2012 Election Reflections Part 2: what went right

Yesterday I covered Part 1, What Went Wrong, of my three-part speech to the Fallen Timbers Republican Club. Today is Part 2: what went right. Tomorrow is Part 3: Where do we go from here?


On a national level, Michelle Malkin had a great list of things that went right for Republicans and conservatives on election. There's no need to re-invent the wheel, so here are a few of the items she listed:

1) Republicans retained control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
2) Voters in Alabama, Montana, and Wyoming all passed measures limiting Obamacare.
3) Tea Party candidate Ted Cruz, one of the conservative movement’s brightest rising stars, overcame establishment GOP opposition to clinch a U.S. Senate victory in Texas.
4) Despite entrenched teachers’ union opposition, a charter school initiative in Washington state triumphed.
5) Despite entrenched Big Labor support, a radical collective bargaining power grab in Michigan failed.
6) North Carolina Republicans claimed the governor’s office, congressional gains, and control of the state’s general assembly.
7) Paul Ryan will return to Congress after winning re-election and continue to carry the torch for entitlement reform and budget discipline.
8) Across the country, Republicans reached a post-2000 record number of gubernatorial victories. In fact, we now hold 60% of state governorships.

Another important things to note is that Obama got fewer votes than he did in 2008 (as of the time of the speech). We should also be aware that the ‘obstructionist’ House of Representatives is still in Republican control, even after opposing Obamacare, tax hikes and additional spending. This is a major win and it carries a message that even if Americans want Obama to remain president, they still want Republicans to oppose many of the terrible ideas Obama has put forth.

And, as Malkin wrote, "Conservatives who were devastated by the national election results demonstrated how to lose with dignity and grace."

In Ohio, State Issue 2 was defeated and we maintained control of state government.

LOCALLY:

1) TPS new levy failed – though they have another levy due for renewal next year and they may do what many did this year which is make it a renewal and an additional tax at the same time. But it only lost by 4,241 votes - not as much as it should have.

2) Toledo Parks and Recreation levy failed – not so much due to any organized opposition or understanding of the financial implications but primarily because Mike Bell gave pay raises to his administrators. The margin was 8,500 votes.

3) Imagination Station – after being voted down 3 times, they finally succeeded in getting a levy passed. This was a straight renewal and it lost by 2,075 votes – though they hope that provisional and late absentee ballots will make up the difference.

4) The Northwest Ohio Conservative Coalition took a strong stand and opposed the seven levies on the Toledo ballot. They also had significant wins in terms of equal access, setting the stage for the future. You can read the details here and here.

5) Individuals were the big winners – they took the initiative and didn’t rely upon the party to lead. They've moved from protesters to activists and that bodes well for our future and represents the truest demonstration of our conservative ideals.

Next: Part 3: Where do we go from here?

WSPD show recap - Friday, Sept. 28, 2012

Here are the topics and links to items discussed Friday on my last day filling in for Brian Wilson on 1370 WSPD:

* Roots of Liberty seminar with Kris Anne Hall at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 2, in Findlay - American Legion, 120 W. Front St.

* The new movie Captain America: The Winter Soldier will be filmed in Cleveland. (no link)

* Tracking Ohio's absentee ballot requests - will be updated regularly with the information on how many Republicans and Democrats have requested (not returned) absentee ballots. Spreadsheet tracks by county and compares 2012 to 2008. Contact information for author is on the spreadsheet.

Link to spreadsheet

* Matt Mayer, Opportunity Ohio, was my guest to talk about whether or not Mitt Romney can win Ohio. Matt says yes, but it will be tough...he'll make county by county predictions sometime in October.

Podcast is available here

* Bill Weisenberg, Assistant Executive Director for Public Affairs at the Ohio State Bar Association explained why the OSBA has taken a position against State Issue 2 - the independence of the judiciary is at stake.

Podcast is available here

* Ohio public pay is too generous? Probably, when public sector architecture and engineering jobs pay, on average twice that of their private sector peers. They ear $60.59 per hour in wages and benefits versus $29.37 in the private sector.

Link to story

* It's not as if cigarettes don't have enough taxes on them already, the World Health Organization thinks a global tax on them is the way to go.

