Share This Article
For sixteen years in the Ohio House, I had a front-row seat to the economic choices our state made — the good, the bad, and the ones we are still paying for today.
What I saw over and over was a simple truth:
Every time politicians artificially increase labor costs, such as by raising the minimum wage, they shrink the private economy and grow the public one. And every time government grows, it creates a new class of voters who depend on that growth continuing. Democrats will never say this part out loud, but the consequences are impossible to ignore.
The Amendment That Locked Ohio Into Permanent Minimum-Wage Increases
In 2006, Ohio voters approved what was sold as a simple minimum-wage hike. In reality, the amendment did something far more consequential: it hardwired automatic, inflation-based increases into the Ohio Constitution.
From that moment on, minimum wage in Ohio would rise every single year, no matter what the economy looked like, no matter what small businesses could handle, and no matter how regional labor markets differed. The ratchet only turned in one direction — upward.
When the Legislature passed the implementing bill, the vote was 94–3. I was one of the three “no” votes.
Not because I oppose higher wages — I support wages earned through growth, skills, and competition — but because I understood what this amendment would do over time. Once you constitutionalize a wage floor and index it to inflation, you aren’t helping workers. You’re making it harder for low-margin employers to keep entry-level workers on the payroll at all.
Many of my colleagues didn’t want to engage the politics of the moment. I did. Someone needed to point out what was going to happen next.
And it happened exactly as economic reality predicted:
-
Hours were cut.
-
Hiring slowed.
-
Staff levels dropped.
-
Automation exploded across retail, grocery, and food service.
Walk into a restaurant or store today and you’ll see the fallout: kiosks instead of cashiers, machines instead of people, and entire job categories eliminated — not by innovation, but by government mandate.
This isn’t upward mobility. This is policy-engineered job loss. And nearly twenty years later, the system is still functioning exactly as written.
In late 2025, Ohio’s Department of Commerce announced the next automatic increase: on January 1, 2026, the minimum wage will rise again, from $10.70 to $11.00 for non-tipped workers, and from $5.35 to $5.50 for tipped workers.
No debate, vote, or evaluation of economic conditions.
Just the constitutional ratchet created in 2006 grinding upward once more.
As modest as each individual increase appears on paper, they place mounting pressure on small businesses — especially in rural counties, low-cost regions, and low-margin sectors — pushing more employers toward cutting jobs or replacing workers with automation.
This is not accidental. It is the direct and predictable result of a constitutional structure designed to grow government’s role in the labor market year after year.
When Private Jobs Disappear, People Don’t Vanish — They Shift Toward Government
During my years in office, I worked through countless debates on unemployment compensation, public-sector labor law, and social service funding. I watched how the system expands when private opportunity contracts.
People losing low-wage jobs often end up in three places:
-
Unemployment benefits
-
Government assistance programs
-
Public-sector or quasi-public-sector jobs
And here is the quiet truth no one in Columbus ever wants to say aloud:
Every one of those paths ties a person’s financial stability directly to government budgets.
Once you make your living from government — whether through benefits or public employment — you begin to vote for the party that promises to maintain or expand those programs.
It’s not corruption. It’s human nature. People vote their paycheck.
Public-Sector Growth Creates a Built-In Democratic Voting Bloc
I spent years fighting to slow the unchecked expansion of government labor — from public unions to benefit structures that far outpaced the private sector.
In the early 2000s, I introduced legislation dealing with inequities between public and private labor rules. I fought against the culture of guaranteed raises and gold-plated benefits that taxpayers were forced to fund.
Later, I introduced a right-to-work bill because I believe no Ohioan should be forced into a union just to hold a job — especially when those unions overwhelmingly fund and mobilize for Democrats.
Democrats understood exactly what was at stake. Public-sector unions campaigned against every reform. They organized, spent millions, and flexed their muscle at the ballot box.
And when Ohio voters repealed Senate Bill 5 in 2011 — a law written to reform government labor costs — they proved the very point I’ve been warning about for years:
Once government becomes one of the largest employers in the state, it becomes politically impossible to shrink it — because it is voting for its own survival.
The Unemployment System: Dependency Designed Into Law
Ohio’s unemployment system gives higher benefit caps to workers with dependents. I spent years working in committees to tighten eligibility, fight fraud, and maintain solvency. Democrats fought just as hard to expand the payouts and extend the duration.
And here’s the uncomfortable political reality:
The longer someone stays on unemployment or public assistance, the more likely they are to vote Democratic.
Again — not because voters are doing anything wrong. But because one party offers a job, and the other offers a program.
Today’s Push for $15 an Hour Is the Same Pattern All Over Again
Ohio activists are pushing for a $15 minimum wage today. I’ve seen this movie before.
A dramatic wage hike will hit small businesses the hardest. Big companies will automate. Mom-and-pop stores will close. Entry-level workers — especially young workers, part-timers, and those without reliable transportation — will lose opportunities that used to be a bridge into the workforce.
Where do they go?
Right back into the same cycle:
-
Unemployment benefits
-
Government assistance
-
Public-sector hiring
And once they’re there, many will begin voting for the party that promises to keep the system running.
This is not a conspiracy. It’s a consequence. A predictable one.
Why I Opposed These Policies Then — and Why I Still Do
For decades, I’ve been known as a fiscal hawk — sometimes the lone “no” vote — because I’ve always believed one thing:
Government growth is not compassion. It is dependency. And dependency becomes political power for the left.
What Ohio needs is not another government-driven wage mandate, and not another shift of workers from the private sector into public-sector dependence.
Ohio needs:
- More apprenticeships
- More vocational pathways
- Lower taxes on small business
- Fewer mandates on employers
- A tighter, fraud-resistant unemployment system
- An economy where work is rewarded and opportunity is real
We should be creating taxpayers, not dependents.
The Real Question for Ohio Voters
When you strip the talking points away, Ohioans have to ask themselves:
Do you want a state where opportunity comes from the private economy — or from government? Because one leads to independence and growth. The other leads to bigger bureaucracy, higher taxes, and an electorate increasingly dependent on keeping one political party in power.
I fought this fight for sixteen years in the legislature. I’m still fighting it now.
And Ohio voters deserve to understand the stakes clearly — because the future of our workforce, our taxes, and our politics all depend on it.
Read More
How Cincinnati’s Professional Victims Are Killing the City We Love
Cincinnati Community Accountability: A New Resident’s Call for Engagement and Honesty
