Disqus - Latest Comments for BGM

Re: Judicial Committee Recommends Major Overhaul for Indiana Trial Courts

CB — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:16:57 -0000

Travis,

Read the caption. This only applies in "Civil" cases. By the state and federal constitutions, criminal cases MUST be brought in the county they were charged in.

Second, even in a CIVIL case, you would not be hailed into the mess that is Lake County. The proposed plan puts Lake (by itself) into district 1, while Porter, Newton, Jasper & LaPorte make up District 2.

I hope that clears up the confusion...

Re: Budgets and Growth

CB — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 09:31:39 -0000

I think from the perspective of fiscal soundness and stability, taxation has to be a balance of property and sales tax revenues. What we need to find in order to shift more toward the sales tax is flexibility on the part of state and local government to adapt to economic conditions. But then, if the government could adapt in hard times, why did it reach that size in the first place?

Keeping our budgets balanced is no short order. I agree w/ Steve that those to be applauded are those in local and county government all over the state. They are on the front lines. Having a state constitutional amendment in place will make it difficult to reverse the progress Mitch has made, no matter what leadership we have going forward. Combine that with the state constitutional provisions of germaineness and a mandated, statewide balanced budget, it forces limits on all government spending.

My hunch is, though, that Pat Bauer will push the envelope and find new ways to spend what we don't have, if we allow him another term as Speaker. If given his way, he will hold the budget hostage until his pet projects and bloated spending are conceded by the minority. We cannot afford to let this happen. Special sessions to reach a balanced budget are expensive, but much cheaper than the alternative...

Re: Guns rights can be blurry issue

CB — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 09:09:32 -0000

This particular application of the gun issue I don't believe should be a conservative litmus test, simply because it's a much more complicated issue. What we have here is the intersection of expressly protected property rights (as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment) and the Second Amendment, now applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. As conservatives, one of our most fundamental ideals is that property is sacred. All this company regulation is doing is essentially asserting the property rights of an employer-property owner. If you own your own home, is it the right of any guest or invitee to bring a gun into your home? I would think not. Why should an employer be treated differently?

My theory is that the courts would not strike down such a private regulation. The McDonald v. City of Chicago decision touches on the fact that the Court believes the core of the 2nd Amendment is to keep firearms in the home. I think the Court would be more reluctant to extend the absolute right as far as an employer's parking lot. It is easy to see how insidious an outright ban is to the 2nd Amendment. What is less clear is what the Court will do when confronted with a less direct collision, and how to protect property concerns.

As far as the Chamber, it represents these businesses that will be affected, that is no surprise. And, employers are concerned, to say the least.

What would be a more interesting case would be a controversy before the Indiana Supreme Court based on Article I, Section 32's language in the Indiana Constitution, "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State." Most Indiana legal scholars believe (and the case law suggests) that this right goes further than the Federal Second Amendment. For this reason I think the stronger challenge is at the state level, on state grounds. Then, we have an issue of conflict of laws. Which government (the state and the federal governments are both sovereign) has the preeminent authority to regulate firearms? Is it concurrent? These are questions for the courts in the coming years as we find a place in existing jurisprudence for this new precedent...

Re: Civil Liberty Victory

CB — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:31:15 -0000

For a more detailed legal discussion, see my article (NWI Lawyer) "Major Victory for Gun Lovers: Supreme Court Weighs in on Second Amendment Issue" http://www.facebook.com/l.p...

Re: http://reasonbellpundit.blogspot.com/2009/12/county-should-study-closing-satellite.html

CB — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:56:41 -0000

That's a great idea, TML! We could use the same thing here in Porter County for the price of consultants...

Re: http://reasonbellpundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/scalia-says-u-of-c-has-gone-liberal.html

CB — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:16:52 -0000

That's completely circular, Andrew. The seeming hypocrisy is merely a superficial one, considering that conservatism with reference to jurisprudence is by its very definition the antithesis of legislating from the bench in the first place. The UC was never known as an *ideologically* or *politically* conservative school. The UC was always known for its conservatism in terms of judicial restraint, as well as propelling the Law & Economics school of thought, courtesy of Judge Richard A. Posner, which are both "conservative" principles. In other words, judicial conservatism is nothing more than taking morals out of the bench as much as humanly possible...

Re: The Indiana Republican Party should BAN the RLC!

CB — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:28:16 -0000

G-

I apologize if I gave you the impression that Bob Harper accomplished this all by himself. I don't have any evidence that this is the case. It is less important in support of my conclusion whether or not there was a causal relationship between Harper and the off-year referendum actually taking place. I do know that 1) Bob happened to be strongly opposed to the RTA, and 2) he publicly commented on the urgent nature of the matter; ergo, it must be done as soon as possible. He knew the next opportunity to do so would just so happen to be in an off-year. It would greatly surprise me if BH did nothing behind the scenes to make it happen in an off-year, but its value is irrelevant to my thesis above.

My point was simply that both sides of the RTA knew of the respective biases in the outcome based on having it in the off-year. I hope that clarifies my position.

Re: Laura Blaney on the RDA

CB — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:21:05 -0000

Overall, very nice article, Laura. Well written and well thought out. I would like to correct a few points and ask for clarifications on a couple of points, however:

1. As the law is written, not a single dollar collected from Porter County will be spent in other member count(ies). Please feel free to correct this understanding if it is inaccurate, but I have thoroughly read the Statute, and although it may have fatal flaws in its construction, I believe it is fairly clear on this point...

2. As it stands, considering the totality of all investments by the RDA in Porter County minus annual dues, Porter County has experienced a net gain on its investments, not a net loss.

3. The [optional] CEDIT tax is merely one of many tools the State Legislature allowed for collecting annual membership dues (which are de minimus when you divide them out among the people of Porter County).

4. There are many alternatives we have in Porter County for funding the RDA that do not involve a CEDIT or otherwise increase taxes, e.g. the interest from Hospital Sale Funds.

5. You seem to suggest that some effort is necessary or desirable in attracting jobs, but you stop at the conclusion that the RDA may not deliver as many as promised. In your opinion, how many jobs must the RDA create for Porter County residents in a time of recession to be worth the cost?

6. I'm not sure your position on the intrusion of Lake County Government into Porter County is all that rational. While I share your theoretical fear of the corruption and plagues of Lake County, how does mere collaboration give any authority or control to Lake County? Besides, as long as you hold the County's reigns, aren't we in good hands?

Re: The Indiana Republican Party should BAN the RLC!

CB — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:43:49 -0000

Colin,

Your analogy to contract is very informative. Under the parole evidence rule, if the text is ambiguous or contractual clauses conflict with one another, outside ("extrinsic") evidence can be brought in to give meaning and guidance to the terms of the contract. This is a doctrine as old as the English Common Law System itself, and courts of all jurisdictions follow it, almost without exception...

Re: The Indiana Republican Party should BAN the RLC!

CB — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:33:42 -0000

Everything in politics works in cycles. It begins with the building ("coalition-building") phase, the ruling phase, and the rebuilding phase, repeats, and so on. Right now we are simply in the building/rebuilding phase. It gets ugly. But I agree with you, we have generally been known to be able to pull it together and get lock-step by election time. This one is getting close and quite frankly makes me nervous, however...

Re: The Indiana Republican Party should BAN the RLC!

CB — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:00:36 -0000

Well, I would have to interject here, and simply say that in referendum votes in off-year elections, the typically small voter turnouts are a very skewed sample from the general electorate. This happens for a variety of reasons, and it generally favors the opposition to a particular proposition (the "No" Contingent). This is generally the case because those that oppose a government measure are typically more active and engaged than supporters of the measure, regardless of what the question proposes or how it is worded. Causes for this include the overall negative association with government in general, inter alia. From a political science perspective, it is much more predictable to determine which voters are more likely to turn out in such a localized election, but again, it generally favors the opposition. This is why proponents of the RTA strongly opposed the referendum clause and being forced to hold the referendum in an off-year, and why Bob Harper insisted that we did not wait until the next midterm or general election. Both sides were blatantly aware of the respective biases in outcome.

Now, for our purposes here the key question is, did political theory hold in this particular case? My intuition is that yes, the opposition to the RTA was significantly overrepresented in the sample of residents who actually made it to the polls to vote. That being said, it is difficult to determine whether this over-representation is significant enough to have made the difference in the overall outcome. My opinion is here that no, it probably was not significant enough to change the overall outcome, but I do believe the results would have been dramatically closer given a higher turnout, especially when you account for the early voting and absentees.

That being the case, the opinions of the 15% throughout the County carried, and the results (insofar as we keep in mind this bias) speak for themselves. I will say that after taking a scientifically random and sound (but not accounting for voter likelihood) sample of 500 Porter County residents, tele-polling the night before the referendum showed yea/nay responses in a dead heat...

Re: The Indiana Republican Party should BAN the RLC!

CB — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:44:13 -0000

Colin,

I hope I haven't been grossly misunderstood. You were correct, I intended "originalist" instead of "strict constructionalist". I had RP jargon in my head. Anyway, the Constitution does require interpretation, as well as application into particular legal situations that are far from obvious; I had a great discussion with the good Justice over lunch when he was here in Valpo two years ago. He agrees that interpretation is necessary at some level. We do not have a Roman Law system, but a Common Law system. That's why we have lawyers, justices, and a legislature (for our purpose here, I am referring to the amendment process only). I am in no way agreeing with the liberal "living and breathing" Constitution types. I despise their point of view, in fact. But my point is, regardless whether we give the text its most literal reading or not, clauses conflict with each other, there is commonly an area to which the Framers did not anticipate, and so forth. I could give you countless examples where common, "unwashed" people would disagree over particular perils of government and whether our Forefathers intended to protect us from them. In addition, the Framers did not write into the Document a map, listing priorities in case of conflict, which regularly occur. These are the sole responsibilities of the Court, as decided by Marbury.

So, I will leave you with this: Do you agree with Marbury or not? It's a simple question...

Best,

-Chris

Re: The Indiana Republican Party should BAN the RLC!

CB — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:42:36 -0000

Colin,

I apologize for losing it a bit, there. That's not typical of me to resort to name calling and such, but that is a particular sore spot with me. The RLC constantly tries to inflate and exaggerate its numbers around every corner in order to obtain influence. I think, while this is inevitable at some level, I find it despicable. I merely thought you were trying to perpetuate that myth. I apologize. That whole scheme is sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy; by boasting and exaggerating numbers, the group falsely lays claim to a mainstream legitimacy that it does not (at least yet) possess, and gains momentum as a result of that lie. I'm sure you're no stranger to this concept.

I agree that the collective conservative movement is less than homogenous. It is a collection of interests who share a broader overlapping goal. There are many disagreements and squabbles over relatively insignificant, tangential issues. If we are not able to rise above them, we will all fail. This is called "compromise". The problem that I keep reiterating is, the RLC'ers I have met would rather see the downfall of the Republican Party as a whole than to sit down at the table and discuss where we agree. They have such a stubborn adherence to each and every one of their purist principles, that they have no interest whatsoever in finding the common ground. From what I have observed up here in NW Indiana, if the local GOP adopts any less than the entire RLC Platform (and coincidentally adopting the RLC leadership into positions of leadership or influence in the GOP) the RLC wants nothing to do with it, and further, wishes to sabotage any effort put forth by the mainstream GOP. I may be speaking in much too specific terms for my claims to be relevant to the RLC generally, but certain personalities up here do not reflect the ideals of civility or professional leadership. I am by far not the first person to make this claim, and I think the RLC and the Patriots have much to offer the GOP. As it stands, however, they are incompatible. First, because, despite common myth, the RLC cannot expect to walk in and run things on their first day. To understand this, it is helpful to understand the history of how the Ron Paul (now RLC) movement came about. I understand that compromise is a lot like killing puppies. It's the name of the game of coalition-building, though...

We need to remember that there are as many personal issues as there are ideological ones. These folks are largely a group that has been disenfranchised in local politics for some time. For a variety of reasons (few of which have to do with ideology) these folks were personally excluded or ignored by the local party leadership. Because of this, they stormed off and formed their own group(s). In my opinion, (and again this is a local case study) it was less important what the group represented, and more important that the group gave them authority and influence in their own little microcosm. Ron Paul was merely the catalyst.

I find the empty, politically-charged rhetoric about the Constitution silly at best. I would venture to guess that I have a better understanding of the delicate and complicated nature of the Constitution than anyone on this site. As I have said before, the Constitution means whatever the Court says it means. While as a lawyer I find this extremely troubling at times, it is the law. Speculating about whether law violates the Constitution is a nice hobby, but a moot exercise in my opinion. Our Forefathers (or at least the justices in Marbury) decided that the Court should have this sole authority. And, all in all, it's a pretty sound system. To disagree with that is to disagree with the Rule of Law altogether. Maybe Paulers feel as though the Court should intervene more or less than it does; we can argue about that. I will say, however, that I am a STRICT constructionalist. I feel strongly that if the text answers a legal question per se, individual justices should not have the ability to look beyond it to get legal outcomes that they desire. Justice Scalia is by far my favorite justice, followed by Justice Thomas. Having met Antonin in person, I would say he is also one of the most charming people I have ever met.