Link to story

* Locavores or Loco-vores? Is a strictly buy local philosophy a good thing? Perhaps the "same fundamental economic realities that shaped the development of our globalized food supply chain are still very much with us." When you can't grow items in your own city due to the climate, trade with non-local areas enhances choices and brings competitive prices. Additionally, if everyone focused on buy-local, where would our local exporters send their products?

Link to story

Because we had a lot of people on the phone and the Wine Time segment to do, I offered to print any emails callers might want to send me on the subject. I received the following:

As per our conversation on WSPD this evening. I thought you might like to check out this website.:

http://foodcouncil419.com/. The initial analysis about our Northwest Ohio 'foodshed' was completed last summer. Ken will be in town in October to give us the remainder of his findings and recommendations to build a stronger food economy. Obviously, his study should not be taken for gospel, but it is a contrasting view that I believe deserves consideration when discussing food sourcing. Small actions (one day a week of local food) can have a large economic impact. And just as your local tomato farmer appreciates your purchase, all the Toledo area farmers appreciate loyal customers who purchase their goods.

I'm an avid WSPD listener, from 7 to 7 usually, and I always enjoy when you fill in for Brian. I was hoping to add information and first hand experience, as a grower, to your discussion of local food. This issue dovetails nicely into the discussion you had Thursday about Mike Rowe and the under appreciation for skilled, manual labor. Our skilled local farmers are a classic example of the under-appreciated. Often they produce better tasting and more inexpensive product than can be purchased at the grocery store. This is the best time of year to buy local, because summer and fall produce is in season. If you came to the market this weekend these are a few of the prices you would find:Broccoli $1, colored bell peppers 2/1$, zucchini and cucumbers 3/$1, massive cauliflowers 2/$1 and winter squash $1. Please feel free to stop by the Toledo Farmers' Market (Saturdays 8-2 pm) anytime to meet a few more 'local' Toledo Farmers. I run a small farm, Sage Produce, and sell produce at the market year round. Please feel free to stop by. It is the stall with the purple tablecloths.

Have a great day.
Liz Bergman
Sage Produce
Genoa, Ohio

And this from Point Place Pete:

I’ll listen to these “buy local” folks a little more when the explain to me how I’m going to buy lettuce in the winter, apples in the spring, figs, bananas, pineapples and oranges at any time of the year!

I like choices, choices inspire trade, and trade benefits all of us. On top of that, local growers are growing soybeans and corn… bluntly those items will get old in about a week…

I love my local providers of tomatoes, corn and cantaloupe (the three items I purchase most often from local growers) and would grow more myself if it weren't for a hectic travel schedule, so I'm not opposed to purchasing locally-grown items. I just think that trying to push a buy-local campaign has detriments in the long term that are never addressed - and they should be considered. We would never want to have a strictly buy-imported program for the same reasons.

We benefit from trade with other areas in so many ways that I don't want to jeopardize that with a viewpoint that can be very narrow at times and discourage the free market approach.

Thanks to everyone who called in, emailed and listened!

Post-election thoughts and upcoming hypocrisy

Unions, with significant out-of-state support, raised over $25 million to defeat Issue 2. They are probably looking at it as money well spent since the measure was soundly defeated 61% to 39). Of course, it was their livelihood (union - not individual member - livelihood) that was at stake.

But Issue 3, which opposes the individual mandate required as part of Obamacare, was passed by a margin that was larger than Issue 2's, winning 66% to 34%. And, Issue 3 passed in every single one of Ohio's 88 counties.

So what does this mean?

Some are saying that the failure of Issue 2 shows that Ohio is still a 'blue' state despite the election results of 2010. But Issue 3 debunks that theory.

If the defeat of Issue 2 was a 'strong message' to Gov. John Kasich, the passage of Issue 3 is an even stronger message to President Barack Obama and to all of the Ohio Congressional delegation.

The question now is whether or not Ohio's representatives in the U.S. House and Senate will heed the message of Ohio voters on Obamacare, as so many are saying Kasich must now do regarding collective bargaining reform.

Or, will those who supported Issue 2 employ a double standard and act like hypocrites by continuing to support Obamacare?

I could tell you what I expect but, considering my cynical nature on such things, I believe you already know.

