Abdul has a post up on the subject of tax caps imposed on local government wherein he minimizes the concerns of local officials.

Most of them will complain that the caps will hurt their budgets and they will have to cut police and fire. As much as I respect local officials, I truly wonder if any of these guys get it sometimes. The purpose of the hard caps is to protect the taxpayers from huge shifts in their tax bills.

And the money the local officials spend is the taxpayers’ money. It is not their money! When property taxpayers were up in arms and many seniors were afraid of losing their homes over high tax bills, where were these officials? What were they doing to stem the tide of fear and dissent? A lot of them were nowhere to be found. But now they are crawling out of the woodwork (especially the schools) to keep their hands on the taxpayers’ hard-earned money.

One issue I have is that nothing protects local government budgets from huge shifts in funding and duties. This property tax spike came crashing down on us when State officials shifted tax burdens onto local property tax rolls. They eliminated the inventory tax and shifted those burdens to property taxes. The State Supreme Court struck down the previous assessment system, shifting burdens from businesses to residential tax payers. The State General Assembly balanced its budget at the expense of homestead and property tax relief credits. Now the Governor, at every available opportunity, falsely blames the property tax spike on increased local spending. The primary tool made available to local governments to ameliorate these state-caused property tax increases were to allow local government to raise local income taxes. You saw how well that kind of tax increase worked for Mayor Peterson.

So local officials have every right to complain. They have no reason to trust the State to do right by them. The State has deprived them of resources and increased their burdens. To add insult to injury, State officials have pushed tough political decisions to local officials. Raising an income tax makes voting on the proper time zone look as innocuous as passing a resolution honoring the local girl scouts.

The taxpayers are not, by and large, fully aware of this dynamic. All they know is that their tax bill went up, and they aren’t getting anything more for their tax dollars. So, I disagree with the notion that taxpayers are making a fully informed decision to do with less fire and police protection in exchange for lower taxes. I don’t get the sense that the analysis goes that far. There’s a vague notion, fueled by the Governor, that these local governments are wasting money and that if we only cut this unspecified waste, tax bills would go down. I don’t get the feeling taxpayers, by and large, envision doing without any of the services they want and need. And who is going to take the political hit when crime rises, fire protection is slow, trash builds up, the schools get run down, the courts back up, or whatever? It’s not going to be the Governor.

Dan McFeeley asks Sen. Delph a series of questions about his immigration bill. There aren’t any real follow up questions to Sen. Delph’s answers, so it’s pretty one-sided, but at least it gives Sen. Delph’s public position on the matter.

My main policy concern about the bill, which would penalize employers for hiring illegals, is the chilling effect it might have on businesses from hiring people here legally. If hiring Mr. Sanchez might subject you to additional scrutiny even if you do everything right, why take the risk? Just hire Mr. Smith.

My favorite rhetorical concern is Sen. Delph’s purported concern for the “rule of law” being his prime motivation for offering this legislation. However, his concern did not extend to the military’s regulation against its members engaging in political activity while in uniform. Sen. Delph encouraged such activity and, when confronted, said he’d do it again.

HB 1096 passed the Senate Committee:

#A petition for hardship license can be filed in a superior court, not just the circuit court. (But you can’t go forum shopping, if you lost your license because of criminal troubles, you have to go back to the court in which your criminal case is/was pending.)

#Amends certain statutes to recognize the fact that the Clerk of the Supreme Court is now appointed rather than elected.

#Allows magistrates to enter final judgments and orders in small claims cases and domestic protective order matters.

#Adds a second judge to the Franklin circuit court as of January 1, 2009. Abolishes the Franklin circuit court magistrate as of January 1, 2009. Abolishes the Madison county court on January 1, 2009. Increases the number of judges serving on the Madison superior court from three judges to five judges on January 1, 2009. Makes the two persons elected Madison county court judges on November 4, 2008, the fourth and fifth judges of the Madison superior court

HB 1144 was passed out of a Senate committee today. Failure to report a corpse, should you find one, would constitute a Class A misdemeanor.

The U.S. Army Reserve is conducting an investigation into the fact that Lt. Col. Ray Meija testified on behalf of Sen. Delph’s anti-immigration bill while wearing a uniform. I first read about this particular controversy at Advance Indiana. This information sheet does not appear to allow much wiggle room as to the fact that engaging in political activity while in uniform is prohibited:

Wearing Army uniforms is never allowed when engaged in political activity, whether or not the person is on duty, and regardless of his or her status.

And that’s quite reasonable. We give our soldiers a whole lot of respect, naturally. But respect for the duties they perform and the services they provide probably shouldn’t be automatically transferred to the political opinions they hold. Such a rule concerning uniforms helps maintain the distinction. In fact, that’s probably why Sen. Delph and Lt. Col. Meija thought the uniform would be helpful — it conveys the credibility of the U.S. military to the personal cause of Sen. Delph and Lt. Col. Meija. Whatever the merits of Sen. Delph’s immigration proposal, folks shouldn’t mistake it as having the approval of our armed forces.

And, let’s not overlook the huge, overwhelming, unavoidable irony of this situation. Per the article:

Mejia wore his uniform at the press conference, which could be a violation of military rules. . . .
[Said Delph] “If we had to do it over again, we would do the same thing. And if there are military consequences, we both will accept them.”

Delph has been talking up and down about the sanctity RULE OF LAW. Apparently you have to break the rule of law to save it.

HB 1026 passed the Senate Committee on Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters.

Among other things: It imposes certain obligations on cemetery owners to maintain a perpetual care fund. It penalizes the act of selling a vault that is not airtight and watertight without first advising the proposed buyer in writing of that fact. Embezzling funeral trust funds becomes a Class C felony.

Looks like today was mainly an administrative day at the General Assembly. The legislature just passed the half way point with deadlines having passed for bills to pass their House of origin. Now all of the House bills that are still alive are in the Senate and vice versa. Today’s Daily Bill Action reports a whole lot of bills getting assigned to their various committees.

Advance Indiana has a good post on Sen. Delph and immigration. Sen. Delph’s has been pushing SB 335 which, among other things, penalizes employers who are found to employ illegal immigrants. Sen. Delph’s main talking point has been that it’s a rule of law issue. He says that race or ethnicity has absolutely nothing to do with it. That’s fine as far as it goes, I suppose, but it doesn’t square with Sen. Delph’s past statements on the issue as reported by Advance Indiana. With respect to Delph characterizing John McGoff’s approach to immigration reform, Delph says:

He labels McGoff as “another weak kneed moderate politician” who “would provide safe harbor to those who are driven to destroy us from within” [emphasis in original].

Destroy us from within? Somehow I doubt Delph is referring to the employers who hire illegals as folks who are trying to “destroy us from within.” The vibe I’m getting from that statement is that Delph is pretending to take the Aztlan “movement” seriously. That “movement” seems to be the idea that Mexicans should take back the areas of the southwestern U.S. that the U.S. acquired in the 19th century. While the “movement” never seemed to gain much traction with Mexicans or those of Mexican ancestry, it has been a very popular talking point among certain segments of the extreme right wing.

Whether Delph has Aztlan specifically in mind or simply finds it useful to stoke vague xenophobic fears, I have no idea. Still, I get the sense that Delph’s “rule of law” talking point doesn’t tell the whole story behind his motivations. If not, and he’s taking the position that all laws should be solemnly and zealously enforced, perhaps he would then be in favor of similarly strict sanctions against businesses who employ drivers who have been caught speeding. If zealous enforcement of all laws simply because they are the law of the land is not his position, then he has to start coming up with reasons as to why the immigration laws are of particular importance to him. At that point, race and ethnicity just might start coming into the equation.

The Indianapolis Star editorial board has an editorial chastising House Republicans for playing games with property tax legislation. In particular, their insistence on trying to add the same sex marriage ban to the circuit breaker legislation was over the line.

Republicans tried to load up HJR 1 with 18 amendments, including 11 that dealt with eliminating property taxes. Another proposed a cap on state spending. One even tried to graft a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage into the resolution.

The problem isn’t that Republicans wanted to tweak the bill. It’s that their proposals had little or nothing to do with the core issue: whether to write tax caps into the constitution.

Want to debate eliminating property taxes? Fine. But don’t scuttle compromise legislation in the interim. Want to argue over a ban on same-sex marriage? Find an appropriate vehicle, not the most pressing issue facing this state.

Perhaps the Indianapolis Star editorial board has a short collective memory. Recall that in 2004, House Republican Leader Bosma staged a walkout, killing all sorts of legislation, because the gay marriage ban was the “most important” issue facing Indiana. (Keep in mind, the property tax train was already barreling down the tracks at that point; it just hadn’t yet reached the station.)

HB 1277 was defeated by a vote of 44 to 54. It would have prohibited state economic development entities from giving an incentive to an employer unless the employer agrees not to discriminate against an employee based on that employee’s geographic location in Indiana. The employer would forfeit the incentive package if it violated the provision.

This is clearly in response to Honda’s decision to limit the geographic pool of applicants for its new plant. It’s pretty tough to argue with a company making its own decisions with it’s own money. But things get complicated when all of the state’s citizens are supporting the cost of these economic development incentives, but only some of the state’s citizens get to apply for the resulting jobs.