Like Dracula rising from the grave with the wooden stake still plunged in his heart, the Marriage Discrimination Amendment (currently styled as HJR3) has returned for a summer rerun. The special session of the Indiana General Assembly, called by Governor Mitch Daniels to deal with passage of a state budget, was presented with this proverbial rotten egg this week by State Representatives Eric Turner (R-Marion) and Dave Cheatham (D -North Vernon).
The recent ruling out of California that asserted it is the right of all to enter into marriage sent rumblings across the country, and the aftershocks will likely be felt here in the Hoosier state for years to come. After a few fumbling years of failed attempts to shove an unnecessary (and dangerous) constitutional amendment down our throats, right-wing wacko Eric Miller and his ilk were handed a golden ticket from our friends on the left coast, and they will undoubted look to cash it in when the General Assembly reconvenes next year.
Dan Carpenter writes in the Star of this reawakening of the "Great Fear," and I think more or less hits the nail on the head with his assessment of how good in a far-away land could create some serious headaches for us here at home.
Now, however, the Great Fear has become available for whipping up again, and crusaders such as Miller, state Rep. Eric Turner and Rep. Brian Bosma are mounted and helmeted anew. The cannons of pious rhetoric and preposterous stereotypes are firing. The roaring rallies in opposition to unseen enemies who perpetrate domesticity are in our near future. The re-election campaigns have their visceral alternative to complex issues.
Darn those activist judges. What do they think they are, a branch of government?
Activist judges, of course, are judges who hand down rulings that one doesn't like. In political strategizing, the term serves the same function that "communist" did for Hoover, who applied it to opponents of racism, sexism, nuclear weapons and war. He was the quintessential witch-hunter, and his torch is being carried today by those who would exploit harmless, even healthful differences to gain power from paranoia.
IPOPA took a stab at this a week or so ago, and had very similar things to say.
Friday saw the Advance America crew roll into the Indiana Statehouse, full of angst, bad policy ideas, and Eric Miller's moniker plastered over every piece of merchandise. While no one in a legitimate position within the government takes Miller's tax repeal strategy seriously -- Sen. Luke Kenley made it clear this summer that the math just doesn't add up -- Miller has been able to capitalize on the taxpayer anger across this state that has a hankering for immediate satisfaction.
The result has been a relatively successful tour of the state, and a self-made rumor mill that not-so-subtly loves to throw Miller's name out as a possible third-party gubernatorial candidate.
He urged people to call or write the lawmakers and the governor, to vote against those who don't support immediate repeal, and even to consider running for the legislature.
Pulling off his suit coat to don a blue-and-white baseball jacket, Miller -- who ran for governor against Daniels in the 2004 GOP primary -- told the crowd he's "going to stay in the game, too." That prompted a couple of people to yell "Governor Miller!"
One thing that never came up in the half-hour rally: any mention of increasing other taxes to replace the $6.2 billion raised by property taxes in 2007.
The evening news bit I saw on the event said that folks were very happy to cheer on the anti-tax rhetoric, but more than a few found their way to the door with Miller invariably switched into his anti-GLBT mode, calling for same-sex marriage to take a front seat in this already crowded short legislative session.
First things first: If you haven't checked out the new Indiana Equality blog, I wholeheartedly recommend you give it a clickity-click or two. They've had some interesting stuff in their first few weeks, and I would expect things to only get better with time.
The reason I bring IE up is because they sent out an email alert this morning for interested parties following the legislative trials and tribulations of SJR-7 (same-sex marriage amendment) and HB 1076 (the "hate crimes" bill) as they move through the General Assembly.
On the SJR-7 front, the Republican caucus has proven once again that there's no time for wedge-issue wankery like the present, property tax problems be damned. Resurrected by the Senate GOP, the proposed constitutional amendment was passed out of committee and is heading toward a full vote before that body.
Luckily, the House Democrats appear unwilling to go down that divisive road, so in that regard I am hopeful that the Senate roll call will be the last breath this particular legislative abomination enjoys during the short session.
For HB 1076, the path is a bit more murky. Passed out of committee with bipartisan support, the bill is headed to the House floor with an uncertain future. Eric Miller and the rest of the half-truth gang have been churning out ridiculousness at a record pace, and Indiana Equality made note this morning of just a few of the more egregious errors being peddled in the hallowed halls of our government at the moment.
Mistruth: "This bill establishes a very dangerous precedent because it would create two classes of victims and punish someone more because of their thoughts." [Advance America]
Truth: The criminal justice system focuses on intent or motive all the time, particularly in sentencing. For example, the legal distinction between murder and manslaughter rests on whether the killer intended to kill, and whether it was premeditated.
Mistruths: "This bill sets up different standards for victims of crimes. For example, if a man walking out of a gay bar is mugged this would constitute a more severe crime than a grandmother who is mugged while walking down the street." [Advance America]
"This bill represents an attempt to give special protection to homosexuals and cross dressers by stating that a crime against them is to be treated with more severity than a crime against a senior citizen, a child or a pregnant mother." [Advance America]
Truth: Indiana law(IC 35-38-1-7.1) already provides a variety of sentencing enhancements for certain crimes, including crimes committed against persons less than 12 years of age or at least 65 years old.
For me, the key point which is being ignored about this bill by its opponents is that it doesn't mandate anything. It would create a new lane in the already utilized highway system of aggravating circumstances. It won't make any judge go down that path, but it does allow for the punishment of crimes -- not thoughts or church sermons, as Eric Miller would have you believe -- which are deemed by the court to be particularly damaging due to their targeted nature.
I was reading this story in the Gary Post-Tribune this morning, and it reminded me of a point I've been meaning to make. Now, this tax activist doesn't stand a chance against Rep. Charlie Brown, least of all in a primary fight, but his presence is important in that I think it represents a model we will see repeated over and over again in the next year. The anti-tax fervor in this state is at a level that has every politician scared -- and every political opportunist salivating -- and to pretend we won't have a bunch of these one-issue campaigns popping up would be foolish.
Thus begging the question: Will these anti-tax candidates have a palpable effect at the ballot box?
I don't see too many incumbents losing out in primary battles, but there will be more than a few successful candidates in the general who will run on this and nothing else. More importantly, I think for the first time in a long while we have a political atmosphere that is relatively friendly to the third-party candidate, especially if they take a libertarian stance on the tax issue. They won't have much of a leg to stand on in the policy disputes, but we've seen before that being right on policy only gets you so far, and public perception can lead to some surprising results. (See here.)
With even some right-wing bloggers starting to expect Eric Miller to jump in the gubernatorial race, it's clear that folks are thinking of what a third-party spoiler could do to the statewide political dynamic. I'm not quite sold on Miller's candidacy, but I definitely don't discount the possibility, and if I were Mitch Daniels I would be doing everything I possibly could in order to keep Miller and his tax crusade as far away from the campaign trail as possible.
As many might have expected, more details from the Star-WTHR poll are being rolled out tonight. Next up to bat--gay marriage.
Support among Hoosiers for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage appears to be on the decline, according to an Indianapolis Star-WTHR (Channel 13) poll.
The poll, based on the responses of 600 people statewide, found that 49 percent of Hoosiers supported the amendment. That number is down from 56 percent in a March 2005 survey by The Star.
Of the respondents, 44 percent said they opposed a constitutional ban, up from 40 percent in 2005.
Just so we are all on the same page:
Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, Iowa Nov. 13-16 -- MoE 4.0-4.6%
Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
Approve 49%
Oppose 44%
With less and less Indiana voters willing to support the amendment, you would think that Eric Miller and his Advance America cronies would realize that they are once again on the wrong side of this issue. But alas-- when has Miller ever shown such foresight?
At least someone sees the bigger picture though.