Issue 2: 'mostly false' ad and latest 'honest look'

The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, through their PolitiFact Ohio, took a look at the We Are Ohio claim that "Says that politicians who approved collective bargaining restrictions for public employees "exploited a loophole exempting themselves from Senate Bill 5." They determined the claim is mostly false.

The claim in the ad does contain an element of truth -- legislators are exempted from several provisions of SB 5.

But the portion of the claim that they’ve exploited a loophole leaves out important details that would give a different impression. Those details include that lawmakers have long been exempt from Ohio’s collective bargaining law, that they already pay the same percentages for medical and pension benefits as SB 5 would require and that their wage is set by statute.

On the Truth-O-Meter, a statement that has an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression rates one way: Mostly False.

Additionally, the fifth video in a series by GOHP Blog, "An Honest Look At Issue 2" is out. It examines some of the other erroneous claims by Issue 2 opponents (We Are Ohio) and provides the truth - especially in terms of job creation in Ohio since Gov. John Kasich took office.

Friday Roundup: Neil Cavuto, Durbin Fee, Ohio Issue 2, Democrats Anonymous

I've collected a bunch of miscellaneous items that I wanted to share, so here's a roundup for your Friday reading:

* My friend and fellow blogger, Warner Todd Huston, who writes at Publius Forum, is in the Chicago area and recently had the opportunity to see a behinds-the-scenes look at the Your World With Neil Cavuto show. Cavuto was in Chicago as part of the celebration of the 15th Birthday for Fox News. WTH, as he's known to his friends, also had a chance to talk with Cavuto and his interview is here. Interestingly, I did not know Cavuto has Multiple Sclerosis nor that he is a survivor of Stage 4 cancer. It's a good interview and I hope you take the time to read it.

**********************

* In response to the union-backed We Are Ohio bus tour urging a no vote on Ohio's Issue 2 in November, Building a Better Ohio issued a press release detailing how much the various cities on the tour could save if Issue 2 is passed. Issue 2 is the referendum on Senate Bill 5, the public sector collective bargaining reform bill.

Toledo: The city's police contract includes a 10% pension pick-up, and other city employees get between a 5.5% to a 10% pension pick-up. Pension pick-ups alone cost the city $11.4 million in 2011. Teachers pay nothing toward their health care premium.

How much better would our roads be if we put that $11.4 million toward road repair rather than 'picking up' the employee's portion of their pension? Don't forget, that's over and above the city/employer's portion that we are required by law to pay.

Now, I realize that pension pick-ups have been negotiated in lieu of pay increases. But what many people fail to realize (union and non-union alike) is that the me-too clauses mean that one union might have gone without a pay increase, but all the other unions in the city got the same pension pick-up without the same concession. That's the way a me-too clause works.

So remember this when you hear the claim that pension pick-ups were in exchange for pay increases. It may be accurate in some instances, but more likely than not, it's not true for all - and certainly not for the entire amount.

**********************

* In response to the Durbin Fee, Bank of America, along with many others, decided to begin charging customers a monthly fee for the use of a debit card. Rather than blame himself, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) took the floor of Congress to urge a run on the bank.

Now, he didn't talk about the other banks doing the same thing, so this wasn't a blanket statement telling people that if they're unhappy with one provider of a service, they can (and probably should) try a competitor. No - this was a directed attack against a single company.

So I'm wondering: do shareholders have any legal recourse to hold Durbin personally accountable for any negative consequences or decline in stock value of Bank of America? Probably hundreds of thousands of individuals have an investment interest in the bank - and its subsidiaries - through direct holding of stock or through pensions, IRAs and mutual funds. Can Sen. Durbin be sued personally for using the power of his office to target a single company and urge its demise?

Why does Sen. Durbin hate the working people of America and seniors and retirees who rely upon the value of their investments to either provide them with their retirement income now or in the future? Why would Sen. Durbin want people to lose income? Aren't people hurting enough?

And what about all the bank employees? If the bank loses too many customers, it will have to lay off workers - tellers and secretaries and janitors - due to less need and less income. Why does Sen. Durbin hate all these working-class people who were fortunate enough to actually have a job in today's economic climate?

And if any elected official agrees with Durbin, we should have them answer the same questions. Elected officials need to be held accountable and it's time we start doing so.

