A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

A summary of new laws passed by the Indiana General Assembly is available here. (It’s long, and it’s a PDF document.)

The Journal Gazette has an editorial entitled Voter disgust may prod Roemer to run. I don’t see much to disagree with in this editorial. They note the general disgust the American public has with Congress generally and the feeling that the country is headed in the wrong direction. They note that the Republicans came into power in 1994 primarily running against Democratic corruption. The corruption, said the GOP, was the result of being in power for too long. Tom DeLay seems hell bent on becoming the modern day poster child for proving that point.

Based on this sense, there is some rumbling about Tim Roemer running against Dick Lugar for his Senate seat. However, the paper points out, displeasure with Congress generally is a whole lot different than displeasure with a particular Senator. A recent poll had Sen. Lugar running at 70%. I imagine that number has come down a bit based on Sen. Lugar’s willingness to rubber stamp Bush’s nomination of John Bolton, the undiplomatic, anti-UN (and seemingly incompetent based on past job performance) nominee for the position of UN ambassador.

The paper also notes that Roemer would be unwise to pursue an anti-corruption campaign if running against Lugar, who is apparently squeaky-clean on that front. On the other hand, Roemer might point out that the majority Lugar contributes to makes possible corruption based on entrenched power. The South Bend Tribune has a similar opinion piece that assesses Roemer’s prospects in pretty much the same light, but then goes on to note a couple of notable Senate upsets in Indiana history: Birch Bayh over Home Capehart, then Dan Quayle over Birch Bayh.

But, regardless of Roemer’s prospects, it would be a luxury for the people of Indiana to have a choice of two competent individuals for Senator, both well-versed in policy issues.

Dan Stockman and Sarah Meisch have an article in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette entitled Tax change a ‘balancing act’ — and, it has quotes from everyone’s favorite economist, Larry DeBoer.

As part of its whirlwind session this spring, the Indiana General Assembly changed how the value of farmland is calculated for taxes, a change that statewide will lower taxes on farmland an average of 14 percent. But that cut has to be made up with higher taxes on homes, factories and stores.

. . .

Salomon said property taxes are especially unfair because they stay the same – or go up – even when prices or crops are bad. They also punish farmers who keep up historic old barns, even though they are obsolete and can’t be used.

“The legislature knows farmers aren’t going to go delinquent,” Salomon said. “They scrimp and save and pay their taxes. So each year they just keep adding it on and adding it on.”

This year’s changes came about because farmland isn’t taxed like other land in Indiana.

There is a base rate for every acre, which is then subjected to a formula for what the land produces, so better land is taxed more. Last year, the base rate more than doubled to $1,050 an acre; this year the General Assembly lowered it to $880.

“Its base rate is adjusted by a factor of its productivity in growing corn, how fertile it is,” said Lawrence P. DeBoer Jr., a professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University.

Other factors also count.

“There’s a percentage reduction for special factors like if it floods often or is covered with trees,” DeBoer said. “If it’s covered in trees or rocks, it’s worth less.”

With the base rate dropping, farmer’s tax bills will be dropping, too.

“Every farmer ought to see a decrease in their tax bill,” DeBoer said. “Since nobody else had reassessment, the shift in the tax burden will be taken away from the farmland and to everybody else.”

. . .

What the situation really does, [Indiana Farm Bureau’s Kathleen Dutro] said, is show how unfair property taxes are for everyone. Just as a farmer facing low prices or tough weather still has to pay property taxes, a homeowner who gets laid off or is on a fixed income doesn’t get a break, either.

“Somebody’s going to win and someone’s going to lose,” Dutro said. “We really don’t think we’ve won. … We really just think it’s a way to (give farmers) the tax cut everyone else got.”

But that give-and-take is built into Indiana’s property tax system because local governments are allowed to raise only a certain amount of money, said Kurt Zorn, professor at Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs.

“If you take away from the tax base, other tax bases will have to make up the difference,” Zorn said. “There’s no free lunch. The tax rate will be higher for everyone. Residents and corporations will see a higher tax rate than before.”

. . .

Benton County farmers will enjoy an 8.8 percent drop in taxes on farmland, but homeowners and businesses will see an 8.8 percent increase. Warren County homeowners, just south of Benton County, will see a 7.6 percent increase.

I also see from the article that counties in my general area will bear the highest residential tax increase: Benton will see an 8.8% increase, Warren will see a 7.6% increase, Pulaski will see a 5.7% increase, and Fountain will see a 5.4% increase.

I see this as being of a piece with Gov. Daniels’ decision to emphasize agriculture as its economic centerpiece and with the general condition of Indiana’s brain drain and difficulty keeping up with the rest of the country. Agriculture is important, don’t get me wrong — we all need to eat. But it might be better if we subjected agriculture to the same market forces as everything else. I’m thinking here more about agriculture subsidies at the federal level than state tax breaks particularly.

I don’t think subsidizing and emphasizing commodity production is going to do Indiana any long-term good. We need to be looking toward biotech, nanotech, and other industries which have not yet been commoditized.

In an article linked at Kemplog I see that Nuvo has an article on the ICLU suit against sectarian prayer as part of the official business of the Indiana House of Representatives. I’ve gone on about this here among other places. I particularly liked this passage

Dr. Clark Williamson, Indiana professor of Christian thought, emeritus, Christian Theological Seminary, is one of several local Christian theologians who criticize the Indiana House practice. “Ever since the first Baptist was imprisoned for contravening the dictates of the then-established church in Massachusetts, Christians in America have understood the importance of letting the state be the state and the church be the church,” Williamson says.

“That the Indiana House of Representatives allows sectarian prayers and hymn-sings in its sessions turns the state of Indiana into a theologian, something it is ill-equipped to be.”

Dr. Edgar Towne, a Presbyterian minister and professor emeritus of theology at Christian Theological Seminary, agrees. “Christians ought to be courteous enough to respect other people’s faiths, especially since the Doctrine of the Trinity completely authorizes non-sectarian prayer,” Towne says.

Hinrichs explains that historic precedent has led to the concerns inspiring him to file suit. “During previous periods of our history, brands of Christianity also held strong sway in the halls of the Statehouse,” he says.

“In the 1920s, it represented a potent blend of anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism and racism, in a time when Christians wore hoods to hide their shame. In the 1950s and ’60s, our state’s Christian legislators resisted integration and civil rights.

“In hindsight, those periods embodied some of the ugliest stains on our religious landscape, yet in their day had broad public support as majority opinion,” Hinrichs says. “Things change slowly, yet dramatically, while good people either aren’t paying attention or are too satisfied or intimidated to raise their voices. As a Quaker, I believe it is my moral duty to take a stand upholding religious liberty and inclusiveness to all.”

As per usual, I was less than impressed by Speaker Bosma’s refusal to understand the issue: “The day the Indiana Civil Liberties Union dictates free speech on the floor of the Indiana House is the day that democracy begins to decline.” Right. Because if you can’t have prayer-sings as part of the official business of the House of Representatives, the terrorists have won. Got it.

Earlier in the week, I had an entry about Governor Daniels’ petition to the United States Department of Transportation to hold hearings on the desirability of relocating the line between the Central Time Zone and the Eastern Time Zone as required by SEA 127.

Specifically, SEA 127 requires:

(a) The governor and the general assembly hereby petition the United States Department of Transportation to initiate proceedings under the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to hold hearings in the appropriate locations in Indiana on the issue of the location of the boundary between the Central Time Zone and the Eastern Time Zone in Indiana.
(b) The governor and the general assembly advise the United States Department of Transportation that any administrative action to change the time zone boundary in response to the petition contained in this SECTION should not change the time zone for any of the following Indiana counties:
(1) Any Indiana county currently located in the Central Time Zone, which should remain in the Central Time Zone.
(2) Clark County, which should remain in the Eastern Time Zone.
(3) Dearborn County, which should remain in the Eastern Time Zone.
(4) Floyd County, which should remain in the Eastern Time Zone.
(5) Harrison County, which should remain in the Eastern Time Zone.
(6) Ohio County, which should remain in the Eastern Time Zone.
(c) To implement this SECTION, the governor shall, not later than ten (10) days after the governor files this act with the secretary of state, send a copy of this act along with any other necessary documentation prescribed by the United States Department of Transportation to the appropriate official of the United States Department of Transportation.

(emphasis mine.)

Today, I received the procedure prescribed by the United States Department of Transportation for petitions for time zone changes. The procedure demands, among other things, that the request be accompanied by “detailed information supporting the requesting party’s contention that the requested change would serve the convenience of commerce.” It is not at all clear to me from the Governor’s letter to the Department of Transportation that such detailed information was included with his request. In fact reading the letter, it appears that the only information he supplied was a copy of the bill passed by the legislature.

The principal standard for the USDOT’s determination is “convenience of commerce” which is defined broadly to include all of the impacts on a community caused by a change of time zone. Some examples are:
1. Where do communities get their supplies and ship their goods.
2. Where communities receive their news and television.
3. Where does the community get its bus and rail services.
4. The nearest airport.
5. What percentage of the community works outside the community and where do those people work.
6. If residents leave the community for school, recreation, healthcare, or religious worship, what standard of time is used in the places where these people go.

If the USDOT General Counsel receives sufficient information and determines that a change might serve the convenience of commerce, the General Counsel will issue a proposal and invite public comment.

Now here is a question: if, in fact, the Governor did not provide the USDOT with the information prescribed by the USDOT, and the Daylight Saving Time law required the Governor to provide the USDOT with all necessary documentation prescribed by the USDOT, would the Governor’s failure to comply with SEA 127 invalidate SEA 127’s implementation of Daylight Saving Time? I suppose the drive-in theater people who were prominently opposed to DST could ask a federal court for an injunction to determine the answer to that question.

An AP report in the Evanvsille CourierPress indicating that Indiana is missing out on a lot of federal welfare dollars.

ndiana would move more people from welfare rolls to payrolls if it took fuller advantage of federal programs for working families such as food stamps, earned income tax credits and subsidized child care, a new report concludes.

Most of these programs require no state matching funds, so they largely are unaffected by the state’s current budget problems, Charles Warren, one of the authors of the report, said Wednesday.

. . .

The report found only four states – Minnesota, New Hampshire, Nevada and Wisconsin – received lower per capita federal spending than Indiana during the federal fiscal year that ended Aug. 30, 2003.

On the other hand, Indiana is doing something to help itself. Apparently it is currently more cost effective in many instances for farmers to simply dump excess product rather than donate it. Jane Avery, executive director of the Community Harvest Food Bank came up with a plan, and got some assistance from Lt. Governor Becky Skillman for state funding, that will give Hoosier farmers the incentive they need to donate their excess product to needy Hoosiers.

Using farmers in the state to feed the state’s hungry. Brilliant!