‘I think I can beat Ramaswamy,' Tim Ryan says of governor's race
(WKBN) – Ohio voters will pick a new governor in November 2026. Governor Mike DeWine is term-limited out.Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost pulled out of the race Friday, saying the road to the GOP nomination has become too steep.
WKBN 27 First News caught up with Democrat Tim Ryan Friday. He's a former Valley congressman and has been looked at as a possible candidate.
Ryan said he has not made a decision yet but if he does enter the race, it'll be partly based on his 2022 Senate race.
'We did pretty well in the Senate race, and this may be a completely different environment, so there could be a chance to pull it off,' Ryan said. 'I think people forget we were up three to four onts against Vance at Labor Day, and we didn't get any money from D.C. He got $50 million bucks, and we weren't able to kind of keep it. So, I think we could run really well here. I think I could beat Ramaswamy, should I be able to get in the race in the right environment.'
Ryan said he is concerned about what is going on in the state.
In 2022, Ryan lost a bid for the U.S. Senate to JD Vance by more than six points. He served in the U.S. House from 2003 to 2023.Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Don't give Dan Patrick his THC ban. Here's a better way for Texas on cannabis
Sometimes, the Texas Legislature creates a mess that only it can fix. And unfortunately, the clean-up is often a mess of its own. So it is with a bill that would ban products that contain THC, the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. It's an attempt to right a loophole in the 2019 state law that allowed a Texas hemp industry to develop. But the medicine is simply too strong. Gov. Greg Abbott should veto the bill and give the Legislature the chance to try again with precise, thoughtful regulation. How did we get here, with lawmakers wanting to dismantle something they essentially created a few years ago? In 2019, Texas needed a law to comply with new federal statutes on hemp, the non-intoxicating version of the cannabis plant. Legislators charged ahead, missing the distinctions among the chemicals that can provide a high. They also failed to ask enough questions about testing, including whether police labs had the capacity to determine the level of THC in a product and thus the difference between hemp (legal) and marijuana (still illegal). Still, a business opportunity was born, and Texas, as our leaders like to say, is open for business. Responsible retail shops boomed, but so did unscrupulous producers who offered wares that enticed children and didn't distinguish between a professional who would demand ID or a convenience store where somnolent clerks wouldn't even notice who was buying gummies and the like. Enter Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. Before some lawmakers could even settle in their offices, he declared that a complete ban on products containing THC was the only option. He suggested that he would not negotiate and that if he didn't get his way, he would melt down the whole legislative session. He never said exactly how, but Patrick, who controls all the levers in the Texas Senate, could have held back one of Abbott's priorities, such as school vouchers, or even prevent passage of the state budget, which would leave no option but a special session. Patrick was never willing to entertain the obvious solution: more precise regulation with more robust enforcement. Texas could allow for the sale of low-level THC products without embracing a full-blown marijuana culture. The experience of legalization in other states has been fraught with problems. There's increasing concern that today's much stronger, much more available marijuana is incapacitating too many people — as well as creating alarm about possible unknown long-term health consequences. Licensed dealers can sell well-tested products in packaging that's unappealing to children. The state could bar corner gas stations or other generalized stores and businesses within walking distance of schools from dealing in THC products. It could create an agency to regulate them, funded through a tax on the products, or create such a function within an existing state entity. In other words, it could treat the substance similar to the way it treats alcohol. We all know that even with a regime of rules and enforcement, teenagers sometimes drink. A few, tragically, even die as a result. Few people would say that's sufficient reason to ban beer and wine. Heck, they are venerated Texas industries. Patrick gave away the game when, late in the session, he declared that cannabis producers and retailers 'want to kill your kids, and they don't give a damn.' It's the kind of pompous, self-righteous rhetoric that Patrick frequently uses to substitute for actual debate. And if someone else made similar remarks about, say, the gun industry, Patrick would be the first to get in front of a Fox News camera and decry it. The lieutenant governor declared it 'stupid' to even raise the comparison to alcohol — though, to be fair, few are more familiar with stupid rhetoric than Patrick. Patrick did eventually agree to expanding the availability of medical marijuana under the state's Compassionate Use Program. If Abbott signs that bill — and he should — conditions such as traumatic brain injuries and chronic pain would be among those added to the list that qualifies a Texan to purchase THC products. The state would add more dispensaries, too. In other words, through specific, careful regulation, Texas is steadily finding ways to get needed relief to those who can find it nowhere else. Someone alert Patrick: It can be done! We love to hear from Texans with opinions on the news — and to publish those views in the Opinion section. • Letters should be no more than 150 words. • Writers should submit letters only once every 30 days. • Include your name, address (including city of residence), phone number and email address, so we can contact you if we have questions. You can submit a letter to the editor two ways: • Email letters@ (preferred). • Fill out this online form. Please note: Letters will be edited for style and clarity. Publication is not guaranteed. The best letters are focused on one topic.
