Top 10 of 2010
Happy New Year! Here is my list of the 10 things to look at in 2010, not necessarily in any particular order.
- Will Republicans take the House of Representatives this November?
- Will any incumbent Democratic Congressman lose?
- How many local governments will be forced to consolidate due to tax caps and declining home value assessments?
- How much of a roll will Democrats in the 5th District play in determining whether Dan Burton wins in the May primary.
- Which Republican will announce first that he or she is running for Governor in 2012?
- Will potential Democratic candidates for Governor in 2012 stop imploding?
- Will Greg Ballard get a major public policy victory (i.e. fix the water company fiasco) in 2011?
- Will Marion County Democrats rally around Melina Kennedy for Mayor or will they gravitate towards Brian Williams, Kathy Davis or Jose Evans?
- Will local GOP infighting in the 9th District (which I hear is pretty bad) guarantee the re-election of incumbent Baron Hill?
- Will Tea Party advocates be organized to actually form a 4th party in Indiana that will make a difference instead of noise?
If you think I missed something, feel free to add it.
January 1st, 2010 at 5:14 am
Happy New Year, Abdul.
What about exempting private homes from taxation? Remember, this is what government and the media touted as our 'reward' if We repealed the so-called “inventory tax” back in 2004.
Oh, and government and the media told us that none of the tax burden from lost inventory tax revenue would land upon the backs of property owners.
We've been waiting for that exemption ever since. Perhaps this year…..
January 1st, 2010 at 9:48 am
Aires, as much as I would love that suggestion, nothing of the kind was “promised” as a result of dropping the inventory tax.
In fact, we were told by the Chamber and biz groups, that economic development would benefit as a result of dropping the invtax. I know a recession intervened, but our gutless legislature bought that ridiculous argument, hook line and sinker.
Politically, Abdul: Baron Hill is a lock. And nothing Ballard does, short of stopping the war in Afghanistan, will propel him to another term. Will the GOP take the House?
STATE–Maybe. Federal: nope.
January 1st, 2010 at 9:50 am
Always amazes me the people who continue to advocate transferring all taxes to businesses as if that would mean we (non businesses) would not be paying any longer. In many ways would rather have visible taxation rather than businesses having to raise prices to cover taxes.
January 1st, 2010 at 10:19 am
Democratic candidates for Governor imploding? Which ones would that be?
January 1st, 2010 at 10:25 am
1. Certainly possible, not really likely
2. Again, possible…not likely
3. Define consolidate.
4. I'm assuming you mean “role” and not “roll”, but I think all the challengers combine to defeat themselves and give Burton two more years.
5. I think Becky Skillman will.
6. Not sure which ones are imploding.
7. No
8. Still a little up in the air, but Melina appears to be in the strongest position. Kathy Davis could throw big curveball and there's no doubt that Brian Williams should never be underestimated.
9. They need new blood. The best thing they could do is not renominate Mike Sodrel.
10. No because they are too one-issue oriented.
January 1st, 2010 at 10:27 am
Sorry, TA, but I disagree. The legislature did everything except place their 'promise' into actual Constitutional language to sell the repeal.
Further, the 'repeal' actually began in 2002 — which was patently unconstitutional. If you want them, I can provide Indiana appellate court decisions stating that the General ASSembly did not have the authority AT ALL to abolish so-called inventory taxes. Yet, the 'phase-out' of the inventory tax began in 2002 — 2 years before the proposed Constitutional amendment was ratified by We the Suckers.
For example;
“Our first consideration must be an examination of Article 10, § 1, as amended. There is an apparent ambiguity between subsection (a)(2) and subsection (b) that must be resolved before we examine the statutes. We note that subsection (a)(2) provides that the Legislature may exempt any tangible personal property other than property being held for sale in the ordinary course of a trade or business. Thus, the Legislature does not have the authority at all to exempt so-called inventory personal property. (STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS v KEY MOTORS CORP, 404 N.E.2d 52, 1980)”
Hmmm….”Thus, the Legislature DOES NOT have the authority AT ALL to exempt so-called inventory personal property.”
Wow, who'd a thunk it. Of course, we who read and understand our Constitution didn't need lawyers in robes to explain this to us. The prohibition was quite clearly worded in Article 10 (pre 2004 amendment):
Section 1. (a) The General Assembly shall provide, by law, for a uniform and equal rate of property assessment and taxation and shall prescribe regulations to secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, both real and personal. The General Assembly may exempt from property taxation any property in any of the following classes:
(1) Property being used for municipal, educational, literary, scientific, religious or charitable purposes;
(2) Tangible personal property OTHER THAN property being held for sale in the ordinary course of a trade or business, property being held, used or consumed in connection with the production of income, or property being held as an investment;
(3) Intangible personal property.
(b) The General Assembly may exempt any motor vehicles, mobile homes, airplanes, boats, trailers or similar property, provided that an excise tax in lieu of the property tax is substituted therefor.
Hmmm….”(2) Tangible personal property OTHER THAN property being held for sale in the ordinary course of a trade or business, property being held, used or consumed in connection with the production of income, or property being held as an investment;”
What part of “OTHER THAN” do people not understand.
Kind of like the words “SHALL CONSIST OF” in Article 8 Section 2.