As to the other viewpoints I mentioned in my earlier post, I will make an exception to my namecalling rule. I think the accusation I aimed at you applies to this small group instead. Other than that, I'm willing to play ball with just about anyone...

Re: The Indiana Republican Party should BAN the RLC!

CB — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:56:44 -0000

"Half the coalition"!? Are you nuts, or just on crack? I would like to know where you get your statistics. I would also like to know whom you include in "RLC". Any conservative that advocates lower taxes or fiscal responsibility? I think not.

I totally agree that we shouldn't pick fights, or fight at all in such a crucial time before a midterm election. But the RLC folks that I've met have no interest in anything other than fighting, and we're not talking about those advocating smaller government, less taxes, and fiscal responsibility. The fight comes from 911 Conspiracy Theorists, the "Abolish-the-Federal-Reserve" proponents, and those advocating naive isolationist foreign policy. This is not to say that these positions have any relevance whatsoever in state or local politics, but it is a demonstration of the sheer lunacy that at least the extreme part of this movement represents. If the more moderate members would like to engage in a civil, constructive dialogue, I would encourage this. Otherwise, they are not significant enough a group to force the mainstream to listen to their wacky ideas...

Re: A proposal - South Shore

CB — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:42:23 -0000

If people really speak freely about this proposal, we will see that the funding and CEDIT really had nothing to do with the opposition in the first place. It's time we get down to the real issues with the folks who opposed any South Shore expansion.

But, instead, as always, they will not touch the REAL reasons they opposed it, and simply ignore proposals that take CEDIT away as a potential scapegoat...

Re: The Indiana Republican Party should BAN the RLC!

CB — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:43:02 -0000

That's the very problem, Steve. In the beginning, this is what we tried to do. We learned by experience interacting with them, however, that they have no desire whatsoever to "collaborate" or "work together". What these Donald Ducks want is to storm the Party by force and stage a coo. Fortunately, they severely lack the numbers to do this. If they continue to obstinately refuse to play together, when it starts to get close enough to 2010 elections, these politically active versions of teenaged goths and their vague and unchannelled anger will have to be cast aside in order for the larger cause to move forward. If they change their attitude, maybe I will change my tone...

Re: An early look at 2010 - Northwest Indiana elections

CB — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:40:44 -0000

Didn't Jackie Walorski file for an exploratory committee for D2 against Donnelly? Any updates?

Re: NW Indiana Patriots - Tea Party respond

CB — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:05:36 -0000

First, I would like to commend the NWIP's for focusing on issues locally; I have to sharply disagree with the Wizard here. The quote, "All politics is local" should be the motto of every grassroots movement. The issues that truly affect us in our everyday lives are at the local level, and they are more likely to positively or negatively impact us. While I disagree with their particular position on this issue, I think they have the right idea spending time and energy on local issues. It is much more efficient and much more likely to actually make a difference, even if it happens to be one I disagree with.

Also, I would like to interject something that has been entirely absent from this debate. Let's break down a "who's who" of local political groups. We have the Northwest Indiana Patriots ("NWIP's"), the TEA Movement ("Taxed Enough Already"), and the Republican Liberty Caucus ("RLC") who all coincidentally happen to believe in an identical set of values and share in an ironically similar agenda. On one hand, NWIP's claim to be completely independent of any partisan political organization, which if true, I find entirely noble. On the other hand, for being independent, there certainly is an imbalanced cross section of views actually represented. I was well networked in the mainstream GOP well before the founding of the TEA Movement, and I happened to notice a significant overlap between NWIP roles and that of the fringe RLC. I admittedly am less clear on the relationship between NWIP and the National Tea Party Movement, and I respect Faith in her independent initiative here, but I suspect a very close kinship whether anyone admits it or not. To take it a step further, though, there is noticeable overlap between the County Libertarians and the local RLC. To claim that these overlaps are mere coincidences is both politically naive and void of any common sense. Whatever token members of NWIP represent outside viewpoints is incidental to what it is trying to accomplish, and this is only possible out of the ideological anomaly that is Northwest Indiana. If one were to place Bob Harper and the rest of the Porter Democrats onto an ideological spectrum, it would make libertarians seem generous by comparison; the only difference is the motivation behind the objectives, which I will table for now (but would be eager to discuss at a later time and place). This is possible nowhere else in the world--where local Democrats have more in common with Libertarians than moderate Conservatives. The RLC and Bob Harper are clearly in bed with one another, whether either admits it or not...

That being said, as I have reiterated on here time and again, the common goal of all of these fringe minority groups is to undermine or outright destroy the existing Republican Organization. What infiltrators managed to "accomplish" last Thursday is unclear. Continuing to disrupt meetings in the future will not result in having a greater voice, it will result in being shut out entirely. I, myself, would like to see all of the various groups be included and have a voice in the official party. When the motive becomes disruption, however, they have to be excluded for order's sake. Last Thursday, the purpose of these groups was to put the PCGOP leadership on the spot on a single issue. For their narrow cause, this was win-win. If the leadership adopted their position, they win. If the leadership adopted the opposite position, they would still win, because they could then go back to their respective cliques and use it as fodder in continuing to bash the mainstream GOP, and further strengthen their respective causes. If the leadership refuses to adopt either position as an official party position, the groups can exploit the GOP organization as weak, which is precisely what they did. This is a classic move. Bravo!

What is going to happen is that the Indiana GOP is going to go the way of Florida if these groups are not careful, and the extremists are going to get booted out entirely. Believe it or not, I don't want to see this. What these minority groups need to keep in mind is that they are just that--minority groups. Though they disagree with some positions of the official party, they need to have respect for the established order to effect any change at all, and they need to be tactful in their approach. This abrasiveness and the lack of sophistication that they have demonstrated will get them absolutely nowhere.

I commend the energy, voice, and participation of all of these respective movements. It is precisely what is missing from mainstream conservatism: more heart. That isn't to say, however, that we should ignore rationale and reason. When did it become fashionable or respectable to be unsophisticated or unread? I think this debate has taken a nasty turn when "polish" and "sophistication" are synonymous with Obamania. Do we not remember William F. and the National Review? Where did intellectual conservatism go? An understanding of political tactics is not interchangeable with political corruption. It is simply working smarter, not harder. If this past defeat has taught us anything, it should be that we need to find energetic, educated, charismatic leaders to counter what our opposition will inevitably bring in the future.

If we are to succeed as a whole, the Republican tent needs to be large enough to house all of the diverse interests that its members represent. Currently, a few people comprising small minorities are unrealistically trying to shove the majority out of the tent, claiming the extremist position as the only legitimately "Republican" one. We have to remember that we agree more than we disagree over petty, circumstantial issues. We also need to remember that our abstract platform of ideals is unenforceable, in the sense that it fails to instruct individual consciences on how to vote and how to shape the details of particular policies. Contrary to what some would have you believe, our Platform does not cater to any of the particular factions that are currently feuding within our party. It does, however, give us a general fallback philosophy that makes us different from liberal Democrats, and exposes the similarities that we need to rally upon now more than ever to bring all of us on the right side of the aisle together and advance our collective interest. Or--we can continue to squabble over petty issues while the Democrats succeed, it's our choice...

Re: Tea Party Attendence Dies as NWIPs Focus on RTA

CB — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:38:06 -0000

What I think is interesting is the lack of skill that this article points out. The NWIP's are simply not a sophisticated or politically savvy group. They can't even spell or write coherently for that matter. I think they come off as a bunch of kooks to most people; first, because of this lack of sophistication, and secondly, because of the small numbers they publicly demonstrate. Two people protesting in front of a courthouse shouting on a megaphone does more harm to any cause than good. People walk by and their first reaction is, "Wow, these people are really crazy." I am not saying that members of this group actually are. In fact, while I disagree with a few items on their agenda, I agree with the general underlying principle. What I find troubling is their approach. The Patriots simply don't understand elementary concepts of political leadership. One of those simple lessons is not to demonstrate small numbers by small showings in public. Do you see seasoned professionals choosing large venues, only to fill them 1/3 of the way? No. One fundamental tactic of political organizing is always to flatter your appearance in numbers so as not to look weak or like a fringe type of group. You should also choose charismatic, educated, well-spoken, polished leaders and spokespeople that tend to attract others and have credibility with not only the average person, but leaders of like organizations. By any measure, the group has massively failed to this end as well. All in all, I can see why a person on the inside of an organization such as this would be frustrated. I would be, too...

Re: A Little Further Down the Rail...

CB — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 13:20:46 -0000

So then, Pete, can you honestly say that the source of your ardent opposition rests with a 0.25% CEDIT Tax that may not go away even if we abolish the RDA, or some other reason...?

Re: A Little Further Down the Rail...

CB — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:01:32 -0000

Steve is correct, Travis. Also, the 0.25% tax is only one of many possible vehicles the State allowed the counties to employ in order to raise the annual dues. The counties are under no obligation to raise such a tax, it is simply a means to allow them to participate; it is by no means mandatory. This act was done by the County Council alone. I agree that opening the door to this kind of tax is scary, but it would take an act of the State Legislature to increase their ability to tax, you can at least rest with that. If our county government ran efficiently, there would be no need to raise extra funds to send to the RDA. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Our county government is completely incompetent, and I'm surprised that they even have the competence to raise a tax and pass it along, period. I don't look at the current anti-growth, anti-change regime as anything to aspire to. I won't stoop to calling them racists, but they sure are afraid of the future...

And, as for the "conservatives" opposing the RDA--they are not alone. They are joined by the county Democrats, let's not leave that out of the equation. Ironically, the county ("say no") Democrats and the so called "pure" conservatives have joined forces on this front, whether either side admits it or not. They share in the same fear; the very fear I mentioned above... Some of it is sadly demographics (not necessarily race) and some of it is pure anti-Valpo sentiment. Either way, they at least understand that they can't make their true arguments publicly...

Re: Dem Governor Candidates spar over drug arrest

CB — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:45:31 -0000

Bosma? Pence? Really? I haven't heard those names thrown in as of yet. Very interesting.

I think this is just another case of Lake County business as usual. Part of McDermott's comment should be understood as, *jaw drop* "You have the audacity to arrest a member of the machine!?" The other part should be understood as, "Do you know who the _____ I am!?" This is exactly what the rest of the State thinks about Lake County. I hope and pray that both of these fools run as the Democrat for Gov. JLT, the sequel...

Re: President Obama: “Race not the issue”

CB — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:34:59 -0000

Well, yes, Travis, but think about the overall result for a moment. Because of whatever coincidental or orchestrated events that took place, the President, on race, character, and credibility issues, got a significant surge with all Americans according to most polls since last Sunday. Also, it leaves the race issue for another day, because they can find another Carter whenever they wish, and the extreme animosity was bolstered among the most liberal Americans, because they heard their views reflected in someone believable, a former president. This measure managed to accomplish two simultaneous, contradictory purposes at a crucial time when the president needs every ounce of political capital he can muster, which I don't think happens as a matter of coincidence. With all of this in mind, however, we are really playing semantics here. This was a minor, temporary gain. If they are smart, I don't think you will see current Democrat officeholders stand up and argue the race position. I believe you will, however, see this parroting argument about race echoed up and through the midterms--to call all Republicans racists, without the candidates themselves having to stand up and say it. This orchestration happened throughout the last presidential campaigns, almost unnoticed to those who weren't paying close attention. Surrogates repetitively volleyed this argument, keeping it in the air, while Obama could gently and charismatically pat it down, time and again.

Re: Checks and Balances on Property Taxes

CB — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:51:15 -0000

Streeter,

I guess I didn't explain myself very well. The reason I believe this may be a political/partisan issue is because incumbents can enjoy a pretty healthy gain if their constituents see dollar and cents reductions under the the tax caps firsthand during a reelection campaign. Secondly, this measure is grandstanding on the floor of the House. It is a proposal almost no one can oppose. Am I way off base here!?

Also, no matter how "simple" it may sound to you and I, the way things are set up right now, no added step has proven to be anything close to simple. I agree with your latter assessment applied to the county level.

Re: Checks and Balances on Property Taxes

CB — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:06:12 -0000

Shelli is clearly making this into a political issue. Clever. This is the problem with the blurring of accountability and responsibility. With the state involved, as well as with three independent, elected offices, there's no end to manipulation for selfish partisan gain. I think my proposed model below addresses this problem, but unfortunately I did not receive the feedback I had hoped with such a proposal. Take a look, if you haven't already and let me know what you think: http://reasonbellpundit.blo....

Taxes are no laughing matter, and should not be made into a game. This is precisely what has happened, at the expense of Indiana taxpayers. This is going on statewide, but nothing on the scale of what we are dealing with here in NWI, and especially in Porter County.

I like the recall idea, Steve, but I don't think it addresses the systemic problems. All it would result in is another elected officeholder not elected based on skills or merit, but popularity. Also, the way things are now, the people have little or no chance to understand who's doing what, let alone know who to recall in such a vote. We need nothing short of a complete overhaul in the way we do business as government at the county level. Period.