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Idaho senators should protect school choice in ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
President Donald Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' is now moving through the U.S. Senate, and conservative Christians are thrilled with many of the provisions that have been included so far. Although we don't yet know how the Senate version of the bill will shake out, it's worth noting that the version passed by the House late last month fulfills many of the pro-family policies made by the Trump administration. These include an expansion to the child tax credit for working families, tax benefits for adoptive parents and making permanent the Trump personal income and business tax cuts that fueled the above-average economic growth America experienced before the pandemic derailed international markets. However, one provision in particular that would improve educational access and outcomes for all students has flown under the radar so far. The provision would help more than one million students across the country access the educational support they need by creating special tax benefits for private donations to scholarship-granting organizations. It is modeled after the Educational Choice for Children Act, a federal proposal that has been introduced multiple times over the past several years and has earned the support of Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, as well as other conservative stalwarts like Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, and Sen. Tim Scott, R-South Carolina. Scholarship-granting organizations already exist in many states, providing scholarships directly to students for tuition, tutoring, special needs services, education technology and curriculum materials. The provision offers both a supplement and alternative for students in states like Idaho, which has already begun moving down the road to more universal school choice programs by offering a new $5,000 refundable tax credit paid directly to the private school and homeschool families. Some parents — particularly within the homeschooling community — have voiced concerns that new school choice initiatives, such as Idaho's refundable tax credit, might jeopardize their educational freedom. After all, government money usually comes with strings attached. When you take the government cheese, you have to step into the regulatory mousetrap. And even if those restrictions aren't imposed right away, the door remains open for future state and federal mandates. Importantly, the ECCA provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill addresses these concerns by making sure no government funds go to the organizations, schools, or families involved — thereby avoiding another opportunity for government regulation. Instead, the ECCA establishes tax incentives for private donations to scholarship-granting organizations, which then award scholarships directly to students. Because this is private money — not government dollars — families can freely choose the best educational options for their children without government interference. All of this explains why the ECCA is supported by homeschool freedom advocates, including the Home School Legal Defense Association. In fact, the ECCA model helps ensure that parents remain in control of their children's education, consistent with biblical principles like Ephesians 6:4, which commands fathers to bring up their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Not only would the ECCA provision in the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' help parents fulfill this biblical responsibility, but it would also expand educational opportunities for children currently stuck in failing public schools, no matter the state in which they live. Nationwide school choice which empowers parents while also protecting educational freedom is a high priority for Trump — and it should be just as high a priority for our legislative branch as they set education policy. With that in mind, we call on the U.S. Senate to keep the ECCA provision in whichever version of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' they adopt. Our children — and their families — deserve it. Blaine Conzatti is the president of Idaho Family Policy Center.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's big bill could affect your taxes
