There are two salient items about this column you should know. First, this piece is somewhat of a collaborative effort because I raised the topic during my Wednesday radio show (11/9/2011), and several folks chimed in with their valuable observations. Second, I’m submitting this piece in the middle of my constitutional restoration series because of its timely application for the task we have before us. Today’s column is titled “Consistent Inconsistency,” and examines the recent votes in Ohio on two very important statewide issues. Issue 2 was a measure to repeal SB 5 which radically altered the relationship between public sector workers in Ohio and their various political subdivisions and school districts. It had massive union support---both public and private sector—for repeal….a “No” vote was necessary to NOT IMPLEMENT the original legislation. Issue 3 was a citizen-generated proposed state constitutional amendment forbidding the federal government from requiring an individual mandate for healthcare coverage in Ohio. In essence, it was a re-affirmation of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. It had the added benefit of providing some measure of courage and backbone for state legislators who have been historically reluctant to challenge the federal government.
At first blush it would seem that the two issues are similar in many ways. Both appear to be a slap at larger, more costly government, and each would seem to reinstate an element of citizen control over critical aspects of their lives. So why did Issue 2 fail by a 61-39% margin while Issue 3 passed by 66-34%? The state public sector reforms were soundly defeated, and the anti-federal attempt to mandate individual health insurance coverage and premiums was passed overwhelmingly. There are probably some unemployed psychologists who could offer a number of explanations for the supposed schizophrenic behavior of the Ohio voters, but they would probably be too complex, meaningless or downright goofy.
The majority of our callers and I agree that the seemingly disparate votes were amazingly consistent. In both cases the voters rejected big government over-reaching. The federal example is starkly clear. The state legislation had a number of strategic and tactical flaws that led to its resounding clobbering. The comprehensive omnibus nature of SB 5 obviously incurred the wrath of public sector employees, but it also bred an element of distrust among the general electorate. Large overly-broad bills that impact multiple sections of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) activate the suspicions of voters whose confidence in their governments’ leadership and integrity has been severely eroded. Big thunderous and radical change from either the federal government or the state government especially when consolidated in a single piece of complicated legislation arouses the “wary detectors” in many citizens. There are some aspects of the public employees’ relative positions with their communities that many people might desire to alter, but the massive complexity of the bill stoked the ire of every public employee union, their families and their friends. The firefighters and police should have been omitted from this bill so that the national and state union organizations would not have “public safety” as an issue. Their lying threats in their advertising foreshadowed the actual outcome that will occur as a result of Issue 2’s failure. Local governments will continue to have minimal flexibility in their negotiations with their employees. Binding arbitration requirements and non-invested arbitrators will force unworkable contracts on the communities … forcing them to sever or layoff critical personnel.
Voter ignorance, however, may not have been the primary reason for the failure of Issue 2 while Issue 3 was sailing easily into passage. Two major issues, each with a “let’s regain control” component actually had similar outcomes despite the nearly mirror difference in voter approval. To this observer there appeared to be some voter discernment being exercised on Election Day…..and the nearly endless early-voting period that preceded it. From a practical and strategic point of view I suspect the voters may have selected the wrong option on Issue 2, but I believe that I understand why they did so. The massive expenditure of union millions, the importation of union workers from out of state, and the union emphasis on early voting to minimize the impact of pro-Issue 2 advertising on voters all contributed to the margin of victory. With a mere 350,000 public employees in Ohio and the overall union percentage of the work force lower than 15%, those stratagems cannot account for all of the 61% “No” votes particularly in the context of the massive approval for Issue 3. It seems to have been a somewhat calculated discerned decision. In both issues the people of Ohio rejected big government solutions.
It seems rather frivolous to be discussing political decision-making on a day that is set-aside to honor those who have nobly served our nation. Their commitment and sacrifices have preserved our opportunities for deciding how we shall be governed. May those of you who have worn the uniform of our nation with honor and dedication please note that we thank you and wish for you the greatest of blessings. We salute you.
Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com
Tue. & Wed., 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo. www.wspd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment