IBJNews

Democrats outline legislative plans for General Assembly

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Indiana Senate Democrats will push for work-share legislation as well as consumer and job protections when the General Assembly reconvenes in January.

Democrats—who hold just 13 of the chamber’s 50 seats—on Tuesday released their 2012 legislative agenda, which Minority Leader Vi Simpson, D-Ellettsville, said is aimed at “helping turn this economy around.”

“Our No. 1 priority—which should be the No. 1 priority of everyone in the state—is jobs, job creation and economic fairness,” Simpson said.

Democrats will push for work-share, an unemployment insurance program that allows a business to reduce staff hours while the state gives workers a share of the unemployment payments they would have received had they been completely laid off. The goal of the program is to keep Hoosiers employed during slow economic times, Democrats said.

More than 20 other states already participate in work-share programs. Senate Democrats plan to support the House bill expected to be authored by Rep. Mary Ann Sullivan, D-Indianapolis, on this issue.

Other Senate Democratic proposals include:

— A bill to require online retailers to collect state sales taxes on purchases. Currently, many online retailers—those without a physical presence in the state—do not collect the tax, which Democrats say gives them an unfair advantage over local businesses.

— Legislation to restrict how an employer can use an applicant’s credit history in hiring. Exceptions would include managerial positions and positions with the state attorney general, local government, law enforcement, or those where credit history consideration is required by federal law.

— A proposal to ban companies from discriminating against people who have been unemployed for long periods. Similar legislation passed in New Jersey and is pending in New York.

— Creation of “new hire” tax credits for small companies, similar to those available to larger firms.

— A plan to give preference for state contracts to companies that employ Hoosiers.

The Democrat plan also includes proposals for early-education programs and additional oversight for private schools that receive vouchers.

“The earlier you start to put children into an educational environment, the better chances they have achieving in school,” said Sen. Earline Rogers, D-Gary. “My legislation would create an office of Early Learning for Children, working in conjunction with the Department of Education, so that we can begin to look at this very important time in the life of a child.”

Republicans who control the Senate have not released a full agenda. But Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, has said that passing right-to-work legislation—which would free all workers from being forced to pay fees to unions they don’t join—is a top priority.

Long has also said that another priority for the 2012 session will be passing a law that clarifies how or whether homeowners can use physical force to bar illegal police entries. The issue stems from a controversial Indiana Supreme Court decision earlier this year.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Proposals
    I am not a democrat, but some of the proposals outlined do not seem too bad. I would be firmly against any early education program if it means creating an Office of Early Learning for Children, as proposed by Sen. Rogers.

    Another government agency? Forget it. Let the existing Dept. of Education handle it, and with its existing staff. We in the private sector learned to do more with less years ago.
  • Missing Priorities
    How can mass transportation not be a top priority. It has a huge impact on jobs, economic development, healthcare, development and education among others. We can't keep pushing it aside and wondering why we continue to decline! This must be a top priority for the state, but especially Indianapolis!

Post a comment to this story

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.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  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