Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Blog of Mass Destruction -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Vote No On Ohio Initiatives

by The Reverend on October 28, 2009

in Uncategorized

Next Tuesday Ohio voters will decide the outcome of three statewide initiatives. The Reverend's recommendation is for Ohio voters to vote "no" on all three.

Issue 1 is, I think, a symbolic initiative, a feel-good intitiative which proposes to give Ohio servicepeople, especially those who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, up to a $1000 bonus as a symbol of Ohio's appreciation for their service.

If the state of Ohio were not scambling just to figure out what spending to cut next…..or what gambling games to legalize in order to close a big state budget deficit…..then symbolic bonuses to servicepeople could be seriously considered.

But Issue 1 includes the floating of bonds. $200 million worth of bonds. Ohio doesn't have any extra money to pay military bonuses to Ohio military personnel…..so if Issue 1 passes, Ohio will be committed to paying bonuses with the proceeds from selling bonds AND returns on those bonds when they come due, with money Ohio does not have.

Issue 2 is tricky, I think. A yes vote on 2 will permanently establish a Livestock Care Standards Board by amending the Ohio Constitution. This Board will set standards for animal care and well being at Ohio's farms. Issue 2 is being sold as a vehicle to protect Ohio's "farms and families", to maintain "food safety", to encourage "locally grown and raised food."

Issue 2 is pre-emptive. It is an attempt to get out in front of a possible 2010 Ohio ballot initiative making it a criminal offense to confine animals in tiny restricted spaces. California passed something like that in 2008.

Issue 2 is meant to benefit agribusiness interests in Ohio. Nothing wrong with that, really. However, rewriting the Ohio Constitution in order to shield Ohio agribusiness from accountability in raising food animals…….except from a farmer-friendly State Board…..I'm thinking…..is not the way forward for the Buckeye State. Vote no.

Issue 3 is deja-vu all over again, Yogi. A yes vote will put a casino in four Ohio cities, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo. That's it. Ohio has rejected statewide gambling efforts 4 times, yet, here we go again.

Now that Governor Strickland's effort to place slots at race tracks to help the state's budget deficit is in limbo, Issue 3 may just have a chance of passing. It shouldn't. Ohioans should vote no.

When it comes to casino gambling or slots, Ohio is late to the party. Other states are already positioned. Yes, Ohioans take a lot of their money over to adjacent state casinos right now. That is no excuse to pass some hastily-arranged new limited-casino plan, benefitting only a couple of big corporate gambling players.

If Ohio intends to introduce casino gambling into the state…..something I am for on the merits…..it has to be done with much more planning and creative thinking. Issue 3 does neither.

In addition, Issue 3 is, like Issue 1, a Constitutional Amendment. Once passed…..very difficult to change.

The Reverend encourages Ohio voters to just say no…..on Issues, 1, 2 and 3.

  • Roy

    Good post Rev. I agree on all counts especially Issue 3. The last thing we need is for Dan Gilbert to get exclusive access to build a casino in downtown Cleveland.

    #1) Fiscally it just doesn't make sense right now.
    #2) More layers of bureaucracy and regulations won't help farmers.
    #3) This should be opened up and licenses should be auctioned off to the higher bidder.

  • Quidpro

    Reverand,

    Once I again I find myself in the strange and rare position of agreeing with your post. Our reasoning may be different, but the conclusions are the same. All three issues should be defeated by the voters next week.

  • N. E. Frye

    If I've already said it why isn't it there?

  • N. E. Frye

    P.S.
    There's a missing comment which only said, "Me too.".

  • The Reverend

    See? And you guys probably thought you couldn't find any common ground with The Reverend. Au contraire.

    N.E…..I checked….didn't see your "me too" comment in there somewhere. I promise…I would never censor anything.

  • Straight Outta Pripyat

    I agree. And for all of the same reasons that you do, Rev. Now, if I could just get the Rev. to talk his Dem buddies into leaving guns alone and quit giving handouts to people who do not want to work for a living, we can all live in peace.

  • hubbs

    Did somebody kill The Reverend and hijack his column??

    Seriously, Kudos, Rev on your logical thinking…I bet if "individuals" and "parties" were taken out of politics, you would actually have a chance at being termed a conservative.

  • The Reverend

    hubbs….me, considered to be a conservative? In some dreamscape, perhaps.

    Now see?, I would have thought that conservatives would have been FOR Issue 2. You know, farmers against animal rights people….but I guess not.

  • Da King

    Wow. How can this be ? The Rev is making sense here, presenting logical arguments.

    Wait a minute. Am I being punked ??

  • The Reverend

    " leaving guns alone and quit giving handouts to people who do not want to work for a living,"

    I actually think there's common ground to be found on those two issues, as well. I am a liberal, and I don't want to ban gun ownership. Liberals believe that guns should be closely regulated. Conservatives are, I think, split on regulation. Everyone recognizes that we can't go around with rocket launchers on our shoulders….point being that limits are essential. However, farther to the right conservatives lobby against any restrictions. So…it's an argument.

    Welfare is another one. Everyone on both sides support individual responsibility. Conservatives may disagree with that statement, but there's evidence to support it. It's how that support of personal responsibility is implemented into policies where the sides differ. Conservatives don't want people to starve to death and liberals don't want to take all the rich man's money and give it to sluggards.

    These are arguments that are worthy of democratic discourse, too bad all we have is media-circus performers directing that discourse.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).