I don't know how many Hoosiers hang out here on DailyKos, but in case anyone is interested, here is a rundown on some legislation being introduced in the upcoming session of the Indiana General Assembly.
As background, things have changed quite a bit in the Indiana state government landscape. Bush's former head of OMB, Mitch Daniels, won the Governor's race, defeating the Democratic incumbent (sort of) Gov. Kernan. (Kernan stepped for about the last year after the death of Gov. O'Bannon.) It's the first time the GOP has held the Indiana Governor's mansion since 1988. In addition, the Republicans took control of the House of Reps for the first time in 8 years or so. The Indiana House of Reps has been (and still is) very tightly divided. The GOP, 4 Senators in particular actually, has had a stranglehold on the state Senate for time immemorial.
Anyway, daylight savings time, a tight budget, abortion, and gay rights are some of the top issues. I'll put a description and write-up of many of the introduced bills in the extended commentary section.
HB 1034 - Daylight Savings Time
Introduced Version, House Bill 1034 This bill repeals the legislation Indiana passed way back when that exempts Indiana from the Daylight Savings Time provisions. So, knowing what it does requires some knowledge of the U.S. Department of Transportation's regulations on daylight savings time. I don't have that.
But, my best guess is that Indiana is in the Eastern time zone. USDOT doesn't allow the state to be split, otherwise, some of Indiana would more naturally be in the Central Time Zone. In fact, the legislation being repealed says that the part of Indiana that would fall in the Central Time Zone would observe daylight savings time if the state could be split.
If we're on Eastern Daylight Time (and Eastern Standard Time statewide during the winter), which is what the bill calls for, in places like Gary, Terre Haute, and Evansville, sunrise will come at about 8:15 a.m. at the end of December, and sunset will not occur until 9:30 p.m. at the end of June.
If, on the other hand, we switched to Central Daylight Time (and Central Standard Time statewide during the winter), then places in the east like Richmond and Lawrenceburg would have sunset at about 4:18 p.m. at the end of December and sunrise at 5:12 a.m. at the end of June.
This has been the basic problem with daylight savings time legislation in the past. The state splits about 50/50 as to whether to have it or not. Most folks who think about it have a fairly strong opinion one way or the other. The folks who are in favor of it are divided between Eastern time and Central time, so they have been losing the fight for decades. Now, we have one party rule and a governor who apparently thinks it's a good idea, so maybe it has a chance.
Apparently two of my favorite Indiana legislators agree with my previous analysis of why Daylight Savings Time has had such a hard time passing in previous incarnations of the Indiana General Assembly.
Republican Senator Richard Bray and Democratic Bloomington Mayor Mark Kruzan (formerly Majority Leader in the Indiana House) basically agree that it's failed before because of the geographic reality of Indiana's situation. We're at the extreme western edge of eastern time or the extreme eastern edge of central time.
(Just as an aside, both of these guys are really extraordinary public servants. I've had the opportunity to work with both of them (briefly) and they are both intelligent, deliberate, and approachable. One tendency I noticed while working for the legislature was for the legislators to get way too busy and not really seem to pause to consider what, exactly, they were legislating. Neither of these gentlemen succumbed to that tendency, at least not as far as I could see.)
-----------------------------
Abortion Requirements
Introduced Version, Senate Bill 0076 -- LSA's synopsis:
Abortion requirements. Requires a health care provider to provide a pregnant woman with information regarding the availability of ultrasound imaging and auscultation of heart tones of a fetus before performing an abortion on the pregnant woman. Allows a pregnant
woman to view the fetal ultrasound imaging and hear the auscultation of the fetal heart tone before an abortion is performed.
It's essentially an approach that tries to guilt the woman out of having an abortion. Note that there is no effort to inform the woman about the effect of the pregnancy on her body or the life the child is likely to lead if it is unwanted, the woman cannot afford to properly take care of the child, and it comes to term. Dennis Miller said something about taking the right-to-lifers more seriously if so many of them weren't cross-enrolled in the NRA. He also mentioned not supporting a right to life with no rights.
