Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > October > 25
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Editorial: ‘Yes’ on Issue 1; ‘no’ on Issues 2 and 3
2009 ELECTIONS
“Issues” get on the Ohio ballot — as opposed to being resolved in the Legislature — in different ways for different reasons. This year, Issue 1 on the Nov. 3 ballot is there because it requires selling bonds, a process that needs to be directly approved by voters.
Issues 2 and 3 are there because narrow interests — that are vastly outspending their opponents — saw the ballot as a way to get their way.
So perhaps it’s no surprise that Issue 1 has some merit, but Issues 2 and 3 don’t. By way of summary, let’s count down:
Issue 3: Don’t let promoters set their own terms
Issue 3 is an effort by casino developers to get approval, not for the idea of casinos — or for a process for approving casinos — but for their specific projects. They are the ones who put out the money to get a measure on the ballot (by passing petitions and gathering signatures).
Their side has raised $36 million for this campaign, about seven times more than the opposition.
The developers want their plans for casinos in Cincinnati, Columbus, Toledo and Cleveland blessed in the constitution. They’ve written their own tax rate, and their own rules for how their profits would be distributed, the latter with an eye toward buying political support.
They promise to create jobs. In fact, though, the days are long gone when casinos can attract out-of-state money. Mainly, casinos just recirculate money that is already in the state. That doesn’t result in a net creation of jobs.
Yes, there will be short-term construction jobs. That appeals to voters in these hard times. But there won’t be nearly as many as the 34,000 figure in the television ads (that number counts dealers, servers and whatnot). And the workers will be building businesses that take jobs away from other businesses, unlike, say, government-funded stimulus projects, which build roads and other projects that help the entire economy.
Anyway, there is something dubious about trying to get voters to approve something that they have rejected in four previous elections, hoping they’ve become desperate for any jobs.
Reasonable people can disagree about the desirability of casinos. But the desirability of allowing promoters to set their own terms, while shutting out everybody else, is hard to see.
Issue 2: Don’t let agri-business insulate itself
Issue 2 got to the ballot a different way: the state Legislature put it there. But even that process had special-interest written all over it. Agri-business lobbyists went to the Legislature with a request that generated no opposition from any potent force; and their ballot idea was approved before you knew it.
It is a proposal for an Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board. Why do some people want this all of a sudden, though the state has not had such a board — or considered inventing one — all these years? What problems have developed with the status quo?
None. The promoters of Issue 2 aren’t even complaining about anything. It’s just that animal-rights activists have sought some new rules in other states, and some people are anticipating them coming to Ohio next year.
Certain farm interests just want to get themselves insulated — with a board they control — so they never have to worry again.
That is not nearly a good enough reason to change the state constitution in a way that takes power that has always rested in the hands of elected officials — the governor and Legislature — and puts it where voters can’t get at it. The current system ain’t broke. Next year’s issues can be handled next year.
Issue 1: Give state’s recent war veterans extra money
Issue 1, on the other hand, has no political game-playing behind it. You get what you see.
As the ballot notes, it will cost the state up to $200 million (plus interest). The proposal is on the ballot because, in the opinion of the governor, at least, there’s no money in the state’s regular budget. (You know how that’s been going.)
The $200 million cost, divided among 11.5 million Ohioans, comes to about $17 a person, spread out over some time. It would go to veterans of modern war zones at the rate of $1,000 (or $100 for each month of service in the zone, whichever is less) per person, or $5,000 to the families of people who have been killed. It’s something other states are doing.
For those of us who have not been called up, not had our lives interrupted, not been in harm’s way, it’s not asking too much.
In all, voters are confronted with a bad way to approve casinos (Issue 3), a bad way to regulate farms (Issue 2) and a chance to put a little money in the hands of war veterans (Issue 1).
Permalink | Comments (33) | Post your comment | Categories: 2009 endorsements, Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio government, Ohio politics, Rural Communities, Sports and Recreation, Wright Patterson Air Force Base
