sutton tells us.
Between the lines: The fund provided $483 million to libraries last year, nearly the same as in 2000 ($484 million), with no adjustment for inflation.
Driving the news: Gov. Mike DeWine proposes upping that figure to 1.75%, while House Republicans want to eliminate the dedicated funding.
Their budget plan would make library funding a line item appropriation.
The new allocation would be $980 million over the next two years, according to the Library Council, or $100 million less than the $1.08 billion expected under DeWine's plan.
Threat level: Sutton says the funding cuts would be "significant," but worries even more about the "short-sighted" option of eliminating the PLF.
Instead of an "ongoing and reliable source of funding," Sutton tells Axios libraries would have to lobby the state for money each budget cycle — adding administrative burden and uncertainty and potentially putting a de facto cap on funding.
"That $485 million is insufficient to meet the needs of today's library. Ten years from now, how will we ever see growth in that number?"
Zoom out: Possible state cuts come as federal library funding is under threat.
President Trump signed a March 14 executive order seeking to dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which distributes millions of dollars annually to the State Library of Ohio.
What's next: Led by the Library Council, libraries from across the state have posted pleas for their supporters to contact state lawmakers and ask to restore the PLF.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
31 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
What to know about the monumental $2.8 billion settlement that will change college sports forever
A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon. Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics. A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 athletes and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things such as media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' always have been part of the deal for many Division I athletes, and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes earn their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. How college sports are preparing for 'seismic change,' including revenue sharing and new roster limitsBut athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools fight to land top talent and then keep them on campus. In a big-money era, University of Illinois shrugs off rules on athletes' NIL dealsTop quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things such as March Madness). A: Because football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players — not just a portion — eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits, but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Ted Cruz Urges Trump and Musk to 'Kiss and Make Up'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, is calling for President Donald Trump and Elon Musk to "kiss and make up" as their public feud over Trump's signature legislation continues to escalate. Newsweek has reached out to the White House and Musk via email on Saturday for comment. Why It Matters Musk and Trump initiated a war of words this week after the tech mogul started attacking the House-approved spending bill, which the president has nicknamed the "One Big Beautiful Bill," that will help him launch a wider effort to implement some of his broader economic and social reforms. Musk, who spent four months rooting around the federal government with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cut "waste, fraud, and abuse," criticized the bill as a "disgusting abomination" and that it was full of "pork," a reference to abundant discretionary spending in a bill, known as "pork barrel spending." Trump hit back on his own social media platform Truth Social by saying he had asked Musk to leave government because he was "wearing thin." Meanwhile, Musk gave over $200 million to Trump's 2024 presidential campaign and called himself his "first buddy." The breakdown between Trump and Musk threatens the unity of the Republican coalition, with Cruz warning that "every enemy of America, every Marxist, every person who hates our country" is cheering for the divide to be permanent. What To Know The Texas lawmaker made the comments on his podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz, revealing that he was inside the Oval Office when Musk began posting his criticism on X, formerly Twitter, and "the relationship between the billionaire CEO and Trump imploded." The feud centers on Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill Act," which would extend his 2017 tax cuts and boost spending on military and border security while making cuts to Medicaid and other assistance programs. Musk has called the legislation "a disgusting abomination," expressing concerns about its estimated $3.8 trillion addition to the federal debt over the next decade. On his podcast, Cruz described witnessing the breakdown firsthand: "These are two alpha males who are pissed off and, unfortunately, they're unloading on each other. And I wish that were not the case, because I think the country does better when these two amazing heroes are working side-by-side for the country." He warned that "every enemy of America, every Marxist, every person who hates our country, every person who hates freedom, is cheering for this divide to be real, to be deep, to be lasting, to be permanent." The senator added: "Everyone who loves our country is cheering for Elon and President Trump to kiss and make up." The lawmaker expressed hope the relationship could be repaired quickly, saying: "I hope it goes back to zero just as quickly" and comparing the situation to "the kids of a bitter divorce where you're just saying, 'I really wish mommy and daddy would stop screaming.'" Amid their fiery dispute on Thursday, Trump warned that the "easiest way" to save billions in the budget was to "terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts." Musk responded by saying SpaceX, which he is the CEO of, will "begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately," although