Theres More Going On Than Just "Right To Work"

Though "Right To Work" legislation has definitely been the hot button issue of this legislative session, there ARE other pieces of legislation floating around. There were three pieces that caught my eye and, I think, are particularly important pieces of legislation (or at least important enough I felt compelled to write about them).

The first has to do with drug testing welfare recipients in order for them to collect their dollars. The fact that this hasn't already been law is shocking, and common sense will tell you that if a person has money for drugs, then they certainly don't need taxpayer money. The bill has solid bipartisan support (15-5) through the Ways and Means Committee (it goes to a full House vote next) and would require the state’s Family and Social Services Agency to test out a drug-screening program on a small scale before it was launched statewide. That sounds fair enough to me, too. Something like this will have sweeping effects, and should be tested on a sample group first. The effects, I think, will be obvious enough; there will be some people that will have to make a choice. Do they want to feel their children? Or do they want to do drugs? I think it's a fair enough question when it comes out of my own pocket, and I think most people have little problems with helping those who are willing to help themselves.

Another law has to do with public intoxication laws. Senate Bill 97, which now goes to the full Senate, prohibits a public intoxication arrest unless a drunk person is endangering their life, the life of another person or breaching the peace. This combats a court ruling where a vehicle that is pulled over counted as a "public place", and so a person who is drunk, getting a ride from a sober friend who gets pulled over for, oh, I don't know...a seat belt violation, would end up in jail. This bill passed the Senate Committee 10-0, and is another "no brainer".

The last bill is sponsored by our own Senator Charbonneau, R-Valparaiso. This bill passed committee by an 8-0 vote and ensures that a rapist is not allowed custody to the child that he fathered from that violent encounter. Leave it up to Illinois, again, to be our inspiration in what not to do. Sen. Charbonneau said he sponsored Senate Bill 190 after learning of a Chicago case in which the rapist sued his victim for custody of the child conceived as a result of the rape.

There are a lot of other bills that will effect us as Hoosiers, but these are just three that have caught my eye and, I think, will be very good for the state and the people living in it. Of course there are other bills, like the "no smoking in public/let's take away the rights of private property and business owners" bill that looks to be inching closer and closer (and SHOULD NOT pass), and the "Right To Work" bill, which NEEDS to be amended so that those that opt out of the union don't HAVE to be represented by the union that they don't pay dues to (I'm all about choice and peoples rights to not be forced into anything, but we can't say one person can't be forced into something, and then force the other guy into something different), and so on, and so on. These are three bills that seem to be flying under the radar, though, and haven't gotten talked about much. So here they are, what do YOU think?

Primaries

Do you think the primary system has become fouled up beyond all reason? Do you think that debates have become a fetish, and make candidates look like contestants on Big Brother more than people simply seeking elected office for reasons X,Y, and Z? And why do states with the population of the greater Calumet Region, Chicago, and Indianapolis combined have more swing of the decision club than the New Yorks, Californias, Pennsylvanias, and Texases?

And the state assembly has two bills to change things yet further. HB 1099 wants to change declaration of party affiliation from a public one to a private one. My question is will that make voter information no longer publicly available, so one will no longer be able to canvas an area for the hard party voters, soft party voters, or independents? That will kill Get out the Vote streamlined procedure for all parties.

SB 68 wants to let presidential candidates bypass the signature requirement by paying a $10,000 filing fee. The immediate need for this is to get all of the Final Four of the GOP primary on the ballot for this May. Once again I ask about unintended consequences like having a "ringer" like Mike Pance run against Mike Pence, or another shenanigan that I haven't dreamed yet.

To me, the primary election system is such a derelict structure that Bob Vila couldn't fix That Old House, and it should be replaced. Do you think it is still viable? If not, what's your suggestion for a Better Way?

Update: SB 68 has been pulled by its author, and is no longer in play. Getting signatures is still the only way to get on the ballot.

Hat tip to Buzzcut and Mike Delph for tips on the bills.

