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 What if today's massive data center becomes outdated, substantially less valuable, or unnecessary 7, 10, or 15 years from now because computing becomes dramatically smaller, more efficient, and less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.

Especially this close to an election, politics becomes all about talking points — and which ones actually work. Republicans will continue to talk about the rise of democratic socialism and warn that the Democratic Party is moving further left. Democrats will talk about the Iran War, gas prices, food prices, rent, utility bills and the overall cost of living. Republicans will blame many of today's economic problems on the Biden years. Democrats will argue that they are the bigger tent and that Republicans aren't addressing the affordability issues families are dealing with today. In the end, one message will resonate more than the other. And the voters who may ultimately decide which message wins aren't the committed Republicans or the committed Democrats. They're the independents. Those voters aren't necessarily asking who won the political argument. They're asking a much simpler question: Who is talking about the issues that matter most to me right now?

If Republicans lose in November, it won't be because voters suddenly became socialists or communists. It will be because too many Americans went to the grocery store, paid their utility bill, filled up their car, paid their insurance and asked a very simple question: Why can't I afford what I used to afford? Republicans can continue to remind voters how bad inflation was under Biden. They can continue to talk about Democrats moving further to the left. Those arguments may be true and they may motivate the Republican base. But they don't make groceries cheaper. Elections are usually about the future, not the past. I've been concerned about this for months. We are now 83 days from the midterms, and the clock is running out. Republicans need an affordability message that people can actually see and feel in their own household budgets. Because if voters don't believe their lives are getting better, telling them how much worse things were two or four years ago probably isn't going to be enough. November may ultimately come down to one question: Do Americans feel better off today? If the answer is no, Republicans should be very concerned.

I keep hearing the words “socialist” and “communist” used interchangeably in today's political debate. They aren't the same thing. Yes, there are candidates running for Congress who openly identify as democratic socialists and support policies that would significantly expand government's role in health care, housing, energy and other parts of the economy. I disagree with those policies and believe they would move America in the wrong direction. But that doesn't automatically make someone a communist. Communism is a system that goes much further—including eliminating or severely restricting private ownership of businesses and productive property in favor of collective or state control. We don't need to exaggerate someone's position to oppose it. If a candidate supports socialist policies, call them socialist policies. If they actually support communist policies, show exactly what those policies are. Political debate is much stronger when we argue about what people actually believe rather than simply attaching the most inflammatory label we can find. Facts should be strong enough to make the argument.

There have been a lot of press reports lately, some quoting only portions of statements I have made regarding Ohio’s 7th Congressional District. So let me be clear about my position. Max Miller has been a strong representative for Ohio’s 7th Congressional District, and I believe he has served the district well. He is currently involved in a custody dispute with his former wife, who has made serious allegations involving herself and their child. Those allegations should be taken seriously—but allegations are not findings of fact. The case is in the legal system. That is where the facts should be determined. This is first and foremost a family matter, not a political one. My heart especially goes out to their daughter. She has now been placed at the center of a very public controversy by people who say they are trying to protect her. Unfortunately, once these deeply personal matters become public, the toothpaste is out of the tube. You cannot put it back in. Those politicians demanding that Max immediately step aside should also think carefully about the standard they are establishing. Public officials regularly face allegations of many different kinds—personal, ethical, financial and political. Some ultimately prove true; others do not. If the standard becomes that an allegation alone requires someone to leave office, we need to understand where that standard leads. There is an important distinction, however: if the allegations against Max are established as fact through due process, that crosses a line that NO ONE should tolerate. I have also been asked what I would do if—and only if—Max Miller decided to step aside and I were asked to become involved. My answer has been simple: I would consider it if asked. I am not seeking this seat. My response comes from something I have always believed: if I am in a position to help, I will consider helping. I have said repeatedly that this is Max Miller’s nomination. He earned the right in the Republican primary to represent the party in November. The decision whether to continue is ultimately his to make. There is another issue being overlooked in all of this: Ohio’s 7th District is politically unsettled right now, and that did not begin with Max Miller. I have reviewed significant polling conducted in the district this week that should be of grave concern to Republicans. National Republican figures tested in that polling had approval ratings in roughly the 30–35% range, and the movement of independent voters toward Democrats should concern anyone who wants to keep this district Republican. This district was represented by a Democrat until I defeated the incumbent in 2010. It leans Republican today, and Republicans should not simply assume it will remain that way. All indications are that Max Miller intends to remain in the race. He apparently believes he needs to defend himself both in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion. People can disagree with that decision. Some believe he should step aside regardless of whether the allegations are ultimately proven. But only someone actually facing that situation can make that decision. I pray for Max, his entire family, and especially his precious daughter. I also hope we never reach the point in American politics where allegations automatically become facts, assumptions become evidence, and only people with perfectly clean histories are considered worthy of public office. If that becomes the standard, very few people will ever meet it. Ultimately, voters should judge their elected officials on the facts, their conduct, and the service they have rendered. I have always said that if I am given a choice between two candidates I cannot support, I will leave that race blank. If Max Miller remains the Republican nominee, I will not be leaving this one blank.

BREAKING: US economy unexpectedly loses 23,000 jobs in July, with unemployment rate falling on a further decline in labor force participation rate -FOX

I was told I am a Republican Party critic. My response......I am a Republican Party loyalist that criticises Republican party actions that aren't Republican policy principles.

EVERYDAY YOU WAKE UP....REMEMBER SOMEONE DID NOT!!! Enjoy this day !!!! You have been blessed

President Trump talking about Republican voters in an interview yesterday. “If I [am not running], will those people go out and vote? And that’s the one thing I can’t do. I’m going to ask them to. … The question is, will they vote? Because a lot of them are very angry at Republicans, to be honest with you. … They’re angry at Republicans, but they’re not angry at me.”

Just like USAID on the federal side, JOBSOHIO in our state needs dismantled as well. Your tax money has funded private directors and pay to play projects and is unaccountable to anyone. It's a scheme. Shut it down!!

USAID in DC is JOBS OHIO in Columbus. Shut it down!

Prayers for all involved in the air disaster over DC at Reagan Airport. Events unfolding now. God bless our first responders. Update: Local reporters saying surviors are getting pulled from water.

Many have asked if I'll run for Governor. I appreciate you and all of your support over the years. I said I wanted to wait and see who was running & who would Make Ohio Great . Yes,@VivekGRamaswamy & I have been talking alot. He's a good man. My Answer, Don't have one yet.

My Mission: To Make Ohio Great and Drain the Ohio Swamp. If @VivekGRamaswamy were to announce a run for Governor, I'd be on that team! He'd put Ohioans First!!

It was a VERY good day for Ohio! #Winning!

Congrats President @realDonaldTrump ! The people elected you back to bring prosperity and the American Dream back to our nation. You have our prayers and support to restore America to the country we know and love. Godspeed and God Bless America.

Dawn of a new Golden Age. Starts on Monday. 🇺🇸