Who presents the greater threat?

Who presents the greater threat?

According to a letter last Sunday, you should be ostracized for publishing a Sept. 25 story about socialism. Shame on you.

During my 20 years spent in Uncle Sam’s Navy, I’ve been to Italy, Spain and Greece when they’ve had elections for various offices and guess what. They’ve had candidates on the ballot listed as Communist. Last I heard, those countries are friendly and are basically trade-affiliated. I also remember in my youth in Youngstown in the 1950s when we had a hometown guy on the ballot for the presidency whose name was Gus Hall and he was a Communist.

The diatribe that accused President Obama of being a “Marxist socialist” is ludicrous.

Our Constitution, and country, is in greater danger from conservatives and neocons than socialists. But freedom of speech allows The Vindicator to print anti-democratic views. The people of America are wise enough to choose between the two, despite the rantings and railings of some pundits.

John Zordich, Youngstown

Don’t drive business from Ohio

Issue 2 (to repeal SB 5) is being made too complex. It’s really quite simple — Just repeal SB 5 and we can all pay more taxes and drive more employers out of Ohio to states with a lesser tax burden.

The purpose of SB 5 is to control government costs that are paid through property tax, income tax, sales tax, corporate gross receipts tax and other lesser taxes. I think that public employees paying part of their health care premiums and part of their retirement funding in the same manner most of the private sector does is fair.

The bill also returns management to those officials who were appointed or elected to that function, while continuing to permit wage negotiation by employees and their unions. I suspect that much of the opposition arises from the fact that employers cannot be required under contracts to withhold dues for PACs. This is voluntary on the part of the employee.

There are “spins” on this issue that give half of a fact. Bottom line: Do your own research and make up your own mind as to whether or not you want to pay the price.

Gordon Williams, Canfield

Support our public servants

When I vote no on Issue 2 in November, I will remember the price our forefathers paid for American freedom and the right for them to think, speak, and act on their own and without the consent of others.

Where would anyone in society be without our public servants?

I find it outrageous that our public servants God given rights are not only violated but must also depends on the voting publics opinion. Whatever happened to fairness and justice for all?

I live and believe with my Irish father’s philosophy, “When you fight to protect the rights of others, you are fighting to protect the rights that are yours.”

I am voting no on Issue 2 because I believe in protecting the rights of others, as well as my own.

My applause and great respect is sent to all the mayors who urged a no vote on Issue 2. It makes me think (thank God) there are still wise minds at work, and hope continues to spring eternally.

Mary Lou Jurina, Youngstown

A deeper look at YSU faculty contract shows bigger cuts

The YSU faculty accepted a new contract with the university on Oct. 4. In The Vindicator, the 2 percent pay increase in the third year of the contract has been portrayed as the major feature of the deal. That figure is correct, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. What workers care most about is not any one part of pay, but the total compensation. This contract is nothing but a major cut in pay, and its effects on faculty are certainly in a whole different sphere than the $1,000 loss recently suggested.

Let me explain: in the same year that the nominal pay increases by 2 percent, a typical faculty member will additionally lose 13 percent of summer pay (effect on total compensation: -1.2 percent), pay out more than three times as much for health care for a new, inferior plan (-3.25 percent) and lose 10 percent of sabbatical pay (-1.4 percent). So, it’s a 2 percent pay raise coupled with a 5.85 percent pay cut. The outcome of the first two years of the contract, with no increases in nominal pay, is similar.

When one adds to the above numbers the fact that the state government has expressed a wish to radically change the funding formula for Ohio’s public retirement system (-10 percent), the only retirement system for which public employees qualify, the changes indisputably amount to a major loss in compensation. In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, these pay cuts are considerably more than the average private sector cut during the last few years.

People may well disagree about the proper compensation level for professors. As someone who does cost/benefit analysis for living, I am very concerned, though, about the long term economic consequences of the cuts. The quality of our labor force will determine Ohio’s future prosperity. A prerequisite for having skilled workers is an education system with highly capable instructors. The U.S. has an open labor market, and states compete for instructors. I have no doubt that the above short-term cost savings will have an immediate effect on our ability to keep and attract the best people to educate our local work force.

Looking at this through the lens of economics, it seems clear to me that the long-term cost of the cuts will far outweigh any short-term benefits. I’m afraid in the name of false savings taxpayers in Ohio, myself included, are being given the short end of the stick here.

Tomi Ovaska, Ph.D., Poland

The writer is and associate professor of economics at Youngstown State University.

Newton Falls is blessed to have a good library; give it your support

As a lifelong patron of the Newton Falls Public Library, I would ask that all those who use the library and are able to vote for the library’s levy to vote for its passage.

When one considers all the services that the library provides, the cost of the levy is small. Where else can one have access to books, E-books, magazines, newspapers, computers, the internet, DVDs, CDs, local history and genealogy materials, art exhibits, answers for research questions, help for our children’s school projects, adult, teen and children’s programs, a book discussion group, speakers, the collections in other libraries and a place where one can sit in a comfortable chair and relax. All of these services are free, except for this slight tax.

Many, many people use the library and were understandably upset when the state cut its funding which resulted in limited hours and staff. Is it not about time that we help the library by providing more money for it to provide more services and materials? Of course it is.

I defy anyone to deny that the library is not a good steward of the taxpayer’s money. Where else does one get so much for so little in such pleasant and attractive surroundings? Newton Falls is blessed to have a library which provides so many services and has such a large collection of materials.

By the way if you don’t use the library, you should try it. You’ll like it. And while you are at it, please vote for the levy; if not for yourself, then for the community.

Don Baker, Newton Falls