Where Have Ballard's Backers Been?

Last weekend, Hoosier Access had this entry on the top of it's page for most of the weekend. In it, contributor Mark Warner praises Mayor Greg Ballard and all he has done for the city.

It's no secret to regular readers of this blog that my opinion of Ballard's administration is fairly low, and I have been public in that criticism. I've attended City-County Council meetings, political events, protests, and so on. I've sat down and talked with people who would be affected by the stricter parking regulations that Affiliated Computer Services will enforce, and have talked with normal citizens who, months later, were still fuming about the outright sale of the water utility.

So my question to those of Mark Warner and the others at Hoosier Access, who will inevitably be schilling for Ballard's re-election, where have you been?

I performed several Google searches of Hoosier Access for key words such as "ACS" and "water" and didn't find a single post advocating for the ACS parking scam or the water utility sale. I similarly didn't see the good folks at Hoosier Access at public forums or council meetings advocating for these two major initiatives that Ballard and his City-County Council pushed for. In fact, Mayor Greg Ballard has been a rare topic of conversation at Hoosier Access ever since he was elected in 2007.

And not to beat up on only Warner. No one, besides paid lobbyists and lawyers working on the deals themselves, showed up to those public forums and council meetings to advocate for these aforementioned deals. The citizens that did often were lukewarm on the deals at best (feeling they were rushed through and lacked a proper understanding and explanation from their representatives), and flat out against them at worst (from those who felt they fully understood what was going on).

So I guess this is the roundabout way of saying this, but welcome back, Mark Warner and Hoosier Access to the world of municipal government. We'd love it if you'd stick around after the municipal elections are over, and continue debating the issues with other blogs, readers, and the public. Municipal government, after all, doesn't go away after elections are held. It's always there, often being the form of government that affects average people the most.

Time To Go, Charlie

Secretary of State Charlie White was indicted on several charges today, including allegations of voter fraud. White has been battling these allegations since the election season, but he benefited from...well, most people don't really know what a state-level Secretary of State does, anyway.

I am not a fan of politicians who stay in office while they fight with their legal or personal drama. If this takes away even one hour of his duties as Secretary of State, he should resign and seek employment that allows him the flexible schedule he'll need to deal with his legal problems. If he is found innocent, he can run for office again. Until then, he should resign.

I think it'll be interesting to see how the higher-ups in the state GOP will react to this. It has not been a good week for Democrats in the headlines, and this is just what they need right now. Will Governor Mitch Daniels and his buddies get White to resign quickly, or will they allow this to drag on?

I also find it funny and quite ironic that some people are always complaining and harping on voter fraud in Marion County and Lake County, but all too often never gather evidence to press charges. And yet, the most high profile voter fraud case in this state's history might be from a guy who voted in the town of Fishers!

UPDATE: According to Abdul Hakim-Shabazz, White has said he has no plans to step down and is innocent of all charges. This is in contrast to what Governor Daniels said a couple of hours ago where he said White should step down, and said the same feeling was shared among all state-wide elected officials.

Thoughts on Councilor Evans and "North of South" Project

It shouldn't come as any surprise that the so-called "North-of-South" proposal passed the Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council. What is interesting is who voted for it.

Democrat council representatives Jackie Nytes and Paul Bateman, both of whom are not running for re-election in 2011, have supported several of Mayor Greg Ballard's major initiatives and often "made up" for Republican council members who would occasionally defect and not toe the party line. In my conversations with Democrat loyalists, I do not hear many positive thoughts on Nytes or Bateman.

But the vote that caught my eye was José Evans, who represents District 1 and encompasses a chunk of northwestern Pike Township. Evans was a candidate for mayor of Indianapolis until shortly before the Marion County Democrats held their slating convention, where he announced he was halting his mayoral campaign, endorsing Melina Kennedy, and running for his council district seat instead.

Evans often touted a need for a mayor who is concerned with neighborhoods as much as one is concerned with downtown. So his vote here seems a bit odd, since it's a project that only helps a small section of downtown.

Has Evans been seduced by the promise of a certain percentage of Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) being contracted for the construction work, or that minorities will be a certain percentage of the 2,800 job "commitments"?

Or does he genuinely think that adding a second YMCA and another hotel to the downtown area will be beneficial? Zach Adamson, a downtown business owner and a candidate for Council At-Large on the Democrat ticket, doesn't think so. And I tend to agree. It seems like we have over-saturated the downtown area with hotels which will only be in full use during the largest of events (IE the Superbowl). During smaller events, these hotels will be competing for smaller slices of the pie. My fear is that, without constantly getting these big events, these hotels will start to lose money and will be back before the City-County Council or the state legislature looking for a bailout.

I wonder if this will become a pattern of sorts for Councilor Evans. Will he become the new Paul Bateman of the council?

For more information on the North-of-South project, please see Pat Andrew's blog (also a candidate for Council At-Large on the Democrat ticket), where she's written extensively on it.

State and County Workers Get Paid Less than Private Sector Counterparts

I was listening to 93.1 WIBC's Open Lines segment hosted by Larry Downes about an hour ago. When I tuned in, I heard a caller repeat the misleading talking point that "government workers" make 30% more than their private sector counterparts.