Precinct Elections

The deadline for filing for candidacy is noon on the 10th of February - a mere three weeks away. So far I've seen a dearth of applicants on the sheet in Lake County (I can't find anything online for Porter - put link in comments if you have one). All politics is local, and nothing is more local than the precinct captain. You can have your city chairman (or woman) ask the county chairman to appoint you to a precinct in your town, or you can run for your own home precinct and be less at the whim of your "bettors." Reading blogs is fun, writing even more so. But if you feel like getting involved of the process of making the sausage, now is the time to do it. I'd like to see how many bloggers and commenters step up. Gearhart did by winning town council. Tracy ran for county office and gets credit for that. And if you're in my precinct, you can stop on by and genuflect to me since I am my precinct's elected boss - actually it's more like the boss washes everyone else's feet at the table, but anyway. If enough of you like minded folk get elected, you all of a sudden have a voting block in county. If you stay home, meh. "I coulda been a contender, I coulda been somebody..." etc.

LIVE Blogging the CNN Presidential Debate From SC

Do you know where your child (AKA Democratic State Representative) is tonight?

Here in Indiana, the Democrats had a majority in Indianapolis for awhile and enjoyed the majority.  When the last census was done, they merrily gerrymandered districts to ensure the most possible Democratic seats would be won even if the majority of voters were Republicans.

But the shoe is on the other foot.  This time Republicans have the reins.  Redistricting was done with a more geographical and logical basis so that ludicrous boundaries would not exist any longer.  Also, Republicans have the votes to do the will of the people who voted them in.  What has that meant? 

If last year's farcical jaunt of Democrats vacationing in Illinois on taxpayer expense is a clue, we may be seeing the Democrats acting like toddlers throwing tantrums again, this time over the Right To Work legislation.   RTW is pretty simple.   It allows people who do not want to be in unions to have that right.  Now those who value freedom should not have a problem with that, but unions?  They of course hate the idea! 

Recently the Democrats ran away from their jobs yet again and Speaker Brian Bosma has not yet levied the $1,000 dollar-a-day fines they should have faced.  After all, they have come back...or have they?

Indiana House to debate right-to-work referendum

By TOM LoBIANCO

INDIANAPOLIS

The Indiana House speaker says he'll allow a vote on whether to send a contentious right-to-work bill to a statewide referendum.

Republican Speaker Brian Bosma said Friday he believes legislators should decide the issue but won't use parliamentary tactics to block consideration of Democrats' proposal for a statewide vote in November.

Such referendums have rarely -- if ever -- been held in Indiana on proposed laws, but House Democratic leader Patrick Bauer says Indiana voters should decide the issue.

The House is expected to debate amendments to the bill on Tuesday, and Bauer had said Democrats might resume their boycott if their bid for a vote on holding referendum was blocked.

The Republican-backed bill would make Indiana the 23rd state to ban union contracts that include mandatory representation fees.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

Indiana House Democrats want voters to decide the fate of a right-to-work bill or else they'll continue stall tactics designed to derail the contentious legislation, the House minority leader said Friday.

A referendum should decide whether Indiana will become the 23rd state to ban union contracts that include mandatory representation fees, Democratic House Minority Leader Patrick Bauer said.
Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma told The Associated Press that he has polled members of the Republican Caucus and sees little chance of a referendum succeeding in his chamber.

"Any proposals to change (the right-to-work legislation) are probably designed to thwart it," Bosma said Thursday.

Facing long odds in a chamber where they are outnumbered by Republicans 60-40, the Democrats only tool for stopping the bill has been denying Republicans the 67 members needed to conduct any business through periodic boycotts. Bosma and Bauer reached an agreement Wednesday to end the boycotts in return for a guarantee the House will consider the referendum.

"We're going to do the best we can and the best we can is to hold this up until the public understands what right-to-work is to begin with," Bauer told the Associated Press Friday.

The right-to-work battle has stalled work in Indiana's 2012 House session and drawn hundreds of union protesters to the Statehouse daily. Roughly a dozen House Democrats boycotted Gov. Mitch Daniels' final State of the State speech in a rare protest over the measure.

The divisive measure is all but assured passage in the Indiana Senate where Republicans outnumber Democrats 37-13 and Daniels made the measure. The House has been the only major obstacle to the measure.

House Democrats have typically made game-time decisions in private caucus meetings this year whether to grant Republicans the numbers needed to achieve a quorum and conduct any business. Last year they left the state for five weeks to block the right-to-work measure and other Republican proposals.

Bauer said Friday he is concerned Bosma may pull a parliamentary bait-and-switch and block a vote on changing the bill to referendum. If Bosma breaks his end of the bargain, Democrats will boycott again, Bauer said.

"We want an answer before we participate in a shame and a fraud," Bauer said. "We want the answer before we walk in."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your Democrat Representatives

In other words, the babies are going to throw a tantrum if they do not get their way!   Is this the kind of thing responsible adults do?   Of course not!   Anyone who is considering voting for an Indiana Democrat should stop and think...If the Democrats are not for representative government according to our Constitution, shouldn't they be employed elsewhere and let real men and women of good character take their places?

I think the referendum, if there is one at all, should be whether these walk-out Democrats should be cast from office and a vote taken to replace them!  

Indiana voters know full well what Right To Work laws are, several states have them.  They do not prohitibit unions from being formed and representing workers, they simply give the workers the freedom to decide for themselves whether to belong to a union.  Freedom?  United States?   Are we going to follow the rule of law and let our representatives represent us or will we let them be the lackeys for unions?   Will we stand for these paid representatives to go AWOL without consequences?  

Brian Bosma has been both patient and civil, but if Pat Bauer and his AWOL runaways want to cry and take their ball and go home then it is time to fine them to the full extent of the law and consider measures to have them replaced!    You do NOT get elected to run away.

Porter County Political Update

There were some exciting moments in Porter County political filings this week, a quick rundown and some predictions.    There is no doubt that the predictions will create an uproar, sure that's why we write and why Steve asked me to post more regularly this year.   He told me I can write whatever I want provided no foul language, and that he reserves the right to disagree big time in the comments. 

At the top of the county ticket in 2012 will be the County Commissioner's race.   For those that have wondered why the entire county votes even though the Commissioners are in districts, contact your state legislator as this is a goofy system.  But, we all vote for Commissioners even if they are supposedly representing in this cycle the north and the south.  

In the North we'll have the excitement of a primary battle between incumbent and long time Commissioner John Evans versus former Commissioner and current county councilman Jim Biggs both Republicans.   We have yet to hear a name for the Democrat side, but current conservative leanings in the county will give the primary winner the general election win even if the Democrats try to field a candidate.   The Democrat party is in a disarray after losing the Portage Mayor's race in 2011 and after a dismal election cycle in 2010 in County Executive offices.   I will go on a limb and predict John Evans retains this seat and thus Jim Biggs will stay on the Council with an eye to the 2013 council presidency.   The shot against John Evans is that when he finally got the role of county leader, he sat on the sidelines and let secretaries and attorneys run the county this year.  Watch for Evans to step up and provide more leadership or Biggs will actually have a shot at him.

In the South the big surprise was current County Councilman Laura Blaney (D) filing for County Commissioner's race instead of the the rumored filing of Dan Whitten.   She will easily win her primary and then face off against the winner of Jim Polarek (R) versus Mike Heinold (R).   Heinold will feature the support of the Valparaiso business community and Polarek bring to the table strong grass roots south county support.  Remember though that the entire county votes, not just south county.   Blaney's family owned Kelsey's Steakhouse until recently and is well known.   Watch for Heinold and Blaney to face off in November and a Laura Blaney win, mainly based on the fact that Porter County voters really don't want one party to control the entire political realm.  

For those keeping track at home this puts my prediction for the Board of Commissions going into 2013 at 2 Republicans (Adams, Evans) and 1 Democrat (Blaney).   The same balance as we have now, but with a much stronger south county commissioner and Evans needing to show some leadership.  

County Treasurer Mike Bucko will win easily, even if the Republicans decide to nominate someone for a name recognition run.   The current grouping of executive offices (Recorder, Assessor, Auditor, and Treasurer) are doing a marvelous job, now the challenge will be trying to move to the next level with a council that has dragged their feet all too often.   Watch for games, with Biggs and Polarek trying to position for the primary, and Whitten still not showing any Council Presidency leadership.  

Rumors have abounded for years that Rich Hudson (R) will make a run for County Surveyor against current incumbent Kevin Breitzke (D).   If Rich does file, even though very few people pay attention to this race, watch for an upset win by Hudson.   The Surveyor could be considered a partner in the long term EGov and GIS projects foreseen by Auditor Wichlinski, but probably not the current Surveyor. 

Now to the County Council, where all three at-large seats up for election this year are held by Democrats.  Laura Blaney won't be running since she's announced for Commissioner.   That leaves Dan Whitten and Sylvia Graham.   Neither have been all that strong and ran into trouble with the unions during their RDA witchhunt in 2010.   There may be more filings of course, so this is a fluid situation, but for now it would be best to predict former councilman Bob Poporad, a long time business conservative Democrat, will win one of the at-large seats, Porter Township Trustee Ed Morales (R) will pick up another, and I'll have to go with unsure for the third until we have all the names.    With previous predictions suggesting Polarek and Biggs will lose in their primaries for Commissioner, they will remain on the Council and watch for Biggs to pick up Council Presidency in a new Republican dominated council.  

After three consecutive cycle of dismal results for Democrats, one additional prediction that the Democrats will be forced to reorganize and pick a new chairman, but so will the Republicans as Joyce Webster has been oddly quiet since her trustee loss and Republicans too would prefer a new chairman.   Wild predictions then, but look for Michael Essany on the Democrat side and Mike Simpson on the Republican side as the new chairs.  

Will check back in later this week on that third at-large seat, as there are some rumors for additional Republicans to file.   Yes, there are some other down ballot races too, so I'll fill in the blanks and start looking at legislative and statewide races although these aren't my personal specialty and more the likes of Oz and other writers here.    Happy debating, more soon!

Iowa, A Close Race, and the Three Legged Stool

Tuesday night was an interesting night, in many ways. First, since I was away on business in Ohio, I watched the Iowa caucuses from my jacuzzi while sipping on a Sam Adams Winter Lager...no, this was not a political trip, but rather one for my day job; it just appears that I'm that politically connected. Quite honestly, if it gets to the point where the party is putting me up in hotel room just to watch the Iowa caucuses while soaking in a jacuzzi sipping on beer, somebody slap me so that I can reground myself.

Second, the race between Romney and Santorum was jaw dropping. I don't want to go too deep with the race in general, because I think EVERYONE is tired of hearing pundits go on and on and on about the reasons that Santorum came so close to Romney (though it should be noted that I made almost all of the same predictions that Karl Rove did). It can be summed up pretty quickly, actually. After evaluating all of the candidates (rather, conservative candidates, since the libertarian leaning one and moderate leaning one have already solidified their particular base), the conservative voters in Iowa picked the one that hadn't already flown into the sun. One by one they have been picked off. Bachmann with her remarks about the Perry's vaccinations started her downfall and it has continued to the point where she dropped out the day after Iowa. Perry's poor debating eroded his base quickly (though I'm still rooting for him, and think if he can do a 180 he COULD capture South Carolina). Gingrich's past and his inability (or rather lack of want) to attack Romney with negative adds allowed him to be led around by the nose. Sure, he's running some now, but it's too little too late; now the ads appear spiteful (which, really, they are) and will hurt more than they help. All that was left was Santorum, and that ball of fire probably won't last long. I watched his interview with Bill O'Reilly the night after his win and it was rough, to be kind. I think I'd like him as a Governor or VP or cabinet member, and I think he's got some good ideas, but I think he's ill prepared and lacks the finances to finish it off.

All right, now that that's out of the way, what kept rolling around in my head were the numbers. Romney and Santorum all but tied with 26 some odd percent, and Paul finished in third with 22 percent. Now, this doesn't mean NEARLY what so many Paul supporters have been saying and posting. Yes, it is an impressive showing and he should be congratulated, and I don't want to belittle the work that he and his supporters put in (some of his policies and ideas, sure). The fact is, with those three numbers, 26, 26 (plus the other conservative candidates numbers, making the Santorum/conservatives total come to about fifty percent, with Huntsmans one percent going, in my opinion, in with the Romney grouping), and 22, the GOP is represented the same way it always has; as a three legged stool. One post in particular by a buddy of mine who is a Paul supporter inspired me to really point this out, though it had been floating around inside that skull of mine since Tuesday night.

Hopefully what it shows is what I have always said about Paul. Though some of his ideas are far more libertarian than I am (or the GOP in general), he's been a needed aspect to the party to help pull certain aspects, like cutting spending and being fiscally responsible, of the party back over. The 22 percent, and third place finish, show that this has happened. BUT, and this is a big but (note the decision to caps lock the word) the worry is that one of two things will happen, since, while Paul has helped the party as a whole, he has also built a cult of personality around himself where many of his followers would jump off a bridge if he asked them to. First, that he will lose and tell his followers to vote for the libertarian candidate. Many wouldn't, but enough will to make a difference (after all, many Paul supporters voted for Bob Barr last time around). The second is even worse: that he will lose and run as a big L, rather than a little l. In this instance, most if not all would follow. This is a VERY real possibility, and may be the reason that he decided against running for his House seat again. I know I've outlined these concerns before, but it bears repeating, that he could, and just might, single handedly make Obama a two term President. Certainly the GOP field has had it's troubles, to say the least, and Obama may become a two term President anyways. But that's another piece for another day.

For now, it is important to note once again that the Republican party is a big tent that is primarily conservative, but still filled with many ideas that are all equally important to the brand. The quicker that we can coalesce, the better chance we'll have in November.

-Travis Gearhart

Iowa Caucus without a winner

Is it that far fetched to predict no winner tonight in the Iowa caucuses?   Sure someone, probably Romney, will get a percentage point more but with four additional candidates in close proximity and no one candidate gaining even 25% support ... I'd say no one wins tonight.

Sure it's a very strong probability that Michelle Bachman is done after tonight.   Huntsman will try to hang in there through at least New Hampshire since he will say he didn't even try in Iowa.  But the long and short after a full year of pre-primary campaigning and Republicans really don't know who they want to face off against President Obama.   There's great dispute among the rank and file about who has the best chance to unseat the sitting President in a year that will feature an economic recovery. 

It's a tough call, the supporters of Mitt Romney are well spoken and correct when they suggest he has the most money and having run for 5+ years is helping him greatly.   Gingrich was the possible opponent until his supporters fouled the works by not getting enough legitimate signatures in Virginia.  Then of course there are the Republican-of-the-week candidates, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain etc.   Sure they pop up for a week or two only to drop again.

One particularly interesting trend will be, which candidate gets a second pop in the polls?  Perry? Gingrich? or this week's version of Santorum?   From my perspective no one wins when less than 25% of the attendees at caucus', events that feature less than 20% of the electorate, support each candidate.   This is merely round one in a potential long slug fest.   For those that love politics, this is great theater.  For those that think politics are a waste of time, today will merely bolster their case. 

Predictions:  

• Romney - 23%  claiming a win of course
• Santorum - 22%  momentum but New Hampshire will stall him
• Paul - 20%  grass roots but electability suspect
• Gingrich - 19%  smartest guy in any room, but campaign organization is weak
• Perry - 11%  Texas Governors not in high favor right now
• Bachman - 3% and leaves the campaign
• Huntsman - 1% and pretends he doesn't care