EDITORIAL: Bad bills temper legislative achievements

 IBJ Staff
May 7, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Editorial

On the face of it, the just-concluded session of the Indiana General Assembly was one to savor for business interests.

Lawmakers approved a cut in corporate income taxes—quite a feat in a year when state coffers were bare—and reduced the amount businesses will have to repay to replenish the indebted Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund.

And business lobbyists were able to beat back many ideas they didn’t like, such as a provision in the original version of an immigration bill that would have revoked businesses’ licenses after three violations of hiring undocumented workers.

Yet in other ways, we’re forlorn, even embarrassed, by what emanated from the Statehouse this year. Issues lawmakers decided to make priorities, or failed to make priorities, confounded us—and added to the unfortunate perception that Indiana is stuck in the past.

To attract and retain businesses in the 21st century, the state must position itself as progressive and forward-thinking—a point executives from Cummins Inc. drove home in opposing the original immigration bill as well as a constitutional amendment that passed banning gay marriage.

Tim Solso, CEO of Cummins—one of the few Indiana employers on a hiring spree—put it well in an op-ed. “We plan to add even more people given our ambitious plans for growth,” he wrote. “These new jobs could be located in many places in the world; for us to add them in Indiana we must have an environment that is welcoming to all people and where diversity is valued and allowed to flourish.”

Fortunately, backers of the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions have more hoops to jump through. It must win legislative approval in 2013 or 2014 to face a statewide referendum in November 2014.

Here are other lowlights of the session:

• Lawmakers again failed to pass a statewide smoking ban in workplaces and other public sites. Passing a ban with teeth should be a no-brainer. And failure to do so may begin to undermine the city’s all-important convention trade. As Don Welsh, then-CEO of the Indiana Convention & Visitors Association, said last year: “It’s what people have come to expect, and Indianapolis is being left behind.”

• Legislators passed—and Gov. Mitch Daniels signed—legislation that makes Indiana the first state to cut off all government funding for Planned Parenthood. The move puts the state at risk of losing as much as $4 million a year in federal funds—none of which pays for abortions.

Planned Parenthood says the funding loss will lead to undetected cancers, untreated sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies. Daniels disagrees, saying women in all 92 counties will continue to have access to services nearby.

This much is clear: It’s a bad law, just the sort of vindictive, backward measure that lawmakers spent way too much time debating this year.

We’ll take this session’s business victories—fortunately, some lawmakers focused on the right things. But the misguided agendas of too many members of the General Assembly threaten to undercut progress the state is making in enhancing its business climate.•


To comment on this editorial, write to ibjedit@ibj.com.


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.