Heh- "Fleebaggers"

I'll repeat my position that the Democrats walkout from the Indiana legislature is a surprise gift to me. I never expected any kind of gridlock, but here it is, and I love it. No laws being passed = no reduction in liberty.

That said, I find this website hilarious. INDemsGPS.com "We keep track of 'em so you don't have to." Oh, I love the ease and speed of self publishing online.

In other news, the Indy Star's Mary Beth Schneider at last touched on a future consideration for this walkout, in this article:

The fear that House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, and Senate President Pro Tempore David Long share: If Democrats, outnumbered 60-40 in the House and 37-13 in the Senate, think they are winning this battle of wills, boycotts could become a regular legislative tactic across the nation. Much the same way, Democrats point out, that minority Republicans have used the filibuster in the U.S. Senate to prevent votes on things they don't like.

That would mark a departure from past practice. Walkouts have been used by both parties. But they typically focus on a single issue and end after a couple of days when the majority makes a few tweaks that let the minority declare victory and return. Not this year. (bold is mine)

What a wonderful gift that would be! I'm not dismayed at all. This is perfect! No new laws passing? Excellent!

2-party partisan politics has been such that when one team employs a tactic, the other team decries it... until they are on the other side, and then they happily employ the same tactic they had until recently decried, justifying it with a Charlie Sheen-like righteousness. So, you gotta know that the next time the Democrats have a majority in the Indiana House, the Republicans will walk out for the entire session. This becomes the safest bet in politics.

The other side of that coin comes to pass in November 2012. Will voters reward or punish Democrats for this action? I'm betting that every Democrat who walked out will now have a Republican running against them, and the top campaign issue will be the walkout. Some districts are so solidly Democrat that it won't matter, but others could be swayed.

So, let's assume for consideration's sake that the voters do punish enough of the walkout Democrats such that the Republicans gain a quorum-ready majority. What do you think the Rs will do with their legislative agenda? Think any compromise will be part of the plan? I conjure images of ramrods.

Even if the voters don't punish the Dems, the redistricting that will take place this year is controlled by the Republicans. In my estimation, if the maps are drawn blindly, without partisan consideration, the Republicans gain at least 8 seats in the Indiana House. If they gerrymander it? Maybe 12-15 seats? In any case, my opinion is that, barring some amazing shift that suddenly makes the Democrats exceptionally popular, or an incredible shift to the Libertarian Party occurs, the Republicans are going to have that quorum-ready majority in both the Indiana House and Senate. The Republicans are seething right now. I expect a full cram-down in 2012.

Love The Gridlock

I never thought there was even the slightest chance for gridlock this year in the Indiana legislature. Republicans are complaining, as are some Libertarians, but not me! I'll take my gridlock any way I can get it. From the Indy Star:

Republicans who control the Indiana House will try again today to convene the chamber, but boycotting Democrats said last week it's unlikely that they'll show up.

Democrats' absence would again deny the House the quorum it needs to do business. Democrats fled to Urbana, Ill., 14 days ago to derail Republican-back bills they oppose.

Stay all year! I support you, Dems!

Now, if only Governor Daniels doesn't go and command an extended session. Sigh.

State Legislator Mailings

Ah, first of the year, and we get our franked propaganda home delivered by our State Reps and State Senators. True to form, State Rep Kathy Richardson and State Senator Luke Kenley have seen to it that my mailbox was stuffed just a little more tightly than usual, with their spiels and finger-in-the-air questionnaires.

I'll break down each in upcoming posts, but was first drawn to Kenley's spiel.

Hoosier jobs and the economy are on everyone's mind as state lawmakers begin the 2010 session.

With declining tax revenues, legislators will avoid considering bills that would add costs to state government and raise taxes on already struggling Hoosiers. Instead, lawmakers will be on the lookout for concepts to streamline government and deliver better service to taxpayers.

That interests me because at least nationally, government is one of the primary job growth areas. I'll have to dig up some numbers for Indiana to see where are trends are.

I'd like to see costs cut, not merely held in check. If ever there was a right time and a perfect climate for cutting, this would be it. I'm not holding my breath. That would mean reducing empire and power, something Kenley, et al, have been loathe to do.

Kenley cites five topics as 'major' for the upcoming session:

• Economic issues (creating jobs, controlling state spending and avoiding tax hikes);
• Property tax caps
• Unemployment insurance premiums
• Government ethics reforms; and
• Redistricting

There's bound to be a lot of grandstanding attached to the latter two items on this list. Putting the legislature in charge of policing itself on ethics and reversing gerrymandering? Fox and hen house, I'm afraid. But I'm pleased to see this latter appear, having campaigned on it in 2006. Let's hope they involve the Libertarian Party in the process as a check and balance.

Smoking Ban Testimony

I was reminded yesterday what an unpleasant business law-making is, as I testified before a House Committee in opposition to Indiana HB 1213, which proposes a statewide smoking ban in private workplaces.

Two hours was alotted for the proponents, and then two hours for the opponents. There were many speakers for both sides, so I winnowed my remarks, from four pages to one and a half. I was quoted in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette:

“At first blush, you think this is a noble cause, but there needs to be a balance,” said Mike Smith, president of the casino group. Mike Kole, a central Indiana resident, echoed Smith’s concerns.

“It sends a signal to business that we like to meddle in how you run your affairs,” he said.

Here are the 'full' comments I presented to the Committee:

I do not smoke. I do not own a restaurant or a bar, a bowling alley, or a casino. I'm a regular citizen who has been concerned enough about the direction our governments are moving in to have run for office as a Libertarian candidate. I am ceoncerene about this law because of the messages and signals it sends, both by design, and unintentionally.