-----------------------------
SB 10 & 11 Phase out and elimination of inheritance tax
Introduced Version, Senate Bill 0010 and Introduced Version, Senate Bill 0011 SB 10 provides for the elimination of the Indiana inheritance tax in 2009. In the meantime, it reduces the tax owed by 20% in 2005-2006, 40% in 2006-2007, 60% in 2007-2008, and 80% in 2008-2009. SB 11 just gets rid of it in 2005.
Now, I'm all in favor of reducing taxes to the extent possible. But, the fact is, government is necessary for certain purposes. And it has to be paid for. My proposal is to reduce government as much as possible. Then, if we have more tax money than we need, get rid of sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes first. You know, taxes that ordinary people pay. Once those taxes are gone, then you go after the inheritance taxes. My position is that a person has a greater claim to his paycheck and money he's actually earned than an heir has a claim on someone's estate. That being the case, it's more fair to deprive the heir of some portion of his claim on the estate than it is to deprive the common laborer of some portion of his earnings.
-----------------------------
FLAGS! (Exemption from sales tax)
Introduced Version, House Bill 1024 Exempts sales of the U.S. flag and state flag from state sales tax. This is like reverse war bond mentality. Back in WWII, folks on the homefront showed their patriotism by giving their money to the government. Guess it's an honor to die for your government, but god forbid you have to fund it.
-----------------------------
HB 1030 The "Drunks First" License Plate
Introduced Version, House Bill 1030
Requires OWI convicts to surrender plate & registration. Upon reinstatement, you get a license plate that identifies you as an OWI convict. Makes it easier for cops to hassle you. This one's been kicking around for at least 7 years. Not necessarily a bad idea, though it has some troubling privacy aspects. I'd probably not want this to kick in until it was a second offense.
-----------------------------
SB 99: Criminal Code Purpose Statement
Introduced Version, Senate Bill 0099 The synopsis:
Criminal code general purpose statement. Provides that the criminal code must be founded on the principle of reformation, not vindictive justice, and establishes the means and goals to be considered in establishing criminal penalties and imposing sentences. Specifies that these provisions do not create a cause of action or supersede any statute, and may not be used in litigation to obtain any form of relief.
I always hated drafting "purpose statements" when I worked for the General Assembly. They don't do a darn thing -- a point which is thankfully spelled out in this particular statement -- an often times they create confusion. The casual statutory reader thinks that the purpose statement has the force of law. But, the purpose statements are only an opinion of sorts. And, as we all know, opinions are like certain anatomical features in that everyone has one. Future General Assemblies, or even the current one, can just ignore this provision. It doesn't mean a thing until you tie a penalty or other enforcement mechanism to it.
(Oh, and just for those who may not be aware, the business about the criminal code being founded on the principle of reformation, not vindictive justice is lifted from the Indiana Constitution and reflects the Enlightenment values of the drafters of the mid 19th century. I doubt our current crop of legislators would come up with such bleeding-heart language if left to their own devices.)
-----------------------------
SB 119 - Annual review of unpaid restitution
Introduced Version, Senate Bill 0119
From the "this will cost more money in paperwork than it saves" Department, SB 119 proposes an annual report and audit of unpaid restitution orders owed to government entities. It makes explicit the authority to demand that the debtor show cause and for the court to hold the debtor in contempt. I imagine the intent of this bill is to increase revenues for government entities without raising taxes. However, most folks who owe criminal restitution simply don't have any money. Putting them in jail on a contempt order isn't going to save any money. On the upside, maybe they'll farm out the collections work to guys like me on a contingency basis. If you hound these guys for 5-10 years, occasionally you get lucky. The government isn't set up to make that kind of extended effort. I am.
Check out all the information the report has to have:
A copy of the restitution order.
The amount of restitution originally ordered.
The amount of restitution that is unpaid.
The name of the person ordered to pay the restitution.
The governmental entity entitled to receive the restitution.
A statement regarding whether the person ordered to pay restitution has met the person's obligations under the restitution order in a timely manner.
If the restitution order is in arrears, the amount of the arrearage.
Any other information relevant to the restitution order.
(This bill introduced by Mr. Van, that's his name, that name again is Mr. Van. Err, Mrvan.)
-----------------------------
I'm planning to focus my blog on the Indiana state government, the Indiana General Assembly in particular.