**********************

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools." ~ Herbert Spencer

**********************

* I'd not heard of the non-profit American Crossroads before, but was sent a link to their latest video, which I found amusing. According to their website, they are:

"...a new kind of non-profit political organization dedicated to renewing America’s commitment to individual liberty, limited government, free enterprise and a strong national defense—through informed and effective political action by citizens like you.
...
Today, America faces much more than a choice among various candidates for public office. We face a Crossroads – a fundamental decision about the future direction of our country that will impact America’s strength and character for years to come."

Here is the video, "Democrats Anonymous," which might actually be pretty timely considering the dissatisfaction we're seeing from the left. Enjoy!

Toledo Chamber and TASBA urge YES on Issue 2

Press Release:

Toledo Job Creators Support YES Vote on Issue 2

(Columbus) - The Toledo Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Toledo Area Small Business Association announced today their support for the reasonable reforms of State Issue 2. The organization, ranked in the top 5 percent of chambers nationwide, represents more than 2,800 job creators throughout northwest Ohio.

"For Ohio and its communities to be strong again, government costs must be realigned with tax revenue," the chamber's board of directors said in a statement. "The passage of State Issue 2 would give local government elected officials and management the flexibility required to more effectively and efficiently manage their workplaces on behalf of Ohio’s taxpayers."

The Building a Better Ohio campaign welcomed the endorsement.

"We're proud to stand with Ohio's job creators in this effort to move our state in a new direction," said campaign spokesman Jason Mauk. "The people leading Ohio's economic recovery know exactly what needs to be done to create jobs. They know from experience that we can't make Ohio a more affordable place to live, work and do business until we get the cost of government under control. That starts with the reasonable reforms of State Issue 2."

The Toledo Chamber of Commerce joins a growing coalition of respected civic leaders across Ohio who have endorsed a YES vote on State Issue 2. Other recent endorsements include:

* Ohio Manufacturers' Association
* Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
* Ohio Society of CPAs
* Associated Builders and Contractors of Ohio
* National Federation of Independent Business - Ohio
* Ohio Chamber of Commerce
* Columbus Chamber of Commerce
* Greater Cleveland Partnership
* Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber of Commerce
* Youngstown Chamber of Commerce
* Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce

These organizations jointly represent hundreds of thousands of hard-working Ohioans across the state.

Vol. 4: An honest look at Ohio Issue 2 - nurses

In their continuing effort to tell the truth about Ohio Issue 2, GOHP blog has released another video. This one examines the claims in the fourth ad from the campaign against Issue 2. In debunking the claims, the video points out that most of the current issues facing nurses stem from problems in the system - problems that Issue 2 would fix.

Vol. 3: An honest look at Issue 2

GOHP takes a look at the third ad from the campaign against Ohio Issue 2, pointing out the falsehoods in their latest television spot.

Be sure to share this information ...

Issue 2 and Issue 2 door hangers

If you support a 'yes' vote on Ohio Issues 2 and 3, you can go here to get your very own door hanger compliments of FreedomWorks.

Next month, FreedomWorks will host an official field hearing of the Tea Party Debt Commission in Cincinnatti where yard signs and door hangers will be available for pick up. For more information or to RSVP visit: http://connect.freedomworks.org/node/177745.

Save the Date: October 6th Taxpayer Town Hall on Issue 2

Via email from Americans for Prosperity - Ohio Chapter:

Americans for Prosperity-Ohio is continuing a statewide series of Taxpayer Town Halls on Thursday, October 6th in the Greater Toledo Area. Children of Liberty is partnering with us on this town hall which will explain what Issue 2 (Senate Bill 5) really does and why it it critical to moving Ohio toward a brighter future for all of us.

The town hall will feature Buckeye Institute President Matt Mayer and others as panelists and speakers, and will be moderated by former State Representative and AFP-Ohio Policy Director Seth Morgan.

We will focus on the financial crises faced by many of our cities, townships, villages, and schools, how these crises could affect Ohio's jobs and citizens, and how State Issue 2 (Senate Bill 5) can help solve these crises and help bring a strong and healthy economy back to Ohio.

Please join us and bring your friends, family, and neighbors to learn more and find out what you can do to take back your future.

