SpringfieldNewsSun.com

The problem for Ohio's anti-smoking forces is that you never hear candidates run for office promising to reduce the smoking rate. You only hear them promising "jobs, jobs, jobs."

The bipartisan powers-that-be in Columbus have decided to take away the pile of money that was funding anti-smoking efforts. Though Ohio won $10 billion from tobacco companies in lawsuits, nothing will be left for anti-smoking campaign.

Already, unbelievably, the state is scrounging for the few bucks necessary just to enforce the public-smoking ban passed by voters.

When Gov. Ted Strickland and the Legislature wanted to do something concrete — indeed, felt a political need to do something concrete — about Ohio's economy, they agreed on a $1.5 billion "stimulus" package.

Cleveland economist Edward "Ned" Hill said the plan is the "largest jobs-oriented package that the state of Ohio has put out in a quarter of a century." Bigger than former Gov. Bob Taft's high-profile Third Frontier.

How to pay for it? The governor originally proposed to borrow the money via a bond issuance. Others objected on grounds of excessive borrowing. House Speaker Jon Husted, R-Kettering, and others looked for other sources of money to reduce the amount of borrowing.

But no large amounts of money are just sitting around in Columbus waiting to be claimed. Indeed, this is an exceptionally tough year for the state budget.

But the Tobacco Prevention Foundation did have a pot of $270 million. Its budget was only about $40 million. The rest was in an endowment. That money could be taken without cutting anything now.

(As for the rest of the aforementioned $10 billion, it's funding school construction and a tax cut.)

There is a certain logic to the tobacco raid. If candidates say they're for "jobs, jobs, jobs," they absolutely should mean that they'll give the issue priority. They should be willing to transfer money from another cause, even if some people get upset.

But there's a downside, too: When the politicians say they're going to foster jobs, that doesn't mean they know how to do it. But when the anti-smoking people get busy, they truly do make a difference.

Statistics are hardly necessary to make this point. A great many Americans remember a time when a lot more people smoked. The drop in smoking rates surely results in some measure from various government efforts: regulations, warnings, ad programs, higher taxes.

And yet Ohio lags somewhat behind. Again, the stats aren't necessary. If you know people who have moved here from either coast, you probably know people who have been struck by how many more people smoke in Ohio. So there's work to be done.

Now, what about the impact of "jobs" programs, or "economic stimulus packages," or "economic development plans"?

Gov. Strickland's plan still needs more review, but it does not appear to be a reckless, throw-money-at-the-problem gimmick. The general idea is to invest in things that will help Ohio adapt to the "new economy."

Biomedical research, renewable energy and historic preservation will get part of the money. There will be cleanups of polluted areas in cities (brownfields) so that they can be reused. There'll be work on roads and bridges. Money will be put into internship and employment co-op programs designed to keep college grads in the state.

These generally are good ideas. But they are not dazzlingly new.

And past efforts at job creation — undertaken in all manner of ways, from tax breaks for specific employers, to general tax policy, to development of education programs — simply do not have the kind of unmistakable success that anti-smoking efforts have had.

Moreover, when anti-smoking efforts succeed, they save lives.

It'd be foolish to stop trying to modernize Ohio's economy. But part of the funding for this effort involves a trade-off that has more to do with politics than reason.

— Cox News Service

Vote for this story!