Article: 'The most important vote you cast all year'

From RH Jones, Sunday, February 26, 2006

To all:

This quote: "The most important vote you will cast all year." comes from reporter Michael Douglas of the Beacon, Pg. B3, today. He points out that if Ken Blackwell wins the governor's race, "...the state's investment in the future, from education to transportation suffer greatly." And, if his proposed constitutional amendment passes: "If 51 percent of eligible voters go to the polls, a city with a tax increase or plan to lift the spending limit would have to have receive the vote of virtually every voter. If 40 percent turn out? The city has no chance."

Without adequate school funding and transportation, our state will surely lose business. It is as simple as that! Please read his story. Indeed, for us, not only is the STRS BD election important, the governor race may be even more important. We need to stay informed.

RHJones, CORE & SummitCRTA Legislative CMTE

Note from John - here's the Douglas article that RH is talking about.

________________

	Posted on Sun, Feb. 26, 2006
	The Blackwell assault on local control The most important vote you will cast all year By Michael Douglas, Beacon Journal associate editor Visit www.kenblackwell.com, the home page of Blackwell for Governor, and you won't readily find reference to the candidate's proposed constitutional amendment setting limits on state spending and taxation. You must click twice, and scroll down. There it is! -- under ``Ken Blackwell's Job Creating Agenda'' and ``Control Government Spending.'' How uplifting, right? Ohio must create more jobs. Anyone for out-of-control spending? To read more, click again. You wouldn't think a proud candidate would throw even one obstacle in the way of the curious seeking access to such a sweeping and dramatic plan. Blackwell wants to limit annual increases in ``aggregate'' state spending to 3.5 percent or the rate of inflation plus population growth (whichever is greater). Does the click, click, click reveal a certain doubt, the secretary of state and Cincinnati Republican beginning to see the flaws and ambiguities, the real harm lurking in his proposal? His appearance at a recent forum in Columbus, sharing the stage with the other candidates for governor, Republicans and Democrats, hardly suggested so. Blackwell appeared almost amused at the rhetorical bolts hurled by Jim Petro, his Republican challenger and the attorney general. Petro labeled the proposal a ``nightmare'' and a ``disaster.'' Blackwell responded, ``There's nothing more in need of restraint in the state than government spending.'' Good line? Of course. That's what should concern the others running for governor -- and the rest of us. The amendment is set for the November ballot. If it wins voter approval, the next governor will face severe restrictions in moving the state forward. Petro isn't exaggerating. Colorado has already tried something similar, suspending the measure last fall, Republicans and Democrats joining to escape the devastating squeeze, having watched the state's investment in the future, from education to transportation, suffer gravely. In other words, whether you favor Petro or Ted Strickland or Bryan Flannery or Blackwell (for heaven's sake), you will cast no more important vote than the one on this proposed constitutional amendment. A political consultant may smile, twirling the end of his mustache, at the devilishness at work. Blackwell understands the pull of the gut, energizing the faithful with the slogan, ``Damn, they spend too much!'' Remember how good it may have felt to send a message by approving term limits. And now? What a miserable result. This amendment reflects a similar false promise. Those tempted or determined to vote yes should consider two elements that have received too little attention: the sloppy (or sinister) crafting of the amendment and the withering assault on local control, the state driving decision-making in cities, townships and school districts. How sloppy? The amendment applies to the spending of the state and local governments. An entity seeking to raise taxes or to spend beyond the limit must ask voters for approval. The provisions covering the state are straightforward: Win a majority of those who cast ballots, and you prevail. At the local level? It gets tricky. The requirement calls for gaining a majority of all electors, yes, all eligible voters. Do the math. If 51 percent of eligible voters go to the polls, a city with a tax increase or plan to lift the spending limit would have to receive the support of virtually every voter. If 40 percent of voters turn out? The city has no chance. Blackwellian types reassuringly wave away concerns. Will the courts decide? What a splendid use of time, and somewhat contrary to the lament of so many in the conservative camp about the legal system having the last word on too many matters. The amendment fails to define precisely how the limitation would apply to taxing districts that cross political boundaries. It requires the state to cover the cost of all mandates on local governments (not a bad idea). What's missing? A definition of ``mandate,'' leaving the courts with another task. Blackwell has justified his own easy spending in office, far exceeding the demands of his proposal, by pointing to the virtue of fees, differing from broad taxes because they are voluntary. Yet the amendment would cover revenue from all kinds of taxes and fees. Any surplus money would go into a reserve fund or into the pockets of taxpayers in the form of a refund. Which taxpayers would receive refunds? Those who pay income taxes. That sounds reasonable -- until you note the many ways Ohioans are tapped, starting with the sales tax. Township trustees often put aside savings when they intend in the coming years to buy, say, a fire truck. They smartly avoid having to finance the purchase. Under the amendment, they may face a dismaying choice, when the savings pushes the township above the spending cap. They might go to the voters for approval (inviting ridicule for asking such a silly question). Or they might increase the overall cost of the purchase by borrowing the money and paying interest. In a similar way, the amendment blurs the distinction between the state's operating budget and its capital budget, neglecting the important difference between investing in the future and covering immediate needs. This proposal is rife with perversities. The governor would have the final say on an emergency exception, after lawmakers approved exceeding the spending limit. Lawmakers wouldn't have the chance to override the imperial veto and send the question to voters. Who intends to be governor? Why, Ken Blackwell.