And, yes….the words of our Constitution are indeed important:
“The authorities agree that the words used in the Constitution must be presumed to have been carefully chosen so that each word would have a meaning. It has been said that each word must be thought of as having been deliberately selected and intentionally placed as though it had been hammered into the instrument. (Chadwick v. City of Crawfordsville, 24 N.E.2d 937; 216 Ind. 399, 1940)”
Regardless if anyone AGREED with the inventory tax or not, it was unconstitutional to 'phase-out' the tax BEFORE the amendment was ratified.
BTW, the tax came into being as a method to tax the 'hidden wealth' of business & corporations.
January 1st, 2010 at 10:30 am
Read the Northwest Indiana newspapers.
January 1st, 2010 at 11:15 am
You raise an interesting point about Burton and Democrats.
Overall, the primary challengers for the Republican slot do not ideologically differentiate greatly, if at all, from Burton. But the implication (or sometimes flat out stated) is Burton is a corrupt career politiican who has outlived his usefulness. Getting fresh blood into the 5th district's seat would be great for the GOP.
But for Democrats, keeping Burton in that seat would be best. Think about having a corrupt career politician day in and day out giving Republicans a bad name. If I were a Democrat in the 5th district, I'd vote Burton.
January 1st, 2010 at 11:22 am
Following is part of a response I received from a member of the General ASSembly concerning the inventory tax, and the proposed amendment.
“We have had a lot of issues in Indiana regarding property taxes and regarding, for example, the inventory tax. I am of the opinion that the inventory tax is a horse and buggy tax that ought to be abolished as an inaccurate measure of business wealth and taxation. I think that we will not have a tax burden shifted so much as a tax burden assumed more fairly among the business community. It has made Indiana extremely non-competitive with other states in terms of this tax. It is on a schedule to be phased out over a number of years.
In the Fall there will be proposed a Constitutional Amendment that will allow the Legislature to make these distinctions without Constitutional question.” — Ralph M. Foley, Representative, Indiana General ASSembly, 27 July 2004
Note what he says…”I think that we will not have a tax burden SHIFTED so much as a tax burden assumed more fairly among the BUSINESS COMMUNITY.”
It was assumed by homeowners.
“It is on a schedule to be phased out over a number of years.” Yet, the amendment had NOT been ratified at this time. Nor had it been ratified in 2002!
“In the Fall there will be proposed a Constitutional Amendment that will allow the Legislature to make these distinctions without Constitutional question.”
The General ASSembly was aware that there was a so-called 'Constitutional question', yet went ahead anyway. They KNEW they were violating the Indiana Constitution's taxing provisions at Article 10, and did it anyway.
Yeah, we trust government to obey the law. Right!!!!
January 1st, 2010 at 11:39 am
How about:
Will Abdul admit that the president he supports is a dithering coward who hates this country, embraces our enemies, and has weakened this nation in the eyes of rogue leaders throughout the world?
Maybe we'll have to wait until 2011 for that one……….
January 1st, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Good chat re Burton. Ideology you usually agree with- at what price? Too high for me the past few elections.
.
I don't understand the necessity for Tea-baggers to create a political party to have pseudo-validation. As what? Pro-lifers, animal rights activists, foreign policy isolationists, or those with a definitive opinion on immigration or health “reform” don't have a political party devoted just to them. If their singular issue trumps all else, then I imagine they'll vote for whomever is on their side of the issue.
.
The quandry for the Tea-baggers is they favor spending less money, which dovetails with a stricter adherence to the Constitution. There's not much else they agree upon. The Democrats may have an earned notoriety for spending money we don't really have, but the suppossed “conservative” Republicans have been even worse- at least prior to President Obama.
.
Ideologically, I agree with Tea-baggers- if we stay on the core issue & sub-issue. Most candidates believing this ideology will come from the Libertarian or Republican party. But, if Melina Kennedy (or whomever) runs on a platform of reduced spending and throwing out the CIB & city-council members with conflicts of interest, I'll support her with a check, sign, and calls to Abdul's show. I like Ballard's more open budget process, what I perceive to be a safer city with more efficient police, but the CIB is a travesty and education reform is awaiting a mayor who will lead – regardless of the political consequences.
While I respect entrenched and incumbent “ground game”, I don't think either party is immune to a wave rippling through the masses, such as the Tea Party. Witness Bauer embracing ethics reform, Mervilde's lessened raise, and diffusion of a (blatant) “public option” in the dispicable health “reform”.
,
If the bulk of America keeps pushing, we make headway. If we stop, we get what we deserve. I hope we keep pushing for the sake of our kids and our old age in 2010.
January 1st, 2010 at 12:31 pm
This is the year of Libertarians. There will not be a rise of a 4th party as the rise of the Libertarian Party will occur. It is becoming popular to call oneself a Libertarian and people really warming up to the sensible platform it conveys with limited government. You will see both the Republican and Democrat parties continue their downwards slide. Also, the Libertarian Party in Indiana will see a huge spike in fund raising as capital will start to flow their direction. A plan has been hatched outside the Libertarian Party and is about to be realized.
January 1st, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Rico, you shouldn't talk about yourself like that.
January 1st, 2010 at 12:46 pm
What? No 'I'm rubber and your glue'?
January 1st, 2010 at 12:52 pm
In the first place, why don't you show them the respect of not calling them “Tea Baggers”? That's a prejorative term given them by the likes of Janeane Garofalo and other Hollywood/media lefties.
January 1st, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Excerpt from the IndyStar, “Unbalanced tax system overturns on homeowners” by Matt Tully, 27 June 2007. Further evidence that government lied concerning the shifting of the tax onto homeowners.
“You'll hear a lot of reasons for the increases in the coming weeks: This is the next step in a court-ordered shift to a market value-based assessment system. The state eliminated the business inventory tax, SHIFTING tax burdens to HOMES. School costs and child welfare bills have increased.
Then there is this disturbing finding: While residential assessments in Marion County have been adjusted — that means increased — commercial and industrial assessments apparently remain artificially undervalued. Lower assessments mean lower bills. Problem is, if Joe's Auto is paying less than it should, homeowners are paying more.”
January 1st, 2010 at 1:28 pm
There are more Democratic candidates for Governor than just those from Lake County. Jim Schellinger, Jonathan Weinzapfel, Baron Hill, just to name a few.
January 1st, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Samantha, as much as I wish to believe that, the Libertarian Party has been in the same place for years. I can see a lot of incumbents being thrown out, but LP candidates being elected? Not so much.
January 1st, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Actually I've done my homework on you. You're an “interesting character” to say the least.
January 1st, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Jon's got tax increase issues. Baron's got a tough fight on his hands. Jim lost to JLT.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Property tax resolution
Tim Rushenberg has proclaimed 2010 “The Year of No Excuses.” It’s a tall order from the commissioner of Indiana’s Department of Local Government Finance following a year in which 90 of Indiana’s 92 counties failed to mail property tax bills on schedule. The delays forced some local governments and schools to borrow millions to meet expenses, pushing additional interest costs on taxpayers.
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20091229/...
An inter-office battle is brewing between the Vanderburgh County assessor and auditor with the process for preparing your property tax bill at the center.
http://tristatehomepage.com/content/fulltext/?c...
January 1st, 2010 at 3:28 pm
You've 'done your homework' on me? And what homework would that be? Have you now stooped so low as to investigate posters who call you out for supporting Barry? Or does your homework merely consist of asking those with whom I've worked to describe me?
Either way, I'm not sure it's an insult to be described as 'interesting', despite your intent.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:29 pm
What Mayor in the state right now doesn't have “tax increase issues?” It's the state's fault right now. Mitch's alleged balanced budgets have come on the backs of local governments. Hill's fight isn't as tough as people think it is. He definitely shouldn't be running for two offices at once, though. Schellinger didn't make friends with me last time, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a bunch of people out there that still support him.
All of those things are exterior issues, Abdul. When I think implode, I think more Mark Sanford, Sarah Palin, or Dennie Oxley, Jr.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Rico:
I may not agree with your approach, but do more often than not on the issues themselves. It's a mighty low blow to liken someone to Janeane(sp?) Garofalo. I've heard people called an 'Okie' as both a term of endearment and slur. If I've offended those of the Tea Party I've protested with this past year, my apologies.
January 1st, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Does Rico have a manifesto like the unabomber?
January 1st, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Help me out with that one? How did Mitch balance the budget on the backs of local governments? Local governments were getting screwed on delayed payments from the state. Mitch got them caught up, finally! And in Evansville, Weinzapfel is going to have to explain his $5 million tax increase on residents by not renewing a local homestead credit.
January 1st, 2010 at 4:20 pm
No investigation, I just found out who you were and asked some questions because you peaked my curiosity. All I can say is that if I ever ran for office, I would appreciate you not helping out. It's a sure way to guarantee a loss.
January 1st, 2010 at 4:22 pm
I wasn't comparing you to her, Taxpayer. I just wanted to make you aware of the term's origin and why we shouldn't use it.
By the way, Happy New Year to all!
January 1st, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Inventory tax was allowed to die without a replacement…placed burden on residential and business property taxes. That set off the dominoes that fell. Also, his steadfast stubbornness in clinging to a surplus that apparently never existed forced local governments to get more creative as state revenues fell.
Essentially, Daniels likes to claim he's never raised taxes, but he did. He just made the local governments do it to survive.
January 1st, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Sarah Palin is as popular as ever. According to a recent poll, she's even as popular as our current Secretary of State (although I wouldn't wear that as a badge of honor). Other than in your own twisted fantasies, how has Palin imploded?
When I think implode, I think Dodd, Reid, Rangel, Nelson, Napolitano………..
It's 2010, let the imploding begin!
January 1st, 2010 at 5:11 pm
That's not progress; on time overcharges invoiced as property taxes, annual commissions paid to local governments, “permitting” citizens as “owners,” or, the undue process of citizens paying 2 / 3 / 4+ years in overcharges until their appeals are “heard.” Justice denied is BS delivered.
Public officials who speak in mysterious terms of lower assessments relative to muddy, Etch-a-sketch baselines; avoiding any specific mention of LOWER TAX BILLS.
One-two-three is a gimmick you see; not citizen centered, economic progress. One, two or three percent of a bureaucrat's self serving, fully pensioned opinion (“assessed value”), not the transactional reality of an interested party or buyer. That's good policy?
January 1st, 2010 at 11:35 pm
1. Absolutely
2.Hill is venerable, with the anti-Obama mood that is oozing across America and because of his close ties to Barry, Carson will have the fight of his life getting re-elected. (I definitely will do my part to see a qualified candidate in that seat and it sure won’t be Carson) sooner or later Carson will fail.
