More stupid Ohio tricks

They're wanting to put the TEL (Tax Expenditure Limitation) on the ballot in the fall. Though it sounds good the way they pitch it ("politicians have to stop spending our money"), as one Dispatch article put it, it would be a disaster for our state.

I fear, however, that it will pass. Why? Because, again, it sounds good. People don't generally look any further than that. And this money/budget stuff, that seems hard to people so they leave it to the "experts," trusting them to do what's right.

A friend of mine at a cabinet agency is really bent about this (as she should be...), so I'll let her email explain some of what's bad about it

I am afraid it will pass bcz, like you said, it sounds really good - "hey - gov't spends too much money and this would stop them. i'll vote for it and stop those politicians from spending my tax dollars." No, those people do not stop to think for 10 seconds and apply common sense to this issue. Hmm, what does the $ go for now? Do we need those services? What negative effects will this have on the state when people stop getting served who need help, when the roads are neglected and crappy, when kids don't have the proper books and equipment to teach them skills they need for the job market, etc. argh!

Nor do those people understand that a constitutional amendment is more than just "some law." [Note from me: Of course, this is Ohio, where we like to legislate via our constitution.]

The TEL language is so broad, the courts will be deciding how to apply the law (so broad you could drive a truck through it). [And again from me: Just like last year's amendment. Remember, the one about a marriage being between a man and a woman. I know you were trying to block out the fact that it passed. But it did.] Wait, shouldn't legislation be handled by the legislative branch of government? [Well, you would think so, wouldn't you?] I understand some legislation is written and then challenged, but the TEL is very poorly written and incompletely thought out as an idea. [The drafters' responses about the problems with the universities are interesting to me. In essence they say "oh gosh, we didn't mean it that way." Uh hunh. But you wrote it that way. Which means it'll be used that way.]

What is even scarier is that the amendment comes with a supremacy clause overruling any other amendment in the constitution so money that is currently protected will no longer be protected (eg. gas tax and road construction).

I've read in more than one place that this amendment would very possibly push the public universities into operating as private universities. Why? Because it would take away their money. Money OSU raises via ticket sales and merchandising for the Bucks... the money from the hospitals... from any self-funded part of the university (or of the government)... large amounts of that money could be taken away and used elsewhere. So then how does the Shoe operate? And how do the OSU hospitals operate? But again, the drafters' response is that "we didn't mean that." Not a helpful response because they wrote it that way.

The part I really don't get is why this isn't being done through legislation. As we all know, OH is controlled by the Republicans. They pass all kinds of weird things (often behind closed doors after business hours...), why not this? Do they really think it'd fail if taken to the legislature? Curious.