Balanced budget

More on “Vote No on Issue 2”

The election is still more than three weeks away and the battle over Issue 2 is heating up. A lot is riding on this issue and both sides are digging in for a tough fight.

As I stated in my previous blog, I am definitely voting no on Issue 2. I see that every TV station in the state and some in West Virginia have pulled the despicable ad that purposely twists Grandma Quinn’s words to support their view to pass Issue 2, but the ad’s sponsor Building a Better Ohio (or you might call it Building a Broken Ohio or even Bullying for Ohio) is working hard to restore its misleading message.

Those hoping to pass Issue 2 say they are grateful for the attention their ad is getting. I am sure they are happy about the attention because as long as the issue is stirred up people will confuse in their minds what stand Grandma Quinn is making. The average, partially informed voter standing in the voting booth may think of the sweet grandmother and want to support her but may not remember which stand she was taking. To be clear—Grandma Quinn is voting no on Issue 2.

Those wanting you to vote yes on Issue 2 are circulating an email and close by saying, “Stand up for free speech….it is time to fight back against the bullies who want to shut down free speech, while using our tax dollars to fund their multi-million dollar propaganda campaign. Enough.” This is not a free speech issue, it is a truth in advertising issue and the only bullies I see are the Breaking Ohio Team. They are the ones who took the words of an ordinary citizen out of context and twisted them to their own advantage. As for the claim of using tax dollars, I feel this is highly doubtful or it would be all over the news.

I received an excellent letter from a reader and small business owner who gave a unique perspective of the problems addressed in Issue 2. You can find it at under “comments” at the end of “Opponents of ‘Vote No on Issue 2’ stoop to new low”. In the letter he makes an interesting distinction between “spending” and “investment” regarding pay cut for teachers. In addition he notes that a balanced budget is not everything but rather an investment to create growth. This reminds me of discussions I have participated in on various boards—a budget is there to serve as a guideline for spending but it is not written in stone. Thank you, Lenin, for a fresh point of view on this very important and controversial subject. The letter follows:



Thanks for writing this piece. I agree with you and thought I would share my opinion here.

My opinion on pay cut for teachers:

Education is investment. Not spending. Instead of cutting the benefits and salary for teachers, the government should increase the pay to attract and retain quality teachers. For example, as a small business owner, I cannot go to my employees and say 
“we need more effort from you and by the way, I am cutting your salary and benefits”.

My opinion on balanced budget:

 What use is the balanced budget, when there is no scope for growth? For example, showed loss for several years initially. They would borrow huge amount(s) of money and  (then)spend on capturing (the) market. Investors wanted profit. But the CEO was not in a hurry. He just reinvested all the company’s revenue to position his company for further growth. Now we know the success story of Amazon.

 Balanced budget is not everything. As long as we invest the money to create growth, then debt is not a problem. The corporate CEOs know this better than us. What better growth area can we find to invest than the education sector in the state of Ohio?

For example: if our state had the most density of software engineers, Google and Microsoft would open office here. We don’t have to offer tax cut. In the absence of that kind of Human resources, no tax cut can attract business here.

Let us invest and grow. That is the good old American style.