Organization Day was today, and the first few bills of the Indiana General Assembly have been introduced. In the Senate, there was one bill:
SB 23 on unemployment contribution rates was introduced by Senator Hershman and co-authored by Senators Kenley, Kruse, and Charbonneau. It delays from January 1, 2010, to January 1, 2011, changes in the taxable wage base and employer contribution rates for the unemployment compensation system. This looks to be another installment in kicking the unemployment insurance can down the road. For years, contributions to the unemployment insurance fund have been insufficient. Last year, the money ran out and the General Assembly (aside from the House Republicans) finally had to bite the bullet by raising contribution rates. Indiana has been borrowing money from the federal government to keep the ship afloat. The changes made last session were an attempt to make the fund solvent again. I assume this would delay the date when the fund becomes solvent and increase the total amount of loan repayment.
In the House, there were four bills introduced:
HB 1001 introduced by Rep. Bauer and co-authored by Rep. Murphy has to do with lobbyists and campaign contributions. It would reduce the gift reporting level from $100 to $50, it imposes a year cooling off period for government officials before they can go into lobbying, it imposes restrictions the governor’s ability to accept campaign contributions during long sessions of the general assembly that are similar to those currently imposed on legislators, and it restricts campaign contributions by people with business with the state government.
HB 1002 introduced by Rep. Kersey imposes requirements that public works contracts favor companies that employ Indiana residents.
HB 1003 introduced by Rep. Riecken is a response to the FSSA welfare eligibility privatization debacle. It prohibits contracting for the privatization of the administration or processing of eligibility intake for certain welfare programs.
HB 1004 introduced by Rep. Grubb and co-authored by Reps. Pearson and Steurwald has to do with the assessed value of homesteads and farmland. It limits the annual increase in the gross assessed value of a homestead to 1% and of agricultural land to 2% unless the increase results from a factor that would have increased the assessed value even if neither an annual assessment adjustment nor a general reassessment applied. I believe this has to do with a fear of an end-run around the property tax caps. Capping taxes at a certain percentage of assessed value doesn’t do you a lot of good if the government isn’t restricted in its ability to arbitrarily jack up valuations.
>Capping taxes at a certain percentage of assessed value doesn’t do you a >lot of good if the government isn’t restricted in its ability to arbitrarily >jack up valuations.
Well, valuations are appealable, which does restrict government somewhat in its ability to arbitrarily jack up valuations. It’s also worth noting that increasing the assessment will tend to lead to a much smaller increase than increasing the levy. With a 1% cap, increasing the assessment on a $250k home to $280k (probably completely unrealistic in this market) would only increase taxes by $300. [From $2,500 to $2,800] On the other hand, raising the levy from 1% to 2% on a $250k house would increase the tax bill from $2,500 to $5,000.
So even if the assessment system isn’t perfect (and it isn’t), it’s a much smaller issue than having no caps.
I’d like to see a much longer ‘cooling off period’ for legislators-turned-lobbyists, such as five years.