What: Taxpayer Town Hall
When: Thursday, October 6th, 2011, 6:30pm
Where: Maumee Indoor Theater, 601 Conant St., Maumee, OH, 43537
Registration: Click here to register (although registration is appreciated, it is not required)

We've hosted town halls in Cincinnati-East, Troy, Tiffin, Zanesville, and Cincinnati-West. Over the next few weeks, we will partner with other liberty organizations to host Taxpayer Town halls in Norwalk, Mount Vernon, Canton, and additional locations to be announced. Click here to learn more.

A perfect example of Toledo Council's devotion to unions over taxpayers

Last night Toledo City Council decided to postpone the administration's proposal to implement the terms of a fact finder's report on the AFSCME contract with the city.

One of the things that struck me in the report on the meeting was this:

"Steven Steel accused the administration of trying to “bully” council to vote for the contract..."

But, according to several news reports, the audience for this meeting, and this vote in particular, consisted of "hundreds of angry union members..."

Does anyone else see the irony?

But that's not all. Council's action last night is a perfect example of our elected officials' devotion to unions over taxpayers.

Last night, multiple members of council decided that the city needed to go back to the table for more negotiations. They couldn't understand why the administration had declared an impasse if the union still wanted to negotiate.

But their idiocy - and their willingness to cater to and adopt the union position - was in full view.

They were being asked to implement a fact finder's report. And how, exactly, do you end up with a fact finder's report? Well, both sides must declare an impasse and agree to bring in a fact finder.

Obviously, a bunch of current and former union members would know this simple basic fact of negotiations. But they were intentionally ignoring it.

You see, the union, having agreed with the administration that they were at an impasse and needed to bring in a fact finder, decided they didn't like the report that resulted. So now they want more negotiations - after the fact. As a result, council members accused the mayor of not wanting to sit down and bargain. Talk about spin....

The administration is correct in submitting the report for council approval. Council is wrong to not support the administration in this regard. Apparently, they'd rather adopt the union position than do what is right for the taxpayers. But this goes back to what I've said in the past about the symbiotic relationship our elected officials have with the unions:

The public sector unions rely upon agreements negotiated with mayors, governors, etc. They then rely upon votes by elected council members, commissioners, trustees, school board members or legislatures. These same individuals who are actually deciding upon the terms of the contracts are the same people who beg for endorsements from those same unions.

Elected officials seek union endorsements - and the contributions and volunteers that come along with those endorsements. The people making the decision about the compensation and other working terms are often dependent upon the recipients for their elected position.

The taxpayer, the ones the elected officials are supposed to representing, is more often than not left out in the cold - consistently being expected to fork over more money in taxes and fees so the benefits can flow to both sides (government and union).

This is clearly a conflict of interest, but one that is never raised because it would result in the end of the mutually-beneficial arrangement.

So rather than think about the taxpayer, our elected members of council took the union's side in the dispute and insisted that the administration re-open negotiations - all to make the union members - the "angry" union members - happy.

Do you see now why we need to pass Issue 2?

Better Ohio's second Issue 2 ad and statewide leadership coalition

Building a Better Ohio has released a second pro-Issue 2 ad entitled "The Facts."



They also announced their state-wide leadership coalition, though conspicuously absent is anyone from the Toledo/Northwest Ohio area.

(Columbus) – The Building a Better Ohio campaign announced today its statewide leadership coalition at an event hosted by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

“These job-creator organizations standing with us know firsthand why passage of Issue 2 is crucial to the economic stability of our state,” said campaign spokesman Jason Mauk. “Representing hundreds of thousands of employers and employees, they believe that Ohioans deserve the facts on Issue 2. Unfortunately, opponents have made it clear that they want to talk about anything but what is actually in Issue 2. As members of our statewide leadership coalition, these organizations will help lead the charge to educate voters to ensure they know what Issue 2 is really about – fairness, accountability for taxpayers, and getting Ohio back on track.”

The following organizations and individuals participated in today’s event:

* Associated Builders and Contractors – Thaddeus Claggett, Chairman
* NFIB/Ohio - Roger Geiger, VP/Executive Director
* Ohio Chamber of Commerce - Linda Woggon, Executive VP of Government Affairs
* Ohio Farm Bureau Federation - Steve Hirsch, Farmer President
* Ohio Manufacturers’ Association – Eric Burkland, President
* Ohio Society of CPAs – Walt Eckert of Russell, Board Member
* Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber of Commerce – Matt Davis, VP of Government Affairs
* Columbus Chamber of Commerce – Mike Hartley, VP of Government Relations
* Dayton Chamber of Commerce – Chris Kershner, VP of Public Policy & Economic Development
* Greater Cleveland Partnership – Martin McGann, VP of State and Local Government Affairs

Issue 2 makes long overdue reforms to Ohio’s costly and unfair government employment practices. These reforms include asking government employees to earn pay raises in part based on job performance and to pay at least 15 percent of their health insurance premium and 10 percent of their pension contribution. They are estimated to save local communities millions of dollars annually, which will help save jobs, balance budgets and avoid the endless demand for local tax increases. Issue 2 also contains significant reforms to education by finally adopting policies that reward the best and brightest teachers, while making it harder for bad teachers to hide behind the protections of a union contract.

New video debunks second Issue 2 ad from 'We Are Ohio'

From GOHPBlog comes another analysis of the claims being made by the opponents of Issue 2 - primarily unions and the Ohio Democratic Party. The video dissects the 2nd ad paid for by We Are Ohio and puts truth the claims that Issue 2 somehow 'exempts' elected officials from the requirements.

The fact is that the elected officials are already in compliance with Issue 2 provisions! It's so blatantly wrong, I wonder how it doesn't earn a complaint with the Ohio Elections authorities.

Here is the video:

Mayor Mike Bell's ad in support of Ohio Issue 2

Here is the latest ad in support of Ohio Issue 2 (Senate Bill 5) featuring Toledo Mayor Mike Bell. The ad is from Building a Better Ohio.

An honest look at Issue 2 ad from 'We Are Ohio'

I found this video on YouTube and wanted to share it. It analyzes and debunks the claims of the most recent ad from opponents of Senate Bill 5, which is Issue 2 on the November ballot.

It contains good information for countering the distortions coming from the unions - distortions which would have you believe that if Issue 2 isn't defeated, then all hell will break loose and everyone will die. Yes, that's an exaggeration, but it's fitting considering the union claims.

And in case you're wondering why I keep calling it 'union' claims, it's because all the anti-reform people are unions. The group, called We Are Ohio, claims to be a " citizen-driven, community-based, bipartisan coalition." But as that hero points out:

Their populist banner exists to hide the fact that opposition to union reform is driven by the unions – predominantly from D.C. If We Are Ohio is not “a citizen-driven, community-based, bipartisan coalition,” nothing else they say carries much weight… and not merely because they’ve been proven liars right out of the chute.

There is also a great chart on the linked blog post which shows where all the money for We Are Ohio is coming from. It shows that of the over $6.3 million raised so far, less than 1% (it's actually .6%) comes from individuals. The rest comes from unions and the Ohio Democratic Party.

That, along with this video (courtesy of GOHP blog) puts their ad in a different light.

No on Issues 1 and 3

For many of the same reasons as I oppose Issue 2, I am also against Issues 1 and 3.

Here is the Ohio Issues Report from the Ohio Ballot Board that provides the ballot language for the measures, the actual text of the proposals as well as pros and cons of each one.

Issue 1 would "authorize the state to issue bonds to provide compensation to veterans of the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts."

Under the provision:

* The state would issue up to two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) of bonds to provide compensation to veterans of the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq conflicts, and to pay for the administration of the Compensation Bond Retirement Fund and the Compensation Fund.

* The Ohio Department of Veterans Services would provide compensation to persons who have served in active duty in the United States armed forces at any time during the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq conflicts and who were Ohio residents at the start of active duty services and are currently Ohio residents.

So the state of Ohio is going to borrow money to pay out to a certain class of citizen based upon their employment in the U.S. armed forces. This is not for individuals who actually fought in the named conflicts, but for all veterans.

There are many who will say that this is 'the least we can do' for our veterans. But I have a sneaking suspicion that our veterans would not want the state - or its taxpayers and their fellow citizens - to go into debt just to give them cash for their service.

And that's what this measure will do. The state is going to borrow $200 million dollars to pay out to a particular class of Ohio citizens. There is nothing that says where the payments for this loan are going to come from - or whether or not tax incentives or credits on the Ohio Income Tax forms might be a better way of 'compensating' the valiant individuals.

Plus, the maximum amount is only $1,000 per vet. Do we really think $1,000 is going to be 'enough' to express our true gratitude for their service? If $1,000 is a good amount, why not $5,000, or $10,000 or even $25,000? Or is the $1,000 at a total cost of $200 million just what they think voters will approve?

And exactly how much of that $200 million is going to be dedicated to paying for the 'administration' of the bonds and the disbursements? Issue 1 would create another expansion of government, including an expansion of the costs of government.

Additionally, we're still involved in these conflicts, so we really have no idea what the final costs would actually be. Between the unknown number of veterans and the unknown costs of administration, there is no guarantee the final bill will be 'just' $200 million.

It is true that we can never do enough for our veterans, but that is a personal choice and a personal obligation - not a state deciding to borrow money and then tax everyone for the repayments. Besides, do you really think the politicians will be telling our veterans to thank the Ohio people for the 'gift'? Or will they be going around touting what 'they' did to help???

The very noble goal of providing a 'thank you' should be not be done by putting a financially-strapped state into further debt, or by expanding the cost of state government, or by taxing individuals just so politicians can have a point to add to their campaign literature.

If Ohioans really want to help our veterans, volunteer for them. Offer to help a military family clean out their gutters or do other home maintenance and repairs. Offer to drive a vet to the doctor's appointment, take them out to lunch, give them a grocery gift card, visit them when they're in the hospital.

If you want to show your appreciation for their service, YOU do it - personally - in a way that brings honor to you and them.

Vote NO on Issue 1 and take it upon yourself to provide your own 'thank you' for the sacrifices our U.S. armed services have made for our safety.

***

Issue 3 would amend the state Constitution to allow for one casino each in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo but would distribute the taxes on the casinos to all Ohio counties.

Many people have taken a position on this measure based upon the economic development aspects, the potential revenue to the various jurisdictions or because of the very subject of gambling.

My opposition has nothing to do with the subject matter. I believe that if you want to gamble, the state shouldn't be able to dictate to you about that choice. And while I believe that gambling can be bad - in fact, very, very bad - for some people, it can also be a form of entertainment for those who do it responsibly. Of course, that requires individuals to be responsible - or to suffer the suffer the consequences if they are not.

When it comes to tax revenue and/or economic development, pick your side and you'll find plenty of studies, reports, evaluations, etc...that will reinforce your opinion.

My opposition is to the amending of the state Constitution to carve out a business option for a particular type of business in only a few of the cities in the state.

If there was an amendment to establish plants that make whiskey in certain towns in Ohio with income from taxes distributed throughout the state, would you believe this was a proper use of the Constitution? Probably not...

What if the industry was a Halloween costume maker?

The point is that the 'industry' or specific business is not relevant. What is relevant is maintaining the Constitution as a document that applies to all equally - not one that can be piece-mealed to carve out benefits or exceptions for some.

So regardless of your support or opposition to 'gambling,' I urge you to reject the Constitutional amendment process proposed and vote NO on Issue 3.


*** If you'd like to know what positions other bloggers and media have taken on these issues, be sure to check out the 2009 Ohio Issues page on Ballotpedia.

No on Issue 2

My post opposing Issues 1 and 3.

Issue 2 is a constitutional amendment to create a 13-member Livestock Care Standards Board to prescribe standards for animal care and well-being that endeavor to maintain food safety, encourage locally grown and raised food, and protect Ohio farms and families.

Issue 2 - summary, full text and pros and cons begins on page 9 of this link.

It comes as no surprise that groups like the United States Humane Society (USHS) oppose this because, in their words, it doesn't go far enough, while many legislators (Republicans and Democrats) are supporting it.

What does surprise me, however, is the support from traditional 'limited government individuals' - primarily out of fear that more restrictive rules could be enacted if they don't support this measure. Many of these individuals cite what the USHS has done in California - as if Ohioans would really embrace the bankrupt state of California as an example we must follow.

But representatives of the Humane Society said last week that this measure will not prevent them from seeking, through citizen initiative, more restrictive rules if Issue 2 passes. They admitted that passage would make their goal harder to achieve, but they will pursue it anyway.

