Although some of you may find this hard to believe, but a very good friend of mine is  a big supporter of a total ban on smoking in Marion County.  Obviously I disagree and our discussions can get pretty animated at times, despite that we are still good friends.   My lovely wife thinks I’m nuts for some of the political views I hold, but she still loves me in spite of all that.  The same thing with my parents.  And there are some local elected officials who hold views I find offensive, but some strange reason we enjoy each other’s company over a beverage.

I bring this up because next week the City-County Council will hold its first hearing on a total smoking ban, and it’s probably going to be pretty contentious.  Regardless, that is still no reason for anyone on either side to be anything but civil and respectful in the debate.   I cringe at times when I look at the national discussion and see the silliness that is supposed to be dialogue.   By the way, when did it become cool to call people “Nazis”?  Did I miss the memo on that one? Both the left and the right are guilty of the vitriol and my other profession of talk radio doesn’t help much either.  And even I will admit to falling into the pit on occasion.

However, if we are going to debate and discuss these important issues, be they local, state or national, the first order of business should be civility.  That doesn’t mean a voice won’t be raised, but that doesn’t mean the rhetoric needs to follow.  As my late grandmother used to say, “you can disagree, but don’t be ignorant about it.”

As both sides gear up for the next big anti-smoking battle down at the City-County building, I thought I would share this little thought.   The public-smoking ban proponents have shifted the debate to argue that Indianapolis should be smoke free because it helps economic development.   If that’s true then why is that when I look at cities in the region with total smoking bans they all have higher unemployment rates than Indianapolis which has a compromise in place?

According to the Bureau of  Labor Statistics which keeps track of things like unemployment, Indianapolis has an unemployment rate of 8.2%.   When I looked at other cities in the region, I was expecting them to fare better, since they had smoking bans.   Here’s what I found.

• Columbus, OH – 8.9%.
• Chicago, IL – 9.7%.
• Nashville, TN – 9.8%.
• Louisville, KY – 10.3%.

To keep things fair, I only chose cities that had 100% smoke free bars and restaurants since that is what the anti-smoking people are trying to accomplish here. Even in Indiana towns with total smoking bans tend to have higher unemployment than Indianapolis.

• Elkhart – 16.0%.
• South Bend – 11.0%.
• Ft. Wayne – 10.2%.

The exception I found was Bloomington which had an unemployment rate of 6.7%.  Of course Bloomington is also the home of Indiana University and college environments tend to whether bad economic times a little better than most places since Universities tend to be more recession proof.

Now of course there are many factors involved when it comes to why unemployment is higher in some places rather than others.  But if you’re going to try to sell public smoking bans as an economic tool, it might help if the reality on the ground didn’t show that non-smoking cities had higher unemployment rates than the city where you’re trying to ban smoking.

By the way, it’s ironic that the area with the lowest unemployment in the country is Bismark, North Dakota at 3.3% allows smoking in bars, while the area with the highest unemployment, El Centro, California at 28.7% doesn’t.

I’m off to go enjoy a cigar and a couple cocktails.  Feel free to join me.

Indiana tax collections are worse than expected.  Governor Mitch Daniels reported today the state is taking in $254 million less than projected.   Most of the decrease is attributed to a drop in sales and income taxes.  Daniels says he will use just about every means possible to address the funding gap, with the exception of raising taxes on working families that are struggling in the current economy.

You can hear the Governor’s comments to the media below.

Daniels Tax Collection #1

Daniels Tax Collection #2

Daniels Tax Collection #3

Daniels Tax Collection #4

For some strange reason, I picked up quite a few tidbits of interesting gossip, rumor and blatant innuendo Wednesday.  So instead of keeping it all to myself, I decided to share.   It must be the socialist in me who creeps out every once in a while.  So without further adieu…

The state revenue numbers are out later today.   I can’t tell you what the exact numbers are, but it’s a lot worse than anyone imagined.  One Daniels’ administration official told me, “it’s really ugly.”  The figures should be out by 10:30 this morning.

Marion County Democratic Party Chairman Ed Treacy is drawing fire from African-American radio talk show host Amos Brown.  Treacy is reportedly attempting to craft a rule that says any candidate who challenges the slate and loses can’t be slated for six years.  Not only does Brown argue that rule could negatively impact Black candidates (i.e. Jose Evans, Mark Brown) , which I tend to agree which is scary enough, but it may also run afoul of state party rules which I’m told forbid county parties from banning “bonafide” Democrats from running for the slate.

Speaking of candidates, I’m trying to figure out if the Melina Kennedy campaign has its headquarters at the law offices of Baker & Daniels.  An Internet check of  melinakennedy.com shows it’s registered at 300 N. Meridian, the  address of B & D.

And while we’re on the subject of candidates, soon to be Democratic Sheriff candidate  John Layton is apparently getting demoted in the Marion County Sheriff’s department.  It’s not that he did anything bad I’m told.  But Layton’s position in the department allegedly violated the Hatch Act which forbids local officials whose jobs are federally funded from running for public office.  Thus, the removal from the position.  I’ll have to check and see if a pay cut comes along with new job.

And in case you were wondering where the GOP gossip was, there wasn’t much the other day.   The only thing I picked up is that if a total smoking ban passes, Libertarians are promising to recruit candidates against Republican City-County Council members in 2011.  The L’s may not be able to win, but they could tip the balance in close Districts giving a victory to Democrats.

That’s all for now folks.  If  I’m missing anything  you know how to get a hold of me.

I will freely admit that when it comes to most things sports-related, I am an illiterate. However what I do know is that unless you’re the Chicago Cubs, the biggest cure all for whatever ails your professional sports team is winning, and the Indiana Fever are doing it.

The Indiana Fever are on the verge of a WNBA national championship and that has led to a packed House at Conseco.   The Fever can clinch the title tonight against Phoenix and the fans will be there.   Granted it took a while to catch on, but I’ll take a full stadium any day over a near empty one; cue the Pacers.

The Pacers have suffered from horrible attendance over the past few years some of which is the result of market forces and a lot of it is self-inflicted.  Things are so bad they are asking the taxpayers for a $15 million bailout by assuming the operational costs of Conseco.   Of course all this could be avoided if the Pacers started winning.

All you have to do is go back in history and look at the Indianapolis Colts.  Remember the 1-15 season?  Or was that seasons?  Regardless, there is no way the Colts would have got a new stadium at the taxpayers expense if they weren’t winning games.

My point is this, when you win life is good and the public is very forgiving and you can get pretty much whatever you want.

Go Fever.

If  Monday is any indication a handful of people, literally, will decide the fate of Wishard Hospital and several school districts in Marion County.  Monday was the first day of early voting and out of 590,000 registered voters only 86 people showed up to cast a vote.  And 50 of them voted before lunch.

Now in all fairness, the first few days of early voting are usually lite.  According to Marion County Clerk Beth White’s Office, in the 2008 special election to fill the seat vacated by the late Julia Carson 28 voters cast votes on the first day of early voting. 74 voters showed up for the first day of the 2008 primary and 679 for the general election.

However, because this an election in an off-off-off year, and turnout is expected to be so low, the votes in the referendum are likely to carry a lot more weight.   So if you don’t think your vote counts, think again this time it really does.

By Evan Matthews, a Hoosier Libertarian.  Originally posted at LPIN.org.

Smoking bans are onerous, misguided and dangerous.  As Indianapolis lawmakers debate whether the Circle City requires more stringent smoking legislation, they should stop to consider the economic and realistic implications.

The owner of a private establishment, be it bar, bowling alley or barber shop, should be able to determine whether or not smoking is permissible on their property. Proprietors would display a sign on the door, reading either “Smoking” or “Non-Smoking,” both enforced with vigor.   Individuals would then be able to make informed and individual choices, free from government coercion.

About three-fourths of the population are non-smokers. Establishments would be foolish to alienate this huge market. As a result, many will enforce their own bans in order to cater to clientele. Government  intervention isn’t needed to create non-smoking environments in private establishments.

One highly visible side effect of smoking bans is their adverse economic effects. A Montreal Economic Institute study examining several Canadian cities concluded that sales at bars and pubs were 22.5% lower than they would have been without the ban. Interestingly, the article adds that the population’s smoking rate remained at 25%, about a fifth above the national average, despite the ban, providing evidence that prohibitive measures do not change smoking habits.

A ban in Dallas prompted a study by two economists from the University of North Texas.  They concluded that the ban contributed to an $11.8 million decline in alcohol sales, with restaurants experiencing individual declines of 9 to 50%.

In July, 2003,  New York state imposed a ban on smoking in enclosed public places of employment. The year after the ban, the state lost $37 million in gross state product in the bar and tavern industry alone. Also, 2,000 workers lost their jobs, adding up to $28.5 million in lost wages and salary payments.

According to a study by The Economist, the number of pubs closing per week in Britain doubled after a 2007 smoking ban.  In a study analyzing 2,724 pubs in Scotland and England, researchers found that the Scottish smoking ban led a 10% decline in sales and a 14% decline in customers.

Columbia, Mo., enacted a smoking ban in 2007. According to an analysis by Michael R. Pakko, a research officer at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the legislation is responsible for shocking revenue declines of 6 to 11.5% in bars and alcohol-serving
restaurants.  Anecdotal evidence also suggests that individual establishments lost up to 30% of total revenue due to the ban.  It also caused a 5% sales decline in diners and other restaurants.

In the worst economic climate since the Great Depression, how will our struggling economy benefit by inflicting similar damages on  Indianapolis business owners?

But what about the health risks to patrons and employees?

Even the federal government admits that the dangers of secondhand smoke are greatly exaggerated. The United States Occupational Safety and Health Act, designed to enforce safe work environments, determined that the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) were negligible and are not subject to government interference.

A study published in the British Medical Journal followed 35,500 non-smokers with smoking spouses for 28 years. The long-term study found no causal relationship between second-hand smoke exposure and increased tobacco related mortality, although it conceded that a small effect could not be ruled out.

In 1992, the Environmental Protection Agency issued its influential report, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, extolling the dangers of secondhand smoke. A federal judge (Flue-Cured Tobacco Coop. Stabilization Corp. v. U.S. EPA) declared that the EPA “publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act’s
procedural requirements [and] adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion.” The critique added that the “EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiological information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers.”

If secondhand smoke is a real and recognized hazard, the market will adjust and fairly compensate workers who subject themselves to potentially unhealthy environments. The wages of fishermen and loggers are inflated precisely because of the risk that they put themselves in.   If smoke exposure is dangerous enough, employers will be forced to increase wages, lest the employees seek greener and safer pastures.

Perhaps worst of all, prohibitive legislation has been shown to increase alcohol-related fatalities.   Bans give patrons incentives to drive farther in order to find bars that allow smoking.   Studies have shown that smoking bans increase the number of DUI arrests. A June 2008 study published by the Journal of Public Economics examined alcohol-related accidents in neighboring counties where only one
enforced a smoking ban.  It concluded that towns that enacted smoking bans from 2000 to 2005, on average, enjoyed a 13% increase in drunk driving fatalities the following year. Of particular note, a ban in Boulder, Co., increased fatal accidents in neighboring Jefferson County by more than 40%. When the study analyzed all border counties (where one has a ban and the other does not), it found that
alcohol-related accidents increased by nearly 25%.

Smoking bans are heavy-handed attempts to control individual preference and limit choice.  As a by-product of this oppressive, one-size-fits-all legislation, local business owners will likely face revenue declines in the tens of millions. Stubborn smokers will travel to neighboring counties, driving business out of Indianapolis in order to drink and smoke in peace. Afterward, they’ll drunkenly swerve their Buicks and Camrys through Circle City streets, recklessly endangering the Marion County populace.

All because adults aren’t trusted to choose smoking or non.

And in the interest of equal time, if the Smoke Free Indy people want to post a response to this one, they are more than welcome to.  They know how to get a hold of me.

