Blogger and Libertarian, Mike Sylvester has posted his latest installment of the candidates for whom he plans to vote and his reasoning. Today he explains why he will be voting for Dr. Tom Hayhurst and against incumbent Mark Souder in Indiana’s Third Congressional District race. I’m going to block quote a lot of it because I think it Mike lives in the area, is familiar with the issues, and, as a Libertarian, isn’t especially pre-disposed toward Republicans or Democrats. His explanations are below the fold
[Read more…]

Yesterday, the Daily Pulse focused on Indiana. The DP suggests, among other things, that the GOP may get hoist on the petard of homophobia in the wake of the Foley sexual predator scandal upon which Congressional leadership sat and did nothing.

The piece cites:

• A Trib Star editorial commenting on the desire in the Eighth District on the GOP desire to tie the race to national party issues and what a bad idea that might have been post-Foley.
• A Chesterton Tribune editorial on the evils of one-party rule.
• A Noblesville Daily Times piece on tax exemptions, churches with political axes to grind, and the IRS.

And much, much more.

Yesterday’s Fort Wayne Journal Gazette had a column by the Fort Wayne News Sentinel’s former editor, Joseph Weiler endorsing Dr. Tom Hayhurst to represent Indiana’s Third Congressional District. (h/t Left in Aboite.)

First, says Weiler, Mark Souder, the incumbent, should honor his pledges. Twelve years ago, he pledged only to serve twelve years. Time’s up. Weiler doesn’t buy Souder’s feeble excuses on the subject. Rather he believes that Souder simply doesn’t value his own credibility, such as it is.

Second, Souder is a neocon, and the country and the District have not been well served by the neocons.

Playing on religious themes, [the neocons] have appealed primarily to a group of conservative Christians who felt disenfranchised, particularly in the post-Reagan era.

Unfortunately, in appealing to this special-interest group, congresspersons such as Souder have felt free to shun all others, not listening to their concerns, not respecting their ideas and personal values, not including them among the constituents they serve.

And by this intentional isolation from all that they disagree with, the neocons have been among the primary instigators of the bitter politics that now, after almost six years of total Republican control, has left Washington in shambles. How sad that is.

In 2006, one cannot oppose the war in Iraq without being labeled a traitor; one cannot discuss equal rights of inheritance without being labeled a sodomite; one cannot question the curbing of our basic liberties without being called pro-terrorist.

In this atmosphere, little progress can or will be made in Washington. And Mark Souder is a key player in ensuring that no progress is made. This isn’t good for Republicans. This isn’t good for Democrats. This isn’t good for independents. And it certainly isn’t good for you and me.

In addition to Souder being an undesirable candidate, Weiler’s experience with Tom Hayhurst suggests that Hayhurst would represent the Third District well. Weiler describes himself as a longtime backer of conservative policies and, while Hayhurst has not always shared Weiler’s views, Dr. Hayhurst has taken the time to at least try to understand Weiler’s positions and find key areas on which they agreed.

Weiler concludes:

Whether you are a radical conservative or a liberal atheist or, like most of us, trying to survive somewhere between the extremes, it is time to vote for someone who will respect and listen to us all so that we can once again begin to listen to and respect each other.

Patrick Guinane has a story in the Northwest Indiana Times (warning – known for links going stale) reporting that advisers have told Governor Mitch Daniels that the State should consider selling off or lesing the South Shore Line – the commuter railroad from South Bend to Chicago.

The state should consider selling off or leasing out the South Shore Line, advisers have told Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels.

And the state already has begun to explore privatization of the South Bend-to-Chicago commuter railroad, the South Shore’s top executive told The Times on Tuesday.

“We’ve had a very preliminary conversation (about a month ago) with (state Transportation Commissioner) Tom Sharp,” said Gerald Hanas, general manager of the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District — the state entity that owns and operates the South Shore Line.

“I think he wanted us to kind of just do a general scoping to see if there’s anything similar to the toll road that we could do — in terms of leveraging a long-term lease,” Hanas said. “We certainly are looking at it. There are certain models in Europe where certain parts of railroad have been privatized, but, in all cases, we find that there’s still a significant public involvement in all the railroad, whether they be commuter or national railroads.”

Meanwhile, Indiana Department of Transportation spokesman Gary Abell flatly denies that a privatization conversation ever took place. Jane Jankowski, the governor’s press secretary, was asked about the South Shore suggestion but offered only a general statement on the findings the Government Efficiency Commission delivered on Monday.

Rep. Vern Tincher announced plans of the state Democratic party to introduce legislation to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over two years. Since the federal government hasn’t amended the federal law, Indiana Democrats intend to do it at the state level.

According to Rep. Troy “I’ll Never Vote For It” Woodruff:

A minimum wage is not going to help a family of four that are struggling to get by. We can give them a little more money in their pocket, but the reality is most businesses are already paying around $7.00 an hour.

. . .

“To be quite honest, it just wouldn`t have an impact on the economy one way or the other. I`m more concerned about finding real jobs that pay real living wages, not minumum wages.”

Tincher somewhat agrees, but says inflation alone warrants an increase.

“I think we need a reasonable minimum wage. $5.15 an hour generates just over $10,000 a year for a worker and no one can survive on $10,000 a year.”

But anyone making minimum wage will have to survive. At least until the Statehouse can re-consider.

On a professional level, I think the wage increase would help my collections business a bit – – at least so long as the feds don’t increase their minimum wage requirements. I do a lot of collections and, as such, have a lot of clients with judgments against people who don’t make very much money. The garnishment statute says that you can’t garnish wages that are below 30 times the federal minimum wage per week. So, at $5.15, that means anything below $154.50. So, legislation that helps get those folks above $154.50 per week without raising the floor of garnishable wages is likely to help pay those judgment debts a bit faster.

On a personal level, I think the $154.50 per week floor is ridiculously low. If you’re making $200 per week, you are subject to garnisment of $46.50 per week ($232.50 per month) and expected to live on the rest. Good luck with that.

Still, I’d be interested to know how many workers are making less than $7 per hour.