Ohio DUers: How should I vote on Issue 1?

[liberalhistorian]

I'm really confused on how to vote for this. Will it really create all the scientific, research, and biotechnology that Governor Golly (aka Taft) claims it will? Will it really create the economic transition that Governor Golly (aka Taft) is insistent that it will?

Will it be an economic boom or an economic boondoggle and turn into a terrible drag on the economy? Will voting no mean that Ohio is left in the dust and continues dying its rust-belt-is-dead-and-we-have-no other-economic-base-death, like its proponents claim? Or is that just a bullshit hooey GOP scare tactic?

Some of the progressive alternative papers in my area came out against it, so I really don't know.

[ShaneGR]

1. I voted yes, with hesitation

I doubt it will be much of a success, but at least Taft did ANYTHING about higher-ed in Ohio. Rest of my ticket was in full support of our local Dems and Dem supported issues.

[SharonAnn]

2. Actually, Ohio has plenty of high-tech already

I lived in Dayton for 25 years and it has a lot of high-tech though it used to have lots of other iindustries which are either gone on shrunken.

Just in Dayton were the HQ for the Air Force Logistics Command, NCR Corporation, Lexis-Nexis, Reynolds & Reynolds and GMAC. And there were lots of other firms in the high tech fields.

I don't know what Issue 1 is, but if the GOP is sponsoring it, it probably is a way to channel taxpayers money into the pockets of GOP friends. That's what they usually do.

[ShaneGR]

4. It's a higher-ed funding issue, money goes to Universities & sponsors

Taft calls it the 'Third Frontier' initiative. Basically it's like creating a big business incubator by investing in Technology institutes at the state colleges, and staffing companies with the graduating students. At least, that's what I think it is.

[liberalhistorian]

5. That's what I mean, that's what I'm worried about.

I think Taft's stated goals and reasons are laudible, but I sure as hell don't trust him or any of the other GOP cronies hyping it. It might be a way for them to say, if it fails, "hey we tried to fund higher ed and services and the people don't want it, so get off our ass already!"

Then again, I could be wrong, but I don't know.

[liberalhistorian]

7. SOME areas of Ohio have a lot of high-tech

like, as you say, Dayton, but a lot of others don't, like Northeast Ohio, where I am.

[OhioArtist]

3. I wish I knew.

I'm not too familiar with Issue 1. I've only read an article about it in the sunday Columbus Dispatch and of course it didn't really have any conclusions except for what Taft says it will do. I'm tempted to vote no on it simply because I don't trust that Taft really cares about the people as much as the business/special interest possibilities. But I wish I knew more so I could make a more informed decision.

[shirlden]

6. I voted no without hesitation

From what I have read this is just a Taft boondoggle. Give away to his supporters.
I for one am sick and tired of having socialized business in Ohio. They get enough of our tax money and are not held accountable. In this case, they get the money, we get to pay the interest on the bonds, they keep the profits, we may not benefit at all.

:argh:

[Kolesar]

8. No

Shirlden has the reasons. I would add that I have no way of knowing who they will pick to get the "loans". It sounds like corporate welfare to me.

Further, I am surprized that they used Taft in the TV ads, considering how unpopular the Governor is right now.

[liberalhistorian]

10. Yeah, that's what I was thinking,

but I wanted to be sure. I certainly want Ohio to do well economically, but with the GOP totally in charge this past decade, the exact opposite has happened. And that's a great term, "socialized business", because that's exactly the way it is. They'd scream and holler to hear themselves labeled that way, but the truth hurts, ya know!

[ThirdWheelLegend]

9. VOTE NO.....

Here are a few things I know about issue 1..

First off... Taft supports it, makes me question it right there. :P


Ok facts now :)..

Got this info from the Free Times...(Cleveland alt weekly)

http://www.freetimes.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=484


" If you listen to the proponents of Issue One, including Governor Bob Taft, it sounds almost too good to be true. They say it will create 30,000 jobs across Ohio by generating new investment in Ohio's high-tech industry - such as biotechnology, fuel cells and advanced manufacturing - and it will accomplish this without any new taxes. What could possibly be bad about that? Plenty.

First of all, this amendment to the Ohio Constitution would allow for up to $500 million in bonds to be issued, which would be guaranteed by the state of Ohio - meaning they would have to be repaid with general revenue funds, possibly at the expense of state funds needed for more critical services.

Second, a three-person committee, whose members are unknown, would be responsible for selecting which projects would be funded, thereby overriding current constitutional protections against state and local governments investing public tax dollars in private companies.

Finally, since legislation governing the rules of this bond plan hasn't yet been passed, the Ohio legislature would be given broad authority to establish whatever rules it wishes to implement it - after the election. Call it a new $500 million slush fund.

Issue One puts too many critical services at risk by taking too much public money and putting it into private (politically connected?) companies. It puts too much power in the hands of three appointees, and it allows the Ohio Legislature - dominated by downstate Republicans - to have too much say in how this project is implemented.

So vote "no" on Issue One It's too good to be true and could be very bad for Ohio."


----------------

I would tend to agree with the Free Times..

vote NO.

TWL

[Philostopher]

11. Thanks, TWL.

Sounds like it's essentially just a way to funnel money into the industries in Karate Boy's (and other SW Ohio neocons) district (Mike Turner, the former karate instructor from Dayton who left the city of Dayton in a big budget mess). In other words, it's putting lipstick on the same old freaking pig.

I sort of suspected this from the start. Those grabby bastards already get to operate in Ohio for decades without ever having to pay any taxes because they bribe them to come here with abatements and rebates.

[liberalhistorian]

12. Thanks for the info,

I will definitely vote no now. I did read what the Free Times had to say, which is one reason why I was confused since I was reading so many conflicting statements about it.

[OhioArtist]

14. Danke TWL

Very useful info. Definitely voting no on this.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

13. kick to the top

eom

[juancarlos]

15. NO on 1

Ohio has been under Tax & Spend Republicans for years. They have increases spending 70% over the last ten years, and Bob Taft has increased spending at 3.1 times inflation. He raised the sales tax by 20% and is an incompetent boob. The Ohio Constitution currently prohibits government investment in private firms for a reason. Under the 1st Constitution of Ohio, it was legal and corrupt. Why amend our current Constitution to allow Bob Taft and his successors to buy stock?

[cmd]

16. I voted no

The idea is laudable; but everything Taft touches turns to @#%.
There is enough private money in the hands of wealthy Republicans in this state. I don't need to underwrite an insurance policy for them.

[zbdent]

17. Voted No - have to laugh - it claims that the money will come

without borrowing.

Selling bonds is borrowing money. How do you pay off the bonds? With taxpayer money. With interest.

[Lady President]

18. Voted no

I voted no for the same reason as you. I keep seeing the ads that say new jobs and training at no cost. You can't get nothing for nothing, and I certainly don't trust Taft.

[Kolesar]

19. It failed 51% to 49%

I sure am glad I voted yesterday