Be afraid; listen to the rich guy; forget about the People
Hey Folks -
In the Uke Man's humble opinion, the editorial below is a good example of how the "democracy" we supposedly enjoy is a sham!! The wealthy family who owns the Dispatch has its agenda, and it isn't the People's agenda. Part of their agenda is to manipulate us into voting against our own interests and in favor of theirs.
I have added comments in red throughout the editorial. The scam that is put forward in the piece is that: ballot initiatives are bad (even though the People support them) - be afraid; the thing to do is to elect legislators who care about the People and let them fix it, but that is impossible because the wealthy businesses are the ones who keep "our representatives" in office. "Pay no attention to the harebrained ballot issue; it hurts business, and that hurts you."
- Uke Man
The Columbus Dispatch
Ohio has issues Ballot initiatives are misused to drive voter turnout in key races
June 29,
Ohioans are seeing more state issues on even-year ballots, and the reason is no mystery. Statewide initiatives, particularly on hot-button issues, drive voter turnout. (Could it be that the reason the issues are “hot-button” is that the legislature refuses to deal with them?) Operatives in both parties want a surge of like-minded voters when Ohio is electing the president or governor. (If your assumption about the motivation for issues is accurate, isn’t it sad that issues important to voters aren’t dealt with by elected officials and, then, get on the ballot only to serve political interests?)
While issues such as a gay-marriage ban, a minimum-wage increase and a mandatory paid sick leave draw crowds on Election Day, they don't bring better government to Ohio. (Isn’t this the same as saying: “Getting out a larger crowd on Election Day to vote on something very important to them is bad government”?)
The misuse of ballot initiatives to help candidates and political parties often results in bad law. (If such a law is “bad,” it isn’t “bad” because it came from the ballot box; “bad” laws often come from the Statehouse, too; neither has a hammerlock on the infinite.)
The gay-marriage ban of 2004 and minimum-wage raise of 2006 were stuffed into the Ohio Constitution, which shouldn't be burdened with policy matters that the legislature should decide and implement by statute. (Hmmm . . . such language! “stuffed” into the Constitution? It’s a document, isn’t it? Not a sausage. “Burdened”? Is it groaning under the weight? Granted, changing the constitution is more difficult than changing a law – but often no more difficult than getting the legislature to address “hot-button” issues – hence relying on the ballot.)
Statutes can be updated relatively easily by the legislature. But updating a constitutional amendment requires a statewide vote. This is an unwieldy way to set policy.
President Bush's re-election campaign benefited from the gay-marriage ban, which put into the constitution a definition of marriage that was already in statutory law. The minimum-wage issue attracted low-income Ohioans who tend to favor Democrats, helping them recapture all but one of the statewide elected offices.
Yes, Ohio's minimum wage at the time was low, but Congress was raising the minimum wage nationally, and the state legislature has the power to do the same whenever voters elect lawmakers amenable to the idea. (Yes, the state legislature has the power to address “hot-button” issues, but they don’t address them. It’s not political; they don’t serve the people; they serve the interests that can get them elected – those who will keep the people from electing different lawmakers amenable to the people’s desires. – Your argument is disingenuous. Basically it really says: We own the legislature; ballot issues get around that; if you want to change things, the way to do that is elect legislators who’ll listen to you (something you most likely can’t do).
The mandatory sick-leave requirement for Ohio employers, if it appears on the Nov. 4 ballot, is intended to draw low- to middle-income Ohioans to the polls. The measure requires that all employers with 25 or more workers provide seven paid sick days per year. Part-time workers would have their paid sick leave prorated. (Well, middle-to-low income groups are a majority of Ohioans, or at least half of us. If we live in a democracy, what’s wrong with appealing to such a large group?)
The proposal sounds great to workers with little or no paid sick leave. But by imposing additional costs on businesses, it could make the state less attractive for businesses seeking to locate or expand here.
No wonder Gov. Ted Strickland has such ambivalence about the sick-leave proposal, called the Healthy Families Act.
On one hand, it would help fellow Democrats, such as presidential candidate Barack Obama; on the other hand, business leaders are telling the governor it would kill jobs.
Strickland wanted a compromise to keep the issue off the November ballot, but that was never in the cards.
Nearly half of Ohio's private-sector employees don't have that much paid sick leave, and polls show the measure would win easily if the vote were held today. (There it is again: “nearly half”; looks like there may be a real problem in Ohio for at least half of its people. I wouldn’t call that “hot-button,” at least not in the same way gay marriage can be described as “hot-button.” And -horrors!! - it “would win easily”!! – a little too much democracy, perhaps.)
The risk for Ohio's labor force is that the cost of meeting the requirement could result in offsetting reductions in other parts of an employer's benefits package or cut the number of people a business employs.
Government mandates on the private sector are rarely, if ever, cost-free, as the proponents of this one claim. (Does government serve business or the people? Is the only way business can function is by mistreating employees? If businesses can’t treat employees humanely, maybe they should go out of business.)
Ohioans should remember that these ballot issues are intended to push hot buttons in the hope that voters will cast a ballot without thinking through the consequences. (The consequences for whom? The majority of Ohioans? or the group of businessmen who already have sick leave?)
In the Uke Man's humble opinion, the editorial below is a good example of how the "democracy" we supposedly enjoy is a sham!! The wealthy family who owns the Dispatch has its agenda, and it isn't the People's agenda. Part of their agenda is to manipulate us into voting against our own interests and in favor of theirs.
I have added comments in red throughout the editorial. The scam that is put forward in the piece is that: ballot initiatives are bad (even though the People support them) - be afraid; the thing to do is to elect legislators who care about the People and let them fix it, but that is impossible because the wealthy businesses are the ones who keep "our representatives" in office. "Pay no attention to the harebrained ballot issue; it hurts business, and that hurts you."
- Uke Man
The Columbus Dispatch
Ohio has issues Ballot initiatives are misused to drive voter turnout in key races
June 29,
Ohioans are seeing more state issues on even-year ballots, and the reason is no mystery. Statewide initiatives, particularly on hot-button issues, drive voter turnout. (Could it be that the reason the issues are “hot-button” is that the legislature refuses to deal with them?) Operatives in both parties want a surge of like-minded voters when Ohio is electing the president or governor. (If your assumption about the motivation for issues is accurate, isn’t it sad that issues important to voters aren’t dealt with by elected officials and, then, get on the ballot only to serve political interests?)
While issues such as a gay-marriage ban, a minimum-wage increase and a mandatory paid sick leave draw crowds on Election Day, they don't bring better government to Ohio. (Isn’t this the same as saying: “Getting out a larger crowd on Election Day to vote on something very important to them is bad government”?)
The misuse of ballot initiatives to help candidates and political parties often results in bad law. (If such a law is “bad,” it isn’t “bad” because it came from the ballot box; “bad” laws often come from the Statehouse, too; neither has a hammerlock on the infinite.)
The gay-marriage ban of 2004 and minimum-wage raise of 2006 were stuffed into the Ohio Constitution, which shouldn't be burdened with policy matters that the legislature should decide and implement by statute. (Hmmm . . . such language! “stuffed” into the Constitution? It’s a document, isn’t it? Not a sausage. “Burdened”? Is it groaning under the weight? Granted, changing the constitution is more difficult than changing a law – but often no more difficult than getting the legislature to address “hot-button” issues – hence relying on the ballot.)
Statutes can be updated relatively easily by the legislature. But updating a constitutional amendment requires a statewide vote. This is an unwieldy way to set policy.
President Bush's re-election campaign benefited from the gay-marriage ban, which put into the constitution a definition of marriage that was already in statutory law. The minimum-wage issue attracted low-income Ohioans who tend to favor Democrats, helping them recapture all but one of the statewide elected offices.
Yes, Ohio's minimum wage at the time was low, but Congress was raising the minimum wage nationally, and the state legislature has the power to do the same whenever voters elect lawmakers amenable to the idea. (Yes, the state legislature has the power to address “hot-button” issues, but they don’t address them. It’s not political; they don’t serve the people; they serve the interests that can get them elected – those who will keep the people from electing different lawmakers amenable to the people’s desires. – Your argument is disingenuous. Basically it really says: We own the legislature; ballot issues get around that; if you want to change things, the way to do that is elect legislators who’ll listen to you (something you most likely can’t do).
The mandatory sick-leave requirement for Ohio employers, if it appears on the Nov. 4 ballot, is intended to draw low- to middle-income Ohioans to the polls. The measure requires that all employers with 25 or more workers provide seven paid sick days per year. Part-time workers would have their paid sick leave prorated. (Well, middle-to-low income groups are a majority of Ohioans, or at least half of us. If we live in a democracy, what’s wrong with appealing to such a large group?)
The proposal sounds great to workers with little or no paid sick leave. But by imposing additional costs on businesses, it could make the state less attractive for businesses seeking to locate or expand here.
No wonder Gov. Ted Strickland has such ambivalence about the sick-leave proposal, called the Healthy Families Act.
On one hand, it would help fellow Democrats, such as presidential candidate Barack Obama; on the other hand, business leaders are telling the governor it would kill jobs.
Strickland wanted a compromise to keep the issue off the November ballot, but that was never in the cards.
Nearly half of Ohio's private-sector employees don't have that much paid sick leave, and polls show the measure would win easily if the vote were held today. (There it is again: “nearly half”; looks like there may be a real problem in Ohio for at least half of its people. I wouldn’t call that “hot-button,” at least not in the same way gay marriage can be described as “hot-button.” And -horrors!! - it “would win easily”!! – a little too much democracy, perhaps.)
The risk for Ohio's labor force is that the cost of meeting the requirement could result in offsetting reductions in other parts of an employer's benefits package or cut the number of people a business employs.
Government mandates on the private sector are rarely, if ever, cost-free, as the proponents of this one claim. (Does government serve business or the people? Is the only way business can function is by mistreating employees? If businesses can’t treat employees humanely, maybe they should go out of business.)
Ohioans should remember that these ballot issues are intended to push hot buttons in the hope that voters will cast a ballot without thinking through the consequences. (The consequences for whom? The majority of Ohioans? or the group of businessmen who already have sick leave?)
posted by Ukulele Man at 1:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home