Talks resume at Statehouse after brief impasse

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Negotiations on some major issues resumed in the Indiana General Assembly on Monday after a meltdown occurred last week between Democrats who control the House and Republicans who rule the Senate.

Senate Republicans offered a compromise Monday on legislation to delay increases in taxes businesses pay into the state's unemployment insurance fund. The proposed compromise includes some job-creation provisions sought by House Democrats; however, the Republicans rejected harsher penalties that Democrats wanted for businesses who classify workers as independent contractors to avoid paying unemployment taxes.

The Republicans' proposal would require the Labor Department to develop new guidelines for classifying workers for tax purposes. But Rep. David Niezgodski, D-South Bend, said that wasn't enough. He said a true crackdown on companies that cheat is needed.

He and other House Democrats also said the proposal fell short on job-creation efforts through tax breaks and other incentives.

"We believe we need more strength," Niezgodski said.

Talks on those issues—as well as funding flexibility for schools to help offset $300 million in budget cuts—broke off last Thursday, when lawmakers had hoped to finish business and adjourn days before a March 14 deadline set by law for ending the session.

But House Speaker Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, surprisingly put the House in recess until Wednesday, saying Senate Republicans weren't negotiating in good faith. The move outraged Republicans, especially Senate President Pro Tem David Long of Fort Wayne, and the full Senate met Friday and Monday.

Some House Democrats met in House-Senate conference committees Monday, but the full chamber remained in recess.

Long said Monday that he had talked to Bauer and they had agreed to keep communicating.

"It's water under the bridge," Long said. "Our goal is to get our business completed as soon as possible and move on."

Possibly the biggest sticking point is unemployment insurance.

House Democrats and Senate Republicans approved legislation last year that would raise unemployment insurance taxes on employers beginning next month. The increase was intended to start shoring up an unemployment insurance fund that has borrowed $1.6 billion from the federal government to remain solvent.

But Republicans now want to delay it for one or two years, saying the increase would force employers to lay off workers in a still-struggling economy.

House Democrats want several things in return, including the harsher penalties on companies that cheat the system. They also want to expand eligibility for jobless benefits in order to draw $148 million in federal stimulus dollars for the unemployment fund.

But Republicans say the federal money would only last about two years, but the expanded eligibility would remain and cost the unemployment fund tens of millions of dollars annually.


Post a comment to this story

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

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.