BY JOHN HOPKINS
The Cincinnati Enquirer
The proposed state sales tax increase for education -- Issue 2 -- was described Monday night by one debate panelist as a monster, seriously flawed in its design.
"Out of the lab emerged Frankenstein, and the voters should pull the plug and ask legislators to try again," Tom Mooney, president of the Cincinnati Federation of Teachers, said of the statewide ballot issue.
The sales tax hike was put on the ballot by Ohio legislators to help solve inequities in state education funding.
While Mr. Mooney called the plan a monster, proponents at the debate argued that it was a step -- and just the first step -- in the right direction.
Mr. Mooney was one of six panelists Monday night to debate the soundness of Issue 2, a proposed one penny on the dollar increase in the state sales tax to help pay for public schools and provide property tax relief for homeowners. The 90-minute public debate, moderated by Marian Spencer, was held at the Mayerson Academy in Corryville, with imput from the public in attendance.
Eileen Cooper-Reed of the Children's Defense Fund, Robert Wehling, a senior vice president at Procter & Gamble Co. and State Rep. Louis Blessing Jr. were three of the six panelists. They support Issue 2.
Scott Pullins, executive director of the National Taxpayers Union of Ohio and William Phillis, executive director for the Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding, joined Mr. Mooney in denouncing the plan that would raise an estimated $1.1 billion annually.
"This is simply a beginning," said Ms. Cooper-Reed. "We have to start somewhere. This is a good place to start, to say we have a commitment to the children of Ohio, that we have a commitment to their education."
On May 5, voters will be asked to raise the state sales tax from 5 cents on the dollar to 6 cents. In the case of some counties, such as Hamilton County, it would raise the sales tax to 7 cents on the dollar because of previous sales tax increases approved locally. Issue 2 would divide the $1.1 billion yearly proceeds evenly, with half going to school operations, education technology, school facilities and debt service for school facilities and the other half to property tax relief.
Some have expressed fears that the tax will mislead voters into feeling they no longer will need to support another property tax levy -- hurting future efforts.
Mr. Wehling argued that taxpayers were smarter than that.
"I believe passing it is a major step in the right direction," he said. "By no means is it the end of the job.
"There will be other opportunities to further improve the system. I think people who are opposed to this tax levy who say that voters will never approve another local levy are selling the local voters short."
The debate was orderly for the most part, with few heated exchanges. At one point, Mr. Wehling told his counterparts that there was no need for "inflammatory rhetoric."
Opponents argued the plan lacks sufficient funds for the poorest schools and falls short of addressing the long-term problems of the state's crumbling school buildings.
But Mr. Mooney said that his opposition is "not because it isn't a big enough tax increase, as some people will assume, but because the money is simply badly spent."
Mr. Pullins, another opponent, said there is no guarantee that the money will be spent on education and property tax relief. There is nothing, he said, to stop legislators from altering their original plans for the annual proceeds.
"Finally, we don't need a tax increase to solve our education problem," he argued. "The state of Ohio is sitting on nearly $2 billion dollars of taxpayers' dollars that are rainy-day and state surplus. We don't think that it's an extreme position to say, "We don't need an increase if the state of Ohio has our money sitting in the bank.' "
Said Mr. Phillis: "The state plan is not a complete systematic overhaul. It's not even a good oil change."