he has since walked that threat back. Cooler heads prevailed Friday, with Musk and Trump refraining from slinging direct insults at each other. However, when asked by a reporter on Air Force One if he planned to follow through on his threat to cut Musk's government subsidies, Trump did not rule it out. "We'll take a look at everything," he said. "It's a lot of money. It's a lot of subsidy. So, we'll take a look at that, only if it's fair for him and for the it has to be fair." Elon Musk speaks with then-President-elect Donald Trump and guests including Donald Trump Jr., Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, and Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, at a viewing of the launch of the sixth... Elon Musk speaks with then-President-elect Donald Trump and guests including Donald Trump Jr., Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, and Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, at a viewing of the launch of the sixth test flight of the SpaceX Starship rocket on November 19, 2024, in Brownsville, Texas. MoreWhat People Are Saying Elon Musk wrote on X on Thursday: "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate." President Donald Trump on Thursday: "Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore. I was surprised. You were here. Everybody in this room practically was here as we had a wonderful send-off. He said wonderful things about me. You couldn't have nicer-said the best things. He's worn the hat. Trump was right about everything, and I am right about the 'Great Big Beautiful Bill.'" Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, wrote earlier this month on X: "I do support President Trump, and I support most of the bill. I'm his biggest defender on foreign policy. But at the same time, I want conservative government, so I have to fight for what I believe in." Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, to Fox News' Sean Hannity on Thursday: "I think it's incredibly unfortunate. You and I are both good friends with President Trump and we're both good friends with Elon Musk. They're both extraordinary men, and they've both done extraordinary things for our country." He added: "Elon is an incredible inventor and business leader. His buying Twitter was massively important, his leadership of DOGE for President Trump was massively important. President Trump is doing phenomenal work every single day. His victory pulled this country back from the abyss. I'll tell you Sean, I was in the Oval Office with the president when this back-and-forth began, and it's really unfortunate. They are both, I think, American heroes. They are both incredibly strong leaders. And listen, it's obvious they are both pissed off right now." House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, on Friday: "Do not doubt and do not second-guess and don't ever challenge the president of the United States, Donald Trump. He is the leader of the party." What Happens Next It was not clear whether Trump and Musk would meet or call to discuss the fallout over the bill, which Trump has suggested the Senate should pass by July 4.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
JD Vance says it was a 'huge mistake' for Musk to go after Trump with Epstein accusation
Vice President JD Vance told comedian and podcast host Theo Von on Saturday that Elon Musk made a "huge mistake" by accusing President Donald Trump of being implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein files. Vance warned that Trump and Musk being embroiled in a "blood feud" with one another will be bad for the country and will likely not end well for the Tesla CEO either. "I think it's a huge mistake for him to go after the president like that. And I think that if he and the president are in some blood feud — most importantly — it's going to be bad for the country, but I think it's going to be, I don't think it'll be good for Elon either," Vance argued. 'Gone Too Far': Gop Lawmakers Rally Around Trump After Musk Raises Epstein Allegations Musk referenced Jeffrey Epstein in relation to Trump on Thursday as part of a larger attack against the president and Republican leaders over their budget reconciliation bill. "Time to drop the really big bomb. [Trump] is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!" Musk wrote on X. "Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out." Read On The Fox News App Vance told the comedian Trump "didn't do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein" and that his loyalties will always be with the president. He noted that he hopes Musk will eventually "come back into the fold," but doubted the possibility of that coming true after his tweet accusing Trump of being involved with Epstein. Click Here For The Latest Media And Culture News When asked by Von why he believed Musk's "feelings were hurt," Vance speculated that the culmination of the violent threats against him and his company, paired with Congress' budget reconciliation bill, may have pushed him over the edge. "His businesses are being attacked nonstop. They're literally like firebombing some of his cars," he pointed out. "So I think part of it is this guy got into politics and has suffered a lot for it. But I mean, and I get the frustration there… Congress, you got this spending bill. But the main purpose of the bill is not actually spending or cutting spending, though it does cut a lot of spending." The vice president acknowledged Musk's concerns over the spending bill that allegedly started the feud between the two and noted that disagreements over its contents likely caused some "frustrations." "The main purpose of the bill is to prevent the biggest tax increase, but I understand — it's a good bill — it's not a perfect bill," Vance said. "The process in D.C., if you're a business leader, you probably get frustrated with that process because it's more, you know, bureaucratic. It's more slow-moving. So I think there's just some frustrations there." Fox News' Elizabeth Elkind, Deirdre Heavey and Alex Miller contributed to this article source: JD Vance says it was a 'huge mistake' for Musk to go after Trump with Epstein accusation
