Why I'm for Ohio Senate Bill 5
and why you should be, too!

With apologies to my friends in the education field, Ohio Senate Bill 5 is not only long overdue, but should never have been required in the first place. Today, before this legislation becomes law, there are hundreds of thousands of public-sector employees who earn a salary and receive a benefits package that is primarily funded by tax dollars. These tax dollars are collected by the government from citizens all across the state, both public- and private sector employees.

The difference between these to categories of employees is that the private sector is actually productive. It is the private sector that produces goods and/or services that Joe Citizen has a choice to purchase or utilize. The private sector produces wealth. Publicsector employees do offer services, but Joe Citizen doesn't have the option of whether or not he wants to patronize the particular entities or utilize the services. His tax dollars fund the public operation whether or not he participates. Let me explain this distinction with a word-picture, and then I will state me arguments and questions for the Ohio Senate Bill 5 opponents.

When Miss Privateworker opened her dry cleaning business, she was able to do so by applying for and receiving a loan. She purchased the equipment she'd need and hired the employee or two she'd need to help staff the business. I won't even get into all of the red tape she had to go through to hire the employees and file all of the paperwork to start the business. The point is this: she must show up to work every day and convince the public that they will get good value by choosing to take their clothing items to her to dry clean. If these things do not happen, she will not earn enough to keep the business open, pay her employees, and cover her living expenses.

It is a moral concern when a segment of the population bristles at paying 8% of their retirement contributions and 15% of their health care benefits and insists that the the private-sector to cover more than 92% of their retirement contributions and more than 85% of their health care benefits.

If hers is one of the small businesses that actually makes it more than a couple of years, she'll be responsible for saving some of her earnings to pay for her own healthcare and if she has any money left after paying her taxes and other business expenses, she can set that extra money aside for her retirement. Maybe her business will be successful enough that she'll be able to out-compete her area dry cleaners and grow her business. And when times are high, and folks have extra money to dry clean their clothes more often then they'd usually do so, she'll have quite the inflow of cash. But when the economy is down, and residents in the surrounding neighborhoods are looking to save some money, they'll probably scale back on their dry cleaning, and Miss Privateworker will see a drop in her monthly totals. Such are the risks and rewards, the ups and the downs for Miss Privateworker and her entrepreneurial brothers and sisters.

When Mr. Publicworker was hired by his government, there wasn't much debate about his salary. He was paid the going rate for public workers as prescribed by his local union contract. On top of that, he didn't have to run through the calculations to determine what he'd set aside for his operating expenses and commercial activities tax, primarily because he didn't have operating expenses and commercial activities taxes. He had a health care package that allowed him to pick his doctor, his deductible was low and his premiums were even lower. His 401(k) grew each month with a direct deposit that didn't come from his own checking account. He had no reason to expect a greater income when the economy was roaring, which was a bummer, but he also had no risk of seeing his salary drop if times ever got tough.

Interestingly, instead of showing some degree of gratitude toward the source of his increasing retirement plan and his monthly health care premiums, he seemed aloof to the whole thing. It was taboo to point out to Mr. Publicworker under any circumstances that his steady, no-risk salary and his very attractive benefits package were paid for by Miss Privateworker and her associates at the Chamber of Commerce.

Over the years, Mr. Publicworker and his buddies at work began to feel under-appreciated. During the good times, their incomes hadn't risen at nearly the rate as Miss Privateworker, so they talked to their representative and had him work out a deal with the State to increase their salaries. Miss Privateworker never had the opportunity for such a deal. Her options were smaller, really just one: go to work and please her patrons. She was reminded with each payroll form she completed and with each tax form that she signed from her accountant that she was not only working to pay for her own expenses and retirement, but also for the health care premiums and pension plans of the Mr. Publicworkers of the State. But being a good entrepreneur, she didn't quit, she just worked as hard as she knew how.

