Increased taxes result in decreased approval rating for governor

by Kenn Gividen

Is Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels riding the president's coat tails down a slippery slope? Nope. Daniels is making his own errors, thank you. And I suspect the governor’s dismal approval rating can be attributed to higher taxes; specifically, property taxes.

First, let’s look at the governor’s approval rating, or the lack thereof.

SurveyUSA reports that only 44 percent of Hoosiers say they approve of the job Mitch Daniels is doing as governor. While that’s five points higher than the president’s approval rating, Daniels trails behind twenty one of the other twenty eight Republican governors. In addition, more than a third — 36 percent — of Hoosier Republicans do not approve of the governor’s job performance.

Of those identifying themselves as politically conservative, the governor received a mere 58 percent approval rating. Other demographics reveal the governor is trailing among all age groups, both sexes and those who have attended college. Both blacks and white don’t like the way the governor is managing the state. Only 45 percent of white Hoosiers and 27 percent of blacks give the governor a thumbs up. (Surprisingly, Daniels highest approval rating is among hispanics at 75 percent.)

Conclusion?

Considering the governor's agenda includes capping property tax relief, as imposed by Gov. Otis "Doc" Bowen in the 1970s, the disapproval rating is understandable.

Here’s why.

• Hoosiers disapprove of Daniel’s decision to transfer the property tax burden to local governments. They know it will lead to a increased tax rates.

A 1973 law limited the amount local and county governments could raise through property taxes. As long as they stayed within their limits, the state would provide subsidies equaling 20 percent. By capping the property tax subsidies, the governor is giving local and county governments the green light to gouge property owners as they did prior to the Bowen administration. It’s good for the state budget, but potentially devastating for the family budgets.

Granted, the governor’s decision will help alleviate the state’s $600 deficit inherited from Gov. Joe Kernan’s administration. But increasing the burden on property owners is hardly the most effective solution.

• Higher property taxes will result in decreased taxable income. That, in turn, will reduce the cash flow from taxpayers to the state’s coffers. Hoosiers will be paying more in taxes with less going to the state. While the governor is filling a $600 million pothole by removing the subsidies, he is simultaneously digging another deficit by reducing income tax revenue, the lifeblood of the state’s budget.

While the inflow of tax dollars to the state will dwindle, county bureaucrats, politicians and cronies will be floating bonds to construct gaudy school buildings, garish county structures and new jails worthy of a higher class of criminals. Because property owners will be stuck with bond payments for generations to come, the prospect of rescinding the increased taxes will be non-existent.

• Increased property taxes will discourage investment in Indiana. When Cummins Engine Company moved 500 jobs from Columbus, Indiana to New York, it was to take advantage of decreased business costs. When looking for a locale to build factories, business leaders first look at their bottom line. And tax abatements will do little to soften the blow. They will simply increase the tax burden even more on home owners and small businesses.

• Hoosiers remember the recent sales tax increase. The added money was needed, we were told, to fill the gap caused by government excess. With increased property taxes looming on the horizon, Hoosiers mindful of a 6 percent sales tax rate can hardly be expected to give the governor their voice of approval.

• Add the beverage tax afforded to Indiana counties to increased sales and property taxes. One can fully understand why Hoosiers are discontent. And there’s more. While the governor is removing property tax relief, he is increasing entitlements to help pay home heating bills. In reality, the entitlements go to the utility companies. And Hoosiers know it.

###

Kenn Gividen was the Libertarian Party's candidate for governor in 2004.

Hollywood will rewrite history of Katrina

It's bound to happen.

Within a few months someone in Hollywood will produce a movie about the devastation in New Orleans. It will be TV movie, of course. Such fare won't play well in the theaters. And though I make no claim to be a connoisseur of made-for-TV films, I can predict with reasonable accuracy the story line.

Here's what to expect.

Though the script will call for Eddie Murphy to play the role of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Murphy will actually be playing Rudolph W. Giuliani. Acting like Nagin would damage the actor's career.

