IBJNews

Pence urges lawmakers to uphold tax bill veto

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence asked lawmakers Monday to refrain from handing him his first veto override.

Pence sent a letter to legislators urging them to uphold his veto of a local tax measure. The measure retroactively approves taxes collected by Jackson and Pulaski counties to pay for new jails.

"It would approve, after the fact, the collection of taxes that were not owed. While there are valuable elements of this legislation, retroactive approval of taxes collected is not the best remedy, and for that reason I vetoed this legislation," Pence wrote.

Pence said the measure amounts to a tax increase. But House and Senate leaders have taken the side of local officials who say the measure corrects a mistake made more than six years ago.

Pence vetoed a trio of measures last month, but lawmakers are only scheduled to attempt a veto override on the local tax measure.

The General Assembly is scheduled to reconvene Wednesday to consider Pence's veto and technical corrections to some other measures. Lawmakers need only muster a simple majority in both the House and Senate to overturn a governor's veto.

Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, and House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said Pence's letter did little to change their minds. The two control sizable supermajorities in their respective chambers.

Long said he appreciated the governor's "thoughtful input" on the legislation, but that he respectfully disagreed with his proposed course of action.

Bosma noted his support of local officials who originally came to state lawmakers seeking the fix in state law.

"Residents and elected officials in Jackson and Pulaski counties have asked for the Legislature's assistance to address the issues affecting thousands of Hoosiers in those counties, and to continue the allocation of pledged funds toward their designated obligations," Bosma said.

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. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. 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.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT