IBJOpinion

FEIGENBAUM: Governor focuses on the big issues, just as Reagan did

Ed Feigenbaum
February 12, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Feb. 6 would have been the 100th birthday for President Ronald Reagan. Gov. Mitch Daniels, who worked for the fellow Republican in the White House, was inundated with interview requests asking what lessons he learned from Reagan that he applied in his own turn as a state chief executive.

The governor invariably replied that it was Reagan’s fixation on the big picture that guided The Gipper’s administration, and he tried to emulate that. Daniels staffers confirm his similar admonitions to them. That “think big” attitude seems to be carrying over to lawmakers, who this month focused on major issues, in both committee hearings and floor action.

The governor’s “truce” on social and wedge issues has for now been cast aside. But the debates on such hot-button topics as banning same-sex marriage, abortion restrictions, charter school expansion, immigration law reform and enforcement, trimming corporate taxes, and local government reform didn’t degenerate to the level of personal and political donnybrooks that have disrupted previous sessions.

Sure, there was a four-hour delay of floor action as the House prepared to consider the controversial charter school legislation, while Democrats privately plotted their strategy on a raft of amendments (and the party-line votes on them undoubtedly will be used against individual Republicans in their new legislative districts in 2012).

But it’s been far tamer than many expected, given the compressed schedule, the emotional nature of the issues, the lengthy period (think years) that many items had been bottled up, the relative inexperience of many lawmakers and their perceived impatience to act, and the importance of the topics as lawmakers looked at the proverbial big picture.

Of course, virtually any action, inaction, or real or perceived slight can trigger an unhealthy overreaction at any point, and lawmakers haven’t even yet sat down to the table to talk budget or contemplate the newly delivered chunk of census data meat that soon will be carved up for political consumption.

But there is another critical item still floating around the rotunda that could yet be delayed for other overarching reasons.

In a previous column, I described the lightning fast ride through the legislative process that the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund fix measure, HB 1450, was taking. That bill had passed the House and was destined to land on the governor’s desk for signature by month’s end.

Last year, you may remember, legislators—with the governor’s acquiescence—had tolled the effective date of the unemployment insurance tax hike for one year, thinking the federal government would step in and bail out the states. That never happened, and a new bill to revamp the 2009 compromise was on rails.

But in recent days, solons were surprised to learn the president was ready to include a plan in his federal budget proposal imposing a 2011 and 2012 moratorium on state tax increases and on state interest payments on the mounting debt.

You’ll hear only a modicum of political rhetoric about Hoosier Republicans’ being hypocritical about adding to the federal debt if they can benefit big business, and about the governor’s allowing other states to help bail out Indiana’s UI irresponsibility Why? Because Democrats see any federal intervention here as an opportunity to aid organized labor.

And who wouldn’t be curious about conversations between Daniels and the six frugal Hoosiers in the congressional delegation whose first professed priority is deficit reduction? Would they consider the plight of business and the unemployed back home?

While both parties dance around how they will help their respective favored constituencies in the state unemployment-insurance fix, the remedy as it passed the House will continue to proceed through the Senate. The state can’t afford to wait on the feds to decide whether they will address this and, if so, how.

After all, we have to focus on the big picture.•

__________

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. Looking at the two companies - in spite of their relative size to one another -- Ricker's image is (by all accounts) pretty solid and reputable. Their locations are clean, employees are friendly and the products they offer are reasonably priced. By contrast, BP locations are all over the place and their reputation is poor, especially when you consider this is the same "company" whose disastrous oil spill and their response was nothing short of irresponsible should tell you a lot. The fact you also have people who are experienced in franchising saying their system/strategy is flawed is a good indication that another "spill" has occurred and it's the AM-PM/Ricker's customers/company that are having to deal with it.

  2. Daniel Lilly - Glad to hear about your points and miles. Enjoy Wisconsin and Illinois. You don't care one whit about financial discipline, which is why you will blast the "GOP". Classic liberalism.

  3. Isn't the real reason the terrain? The planners under-estimated the undulating terrain, sink holes, karst features, etc. This portion of the route was flawed from the beginning.

  4. You thought no Indy was bad, how's no fans working out for you? THe IRl No direct competition and still no fans. Hey George Family, spend another billion dollars, that will fix it.

  5. I live downtown Indy and had to be in downtown Chicago for a meeting. In other words, I am the target demographic for this train. It leaves at 6:00-- early but doable. Then I saw it takes 5+ hours. No way. I drove. I'm sure I paid 3 to 5 times as much once you factor in gas, parking, and tolls, but it was reimbursed so not a factor for me. Any business traveler is going to take the option that gets there quickly and reliably... and leisure travelers are going to take the option that has a good schedule and promotional prices (i.e., Megabus). Indy to Chicago is the right distance (too short to fly but takes several hours to drive) that this train could be extremely successful even without subsidies, if they could figure out how to have several frequencies (at least 3x/day) and make the trip in a reasonable amount of time. For those who have never lived on the east coast-- Amtrak is the #1 choice for NY-DC and NY-Boston. They have the Acela service, it runs almost every hour, and it takes you from downtown to downtown. It beats driving and flying hands down. It is too bad that we cannot build something like this in the midwest, at least to connect the bigger cities.

ADVERTISEMENT