Once again, it's time to discuss light rail in the Northeast corridor. 

Last year I attended an MPO meeting where the glory of rail transit was endlessly touted.  After the meeting, I spoke with the project consultant from HNTB.  He admitted the best we could hope for with this rail system was a 3% reduction in traffic in the Northeast corridor.   Now friends, is a 3% reduction really worth billions of dollars?

A recent Indystar editorial suggests the "First leg of the rail system must avoid misstep."  I agree, and placing it in the Northeast corridor is a huge misstep.  If you want to add a rail system, let's add a line from the new and improved airport to the, soon to be, bigger and better convention center.

Plain & Simple: The goal is to reduce traffic in the Northeast corridor, not to spend billions of dollars.  I've advocated focusing on the growing telecommuting trend which would reduce traffic throughout the state. Check out Connecticut's telecommuting initiative.   This program has had a great impact on employers and employees alike.  Personally, I  favor facilitating social trends, rather than forcing expensive (taxpayer-funded) options whenever possible.

Over the last 3 years, Binford Redevelopment and Growth, Inc (BRAG) has spent a great deal of time and effort to redevelop the northeast corridor of Indianapolis..  Through private and corporate donations, volunteers have planted trees, installed flower beds, and brought in new businesses to take over vacant space.  Last February, Mayor Ballard took time to acknowledge their accomplishments.

Now there will be another corporate donation to the BRAG area, one they didn't plan.  It's a 50 foot cell tower that will be generously donated by T-Mobile.  Marion County Zoning Board #3 granted a variance allowing T-mobile to place the tower near the entrance of Tanglewood Estates. 

Despite the fact that a commercial site was offered, T-Mobile felt this neighborhood was a better location.  

In the petition hearing, T-Mobile pointed to a Federal law which requires them to provide "good" service.  But according to their website, they have a minimum of 3 bar coverage in the area this tower is to serve.  That seem pretty good. 

One Tanglewood resident went to a T-mobile store and inquired about switching carriers.  When she inquired about the coverage in this area, she was told by the salesperson, "It's excellent." 


Plain & Simple:  Despite 70+ remonstrators in attendance at the hearing, the board felt the public would be better served by T-mobile then by consistent application of zoning.  As far as I'm aware, there is no appeal process.  This is another example of how government is serving big business so they can serve us better.

I know you're tired of talking about property taxes.  So am I!

Let's talk about education for a bit.

I recently received a report from an Indiana Dept. of Education analyst outlining the cost of health care premiums for all Indiana school districts.  The 2007 cost for those health premiums: $1,085,905,824.30 (Yeah, that's billion).

Depending where you live in Indiana, roughly 40-80% of your property taxes fund education costs, including health premiums.  Darn it!  Now we're talking about property taxes. You see, they're related.

Health care costs influence education costs, and
education is paid for using property taxes.  So, will
reducing health care costs indirectly decrease property taxes?

You bet!

Plain & Simple:  Health care is largely responsible for increasing the costs of business, education, and property taxes.   I've known this for some time.  And now, you do too.  As your Senator, I'll use my knowledge of the health care system to help reduce these costs to taxpayers, without compromising patient care or the student experience.  Or should I just leave this to the other folks to fix?

The Democrat didn't show up for the forum.  The Republican's ethics are in questions because he got caught campaigning on the people's time.  Sounds like politics.

Most of you know I don't talk about national level politics, but this is an exception.

I was recently approached by members of a major party to run against my opponent.  While flattering, and tempting, I had to say "No." Flattering, because they said I was a "great candidate."  Tempting because it might have been an easier, and shorter, campaign.  However, I made a commitment to friends, voters, and myself to run as a Libertarian.  I stand by that commitment.

Andre Carson had two weeks to prepare for the forum.  He wasn't ready, and rather than make a poor showing, he skipped.  But, if he can't prepare for a forum in two weeks, how will he prepare for Congress in one month?  John Elrod is stretched too thin and can't find time to do his job and run for the 7th District vacancy.  So, he's forced to attend to his campaign, rather than deal with the major issues on the floor of the House.

Plain & Simple: Although this is a great opportunity for Carson and Elrod to capitalize on a national congressional seat, the timing is all wrong.  I didn't throw my hat in the ring to run for office last week.  I started to prepare years ago.  I'm ready to debate anyone at anytime.  Further, I understand the temptation to take the easier road.  But Mr. Elrod made a commitment to the voters.  That requires not diverting his attention during this short, but very crucial, legislative session.  If either of these men want to run for this office, they should do so when the time is right.  Not when the path is easiest.

Today begins the 2008 session of the Indiana General Assembly.  Property taxes seem to be all the buzz.  To be honest, I'm most interested to see who wins out at the end of the session...the elected or the electorate. 

As I've been saying for almost two years now, the best possible property tax reform would:

1   Amend the Indiana Constitution to never again touch property for the purposes of taxation.
2.  Cap state spending
3.  Reduce government spending
4.  Replace the reduced, but still needed, revenue using a combination of the taxes and fees Hoosiers already pay.

Capping spending and tying it to population growth and inflation does not cut government back, but keeps it constant in real per capita terms.  --Dr. Bill Styring, economist.

Plain & Simple:  Will our elected officials do what the electorate demands?   Well, there are elected officials who back property tax elimination.  Can such a plan possibly pass with the current composition of our General Assembly?  Probably not. But then again, they were able to pull together last session and make water the official beverage of Indiana.  Finally, are you willing to accept less than the best possible property tax reform?

I spent yesterday morning at the State House listening to a committee hearing on property tax circuit breakers.  Needing a break from the subject,  I got into a conversation with an acquaintance regarding elimination of the property tax. 

Our conversation took an interesting twist.  We started discussing how in the 1960's John F. Kennedy decided to put a man on the moon.  He asked me, "Is eliminating property taxes tantamount to putting a man on the moon?" 

Of course not.  After he refreshed my memory on all the steps that had to occur so Neil Armstrong walk on the moon, I added a small but vital piece to the conversation.

I remember reading that before JFK announced to the world that America would put a man on the moon, he consulted NASA director Wernher von Braun and asked,  "What would it take to put a man on the moon?"  Von Braun's answer: "The will to do it."

Plain & Simple:  This is not rocket science people.  All the vehicles we need to eliminate the property tax are in place.  We need to rely on Economists like Bill Styring who have already figured out how to make it work.  Elimination of property taxes should be easier than putting a man on the moon.  One small step from our legislators, would be one giant step for Hoosiers.

The sub-headline reads: Expert: Daniels' plan many come closer than most to fixing problem.

Me: Oh, it won't fix the problem? 
Expert: No, but it comes close!

The article took the time to compare Indiana's tax mess to the plight of 5 other states.  Unfortunately, it didn't look at Pennsylvania or Texas for some different ideas.

Roughly 2 dozen jurisdictions in Pennsylvania use what is called a " Land value tax."  It doesn't include things like capital improvement in accessing land value.  It looks at the land only.  This is more equitable than our system, but wasn't mentioned.

Texans are looking at the idea of eliminating their property taxes.  But don't let that get out, Hoosiers might get some bright ideas.

Plain and Simple:  Coming close to fixing the problem is not good enough.    If our elected officials doesn't get serious, Hoosiers might only come close to paying their property taxes.

Afters months of toil, the Tax and Financing Policy Commission has devised a plan to relieve the property tax burden.  Their conclusion...shift the tax.

The chairman of said commission is pictured holding what he called "a road map for the General Assembly."  The roughly 1000 page 'road map' shouldn't be too difficult to follow.  Not surprisingly, the roads to "spending caps" and "budget cuts" were not included on that map.  Don't expect legislators to visit these points of taxpayer interest.

I am surprised the Commission recommended the Constitutional cap.  The Constitution should not be amended for less than elimination of property tax.  Our Federal tax code has been amended over 10,000 times since 1980 and no longer serves as a guiding document, but a confusing step by step instruction manual.  The Indiana Constitution will suffer the same fate as the tax code when the General Assembly decides to amend the cap to a higher level...and they will.

Plain & Simple:  One Commission member said "We did hear.  We did listen."   Yet they still came to the same conclusion they held at the beginning of the Commission.  Many of us would be more than willing to participate in a real discussion on tax relief.  But then again, they wouldn't listen to distinguished economists and legal authorities, why would they listen to us silly tax paying voters?

How many more times will we hear the poll tested platitude "We can't afford to put a band aid on this any more..."  Using this rhetoric shows a lack of understanding of the body and our government.

The current situation in Indiana is not equlivant to a small abrasion or cut on the human body.  Putting a band aid on a cut helps that cut go away...forever.  It's a temporary dressing which facilitates a permanent fix.  A better analogy would be to equate government problem solving strategies to a dandelion in my yard. 

For many years, politicians have been lopping the top off the dandelions that keep popping up.  They strut around the yard showing voters how hard they're working to fix our weed problems.  But the roots of the dandelions have been left behind.  Inevitably, there will be more dandelions popping up next year.  The problem compounds year after year until voters question: "What happened to my yard?"

Politicians then stand back and say "See what a pretty garden we've made!"  They try to convince voters they are so progressive.  "Where once there was dull lawn, now we have created a sea of yellow flowers.   Trust us, it's the best thing for your lawn."

The only way to end the cycle, and reclaim our lawn, is to nurture the roots of your grass.  Doing this will produce a thicker, healthier lawn and choke out the dandelions and other weeds (like quack grass and crabgrass).  Putting down weed killer is only a temporary solution.  Making the turf strong and tall is a permanent fix.


Plain &Simple:  Nurture the grass roots.  It's the path to a stronger, healthier state.    



 

Recently, on Newstalk 1430, Abdul had uncovered more shenanigans from some elected officials.  One caller, named Eric, said: "When will they learn we're not stupid?"

My answer: "When we stop acting stupidly."

When referring to the need for term limits, Abdul has commented "The mouse trap works, we don't need to reinvent the mousetrap.  Vote them out."  To this I agree.

The problem is that many Hoosiers refuse to use the mousetrap.  They spend the energy to complain about the infestation, but don't use the trap.  So the infestation continues. 

Even if they vote, they fail to motivate their neighbors to use the trap.  Eventually, the infestation creeps back into their home.

Plain & Simple: There's no better mousetrap than the one designed by our forefathers.  It's not enough to vote, you need to be supportive and persistent to eliminate any problem.  If mice were truly infesting your home, you'd do anything to eradicate them.  You might even give money to someone willing to do the dirty work for you. 

Indiana is our home.  Please, use the mousetrap!

Lawmakers still refuse to acknowledge the best way to attack the property tax issue is through budgetary cuts. 

If you want to reduce taxes, you must reduce the budget. 

In an attempt to derail the anti-property tax movement, a legislative commission stated that hiking sales taxes 13.2% (from 6%) and income taxes to 9% (from 3.4%) is the only way to eliminate property taxes.  Star report 

Figures put together by an IU professor of public finance differ substantially.  He determined sales taxes would need only raised to 9.6% and income taxes increased to 5.7%.

So which figures should we accept?  Neither--such drastic increases are only necessary if no budget cuts are made.

Any plan that does not substantially cut the budget is unacceptable!

Plain & Simple:  It has been said the three great principles of bureaucracy are: 1. Don't be late.  2. Don't take time off.  3. Do no work.  Voters are attacking the bureaucracy by which legislators "get things done."  Many legislators do not have tax relief in their heart because it will turn their position into a difficult job.  Shifting the entire burden to other taxes is easy.  Substantially cutting the budget to minimize any tax shift is hard.    

Will it be bureaucracy as usual?  Or, are you willing replace the bureaucrats with others willing to do the work?

They don't figure you will.

How do you figure?

What can you say to a country that has everything?  

The country I'm thinking of has natural resources (silver, copper, gold, zinc, lead, and timber), agriculture, tourism, a thriving wine industry, cheap labor, abundant oil and natural gas, thriving automotive and textile industries, a 96% literacy rate among kids between ages (15-24), fine arts, it's own distinctive cuisine, and is home to the world's richest man.

