IBJOpinion

FEIGENBAUM: Will Democrats hold out until some warm April day?

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

Since there is not a whole lot of legislative action to report on—nor to preview—this week, we’ll probably fill up this column with more trite cliches than you’ve endured in a long time. Of course, if you’ve been closely monitoring coverage of the legislative stalemate, you may have already run across a few (dozen) of them.

The immovable force meets the irresistible object, and the outcome is predictable: an impasse. House of Representatives Democrats largely remain bunkered en masse in Urbana, Ill., save occasional individual appearances back at town hall events in their respective districts.

We presume they’ve taken advantage of such opportunities to drop by home (if not the House) to pick up clean underwear and some loungewear that declares their loyalty to an Indiana college or university of their choosing, instead of the University of Illinois sweatshirts they’ve been reduced to buying at Kohl’s or Macy’s during their self-imposed exile.

House Republicans voted to assess $250 per-day fines for absent members. Headstrong Democrats had decided to forgo their per diem payments in roughly the same amount (albeit just as Republicans were ready to require Demos to show up in person at the Statehouse to collect).

Democrats labor in Urbana on assorted amendments to objectionable legislation, but if gas prices continue to rise to $4 per gallon, the cost of commuting, especially with their wallets a bit lighter, may find them lying low in the Land of Lincoln even longer.

Even as the House hijinks continue unabated, the Senate continues its regular business, answering the question about what one hand clapping might sound like. The sole concession the Senate has made to the lack of House action has been temporary forbearance by Senate Committee on Appropriations Chairman Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, on budget hearings. That moratorium won’t last long, however, as the Senate tries to salvage something substantive from the attenuated session.

So what will happen?

Frankly, you have to be channeling Charlie Sheen to truly believe you know what’s next in this unique saga.

The Indianapolis hotels and restaurants that are so dependent upon the steady stream of expense account legislative business January through April probably have a better grip on the status of the National Football League negotiations between players and owners toward a labor agreement that would keep the Super Bowl in Indianapolis next February than they do on what might happen just next week in the negotiations between House Democrats and House Republicans.

That lack of knowledge is largely because there are no real negotiations, even as Democrats slowly pare down their list of demands that focus on education and labor issues.

Watch after the basketball tournament to see if House Republicans seek to extend the deadline for consideration of all theoretically dead bills. If they do, Democrats may perceive this as the final gauntlet being thrown down in front of them.

Leaving Charlie Sheen-like proclamations out of the picture, history and an understanding of the personalities and dynamics suggest two potential basic outcomes:

First, House Democrats could agree to return after the Big Ten men’s basketball tournament, with the understanding that some noncontroversial matters that had been left lingering on the Second and Third Reading calendars will be advanced to the Senate quickly, and that they may offer amendments to some of the objectionable education measures that will be taken seriously (recall that there will also be some GOP amendments to voucher and charter bills that Democrats will embrace). Democrats would likely insist that a big chunk of their fines be waived, and Republicans would probably insist on some serious penance, such as allowing the budget bill to effectively be a Senate-driven document that will not be amended back in the House.

Second, Democrats could hold out until some point in April, and return simply to consider redistricting and budget measures (or both combined into one bill, as in 1991), in which case they still would have no voting clout. But House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, insists he will not countenance a limited agenda as a condition of their self-extradition, and we would assume the 19 House freshmen—the same group that forced Bosma’s hand on the right-to-work bill that touched off the walkout—would literally mutiny if their entire agenda were left by the legislative wayside.

Neither option appears particular palatable to either party, nor are they truly feasible. That’s why every veteran observer tells us they don’t see an end-game scenario offering both sides an opportunity to save face, a critical element in legislative brinkmanship.  

Both House parties have backed themselves into corners of a round room, and this session may be, as the legendary A.J. Foyt might put it, “just done blowed up; we’re finished.”•

__________

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. 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