Less zing in Daniels' second term?

September 2, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Mitch Daniels ran for governor four years ago promising to shake things up, and it would be hard to argue that he hasnâ??t followed through.

Daylight saving time passed. Cigarette taxes were raised to fund health insurance. Property taxes were reformed.

What caught many Hoosiers off guard was the extent to which he privatized government functions. Economic development was turned over to a private not-for-profit. Indiana Toll Road and prison functions were sent to private contractors. And he continues to expand privatization of the Family and Social Services Administration.

Daniels said virtually nothing about privatization during his first campaign, yet the issue dominated much of his administration and probably caught more flak than anything else he pushed for, including daylight saving time.

Which brings us to his reelection campaign.

Daniels has said he will try again to privatize the lottery. Small goals include helping more students go to college and protecting school teachers from certain lawsuits.

But for someone who relishes turning things upside down, the agenda for a second term seems timid.

What do you think? Is Daniels less eager to shake things up? Or does he have big plans he isnâ??t talking about?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Neither candidate appears willing to show any leadership in support or opposition to any of the 27 specific local government consolidation recommendations from the Kernan Shepard report.

    Since it is after Labor Day, maybe the media can get some answers for us.
  • Daniels has stuck to his word. Private firms seem to run things cheaper and better so everything privatized so far has been a benefit to Indiana on both fronts. Less taxes to run the project and better results. Where government gets involved - there is usually alot of red tape and high expense.

    Since Long-Thompson doesn't know the difference between a sale and a lease, Daniels should have nothing to worry about.

Post a comment to this blog

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
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT