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. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

  2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

  3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

  4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

  5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.

ADVERTISEMENT