I would say: Get your act together Mexico!

Plain & Simple:  Mexico is not a poor country, but a poorly run country.  It has the ability to be an amazingly prosperous nation, but it's government refuses to build infrastructure, break up monopolies, or ferret out corruption.  Just building infrastructure would keep thousands of Mexicans employed for years to come.  If you think Mexico is a poor country with no opportunity, get the facts! 

Headline: Monday, July 23 2007:
    "Prognosis: pricier health plans...Experts say Hoosiers' insurance rates likely to increase 10-15% next year."

Headline: Thursday, July 26, 2007:
    Wellpoint profit up, membership falls."

  In her book Who Killed Health Care?, Harvard professor Regina Herzlinger shows how the mission of protection and preservation once prized by HMOs and insurers, unintentionally turned to a mission of "self-interest and self-enrichment."  The result: a dysfunctional American health system.
 

Plain & Simple:  Socialist medicine in a capitalist society will mix like water and oil.  American medicine is a $2 trillion a year industry.  An amount greater than the economy of China! 
     We cannot afford to continue handing the industry over to insurance companies, hospitals, and health policy academics through poor legislation.  Purchasing health plans for people with little access to health care is but one example of how our legislators are setting Indiana up for failure.  
     The only way to save health care is to return the industry to the consumer driven, patient focused process of years ago with more tailored health plans and complete transparency of costs. 
    The process must begin on the state level, by legislators with experience in patient advocacy and the complexities this process involves.  Legislators lacking such experience will be easily swayed by health care lobbying.   Why is it up to the state to fix the problem?   Click here.

Any tax I'm forced to pay, I should be able to understand.  For example, sales tax is easy...add 6% to the price of a particular good.  That's not to difficult.

According to bureaucrats, property taxes are very complex and on the surface this appears to be the case.  Let me make it VERY, VERY SIMPLE.   Government bases its income on its budget.  In other words, if the budget goes up, so do your property taxes. 

Have you heard one elected official say, we need to tackle the budget and cut the fat?  NO, nor will you. 

If we can't pay bills, we cut cable or movie night.  But, to our State and Federal Governments, tax payers are one big endless ATM.

Let's clear up one misconception: We don't pay property taxes, we pay real estate taxes.  Land is technically referred to as "real property."  Real property combined with the fixtures (homes) located on that land is "real estate."

A fair and equal property tax should only tax property, not homes or other improvements to homes.  If you own 1 acre you should pay a set amount of money. If you have half an acre than you should pay half as much.  What you do on your land is of no concern to the government.  Passing an equitable property tax would be easy.

The reason the "property taxes" are so cumbersome is design.  It's hard to fight what you don't understand.  But unless spending is controlled and every dollar accounted for, even an equitable property tax will increase. 


Plain & Simple:  First, government must cut spending to reduce the need for the tax in the first place.  Second,  while I can argue that taxes are unfair in general, they can be equitable.  Finally, there is only reason spending is out of control and taxes are unequal...our elected officials (who set the budget) spend too much money! 

Senator Lubbers has proven me right and it's less than 3 days since my last posting.  On her official website she declares:

"By immediately implementing local income taxes to replace property taxes, we can shift funding for local services away from homeowners to those with income and the ability to pay." 

Don't most home owners have jobs? 

In her message, she suggests 8 proposals for consideration designed to offer property tax relief...not one will decrease wasteful government spending.  None address school spending as it would cut funding to her committee.

Plain & Simple:  Watchdog Indiana listed her as taxpayer unfriendly for a reason.  She's a tax and spend politician with no idea how to cut spending. She believes shifting tax burden is reform.  Cut spending Senator...that's reform.

Today's Star informs us that Senators Teresa Lubbers and Pat Miller are calling for a state commission to investigate skyrocketing property tax bills in Marion County and what can be done about them.  Let me save more taxpayer money and avoid a commission--or worse, a special session of the General Assembly.  Here's how I see it.

Perhaps Lubbers and Miller should have spent the entire 2007 session discussing taxes rather than passing unnecessary legislation like making water the official drink of Indiana.  The senators and their party should have made the state budget and tax relief the top issue for day one of the last session.  Instead, they waited until the last 2 weeks of the session to address taxes, pushing another lousy budget on Hoosiers. 

Senator Lubbers points her finger at Bart Peterson for his lack of fiscal control...no argument from me there.  But  it is she who can effect change for all Hoosiers with some creative tax cuts.  Unfortunately, she looks to Senator Kenley for direction.  He wants to shift the tax burden, not cut them. 

Plain and Simple:  Teresa Lubbers (along with Sens. Miller and Kenley) are now and have been for some time listed as taxpayer unfriendly by Watchdog Indiana; I have no faith she will have a sudden revelation making her see a path to tax reform.

The tax problem we now face is a result of the current legislators not doing their job, or doing it poorly.   You don't need a state commission to unravel that mystery.

Primary elections are party business and don't concern me personally.  But GOP members pointing fingers at Democratic officials for a poorly run primary is laughable.  This would be like Pfizer Pharmaceuticals complaining that Eli Lilly did a poor job conducting Pfizer's annual board meeting.  Legally, the parties are allowed to pick candidates by any method they deem suitable.  For example...

The candidates could draw straws and it would be legally binding.  Or, might I suggest dueling pistols at 20 paces.  This would add some excitement to the primary and show the depth of a candidate's resolve.

Seriously, some critics would say the primary is a trial run for the upcoming election.  Fine, then Indiana just spent millions of dollars to verify that it's election process remains less than adequate.  Does this surprise anyone? 

My primary revelation was that 900 inspectors were MIA.  Despite big party rhetoric, I chalk it up to good old fashion apathy.  As many as 350 inspectors never even collected the materials to take to their precincts.  33 precincts never even found or assigned inspectors.

Plain & Simple: Even the "party faithful" are tired of the same old song and dance.  More than 3200 voters never got to cast their vote, and nothing will be done.  The only people satisfied with the current election process are those who currently hold elected positions.

There has been increasing talk about the Fair Tax lately, and it's about time.  People will say that it's a great idea but it will never get passed by Congress.  I call these defeatists "Americant's" and remind them the same was thought about slavery, a woman's right to vote, and prohibition.  The Fair Tax (HR 25 as it's known in D.C.) will generate the same amount of revenue as the current tax system but repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, and abolish the IRS once and for all! 

"But that would put hundreds of thousands of people out of work."  Funny, bureaucrats don't complain when blue collar jobs are sent over the boarder!  My solution is simple (of course).  If you work for the IRS now, you will be moved to Homeland Security and retrained.  You will keep your pension and years of service as before, except instead of keeping track and counting dollars, you can now keep track and count illegal immigrants and terrorists.  The additional cost to taxpayers...nothing.  We are not adding jobs, just shifting resources.

Plain & Simple:  No society has ever taxed it's way to prosperity.  The IRS has outlived it's usefulness, and Homeland Security is in the greatest need of resources.   Out with the old, in with the new.  Americans (and Americant's) win.

    After securing an apartment in New York city, an new immigrant goes to a local grocery store to get food for his hungry family.  With little money left after paying his deposit and first months rent, he paces the aisles for something cheap and plentiful. 
  
     Happy with his success, he pays for the meal.  Arriving back at the apartment, he presents his family with a can adorned with a picture of perfectly fried chicken.  Hungry and filled with anticipation, they opened their can of Crisco.

    I know many of you can relate.  This is the same letdown you experienced in recent years when voting for a candidate who didn't live up to their promises.  For example,  if you treasure the idea of limited government and lower taxes,  you probably voted Republican in the past.  As a result, you got more government and higher taxes...wait a minute, that's not what was on the party label.  Eventually, Crisco came with a disclaimer on the can to avoid confusion. 

Plain & Simple:  Parties give individuals ballot access, and much needed legal advise.  They should not be the full extent of a candidates political principles and objectives.  Most politicians hide in a party so you can't examine them individually.  I say "No More!" 

And by the way, quit defining candidates by a party label, it's a terrible way to tell what's in the can(didate).