And then there is the conundrum that supporters will find themselves in if Issue 2 fails - and even if it passes. Having supported one form of government intrusion into the area, they will be hard pressed to oppose any other form. So the idea that they can prevent the USHS standards by creating their own puts them in the position of not having any credibility if they later decide to oppose any USHS-written measure.

So the reasoning presented is basically this: "We need to embrace an expansion of government in order to prevent an expansion of government."

Rather logical isn't it? Of course, the 'logic' falls apart the minute it is reduced to the basic premise.

I oppose Issue 2 based upon two principles - that amending the Constitution of the State of Ohio should not be done, except in the most serious of circumstances; and that a limited government is most desirable.

I reject the idea that a government agency should be enshrined in our state's constitution. The Constitution details such things as the inalienable rights of citizens, the election, replacement and duties of the branches of government and other such details for the organization of the state. It currently requires only a board of education and a ballot board, which is responsible for approving the ballot language for issues to be voted upon.

It does not require any other such boards, so to do so now would be an aberration in our document.

If there is truly such a need for this type of body, why not just make another department within state government? Great question, right?

Well, the answer is because there already is one - the Department of Agriculture which, interestingly, has the ability, per Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 901, to do exactly what this measure purports to accomplish.

So why do we need to amend our Constitution if the ability to implement the proposed idea already currently exists?

Sadly, the proponents of Issue 2 have not explained this. Instead, they are using 'fear' of extreme action by the USHS to encourage support of the measure.

But more importantly, the government of Ohio does not need to be expanded.

I'd oppose such expansion in a good economy, but to create a new board, a new bureaucracy, add new costs and impose new regulations in an already faltering economy makes absolutely no sense.

The state legislature recently voted to 'delay' planned tax cuts because they don't have enough money to balance the budget. As State Auditor Mary Taylor warned, the budget was based upon nearly $5 billion (yes, billion with a 'b') in one-time funds that will not be here in the next biennial budget. So where does anyone think we'll have the funding for another - new - bureaucracy? The simple answer is - we won't.

So either the state will have to cut something else in order to have this new board, or they will have to raise more taxes. Either way, Ohioans will not be happy.

Expansion of government is never a good idea - and this one is no exception.

There are plenty of other reasons to oppose Issue 2, but these are the principled ones. I hope you will vote NO on Issue 2.


*** If you'd like to know where the issues stand in terms of endorsements, be sure to check out the Ohio 2009 issues page on Ballotpedia! Positions taken by bloggers and newspapers are listed.

Basic questions to ask before implementing a new law

"[W]here there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community." ~ Benjamin Rush

I recently read Leslie Carbone's book, "Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform," and while it deals with the issue of taxes and developing a better tax system, it includes some questions that I think are pertinent and should be asked whenever a new law is considered.

I was thinking about this in relation to Issues 1, 2 and 3 on the November ballot, as well as the texting while driving ordinance before Toledo City Council.

What I'd like to know is this: who has asked - and answered - these questions (paraphrased from the book) on these proposals:

* What does the Constitution say?
* What are some of the unintended consequences? Does it promote dependence or laziness? Does it make immoral behavior easier or attractive?
* Does it pervert justice?
* Is it true reform or just tinkering? Will it increase or decrease complexity?
* Is it impartial, simple, transparent?
* Is it a proper function of government? Is it a good idea? Can the government do it well? What is the track record in similar areas?
* Does it inhibit economic growth?
* Is the government likely to keep its promises regarding the matter?
* Will it expand the power of the state? Does it set up a new state apparatus that could do damage to individuals, liberty or freedom - sooner or later?
* Will it erode privacy - financial or otherwise?
* Is it the best solution or just the quickest fix.

And my question: how does the proposal increase freedom, liberty and encourage personal responsibility? The goal, after all, is freedom.

Before you vote on the state-wide issues, ask yourselves these questions. And before Toledo City Council passes a new law, ask the members of council what the answers to these questions are - or if they've even considered these questions as part of their deliberations on the law.

We'll have a better city, county, state, and nation, if we think about these things before, rather than after, laws have been put into place.

And think, too, about this point: when was the last time a government actually repealed a law - voluntarily???? If we wait until after laws are passed, it's too late.