Open letter to Rep. Kathleen Chandler
Dear Rep. Chandler,
It was nice of you to share your thoughts on the state of the state.
The 2nd paragraph of your letter presents a melange of contradictory ideas in a single long sentence: " If Ohio's economy is to ever fully recover we must focus on funding education appropriately, stop the over reliance on property tax, ensure college tuition is affordable for working families, and invest in making an environment friendly to small businesses and entrepreneurs." Or, to restate it in condensed form, "If Ohio's economy is to ever fully recover, we must spend more money." Now, where is that money to come from, but from small businesses and entrepreneurs who, thus having the expenses of government thrust upon them, will decide to go elsewhere? And if we do invest bribe such businesses to come, it will be to tax them in the future, when they will leave. Meanwhile, our current businesses will be paying for the bribe, and thus not investing in their own expansion and improvement.
And what is "appropriate" education funding? Personally, I think that public education should be financed by a per-head tax on all school-age children, equal to the statewide average cost of educating those children, with a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for private tuition or homeschooling materials. Clearly, you don't think that "property tax" is an appropriate way to fund education. There's a case to be made for that, since those who own no property still get to vote to tax those who do. However, it at least gives the voters of an area some say in how much they will fund education. I understand that you call yourself a Democrat, and thus apparently believe in democracy. Why would you remove choice from voters, just because some mobs constituencies are wealthier or more generous than others?
As for college tuition, it has been demonstrated that tuition rises with tuition subsidies; the more money we give people to attend college, the more college costs. This isn't surprising, given that students not paying their own way have little incentive to hold colleges accountable for costs. The same is true in the medical field, but then, you probably want to socialize that as well.
As for your comments on SB 117, they're clearly partisan, as this is a case for the courts to clarify. But if the 1978 act (or was it really 1878?) is "one of the strongest business rape consumer protection laws in the nation", might it also have something to do with Ohio's poor economy?
And then there are your "helpful" instructions on the "Earned" Income tax Credit. You are quite correct that "more than $100 million that rightfully belongs in the pockets of hardworking Ohio families ends up bottled up in Washington", though your figure is off by a factor of a million or so. If the EITC is our "most effective anti-poverty program", then why are most people getting it still on the dole? I've spent large portions of my life living and working with poor people, and not once have I ever heard anyone say, "I'm gonna get me a job or two and make a bunch of money so I can collect the EITC." Anyway, the money "rightfully" belongs to the people it was stolen from, not to the intended recipients; if we're going to use moral language, we should all agree on which moral principles we're acting on, and most Americans, if asked point-blank whether it's moral to take money from one by force to give to another, would say it is not. They only get confused by language like "government money", "taxation", and other misdirectors.
Lastly, I'd call your attention to a conspicuous omission in your newsletter: which Ohio laws do you intend to repeal during this session?
I thank you for taking the time to communicate, and hope that it was actually you writing the newsletter, rather than a staffer, as it was a much more productive use of your time than voting on bills.
Your constituent,
Jeffrey Quick
Comments