“I’m glad to hear that the tide is turning,” said Jon Keep, president of Indiana Equality, which has lobbied against the amendment. “I think a lot of it has to do with people realizing that this may not be the most important issue in the state right now and we need to be addressing other things like property taxes.”
And a big ole' tip of the hat to Brian Bosma. Way to take the IndyStar bait yesterday. I bet you're kicking yourself for that one.
We can chalk this one up to the realization that the taxpayers want one thing, and one thing only out of this short legislative session. And selling off the state's lottery isn't what they have in mind:
Gov. Mitch Daniels said today he won't make a renewed pitch in the upcoming legislative session for his proposal to privatize the Hoosier Lottery, saying lawmakers will be too busy considering property tax reforms.
During the last session, Daniels proposed leasing the lottery to a private operator and said one company was willing to pay $1 billion plus $200 million in annual payments for the 30-year lease.
[...]
A version of his plan passed the Republican-dominated Senate. But he withdrew the proposal days before the session ended in April after it stalled in the Democratic-controlled House.
Kudos to the Governor for not wasting our time with this right now. Too bad his fellow Republican Eric Miller doesn't have a clue when it comes to what the people of Indiana are looking for out of the General Assembly. His idea of what Hoosiers want their lawmakers focusing on?
In case anyone thought that last night's announcement by the Governor would discourage Eric Miller's ongoing anti-property tax crusade, he made it clear that he's only getting warmed up.
One hour after Daniels called for a "hard cap" on property-tax percentages, hundreds of Southern Indiana residents gathered in downtown New Albany to hear his primary election opponent in 2004 describe a five-year plan to abolish property taxes.
"I'm glad the governor has finally started talking about the need for a constitutional amendment," said Miller, on stage at The Grand convention center along Market Street. "The only thing is, it's the wrong constitutional amendment."
[...]
Daniels would cap property-tax bills at between 1 percent and 3 percent of a property's value, raise the sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent and forego an income-tax hike. Miller cited unnamed elected officials as having employed the "scare tactic" of predicting nonproperty tax rates would need to be doubled.
Organizers estimated about 380 to 400 people attended the rally. Petitions for property-tax abolition were attached to clipboards around the hall.
I still think things could get interesting for Daniels if Miller attempts to translate some of this populist angst into something more overtly political. He swears that he has no gubernatorial ambitions, but I wouldn't rule it out just yet.
The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette chimes in this morning on tax-hatin'-homo-hatin' Eric Miller, and his organization Advance America. Miller has recently tried to warn us all of the impending doom of the church, the state, and everything in between, with his most recent experiment in wankery being an email sent to supporters that I mentioned last week. For a refresher, here is what it said:
Scary stuff! There's just one problem, as the JG points out this morning:
In a newsletter sent to members of his conservative Advance America organization, he warns that Indiana churches are at risk of losing their tax-exempt status if they do not push for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He cites the case of a United Methodist Church in New Jersey that "lost its state tax exemption on their pavilion because they denied the request of two lesbian couples to use it for a civil union ceremony."
Now for the rest of the story: It wasn't a church, but the Methodist-affiliated Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association that was involved, according to the New York Times. The tax exemption was allowed not for religious reasons but under a special environmental program to encourage the use of privately owned land for public recreation and conservation. And the association president himself pointed out in a written statement that "99 percent of the Camp Meeting's land was recertified as tax-exempt."
If Miller wants to sell his same-sex marriage ban, he should find a better way than trying to frighten Hoosiers into believing the tax-exempt status of churches is at stake.
Damn straight. And furthermore, kudos to Masson in the comments for being ahead of the curve on this story.
This newsletter was just sent out by Eric Miller's Advance America organization, which should put to rest any thoughts that his recent obsession with property taxes could somehow distract him from his usual right-wing wankery.
Two stories about Eric Miller's time before the Commission on State Tax and Fiscal Policy last week, and neither one of them paint a pretty picture of how the wing-nut's property tax elimination plan resonated with the crowd. First Patrick Guinane of The Times:
Miller was met with skepticism -- and perhaps a little scorn -- when he told the Commission on State Tax and Fiscal Policy the death knell for property taxes could be sounded with measured income and sale tax hikes and an iron-clad inflationary cap on state and local spending.
"The Miller plan just doesn't work on the face of itself," said Sen. Luke Kenley, the Noblesville Republican who leads the tax commission. "If we're going to consider eliminating property taxes, we're going to have to do a lot more than he did in order to get that accomplished."
In fact, state analysts say lawmakers would have to more than double the 6 percent sales tax, nearly triple the 3.4 percent income tax or meld a heavy mixture of tax hikes to come up with the billions needed to run local government in Indiana.
The LSA provided numbers which they believe indicate the type of sales/income tax increases that would be required to offset the loss of property tax revenues, and the numbers are a bit overwhelming at first glance. Via Mike Smith of the AP:
Yes, Indiana would no longer have property taxes, which by itself would make it an attractive place for people to live and businesses to locate. But a 9 percent income tax rate would be higher than neighboring states, and a 13.2 percent sales tax rate would be higher than rates in Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio.
"Nobody is going to buy anything in Indiana," Rep. Jeff Espich of Uniondale said. "It's unrealistic to go to even 2 percent more on sales." The bulk of sales and individual income taxes are paid by people - homeowners and renters. About half the $6.2 billion in property taxes falls on their shoulders, with the other half paid by businesses. By raising sales taxes, income taxes or both to eliminate all property taxes, individuals would be footing the bill for a huge tax break for businesses.
Gary Welsh of Advance Indiana writes this morning in pseudo-defense of Eric Miller, which I'm sure pained him greatly:
Now, helping out Miller on any issue is one of the last things I want to do, but clearly LSA's numbers are deliberately skewed to make the alternatives look as unattractive as possible. Note first of all that those numbers completely omit the imposition of any new taxes on businesses to make up for the loss of property taxes they would pay. Miller's plan does include a plan to impose a new tax on businesses, which is projected to raise $500 million.
This is true, but in my relatively uninformed opinion, that doesn't really make things add up any better. If we use State Sen. David Ford's property tax calculator, we find that the Miller plan of increasing the sales tax by 2% and the income tax by 1% leaves the state over $2.6 billion to make up somewhere. Sure, an additional $500 million in business taxation would help that figure, but as near as I can tell we would still be $2 billion short. If I'm doing this math incorrectly, someone let me know, but I just don't think that Miller's plan is at all workable in its present form.
Eric Miller, Rep. Jackie Walorksi, and the rest of the political ambulance chasers out there have spent the last few months finding any camera that will operate to push their anti-property tax message. While no one will deny the reality of public anger toward the current tax system, the truth of the matter is that while tea bags and clever protest signs are great theater, truly dismantling the state's reliance on property taxes is not something that can be as easily undertaken.
Tim Evans writes for the Star this morning on yesterday's meeting of the legislative commission that is examining the problems facing Indiana taxpayers. The verdict? If people really want to see the last property tax bill of their lifetime, they better be willing to take a significant tax hike elsewhere.
Hoosiers upset by escalating tax bills got a wake-up call Monday when a legislative commission was told Indiana would have to increase the state sales tax from 6 percent to 13.2 percent or the state income tax from 3.4 percent to 9 percent to eliminate property taxes.
Either option would replace the $6.2 billion raised by property taxes in 2007, Diane Powers, director of fiscal and management analysis for the Legislative Services Agency, told lawmakers.
To replace property tax revenue using a 50-50 split, the state sales tax would have to be raised to 9.5 percent and the state income tax to 6 percent, Powers said.
While Eric Miller, Walorski, and the rest of the opportunists out there have done an excellent job of spinning a negative for Hoosiers into a positive for their public image, I seriously doubt they have the clout to convince a majority of the state to embrace such a tax hike. The article points out numerous other problems with an immediate and full movement away from property taxes, none of which were apparently addressed by Miller or any of his supporters. Rhetoric is impressive, I guess, but responsible policy making isn't as simple as a ten second sound bite.
Tracy Warner from the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has a new toy up on Indiana Tax Facts.
The Excel program tax calculator that state Sen. David Ford provided is now on Indiana Tax Facts. See Tax Rate Calculator in the lower right. You have to have Excel to use the program. Plug your proposed increases in and click "enter" to see how much more you need to raise taxes to match property tax revenues.
Using the program shows, for example, that doubling the state sales tax from 6 to 12 percent would still produce $384.5 million less than property taxes now bring in. To replace property tax revenue, you can increase the sales tax by 4 percentage points AND raise the state income tax by 1.7 points to 5.1 percent.
Someone call Eric Miller, it seems his bluff has been called. Only by "trending" current figures to create 2012 projections, was Miller able to create the figures he presented at meetings in Muncie and elsewhere.
Unfortunately, this does not allow for you to look at how much new money could be raised by establishing a progressive individual income tax structure.
Nor does it address the possibility that introducing graduated rates from corporate income, would make it easier to end the practice of taking what is normally corporate income (taxed at 8.5%) and reporting it as personal income (taxed at 3.4%) which is likely in part behind the odd fact that 44% of coroprations in Indiana report no income tax liability. And because corporate income is not taxed, that means the cost of the government providing insurance limiting liability to investment (this being what incorporating is all about) is not paid for by its beneficiaries.
If individuals owning corporations are unwilling to pay the taxes for the fictitous person created by the corporation, maybe the liability for that corporation should fall upon those individuals rather than the fictitous person created in the corporation. Odd how when one looks, the idea that government intervention is anathema to the "free market" goes out the window. As Polanyi put it, lassiez faire is planned, social protection is spontaneous.
Hat tip to Doug at Masson's blog for pointing out Warner's new site.
Eric Miller brought his traveling band of tax-hating activists to Goshen last Thursday, and was once again challenging Governor Daniels on property tax reform. From the press release:
Miller stated, "Governor Daniels should call a Special Session of the General Assembly to enact this immediate solution and to pass a Constitutional Amendment to repeal property taxes."
Miller emphasized that Governor Daniels and the General Assembly have the power to help solve the property tax crisis this year and permanently. The only question is - will they?
Miller announced a four step plan for victory. Individuals were challenged to join in the battle to repeal property taxes by signing up friends, neighbors, relatives or co-workers, by contacting the senators and representatives from their county and asking them to support the repeal of property taxes and the immediate solution, and by making a financial contribution so more Hoosiers would be made aware of this effort.
They were also encouraged to contact Governor Daniels to ask him to call a Special Session to implement the immediate and permanent solutions.
One fact probably not lost on Eric Miller when he selected Goshen for one of his rallies: Miller beat Daniels by nearly 2,000 votes in Elkhart County during the 2004 gubernatorial primary.
Another night, another Eric Miller-sponsored protest. This time, the caravan rolled into Muncie:
More than 600 angry taxpayers attended a property tax repeal rally presided over by conservative attorney Eric Miller on Tuesday night.
"Folks, this is our hour," Miller said. "Let's not let it pass us by. There are more people today upset in Delaware County and the state of Indiana about property taxes than ever before that I can recall."
[...]
Numerous other public officials attended Miller's rally, including Democratic mayoral nominee Jim Mansfield and Republican nominee Sharon McShurley, both of whom sat in the front row and frequently applauded. State Rep. Bill Davis, R-Portland, was cheered when he announced he was a supporter of Miller's Advance America campaign.
An unsuccessful 2004 Republican gubernatorial candidate, Miller was cheered and applauded throughout his talk, especially when he said things like "we have a massive property tax crisis" that politicians for decades have failed to solve.
While I'll be the first to admit that phrases like "we have a massive property tax crisis" aren't exactly rhetorical gems to write home about, you have to wonder if the Governor is at all concerned about Miller stepping into the power vacuum that over two years of silence on this issue has created.
