HOW SHOULD STARK COUNTIANS VOTE ON ISSUE 2?

 UPDATE:  COMMENT

 As implied by the primary "for" and "against" positions as set forth above, there are other players in this issue:  the Sierra Club, the U.S. Humane Society and the Ohio Environmental Council.

The primary players?

The Ohio Farm Bureau as being for Issue 2.

The Ohio Farmers Union as being against Issue 2.

The best article the the SCPR has seen that gives a complete picture of the contending forces and personalities can be accessed by CLICKING HERE.  This piece in The Madison Press covers the whole range of interests.

Is this issue important to Stark Countians?

Indeed!

Agriculture remains the largest industry in Stark County.

What is the SCPR take on this issue?

The SCPR is against Issue 2.

Why?

Primarily because its proponents have put into constitutional amendment form what should be a matter for the Ohio General Assembly.  "Constitutionalizing" everything has become a dangerous lawmaking fad these days in Ohio.  Sort of like California.

A second reason is soil and water degradation that occurs from the run-off of waste from the so-called mega farms.

The SCPR recommends a No vote on State Issue #2.

IF THERE IS ANYTHING REPUBLICAN REP TODD SNITCHLER STANDS FOR IT'S "LIMITED GOVERNMENT." - OR - DOES HE?

Over the weekend, yours truly watched Public Broadcasting's "State of Ohio."

The discussion:

Issue 2.

It's an amendment to the Ohio Constitution forming a body to set standards for the slaughter of animals in Ohio.

Morover, it is a pre-emptive political strike to stop Humane societies from imposing their versions of "humane" slaughter on the meat and farming industries.

Now we all know that Republican Todd Snitcher of the 50th House District is an avowed "limited government" advocate.

At least that what he says.

But Issue 2 suggests that he is a "selective" (we won't call him a hypocrite) limited government advocate.  For in the opinion of the SCPR, the whole Issue 2 process was "an old fashioned power politics using government to advance my interest proceeding."

Critics of the process detail how the Ohio Farm Bureau rushed this proposed consitutional amendlment through the Ohio General Assembly in the space of about of week.

Remember, Kirk Schuring (Republican - Ohio Senate - 29th), who very likely supports Ohio Farm Bureau initiatve, spending upwards of two years to get the Ohio General Assembly to place his "fix Ohio school funding" initiative on the ballot?  In the end, he failed.  Getting the Ohio General Assembly to approve putting a constitutional amendment is a tall order.  Schuring can attest to that.

But apparently not for the Ohio Farm Bureau.  The Bureau can even get the sanctimonious Snitchler to violate a "holy grail" (limited government) of his political reason for being.

The critics of the Farm Bureau power grab mainly talk about the "overkill," perhaps, even an abuse, of the exercise of government power that the Farm Bureau and its allies (i.e. the likes of "limited government advocate Todd Snitchler") have played out on Issue 2.

The SCPR sees how Snitchler is big on the rhetoric for his "let's be non-partisan" and "let's limit government" stances.  However, he proves that "talk is cheap" by his actions that countervail his words.

The SCPR respects folks who mean what the say.

Todd Sntichler is proving more and more every day that he does not mean what he says.