Lesley Stedman Weidenbener has a story in the Louisville Courier Journal on Sen. Garton’s plan to reduce the legislator retirement health perk (perq?) that has caused such an uproar.

Meanwhile, the Indy Star editorial page continues to roar.

Niki Kelly has an article in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette on HB 1009 which would legalize any fireworks not prohibited by federal law. The State Fire Marshal, Roger Johnson, is behind the bill largely because it taxes fireworks and directs the revenue to “firefighter training.” One man at the committee hearing characterized the firefighter training money as “blood money.” Former Fire Marshal, Tracy Boatwright who spent a decade in a largely futile effort fighting the current deliberately toothless law, sympathizes with the current Marshal’s position. If the State isn’t going to take any real action to regulate fireworks, we might as well get some money out of it.

I’m largely agnostic on the subject of firework regulation. I had a lot of fun as a kid blowing up fireworks and lived to tell the tale. On the other hand, I certainly understand the desire to regulate them. I had a firecracker blow up in my hand once — fortunately it was a weak one, otherwise, I’d probably be missing a finger. But, if you’re going to do it — do it. If not, don’t. The law we have currently is the legislature merely pretending to do something, which is worse than nothing in my ever so humble opinion.

According to this article by Dan McFeely in the Indianapolis Star, SB 111 which regulates the availability of junk food in schools faces a grim future in the House.

Back in January, I described the bill as follows:

Requires a school board to establish a “school health advisory council.” The council is permitted to review the school corporation’s wellness policy on an annual basis. Requires the council to meet at least once per year to take public testimony on the wellness policy. Requires a school board to adopt a district policy on child nutrition and physical activity which takes into consideration recommendations by the council (presuming the council exercises its discretion to make such a recommendation.) Requires the department of education to provide information on health, nutrition, and physical fitness. It puts restrictions on food and beverages that can be sold to students, but the restrictions do not apply to part of a school lunch program or school breakfast program (except for items sold in the a la carte line); sold in an area that is not accessible to students; sold after normal school hours; or sold or distributed as part of a fundraiser. It goes into some detail about the foods that can and can’t be sold, but basically soda, coffee, and high sugar fruit drinks = bad; milk, water, low sugar fruit drinks = good. Sugary and fatty foods are also bad. Elementary schools are required to conduct daily physical activity for students. Vending machine contracts entered into before July 1, 2006 are grandfathered in but may not be renewed.

Despite the Governor’s supposed concern about the health of Indiana’s children, he is not supporting this bill. The article did not include an explanation, if any was given, for the Governor’s indifference to this bill. Meanwhile, Rep. Behning, chair of the House Education Committee is noncomittal about whether this bill will even get a hearing. He has been opposed to this sort of legislation in the past. He contends that kids need to change their lifestyles at home, which is true as far as it goes, I suppose, but is no excuse for refusing to help kids out at school where the government controls the environment.

One of the main reasons for opposition to this bill is that cutting vending revenues to the schools will create a funding gap for already cash-strapped schools. But Sandy Shoaf has it right when she says, “money cannot outweigh the health of the kids.” I’ll go one step further and suggest that schools ought to be a commercial free zone. It just seems wrong to me that we refuse to adequately fund our schools then make up for the shortfall by selling a captive audience of our children to companies peddling sugar and salt. That seems pretty close to a moral failing to me.

Update The Indy Star has an editorial supporting SB 111.

Earlier this week, I commented on St. Joseph County’s consideration of creating a “North-central” Regional Development Authority (RDA) with LaPorte County. Earlier this session, Rep. Jackie Walorski amended the Toll Road sale legislation to create a Northeastern RDA that excluded her constituents in St. Joseph County. The RDA concept, as it has been discussed this session, seems to mainly be a vehicle for getting more pork for certain areas from the Toll Road sale.

James Wensits, writing for the South Bend Tribune, has a story on further consideration by St. Joseph County on whether to try to get into the Northeastern RDA. The already existing Northwestern RDA which most prominently includes Lake County is discussed, but does not seem to be an attractive option for St. Joseph County which would play second fiddle to the more populous Lake County.

Senator Meeks has indicated an inclination to cut the RDAs out of the legislation along with a provision that would freeze rates for motorists who live in counties through which the toll road runs. Such discriminatory treatment would likely run afoul of the U.S. Constitution. Instead, Sen. Meeks has floated the idea of something like a tax credit for those citizens.

