IBJOpinion

FEIGENBAUM: Session to test lawmakers' views on small government

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Every legislative session opens with a unique set of issues that lawmakers expect to confront. As the weeks pass, it develops its own rhythm as specifics take shape. And it concludes on a note of general satisfaction or with a sense of exhaustion after a realization that not everything could be handled in a given year.

Of course, this 2011 session will be no different in those respects, and everyone is well aware of the uphill climb lawmakers face in crafting a biennial budget amid a stagnant national and regional economy, and the pent-up demand on key social and economic issues that the new—and large—Republican majority in the House hopes to address.

But there also will be an underlying current of “smaller government” that will shape many basic issues that either directly or indirectly affect Hoosier businesses.

Many new House and Senate members won election in part on platforms of reducing government regulation and minimizing government in the lives of Hoosiers. A growing number of issues likely will be framed in terms relevant to that large contingent. The exact impact will be decided on an issue-by-issue basis.

This may prove to be a fascinating scenario unfolding, as first-time lawmakers grapple with balancing their baseline principles against individual issues they will quickly learn might not lend themselves to such simple resolution—despite how well it may have resonated in those incessant 30-second campaign sound bites.

Advocates for revising the confusing system of alcohol sales regulations may find a more receptive audience in the new members who may question why the free market system does not permit cold alcohol sales in non-package stores, and how the Hoosier economy is helped by banning Sunday sales of alcohol.

After all, we’ve seen some fairly impressive statistics showing how sales (read: tax revenue) would be pumped up by deregulation. But lots of “mom and pop” stores would be hurt by allowing major retailers to further cut into their sales. Opponents of change are sure to raise public safety arguments, as well as potential problems with carding and shoplifting at larger retail establishments where minors can work and shop. Concerns over a “government-created monopoly” may end up not being as dispositive as expected.

Other issues that could leave lawmakers torn between arguments for public safety and excessive government intrusion into our daily lives:

• Criminalizing or otherwise penalizing conduct related to obscenity and privacy on the Internet.

• Banning the sale of highly caffeinated alcoholic beverages (or even highly caffeinated beverages without alcohol, as Kentucky is now considering).

• Prohibiting smoking in public places.

• Requiring prescriptions for the sale of ethical drug products containing ephedrine and pseudo-ephedrine.

Some of these philosophical arguments may be reversed by pro-choice legislators fighting against a bill to be filed requiring ultrasounds before abortions.

And what about advocates for township government reform? That is decidedly not a partisan political issue, given the nonpartisan recommendations of the Kernan-Shepard Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform.

Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels suggests that some justification for eliminating layers of township government is economic in nature, saving scarce tax dollars.

The fiscal frugality and elimination of what the incumbent governor and his Democratic predecessor assail as anachronistic government should be a slam-dunk argument with the new class of solons. However, many emerged from the Hoosier AAA political farm team of township government, campaigned to retain the level of government closest to the people, and are suspicious of consolidating power at the county level, particularly in larger counties.

As Assistant House Democratic Leader Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, explained last month at a legislative conference, many issues destined for debate will not be determined on a partisan basis, but by legislators making difficult decisions based upon “what they value most.”

For many of these lawmakers, particularly freshmen not accustomed to compromising on basic principles, this won’t be as intuitive as they anticipated—and it will be much more agonizing.•

__________

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

  • Sound Bites and Social Issues
    You rightly say: "This may prove to be a fascinating scenario unfolding, as first-time lawmakers grapple with balancing their baseline principles against individual issues they will quickly learn might not lend themselves to such simple resolutionâ??despite how well it may have resonated in those incessant 30-second campaign sound bites."

    How true, especially concerning the social issues like the periennial debate over a constitutional amendment delaing with marriage. Very few legislators, not to mention journalists and political commentators, have yet to take adequate notice of or appreciate the BIG change advocates have made since SJR-7 failed in 2007.

    In recorded testimony and elsewhere, the original measure was touted as reignining in ONLY "unelected activist judges". The sponsors insisted that the General Assembly itself not only still could, but indeed should, be able to debate and pass measures up to and including civil unions, even though they themselves would oppose such legislation.

    But not any more. The newer amendment versions would ALSO take away that ciritical legislative authority. Sadly there is only silence as to why the fundaental switch.

    The legislature already has its plate more than full of really tough issues that deserve many hours of careful discussion and consideration. If the controversial and divisive marriage issue is to be on the plate, it must be afforded something far more than a 30-second sound bite's worth of analysis. The state's media and political observers have a heavy public obligation to remind both the public and our legislators as to all the nuances and long range consquences of this unexsplained change.

    The representative process deserves no less.

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. Those of you yelling to deport them all should at least understand that the law allows minors (if not from a bordering country) to argue for asylum. If you don't like the law, you can petition Congress to change it. But you can't blindly scream that they all need to be deported now, unless you want your government to just decide which laws to follow and which to ignore.

  2. 52,000 children in a country with a population of nearly 300 million is decimal dust or a nano-amount of people that can be easily absorbed. In addition, the flow of children from central American countries is decreasing. BL - the country can easily absorb these children while at the same time trying to discourage more children from coming. There is tension between economic concerns and the values of Judeo-Christian believers. But, I cannot see how the economic argument can stand up against the values of the believers, which most people in this country espouse (but perhaps don't practice). The Governor, who is an alleged religious man and a family man, seems to favor the economic argument; I do not see how his position is tenable under the circumstances. Yes, this is a complicated situation made worse by politics but....these are helpless children without parents and many want to simply "ship" them back to who knows where. Where are our Hoosier hearts? I thought the term Hoosier was synonymous with hospitable.

  3. Illegal aliens. Not undocumented workers (too young anyway). I note that this article never uses the word illegal and calls them immigrants. Being married to a naturalized citizen, these people are criminals and need to be deported as soon as humanly possible. The border needs to be closed NOW.

  4. Send them back NOW.

  5. deport now

ADVERTISEMENT