Because I don't smoke, and don't like secondhand smoke, I choose smoke-free restautants. For the same reasons, directing myself towards work that would not have me be in a smoking environment was something I did by conscious design, by choice. That's an important value. Choice.

I am dismayed with the ease with which proponents disregard the value of being free to choose, in order that a few more places will be how they like them to be.

With all due respect to Mr. Maurer, creating a healthy business climate, where Indiana attracts employers, is not created by passing a law like this. It sending the signal to business that we like to meddle in how you run your affairs. I don't think you'lll find a business owner that is drawn because of regulations or higher costs of operation.

In fact, the business owner from Lexington, Kentucky made the case that businesses adjust. That's true! They do! They respond to customer feedback. If business does better without smoking in their establishments, as he says they do, they would respond to that fact, as he said they do, and embrace the policy voluntarily.

Just as Voltaire famously made the case for free speech by saying, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it", I take a similar approach to this issue. Nobody thinks smoking is good for you, but tobacco is a legal product. And since we aren't calling for a prohibition of tobacco, and since this is still the land of the free, business owners should retain the right to set their policies within their four walls. Even if it isn't the policy I would set.

If government must be involved in this issue, it would be adequate to fully inform would-be patrons and workers of the smoking policy. I disagree with the person who gave testimony earlier, equating the signing of a waiver, which fully informs the worker of the working conditions, as 'intimidation'. It's information! And in a free society, we are able to make informed decisions. Post a sign indicating the smoking policy of the building and be done.

I urge you not to pass this bill, in the name of liberty, choice, and property rights.

Health should not come at the expense of these things.

I was a little astonished at the rudeness of many of the proponents. After the opponents sat quietly through two hours of their testimony, about half of their side left. About half of the remaining backers were talking loudly and answering their phones during their testimony, and some were even laughing at the opponents during their testimony.

Three women seated next to me were full of guffaws as a representative of the casino industry testified. When I returned from my turn to speak, I had to walk behind them to get back to my seat. As I sat down, the woman next to me leaned over and said, "I'm a libertarian, too".

I was completely stunned. I'm not sure in what universe the correlation between her rude behavior and her words has any meaning. I said nothing to her. If she's voting Libertarian, I'm glad of it, but she's doing so for all the wrong reasons.

The whole exercise reminded me just how much I dislike this process. Hearing two hours of the other side just made me cringe, for the complete disinterest they have in liberty, and in knowing they are probably a majority view. It take a tough hide, or completely mercenary disposition to tolerate it on a daily basis.

And that reminds me how much I've come to not respect the political mercenaries. I saw someone on the other side who smokes and whom I had come to believe was one who believes in liberty- especially as regards business property. That person is now deeply involved with the advancing of this bill, and I was told it is not at all about belief in right and proper government, but about being involved with a win.

That's just mindblowing and wholly contemptable. I've been known to get along just fine with socialists and other un-libertarians, on the basis of a good and vigorous debate that starts with the premise that we are interested in doing the best we can in the public arena. I can respect that person, even if I think they're wrong on their conclusions. What good is the political mercenary, who will even advance laws they think are bad, and not proper? This isn't a game. If you need to win at something that involves deception and cunning, play chess or poker, and leave the rest of us alone. Get the feather in your cap elsewhere.

In any case, this may not amount to much this year, as the Committee has to decide whether or not the bill will advance beyond the Committee. That vote is expected to happen next week.

New Podcast

The Indiana House Public Policy Committee is hearing testimony Wednesday morning on House Bill 1213, which would ban smoking in all Indiana workplaces if passed. 

I spoke with Chris Ward, the 2007 candidate for Lawrence Mayor in a special edition of the Libertarian Party of Indiana's Weekly Podcast. Chris has a useful perspective. He is a former smoker, and works in a restaurant that currently allows smoking in the bar area of the building. We talked about the health issues related to smoking in the workplace, worker choice, and the rights of business property owners.

For my part, I am scheduled to speak on the side of opponents of the bill in the House Chamber. I don't smoke, and I don't own a bar or a restaurant, but I believe in the primacy of the right of business owners over the intrusion of the state on the behalf of others.

Legislative Review

The Libertarian Party of Indiana has been reviewing legislation being proposed in the state House & Senate for the past several sessions, and 2009 is no exception. A slew of bills have already been reviewed, and while the cynic might expect Libertarians to be opposed to all of them, there are several bills the Party backs.

I like the new changes. It is still a blog format, but includes room for comments, and also a quick checkoff for 'agree' or 'disagree'.

Check it out here.

One thing I am doing is adding the LPIN Legislative Review to my 'Hot Off The Press" item, at the right. Readers here can see the latest review, and click through.

Rex Bell In a Two-Way Race

(Thermopolis WY)- Great news hit my inbox last night: Rex Bell's race in Indiana House District 54 is a two-way race this year. It was a three-way race in 2006, and Rex had the highest totals ever for a Libertarian candidate in such a race. Rex got 14.3% of the vote. Republican Thomas Saunders won the race with 46%. Results link.

This year, there is no Democrat. With Democratic antipathy towards the Republican party running deep, could this be the year that a Libertarian is at last elected to the State House of Representatives? All it takes is for more disaffected Republicans to vote for Rex, and the Democratic voters to do the same.

Rex carries many precincts very handily. I know I rode his coattails in many parts of Wayne County, scoring as high as 30% in some of these precincts in my race for Secretary of State. Numbers that high are very unusual for a statewide office, but Rex is very popular at home.