Ohio Issue 2 Debate

I tried to watch the debate of Ohio Issue 2 tonight, but after hearing Sen. Keith Faber argue the pro-2 side for about 10 minutes, I had to quit so I could go read the issue language again. Based on Sen. Faber's replies to former Sen. Dennis Eckart's statements, I was pretty sure I was confused about issue 2. I thought it was about limiting the rights of public employees to collective bargaining on most matters that most folks generally feel workers should have some kind of say in.

According to Sen. Faber, Issue 2 is about cutting spending and lowering taxes. In fact, I half expected the state's web page to include that very language when I looked it up. It's all he kept repeating. Heck, if that's the case, who wouldn't want to keep SB 5?

As it turns out, that's not really what Ohio 2 is about. The state's official web site confirms that Issue 2 does in fact limit public employees' collective bargaining rights to just about anything management doesn't want to discuss. The first line of the official summary says this:

Permits public employers to not bargain on any subject reserved to the management and direction of the governmental unit, even if the subject affects wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment.

Hmmm. Now where would anyone opposed to Issue 2 get the idea that it restricts or even prohibits in many cases the right of public employees to collectively bargain the terms and conditions of their work? Oh, yeah, the language of the fricking bill, that's where.

Now that's weird because in between telling us that Issue 2 was about cutting taxes and lowering spending, Sen. Faber also said repeatedly that the law would NOT limit public employees' rights to bargain.

Now you can understand why I gave up trying to follow it.

Look, even Ronald Reagan, six-time president of the AFL-CIO Screen Actors Guild, and the ONLY U.S. President who was a union member, said, "...the most elemental of human rights - the right to belong to a free trade union." I'm reminding Republicans of this? I never even liked unions who forced dues from my wallet without my say. But the more I look at this blatant attempt to add a "union buster" notch to the old campaign belt with no regard for the stated purpose of the bill (saving the state money), the more I think Kasich, Faber, and their gang are snakes who have no idea what they're doing in Columbus other than making sure they and their friends stay rich at our expense.

The Unites States of America is a union. A union is nothing more than a group of people organized for a common purpose. If Governor Kasich can't negotiate with Ohio's public employee unions, let's repeal both him and his SB 5 and find someone who can. Let's not support his childish efforts to "show them!" Seriously, it's as if SB 5 is his way of taking his ball and going home because he was thrown out by someone's little sister at 1st base.

Note the confusion of the wording and response to the issue. First, the issue is a repeal of an existing law. One would think voting yes on a repeal would do away with the law in question, but Kasich's Secretary of State ensured the ballot language ends up just the opposite of this logical assumption.

The first line in the summary on the state's page is purposely strange as well: Permits public employers to NOT bargain. How to you permit someone to not do something. Why not just say "prohibits?" Well, that's because no one on the side of 2 is willing to come out and say it prohibits collective bargaining, but that's exactly what it does.

It seems like every attempt is being made to deceive Ohioans as to what the issue is actually about. Perhaps that's because supporters know that SB 5 - the law repealed by a NO vote on Issue 2 (that's clear, right?) - is doomed. An overwhelming number of petition signatures to put the issue on the ballot were collected. The handful of supporters reads like the handful of people who have continued to get rich as our recession roller coaster begins it's second dip. It appears to be less than 1% of our population.

Faber also argued that one good reason to support Issue 2 is because taxpayers don't want unelected officials (union bosses) telling public employers what they have to pay their employees. And yet, what the law provides for is a panel of 12 folks, none of whom were elected, to determine benefit and compensation packages for teachers and other public employees. So the law codifies exactly what Faber says taxpayers don't want. That's a strange way to win support.

Reminds me of a slew of Ohio governors who gradually did away with Ohio's former elected state school board and replaced them with governor-appointed "education experts." This began back when the first lawsuit claiming Ohio's public school funding system was unconstitutional was won. (A decision supported by the Ohio Supreme Court but largely ignored by every governor since except Strickland, who inherited Taft's deficits and this recession and was thus powerless to really address the issue).

In addition to the sneaky language, the common sense appeal of the opposition, and the support across the state to repeal the bill, there are plenty of other reasons to hate SB 5. Although Faber flat out stated that passage of 2 would just as likely INCREASE public employee salaries, it's somehow going to save the state money.

The money it's going to save comes from RAISING the salaries of 360,000 public employees?? Of course not. Those salaries will have to be cut in order for the bill to save money, OR the number of employees will have to be cut. Does your police or fire department have a bunch of extra guys sitting around all day? Does your high school have way too many teachers? Do they all drive Ferraris off duty? Even if we do cut these salaries, how much do we expect to save? And wouldn't any savings be offset by the cuts in personal spending these laid off or demoted employees have to implement at home? Well, probably not, since these personal budgets are probably already scaled back to levels Gov. Kasich can't even fathom. There's not a lot to scale back when you can only afford the staples to begin with, and let's face it, police, firefighters, teachers et al aren't exactly going to be cutting out a new yacht this season in order to scale back. Just as a flat tax benefits only the rich, SB 5 hurts MOST Ohioans.

C'mon people. SB 5 was railroaded through to begin with by a bunch of idiots we put in office for no better reason than because we were pissed at their collective ineptitude to begin with. SB 5 slithering through the Ohio Legislature is the result of our voting pissed at the last mid-term. Let's not make this mistake again.

Destroy Issue 2 in November, then send Kasich back to Wall Street, and let's try to elect a Governor who's more concerned with actually leading Ohio than he (or she) is with scoring partisan points and keeping his circle of friends rich at every Ohioan's expense.

Supporters of SB 5 and Issue 2 don't give a damn about saving the state money. They seek only the political victory of breaking up the state's public employee unions. If they are successful, they'll turn all state jobs into dead end positions no one ever wants. You think our roads are bad now? You think your county office provides poor customer service now? Just wait. The only plan this gang has for saving Ohio any money is by selling off all of Ohio's valuable assets: the lottery, the turnpike. So what do we do in the next term when we don't have anything left to sell? And if these things can be run so profitably by private owners, why can't the Governor make them profitable for the state? Is it because we Ohioans don't deserve the profit like Kasich's old colleagues from Lehman Bros?

Support the folks who run in while the rest of us run out. At least let them continue to have a say in their working conditions, salary, and benefits packages. And if you're one of those folks who thinks teachers and other state employees have life soooooo great, then become one, and VOTE NO on Issue 2.