This is misleading in parts, and flat out false in others.

Every lie and deception starts with a truth, that eventually gets twisted. Here is where this lie originated.

Throughout 2010, USA TODAY printed a series of articles that showed that several federal departments had substantially more workers earning $150,000+ (in pay and benefits) than they did even a few years ago. Somewhere in that series, USA TODAY wrote that this was about 30% more than the counterparts in the private sector were earning.

This lie has morphed into ALL government employees, and I can say it's honestly not true.

I have several friends, relatives, and associates who work in the state and city government. When I told some of them about this series of articles, they laughed and would say they wish they got paid that much. What state and local government often do is make up for the lack of salary by giving a halfway decent retirement package.

Finally, there are jobs in the public sector that just don't exist in the private sector, thus there's no proper comparison between public and private salaries. Police and fire, for example.

Is there reform that's needed in collective bargaining and public sector unions? It's a debate that should be had. But let's not take it out on the back of the majority of state and municipal workers who work hard doing the public good, and often for very little money.

Mike Delph's Immigration Bill Will Fail

State Senator Mike Delph (R-Carmel) recently had his immigration bill pass out of the state Senate. And even though it overwhelmingly passed both in committee and in the full body, the numbers deserve a closer look.

The GOP overwhelmingly controls the Senate, so much so that the Democrats can not attend and there will still be enough of a quorum to conduct business. Yet, the bill only passed 31-18. That means five Republicans joined a handful of Democrats in voting against this bill. When a conservative body like the Indiana Senate can't agree on something, it probably means it's doomed in Indiana's House of Representatives.

This whole immigration business, on the state level, is ridiculous. Judge Andrew Napolitano, a strong advocate of state sovereignty, believes that if the states gave up any authority when forming the federal government, it's the ability to deal with foreign powers and foreign people. Add on to that that the proposed bill has so many similarities to the infamous Arizona immigration law that Indiana will likely join Arizona in federal court after the feds file a lawsuit. Even winning that lawsuit could cost millions of dollars which Indiana can't afford doesn't have.

Our immigration system is clearly broken, but the proper place for reform is at the federal level. We need both increased enforcement at the borders and to make legal immigration easier for those without millions of dollars and a ton of time to kill. I came across this flow chart which shows how difficult it is to legally enter this country. Short of having a spouse to marry, the odds are stacked against you. Any potential employer will have to wait, so your skills better be worth waiting for or they're going to settle on someone who lives in the country.

Of course, the difficulty in enforcement at the borders is that our troops are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we have bases all across the world. Individual states could call up their National Guard units for border protection, but I bet a good chunk of them are deployed in the aforementioned wars. This is why we need a discussion at the federal level, because no one state can do this alone, and we can't have 50 different immigration policies.

So President Barack Obama, Speaker John Boehner, what are your ideas?

The Challenge for Mourdock

State Treasurer Richard Mourdock announced today that he'll be challenging Senator Richard Lugar in the spring 2012 primary, where Lugar is expected to run for re-election to an 8th term. Mourdock has been posting this video to his Facebook and Twitter accounts, which show President Barack Obama speaking highly of Lugar.

Mourdock has an uphill battle, no matter how one looks at it. Lugar has been in Indiana politics for decades, and didn't even face a challenge from the Democrats when he was last re-elected. Lugar also votes the party line the vast majority of the time, and it's hard to make an argument as to why the START treaty is bad, at least in a 30-60 second soundbite. Hell, I'm having trouble figuring out why the START treaty is bad, and I actually pay attention to these type of things.

And perhaps the biggest challenge Mourdock might be facing is the threat of other challengers. State Senator Mike Delph has said he won't be endorsing Mourdock and thus is leaving the door open for his own candidacy, and I wouldn't be all that surprised if a "dark horse" candidate or two like Don Bates Jr. jumped into the race as well. Expect to see a repeat of the GOP 2010 Senate primary where the "Tea Party" vote gets split in multiple directions, allowing the establishment candidate to sail to victory if several challengers get into the primary.

It's an interesting time, to be certain.

What Is An Anonymous Blogger's Win-Loss Record?

There's a relatively new blog in town (that I'll link to only once) called Washington Street Politics. They started up a few months ago, and besides being the "unofficial" voice of the county GOP (similar to the Indianapolis Times being the voice of the county Dems), they take some potshots at Paul Ogden.

I know many of the blogs I regularly read now link to this new blog, but I continue to refuse to. I'm fine with anonymous blogging. The now-dead Indy's Political Stock Exchange was entertaining, and never tried to discredit politicians or other pundits. But when anonymous bloggers use the veil to personally and professionally discredit others, that, in my mind, crosses a line. It just reeks of petty, vindictive behaviour.

Somehow, I doubt that the folks behind this blog will ever have the cojones to stand up and be counted. And I also doubt they'll change their childish antics in regards to Paul Ogden. So until they do, they'll continue to be not linked at this blog. They're an entertaining read, but I can't take them seriously while they keep up these childish antics.