President Trump's bill to cut taxes and spending centers on an extension of his previous round of tax cuts, which Republicans slated for expiration at the end of this year back in 2017. As such, it will preserve the status quo on many big parts of the code so that taxpayers won't see any change in things like the amount of money the government takes out of their paychecks. Other tax cuts in the legislation now moving through Congress will be brand new, though most of the new additions are scheduled to end after a few years. Here's a look at some of the big-ticket items in the latest round of GOP tax cuts. Trump's 2017 tax law cut many individual income tax rates, and those would continue into the future through the current legislation. Under current law and moving up the income spectrum, marginal rates are 10 percent, 12 percent, 22 percent, 24 percent, 32 percent, 35 percent, and 37 percent. The new GOP law will lock those rates in place. The extension of those rates will reduce federal revenues by $2.2 trillion through 2034, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). If they were allowed to lapse, rates would change to 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, 35 percent, and 39.6 percent. Only the 10-percent and 35-percent rates were left alone by the 2017 tax cuts. Trump in recent weeks floated letting the top rate go back to 39.6 percent from 37 percent as a way to lower the $3.8 trillion cost of the bill's tax portion, but he has since backed away from that idea. The law preserves — and temporarily boosts — the higher standard deduction, which was nearly doubled back in 2017. The new boost is $1,000 for individuals and $2,000 for couples filing jointly and will last for four years. This is paired with getting rid of personal exemptions, making tax filing simpler for many taxpayers. In 2024, the standard deduction was $14,600 for individuals and $29,200 for married couples. The higher standard deduction is projected to reduce revenues by $1.3 trillion through 2034. The loss of personal exemptions will add $1.9 trillion to federal revenues, resulting in a net revenue gain between the two measures. The bill creates a temporary full deduction for tips and overtime pay, allowing taxpayers to avoid paying taxes on those types of compensation. Taken together, the tax breaks will reduce revenues by about $164 billion through 2028 when they expire. People who work in the restaurant industry say they're concerned that the tax break will motivate customers to pay fewer gratuities, since tipping is left to the discretion of individual shoppers and diners as opposed to being a component of the employer-paid wage. 'I'm afraid that people are going to want to tip less with that income not being taxed,' one New York City bartender, who asked not to be named, told The Hill. The person also expressed concern that the no-tips rule could add to tensions in his restaurant between the front-of-house staff, who work for tips, and the kitchen staff, who do not. 'In the industry, the bigger concern is, why would the front-of-house not pay taxes when the back-of-house will still be paying taxes because they don't get tips?' the person said. Tax experts told The Hill the measures could add to the amount of paperwork that tax filers — both employers and employees — need to fill out, depending on how the IRS interprets the law and modifies its regulations and forms. The law gives an additional $4,000 tax break to seniors below a certain income threshold, which would be added to the $15,000 standard deduction and an already existing $2,000 deduction for seniors. Trump promised while campaigning to remove taxes on Social Security, which is funded through a payroll tax and then taxed again, above an income threshold, upon disbursal to bolster the Social Security fund along with Medicare. The enhanced deduction for seniors is a close substitute for the Social Security tax cancellation promised by Trump but is technically a different tax. According to congressional rules, the Social Social program cannot be altered through budget reconciliation, which is the legislative workaround Republicans are using to allow a party-line vote on their bill and avoid a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Republicans haven't agreed on the most controversial provision of their tax bill — the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap — but they're getting close. The initial proposal from the Ways and Means Committee raised the cap to $30,000, but members of the SALT caucus shot it down. Another proposal floated late Tuesday would bump the SALT deduction cap up to $40,000 — four times the current $10,000 cap — for people making $500,000 or less in income, three sources told The Hill. That level would increase by 1 percent a year over 10 years, according to one of the sources. Whatever they agree to, it will be expensive. Various estimates from the JCT put the cost of canceling the cap — which is a top priority for many blue-state Republicans — at around $1 trillion over 10 years. The SALT cap interacts with different parts of the tax code, including the higher standard deduction and the extended effective repeal of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which costs more than $1.4 trillion in revenues. 'Even if you live in a place like New York, the combination of repealing the AMT and the $10,000 SALT cap was actually still positive for you. You were better off with the SALT cap because you lost the AMT than you would have been if the law hadn't happened at all,' Tax Policy Center senior fellow Howard Gleckman told The Hill. 'It was actually a good deal for people,' Gleckman said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
