Free Markets, Not $2.5 B in Debt: Why Ohioans Should Reject Issue 2

Mike DeWine's Gasoline Tax is back as a cleverly Disguised $2.5 Billion Bond Issuance to repair and create New Infrastructure - Should you Support it? No!

When you fail to get a $.20 hike in 2019 for the gasoline tax to fix our bridges and roads you reintroduce the tax as a 30 year general obligation bond issuance in an off year primary and burden future generations of Ohioans for roads that need to be replaced at least every 10 years. The Governor is betting that more Democrats will show up to vote for infrastructure projects that pay prevailing wage (Davis Bacon Act) because there are many counties that do not have Republican primaries and so Republican turnout is expected to be light. This is the cost of County Republican Parties not running local judicial candidates.

The Primacy of Free Markets Over State Planning

In a true free-market capitalist system, prosperity arises from the voluntary efforts of individuals and businesses – not from government diktats or top-down spending sprees. Capitalism, as entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy reminds us, “has lifted more people up from poverty than any other system in the history of mankind. We shouldn’t apologize for it.”​ This remarkable achievement didn’t come from bureaucrats picking winners and losers, but from entrepreneurs and workers freely innovating and exchanging. Yet Issue 2 – the proposal to saddle Ohio with $2.5 billion in new bond debt for state-directed infrastructure projects – runs contrary to these principles. It asks us to trust that government spending and central planning can drive economic growth better than the private sector. Ohioans who believe in limited government and free enterprise should reject this notion emphatically.

From a Conservative Republican perspective rooted in Ayn Rand’s philosophy of individualism and limited government, Issue 2 represents a step down the wrong path. Rand taught that when government goes beyond its proper role and starts engineering the economy, it invariably stifles the creative energies of free people. Instead of the state propping up favored projects with public money, the moral and practical approach is for government to stand back – protecting rights and maintaining basic infrastructure – while private investment finds its own way. Free markets are dynamic and self-correcting; they reward efficiency and punish waste. In contrast, government intervention often distorts markets, leading to misallocation of resources and malinvestment that wouldn’t occur under a purely voluntary system. As Ramaswamy has observed in another context, “any additional government intervention to prevent or delay the liquidation of malinvestments... will only aggravate and perpetuate” the underlying problem​. When policymakers funnel taxpayer money into ventures that can’t stand on their own merit, they prop up artificial winners destined to collapse when the subsidies run out. This is not the recipe for enduring prosperity – it’s a recipe for boondoggles.

Government Should Follow Private Investment – Not Lead It

A core free-market tenet is that government should follow private investment, not attempt to lead or replace it. Healthy infrastructure and public services are best built in response to real economic growth, not in speculative anticipation of it. Issue 2 flips this logic on its head. It asks Ohioans to believe that by borrowing and spending $2.5 billion (at up to 30 years of interest cost​), the state can create growth from the top down. This is the same kind of hubristic thinking that has failed time and again. “Government should let the taxpayers keep their cash and insist that private companies raise and spend private money,” a recent analysis of Ohio’s economic misadventures concluded​. In other words, if a project – whether a factory, a utility upgrade, or a development – is truly economically viable, private capital will finance it. If it isn’t, why should taxpayers be forced to foot the bill?

Proponents of Issue 2 argue these bonds will fund roads, bridges, water systems, and more. But even these basics are “community-based projects from which many Ohioans may not see a direct benefit,” as the official ballot argument against the measure notes. Local infrastructure is traditionally financed locally – those who will benefit pay for it – ensuring projects are grounded in genuine need. By shifting the cost to all taxpayers statewide (and onto future generations via debt), Issue 2 breaks that accountability. It encourages localities to chase state grants for pet projects. Already, watchdogs have noted that funds from past programs have been diverted to less essential purposes like “multi-use recreational paths” under trendy agendas​. or experimental “smart” traffic lights of dubious value​. These are classic examples of political allocation of resources rather than market allocation. When government leads investment, politics – not consumers or investors – decide what gets built, often with wasteful outcomes.

History shows that public debt and spending can never substitute for private enterprise. They can, at best, follow where the real economy is growing. The more Ohio’s government tries to play venture capitalist or central planner, the more it risks crowding out genuine private-sector innovation. Indeed, large government bond programs can even “crowd out” local funding efforts and private initiatives, reducing the incentive for businesses to invest their own capital or for communities to prioritize needs responsibly. The end result of such crowding out is slower organic growth – dependency on State Government - the opposite of the intended effect. Ohio’s leaders would do better to focus on creating a favorable business climate that attracts entrepreneurs (through lower taxes and lighter regulation) instead of borrowing billions to spend on politically chosen projects.

Ohio’s Costly Lessons in State-Led Economic Schemes

Ohio doesn’t have to look far for evidence that government-driven “investments” often end in tears. The past two decades are littered with failed state-led initiatives, especially in the energy sector, that cost taxpayers dearly and yielded little lasting benefit. During former Governor John Kasich’s administration, for example, Ohio poured public funds into subsidizing renewable energy startups – only to watch those ventures collapse once the easy money dried up. Solar panel manufacturer Xunlight Corp. in Toledo is a cautionary tale. Lured by the promise of “green jobs,” politicians of both parties shoveled subsidies at Xunlight: $34.5 million in federal tax credits, $3 million in federal earmarks, a $4 million state loan, and over $2 million in state and local tax credits. In return, the company was supposed to create hundreds of jobs making innovative thin-film solar panels. What happened? By 2014, Xunlight had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy – a complete bust​. The collapse attracted barely any notice outside Ohio, perhaps because the failure of yet another government-backed energy company had become a dog-bites-man story. As one analyst dryly observed, “It’d be newsworthy if any of them actually ever succeeded.”​ The Xunlight debacle is “a great example of how government at all levels…wastes taxpayer money by subsidizing politically connected businesses.”​

Xunlight was not alone. Around the same time, Willard & Kelsey Solar Group in northwest Ohio received state loans and grants despite flimsy finances. The company boasted of ambitious expansion – a 750,000 sq ft factory and 3,600 future employees were trumpeted in press releases​ – and the state lent it $10 million even though Willard & Kelsey had almost no revenue and was losing millions​. Unsurprisingly, that project, too, went under, leaving behind only unpaid bills and broken promises. Taxpayer money was wasted, jobs never materialized, and Ohio learned a painful lesson: when the government tries to conjure up industries by subsidy, it often breeds only short-lived artifices. The wind energy sector saw similar fiascos. Subsidized wind farms and component manufacturers flourished briefly, but when state support was scaled back and market realities set in, projects were canceled and factories shut their doors. In each case, once the external life support of public funds was withdrawn, the so-called “investments” were revealed as unsustainable. Ohioans in affected communities were left worse off, having chased illusions instead of courting real, self-sustaining enterprises.

Governor Kasich’s well-intentioned forays into “investing” in new industries amounted to malinvestment on a grand scale. They diverted capital and effort into ventures that a free market never would have supported so lavishly. And when those ventures went bust, the economic setbacks were severe – layoffs, idle plants, and a lingering cynicism about economic development schemes. Issue 2 threatens to repeat those errors. It would give today’s politicians a $2.5 billion blank check to spend on various projects, doubtless touted as transformational “investments” in our future. But Ohioans should remember that true investments come from the private sector responding to genuine demand, not from bureaucrats gambling with public debt.

DeWine’s Big Promises: Hype vs. Reality

The current administration under Governor Mike DeWine has been eager to claim credit for big economic development announcements – often backed by hefty state incentives. At press conferences, these deals are presented as game-changers for Ohio’s economy. But time and again, the grandiose promises fail to materialize once the media spotlight fades. A glaring example is the much-ballyhooed tech expansion in Licking County. Last year, Governor DeWine proudly linked Microsoft’s plan to build massive data centers in New Albany with the earlier Intel semiconductor announcement, suggesting a high-tech boom was underway. “When we announced Intel, we…” he began, extolling how Microsoft’s investment “goes hand in hand” with the Silicon Heartland vision. Fast-forward to April 2025: Microsoft abruptly reversed course, halting its $1 billion data center project in Licking County​. The company announced it “would not move forward” with constructing the three planned campuses​, citing a strategic re-evaluation amid a global pullback in infrastructure spending. In short, the private market changed its mind. The fanfare about new jobs and facilities turned out to be hollow. Microsoft will still honor some commitments to fund local road and utility upgrades​ – so taxpayers paved the way (literally) for a project that isn’t happening. This overhyped “chips” project in New Albany (albeit data centers, not chip factories) underscores the danger of believing political hype. The lesson is clear: government cannot guarantee business outcomes. No amount of state cheerleading or subsidy could ultimately force Microsoft’s hand when economics said stop.

Even the much larger Intel project itself is a reminder of how uncertain large-scale plans can be, and why taxpayers should be wary of footing the bill. In early 2022, Intel’s announcement of a $20 billion chip manufacturing campus in Ohio was greeted as the deal of the century – heavily backed by state incentives reportedly nearing $2 billion​. But today, **Intel’s first Ohio semiconductor fab, originally slated to open by 2025, has been delayed to 2030 or later​. The company has faced financial struggles and shifting market demand that require it to scale back and realign its plans. What was sold to Ohioans as a near-term influx of jobs and growth has now been pushed almost a decade into the future, “a sign of just how much remains in flux” despite Intel’s public assurances​. By the time the promised factories are operational (in 2030-2032, if ever), Governor DeWine will be long out of office​. The “transformative” project might transform nothing at all if market conditions render it uncompetitive or obsolete by then. Yet Ohio has already committed extensive funds for infrastructure and tax breaks in anticipation. This kind of risk – where politicians gamble with taxpayer money on uncertain ventures – is exactly what free-market conservatives warn against. The market, not political wishful thinking, will determine if Ohio becomes a tech hub or if these chip dreams go the way of past follies.

Consider also the rush into electric vehicles and batteries, heavily promoted by state officials as a new industrial renaissance. Ohio offered generous inducements to attract EV manufacturing, but the results have been mixed at best. The case of Lordstown Motors is instructive. After GM closed its Lordstown auto plant in 2019, the DeWine administration was keen to fill the void and embraced a startup EV truck maker, Lordstown Motors Corp. The state approved $20 million in job-creation tax credits for Lordstown Motors in 2020, and JobsOhio (the state’s development corporation) kicked in another $4.5 million​. With much fanfare, the new company promised to employ over a thousand workers to build electric pickup trucks. Yet by mid-2023, Lordstown Motors had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy​, having never successfully commercialized a vehicle. It was a spectacular flame-out. As Reason magazine reported, “Lordstown Motors received $24.5 million to operate an Ohio factory”(between state incentives and local support), and still failed​. This saga, which the magazine rightly called “a long and shameful saga of crony capitalism”, left Ohio with zero return on its subsidy – just embarrassment and lost jobs. Meanwhile, General Motors – the previous plant owner – had itself received $60 million in state tax credits years before on the promise of sustaining jobs through 2039, only to shutter the plant anyway in 2019​. Both instances show how politically allocated capital cannot overcome economic reality. The state bet on an unproven company (Lordstown) to save a region; the bet failed miserably. It tried to bribe an established company (GM) to stay; the company took the money and still left when it made business sense to do so.

Even ongoing projects raise red flags. Ohio agreed to give General Motors and LG Chem $13.8 million for a joint-venture lithium battery factory in Lordstown, hoping to anchor the Mahoning Valley in the EV supply chain​. Yet this deal was widely criticized by free-market advocates. The Center for Economic Accountability named it the “Worst Economic Development Deal of the Year” in 2020, noting it “demonstrates how ineffective government subsidies are at overcoming market forces.” In other words, even if the battery plant comes online, its success will depend on global EV market trends and technology – factors no subsidy can guarantee. Ohio’s leaders were effectively paying millions for a ribbon-cutting photo op, while the real determinants of success lie beyond their control. Should EV demand falter or technology shift, that plant could scale back or close, just as past subsidized plants have.