PeeWee Herman will take on the role of President George Bush. (Hollywood producers tend to be Democrats.) The opening scene will find Herman aka Bush swinging a nine iron while wondering aloud about the impending hurricane. 'Someone needs to do something," he'll say. 'But who?" he'll ask Dick Cheney, played by Barney the Purple Dinosaur.

The next scene will be that of an attractive, well-spoken CNN anchor. Because we viewers are considered too dumb to follow the storyline, the news anchor will pop up throughout the movie to keep us on track and to remind us that Fox isn't the only cable news channel.

That will take us to New Orleans.

A hitherto unknown screenwriter will merge the lives of touring New Zealand students with a upstanding black clergyman, his gorgeous wife and sharp-dressed kids. The group will rescue a beer-bellied, gun-toting redneck named Bubba and his clan from a squalled trailer park. Bubba will be crude, dumb, ungrateful and wearing a shabby t-shirt, replete with emblazoned confederate flag.

The group will fight their way through the storm ravaged streets of New Orleans as they make their way to Superdome. Along the way, they will, of necessity, loot the local Walmart. The movie producer will be careful to remind us that looters are great people — just like the folks at church — who merely want to survive.

The minister, of course, will take nothing more than food to sustain his family and fellow-travelers. Bubba, on the other hand, will snag a higher-power rifle, color TV and six pack of Blue Ribbon beer. The reverend will shake his head in disgust.

Upon entering the Superdome, the group will befriend an elderly couple. The wife will die the next day. All but Bubba will show compassion.

They will also meet a young expectant mother. The preacher's wife, named Hillary in the script, will protect her from roaming gangs of politically correct, racially diverse thugs.

The movie will consist of horrid scenes of terror within the dome. The savagery will be caused, not by the roaming gangs of thugs, but by the negligence of PeeWee and his sidekick purple dinosaur.

Expect Bubba to exasperate the discontent throughout the flick. And through it all, the expectant mother will jerk our tears as she suffers labor pains. Eventually, she will give birth in the midst of the squalor; the words 'Darn Republicans" whispered through her pain.

The movie will climax when a Jesse Jackson look-alike arrives in town, utters a string of corny, alliterated words, and, in scene suitable for Moses, miraculously makes the flooding disappear. The sun will shine, a new baby will be wailing, and a stream of Greyhounds will haul off a slew of bad actors pretending to be exhausted.

Just before mounting the bus, Hillary will suggest the young mother name her newborn, 'Katrina."

'No," Mom will say, cuddling her cooing bundle of joy. 'I think I'll name her Hope." And with that, she'll disappear through the Greyhound doors, on her way back to Arkansas.

'Nuts!" we'll all say, as we dab tears from our eyes, 'If Bill were still president, this hurricane never would have happened."

Then, with our brains thoroughly saturated with nonsense, we'll click off our televisions and forget reality

Eminent domain hearing gives Hoosiers chance to fight back

On Wednesday, August 10, Hoosiers will have the opportunity to voice their views on eminent domain.

A hearing, hosted by the House Summer Study Committee, is scheduled for 1 pm and will be conducted in the auditorium of the Government Center South. Plans for the hearing were prompted by a recent Supreme Court decision. Last month the court determined that your local government has the constitutional right to force you to sell your property to a private organization for non-public use.

There are four reasons why Hoosiers should voice their opinions August 10th.

• Cronyism. While Indiana may be the heart of the Bible belt, its not exempt from political favoritism, dirty tricks and punitive maneuvering.

Anyone who dares oppose city hall will risk the wrath of corrupt local bureaucrats willing to use eminent domain laws to get even. Community activists who fall out of favor with government officials may well find their homesteads bulldozed to make room for a Biggy Burger franchise, Holiday Inn or whatever is deemed to be “in the public interest”.

• Reality. The prospect of property owners being bullied into selling to private developers is more than a future prospect. It’s already happening.

There are six states — Connecticut, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, New York and North Dakota — that permit local governments to effectively confiscate private property for economic development. In addition the states of Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington allow private property in “blighted areas” to be condemned for private redevelopment.

In recent months, local governments in Indiana have begun following suit.

In Indianapolis the threat of eminent domain was evoked in hopes of bulldozing a 60-year old business. The reason? The city-county council says it needs the space for a parking lot for the new Colts stadium.

