I know very little about this issue. I do know that "Citizens for Community Values" have spoken out against Issue one because they wanted to make sure it was very clear no money would be given for stem cell research. From their website:
"Issue 1 is an expansion of Taft’s Third Frontier Initiative. Thus far, $325 million has been shelled out to just 64 companies that employ a total of only 454 people; that’s $5 million per company and over $700,000 per job. If the amendment passes, the state will borrow $2 billion, $500 million of it to fund risky business ventures that the governor and two appointees choose to favor. Taxpayers must repay the $2 billion plus $1.8 billion in interest and debt service.
The proposed amendment also negates the current requirement that tax revenue be spent only for the purpose for which it was collected.
Proponents are hawking this amendment as a way to create jobs and fund public works projects. However, the existing money for such projects hasn’t been spent so adding more money isn’t necessary."
jr, I dont know how I feel about this issue yet. I do know that I would like more jobs, and if this proposed issue will create more jobs, I am more likely to vote YES... but honostly - I don't know what I will do on this issue. I appreciate you bringing it to the board. I will be watching and reading closely others' comments.
posted by alexandra at 11:13 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 01, 2005 #
You can't spend money to create jobs. Most of the job growth is in Southern states with very low spending. You know why businesses like those places? Low taxes. The Third Frontier is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. It will likely kill more jobs than it will create in the long term.
posted by paddington at 12:33 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 01, 2005 #
I had a feeling that to be the case.... Why does this have anything to do with stem cell research though? I am confused about that. I have had people telling me they are voting no because of that... Is that anywhere in the language?
posted by alexandra at 01:09 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 01, 2005 #
I think a lot of people (and possibly rightfully so) are comparing this to the Proposition California recently voted on that provides a billion dollars (or something like that) to fund stem cell research.
I agree with paddington; you can't raise taxes to create new jobs. I dare say that any new jobs created by this proposal will be greatly offset by job losses from small businesses. Like it or not, this is a new tax since the taxpayers have to pay the interest on this bond, and eventually that is going to affect large corporations, small businesses, and individuals.
I would be more likely to vote for this if it weren't attached to a big spending bill on roads. I do feel that Ohio needs to have some "infrastructure" in place to have biomed and other high tech research jobs come to Ohio, but I don't think roads are lacking at all.
posted by HeyHey at 02:42 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 01, 2005 #
"The existing money for such projects hasn't been spent so adding more money isn't necessary"
This is erroneous. The money is earmarked for grant projects which have been awarded but will be spent when the projects begin and as they reach various stages of completion. Every community in the state competes for these scarce dollars on a point system, doing everything they can to enhance their chances. Many worthwhile projects go unfunded because the funds are not available to cover all the grant requests. The state has rigorous standards for each point or points. They try to allocate the money where it will best achieve the goals of maintaining and improving community infracture. How much each community can add of its own funds to the project is also a big factor. Many City, Village and Township administrators have a lot of sleepless nights worrying about whether or not they put together the best grant request they could for their community. The state also gives long term no interest loans to communities as part of the grant packages where applicable. The loans are backed by State Issue 2 money. Unspent my arse!
posted by holland at 02:54 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 01, 2005 #
heyhey, I don't want to hear one word from you next spring about potholes. I don't want to hear one word from you when you are stuck in traffic because a road needs to be widened to handle increased traffic flow. And a pox on you if the community you live in has to raise your taxes to get twenty five year old ashphalt replaced. State Issue 2 was a superb way of bringing state tax dollars BACK to the local community.
posted by holland at 03:23 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 01, 2005 #
I think Ohio's roads are in very good shape. Have you people ever been to Michigan or New York state? I'm not sure if there are any cold weather states in the country with better roads than Ohio.
That said if you want more road spending, tell your congressman to separate these two issues next year so they can be voted on separatly.
Ohio's politicians come from the old socialist mindset that the government has to do everything for the people. Instead of cutting taxes to attract business, they always raise taxes, then spend money to lure companies into the state. That kind of arrangement fails more often than it works, because of the corruption involved, the bureacratic losses, and the inability of anyone to really pick winners from losers beforehand (hey if that worked, everyone playing the stock market would be rich).
posted by paddington at 04:28 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 01, 2005 #
Paddington, I will vote NO on Issue 1. I agree that infrastructure funding should not be lumped into Issue 1. It is blatant blackmail. However, if Issue 1 is defeated, I fully understand the hardship it will bring to small communities who have limited budgets and large infrastructure needs.
posted by holland at 06:42 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 01, 2005 #
Well a town of 20 people only needs infrastructure for 20 people. They don't need an international airport or a 5 level stack interchange with HOV lanes.
Spending issues are always framed by politicians as "hurting the little guys". Often times they bring a man on stage with crutches and say that his crutches will be taken away if government spending goes down. Or in this case, they are claiming that small towns will utterly be screwed if this new spending measure does not go through. It's all rubbish.
posted by paddington at 07:36 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 01, 2005 #
"That said if you want more road spending, tell your congressman to separate these two issues next year so they can be voted on separatly."
That's a good idea. The problem is, it makes too much sense, and government can't have any of that.
Here's the Issue 1 from two years ago that was defeated. I don't recall nor do I see in the 2003 version anything about rebuilding bridges and roads. The 2003 version seemed to only be concerned with "a constitutional amendment that proposes to distribute $500 million in bond revenues to boost high tech initiatives in the state."
About the 2003 defeat:
"Issue 1 was ahead by wide margins in Cuyahoga and Montgomery counties, but voters were rejecting it in Franklin, Hamilton, and Lucas counties and in rural counties that are Republican strongholds."
The 2003 high-tech version was supported in Cleveland and Dayton, but it was rejected in Columbus, Cincy, and Toledo.
The Blade opposed the 2003 version, saying:
"We have grave misgivings about this constitutional amendment and believe it should be defeated. It would authorize the state to borrow $500 million for grants to high-tech enterprises, but it includes no provision for spreading any jobs that might be created to all parts of Ohio."
Again, I can't find anything in the 2003 version about spending money to repair roads and bridges. The 2005 version, however, says:
"Two-thirds of Issue 1 funds will be used by local governments — not the state — for building infrastructure like roads, bridges, water supplies and storm and sanitary sewers."
This year's version also states:
"Issue 1 will create new jobs for Ohio’s future by making $500 million in grants for technology research and development."
Yep, it should have been two separate issues. Looks like the Issue 1 supporters are trying to pull a fast one on the public, similar to what TPS attempted to do this November with their renewal levy.
See, the rub here is, if you oppose Issue 1 because of the money going to high-tech research, then someone can come back at you and say, "Oh, so you're opposed to fixing roads and bridges in small towns."
No, that's not true. A person opposes Issue 1 in 2005 for the same reason he or she opposed it in 2003: Money would not be fairly distributed to all parts of the state. By adding infrastructure support to the 2005 version, which is important to all areas of the state, the Issue 1 crowd is hoping the slick repackaging will get it passed by the voters.
Issue 1 smells like a rat. Separate the issues.
posted by jr at 07:36 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 01, 2005 #
What does the actual wording of Issue 1 say? Does it actually use the phrase "create jobs", because that's completely disingenuous. I mean whose not for creating jobs? Someone should have brought an injunction against it.
posted by paddington at 08:34 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 01, 2005 #
Please Paddington, THINK will ya?! A lot of small communities have large amounts of pass through traffic; people on their way to and from who don't reside in the community through which they are driving. Look at the Village of Holland as just one example. McCord Rd and Angola Rd. average about 25000 vehicles a day. I think Holland (the Village) has a population of about 1500. What do you want, gravel roads because the municipality is small?
You are right jr. Painfully right.
posted by holland at 08:45 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 01, 2005 #
Now issues 1-5 have a NO vote from me. I will probably do more research on one, but jr, I think you covered it very well.
posted by alexandra at 09:16 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 01, 2005 #
Not me. paddington, HeyHey, and holland opened my eyes. Before this topic, I glossed over the fact that two separate issues were being combined into one this time around.
posted by jr at 09:35 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 01, 2005 #
Building roads sounds good, but $500 million is A TON OF MONEY. Of course it isn't a tax increase now, but those interest payments and principal have to be paid back eventually. Is this $500 million projected to bring in that much tax revenue???
posted by lloyd at 09:50 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 01, 2005 #
I really can't add anything more cogent that already expressed by Paddington and HeyHey. Their fiscal conservatism serves us well. But I do feel like ranting a bit.
The State of Ohio had to maintain its roads and bridges before Issue 1. If Issue 1 doesn't pass, Ohio's government is still responsible for performing that maintenance.
If they are trying to claim they no longer have enough money to do that ... well, I have some suggestions for these politicians:
1. The share of revenue to the State from corporations has fallen to ridiculously low levels. RETURN TO TAXING CORPORATIONS LIKE YOU USED TO.
2. Fire all your "economic development" officials. OBVIOUSLY THEY SUCK AT THEIR JOBS.
3. Ever heard of the gas tax? Wasn't it true that the more people drove, the more the roads would wear, but that the more revenue the gas tax would collect? INCREASE THE GAS TAX.
For me, the key thing here is that Issue 1 is yet another incarnation of the criminal Taft's "Third Frontier" scam. It's simply been repackaged like legislature pork in order to get it to pass. Jr hit that point pretty much right on the nose.
Taft's fraud is that he simply wants to have all Ohioans pay for the greed of a distinct business minority that undoubtedly contributed to his campaigns, and as well are probably financially intertwined with not only himself but all his administration.
Issue 1 is the usual issue of political-corporate cronyism in Ohio. It's welfare, and even more so, it's welfare for the rich. So it's just morally wrong.
Ohio has more than enough features to satisfy RATIONAL business demands. But when businesses "demand" to pay NO taxes and have MORE profits with each fiscal quarter guaranteed, then they need to leave Ohio and find people willing to be their victims.
If I have to pay my taxes and utility bills to live in Ohio, SO MUST THEY.
posted by GuestZero at 05:17 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 02, 2005 #
Just to clarify: State Issue 2 is the expiring legislation which aided communities through loans and grants for infrastructure improvements. This issue brought state tax dollars back into the local community as a permanent investment. State Issue 1 as it is written puts this legislation with Taft's Third Frontier initiative. Pure blackmail!
posted by holland at 08:13 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 02, 2005 #
The concern by some with the stem-cell research is that some of the Third Frontier money may go to companies doing research/commercialization of research. Since there is nothing to prohibit the use of the funds for any specific type of research, some have voiced opposition because, potentially, stem-cell research could be funded.
posted by intrepid at 11:01 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 02, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