I think these counties along the toll road who are proposing RDAs and coming up with schemes to get a bigger share of the pie are missing the big picture. It’s their citizens who will be most heavily burdened by this 75 year tax increase the Governor seeks to lock-in by means of the Toll Road lease and the consequent toll (tax) increases. I suppose it makes a difference if one’s shackles are heavier or lighter, but the best bet is to fight like hell to keep the shackles off at all.

Or, to use another analogy which isn’t necessarily as accurate but which I think is more fun, there is the one about the man at a party who says to a lady at the party, “Madam, would you sleep with me for a million dollars?” The woman smiles wickedly and says, “why, certainly.” He says, “Hmm, well how about $20.” She gets disgruntled and says, “just what do you think I am, a prostitute?” The man responds, “I think we’ve already established what you are. Now we’re just dickering over the price.”

“Basically this whole bill is pork,” says Sen. Bob Meeks, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee in which HB 1008 is being heard. The article on Meeks’ concerns in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette focuses primarily on Meeks’ concerns about the yearly toll (tax) increases authorized for the next 75 years and about the special provision freezing rate increases for residents along the Toll Road for the next 10 years.

The toll (tax) increase is permitted at a minimum of 2% per year. There is an alternate formula based on GDP which will likely allow average increases of 3-4% per year. In 2005, according to Senator Hume, that number would have been a 6.7% increase. That’s a tax increase working like compound interest for the next 75 years.

“I have concern about that. You guys don’t drive that road, but I do,” Meeks said. “Giving them a blank check to raise tolls 25 percent in four years, that gives me some heartburn.”

But he also acknowledged he can’t change the provision because it’s in the already-negotiated contract, which also allows an annual increase using the same method for the rest of the 75-year lease.

On the subject of the toll (tax) freeze for residential commuters:

Meeks said he will have to remove from the bill a provision freezing tolls for residential commuters along the Toll Road for the next 10 years. It was put in the legislation in the House to garner Republican votes.

But Meeks believes the measure is unconstitutional because it treats drivers of the road differently, including possibly violating the federal Constitution’s interstate commerce clause.

Instead, he wants to give residential commuters a $300 per year tax credit to offset the increased tolls (taxes) residential commuters will have to pay. Sen. Meeks is also not excited about the pork being doled out to northeast and northwest “regional development authorities”. But all of this pork is necessary to grease the skids to get this 75 year toll (tax) increase locked in and get a pile of money for the short term.

This could be interesting. I only know him by reputation, so I could well be wrong, but I see Sen. Meeks as a good Republican, but not one to compromise easily on his principles and certainly not one to be bullied.

Jennifer Whitson with the Evansville Courier Press also has an article that notes Sen. Meeks reservations. It also has a good question from Senator Kenley that went unanswered by the administration. The bill that will be used to approve the I-80/90 Toll Road lease also has provisions that authorize the Governor to enter into similar arrangements in the future. The Governor has said the only future road privatization he has in mind is the I-69 extension.

But Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, asked administration officials why they need the broad authority to enter into any public-private transportation agreement. He asked why they couldn’t repeat their process for the Indiana Toll Road for I-69 – get an offer and then come to lawmakers with both a bid amount and contract details.

“Though I can understand from a personal standpoint when I’m running a business I want to have personal freedom … to do what I thought was right,” Kenley said. “But since this is all a public situation, why couldn’t the bill just reflect (the Indiana Toll Road lease)?”

Administration officials and the bill’s House sponsor explained the bill’s provisions but did not directly answer Kenley’s question.

HB 1101 concerning security breach disclosure and identity deception was amended in committee and recommended to the Senate. It seems to be a well-intentioned bill. Basically it imposes duties on owners of databases with personal information of Indiana citizens designed to prevent identity theft and to mitigate the consequences to the people whose personal information is disclosed when the databases are compromised.

But stuck in the middle of that is a provision concerning the governing boards of county hospitals. It says that the board member in discharging his or her duties is entitled to rely on representations made by people the member believes to be reasonably competent in the matters presented, including legal counsel or accountants. It says that “All proprietary and competitive information concerning the county hospital is confidential. A member of a governing board may not disclose confidential information concerning the county hospital to any person not authorized to receive this information.” Finally it says that licensed physician is only eligible for appointment to a county hospital governing board if the physician is an active member of the medical staff of the hospital or holds a position that is equivalent to being an active member of the medical staff of the hospital; that a physician who is terminated from the medical staff of the hospital is removed from the governing board by operation of law; and that a physician whose clinical privileges or staff membership privileges have been significantly reduced shall be removed from the governing board by action of the board.

None of that is objectionable in and of itself, but it’s odd to see all that hospital stuff in a bill about identity theft and databases with personal information. I wonder what the backstory is.

Mary Beth Schneider, writing for the Indy Star, has an article entitled “Major Moves enters phase 2 today” At issue is just how much flexibility the Senate has to shape the plan to the best advantage of Indiana. Senators Garton, Kenley, and Alting, at least, believe that the Senate has a clean slate and that they can proceed as they think best benefits the citizens of Indiana.

Senator Meeks likely has a more realistic view of Governor Daniels’ “take it or leave it (and if you leave it I’m gonna throw a tantrum)” approach to selling the Toll Road.

Take the plan by Sen. Ronnie J. Alting, R-Lafayette, to try to trim the lease with Cintra-Macquarie, the Spanish-Australian consortium that wants to take over the Toll Road, from 75 years to 50.

“Can’t,” Meeks said bluntly.

The contract is set at 75 years, a compromise between the 50 years the governor wanted and the 99 years the consortium wanted, Meeks said. To change it would involve renegotiations and losing some of the $3.85 billion the company is offering, he said.

If Senator Meeks is correct, then the fundamentals of this deal are an up or down vote. Either they lock-in a 75 year tax increase for this money or they don’t. Let’s not sugar coat it. A toll is a use tax on the road. Once this bill is passed, the tax for using our road increases and there is nothing any of us can do for the next 75 years to decrease or eliminate the tax.

I’m not opposed to increasing taxes to pay for the roads. But, I don’t think an irrevocable 75 year tax increase that fall primarily on the motorists of northern Indiana is the right tax for the situation. First of all, the time period is too long. Second, it’s inequitable. Those who don’t live in the area will pay almost nothing for the benefits they receive whereas those who do live in the area will pay more than they ought to for the benefits they receive.

For legislators considering the current deal: do you want to be the person who voted for an irrevocable 75 year tax increase? Because that’s the deal on the table.

Rep. Austin’s HB 1414 has passed the House and has been assigned to the Senate Committee on Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters. It creates the crime of human trafficking: A person who knowingly or intentionally recruits, harbors, or transports another person by force, threat of force, or fraud to engage the other person in forced labor or involuntary servitude or to force the other person into marriage or prostitution commits promotion of human trafficking, a Class B felony. It’s a Class A felony when the victim is a minor. A person who knowingly or intentionally pays for a trafficked individual also commits human trafficking. It creates a civil cause of action against a trafficker. The bill also creates a task force as well as a work group to develop written protocols for delivery of services to human and sexual trafficking victims without regard to the immigration status of the victims.

I guess I’m surprised there isn’t already a statute on the books for this. In any case, the bill jumped out at me because last night I saw a Frontline documentary on the trafficking of sex slaves. It’s an excellent documentary that manages to really bring the horror of human trafficking crashing down on you. It follows one case where a Moldovan woman who was 4 months pregnant left with an acquaintance to go to Turkey to buy cheap goods for her mother to sell back home. The acquaintance sold her in Turkey as a sex slave for $1,000. The Frontline crew followed her husband in his effort to get her back.

I wonder how much of a problem this is, if at all, in Indiana. In Turkey, the cops just looked the other way and, in some cases, were in on the deal. Indiana law enforcement is held to a higher standard. Another question I have is whether prostitution being illegal aggravates or mitigates the problem. I would presume that availability of willing sex workers and legal brothels would make “customers” less likely to frequent the shadier places. But that presumption could be wildly off the mark. Not that legalized prostitution is likely in Indiana any time soon. Heck, we’re a little scared of unlicensed interior designers. (The interior designer bill was defeated 30 to 68, by the way.)

In any event, I really like the provision that requires assistance to the victims to disregard immigration status. The Frontline documentary suggested that when the women were discovered in American police raids, they were typically just sent to INS and summarily deported.