And when the Indianapolis city bureaucrats grew weary of negotiating with the owner of a parking garage, they simply took his property. The city plans to sell the land to a private developer.

Another example can be found in Mishawaka County. When a new car manufacturer wanted to expand its facility, county officials used the threat of eminent domain to force the owners of 51 homes to get out of the way. That was five years ago.

• Ineptness. One needs look no further than a local license branch to discover that good intentions don’t make for good planning.

Local governments in Indiana have a long history of making bad decisions, such as over-spending on government works projects. Even Gov. Mitch Daniels acknowledges the spending binge for government school facilities is excessive. In Wayne County, taxpayers cringed when local officials spent nearly $29 million for a new jail project.

When the Republican-controlled General Assembly granted counties the right to impose food and beverage taxes, many eagerly obliged. Local governments will also move ahead with enthusiasm if given the green light to abuse eminent domain.

• Unfairness. The motive to abuse eminent domain is simple: It will increase the property tax base. When property owners are forced to sell, the government gets more money. The tragedy is that low income families are the logical targets.

One example was seen in New London, Connecticut where local residents were forced to sell their modest homes. According to the Institute for Justice, “The City handed over its power of eminent domain—the ability to take private property for public use—to the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private body, to take the entire neighborhood for private development.”

One resident, Susette Kelo, sued NLCD for the right to retain her home. The case was heard by the United States Supreme Court. Kelo lost her case.

In the wake of the Kelo vs. New London decision looms a threat to every property owner in Indiana. Your local government can force you to sell your property to a private body. Unless, that is, Gov. Daniels and the Indiana state legislature take the necessary steps to prevent it.

Or, as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

On August 10th, your voice can help change that..

National ID cards have more than Australians concerned

by Kenn Gividen
HillarysVillage.com

Fearful that terrorists will next target Australia, Prime Minister John Howard broke the silence this week. He reopened the debate on issuing mandated national ID cards.

Those who live topside and think that internal political decisions made down under will have little bearing on our lives, should think again.

A national ID system in Australia will do more than raid that nation of personal liberty. It will set a precedent to be followed by the rest of the world.

So what's the big deal?

Once the national ID card is adopted in Australia, its effectiveness in curbing terrorism, illegal immigration and host of other social ills will be realized. That will make for an easy sell to Americans, Europeans and others weary of what ails society. The national ID will be seen as a quick fix.

The logical progression will lead to an international interlink between nations. An international ID card will be established. Then, to thwart card theft, the business-card sized documents will be replaced with permanent IDs: computer chips implanted in the hand (for convenience) and the forehead (for permanence).

Once established, implanted IDs will lend themselves for other conveniences, such as biotechnical debit cards and health histories.

So long to liberty

Implanted IDs will be effective. They will do wonders to end terrorism, tax evasion, kidnapping, money laundering and even purse snatching. With the exception of the cumbersome act of bartering, implanted IDs will be required for commerce of any kind. No ID implant? No buying and no selling.

While international IDs will provide a panache of benifits, they will also end personal liberty as we know it. And that, many believe, will be a fair exchange.

End of national sovereignty

The move toward internationalism is not new. What is new is a report issued recently by the Council on Foreign Relations. Like John Howard's quest to fend off terrorism, the CFR says terrorism can be held at bay if the Americas will form a coalition similar to the European Union.

Called "Building a North American Community," the plan calls for a "community" (rather than "union") of nations. It also mandates that national borders be replaced with "common perimeters".

Those who believe Americans would never agree to such a blantant abandon of national sovereignty will be surprised to know that conversative Republican George W. Bush has already agreed to the plan. Along with Mexican president Vincent Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, Bush committed the government to the CFR plan on March 23, 2005. That, you will remember, is that date that Bush, Fox and Martin met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas.

What a plan!

In addition to effectively erasing national borders, the plan calls for American taxpayers to provide the following:

• "Long-term loans in pesos" to shore up Mexico's economy
• A North American Investment Fund to send U.S. private capital to Mexico.
• A "permanent tribunal [ie, court] for North American dispute resolution." (And you thought the Supreme Court's decisions were painful.)
• "Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico." That is, illegal immigrants living in the United States and will benefit from the Social Security system, a virtual guarantee of the its collapse.
• A fund to finance 60,000 Mexican students to study in U.S. colleges.

The move in Australia to impose a national ID system on that nation's citizens will get little press attention in America, Europe or elsewhere. But once affected and proven effective, Australia's national ID program will be one more step toward internationalism, the demise of national sovereignty and an end to personal liberty.

And it's all sold as an antidote for terrorism.

Most Recent Comments

People say — and do — the dumbest things

When Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector exercised his right to free speech last week, he prompted a quick response from Robert Bork. Known for being the first Supreme Court Justice nominee to be, well, “borked,” the judge was in no mood for Spector’s silliness. “I know Specter,” he retorted, “and the truth is not in him.”

What prompted Bork’s remark was the Senator’s suggestion — make that accusation — that the judge “had original intent, and if his original intent stood, we’d still be segregating the United States Senate with African Americans on one side and Caucasians on the other side.”

Both remarks were made Sunday on CNN’s Late Edition.

That Spector’s right to free speech is a highly valued freedom is without question. But the right to speak freely falls short of excusing some of the asinine excesses and down right abuses that often accompany that freedom.

It’s one of the minor discombobulations of living in a free society. People have the right to say — and do — dumb things. And they exercise that freedom liberally.

Columnist Morton Marcus, for example, may have out-trumped Spector. While musing in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s recent eminent domain decision, he wrote that private property is “a privilege conferred by the government.” That, of course, would have come as a shock to the founders of our nation whose sacrifices provided the framework for private ownership. It also irked Ross Bell, a Wayne County Libertarian. In response to Marcus opinion, Bell quipped, “Welcome to the USSA.”

Then there was the incident at the University of Georgia’s School of Journalism, reported in the Athens Banner-Herarld.

John Soloski’s expressed concern for a co-worker’s safety — coupled with a compliment for her appearance — got him in hot water for sexual harassment. The compliment on his part turned to a complaint on her part and Soloski was found guilty. At the time, she didn’t act offended, he claimed. Soloski is the school’s dean.

Another recent abuse of free speech occurred in Victorville, California.

Bethany Hauf, a 34-year student at the local community college, requested permission to write a term paper. The subject? The effect of Christianity on the development of the United States. Her professor, apparently unacquainted with free speech or common sense, granted permission. But he added one stipulation: “No mention of big ‘G’ gods, i.e., one, true god argumentation.”

The professor, it seems, feared other students would be offended at the mere mention of a “big ‘G’ god.” Common sense prevailed. Hauf ignored the nutty professor and mentioned God 41 times. She received an F. The professor received a law suit, compliments of American Center for Law and Justice. The story was reported in The Daily Press.

More insanity was seen in nearby Long Beach, California. According to The Los Angeles Times, a representative of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) voiced his objection to the Aquarium of the Pacific's cafeteria offering fish. "Serving fish at an aquarium is like serving poodle burgers at a dog show,” he said.

Speaking of animal rights, silliness isn’t uniquely American. The French have their own share of curious folk. According to AFP reports, Jacques Peyrat, the mayor of the Riviera city Nice, was accused of being cruel towards the rat he killed last week.

The report noted that Peyrat was visiting a trash collection area in Nice’s historic center when he spotted “a rat almost as big as a cat.” He grabbed a shovel and brought it down on the rodent, killing it.

France’s Society for the Protection of Animals (SPA) has lodged a criminal complaint against the Mayor. The report quoted SPA’s regional chief as saying, “A huge rat-clearing operation is necessary, but nothing justifies going off on a punitive expedition against these animals, which are attracted to the trash cans left out at night in the Old City by restaurants.”

But most noticeable is the good ol’ boy from Tennessee who is expressing his right to free speech by toting a Confederate Battle Flag across Dixie. H.K. Edgerton’s 1,300-mile odyssey is designed to draw attention to southern heritage. He plans to march all the way to Texas.

Upon entering Marysville, Tennessee, Edgerton took time to lambaste the flag-banning school board for practicing what he termed “cultural genocide” that is dividing blacks and whites, according to the Marysville Daily Times.

“I’m just an ordinary country boy from the South who loves the Southland,” he added. Edgerton, by the way, is black. And that causes one to wonder if he would agree that Arlen Spector’s attack on Robert Bork was, indeed, out of line.

Privatization will work well in Indiana

by Kenn Gividen

Barely five months into his term in office, and Gov. Mitch Daniels has already reneged on a key campaign promise. “Buy Indiana,” he said, and “sell Indiana." Daniels made a commitment to voters that their tax dollars would go to Hoosier-based businesses. But the administration has signed a contract to send $258 million to Philadelphia.

Now, I’m not complaining. The governor’s decision to get the best deal for Indiana taxpayers is a wise move. It’s the campaign promise that was wrong. Furthermore, Daniel’s decision to privatize food services for the state’s prison system is also a wise move.

The recipient of our $258 million is Aramark Correctional Services. The contract extends for ten years, even though state law only allows for a four-year contract. The option is open to sign for the additional years.

The governor would be well advised to continue his move toward privatization of government services. It’s good for the state. Here’s why.

• Privatize Indiana’s Prison System

By privatizing Indiana’s prison system, the state would not only save taxpayers millions of dollars — about $5 per prisoner per day — but would provide quality service to the state’s inmates. Besides the economic advantage, the privatization of Indiana’s prisons has proven to be a legally and politically feasible management option.

And Daniels is moving in that direction. Privatizing the New Castle Correctional Facility is on his agenda. He’s on the right track.

Also boding well for privatization of Indiana’s prison system is the fact that the state’s correction commissioner, J. David Donahue, is a former vice president of the industry’s premier contractor, U.S. Corrections Corp.

• Privatizing Police Departments

The privatization of law enforcement may challenge the sensitivities of those who presume public safety is an inherent responsibility of state and local governments. And it is.

But when augmented by private policing, government law enforcement is not diminished. It is enhanced.

Fifty neighborhoods in the South-East of England, for example, are paying for private security patrols. The cost? About $550 per year per residence. Granted, the neighborhoods tend to be among the wealthiest in Britain, but their investment relieves over-worked government police. More importantly, the private police are successful in catching burglars. One area covering 300 homes in north London claims to have cut crime by 65 percent.

While private police patrols tend to serve Indiana’s wealthiest neighborhoods, high crime areas benefit as well. Private police help ease the workload of government police departments. And that, in turn, allows them to focus their efforts on crime-ridden neighborhoods.

• Privatizing Government Schools

Government education is single largest entitlement program in Indiana. When including the cost of higher education, it consumes about 51 percent of the state's budget.

Fully privatizing all schools in Indiana would be monumental, if not impossible. But converting our institutions to charter schools is a plausible concept worth considering.

To qualify for the charter, each school must meet basic requirements. These include academic standards and adequate facilities. Each school will be given $4,500 per student enrolled. Parents will have the freedom to enroll their children in any school. Schools with high academic achievement, safety and discipline will attract more students and, consequently, more dollars. School that lag behind will be forced to improve or simply close.

Here’s how it will be accomplished.

Each charter school in Indiana will be controlled by the parents of the children who attend that school. Parents will elect a Board of Trustees who will manage the school. The trustees will perform management duties, including hiring staff, arranging for facilities and other business functions.

Secondary schools will include one student on the Board of Trustees. Parents, then, will have the freedom to select curriculum that is most effective.School corporations and school boards will be eliminated. These levels of bureaucracy will no longer be needed. Indiana taxpayers will save millions. Students will benefit as their parents choose schools based on academic needs rather than government mandate.

Not all government institutions can be privatized. Nor should the be.

The thought of turning Indiana’s judicial system over to judges-for-hire, for example, is senseless, not to mention illegal. But most, if not all, of the state’s government services could be privatized. Not only would government become more efficient, but the cost to taxpayers would decrease dramatically.

The move toward privatization, of course, will require Hoosiers to think outside the proverbial box. But the state’s financial pressures and political climate may be paving the way for the economic efficiency it affords.