Across these examples – solar companies, wind projects, data centers, chip fabs, EV plants – the pattern is the same. State-led interventions have a track record of overpromising and underdelivering. They distort investment toward politically favored directions, often ending in “malinvestment” – capital sunk into unproductive uses. Taxpayers are left holding the bag, and the supposed beneficiaries (workers and communities) suffer when the bubble bursts. This is not a record of success; it’s a cautionary tale that Ohio should heed before authorizing any new spending spree like Issue 2.

Distorting Markets Leads to Malinvestment

What all these misadventures illustrate is a fundamental economic truth: Government intervention distorts markets, and distorted markets produce malinvestment. “Malinvestment” – a term from the Austrian-school economists often admired by fiscal conservatives – refers to investments made under false signals, which become unsustainable when reality reasserts itself. When Ohio’s government dangles huge incentives or launches big bond-funded programs, it warps the normal risk-reward calculus that keeps private investors disciplined. Projects that would be too risky or unneeded suddenly get built because “free” money is available. But there is no free lunch: the costs are simply socialized, and the bad investment eventually reveals itself.

The boom-and-bust cycle Ohio experienced with subsidized industries is a textbook example of malinvestment. Subsidies and easy public credit fueled a boom – solar factories opening, an EV startup hiring – but it was an artificial boom. When the crunch came (subsidies ran out, demand didn’t meet rosy forecasts, etc.), the bust followed – bankruptcies, layoffs, wasted resources. The assets and workers tied up in those failed ventures had to be reallocated to more productive uses (often after painful delays). Intervening in the market didn’t prevent the bust; it only made the eventual crash larger by inflating the boom. As Vivek Ramaswamy noted in discussing broader economic policy, trying to prop up or bail out failing ventures only “perpetuate[s]” and worsens the problem​. The prudent course is not to cause the misallocation in the first place.

Issue 2’s $2.5 billion debt plan risks inducing exactly this kind of misallocation on a statewide scale. By flooding Ohio with bond money earmarked for certain types of projects (decided by bureaucrats and politicians, not the invisible hand of the market), it will encourage municipalities and firms to pursue projects to chase the funds, rather than because there’s genuine economic justification. It’s easy to imagine the malinvestments that could ensue: maybe a small town builds a grand new water system hoping to attract industry that never comes, or a county paves miles of roads to nowhere in the name of “infrastructure improvement.” These scenarios have played out in other places that fell for the allure of big government spending. When decision-makers don’t have skin in the game – when it’s debt financed by all taxpayers – the normal checks and balances of the market disappear. Money gets put into the wrong things. And eventually, taxpayers will foot the bill for projects that aren’t yielding proportional benefits.

The state government should not be in the business of distorting price signals or creating artificial demand. Its role is to maintain a stable, predictable environment where the real entrepreneurs can discern genuine opportunities. If Ohio truly needs a given infrastructure improvement for economic reasons, private stakeholders and local governments can collaborate to fund it in a measured way, or the legislature can budget for it transparently. But launching a vast bond program – essentially printing money at the state level – to spray across various projects is a distortion engine. Governor Dewine could not get his large gas tax for infrastructure so he wrapped the tax up into a bond issuance. Only the way it is wrapped means the money will likely be used for a record amount of splash pads to get local officeholders re-elected. It’s the kind of approach that a planned economy would take, not a free economy. And it is antithetical to the conservative philosophy of letting markets work.

Choosing Real Prosperity Over Debt-Fueled Illusions

Authorizing more state debt now under Issue 2 would be a step backward – a return to the failed strategy of trying to buy growth with public money. It would repeat the errors of the past, chaining Ohio’s future to projects that may or may not pay off, while definitely burdening us with debt service for decades. As it stands, each $1 of bond issued under Issue 2 could take up to 30 years to pay back​ meaning our children and even grandchildren will be paying interest for the spending we do today. Is it worth mortgaging our future for short-term construction jobs or ribbon-cuttings? Especially when the historical evidence suggests those projects often don’t deliver the promised long-term gains?

We must not jeopardize Ohio’s opportunity for true economic renewal by falling for the seductive idea that government spending is a magic wand. It is not. Every dollar of those bonds is a dollar that must come from taxpayers – either through future taxes or reduced services. Meanwhile, if those dollars were left in the private sector, they could be funding new businesses, equipment, training, and innovations today. The opportunity cost of Issue 2 is enormous. It’s all the growth that won’t happen in the private sector because resources were diverted through government channels instead. Ohio’s economic vitality will come from the energy and enterprise of its people, not from the state incurring more debt on their behalf.

Voting NO on Issue 2 is not a vote against infrastructure or against progress – it’s a vote for doing things the right way. It’s a statement that we prefer genuine, sustainable growth over politically engineered projects. It’s an insistence that government live within its means and focus on its proper roles, rather than embarking on a borrowing binge. And it’s a message that Ohio chooses the hard but rewarding path of economic freedom over the tempting but treacherous path of government expansion.

In Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, the productive innovators of society withdraw their talents when suffocated by government control, leaving the world to crumble under the weight of planners’ failures. Let’s heed that warning. We don’t want an Ohio where entrepreneurs feel the deck is stacked, or where they are taxed to pay interest on bonds funding someone else’s pet project. We want an Ohio where innovators run toward our state because they see a free and level playing field – a state that honors their risk-taking by not stealing their rewards or yoking them to others’ schemes.

By rejecting Issue 2, Ohioans can send a clear signal: we choose liberty over coercion, market wisdom over political hubris, and the future over the past. The government’s role is not to direct economic traffic, but to ensure the road is clear for private drivers. For too long, Ohio has tried the opposite – and the wreckage is plain to see in failed ventures and debt bills. It’s time to change course.

Let us vote NO on Issue 2 and instead demand of our leaders what we know works: fiscal responsibility, limited constitutional government, and an unleashing of free-market capitalism at all levels. That is the surest, and indeed the only, path to a thriving and prosperous Ohio. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to cast off the bonds (and bond debt) of big-government thinking. Ohio’s renewal will come not from Columbus politicians writing checks, but from Ohioans – free, unshackled, and empowered – building our future together.

Sources:

• Ohio Ballot Board, Argument Against State Issue 2 (2025)​westchesterteaparty.org​westchesterteaparty.org

• West Chester Tea Party, “Vote No Issue 2” (April 8, 2025)​westchesterteaparty.org​westchesterteaparty.org

• Toledo Blade reporting on subsidized solar companies (Willard & Kelsey, Isofoton)​archive.nlpc.org​archive.nlpc.org

• Reason Magazine, “Government-Backed Green Energy Goes Bust” (I. Stoll, 2014)​reason.com​reason.com

• Reason Magazine, “Ohio E.V. Manufacturer Fails Despite Millions in Taxpayer Subsidies” (J. Lancaster, 2023)​reason.com​reason.com

• ABC6 News (Columbus), “Microsoft ‘not moving forward’ with $1B Licking County data center plans” (Apr. 8, 2025)​abc6onyourside.com

• Columbus Dispatch, “Intel delays $28 billion Ohio chip factory…to 2030 or 2031” (Feb. 28, 2025)​dispatch.com​dispatch.com

• Center for Economic Accountability, “Worst Economic Development Deal – Lordstown” (2020)​economicaccountability.org

• Vivek Ramaswamy, interview and debate quotes on capitalism & government​delawarevalleyjournal.com​valuetainment.com

• Buckeye Institute, “Reducing Ohio’s Licensing Burden” (2018)​buckeyeinstitute.org