The time came when the citizens of the State realized that the current plan set up for Mr. Publicworker and his buddies was unsustainable. Legislation was proposed that would require Mr. Publicworker to pay for less than one-fifth of his health care premiums and less than one-fifth of his pension. This was too much for Mr. Publicworker. He had convinced himself that he had made sacrifices to do his public job. He passed on the opportunity for the boom years that Miss Privateworker had experienced and was entitled to have a significant portion of his expenses covered by Miss Privateworker and her kind, though the reason for this is not clear to the author.

This is where we have come, my friends. And this is why I support Senate Bill 5. For too long it has been an accepted principle that wealth and resources should be taken from one segment of the population, specifically the risk-taking, private entrepreneur, and given to another segment of the population, the public worker in this scenario. (This author could make the same argument against welfare, but that's a discussion for another time.) This must stop. Ohio Senate Bill 5 doesn't go far enough, but we've got to start somewhere.

In Ayn Rand's prescient novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt said, "I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." For generations it has been the norm for public workers to expect the private sector to live for them. This is immoral. Clearly, it will not be easy for Mr. Publicworker to transition his life-style from one supported by others to one supported by himself. The percentages outlined in Ohio Senate Bill 5 is a great start., such as:

Sec.124.81. (I) A public employer, including the state and any of its political subdivisions, shall not pay more than eighty-five per cent of the cost of the provision of health care benefits pursuant to this section.

Sec.145.47. (A) Each public employee who is a contributor to the public employees retirement system shall contribute eight per cent of the contributor's earnable salary to the employees' savings fund, except that the public employees retirement board may raise the contribution rate to a rate not greater than ten per cent of the employee's earnable salary.

Miss Privateworker doesn't have the option of having another entity pay 85% of her health care benefits or 90-92% of her retirement contributions. She pays 100% of her health benefits and her retirement contributions.

It is a moral concern when a segment of the population bristles at paying 8% of their retirement contributions and 15% of their health care benefits and insists that the the private-sector to cover more than 92% of their retirement contributions and more than 85% of their health care benefits. If this were happening on the individual, neighborhood level instead of the union and state level, we'd call these people greedy, selfish and disconnected from reality, assuming we kept our language clean.

Opponents of Ohio Senate Bill 5 will talk about how its passage is a "Sad day for workers rights in Ohio." They will rhetorically ask, "Time to move out of Ohio and go somewhere where teachers are valued?" Arguments will be made along the following lines, "Unions are not the issue or the basis of the problem. Sending jobs overseas and spending way to much money on foreign aid and diplomacy is the problem." (The author happens to agree with the argument about too much foreign aid, but he digresses...) But make no mistake about it, this is about a group of people who have lived off the fruit of another groups labor for generations. This process must cease, and Ohio Senate Bill 5 is a step toward fiscal morality and economic sanity.

The author hasn't even yet addressed the double-standard that exists with public unions. They, by definition, negotiate against the public. They don't produce profits, so there can be no argument, as was made with the original labor movement, that they should have access to more of the profits they produce. How can a public union serve the public when they would consider striking against the public. Further, collective bargaining with the government removes the voters from any decision-making process when it comes to how much the Mr. Publicworker must pay for his health and retirement benefits.

Public unions and their siphoning of Miss Privatworker's profits are immoral on two fronts. The only reason one can be opposed to Ohio Senate Bill 5 is because of the anticipated lifestyle change one must make.

Some questions that I'd like to ask the Ohio Senate Bill 5 opponents:

1. Why should I go to work and take that which I earn and deposit it into your retirement account?
   
   
2. Would you be willing to have your taxes raised for the purpose of contributing to my retirement account?
   
   
3. At the end of the day, is it morally right for one man to demand another to pay for his health and retirement benefits without a free exchange of money for goods or services?

The way in which one answers these questions is frightfully revealing. One either believes that he is entitled to another's resources by declaration or he believes that we are all responsible for ourselves. Ohio Senate Bill 5 is separating the wheat from the chaff, and this author would like to see this bill be only a starting point.

rg

3/4/11