IBJOpinion

FEIGENBAUM: Expect uncertainty in the 2010 General Assembly

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One certainty about the 2010 session of the Indiana General Assembly: It will be over by mid-March.

That, however, may be the only predictable element of a session that convenes during the most turbulent and unpredictable economic times this state has endured in decades.

As a result, this gathering likely will prove to be a united and uncontroversial meeting of the minds—as both parties coalesce to pass politically popular proposals that will do no harm, postponing their tough decisions until after the election (while forcing the governor to be the bad guy). Or they will jump in and make difficult choices that will allow the state to survive the economic straits and preserve legislative prerogative in spending decisions.

Today, our money is on the former.

December offers a peek at promises and priorities as the legislative schedule again opens a month early. The agenda features a bevy of committee hearings in both the Senate and House of Representatives aimed at expediting packages considered sufficiently important that legislative leaders deem calendar creep essential.

Many Democrats finally seem to be warming—at least politically—to adding property tax caps to the Indiana Constitution, but seek protection against “assessment creep” in a trailer bill. Serving up too many restrictions on assessed values, however, also could pose constitutional problems and further hamper provision of local government services.

And while some business interests are softening their previous opposition to the tax caps, that sentiment is universal, and the state’s agricultural community remains largely averse to how application of the circuit breaker affects Hoosier ag.

Expect a few more prominent issues, some important to business, and some not, to be the subject of some debate—or debate over why they will not be debated.

While a legislative interim study committee completed its two-year review of the state’s alcoholic beverage laws and recommended adherence to the status quo, there remains considerable pent-up demand for some changes. Recent administrative and legal action may offer additional impetus.

The state’s casino industry—a direct employer of some 14,000 and a major contributor to state coffers—is at a crossroads, facing coming competition from Ohio and possibly Kentucky. The racinos seek tax relief; some casinos want tax incentives for non-gambling economic investments, income tax credits against the wagering tax, or tax deferral on some free-play offerings.

Another interim study committee examined gambling issues and found it difficult to achieve consensus on equitable assistance, as each property seems to face its individual challenges and would be affected differently by universal solutions. Tax breaks are not politically palatable, a casino move is a tough sell, and the only legislation that might emerge could center on allowing land-based gambling at current riverboat sites or simply eliminating maritime requirements and crews. However, any time a gambling issue comes to the floor, things become complicated.

Township-government reform efforts also will return.

Other emotional issues, such as smoking bans and prohibitions on texting while driving, will inevitably arise and distract lawmakers.

We’re just jaded enough to believe that much of the session’s direction will not be evident until close to Feb. 19, the deadline for filing for legislative office. The 2010 election for the Indiana House of Representatives is acknowledged to be the most important of the decade, because Democrats need to maintain their majority to affect the drawing of new district lines in 2011.

Both parties believe their respective ability to “draw the maps” will largely determine which party will be able to control the House majority for the succeeding 10 years (when Republicans drew the House maps in 1981, they held the majority for all but one election in that decade; likewise, Democrats were in charge of House mapmaking in 1991 and 2001 and maintained their majorities in all but one election in each of those two decades, to date).•

-------------------

Feigenbaum publishes Indiana Legislative Insight. Views expressed here are the writer’s.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT