The Latest of 57 Reasons to Reject the Ohio Learn & Earn Initiative (102306)
From Jill at Writes Like She Talks (original entry relating to Jill’s effort is here) –
- Reason 19 — “Because the threshold of acceptable behavior in Ohio doesn’t need to sink any lower than it already has ….. Bringing a slots and casino culture here will sink it lower - and who thought that that was possible?”
- Reason 18 — “Because it fails technically as a constitutional amendment.”
What’s interesting about this very good reason (which is being explained in a series of posts by Jill, starting with this one) is that the Toledo Blade didn’t even get to it in the course of its editorial opposing Issue 3 until near the end. Meanwhile, the constitutional objection is THE only reason the Blade (surprising a lot of people, including me, until I understood their reasoning) is opposing Issue 2, which is all about that liberal article of faith known as an increase in the minimum wage.
Why is the Blade against Issue 2 going into the Constitution?
A persuasive case can be made for increasing the minimum wage, which has plunged to its lowest value in terms of purchasing power since 1955. But any such change should be made by the General Assembly in statutory law, not by inscribing it in an already cluttered and overstuffed state constitution.
….. This is the kind of detail that normally would be included in a statute or in rules promulgated by the legislature to carry out a statute but which we believe does not belong in the constitution. The constitution should be reserved for general principles of state policy, not the minutiae of enacting the policy.
Exactly.
This is indeed a powerful reason, and is in and of itself enough to justify an automatic “no” on Issue 2, even if you are a passionate believer in the minimum wage (which this writer, in case anyone is actually wondering, is not).
Now let’s get back to Issue 3. I count these as the reasons why the Blade opposes the measure in its editorial, in order of appearance:
- Issue 3 is primarily about legalized gambling, though it’s not being sold as such.
- Social costs of legalized gambling.
- TV ads never even mention gambling.
- Will be limited to the top 5% of graduating classes for 12 years until fully funded.
- Constitution clutter.
The Blade must consider the first four reasons listed even more powerful than the no-brainer constitutional argument it used as its sole justification to oppose Issue 2.
How many good reasons does anyone need?
UPDATE ON REASON 18: The Plain Dealer opposes Issue 2 because it micromanages Ohio’s constitution, but supports Issue 3 pass even though it does even more of that. Horse manure. Schizophrenic horse manure.
- Reason 17 — “Because, if the people who paid for the proposed amendment language actually sought to have that language accomplish what they’ve been telling the public it does accomplish (improve affordability to a higher education in Ohio for residents of Ohio), then three mandatory conditions would have been included, WITHOUT hesitation.”
Per Jill:
BEFORE A SINGLE SLOT MACHINE was even contracted for:
1. The Gaming Integrity Commission would be in existence and functioning;
2. The General Assembly would have to legislate and the governor would have to sign into law all the laws required to administer the education grants etc.; and
3. The Board of Regents would have to either give access to or provide notice to every citizen eligible for those funds.