I’m taking the morning off.  Today marks one month of being married to the lovely Mrs. Shabazz.  I’ll throw something up either later today or tomorrow but for now the morning is hers.

The following is a guest post by Dave Bego.  Bego is the President and CEO of  Executive Management Services, a nationwide cleaning company based in Indianapolis.  He recently wrote a book entitled, “The Devil at My Doorstep” chronicling his company’s struggles with the Service Employees International Union as well as his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

Unions want you to believe that EFCA will “Restore Freedom to Organize and Bargain”.  The freedom of organization has never been compromised. The existing law has been in place since 1947 ( 62 years), when Congress overrode a veto by President Harry Truman to pass the Taft Hartley Act in order to curb the union harassment and intimidation which accompanied the initial twelve year existence of the National Labor Relations Act. It is this regime of abuse and coercion which the unions look to implement by passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Unions seek this because they are desperate for membership, which has declined to a low of about 12% today.  Why would Congress now entertain reversing the law and subject employees to a ruthless non private process where employees are subject to intimidation and harassment by union organizers who know how they vote? My guess would be political contributions.

There are several reasons why arguments for the EFCA fall flat.

1. Unions state that “companies decide how workers form their union.” The National Labor Relations Act specifically provides that an election is held if a minimum – just 30% or more – of employees indicate their support of union representation. The employer has no choice but to submit to the election.
2. Penalties: Unions want up to a $ 20,000 fine assessed on a company for every unfair labor practice charge against the company which is upheld by the NLRB, but no such fines for unions. Why? Because unions misrepresent that only 42 cases have been filed against unions since the NLRA act was enacted and 29,00 to 30,000 against employers last year alone. These statistics are patently false. The National Labor Relations Board produces an Annual Report summarizing the cases they receive. The report shows that in 2007 alone, there were 5,992 charges filed against unions. The vast majority of these were filed by individual employees. Over 84% of all charges filed alleged “illegal restraint and coercion.”
3. Unions also assert that EFCA does not eliminate the Secret Ballot Election. While, they are technically correct, the practical effect of the legislation is that elections will no longer be needed.  Section 2(a) of EFCA expressly provides that if a majority of employees submit authorization cards (regardless of how they were obtained), the union will be recognized. There is no election because the union will never notify the employees when 30% of the employees have signed cards and the union will submit the cards for recognition when 50% + 1 of the employees have signed cards. This opens the door to widespread corruption.
4. Unions also overstate the case against employers. There were 16,291 cases brought against employers in 2007. The vast majority of these, almost seventy-five percent, were brought not be employees, but by the unions themselves, as a technique designed to force companies to sign recognitional agreements. Furthermore, less than six percent of the charges were determined by the NLRB to have merit justifying the issuance of a formal complaint.

These are just some of the arguments I make against the EFCA.   We cannot allow our elected officials to compromise the welfare of the citizens merely for political purpose. The truth is the EFCA would be devastating for all businesses from the “Mom and Pop Shops” to major corporations and would eliminate millions of jobs across the country.  The current laws work, if they are enforces and the unions know this.  It’s been my experience however, that when unions are asked to debate openly they decline, because they cannot support the information they propagate.

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

• C.S.  Lewis

I’ve always preferred robber barons to busy bodies.   The robber barons  are motivated by greed, busy bodies tend t be motivated by some rather annoying streak of morality and self-righteousness.

The anti-smoking forces are back with a vengeance and are pushing (as we told you first) for a total ban on smoking in public places in Marion County.  They want to eliminate all exemptions from the current smoking ban.  It gets old fighting these guys so I figure if you can’t beat them, join them.

I will gladly support a total smoking ban in public places in Marion County if the Smoke Free Indy people agree to the following…

• A ban on smoking in homes and apartments where children are present.
• A ban on smoking in homes and apartments when guests and visitors are present.
• A ban on drive thru windows at restaurants so that workers are not exposed to dangerous exhaust fumes from automobiles.
• A ban on congested traffic in downtown Indianapolis because it harms the air quality.

That’s just a start.  Feel free to add anything to the list.