Get Bi(partisan) With a Little Help From Your Friends
There must be something about a deadline that brings people together because there was a lot of bi-partisanship around the statehouse and city hall Monday.
Lawmakers unveiled a starting plan to shore up Indiana’s unemployment insurance shortfall. The plan includes more contributions from employers, but it also gives them more ways to challenge benefits for employees who were dismissed.
Around the same time City-County Council President Bob Cockrum and Minority Leader Joanne Sanders put out a news release opposing any broad based tax increases to shore up the Capital Improvement Board operational shortfall.
And earlier that day Democratic State Representatives Ed Delaney, Mary Ann Sullivan and Republican Phil HInkle all came out with a plan to use the township trustee surpluses to pay for the CIB’s operations.
Now granted the trustee plan may not get anywhere and the unemployment trust find plan will need some work, it is nice to these guys and gals all playing together. Now if I could just get them to do this January so we are not pushing up against the deadline in April.
April 21st, 2009 at 6:40 am
Just a little political grandstanding going on! Gotta love Politicians!
April 21st, 2009 at 8:16 am
The CIB will default on its bonds by the end of the month and the Colts and Pacers have offered NOTHING to fix the problem?
The press should be camping out in front of their homes to get answers.
April 21st, 2009 at 8:19 am
You’re right about the timing.
And I’m thrilled with my new rep, Ed Delaney. He has sent regular updates to us, and his newsletters haven’t been the typical “I’m right and they’re all wrong” stuff. Candid and brief.
And I’m as hungry as the next guy for political cooperation.
But Phil Hinkle? He’s a functional illiterate. Not that either caucus has a monopoly on that trait.
The trustees need their reserves raided. In Washington Township, we have enough in reserve, after we turned our fire department over to IFD, for 30 years or so of poor relief.
And in Center, they’ve used their reserves to purchase multiple properties for purposes far exceeding the scope of trustees’ duties. These guys are raising money they don’t need to raise, year after year.
This little cartel needs bashed. If trustees have anything beyond 300% of annual poor relief in their buduget, using it for anything else should be the legislature’s domain.
The legislature createth, and they can plunder, too. Have at it.
And they should also give the DLGF the power to cap reserves. The trustees’ “reserves” are really for slush funds. We don’t have the luxury of allowing extra funds piling up for no real statutory or worthwhile purpose.
Get ready for the trustees to respond: times are tough, and we may need even more poor relief in the future.
April 21st, 2009 at 9:17 am
The late Pat Rooney used to rail against government surplus but he wanted it returned to those who paid it. The proposal here does not do that. It contributes to the predator state.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:06 am
How generous of Councilors Cockrum and Sanders to pledge not to raise income or property taxes. We already knew that wasn’t going to happen. And Think Again, your comments about Phil Hinkle are way off the mark. He’s heads and shoulders above most of your Democratic legislators from Marion County, who your words more aptly describe.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:58 am
Yeah, this looks like a dandy proposal. In the midst of our biggest economic downfall since the Great Depression, let’s triple the unemployment taxes for employers. They can afford that, right? Why this pussyfooting around if the intent is a better initial bargaining position? You could bypass this fiscal minutia and just ask for a donated kidney from employers, or maybe one of their children become a slave to the Department of Transportation for trash pick-up. C’mon, Indiana Assemby! It’s obviously beyond reason to cut spending across-the-board to fund unemployment- Naaaawww, why do that? You’ve just got to use your imagination a bit… But, wait- come to think of it, why do that when you can hand this off to the Feds? They can fix this with some of their magic endless buckets of money! They’ll have p l e n t y since our President decided to cut spending enough to pay a day’s interest on the stimulus spending! Don’t worry your pretty heads about it! You just worry about the important stuff- like how to save our sports teams. Thank goodness we have you here for what’s really important!
April 21st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
There is no chance that the city council will enact any tax increases so the state legislature better clean this mess up or it will get worse.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:35 pm
What do we get for $470 million?
($47 million annual tax increase for at least 10 years)
Maybe keep the Colts and Pacers with no additional investment from them at all.
What did Michigan get for approximately $470 million of tax credits?
$2 Billion of private capital investment and 7,700 jobs from four Advanced Battery Manufacturers.
Who do you think is smarter?
Source:
http://themedc.org/News-Media/Press-Releases/Detail.aspx?ContentId=335cdabf-dd8c-44da-9cc6-c361347b65d3
April 21st, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Recession + Increased taxation = Depression
April 21st, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Gary, I typically respect your opinion. Two things:
I’ve worked with Hinkle, in and out of the legislature. Let’s just say I won’t do it again unless forced. It’s almost always a tutorial. And he retains very little.
And–I never said “my” Democratic legislators were brilliant or good. Some are, some aren’t. Basically, anyone there over 15 years, of either party, needs to go, in my humble opinion. Ed D. is doing a good job in his first year. Time will tell. He succeeded a fantastic rep, who, while too liberal for me on some issues, was a model of constituent service and contact.
Still trying to figure out why you saw the need to cross over and bash one whole party…kinda bush league, frankly. By that I don’t mean George W. Bush.
April 21st, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Correction:
The CIB is in default to its bond holders as of yesterday morning when they prepaid $17 million to the state that is due June 30th according to Channel 6.
Wonder how much taxpayers are paying in penalties, fees, and higher interest to bondholders because of the covenant default.
http://rtv6blogs.com/rtv6_capitol/author/norman/
April 21st, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I have to agree with Welsh when it comes to Hinkle. This city is sorely lacking in elected officials with backbone. Hinkle is one of the few who does have the courage to stand up to the status quo. I haven’t worked on projects with Phil, but my dealings with him always leaves me the impression that he is intelligent and certainly one of the more articulate elected officials we have. Not that I agree with him on every subject. Certainly not.
.
The bottom line to me though is backbone. Regardless of Hinkle’s positon on this issues, he’s one of the few Indy elected officials who is willing to tell it like it is. We need more like him.
April 21st, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Indiana Policy Review’s Craig Ladwig, has written a piece worth reading. See: inpolicy.org
April 21st, 2009 at 7:28 pm
http://inpolicy.org/ is actually a good article but misses the point that economic competition is slowly turning Indiana into a right to work state. It would be better if our legislators were not paid for but there is no stopping the acid of competition, at least in private sector.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Someone should politely ask Marion Co. GOP Chair Tom John to close his mouth.
Mayor Ballard is going to need an awful lot of Democratic votes, at the Statehouse and City-County Council, to get anything passed.
His letter, assailing former Mayor Peterson and the Democrats on the Council, for the CIB mess is NOT going to endear him to the very folks he needs votes from.
Aside from the fact that he is dead wrong on each point (the state bears the responsibility for this one), it’s a bad, bad, political move.
It’s clear there are nowhere enough GOP votes to pass anything. Why would you want to antagonize Joanne Sanders who will have to give Ballard votes for him to be successful?