DEAR EDITOR:
Ohio is one of the 46 states on the verge of bankruptcy from irresponsible spending if we continue to travel the route we are going with public employee benefits (liability) and wages process and tactics.
Is it the taxpayer’s responsibility to pay for all your benefits? No. The public employees should pay their fair share, like pay for the days they don’t work, like teachers (70-78 days = 28 percent), firefighters (100-121 days = 33 percent) and police officers (25 percent) or privatize like Sandy Springs, Ga., or Mayberry, Calif., where they saved in excess of $5 million the first year and still had safe and sound cities.
Drop the union like St. Henry School did. The public employees should put their feet in our shoes and see how they like it. That won’t happen, will it? If Issue 2 is repealed, expect taxes like in Chicago — raised 61 percent and minimal staff.
Where does it say you need to be unionized? It doesn’t. Unions just cost taxpayers 27 percent more.
This is not a safety issue like the union say it is. The unions will lie and use scare tactics to try and get their way.
Ohio citizens, this is common sense. We are going to be in the red if we spend irresponsibly.
If you don’t have the money, you don’t spend it. It’s like trying to get juice out of a dried up orange; it doesn’t work. That is not the way the unions think; they just keep spending.
This is a money issue and what is best for everyone.
A local firefighter said we don’t need a union — just do your job.
I know numerous teachers in a private school who probably could have had a public school job but they chose not to. They do it because they love their job, not their benefits or wage.
Maybe the public employees should do the same and maybe we wouldn’t have Issue 2.
On Nov. 8, get out and vote.
Vote yes on Issue 2.
Mike Will

DEAR EDITOR:
We want to take this time to say a grateful “thank you” to everyone who prayed, sent letters, e-mails or packages to our son, Captain Brian P. Huysman, while he was serving in Afghanistan.
We are very happy to say Brian has returned to the U.S. from his last assignment.
Brian was in the Middle East on four deployments (two in Iraq and two in Afghanistan) with the U.S. Marines and it is very gratifying to know and feel the support he received.
Sadly, 10 Marines in the battalion did not come home. They have made the ultimate sacrifice in serving our country. All the men and women who are serving are doing so because they have volunteered to be put in harm’s way. We hope they are always given the greatest respect and support they truly deserve.
Barb and Ron Huysman,
Delphos

I think it’s time I caught you guys up on what’s going on in my life. I’ve been afraid to say too much out loud because I didn’t want to jinx anything.

DEAR EDITOR,
This past June, the Ohio General Assembly passed House Joint Resolution 1 to ask Ohio voters whether the mandatory age of retirement for judges should be raised from 70 to 75. I voted for this resolution when it was in the House because I believe that no individual, through the muscle of the law, should be forced to retire simply because they have reached a certain age.
Should farmers be forced to stop harvesting their crops, or small business owners forced to shut their doors on their 70th birthdays?
Similarly, citizens should not be prevented from electing or reelecting a judge who just so happens to have reached the age limit of the law. Why should the government have the right to push a judge from the bench or block voters from deciding who should preside over their court cases?
Although HJR 1 does not eliminate the mandatory retirement age entirely, it does increase the age by five years and takes into account the fact that people are living and working longer into the twilight years of their lives. It will help to ensure that we have the best individuals presiding over our courtrooms and interpreting the law.
One of the criticisms that the Ohio General Assembly heard during the committee process was that there is no proof that an individual who reaches the age of 75 has the same mental capacity of a 70-year-old. However, there was no proof or evidence offered during the legislative debate that offered any counter argument that they are not the same mentally, physically or intellectually. I believe that whether someone is still capable of performing their judicial duties should be decided on a case-by-case basis, not a one-size-fits-all policy for everyone.
HJR 1 passed from the General Assembly and therefore was added to the November ballot for the voters to decide. I’m glad that I had the opportunity to lend my support to this resolution in the House and help maintain our most experienced and capable public servants’ right to continue working for the people of Ohio.
Sincerely,
State Representative Lynn Wachtmann