Win, Lose or Draw?
Now that the 2010 Legislative session has come and gone, we can discuss who won, who lost, who was basically a draw. Actually, there are different degrees of how much individuals win and lose based on what they hoped to accomplish, what they got done and how this all plays into the upcoming elections. So with that said, the awards go to…
Governor Mitch Daniels – Big winner. He got his property tax caps as well as lawmakers to hold the line on spending.
Senate Republicans – Winners. It was getting shaky towards the end and I was starting to wonder if I was watching the Manhattan tribe, but they held together at the end.
Senate Democrats – Draw, they’re the Senate Dems, what else needs to said.
House Democrats – Losers. The House Ds took it on the chin this session. They didn’t stop the tax caps, there was major dissention in the ranks, and the proposed Warrick County aquarium and museum tax district kept everyone here a week longer than necessary.
House Republicans – Biggest Winners. They got about 80% of their agenda through and, politically speaking, the winds are at their backs for now.
Business – Winner. Any time you can get a tax increase delayed for a year, you’re in good shape. They also scored a victory on employee classification, however, they lost on guns in the workplace.
Schools – Draw. They lost money due to the economy, but they also got more flexibility to move money around in their budgets to mitigate their financial situations.
Unions – Loser. They wanted the state to change the rules on how independent contractors are classified so more of them can be considered full-time employees and thus eligible for more union membership.
2nd Amendment Crowd – Winner. Got guns in the workplace as long as it stays locked in the car and also access to permit database restricted to media.
Local Government – Draw. The tax caps are coming, but that just means more opportunities to be creative and consolidate.
Local Government reform – Loser. But keep trying guys, I’m with you.
Redistricting Advocates – Draw. It was a loss for now, but will be back next year.
Gaming – Loser. They didn’t get any help from lawmakers this year, but this may have to be revisited next year because no one has a choice.
Anti-smoking advocates – Draw. No smoking ban, but they saved the Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Board.
Lobbyists – Winners. Despite ethics reform, anyone who hung around the rail the last days and paid attention saw how much pull they have with lawmakers and it has nothing to do with money or gifts.
Taxpayers – Biggest Winners. They get to vote on tax caps.
Media – The real winners. Because we always are!
Feel free to add your thoughts.
March 14th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Hooray! We get to vote on tax caps! How much will they lower our taxes?
What's that?
Those caps are already the law, you say? (Or, you didn't say.)
But, we're winners!
March 14th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
The last I heard, Governor Daniels had not yet signed the gun bill. Please provide an update if this has changed.
March 14th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Indiana's “market value system” is one of devaluation; a misnomer, that ignores the transactional reality of market value, which is a purchase or sale. Though flaw makers will fake, bureaucratized imputation does not a free market make.
As inventories of municipally “owned real estate” are growing nationally at record rates; the rate of zero value real estate is also growing… even here, in White River City.
Public auctions for “step right up & bid on the casualties of failed public policy (aka liabilities)” aren't well attended. Hypothetically, those who would enthusiastically attend such auctions are working a system that's outside & at the expense, of public interest. A declining market is also one of declining trust; the free market's currency or base commodity. The growing trend of real estate deemed unmarketable or undesirable, ain't good for anyone.
Sessions upon sessions, years upon years, the deep deliberation of resume's brought to bear, brings us to this legislative game, of tax craps?!? One, two, three; for all, justice & liberty? Commissioned rates of stabilization? Divisive yet inclusive? “Administrative remedy,” down the Escher designed hall & take a left, then another left…?
One day, “the market” can be blamed for lacking “sophistication,” to understand the inestimable “good” done by the legislate-hurt. Or better yet, a real live, citizen concerned, Constitutionally conscious, credible court, should find them in err.
March 14th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Winners and losers—one heck of a way to evaluate a meeting of the state legislative body. The real loser again was local control–we get tax caps on local but not state, more state say in education, more state mandated items for local government. Perhaps we should just do away with all local government and Mitch and buddies just run the whole show—of course there was the usual concerns about federal trying to say what the state should do—somewhere in that is a strange disconnect. And, partisanship was alive and well, maybe we need to hold elections every 10 years or so in order that somethings can get done in a timely manner.
Unfortunately for a retired person such as myself I just lost another daily entertainment feature–no general assembly to watch.
March 15th, 2010 at 4:24 am
Man, if gun owners big win is to use big government to infringe on the rights of private property owners, then gun owners didn't win at all. Big government did.
March 15th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
That whole gun thing was a forehead-scratcher for me.
Individuals have the right to bear arms. Or arm ebars. Or something like that. OK, fine…where do I, as a business owner, have the right to tell you, as my at-will employee, the conditions under which I will employ you? And if one of those is: no weapons on my property, isn't it MY property, and don't I have that right?
Libertarians must've had a tough choice on this one. Whose rights trumped–the individual, or the company owner (in my example) ?
March 15th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
I can't tell you what the Libertarian Party position is. But I can tell you what a libertarian minded individual would think.
While your rights do not stop when you clock into your job or enter a school house gate, you're there to work or learn, not exercise rights. As long as your employer/teacher isn't treating you inhumanely and not discriminating based on gender, faith, ethnic background, etc…, then employers and school faculty can pretty much do whatever they want. Well, SHOULD be able to do whatever they want.
Now, if a gun owner wants to carry while at work, he has the right to find an employer who believes the same. And if he works for someone who doesn't, he has the right to quit his job. Similarly, if a Catholic thinks that they have the right of free speech to hang up a cross while at work, and an employer doesn't want them to, the employee has the right to go find another job. The employer isn't repressing your rights as a Catholic or repressing your free speech rights, but is asking you not to do it on his time on his property.
The bill as it currently is presented could be challenged under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. It sets up two standards, one for business and one for residential. Residential property owners have the choice of declaring their property gun free, businesses do not.
It is very rare when individual rights trump property owner rights.
March 15th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
It seems that when a business owner employs folks, (s)he invites those person(s) onto his property. Thus, the invitation is extended, and can be withdrawn, under certain conditions.
If an employer presents those conditions in writing, and they don't violate the law, it seems logical that the employer could ban something that (s)he reasonably thinks could make the workplace less-safe. Nobody forces you to work in a place that forbids weapons. By the way, there are other weapons that can cause harm, too, besides guns.
Last year, there were IMPD-filed reports of 600 or so guns stolen. That's roughly 67 romaing guns per township. As a business owner, that creates sufficient concern for me to protect all my employees. It sure seems logical that I have every right in the world to forbid my employees from bringing anything on my property, which I can (reasonably) assume could cause harm.
I don't know that it rises to the level of Equal Protection Clause, but it does seem pretty basic.
I have one question about this law: where were the hue and cry for this law? Were there mounting complaints that workers cannot carry weapons onto their jobsites? It seems as if the law was created by, and pandered to, a select group of folks who live and breathe this issue. Which is their right.
March 17th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Wow. Are you sure you only smoke cigars???
Biggest losers, Indiana residents.
Education at all levels have been slashed. Not good wherever you stand.
Taxpayers now have to deal with property tax caps which will lead to increase property taxes in the long run and the lawsuits that will surely follow.
There still, years after the Kernan Shephard report was published, no true government reform.
Daniels/legislature still hasn't determined how to fully the operating costs of the CIB.
Government pensions are still unfunded.
The budget, which is way off mark (hmm maybe we should have done a 1 year budget), and revenue are still not balancing.(but for consolation prize, not as bad as other states).
Unemployment is still high(but for consolation prize, not as bad as other states).
Indiana economy continues to be overly reliant on the automotive industry/manufacturing.
But at least we have guns in the workplace. Only, there are not jobs!!