Unless you're employed by one of Ohio's powerful government unions, voting Yes on Issue 2 should be an easy choice. Why, then, are Ohioans so divided over government union reform?
Today We Are Ohio - a front group funded primarily by D.C. unions - continues their campaign to mislead voters about Ohio's status quo and the reforms in Senate Bill 5. Their pitch: government unions need expansive power to protect the public workers you pay from the public officials you elect. Rewarding government employees based on merit would be awful, and denying any of the union bosses' demands amounts to a violation of their civil rights.
Unfortunately for We Are Ohio, illogical arguments aren't improved by rampant hypocrisy. Exhibit A: the Ohio Education Association (OEA) is the largest government union in the state, and the largest in-state donor to We Are Ohio. Though OEA is in the "solidarity" business, the union has such an awful relationship with its own employees that it forced them into a strike just last autumn. Here are some photos from that strike, preserved on Flickr in case OEA tries to send 'em down the memory hole:
If you're familiar with the last-in-first-out firing policies, automatic pay increases, and platinum benefits government unions have squeezed out of Ohio school districts and local governments over the past 25 years, you might be skeptical of We Are Ohio. Take a closer look, and it becomes even more obvious that union claims to the moral high ground are utter nonsense.
On November 8, support the sensible government union reforms in Senate Bill 5 - vote Yes on Issue 2!
Follow me on Twitter: @jasonahart
Cross-posted at that hero and Columbus Tea Party.
Since when is a double-digit difference in the polls a split? Seriously, Jason, you are delusional. The rest of this post is nonsensical.
ReplyDeleteSo the OEA employees when on strike as a bargaining tactic, and won. Therefore, that shows we should support Issue 2 and outlaw strikes?
let's outlaw strikes by government employees. Let's do that today. The unions should not be able to hold the taxpayers hostage.
ReplyDeleteLook everyone! Our resident Plunderbund Pal is here to explain why we should believe OEA when OEA bashes taxpayers, but we shouldn't believe OEA's employees when they bash OEA.
ReplyDeleteTell us, Modern, is standing around waving melodramatic signs always a cynical "bargaining tactic," or is that only the case when OEA's employees are waving 'em? This is all terribly complicated.
Wow the smarmy nature of this b log is ridiculous. At least when Keeling ran this blog he was will to debate points with an iota of respect. Something that Mr Hart clearly lacks...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous the Second - good use of the "that old conservative was nicer than this current conservative" ploy. A leftist classic!
ReplyDeleteNext time, try whining about how disrespectful I am in a comment thread where I haven't been called "delusional" right outta the gate.
Jason, leave Modern alone! I'm sure it gets lonely being surrounded by cherry picked facts and arguments so logically flawed that most grade school students could rip them apart...
ReplyDeleteCalling someone delusional is hardly an insult. I like when I get called a leftist when I disagree with you, I have never once stated that I am a leftist. I just want you to back up a point instead of just spouting talking points. Whenever you rip on a tactic of the left with taxes and whatnot, I simply ask what your alternate plan is. YOU HAVE NEVER ONCE answered the damned question. You start the name calling, as a way to divert attention from the fact that you either A) Dont have an alternative, or B) your alternative doesnt fall in line with the talking points that you spout oh so well.
ReplyDeleteI'll break it down for you simply. In your soak the rich column, you state that we would "only be 6.52%" of the deficit, however you also want the so called entitlement plans to be cut, even though that would only save about 6.52% as well.
So its "only" 6.52% when it involves taxing someone, but its SIX AND A HALF PERCENT when its taking money from programs to help people...
Anonymous Leftist: It's a good thing you don't think being called delusional is an insight.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your commentary on a different series of posts. I'm sorry that you consider mathematics "talking points," and even sorrier that you're bent out of shape over some "damned question" I've somehow failed to answer.
Several months ago the House GOP passed a budget, which I support. You clearly underestimate - to an enormous degree - the burden of what you refer to as "so called entitlement plans."
...insight/insult, you get the idea. Then again, probably not.
ReplyDelete55% for repeal, 38% against...to call that close is nothing short of delusional...
ReplyDeleteJason you are right, its hard to argue with math
ReplyDeleteQuinnipiac University
32% In Favor
56% Oppose
12% Undecided
Just face it, this thing is going down, and down hard