Daniels' budget axing priorities?

January 7, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
Gov. Mitch Daniels said yesterday he wants to spare schools and public safety from the scalpel as he looks to prepare an honestly balanced budget during a time of declining tax revenue.

But Democrats accuse the Republican of crimping funding for economic development just when the state needs it most. House Speaker Pat Bauer, a Democrat, in particular singled out life sciences as a bright spot that should get more money.

How do you feel about budget priorities at a time when higher education Commissioner Stan Jones said, â??We all need to do our partâ???

Should state government leave the spigot open for economic development or should it take its share of lumps, too?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • rickJanuary 7, 2009 12:57 PM
    What Mr. Bauer cannot seem to comprehend for some unimaginable reason is that the economic development folks for the state actually manage to work in an effecient, effective manner - something the teachers union couldn't even come close to doing in their wildest dreams.

    Since Mitch came on board as governer, the state has seen a remarkable turnaround with regards to ED. Check this very column for evidence of that: http://newstalk.ibj.com/content/?p=265

    Keeping in mind that communities still have the option of funding education using local dollars, the state is right to level funding during the downturn.

    I think that, for the most part, Mitch's priorities are dead on, save one. He should have included funding to buy a muzzle for Pat.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • JoyceJanuary 7, 2009 1:23 PM
    All it takes is a donation. Public education is a bottomless hole that can never be filled. No matter how much tax money they get, schools will always want or need more. A line must be drawn.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • berwickguyJanuary 7, 2009 3:20 PM
    The teachers union should go bust. All they have been able to accomplish over their many years is to dumb down the level of education to their own level of incompetence. Oh, yeah, let's keep on all the tenured teachers with guaranteed jobs no matter how bad they are!!!

    It is a poor reflection on the caring, excellent educators we have enduring the massive levels of incompetence. And now they want to blame charter schools for their problems. They should look harder at how they do things - without UNIONS!!!!!
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • DougJanuary 7, 2009 4:23 PM
    So by now we all know the system has a life of it's own, that insaitable thurst Joyce mentions. I think there are 2 major issues here, 1) we have a level of funding that calls for a RESOURCE RE-ALLOCATION based on some fundementally sound educational principles that would guide how existing funds are used(reused) and be refocused on the true customer of education and 2) there remains a consistent lack of parental involvement which allows the system to more easily meet it's own needs. One of the solutions may be to forge more collaboration between the business community (who receives the product from the education system) and the schools who do not seem to be able to provide the employability preparedness needed to meet the ever changing demands of the job market. The Gov. should be concerned about funding programs that meet BOTH the education and economic development needs. These cannot be separated one from the other. Unfortunately, there is no ONE clear answer to the question posed in this post.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • WesJanuary 8, 2009 10:57 AM
    Kill all the public employee pensions. Why should they get a nice pension when the rest of us are slugging it out trying to get 401K? Did public employees make some sort of sacrifice that the rest of us haven't?
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Da HooeyJanuary 8, 2009 10:00 PM
    What a bunch of stupid gibberish. Outlaw unions? Puhleeeze. Look how far we have come with Bush's Economic Strategeries! Dear lord you people are clueless.


    Brian Bosma for President! :lol:
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • TerryJanuary 9, 2009 9:45 AM
    I think we've all had our fill of trickle-down economics. The only thing tricking now is the leak in my 1998 Olds driving to the unemployment office to pick up my 13th check for 1/3 my former salary to pay for fuel oil for my heater in my house that is 3 months behind in payments. I had an interview at White Castle but they filled the position before I got there. Nice job Mitch. Keep that billion in the bank. Us unemployed will trickle it away.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • berwickguyJanuary 9, 2009 12:15 PM
    Hooey: Where did you get the idea that someone said to outlaw unions. I don't read that at all. All I said was that their methods have not worked and they should disappear due to their own incompetence. That specifically was the teachers union. There are many, many reasons for this sentiment. Ask the many potential teachers that have several years of business experience but can't be hired because they would have to be paid more than a starting teacher. Rubbish. Where is the union to see that they get the best qualified person? Their priority is to keep ahold of those dead weights.

    Secondly, Terry, it is NOT the government's role to provide jobs. Nver has been and never should be. I hate to hear ANY politician say I created x # of jobs. Their only role is to keep government intervention methods out of the way so business can do what they do effectively and efficiently.

    Mitch has certainly done a better job of this than his predecessor. It's not the governor's fault that someone can't find a job. Get a clue.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • BethJanuary 9, 2009 12:33 PM
    berwickguy, we've seen first hand what lack of government intervention can do. Having the state sit on billions of our tax dollars is proabbly unconstitutional.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • GoIndyGoJanuary 9, 2009 8:42 PM
    My main confusion on this issue is that there are funds in the state's surplus set aside specifically for education. Instead of freezing spending levels, why not use a portion of those funds to cover annual increases in the state budget. It's true that to keep spending levels the same amounts to a cutback due to ever-increasing costs involved in materials and labor, so why not use our rainy-day fund. Last I checked it was pouring outside.

    To be fair, even the fact that we HAVE a surplus in this state is an incredible accomplishment, so way to go Mitch and Co.

    http://goindygo.blogspot.com
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Da HooeyJanuary 12, 2009 11:59 AM
    Mitch is an excellent salesman.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • rickJanuary 12, 2009 2:39 PM
    True... but that's because he has an excellent product to offer.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • GwynyJanuary 14, 2009 1:38 PM
    As I recall, when the boy governor (Evan) took office he too had a healthy budget surplus. In 2 years it was gone and those lucky state employees went for 6 years without ANY raise because there was no money to even cover the basics (I know this in a very personal way). At that time there no great financial disaster going on either, Evan was just pleasing his allies and patronizing his constiutents.

    If Evan couldn'r replentish the coffers in normal times, how will we do it now? If we spend down the surplus now, there won't be anything to help if things really go in the tank.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • BoomerJanuary 14, 2009 2:21 PM
    If everyone had to write a check every month to pay for their child's education, they would view it much differently. Since school funding is part of our property tax, that makes it too easy for people to forget. They put the kid on the school bus and let the schools take care of the rest. In many private schools, parent involvement is a requirement. They welcome and desire parents to volunteer, go on field trips, etc. Take an interest your investment. I'm paying for public school (via taxes) on top of my child's private education. I part with a lot of money each month, and I for darned sure want to be involved. I agree with Joyce. There will never be enough money for schools. That's why you make due with what you have. And leave your savings alone.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT