IBJOpinion

EDITORIAL: Legislators need to create jobs, not kill them

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Editorial

We’ve heard plenty since the November election about what we should expect out of our elected officials. Our Legislature, we were told, would be all about jobs in 2011. Fiscal responsibility and education reform are front and center—but they are merely a means to the same end: jobs.

Sadly, a legislative body supposedly focused on job creation continues to willfully disregard the advice of the very business community that is expected to create those jobs.

The advice from business? Steer clear of immigration reform and gay marriage legislation. Those issues don’t advance job creation, they hurt it.

The response? Legislation dealing with immigration and marriage is sailing through the General Assembly. Our lawmakers’ professed love for job creation apparently has its limits.

Senate Bill 590 would give Indiana an immigration law on par with the controversial Arizona law. It would open the door to racial and ethnic profiling by police, creating an atmosphere of intolerance that business leaders say is inconsistent with participating in the global economy.

Indiana Chamber of Commerce President Kevin Brinegar told a Senate committee his organization is concerned the bill would hurt economic development in the state.

Cummins Inc. President Tim Solso advanced that notion in an opinion piece in The Indianapolis Star. Solso said Cummins, which has a global footprint and is one of the state’s largest employers, can’t grow in a state with a reputation for intolerance. He noted that 30 percent of the company’s Indiana work force was born outside the United States, including almost 700 from India, China and Mexico—any of whom could be subject to questioning by law enforcement officials if the bill becomes law.

The bill also amounts to a fiscal threat. Attorney General Greg Zoeller says defending its constitutionality could cost the state millions.

We wish legislators would listen to reason and reverse course on what could be a costly, job-killing bill. Pressure the federal government to secure U.S. borders, but don’t put Hoosier jobs and resources at risk in the process.

Not a single job will be created by writing a gay-marriage ban into the state constitution. Yet some are pursuing that tired cause once again in spite of objections from the Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce and some employers that it will alienate talented employees—who happen to be gay.

The definition of marriage bill has legs this year thanks to the Legislature’s Republican majority, but the version of the bill that passed the House goes beyond the stated goal of its sponsors, which is to protect the institution of marriage. The bill would also prohibit anything resembling marriage. That part of the bill could jeopardize existing policies under which some companies extend benefits to their unmarried employees’ domestic partners, both gay and straight.

If sponsors of this bill are truly concerned only about the institution of marriage, why does the legislation overreach?

Republicans should stick to what they’ve historically been known for: limited government and fiscal responsibility. Both are good for the economy. Making life difficult for businesses and their employees is not.•

__________

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

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Yeah.
    More on the Indiana ban on gay marriage:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAXf7nAo2Fs

    Makes good points.
  • Needs more teeth
    Enough with the "we wish they would..." stuff. This is an opinion piece, so have an opinion. Not only that, tell people what they can do if they agree with your opinion. Is there a hearing we could attend? Does writing to your representatives help? If it passes, can it be repealed? How? Can we pressure the governor to veto any of this? I'm tired of playing dead for the Republicans in Indiana.
  • Cummins
    And, it should also be noted that Cummins Inc. was one of the first (if not THE first) company in the state to extend domestic partner benefits to its employees. Thank you Cummins for being an inclusive company. We need more leaders in the state like Tim Solso.

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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT