It's 2019 and It's the SAME GAME under the SAME NAME

Greetings from the long lost archives -- I'm making a quick post here to see how many folks might have some kind of tracker on this blog.  It's most curious to find that we made it about 9 years until we're now recycling a bunch of the same trope that was thankfully deflected way back when.  My children are now graduated and long gone, but I'd be remiss to not still care about wasteful spending; and while I'd like to hope that the new incarnation avoids that, I'm not presently swayed that anything substantive has changed.  I do see that my prediction of a higher percentage assistance came true, as it's now claimed that Ohio will contribute 39% to the project, as opposed to the 29% envisioned 9 years ago.  I continue to believe that the ~1% improvement per year formula will remain in force into the future.  OK, this is a quick post; I'm really removed from the details at this point.  Comments please -- do you feel that this blog should be revived in the current climate?  Or, should the singular massive campus be built absent any "argument" besides what paint scheme should be applied?  Please let me know your present thoughts!!  If you're finding this blog in 2019 and were not part of the conversation back in 2009 and 2010, I strongly suggest you invest the few hours to read ALL the posts from the past.  History is a valuable commodity in this dialogue, and it's all here, ready for your perusal.  I skimmed all the old posts, and it's quite revealing just how many still apply with no revisions whatsoever.

Operating Levy and the "Perpetually Negative" Viewpoint

This blog was assembled relative to the proposed massive capital spending program, and thankfully that scheme was rebuffed and would appear to be "killed"; though savvy voters should adhere to the age-old "never say never" adage.

Presently, I have weighed in on the Times forum just sporadically with respect to the proposed operating levy.....it's obvious that some folks feel that my viewpoint with respect to any and all levies is perpetually negative; some view me as a mean-spirited, child-hating, anti-government, anti-tax, tea-bagging extremist (interesting the the term "tea bagger" didn't even exist at the time this original blog was assembled). All I can offer is that there are compelling factors which I'm having great trouble overcoming; yet, no matter how many better options may exist, our current brain-dead BOARD offers assurance that my negative vote will never elicit real change -- it will merely penalize the students, and the students alone. Therefore, if you think this decision is easy, you either don't understand the consequences, or you do understand the consequences, and are perfectly comfortable with teachers making about 3.5X the per-capita income of those being asked to pay their compensation. They will retire from their under-200 day work-years around age 50, with benefits (paid by you and I) far more extravagant than their employers (you and I), and the ambitious ones will double-dip to further enhance their real retirement figures achieved some 20 years later. The more vocal ones will make Facebook postings about how terrible SB5 impacts the middle class, somehow believing that they are middle class. In a sane world, fixes could be made, but in this upside-down world, I'm faced with decided whether to PENALIZE THE KIDS with a morally upstanding vote.....be assured, this upcoming vote is the DEFINITION of "conundrum".