The average of the last 10 polls of the U.S. Senate race have Richard Mourdock and Joe Donnelly at 42.5% to 41.4% with 13.5% undecided.

In the Governor’s race, the average of the last 5 polls is Mike Pence – 47.8% to John Gregg – 33.8%, Undecided – 16%.

I think it’s fair to say the Libertarians have up to half the undecided vote.

There are 16 days until Election Day.

A new poll of 495 likely Hoosier voters is telling the same story seen in previous polls, but with a new twist.

As shown in earlier independent and partisan polls, Mitt Romney and Mike Pence are walking away with their races and Richard Mourdock is in a tight race with Joe Donnelly.  However, the crosstabs show an interesting breakdown of where the candidates are doing well and places where they need help.

The poll was conducted by YouGov.com.

The poll shows Mitt Romney beating President Barack Obama, 53% to 41%.  Mike Pence leads John Gregg 49% to 38%, 13% are undecided.  And Mourdock leads Donnelly by single digits, 45% to 41%, with 15% undecided.

In terms of geographical breakdown, the polls show very interesting results.

Mourdock leads in every region of the state except Indianapolis, however he only has a 2-point lead in Northwest Indiana and 26% of the voters there are undecided.  And while enjoys double-digit leads in the doughnut counties and the rest of central Indiana, Donnelly leads 59-24 in Indianapolis and 17% of voters are undecided.

In the Governor’s race, Pence has double digit leads in all parts of the state, except Indianapolis, where Gregg has a 27-point margin.  However, Pence has a nearly 30-point lead in Southern Indiana and is also pulling 24% of the African-American vote statewide.

In the race for U.S. Representative for their Congressional districts,  47% intend to vote for the Republican candidate for the House in their district, and 36% for the Democrat.

Looking at the data breakdown for Indianapolis, voters are choosing the Democratic for Congress over the Republican 51% – 38%, 11% say they are undecided.  That race features incumbent Andre Carson against Republican Carlos May.

The poll was conducted October 4-11.  It had a margin of error of +/-5.6%

Crosstabs can be found here.

A new mailer by the USA Super PAC is causing a bit of a stir.  It ties Richard Mourdock and outgoing Senator Dick Lugar.  The mailer shows a torch being passed as to imply that Lugar is passing the torch to Mourdock, who defeated him in the primary.

The Lugar camp has denounced the mailer saying he has no plans to campaign for Mourdock.  When asked about the mailer in a news conference today, Mourdock said he had not seen it and that Lugar had already made it clear what he would be doing in the general election.

You can view the front of the mailer here.  The rear side of it here.

On Thursday, the Indianapolis City County Council Municipal Corporations Committee voted 5-3 to levy a $15 million PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) against the Capital Improvement Board to help pay for public safety and fill a $65 million budget gap.  When questioned about the legality of the action, PILOT proponent and Council Vice-President Brian Mahern said he was not an attorney.   On that point he is correct, because no lawyer would ever set his client up to be sued for $15 million and lose poorly because of the flagrant violation of state statute.

Instead of adopting Mayor Greg Ballard’s budget proposal, which includes eliminating the Homestead Property Tax Credit which costs the taxpayers $13 million to administer $8 million of tax relief and for all intent and purposes has people who rent subsidizing tax relief for homeowners, the Council is moving forward with dipping into the CIB’s cash reserves.  By doing this, the Council is putting itself on a track to lose a legal battle which will not only put the city in worse shape than it is now, but sets a very dangerous precedent that should scare all not-for-profits in the county.

For those of you unfamiliar with PILOTs they are used as a way for local governments to get revenue from entities that do not pay property taxes, i.e. universities and utilities.  However, there are rules that local governments must follow; they can’t just levy a PILOT whenever they feel like it.  Under IC 36-3-2-10, PILOTS must be treated in the same manner as taxes for purposes of all procedural and substantive provisions of law.

That means the properties under CIB control must be properly assessed, not a “cursory” assessment as what was done by the Marion County Assessor’s office, which they admitted to me in a Friday phone call.  Second, and most importantly, the law says for an assessment to be valid it must have been done by March 1 of the prior year.  On March 1, 2012 the CIB was exempt from taxation.  Now this doesn’t mean the Council does not have the authority to levy the PILOT, they just can’t do it this year.   Next year is fair game.

A more global issue that should have any not-for-profit concerned is that if the Council can do this to the CIB, what is to stop them from doing this to every hospital, university and other entity in Indianapolis from getting hit with a PILOT whenever the city feels it needs the money.  I am all for a real discussion on PILOTs, especially since there is a large amount of property in the city which does not pay property taxes, per se.  But doing it in this manner only creates more problems than it solves.    And we haven’t even thrown in the other legal and political issues this is causing.  There are rumblings that Indiana lawmakers who bailed out the CIB a few years ago are livid at the Council’s actions and some are looking at taking the CIB and its properties away from the city and putting them and their revenue under state control.

Speaking of state control, the Council may want to go back and check it’s math on the PILOT because the assessment of Lucas Oil Stadium may have been improperly included in that figure.  The CIB does not own Lucas Oil, they merely operate it.  Lucas Oil is owned by the Indiana Stadium & Convention Building Authority and I have yet to come across the statutory provision that allows the city to levy a PILOT against the state.

If Brian Mahern were an attorney, he would have looked at that before moving forward with this PILOT scheme, but as he admitted his not an attorney, and after looking at this idiotic scheme, not much of anything else for that matter.

This is a map of which properties in Marion County receive the biggest portion of the Homestead Property Tax Credit.  The credit is paid for through County Option Income Taxes.   In essence, the more valuable the home, the bigger the credit.    The irony of all this is that  the guy who rents and works part-time pays the COIT which goes to subsidize the tax credit for the million dollar homeowner.  It puts a new perspective on the term “subsidized” housing.

Due to teaching commitments we weren’t able to make tonight’s first gubernatorial debate between Republican Mike Pence, Democrat John Gregg and Libertarian Rupert Boneham, however the most objective, open-minded and extremely patient person we know was able to watch, the Lovely Mrs. Shabazz.

As I have mentioned before, my wife is a true independent voter who votes for people, not parties.  She is also moderately versed on the issues, she is not a policy wonk, but she is also not oblivious to what is going on in Indiana.

I asked her to watch the debate and offer her thoughts as well as who, in her opinion, won.  You can hear her comments below. They run approximately 9 minutes.

Leon-Tailored Audio: The Lovely Mrs. Shabazz on the Governor’s Debate

With the three candidates for Indiana Governor set to meet Wednesday night for their first debate, I’ve decided to offer some friendly last-minute advice on what each should and should not do to walk away victorious.

I base this on the fact that I have been a broadcaster for 20 years, teaching speech and communications for nearly 10 and debating since I showed up in the delivery room.

Note all three candidates know how to work the media whether as TV stars or radio talk show hosts, so we don’t need to get too basic, but here is my friendly advice.

John Gregg

• He has the most to gain in the upcoming debate and the most pressure to perform.  Gregg has been trailing by double digits in the polls so he really needs to hit one out out of the park, across the street and into the next county.  He’s going to hit his usual themes about jobs and doing things the “Hoosier” way instead of the “Washington” way.  He is going to have to try and paint Mike Pence as an extremist, but also offer up details of what he is going to do.   He is going to have to cut back on the “I’s” in his presentation like he did at IUPUI a month or so ago.   He is going to have to pull a Mitt Romney seeing how this may be the only time most voters give him a good look.  It will be a high-wire act, but there high reward if he can pull it off.  And no cursing!

Mike Pence

• Pence has the most to lose out of this debate since he is the front-runner.  Gregg has the more dominant personality and Pence is more reserved.   The trick for Pence will be to play political jujitsu and make sure that whenever he is hit hit with an allegation of playing the social issue game, he needs to quickly turn around the discussion to jobs.   Also, he needs to admit early on as to his beliefs, but quickly remind voters that this election is about jobs and the economy.   He also needs to relax and step a little out of his comfort zone.  Pence is a very disciplined candidate, but sometimes can be too disciplined and come across as a little stiff can be accused of avoiding the question that was asked.  You’ve got a plan for Indiana, don’t hesitate to share. And smile!

Rupert Boneham

• Boneham gets the benefit of the “low expectations” game.   The political class doesn’t expect him to offer up any deep policy proposals, so he shouldn’t try.  He should use his charm and personality to his advantage.  Boneham can work a crowd and does very well one-on-one, he needs to remember that when he debating he is not talking to the audience, but that individual Hoosier voter who is watching at home, or may be watching later.  He needs to throw in a few details to show he understands the issues, but he should let his personality carry the day.  In other words, let Rupert be Rupert.

General Advice

• Have fun.  Fundamentally, voting is as much an emotional process as it is a logical one and people want to vote for candidates they like.  If you look like you are having a good time, while still being serious about the issues, you will walk away a victor.  On Thursday, I’ll let you know how the candidates performed.

Good luck to all.

By Cecil Bohanon

How many different restaurants do you patronize? In my household the number is in double digits ranging from fast foods to fine dining.Now suppose a bare majority of the eateries in your town forces all the others into a dues-imposing “restaurant association” that fixes prices, hours and terms of service for all of them.

In this example, it is illegal for customers to negotiate with a restaurant without first going through the association. Moreover, all new restaurants must join the association, pay its dues and abide by its rules. Economists call such an arrangement a cartel. The industry is monopolized by its trade association. Some members and the organizers are better off; customers and those members who do not wish to be subject to the cartel’s control are worse off.

Substitute workers for restaurants, employers for customers, and labor unions for the restaurant association and the framework outlined above describes U.S. labor policy since the Wagner Act. Despite soaring rhetoric to the contrary industrial labor unions are simply labor cartels. (Craft unions can be somewhat different)

Continue the narrative by allowing the restaurant association to roam from town to town trying to set up local restaurant associations. In some places they garner the necessary 50 percent plus and in other they don’t. But now let’s add the following rule: a 50-percent majority can force the minority into the cartel but it can’t force the minority to pay dues for representation they do not want. This proviso is right-to-work legislation. Right- to-work does two things: It partially offsets the injustice of forced association and makes the gains to the cartel organizers less than what they would otherwise be.

If State No. 1 had no right-to-work law we expect to see a higher proportion of its labor force cartelized (unionized) than in State No. 2 where a right-to-work law was in place. However, all other things equal, we would expect to see better deals for businesses in State No. 2, which would of course attract more businesses.

The impact for laborers as a group is not clear. Worker who are willing members of the cartel are likely better off with no right-to-work. But as cartels restrict output to raise price we would expect to see fewer job openings in non-right-to-work states. Add to this that new and growing firms are locating in right-to-work states and some laborers clearly do better under right-to work.

So how will this all play out now that Indiana is a right-to-work state?

The scholarly literature is not definitive as to the impact of right-to-work. Contemporary anecdotal information is interesting. “Heartbeats,” a newsletter of Energize ECI, indicates that “The Indiana Economic Development Corporation advises, that as of August, 74 companies had communicated that Indiana’s enactment of right-to-work will factor into their decision-making process of where to locate current projects. Fifty-seven of these projects have progressed to the pipeline stage and account for the potential of 7,500 new jobs and more than $1.6 billion in investment.”

In addition, the Pollina Corporation, a major site-selector for expanding business firms, ranks Indiana fifth among the nation in best-business environments. This is an improvement of 18 positions in the last three years. Adopting right-to-work is clearly a component in Indiana’s rise.
Will right-to-work help Indiana grow? I think so, but even if its effect is minor I support it. It is a simple matter of justice.

Cecil Bohanon, Ph.D., an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, is a professor of economics at Ball State University.

My good friend Jon Easter has a rather interesting post on his Indy Democrat blog today.

He  writes about his support for Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Gregg, but because of Gregg’s position on marriage equality,  Libertarian Rupert Boneham has shown up on his radar screen.

It’s a very interesting read and personifies what I have been hearing has been quietly mentioned in Democratic circles.

You should give it a read.  And so should the Gregg campaign.

When Center Township Constable Tony Duncan called City-County Councilor VopOsili the “n-word” last week at a Center Township Democrat Club meeting, you knew trouble was in paradise.

Duncan’s comment — “That nigga doesn’t know what he’s doing down there” —referenced Osili’s support of expanding the downtown Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District to include Mass Ave and 16 Tech. The proposal passed out of committee on Friday and was up for a full vote Monday after a month’s long delay.

You would think the battle over the TIF would have featured Republican Mayor Greg Ballard on one side and Council Democrats on the other. Not this time, this fight has been Democrat versus Democrat, or to be more specific Old Guard versus Young Turks.

Former State Rep. Bill Crawford, Auditor Billie Breaux and Center Township Constable Tony Duncan lead one side. On the other side: Council President Maggie Lewis, State Senator Greg Taylor and VopOsili. There are various other players, some major like the ministers and neighborhood and business groups that have been supporting the TIF expansion. And then there are the peripheral players like Council Vice-President Brian Mahern, who was all but politically neutered at Friday’s committee hearing when after the vote he began to read a statement and his microphone was turned off and the Channel 16 screen went to black. To add insult to injury, the Council passed the measure Monday night 25-2.

While this all makes for good theater, it reveals a deeper divide in the local Democratic Party. The TIF district fight is symptomatic of something much deeper, much like a couple arguing over too much sugar in the coffee when they are really fighting about something else. That same dynamic exists here.

The Old Guard, which is more aligned with County Chairman Ed Treacy and the Mahern clan, has taken a more combative tone with the Mayor, wanting to deny him victories. The Young Turks have decided that cooperation and collaboration work better in moving the city forward, especially in neighborhoods that are in the most need of services, public safety, jobs and economic development.

Even long-time Democrat stalwart and political heavyweight Lacy Johnson paid the Young Turk crowd a compliment recently. That was enough to throw anyone for a loop.

This internal battle is for the heart and soul of the Marion County Democratic Party and what role it will play in local politics, not only for the next few years but likely for the next 10-15. It is even getting to the point where a number of Democrats want Treacy to remain Chairman when his term ends next year so that a civil war doesn’t erupt. Other Democrats are clamoring for 7th District Congressman Andre Carson to step up and take a more active role in internal party affairs.

Who will win? As one Young Turk sympathizer told me the other day: “Time is on our side, because eventually death is going to catch up with those old guys.”