Oh, and just for the record? When I talk about hyperbole hurting the cause of those wanting systemic changes to our tax system, this would be what I am talking about:
Writing for the Evansville Courier & Press, Bryan Corbin examines the oft-repeated thought of calling a statewide constitutional convention to examine the convoluted structure of government that may be contributing to some of the higher property tax vbillss across the state. Of course, the problem with doing this would be that once you put all of these lawyers and politically-inclined voices in a room, there is no telling what they would do.
If the Legislature agreed to trigger the rarely-seen convention process, "it would be a remarkable civic occasion for Hoosiers to consider fundamental principles about who we are as a state. But it could turn into an ugly spectacle and also invite a lot of groups to try to muscle their way into the constitution," said Robert Dion, associate professor of political science at the University of Evansville. "I'm sympathetic to the idea that the Kernan-Shepard commission wants to revisit the foundation of the organization of the state and achieve real fundamental reforms, and not tinker at the margins.
"But if you open the door to rewriting the constitution, you're asking for a storm of amendments and competing causes. It would be a real mess."
Delegates to a constitutional convention could alter basic features of government - not just the number and duties of state, county and township offices, but also the lengths of terms that officials serve - and they could change redistricting.
The big issue that has been raised by many about such a convention would be the ease in which right-wing activists like Eric Miller could slip in anti-GLBT provisions, such as last year's SJR-7. But don't worry, because Miller pinky-promises he would never want to do that:
A constitution rewrite would open the door to adding SJR 7 while bypassing the time-consuming amendment process. But one of the most vocal supporters of SJR 7, lobbyist Eric Miller of the conservative group Advance America, said he opposes a convention.
"You could have a constitutional convention that could get into many more areas other than finding ways to streamline government," said Miller, who ran for governor in 2004. He said he prefers to pursue SJR 7 as an amendment, not through a convention.
So does state Sen. Brandt Hershman, the Senate sponsor of SJR 7.
"I don't believe in mixing issues," said Hershman, R-Wheatfield.
You don't believe in mixing issues? These are the same people who killed the hate crimes bill because they said it would somehow -- and no one has ever really figured this out -- shut down the ability of churches to say what they want. Oh, and this is the same group of nutjobs who almost killed the Darfur divestment bill by adding in language that would have banned organizations that were at all involved in matters of reproductive rights.
They don't believe in mixing issues? I don't believe that for a second. But I will say that Eric Miller sounded positively moderate in his response. Perhaps gearing up for another run at Mitch in 2008?
Through a Web site and a series of taxpayer rallies, activist Eric Miller of Advance America is promoting a six-year plan to cap government spending and eliminate property taxes through an amendment to the Indiana Constitution.
"The whole aim is to pass a constitutional amendment to ban the taxation of real estate and go to ... some alternative system of financing that's fair to both the state and local governments," said state Sen. Brent Steele.
The campaign committees of Steele and state Rep. Eric Koch placed an ad in the Times-Mail urging people to attend Miller's taxpayer rally at 7 p.m. Monday in Jonathan Byrd's Cafeteria in Greenwood. And Miller's Web site quotes state Rep. Jerry Denbo as saying he "would wholeheartedly support a Constitutional amendment to repeal property taxes at this time."
Despite his own self-proclamation that he has no interest in challenging Governor Daniels next year for the GOP nomination, Miller continues to plaster his name all over every Advance America publication, and seems to relish these opportunities to put his name back into the public debate.
He may say he isn't running, but I wouldn't rule it out just yet. By the off chance -- and I don't have a lot of faith, for what it's worth -- that the General Assembly refuses to touch the gay marriage issue again next year, I can very easily see Miller and his cronies announcing that the "real needs" of Indiana's conservative voters aren't being addressed by their Governor. Keep an eye on Mitch has he dives to the right over the next few months to try and avoid this.
All logos and trademarks in this site
are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, and
all other site content may be used for any purpose
without explicit permission
unless otherwise specified.
I was reading 
