IBJOpinion

FEIGENBAUM: Freshmen legislators' green is showing

Ed Feigenbaum
February 26, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Action: House of Representatives Democrats walked out Tuesday to prevent the adoption of a House committee report paving the way for a far-reaching (but not absolute) right-to-work measure—added to the committee calendar at effectively the last minute of the last possible day.

Reaction: Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels called the Statehouse media into his office, not to castigate or condemn House Democrats’ actions, but rather to calmly and cautiously cajole them back to work.

He would not sic the Indiana State Police on wayward Democrats—some of whom were then-rumored to be seeking sanctuary in Illinois and Kentucky, states overseen by Democratic governors—and just appealed to their consciences to conduct business.

Some national Republicans looking for red-meat political rhetoric from Daniels as they begin to choose sides in the 2012 Republican presidential sweepstakes may have been disappointed in that, but they were probably even more disappointed in his refusal to stand on principle in favor of a right-to-work law.

Instead, echoing his recent Conservative Political Action Conference speech in which he suggested that “Purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers,” Daniels reminded reporters of his earlier fears that waving the right-to-work flag in front of Democrats during this session would likely prove counterproductive, and that it should best be vetted in front of the public in a campaign context where the issue was a principal campaign plank on both sides of the partisan political ledger.

However, despite the strong Republican majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly, the governor has not always found strict adherence to his legislative and fiscal preferences.

While some of the major so-called “wedge” issues—changes in abortion policy and definitions of when life begins, a same-sex marriage ban constitutional amendment and charter-school expansion—were passed by one or both chambers over surprisingly little Democratic opposition, and even school vouchers didn’t seem as offensive to the legislative minority as they had hinted, there was a firewall.

Perhaps lulled into a belief that the lack of a Democratic firestorm on the other controversial issues meant Dems were resigned to their fate, or simply holding back their heavy artillery for the redistricting or budget bills, Republicans waited until late in the game to call for a right-to-work hearing, and pushed it through after what can be characterized as unusually brief testimony for such a controversial matter.

While Monday’s floor proceedings were conducted professionally with occasional flashes of good humor, Democrats apparently decided that the Right-to-Work principle was a core principle, and a strong display at the Statehouse of human bumper stickers with the union label—“Wisconsin lite”—offered them further encouragement.

As the session was unfolding in January, Assistant House Democratic Leader Scott Pelath, D–Michigan City, hinted that his colleagues—on both sides of the aisle—would truly do battle on “what they value most.” Tuesday night, Democrats said they had grievances with almost one dozen bills on a “radical” Republican “reform” agenda, and not just one area. Instead of “anti-child and anti-worker” measures, they wanted more public school aid and income-boosting initiatives.

When the dust eventually settles, expect the freshman bloc to listen more closely to their more-seasoned legislative and executive branch leaders and avoid overreaching. They had already racked up an impressive record of success as the first half of the session was preparing to draw to a quiet close. An Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund fix and and extension of the use of vote centers were approved by both chambers. Major school reforms—and significant funding changes—were on their way through, together with abortion restrictions, easing of gun-control laws, corporate tax cuts, and the marriage amendment. You don’t have to back the bills to be impressed by the activity.

Republicans were likely to add to that litany a budget that improved upon the governor’s submission, and new legislative maps favoring their party as a whole.

But the “new kids in the bloc” failed to heed their elders, and got a bit greedy too quickly, goading Democrats into the only recourse open to them. With Democrats in Ohio and Wisconsin acting largely the same way as their Hoosier compatriots (over less substance), Indiana Democrats aren’t as chastened as freshmen Republicans hoped.

This is a key lesson for the freshmen going forward.•

__________

Feigenbaum publishes Indiana Legislative Insight. His column appears weekly while the Indiana General Assembly is in session. He can be reached at edf@ingrouponline.com.
 

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. Can your dog sign a marriage license or personally state that he wishes to join you in a legal union? If not then no, you cannot marry him. When you teach him to read, write, and speak a discernible language, then maybe you'll have a reasonable argument. Thanks for playing!

  2. Look no further than Mike Rowe, the former host of dirty jobs, who was also a classically trained singer.

  3. Current law states income taxes are paid to the county of residence not county of income source. The most likely scenario would be some alteration of the income tax distribution formula so money earned in Marion co. would go to Marion Co by residents of other counties would partially be distributed to Marion co. as opposed to now where the entirety is held by the resident's county.

  4. This is more same-old, same-old from a new generation of non-progressive 'progressives and fear mongers. One only needs to look at the economic havoc being experienced in California to understand the effect of drought on economies and people's lives. The same mindset in California turned a blind eye to the growth of population and water needs in California, defeating proposal after proposal to build reservoirs, improve water storage and delivery infrastructure...and the price now being paid for putting the demands of a raucous minority ahead of the needs of many. Some people never, never learn..

  5. I wonder if I can marry him too? Considering we are both males, wouldn't that be a same sex marriage as well? If they don't honor it, I'll scream discrimination just like all these people have....

ADVERTISEMENT