3. The trustees will be an after though, beyond that I’m not sure. Hopefully the township boards will follow.
4. Very Little.
5. Skillman & Murdock
6. What candidates?
7. Yes and more.
8. NO, she’s a hottie but she’s done. Peterson ended any chance for Melinda.
9. Hills toast.
10. No.
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:38 am
The only way to guarantee your loss (if you had the courage to run) is for me to work for your opponent, Abdul. What, you think you're a Carson now?
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:41 am
Wow, Ernie…how out of touch can one person be? Melina's got no chance?
Kindly leave my party to us. We are perfectly capable of a circular firing squad when it comes to primaries. You've effed up the other side just fine, thank you.
I hadn't thought about Schellinger for governor, Easter. I've met and talked with him a few times. My overwhelming impression is he couldn't run a real business very well…running a captive-audience (mostly) school architecture firm is like shooting ducks in a barrel. And if he were to run again, the current climate is not going to be kind to someone who makes their money from raping school districts with the same old slightly-redone designs.
The way he lost that JLT primary, and the aftermath, was pure low-rent. The people he was able to control–staff people he paid, his own brother–ran their mouths badly.
Not that Jill ever had a chance in the fall. Mitch was extremely tough. But Jim's pathetic campaign abilities showed how he'd govern. And regardless how “well” you campaign, when you lose, you need to do it with a little dignity.
He'll never get my vote without a stern and heartfelt public apology.
That said, it's a tad late…although Grammy used to say: “It's never too late to apologize if it's serious.”
Nice go-to with Rico, Abdul. You pushed to the exact correct point, then stopped. His glue-stick was funny, tho.
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:01 am
Nah, I'm Abdul.
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:03 am
The Tea Party is a movement and has no desire to become an official political party because they place principle above party. Anyone who has participated or done any listening on the matter understands it's core principles of lean government and accountability with adherence to the founding documents. Its grassroots are comprised of your next door neighbor and friends who will make changes when they enter the voting booth.
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:42 am
The difference between you and me TA is I don't believe the talking points spread by your party. Or those in the press who are controlled by your party.
The average Joe’s and Jill’s on the street are fed up with Barry's interference. Weather you want to believe it or not …those who are connected to the Peterson administration will find it a rough go in local politics for years to come.
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:01 am
As a business owner doing sales nationally it used to be rare to have inventories much over $500,000.00 Since the dumping of the inventory tax, inventories have tripled and sales have quadrupled. Imagine stores with little on the shelf competing with stores whose shelves are full of lower priced materials (being able to inventory allows production economies). Just a fact for those who often lack facts. Old adage: increase inventories, increase profits. New adage: increase profits lead to increased tax payments…don't they? Short term and long term the decision to stop stupid (taxing inventories) will pay off big time for Indiana.
As I read the decisions the Court did not MANDATE this AFU market cost system. Kernan(and the Democrats who long resisted the court) did that with his stupid assessment rules. All the judge said was that at some point the assessors had to have some basis in objective reality for what had been ONLY their subjective (and very corrupt in a lot of places) valuations.
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:10 am
Meanwhile, pigs don't vote but pigs are inventory? People vote and people are directly responsible for bloated government, for wasteful government, for government growth and so why should not those idiots who vote for these “goods” be willing themselves to be taxed for them? Any reader of this forum could easily reduce all college and university budgets by hundreds of millions of dollars. Hell, the legislature just baulked at adding more buildings because they didn't believe the “higher eds” were using the one they had on Friday's or Monday's. It too the legislative stoops decades to notice that waste and then to do something about it.
Too, the thought impinges that if Indiana is the crossroads of America then it should have been the distribution center of America. As you review the decade past observe all of the jobs and investment that have been flowing into Indiana because the inventory tax is DEAD and our natural advantage in distribution is no longer blocked by stupidity.
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:42 am
Actually local governments did have other options. Back in '06 the CCC could have passed a CEDIT, County Economic Development Income Tax to take the place of the inventory tax. But the CCC (which was Democratically-controlled) passed up doing so.
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:22 am
Abdul you are only going to confuse Jon more with facts.
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Let's see how that works out Paul……
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:42 pm
wow, Rico being Politically correct…..
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Wow, Pascal, if only what you wrote were true, the entire tax system's mess might be screwed up.
Alas, 'tis not so. I am intrigued by your inventory tax story–I've got five more to counter it, and the statistics don't back you up either. But congrats on your success. I'm betting it's management brainpower as much as it ever was the oppressive IT.
Indiana is, per capita, one of the nation's leading distribution hubs. That fact cannot be ignored. UPS and FedEx both have huge facilities here–together, those two facilities comprise one of the nation's top five dist. centers in SF.
That doesn't even count all the Park 100 dist. space.
Ernie, you don't read and comprehend real well, do you? If you read this blog very often, you'd know I don't buy my party's line. Ever. And on a side note, I'm very disappointed that you've sunk to the level of another poster who calls our President by a nickname that's not, well…I bet you didn't mean it in a flattering manner.
It's President Obama. Just like it was (gulp) PRES. BUSH. Get used to it.
Just don't ask me to extend my respect to former vice presidents, because we're awash in nonsense in that category. But our presidents, past and incumbent, deserve the respect of proper salutations and title.
To do less is tremendously disrespectful to the Office.
Oh yeah–one more thing–typos are one thing, and I'm guilty as sin, but nothing is ever made plural by adding an apostrophe.
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:31 pm
I was an L before you ever heard them talked about on television all the time. You can hardly turn on the news anymore (local or national) without hearing the word Libertarian.
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:38 pm
TA, your Bush/Obama analogy is right on. More people every day are waking up to the false left/right paradigm.
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Why should even the Office be respected if the person holding it has no respect for it?
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Well, Rico, I see you took the bait.
Let's see how folks define “respect.”
A systematic ignoring of our Constitution, waging a war for improper reasons in the improper place at the improper time, spending us into oblivion, pushing a Medicare drug bill that lined the pockets of Pharma, suborning/supporting perjury, picking a VP who is…well you get the point.
All tragic events under Pres. Bush.
Yet I still call him Pres. Bush. I'm very confident how history will treat him, but he will always be Pres. Bush.
Now, what is you were saying about Pres.Obama?
Poof. Be gone. You and all your ilk. You were evidently raised by wolves.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:00 pm
I got the 'talking' point alright. You're so effing predictable. And we're all grateful when you deem it proper to fight a war. 17 UN resolutions ignored was no reason, huh? Barry, on the other hand, backs up his words with…….NOTHING!
At least our enemies had a healthy fear that President Bush would follow through with a threat. Our enemies are laughing at Obama. Hell, the Chinese have such respect for him that they sent an underling (without any authority) to meet with him. Not only is he a joke, but he's a dangerous joke. The next attack on our soil will be his fault. (Of course, being the man-child he is, he'll still blame his predecessor.) I'll say one thing he's good at: He's really knows how to buy off the whores in your party. Hell, we can call him the John in Chief.
……and you obviously were raised by sheep! Baaaaaaa Baaaaaaa!
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:02 pm
TA, Thanks for the English 101 lesson, the condescending overtone was enlightening. Just proves that you are a practicing liberal.
As far as showing respect for the President …respect is due the office not necessarily the man. His name is Barry according to his records from Indonesia. I'm not 100% convinced Obama is qualified (birth) to hold the office of President. I'm not calling for Barry to be impeached but transparency in the records would go along way to resolve any issue. But assuming that you are right…was it appropriate for the left to refer to President Bush as W? I don’t think that was any different than me calling our President by his first name.
We all want to believe that we are open-minded and objective but the truth is few are…TA you do tend to walk lock step with your party more than you want to believe.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:48 pm
So, Ernie, a “condescending tone” proves that someone is liberal? Then Pres. Geo. W. Bush is the champion liberal of all. His smirks were offensive and famous at the same time. Funny thing is, he had so little to smirk about.
And I really thought you were above the BC thing. God get a life. Or we'll start re-hashing Pres. Bush's Nat. Guard service records, his squashed DUI records, etc.
I truly didn't mean to sound condescending to you. I enjoy many of your posts. If it was condescending, I'm sorry.
As for the grammar…the apostrophe thing is a pet project for me. You'd be surprised how many folks in Indiana think plural and apostrophe are equal! And the worst offenders? Lawyers. Who, until about 1835, were most-often paid by the word. Explains a lot, huh?
Seventeen UN resolutions. I haven't stopped laughing yet Rico. I thought your crowd detested the UN–unless it serves your purpose? Re-read the resolutions. And ask Hans Blik if there were really WMDs.
Again, history won't be kind. It already isn't But he's still Pres. Bush. And you, sir, are a cad. The jury has returned its verdict on that score.
But anyone can redeem him/herself. Redemption doesn't start with referring to our Commander in Chief in the same paragraph with potty humor and whores. Classy.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Fewer in number, wolves, might be surprised as they encounter carnivorous sheep; who will break, not so much as a fourth, but a Fourth of July Party.
Americans have far greater sense of that which binds them, than content thinned papers are loathe to remind them.
January 2nd, 2010 at 4:42 pm
To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton:
My president, right or wrong? Rather like saying “My priest–toddler under his cassock or, not.”
January 2nd, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Wow. Lots of posts here.
I'm wondering when my property tax exemption for my home is coming.
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:32 pm
1) The U.N. is a corrupt anti-American organization. Since you're probably a fan, I figured I'd use mention them to make my point. We didn't need their permission. I would have preferred getting out of the U.N. long ago, or, at least, getting them the hell out of our country.
Your president, who I would assume wants to head the U.N. some day, wants to hand total control of our economy over to them through the cap and trade scam.
2) Your friend Saddam thumbed his nose at the global community for too long. I'm sure you mourned his death, but he needed to be dead. And generations of Iraqis to come will thank the U.S. for allowing them to realize their God-given freedom. There are many statues of Reagan in Eastern Europe. (You know, the Eastern Europe Barry took a dump on recently.) I submit that Iraqis one day will feel the same toward George W. Bush.
3) What are considered WMD's have been found. (And an apostrophe is appropriate when making an acronym plural.) I'm sure you've ignored all stories regarding chemical and other weapons found buried in the desert since the invasion.
4) Redemption from you? You support a pro-infanticide President! Work on your own redemption.
5) You don't know the first thing about class. In fact, you demonstrate how much class you have by correcting others' grammar on here.
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:57 pm
LMAO, Rico. There must be black helicopters outside your home, huh?
No, the apostrophe is NOT appropriate. Consult the AP Stylebook for future references. Never. Ever. I don't correct all grammar, Rico. Just some. There are many thing sin life I don't do well. Golf and grammar are two things at which I do excel. Pick your battles better.
Aires–if you're waiting on the exemption, as in mortgage, or homestead, unless you've changed mortgage companies or addresses, it should continue from last year. But it never hurts to check. Errors are made.
If you changed mortgage companies or address, it is not necessarily their responsibility to file those exemptions for you. There is a timeframe in which to file…be sure to check with the treasurer or auditor. They'll usually take a phone call with your address or parcel number to check for you.
Redemption is the Lord's Rico. Apologies are for we mere mortals, and you should learn how. It's good for the soul. Especially when you're so far wrong. :-)
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:58 pm
**things in
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Hi TA. I was being somewhat facetious in my above post. I was referring to the exemption that was strongly implied to occur if We ratified the change to Article 10 back in 2004 — posted below.
Section 1. (a) The General Assembly shall provide, by law, for a uniform and equal rate of property assessment and taxation and shall prescribe regulations to secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, both real and personal. The General Assembly may exempt from property taxation any property in any of the following classes:
(1) Property being used for municipal, educational, literary, scientific, religious, or charitable purposes.
(2) Tangible personal property other than property being held as an investment.
(3) Intangible personal property.
(4) Tangible real property, including curtilage, used as a principal place of residence by an:
(A) owner of the property;
(B) individual who is buying the tangible real property under a contract; or
(C) individual who has a beneficial interest in the owner of the tangible real property.
(b) The General Assembly may exempt any motor vehicles, mobile homes, airplanes, boats, trailers, or similar property, provided that an excise tax in lieu of the property tax is substituted therefor.
(History: As Amended November 8, 1966; November 2, 2004).
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:53 pm
TA is my favorite from the left. Sometimes, he's so balanced he is right. God Bless YOU, TA. I hope you never go away from this forum. :)
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:54 pm
And another thing…that T.A. is always a class act. That's hard to do consistently.
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:57 pm
“Aires, as much as I would love that suggestion, nothing of the kind was “promised” as a result of dropping the inventory tax.” — Think Again, Post #2
TA, below is a quote from the Logansport Pharos-Tribune, 10 Oct 2004, page A7, by State Senator Tom Weatherwax, concerning the upcoming ballot question to amend Article 10 of our Constitution.
*********************************
“On Election Day, citizens will
be asked to vote on three constitutional
amendments. Here is
how the questions will look on
the ballot (I have included an explanation
for each):
Public Question 1: “Shall Article
10, Section 1 of the Constitution
of the State of Indiana be
amended to allow the General
Assembly to make certain property
exempt from property taxes,
including (1) a homeowner's primary
residence; (2) personal
property used to produce income;
and (3) inventory?”
The constitution currently allows
the General Assembly to
make property tax exemptions for
property being used for municipal,
educational, and other charitable
purposes; tangible personal
property other than property being
held for sale; and intangible
personal property. It also may exempt
any motor vehicles, mobile
homes, airplanes, boats, trailers or
similar property, provided that an
excise tax is substituted.
The General Assembly needs the ability to
exempt other things such as inventory
and residences in order to
draw businesses to the state and
to provide relief to homeowners.”
*********************************
Notice the last sentence, “The General Assembly needs the ability to
exempt other things SUCH AS INVENTORY AND RESIDENCES in order to draw businesses to the state and to provide relief to homeowners.”
Well, they wasted no time at all in exempting inventory. Indeed, those reprobates began the process in 2002.
Yes, TA…this is but ONE example of We the Mislead being lied to by government. “We NEED this new power of exemption…with it, we can exempt YOUR HOME”
Alas, when I first read the proposed language with the word MAY, I knew that those reprobates would not exempt homes, but were trying to make their previously unconstitutional behavior 'constitutional'.
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Some of us are asses some are snobs. TA is a little of both. He's much more of a challenge than Wilson…but I honestly don't think I have a favorite on the left.
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Should we change the Constitution?
Kokomo Tribune_25 Jul 2004_Page A5
by Caroline Wadsworth
General Assembly members say
the amendment would draw businesses
into Indiana, as well as provide
relief for homeowners.
State Sen. Connie Lawson said it
also will protect many Hoosiers
who are already receiving tax
breaks that are not constitutional.
“The reason it needs to be done,
in my mind, is because the General
Assembly needs to be able to give
exemptions,” she said.
“It was brought up that the constitution
doesn't really allow for that
It says all property shall be taxed.”
Lawson said the language means
relief programs are unconstitutional
and could be overturned by a court.
Programs such as veterans relief
and relief for the elderly could be
overturned, raising property taxes
for those individuals, she said.
“Many of my constituents already
have these kinds of exemptions, but
this will assure it cannot be overturned
and ruled unconstitutional,” Lawson said.
If voters allow the General Assembly
to approve the amendment, Lawson said
taxpayers would not see a rise in taxes
to offset the exemptions.
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:31 pm
IndyAries = Justified Anger
He knows.
January 3rd, 2010 at 7:21 am
Certainly, there was NO thought by government that the language employed in Public Question 1 of the 2004 election would mislead We the Screwed?
PUBLIC QUESTION 1: Shall Article 10 Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana be amended to allow the General ASSembly to make certain property exempt from property taxes, including (1) a homeowner's primary residence: (2) personal property used to produce income, and (3) inventory? Yes/No
–Logansport Pharos-Tribune – October 31, 2004, Page E1
Let's see….has a phase-out of the property tax for private homeowners begun? No? But, they did it for the inventory tax…2 YEARS before it was ratified!
Government made certain that the manner in which Public Question 1 was phrased would mislead voters into believing that those reprobates on the GA would exempt their private homes from property taxation.
Imagine that!!! Finally, actually OWNING your property. Home taken away 'cause you couldn't pay all or part of the 'rent' to government? Not anymore.
Opppsssss…..guess that's still a pipe-dream, huh.
Boy, I'm sure glad that the THIRD item on the ballot was abolished. I'm real happy about that. Government only lied about 66 percent of the Question.
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:56 am
Excerpt from the Logansport Pharos Tribune, 24 Oct 2004, page A2
******************************
Ballot questions tackle property
taxes, government succession
INDIANAPOLIS (AP)
One of its sponsors, Republican Sen.
Luke Kenley of Noblesville, said the
amendment would legitimize what lawmakers
already have done through exemptions
and deductions for homeowners
and a phase-out of the inventory tax.
Without it, Kenley said, some tax breaks
might not withstand legal challenges – and
lawmakers might be reluctant to make further
updates to a system that is more than
150 years old. The constitution now exempts
some property from taxation, including
schools and churches, but not homes,
business equipment or inventory.
“It's part of a bigger process of redesigning
our tax laws,” Kenley said.
******************************
Hmmm…” Republican Sen. Luke Kenley of Noblesville, said the amendment would legitimize what lawmakers already have done through exemptions and deductions for homeowners and a phase-out of the inventory tax.”
So, this is how it's done, huh?? Let's violate our Constitution, then down the road, we will try to legitimize our actions via Constitutional amendment.
I wonder what they would have done if Question 1 had failed????
Where is my exemption? I'm still paying taxes on my private home.
January 3rd, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I guess I'm not the only one who was being mislead. However, I DID educate myself, and didn't fall for the scam. Unfortunately, 77 percent of We the Lied To did fall for the lie.
**************************************
OPINION – Kokomo Tribune, Page A6, 05 Nov 2004
Ballot was confusing
THE ISSUE: The state constitutional amendment questions
OUR VIEW: Most of the blame for the public ignorance of the questions falls on the legislature.
A lot of voters had a tough time answering the questions on the back of the Indiana ballot Tuesday, mainly because they were being asked to amend a very important document – the Indiana Constitution – without having heard any debate on the issue.
The first question was the one which drew the most attention – which isn't saying much. It basically gave the Indiana General Assembly the authority to exempt broad classes of property from property taxes. Business property, owner-occupied
residences and business inventory may all now be exempted from property taxes.
The way the ballot question was worded made it sound like a great idea. After all, who wouldn't like to get out of paying property taxes on their home? If the question had added: “…and shift those taxes onto other people,” it might have made a few more voters think twice.
The legislators claim to have had a good reason for the amendment, mainly that they were trying to protect the tax restructuring of 2002 from court challenges. But it's our contention – and the contention of several Howard County government elected officials, the Indiana Farm Bureau, the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute, Indiana University economist Morton Marcus and others that the question was too broadly written and gives the legislature too much power.
We have an issue with the shoddy way the constitutional amendments were put forth to the people.
Some of the blame falls on our shoulders – the news media. Hoosier journalists knew about the questions for years, but didn't exercise the necessary critical thinking to fully examine the possible ramifications of the question.
Some of the blame goes to citizens. People are spending less time getting involved with civics and news about government. There are various reasons offered as to why this is, but people have to be informed to be able to vote in their
own interest.
Most of the blame, however, goes to legislators. They had a moral obligation to explain to their constituents what the amendments were for and their possible effects. They failed to represent our interests. They could have sent out mailers; taken out TV advertisements; done editorial board interviews. Instead, they quietly put the questions on the ballot, apparently hoping no one would notice until they'd passed.
We need a full explanation from our legislators on how they intend to use their new constitutional powers, and whether or not Hoosier taxpayers are going to be socked with another massive shift of the tax burden.
January 3rd, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Excerpt from the Logansport Pharos-Tribune – August 5, 2002, Page A4 OPINION
Looks like Brian Howey and Mark McGrady get it. Nice to see someone else understands our Constitution, and read the Key Motors court decision.
******************************************
Why is Indiana governmental status quo OK?
by Brian Howey
Fountain County Prosecutor
Mark McGrady asked, “How does
the legislature's new budget bill,
which will eliminate the inventory
tax over time, pass constitutional
muster? Article 10, Section 1, of
the Indiana Constitution basically
says all property must be taxed,
with certain exceptions (and inventory
is clearly not one of the exceptions).
There is even an Indiana
Court of Appeals case that seems,
to say exactly that”
In the case of State Board of Tax
Commissioners v. Key Motors
Corp., the opinion reads, “Thus, the
Legislature does not have the authority
at all to exempt so-called
inventory personal property.”
McGrady said, “Either I am
missing something, or the legislature
just passed a tax increase that
was largely justified by the elimination
of the inven(ory.'tax, and,that elimination
is unconstitutional.”
Styring noted, “There is a constitutional
problem with doing anything
with the property tax on inventories
by a mere statute. The
problem is that Article 10, Section
1, is pretty darn specific. You can't
exempt or partially exempt any
type of property except by constitutional
amendment”
Styring added, The upside is
that I'm pretty sure we're going to
have to revisit this whole tax/budget
issue pretty soon (I don't think
it hangs together), and that would
be well before any court would get
around to zapping this provision.”
So, what's your opinion, dear
Hoosier citizen? Write a letter to
your editor. Let's have a big ol' discussion.
Be bold. Challenge the
status quo.
January 3rd, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Excerpt from the Logansport Pharos Tribune, 24 Oct 2004, page A2
******************************
Ballot questions tackle property
taxes, government succession
INDIANAPOLIS (AP)
One of its sponsors, Republican Sen.
Luke Kenley of Noblesville, said the
amendment would legitimize what lawmakers
already have done through exemptions
and deductions for homeowners
and a phase-out of the inventory tax.
Without it, Kenley said, some tax breaks
might not withstand legal challenges – and
lawmakers might be reluctant to make further
updates to a system that is more than
150 years old. The constitution now exempts
some property from taxation, including
schools and churches, but not homes,
business equipment or inventory.
“It's part of a bigger process of redesigning
our tax laws,” Kenley said.
******************************
Hmmm…” Republican Sen. Luke Kenley of Noblesville, said the amendment would legitimize what lawmakers already have done through exemptions and deductions for homeowners and a phase-out of the inventory tax.”
So, this is how it's done, huh?? Let's violate our Constitution, then down the road, we will try to legitimize our actions via Constitutional amendment.
I wonder what they would have done if Question 1 had failed????
Where is my exemption? I'm still paying taxes on my private home.
January 3rd, 2010 at 6:38 pm
I guess I'm not the only one who was being mislead. However, I DID educate myself, and didn't fall for the scam. Unfortunately, 77 percent of We the Lied To did fall for the lie.
**************************************
OPINION – Kokomo Tribune, Page A6, 05 Nov 2004
Ballot was confusing
THE ISSUE: The state constitutional amendment questions
OUR VIEW: Most of the blame for the public ignorance of the questions falls on the legislature.
A lot of voters had a tough time answering the questions on the back of the Indiana ballot Tuesday, mainly because they were being asked to amend a very important document – the Indiana Constitution – without having heard any debate on the issue.
The first question was the one which drew the most attention – which isn't saying much. It basically gave the Indiana General Assembly the authority to exempt broad classes of property from property taxes. Business property, owner-occupied
residences and business inventory may all now be exempted from property taxes.
The way the ballot question was worded made it sound like a great idea. After all, who wouldn't like to get out of paying property taxes on their home? If the question had added: “…and shift those taxes onto other people,” it might have made a few more voters think twice.
The legislators claim to have had a good reason for the amendment, mainly that they were trying to protect the tax restructuring of 2002 from court challenges. But it's our contention – and the contention of several Howard County government elected officials, the Indiana Farm Bureau, the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute, Indiana University economist Morton Marcus and others that the question was too broadly written and gives the legislature too much power.
We have an issue with the shoddy way the constitutional amendments were put forth to the people.
Some of the blame falls on our shoulders – the news media. Hoosier journalists knew about the questions for years, but didn't exercise the necessary critical thinking to fully examine the possible ramifications of the question.
Some of the blame goes to citizens. People are spending less time getting involved with civics and news about government. There are various reasons offered as to why this is, but people have to be informed to be able to vote in their
own interest.
Most of the blame, however, goes to legislators. They had a moral obligation to explain to their constituents what the amendments were for and their possible effects. They failed to represent our interests. They could have sent out mailers; taken out TV advertisements; done editorial board interviews. Instead, they quietly put the questions on the ballot, apparently hoping no one would notice until they'd passed.
We need a full explanation from our legislators on how they intend to use their new constitutional powers, and whether or not Hoosier taxpayers are going to be socked with another massive shift of the tax burden.
January 3rd, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Excerpt from the Logansport Pharos-Tribune – August 5, 2002, Page A4 OPINION
Looks like Brian Howey and Mark McGrady get it. Nice to see someone else understands our Constitution, and read the Key Motors court decision.
******************************************
Why is Indiana governmental status quo OK?
by Brian Howey
Fountain County Prosecutor
Mark McGrady asked, “How does
the legislature's new budget bill,
which will eliminate the inventory
tax over time, pass constitutional
muster? Article 10, Section 1, of
the Indiana Constitution basically
says all property must be taxed,
with certain exceptions (and inventory
is clearly not one of the exceptions).
There is even an Indiana
Court of Appeals case that seems,
to say exactly that”
In the case of State Board of Tax
Commissioners v. Key Motors
Corp., the opinion reads, “Thus, the
Legislature does not have the authority
at all to exempt so-called
inventory personal property.”
McGrady said, “Either I am
missing something, or the legislature
just passed a tax increase that
was largely justified by the elimination
of the inven(ory.'tax, and,that elimination
is unconstitutional.”
Styring noted, “There is a constitutional
problem with doing anything
with the property tax on inventories
by a mere statute. The
problem is that Article 10, Section
1, is pretty darn specific. You can't
exempt or partially exempt any
type of property except by constitutional
amendment”
Styring added, The upside is
that I'm pretty sure we're going to
have to revisit this whole tax/budget
issue pretty soon (I don't think
it hangs together), and that would
be well before any court would get
around to zapping this provision.”
So, what's your opinion, dear
Hoosier citizen? Write a letter to
your editor. Let's have a big ol' discussion.
Be bold. Challenge the
status quo.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:17 am
Hi,Abdul.Hey,did you actually REALLY mean “Will REPUBLICAN Candidates for Governer in Indiana stop Imploding??