Vote your conscience on the Ohio Issues

It's way too late, but here's the horsepoup take on Ohio Issues 1-5. I don't care how you vote, but I do want you to vote. And here's my thinking....

Issue 1 - Approving Changes in Worker's Comp Laws

Supporters say this bill preserves the right of workers and speeds up their claims while adding some "commom sense" reforms to the program. I'll come right out with this: when Republican led lawmaking bodies imply or suggest they'll help workers and add common sense to anything, what they mean is employERS will benefit, employEES won't.

I only mention that because other critics of this issue will list the same doubts I have without mentioning their anti-big business/anti-Republican bias. I'll lay it on the table. I'll also take this opportunity to remind my fans that I'm not really anti-Republican. I'm just anti-everything that's happened in the last 5 or 6 years and it just so happens that it's all happened under thorough Republican majority... house, senate, White House, local, state, all Republican leadership. If the same crap had occurred under Democratic majority, I'd be anti-Democrat for this mid-term election. Moving on.

So back to Issue 1. By "speed up" the claims process, what the lawmakers mean is limiting claim life to 5 years. Not only is that not speeding anything up, it's not helpful to anyone. For instance, Joe Bricklayer files a claim against Mega Contractor, Inc. Mega Contractor's lawyers drag the claim out for 5 years. Joe's done. End of story. Whether Mega Corp is a winner or a loser, whether Joe is a winner or a loser, nothing is solved. Why are these guys so opposed to a time table for getting out of Iraq, but so willing to put a finite time table on ALL individual worker's comp claims? How does that help anyone involved - employer or employee. How doees that reform the system?

In fact, the stated goal of a similar bill a few years back was "to save corporations $200,000,000.00 per year." Are reforms necessary? Sure. Should the goal of reforms be saving corporations money? Well... it would be nice, but NO. The goal of reforms to worker's comp laws should be to create a better system of worker's comp. Ideally this would protect workers AND reduce both cost and headache for employers. That can be done if our leaders act like leaders and work on it rather than rushing to put something up with their name on it, that saves their contributors money, before an election.

I have some other issues with the bill, like the fact that personal information of all claimants must be made available to journalists throughout the claims process (social security numbers, addresses..??!!) but to keep it short, erring on the side of caution means a NO vote on Issue 1.

Issue 2 - Raise the minimum wage in Ohio

Here's another case where I'll jump the liberal ship. Should the minumum wage go up? Yeah. Will this particular attempt to boost it help anyone? Probably not. Look, the fact that a law is needed in order to establish a living wage is pretty sad to begin with. If I thought a law would fix that, I'd be all for it. But who pays for this raise? Like many proposals before this one, the workers who, on the surface, the raise would help, are the ones who will end up paying for it. Most employers would gladly pay good workers if they could find them. Bring in the government to "help" and people will likely LOSE jobs... even low paying ones. In addition to the obvious problems with forced pay raises, this particular law would also call for employers to maintain and for the public to have access to way too much personal information in order for the employer to prove compliance with what is basically a nuisance law to begin with.

You won't often hear me argue against anything just because it causes pain for business, but it should be fair and reasonable to all concerned. This law is neither to either.

Issue 3 – legalizing slot machines at select Ohio locations – NOPE! Many of the same people who have ignored Ohio’s education funding issues for years by saying throwing money at schools won’t solve anything are now claiming that money from gambling will solve everything. Once again, sounds a little ridiculous, eh? In fact that same candidate who says it’s a good idea mentions that in his experience as an Ohio congressman, he’s noticed an anti-Cuyahoga County/anti-northeast Ohio bias in the legislature. He believes Issue 3 is a reverse to this trend, but like most Ohioans, the Not in My Backyard syndrome leads me to believe that putting those casinos in Cleveland is just more of the same. The casinos aren’t going there to give Clevelanders more money for college, they’re going there because no one else in Ohio (who's not a casino owner) wants them in their backyard.

The only people who will realize any significant benefit from legalized gambling in Ohio are the casino owners (big business) and the politicians whose wheels they’re greasing. So unless you’re one of them, vote no on 3.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no prude when it comes to legalizing vice. I just don’t want its legalization destroying my property values, increasing the bankruptcy, divorce and crime rates in my community like in Vegas, Atlantic City, and just about every other community that’s legalized gambling recently. In other words, NOT IN MY BACK YARD! But unlike the politicians who support Issue 3, I believe in the golden rule and if it's not good enough for my back yard, then it's probably not a good thing for anyone's backyard.

Issues 4 and 5 - We have to treat these as one package. Since issue 4 is an amendment to the Ohio Constitution, it trumps 5. In other words, if they both pass, 5 actually fails and 4 takes over. Here's the problem with 4: It's a smoking ban that doesn't ban smoking. Don't believe me? Take a closer look. Not only does it allow smoking in just about every place where it is allowed right now, it's also supported by tobacco companies!

There was a long ranting paragraph in here about why those minimum wage workers who deserve better but won't get it from Issue 2 deserve a smoke free workplace, but regardless of how you feel about smoking personally, you need to really understand these two issues and here's the long and short: if you want a smoking ban, then you vote no on 4 and yes on 5 because 4 isn't even really a ban, 5 is and 5 only works if it wins and 4 loses. If you don't want a smoking ban, vote no on both.

I spent way too long getting this post up so I'll finish with one last thing and hurrying up and post it...
Get off John Kerry's back. For one thing, he's not running for office so who cares what lines he screws up in his speech. The only reason this issue gained any traction is because what he said is true on so many levels. Though his mistaken wording, when taken out of the context of the rest of his speech suggested the military is made up only of college dropouts, the rest of his speech clearly shows that he meant something similar, but subtly different, and sadly true. Even the lines directly surrounding the botched line indicate that he meant that the middle class is not only fighting the war in Iraq, but is paying for Bush's tax cuts back home. In other words, the middle class is doing the work of making the rich richer. So if, as Kerry suggested, you don't find a way in college to jump from the middle class into the Rockefeller/Big Oil/Pharmaceutical class, you'll end up in Iraq either literally or figuratively.

I'd like to talke more about this here, and plan to, but I should have had this posted a week before the election instead of a day before it so I'm rushing to press now and we'll pick it up later.

OH, yeah, and remember the horsepoup take on your state and federal candidates: if they're in office now, use your vote to get them out. I know it's juvenile and silly, but so is modern politics!