Pick a Topic, Any Topic
I’ve got some legal and teaching responsibilities to take care of, so today will pretty much be an open forum for you to discuss whatever is on your mind. Here are a few topics to start.
- The President’s plan for Afghanistan. Good or bad?
- State Senate hears property tax caps.
- Speaker Pat Bauer unveils his ethics proposal.
- A new study from IUPUI says more residents feel safer and better about Indianapolis than they have in the past five years.
Play nice. I’ll be checking in from time to time.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:33 am
Tim Durham
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:42 am
Yeah. Why are you avoiding the hottest topic in months?
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:45 am
Studies that come up with “feelings” as objective outcomes are worth the paper they are printed on.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:53 am
Hey knownothing, apparently you know nothing. I'm working on sitting down and talking with Durham's attorney. I should know something by next week, unlike you who will always know nothing! :-)
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:55 am
Okay, here is my two cents:
Presidents Plan for Afghanistan – I support sending additional troops. What I am not sure of is setting a date for withdrawl. I understand the concept of wanting to make it clear that the US will not stay in Afghanistan forever – but looking back in history I don't see any examples of wars that have been won by someone that set an end date ahead of time. I always thought you left after you accomplished what you set out to do. I have to wonder how WWII would have gone if we said “We will fight the Nazis no matter what it takes, or until 1944 – which ever comes first”. However I do have to give kudos to Obama for trying to more narrowly define exactly what the mission in Afghanistan is.
Tax Caps – I want them. I am in favor of voting out any politician that does not vote for them.
Ethics Reform – here I am a bit of a cynic. This will probably just end up being the list of rules that politicians (and I mean both Dems and Repubs) will work around.
IUPUI Study – I haven't seen anything on this, but it doesn't jive with what people I talk to are saying. But maybe I just need to talk to more optimistic people.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:55 am
Durham's attorney! Well he should give you globs of info.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:00 am
Who are you talking to Larry Mackey or John ThomPkins?
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:05 am
RE: Tax “caps”
Several folks attended last night's property tax forum sponsored by the Meridian Kessler neighborhood. While John Katzenburger (sp? sorry Mr. K.) did a fine job of moderating, the vetted, overmanaged Q&A format is stale. The notable difference among those on the legislative panel (Senators & Reps), was a institutional disconnect of revenue focus (continued expansion beyond purpose) vs. citizen connected concern about spending (govt is inhumanely proportioned).
Treating classes of properties “differently” because we've always done it is an excuse, not a reason (catchy, electioneered, 1/2/3). It's not the property that's being treated, it's owners, PEOPLE who are being discriminated against on the Constitutionally questionable basis of legal but differing uses (?!?). Various users (residential, rental & commercial) pay taxes with a common currency & value is related to use, so what's reasonable or fair about hyper-taxing their legal choice of use?
There's an irrefutable perfect cap (works every time) that needs further consideration- REPEAL. The 2006 GA was on to something, when they unanimously voted in favor of repeal.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:49 am
Arnie,
Are you saying we attorneys would not give he straight, unvarnished truth to the media regarding a client of ours who has been accused of wire fraud, money laundering, tax evasiion and insider trading? Surely you jest!
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:06 am
I didn't go to the MKNA meeting last night because I was meeting with the guy who will be installing my woodstove this month.
However, I did not intend to go because I knew that it would be heavily managed and all questions vetted to get the desired result….CAPS.
While the neighborhood association is good in some matters, MKNA has been lame in the work of protecting homeowners from property tax abuses.
People need to understand that the property tax caps are a trick. The caps do not protect you from a government who can declare that your house is worth anything they want it to be.
In a down economy (from 2008 to 2009) they raised the assessed value of my house and that of 200 of my neighbors between $40,000 and $50,000.
So even though our legislators promised they heard us, they socked more tax burden on folks in the middle of a major recession and down economy when home prices are in a free fall.
If that's not a gangster government, I don't know what is.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:14 am
You know, I would think that given our (now) long experience in Afghanistan we would be able to develop a narrowly focused plan to achieve some substantial military goals, then pack it up and go home.
.
All the technologies, all the Harvard grads, and yet we get the same old stale “solutions” time after time.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:47 am
I'm still waiting on the full plate of evidence regarding Durham. It is funny to watch the scattering of his “friends,” like roaches when you turn on the lights.
I might favor tax caps, or even more harsh realities for Indiana's cities, towns, school boards, etc. But not via an Amendment. Never. Ample statutory language exists for the solution. We need to get over this insane desire to amend the Constitutions for problems solved by statutes. It was not the Founders' intention.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:16 am
The discussion procceeds without examination of the current Constitution's Article XIII property tax cap. When you read the clear language whose meaning was very clear for at least 100 years you wonder how a df judge could “discover” that it meant something else. So, are you going to believe the Constitution or are you going to believe whatever df lawmakers or judges say? Neither political party can be trusted on this matter as they both gang rape the property owners and, of course, violate their oaths of office in so doing-not that either bothers them excessively. The intention of the “Founders” in at least their 1851 version, was quite clear to any student of Indiana history although opaque to judges with an agenda and political support for thievery.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:30 am
1) Afghanistan- bad, without much more contribution by other countries interested in the outcome. Take the money we want to spend on this and secure our borders. Keep bad guys out and limit illegal immigration.
2) Property Caps- good, but only with alternate funding methods if the people (district/county, etc.) want to pay for more services. At least some taxation based on consumption is needed.
3) Bauer re Ethics- good, I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop, but if he can persuade Senator Simpson and others of both parties to get rid of the revolving door to lobbyist- go get 'em. I'll believe it when I see it.
4) Safe perceptions- good, but I believe Melyssa pointed out it's a very personal interpretation, like religion or politics. There seem to be less glaring headlines about murders and an attempt to tackle reform in the police dept.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
For ease of readers and to provide a proof to all courtesy of the State Government site, “http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/const/art13.html” would be the aforementioned Article XIII. Pay close attention to “any manner” and judge yourselves.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:51 am
Anecdotally & from the mosaic distance of I-465, structurally, judges may be all too subject to the pressures of morbidly proportioned government (big govt disease); the insatiable institutional bias for revenue at the expense of the financial well being of citizens & their systematically dismissed concerns about public spending.
Corrections are herein welcomed / encouraged; but doesn't the unduly ISTA influenced GA, also control compensation & retirement benefits of the very judges entrusted with the responsibility of Constitutionally safeguarding the people? If that's the case, it's structurally flawed to the distinct disadvantage of the people, or is the aforementioned pressure be somehow nonexistent?
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:06 am
Because the wife wants the Sunday paper I am obliged to also get the Star's Thursday paper. I note a front page article on ISTA. But, I don't see that article in the on line version.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
TA, why would you be concerned with what's written in our Constitution? Legislators and judges certainly aren't. They go out of their way to find ways around “that pesky Constitution.”
We had Delegates, not Founders. The Delegates provided a mechanism to amend our Indiana Constitution — Article 16.
December 4th, 2009 at 4:47 am
TA, why would you be concerned with what's written in our Constitution? Legislators and judges certainly aren't. They go out of their way to find ways around “that pesky Constitution.”
We had Delegates, not Founders. The Delegates provided a mechanism to amend our Indiana Constitution — Article 16.