Yo really need to lighten up. Abdul. You sound like a Bosma's mouthpiece.

Just for your enlightenment, the failure to pass a budget was a two-party failure.

If my household budget were in crisis, I'd want to “adopt” a budget that had the shorter timeframe. In case I needed to re-adjust. Why lock ourselves into a two-year budget, when the income side has been so badly mismanaged and badly predicted?

There is no Constitutional or statutory requirement for a biennial budget.

Now, the components of that one-year budget…that's certainly open for wide debate. Disagreements will abound.

Posturing by bad actors is just part of the road show of folks who feel the need to demonstrate that they are actually doing something of value rather than what it is that they are actually doing and failing to do. I think it was Madison who remarked that while the Legislature is in session no man's wallet is safe. That is the reason, essentially, for a two year budget. Revenue forecasts are always “off” but the pressure by wallet theives to spend is always “on”.

Wow, pascal, you're absolutely right, except:

But it seems to me, there's never been a better time to divert from the norm, and pass a one-year budget.

Our state budget forecasters have zero credibility. When the main component of your budget—income—is so oft-kilter, it makes sense not to commit too long.

It makes sense to debate the hell out of the specifics of the budget–one or two year–but the mechanics of a budget are just as important. On this score, the House Dems are right.

Which doesn't happen often.

A one year budget is fine if you don't create a base of spending that you will not be able to match the following year. The entire proposed budget relies on stimulus money that won't be here next year.

Anyways, does anybody else feel like we as citizens are stuck in the mud and the Democrats and Republicans think we can get out by just spinning the tires?

<a href “http://www.indypendentreview.com” IndypendentReview.com

Yeah, I actually don't have an issue with passing a 1-year budget all by itself. But spending all of the stimulus this year is lunacy. So is paying IPS for students who have already fled the system as well as trying to eliminate any other option but the most expensive, least successful district in the state, capping charter schools (despite thousands on waiting lists) and blocking virtual schools (despite thousands on waiting lists). Also capping charter schools would keep Indiana from getting the second round of education stimulus money.

But if they get a clue on every other item on the budget, then I suppose their 1-year budget isn't the end of the world. Except that the money they spend dragging the budget out could certainly be put to better use.

Abdul, it's not the House Dems responsibility to pass a budget that the Senate GOP will like? If it were, they would be House GOPers.

However great we think Mitch is (someone must, I'm sure), he lacks the political muscle to push his ideas through.

While I do not agree with the budget that House Dems have passed, they are the duly-elected representatives of their districts. They are not there to please the Senate Repubs or Gov. Daniels.

That said, we are in this special session because the three sides (House, Senate, Gov) couldn't agree on a budget. All sides have a responsibility to come up with a budget compromise that can get passed. Grandstanding – which is all what the House Dems are doing right now – serves no purpose at all.

If one side refuses to play comprimise, then budget fails and everyone gets the blame. But it all started with one stubborn group. The other group only has two options: take blame as well, or give in to everything.

House Dems are making the exact same moves they did in the regular session. Will a different outcome emerge if they keep it up? While it is not thier job to please the Senate Republicans, they are passing a budget they know will be rejected.

What good faith negotiation is that? How will that help pass a budget?

Correct. The House Dems are doing what they believe is right even if it serves no practical purpose. Next, we will reelect them.

I disagree. The majority of the people going to charter schools and on waiting lists for charter and virtual schools are in the districts of Democrat representatives. They are not representing their constituents. They are representing the teacher's union, the members of which mostly reside outside of these districts.

What this session will reveal is ultimately how weak Indiana's Governor is. Not Daniels personnally, but the constitutional office. At the end of the regular session the House Ds and Senate Rs had a deal, a compromise, based on this same budget the House initially passed & Senate changed. They'll go through the same process more or less this time. I mean, why not?

Last time around the legislature got spooked when House Rs wouldn't support it and were grandstanding on it (as minority parties always do in the House, if situation were reversed House Ds would do the same thing, and in the past they have) and Daniels said he would veto it (though reports say he had initially agreed to sign it… who really knows, only a few).

But this time around they could go ahead and finish the thing, pass the same budget, and if Daniels vetos it they canl just override it because Indiana no super majority required for veto and the legislature ultimately has much more power than the Governor.

Most of them don't have to worry around reelection or Mitch running again and bringing it all up. Besides, elections are a whole year away and a whole lot can happen (and will) in the next year and next legislative session before November 2010.

This type of reasoning bothers me. It is not the Governor's job to work on the budget whatsoever. He can say and do whatever he likes until it is on his desk. While his cooperation does help, the legislative branch can, and should, work independently.

The House failed to pass a budget. They should have only voted for reasons pertaining to the budget package. House Republicans voted against what they saw as a bad budget. Every other reason to vote against it is hogwash. This is why we have separate branches. The House of Representatives, under their constitutional mandate of voting, defeated a budget.

With no bill to sign or veto, Daniels has no blame in this. He can only be accused of witholding his optional cooperation. Those who do not support the budget, with legitimate concerns, are working within the proper framework. If 71 Representatives vote against a final budget brought before them, because they do not support the provisions it contains, that budget fails.

Which means the real problem leading to now was the offering of a budget conference committee report (final passage) that 71 Representatives objected to. Its time to quit playing playing media games and get back to the constitutional operation of our state.

Then blame the people that keep voting into office people that will not representative them they way they want to be represented.

That's both illogical and just not true. First, there are more Dem districts and more charter schools are in urban areas. Therefore, it makes sense that the majority of charter school students are coming from Dem areas.

However, the Indianapolis Met High School pulls more students from township schools than IPS. Herron High School pulls from as far away as Arcadia and Brownsburg even though a good chunk of teachers live in the Herron community (go to doe.in.gov, click on school data, then in the page, click on migration report).

Your sort of “factual” absolutism does your side — the bashing teacher unions side — serious harm.

It is the governor's job to provide direction and reconcile issues within his party. But we don't even have a united GOP front in the House or Senate. That is his political and policy job.

I have read Article 5 of our great Indiana Constitution a few times, and I do not see that in there. Nor do I see parties needing to be aligned.

150 people vote on a budget, within two chambers. One person signs it or vetos it. Afterwards we have a law, or in this case, a budget. Everything outside of this is pandering to the people.

My whole point was, when it doubt go back to the basics. They are not there to play party politics. They are not there to point fingers. They are not there to hold press conferences. They are not there to predict and fear their reelection battles. They ARE there to pass a budget. Basics.

As long as the Indiana General Assembly continues to be operated as an R vs. D pissing contest, this is what we're going to keep seeing.

It's a matter of priorities, and 'our party 1st, your party 2nd, the people 3rd' ain't the right ordering of them.

If revenue increases the leg can amend the budget in next years short session.amending it is slot easiervto do in a short session turn writing an entire budget. Besides that do you really want a budget written during an election year that would bankrupt the state as legislators attempt to gain reeelection.

Jacob, I have altered my opinion of Daniels recently. I think he's trying mightily, and I also think he can muster enough votes.

The stimulus money is one other good reason for a one-year budget. That money won't be available in the next fiscal year. State government, and the feds too, can't build a Yr. 2 budget that isn't 99% based on Yr. 1. It's nut.s It requires very little new critical thinking, but for some reason, they can't do it.

I won't claim this as my original thought–I read it somewhere else yesterday. But a strong argument can be mad,e that in very tough fiscal times, when budget forecasts and revenues are highly questionable, tht a one-year budget is actually the conservative approach.

(Ducking for cover at Rico's potential hissy fit…)

I agree. That's how it should happen. But we know that's not how it actually happens.

I just wish Mitch used his soft power and high ratings more to his advantage. Stake an opinion and rally people around it. Generally, we like him.

He has no real internal or external competition so he should be able to get done what he wants. The fact that we went to a Special is a direct rebuke to his political power that he let happen.

I like Daniels. I voted him. I disagree with some areas, of course, but I trust his judgment. All I'm saying is he could be more political.

I've changed my mind on Mitch, Jacob. I think he's smarter than most, and I think he can rally his Republican caucuses if he wants to.

His corn-pone Motorhome first campaign was dead on arrival for me. I know his background and his mindset, and the motorhome, aw-shucks routine was pure political theatre. But I've gotten past that nonsense, and he has “gotten” the legislature. He knows exactly how goofy they are.

But let's be clear about one thing: he and David Shane and that crowd, they hate public education. Flat-out. Their disgust centers around IPS, I'm guessing, and I understand their anger.

The Democrats are willing to fall on the sword for funding public education. If they'd listen to the complaints Mitch's crowd has about public ed, and try to address some of them, which are legitimate, things might get off dead-center.

A one-year budget still makes the most sense. What is IN that one-year budget–that's where the rubber hits the road.

I'm not being absolute. I understand that charter schools are popular with some students outside of Marion county. I have a 2nd cousin from Trafalgar who attends Herron. And I didn't bash anyone. I just meant that the desire to limit options to IPS has nothing to do with representing the people who live in the district. It has to do with the political lobbying of the teacher's union. If there is another significant group who is against school choice, I'm open to discussing it, but I honestly don't know what group that would be. And I live in IPS, so you're not going to convince me that there isn't a huge demand for more charter schools in these neighborhoods. Almost all of my neighbors either have kids in charter schools or on waiting lists for them.

Like governments throughout our constitutionally neutered republic, it's the best they can't do.

“But let's be clear about one thing: he and David Shane and that crowd, they hate public education. Flat-out. Their disgust centers around IPS, I'm guessing, and I understand their anger.”

Swell! Let's abolish IPS totally. IPS does not have an inalienable right to exist. There is nothing in our Constitution that mandates that IPS must exist — only that the G.A. will 'encourage' education.

Who knew that this 'encouragement' would come from the barrel of a gun.

At least we got a state pie.

Not so sure how all this in/out of the Constitution abstraction plays out in the real world. i.e. The Constitution grants the “freedom of the press,” literally meaning the newspaper print. Should we abolish freedoms of TV, Internet, etc because our Constitution does not “mandate” them?

First, as much as Mitch loves to privatize, I do not think he wants to privatize all of education. Certainly, we should follow the Chicago model and have governments run Charter schools — here is a good example of where public and private should compete (I think as this idea is a bit new to me).

Second, we cannot abolish IPS. If we go down that road, we might as well abolish downtown Indianapolis. We will have to spend so much money on the backend (police, jails, etc) that it will make current spending on education dreamable.

Third, instead of abolishing (which really is so unrealistic) we should invest heavily in downtown Indianapolis and make our public education system and downtown are the envy of every other city. We should build it to attract the next generation of public and private leaders who will be committed to living in a vibrant and urban area.

Fourth, I too understand the disgust and anger pointed at IPS. That's easy, but IPS is filled with dedicated and passionate teachers and students and parents. It's too easy to just lump them into one monolithic IPC headed by the “evil” Dr. White.

“But let's be clear about one thing: he and David Shane and that crowd, they hate public education. Flat-out. Their disgust centers around IPS, I'm guessing, and I understand their anger.”

Swell! Let's abolish IPS totally. IPS does not have an inalienable right to exist. There is nothing in our Constitution that mandates that IPS must exist — only that the G.A. will 'encourage' education.

Who knew that this 'encouragement' would come from the barrel of a gun.

At least we got a state pie.

Not so sure how all this in/out of the Constitution abstraction plays out in the real world. i.e. The Constitution grants the “freedom of the press,” literally meaning the newspaper print. Should we abolish freedoms of TV, Internet, etc because our Constitution does not “mandate” them?

First, as much as Mitch loves to privatize, I do not think he wants to privatize all of education. Certainly, we should follow the Chicago model and have governments run Charter schools — here is a good example of where public and private should compete (I think as this idea is a bit new to me).

Second, we cannot abolish IPS. If we go down that road, we might as well abolish downtown Indianapolis. We will have to spend so much money on the backend (police, jails, etc) that it will make current spending on education dreamable.

Third, instead of abolishing (which really is so unrealistic) we should invest heavily in downtown Indianapolis and make our public education system and downtown are the envy of every other city. We should build it to attract the next generation of public and private leaders who will be committed to living in a vibrant and urban area.

Fourth, I too understand the disgust and anger pointed at IPS. That's easy, but IPS is filled with dedicated and passionate teachers and students and parents. It's too easy to just lump them into one monolithic IPC headed by the “evil” Dr. White.