S.B. 5 was a necessary tactic to balance budget; yes on Issue 2S.B. 5 was a necessary tactic to balance budget; yes on Issue 2

To the Editor:

We deceive ourselves by believing that a "NO" vote on Issue 2 will preserve anything of value for our schools or communities. It will not save jobs, and it will not save community services. Where is the threat in Issue 2? Is it the requirement that public workers pay a small portion of their own pensions (10 percent) and their own health insurance (15 percent)? Is the idea of job performance as a consideration in employee compensation and retention so scary? What is it about proposing the slightest limitation on collective bargaining for taxpayer-funded benefits that has aroused such a frontal assault by Big Labor?

In truth, Issue 2 actually preserves benefits for public workers, benefits more generous than anything in the private sector, benefits that make federal employee/retiree benefits look cheap by comparison.

Despise Gov. Kasich as you please, but know this: anyone who followed Ted Strickland into office, including Strickland himself, would have had to make substantial cuts in public employee benefits to bridge the $8 billion plus deficit he left Ohio.

Funds for the status quo in public worker benefits do not exist, and they cannot be brought into existence with wishful thinking or union propaganda. Think more taxation is the answer? See what oppressive taxation has done for the economies of California, Illinois and New York. Increasing the burden on Ohio taxpayers would be a devastating blow to our economy, already on life support. A "NO" vote may support lavish salaries and benefits for Ohio Education Association representatives and union bosses in say, Cleveland, but it contributes nothing to our quality of education or vital community services. Union entitlements do not save jobs. They destroy them. Rejection of Issue 2 will likely accelerate layoffs and loss of essential community services as local governments and school districts struggle to maintain solvency in the face of eroding tax bases.

Support of Issue 2 is vital to the fiscal health of every level of government in Ohio, as well as to the retention of good teachers, and the ability of our communities to serve Ohio's citizens with authority and integrity. On Tuesday Nov. 8, vote "YES" on issue 2.

Carol Costanzo
Townsend Road
Athens

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT

Just a bit from here,http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/liz-cheney-leading-defense-ohio-g. "The daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney, is leading the defense of Senate Bill 5, Ohio Gov. John Kasich's anti-collective bargaining law passed last year. Ohioans were so upset with the law they launched a million-signature effort to repeal the law that will go to voters in the state on November 8. A "no" vote would repeal the law.

Cheney’s mailers have included phrases like, ““YES on Issue 2 will get POLITICIANS to Do The Right Thing on Spending” And “OBAMA wants us to do things HIS WAY? Yes on Issue 2 is our chance to do things OUR WAY” — convenient talking points that leave out the overall message that many Ohioans are getting a raw deal with Senate Bill 5 and Issue 2 is the public’s chance to wrong a right. The tactless tactic of invoking President Obama, who has literally nothing to do with this matter, displays the desperation of the Right’s effort. In the opinion of some, the bigger wrong that needs corrected is the election of Kasich.

Cheney's ads are notable for their failure to be completely accurate:

Cheney’s group began last month to flood Ohio with deceptive mailings that claim “voting yes on Issue 2 will give our communities the ability to get spending under control without raising taxes.”

A mailing that just went out statewide declared: “We just can’t afford to pay 100 percent of government employee benefits too.”

“In this tough economy,” the mailing continues, “it’s just not fair to ask taxpayers to pay even more for salaries and benefits for government employees.” Voting yes on Issue 2, it says, “means that government employees will make modest contributions to their benefits” by paying “at least 15 percent toward their health insurance coverage” and “just 10 percent toward their own retirement.”

A Cleveland Plain Dealer PolitiFact Ohio review of the mailing concluded that it was “problematic” because the piece “leaves out important details needed to put the statement in context.” Ultimately, the analysis concluded that the Cheney mailing rated “Half True” on its “Truth-O-Meter.”

But it’s worse than that.

The real lie is one of omission. What the Cheney mailings don’t say is that the law undermines basic labor rights, eliminates effective collective bargaining and encourages communities to balance budgets on the backs of firefighters, police officers and teachers. Nor does Cheney mention that the cuts will undermine public services and public education at a time when Ohio cities have been rocked by factory closings and rising unemployment.

Ad odd twist to the story is that Cheney's father once worked as a union lineman as part of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)."

John

You are about to decide if the unions work for the tax slaves or the tax slaves work for the unions.

The union position is that they are the masters and the tax payers exist to serve their needs.

John,

Great line of . Your ridiculous "tax slaves" comment shows you know nothing but to repeat right wing anti-union rhetoric. The union position is that they want to be able to continue to do their jobs in the safe environment unions have worked to give them. Why do you hate your teachers, firemen, police, nurses, etc.?

AverageJoe

You critsize John for spewing "right wing rhetoric" yet you make you case by saying that he hates public saftey employees? Stop the dishonest propaganda and let people decide and vote in the best economic interest of this State instead of the emotion war you are trying to make this vote out to be.

Issue 2 expressly authorizes (for the first time) our first responders to collectively bargain for safety equipment.

That doesnt sound like we hate out firefighters...

Issue 2 keeps union bosses from protecting bad teachers and stops the outdated practice of laying off good teachers first just because they haven’t served long enough.

Sound like I love my good teachers...

AverageJoe,

To ask them to pay for what they were told was part of their compensation package, is to ask them to take a pay cut, nothing less.

What about firemen, nurses, police, etc.?

Connect

S.B. 5 was a necessary tactic to balance budget; yes on Issue 2

Also in Letters: