Latest Headlines

The Bell Curve: Promises and Resolutions…

By
Rex Bell
Published: February 21, 2011

I ran into my old buddy Stinky Wilmont the other day, and in the course of our conversation, the subject of New Year’s resolutions came up. I asked Stinky if he was going to make any, and he replied that in 2011, he was going to resolve to gain 20 pounds and acquire a few more credit cards.

When I pointed out that those resolutions ran afoul of conventional resolutions, Stinky said that he realized they did, but that he had never had much luck with plans that involved losing weight or trimming his budget. He said he thought he would feel better about himself if he could keep whatever resolutions he made it, and since gaining weight and spending money kind of came naturally for him anyway, it just seemed like the logical way to go.

I started to explain to him that those resolutions probably weren’t in his best long term interest, but Stinky didn’t tend to think that far ahead. Besides, resolutions are kind of like promises to yourself by yourself, so Stinky’s resolutions probably weren’t any of my business, anyway.

But there is a difference between resolutions and promises. For years, politicians have been getting elected by making promises to the voters. A lot of those promises were about money. Sometimes they promised money they didn’t really have yet. Sometimes they had the money and spent it on something they had promised to somebody else. Sometimes they never had the money at all. Most of the time they were promising somebody else’s money anyway.

That’s what happened down in Prichard, Alabama. A while back, Prichard told about 150 city retirees that the city didn’t have enough money to pay them the pensions they were promised. They can still find the people that made the promises, but apparently they’re having trouble finding the people that will keep them.

Prichard, Alabama is just one of many entities across the country that has made promises it cannot keep. Public employee pensions have promised $3.2 trillion that they don’t have. Social Security and Medicare are in the same shape, but on a larger scale, and every day, another 10,000 citizens will turn 65, and get in line for their share of the promises the government made, and hope there are still enough people around willing to keep those promises somebody else made for them.

Over the next few years, we are going to hear a lot of stories about pension plans from all levels of government that have run out of money. Most of the problems will be the result of the government making promises to other people for other people.

We could solve a lot of those problems if we could just take on some personal responsibility, and start making and keeping our own promises.

Maybe that would be a good New Year’s resolution for all of us.
Right, Stinky?…..Stinky?……….Stinky?

Zoning Ordinance Clamps down on Home-Based Business

By
lplpchair
Published: February 20, 2011

As reported in the Michigan City News Dispatch last week, local residents and small business owners have grave concerns about the proposed LaPorte County Joint Zoning Ordinance. Folks who work out of their homes may share in questioning the plan. The ordinance prohibits home-based workers from conducting business before 7:00 AM and from receiving deliveries from traditional carriers like UPS and FedEx. Whether you’re a web designer, eBay entrepreneur, or barber, everyone’s subjected to the same restrictions.

The next LaPorte Plan Commission meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 8, 2011 at 8:00 pm. A thumbs-up from the Plan Commission will put it before the LaPorte City Council in time for their March 21 meeting.

The Bell Curve: Pay ‘em Now, and Pay ‘em Later…

By
Rex Bell
Published: February 18, 2011

(From 2008)

I run a small construction company with the help of my brother, my youngest son, and Hank, when he’s not mowing his yard. And Jay when he’s not in school or playing baseball. Or fishing. We try to build a couple of homes a year, sometimes more, sometimes less depending on the size and complexity of the project.

As part of the agreement, if the customers are happy with the final product, they pay us and we move on to the next project. Hopefully I have enough to pay everybody, buy my wife and grandkids something for their birthdays, and then put a little back for a rainy day.

That’s how it works, and that’s how it’s supposed to work The homeowners know that I can’t or won’t come back 15 or 20 years from now and ask them to pay me again, or ask their children or grandchildren to pay me again. The job was completed and the job was paid for. Period. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work like that when the government is involved.

Most government employees are promised a pension when they retire, just as many private sector employees are promised a pension when they retire. It’s admirable that a person would plan ahead for their retirement, and if part of their pay consists of their employer contributing to and frugally managing their retirement account, they certainly are better off for it.

However, Hoosier taxpayers are justifiably concerned about the ever rising cost of government, even as government is feverishly trying to justify its ever rising cost. There is seldom a day goes by that we don’t hear of some ridiculous government spending program. A couple of weeks ago, the news was filled with the report of state legislators’ pension funds receiving a $4 to $1 match from taxpayers. As maddening as that program is, the $14 million taxpayers have contributed in the last 16 years is small potatoes compared to other pension contributions they are making.

When government promises a pension to its employees, it’s actually promising that taxpayers will continue to fund that pension. The government doesn’t always set the pension money aside, and even when it does, it doesn’t always leave it set aside. In order to feed its insatiable appetite, government often borrows from the pension funds that taxpayers have supported, leaving a massive debt for present and future taxpayers to settle.

Across Indiana, Hoosiers are on the hook for billions of dollars that have been borrowed from teachers and public employee retirement funds, and a lot of the taxes they are paying now, that should be applied to current services, are instead paying interest on borrowed money and repaying benefits that they or their parents have already paid.

And government doesn’t help things with the generous retirement plans it offers. Some departments offer a healthy retirement to employees after only 20 years of service, and at the age of 50. Sometimes less. Here in Wayne County, some members of the sheriff’s department qualify for nearly $35,000.00 a year retirement after only 8 years of service. It’s likely that a lot of these retirees will be drawing benefits for over 40 years. That means there is a real possibility that your great-grandchildren will be paying for the retirement of the current police force. We get a double whammy when an employee retires from one department, and then goes to work for another department, and ends up drawing a retirement from both.

Certainly government employees that provide essential services should be fairly compensated for their efforts, and that compensation should be adequate to fund a reasonable retirement plan. And certainly if they decide they want the government to administer that retirement plan, they certainly have that right, although in view of its past performance, I would question the wisdom of that decision.

One of the best ways to control government spending is to limit its access to the billions and trillions of dollars that should be in these funds, and let employees control their own accounts. Overall, that is the fairest plan for the taxpayers. And their employees.

(Cross posted from Rex’s blog, the BellCurve.)

Pete the Planner: Are Pensions the Next Bubble to Burst?

By
LPIN Editor
Published: February 18, 2011

(Peter Dunn is an Indianapolis media personality that hosts a radio show titled the “Skeptical Economist.” This is a podcast on his recent show on public pensions, focusing on how Indiana’s pensions operate. With the events taking place in Wisconsin, and Indiana’s own budget discussions, we think the information presented here is timely.)

ITunes Description: Pete the Planner talks with Indiana State Budget Director Christopher Ruhl about the status of Indiana’s pension plan. Pete also discusses how moral hazard will be responsible for bringing down our private pension system, as well as the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC).

The Ruhl interview begins at 14 minute mark.

2011 Stueben County Annual Convention – Notice of Date and Time

By
stuebenadmin
Published: February 16, 2011

Dear friend of the Libertarian Party of Steuben County,

This message is to provide official notice of the 2011 Annual Convention of the LPSC. Our Convention will be held at 4:30 P.M. on Wednesday, March 30. Once again we will meet at the Steuben County Community Foundation building – 1701 N. Wayne Street.  (This is in Country Fair shopping mall.)  The North door will be unlocked.

We will be electing Officers, selecting two LPSC delegates to the State LP convention, and nominating candidates for city and town offices.  I will send a proposed agenda to all interested individuals as the date approaches.  Please let me know if you are interested in attending.  If you would like more information about being a delegate to the State Convention, please let me know.

Thanks,

Ken
–
Ken Bisson, M.D.
LPSC Chairman

What is Government? The Force Behind the Law

By
LPIN Editor
Published: February 15, 2011

(By Dennis Beatty, Originally Posted at Rhinehold’s Blog)

There has been discussion lately about what the government should be doing, can do and is constitutionally allowed to do. But underneath those discussions we need to understand what makes government different from other organizations. Private organizations like the Red Cross, the NAACP, MADD, the Salvation Army, Angie’s List and the ACLU can all perform functions the citizens of a regional area need. Most things the government can do can be performed by similar privately ran organizations, so what is it that the government can do that these organizations can’t? Simply put, the government is the only body that we have legally given the power of force over its citizens.

That’s it. By force the government can enforce its laws. If the laws aren’t followed, we have given this single body the power to remove us from society and place us into custody at gunpoint if necessary. Yes, if we take the natural progression of resistance to the government, that is the end result.

Let’s look at a natural progression. Let’s say you are guilty of one of the laws that the government has been entrusted to enforce. You have decided, for your own personal reason, to not carry automobile insurance. As this is illegal in most states, you are breaking the law. Now you get pulled over and given a ticket for this. You ignore it. Soon a warrant is issues for your arrest. When the warrant is served, you resist arrest. The police will, rightfully so, use force to arrest you and take you into custody. And they would be legal in performing this action.

No other organization or agency has this power. If you pledge money to MADD and then don’t give them that money, you will not be made to by force, unless the government gets involved to put enforcement of a contract into action. No one from MADD will visit you with contingent of gun-toting enforcers to make you give over the pledged funds.

It is precisely this power that we have given to the government that requires that we limit what the government can do. Every time we ask the government to enforce a law, we are asking them to use the threat of force, possibly death, to ensure that the law is followed. Every program that requires taxes to fund is asking the government to take the earned wealth, by force, from one individual and giving it to the program.

The writers of the US Constitution understood this. They knew it all too well, having lived under a government previously that used that power to limit the freedom of it’s citizens as it suited the needs of the government. So, in writing the Constitution they put hard limits in it, most notably in the bill of rights, capped with the 9th and 10th amendments. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” and “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

In other words, our ruling document is not a listing of rights that we are given by government, but a listing of limits that are placed upon the government.  If something is not enumerated within the Constitution as a power of the government, it simply does not have that power.

Yet, all too often, in trying to get the notions we want enacted as laws we ignore this fact. We imagine that there is some wording or clause in the constitution that allows us to use it for our desires, while at the same time imagining that those desires we oppose are not allowed to use those same clauses. The reality is that we have so far pushed the line of what the federal government was designed to do, without properly amending the constitution to allow for these new desires, that most people aren’t even aware that there are some things that the federal government just isn’t allowed to do.  Thomas Jefferson warned about this when he wrote:

“They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.”

“I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words ‘general defense and public welfare.’ These words only express the motives which induced the Convention to give to the ordinary legislature certain specified powers which they enumerate, and which they thought might be trusted to the ordinary legislature, and not to give them the unspecified also; or why any specification? They could not be so awkward in language as to mean, as we say, ‘all and some.’ And should this construction prevail, all limits to the federal government are done away.”

When an injustice or problem comes before us we instinctively want something to be done to fix it. If someone is down on their luck or a person is being unfairly victimized based on something they have no control over, we want to see the little guy ‘win’ and beat the system that is causing their pain. So many times we say to ourselves, ‘There Ought To Be A Law’ to prevent this from happening again! But is making another law really the best way to handle these events?

There are many times where there are other ways to resolve issues that do not involve bringing in the government and their enforcement of laws that are made. For example in dealing with the less fortunate, should we be involving the federal government into such issues or should the community, each individual deciding for themselves how best to help, or even if help is warranted in each case, get involved and resolved the problems as they occur without creating a bureaucracy that invariably leaves some who are deserving out in the cold while rewarding those who know how to ‘grease the system’?

In many cases the laws create new problems that need to be addressed by, yes, another law. We want a law to stop people from committing prostitution, but in effect we push the behavior underground, preventing the community from adequately dealing with the issue while involving the police state into the personal lives of two consenting adults. A similar issue with abortion, gambling and the use of recreational drugs like tobacco, alcohol and marijuana. We ignore the history of prohibition in regards to alcohol many decades ago and recreate the same situation in an unrealistic War on Drugs that has had little effect on the use of drugs while creating an underground mob culture, criminals out of people who need help and the filing of our jails with people who’s only offense is the smoking of a plant that grows naturally in the wild.

So the situation is now that every perceived ill should be handled by the government. By using their ability to force people to follow whatever law is enacted they can force people to solve these perceived ills. But by doing so things that could be handed without that threat of force behind it, instead done through charity and good feelings are now accomplished through force and lack of freedom. More funds are required to be taken, by force, from the citizens instead of offered up by the citizens through charitable means. But worse than that, because we are forced by fund these endeavors we no longer feel the need to provide charity. “We gave already” is the view of many, because they are forced to give from their paychecks in taxation they feel less motivated to give to charitable organizations.

This permeates. We no longer know or care who are neighbors are or what their needs are. There’s a governmental program to take care of them, “I can live my life knowing that I’m doing my part without actually ‘getting dirty’.” Not exactly the type of attitude that helped make this society great. It’s also a trend that I am afraid may be too far entrenched to reverse.

Of course, I am not advocating anarchy. Many will say, wrongly, that anyone suggesting a reduction of the influence of government in our lives is just trying to bring anarchy to our society. There are times when laws and government are definitely needed. The protection of an individual’s rights as prescribed by the constitution being the highest priority, the regulation of interstate trade and commerce, protection of the country from outside forces, etc. But when confronted with an issue that needs to be corrected, we should be asking first what we can do to resolve these problems ourselves without involving the institutionalization of rigid laws.

Ron Paul, CPAC and Loathing by the Ideologically Unprincipled and Intellectually Dishonest

By
LPIN Editor
Published: February 15, 2011

(By Sean Shepard, Originally posted at Shepard on Politics and Policy)

Conservatives have a real problem in Texas congressman Ron Paul.

Ron Paul doesn’t think the United States should claim to be all about “freedom” and “democracy” while sending billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to foreign dictators. The people of Egypt just rose up and booted out Mubarak whom the U.S. sent billions of dollars to each year. The Ba’ath Party in Iraq was supported early on by the U.S. and Saddam was all buddy-buddy with America for many years before we sought “regime change”. In 1979 the people of Iran tossed out the increasingly brutal Shah Pahlavi whom the U.S. and Britain had put put in power, replacing their secular (non religious) democracy in 1953.

I mean, it’s not like the people in these countries aren’t backwards cave people who don’t know that the United States has funded and supported the same governments and leaders that have secret police kidnapping political dissenters off the streets, won’t let women drive or vote or sometimes even punishes them with whippings, jail or being stoned to death for having gotten raped.

Former Pakistani President Musharraf, a military dictator, whom the U.S. sent billions and billions of dollars to each year just had an arrest warrant issued for him over the assassination of his political opposition, Benazir Bhutto, prior to the election. Yay! Hey, thanks U.S. Government for sending my tax money to a murderous, anti-democracy dictator who has women assassinated.

Ron Paul doesn’t think the Federal Reserve should be able to just print money out of thin air, decreasing the value of the money already in circulation (including our savings) so that they can cover the massive deficits and out of control spending of our ridiculously bloated government while the rest of the world laughs at us. Has anyone else noticed the rest of the world starting to demand that the U.S. Dollar no longer be a key reserve currency and even China, a Communist Country whom we will borrow our entire military budget from (and then some) this year, is starting to rethink how far they will let us extend ourselves with them.

div>Ron Paul doesn’t think that the Federal Government should be regulating religious rituals like marriage that a lot of us really think should be controlled by each person’s respective church or religious beliefs. Nope, he doesn’t think that the opinions of some people should be forced, by threat of government violence, on everyone else.

Ron Paul really means it when he talks about shrinking the Federal Government, making sure it minds its own business and actually protects not just the personal safety and freedom of Americans but our economic freedom and security as well.

A lot of conservatives like to talk about how they want the U.S. Government out of their lives and wallets. Yeah, well people in other countries want the U.S. Government out of their lives and wallets too. You want to stop terrorism against the United States? Heaven forbid we consider starting by not pissing off a whole region of the world with a hypocritical foreign policy.

Small government conservatives shouldn’t be calling for the Government to not only take over marriage from the church; but, as the proposed Constitutional Amendment in Indiana would call for – actually banning voluntary, contractual agreements between people that might look too much like some kind of arrangement similar to that married people have. Yeah, banning voluntary, contractual agreements between consenting adults is exactly what small government conservative folks should be promoting. Idiots.

One of the elected politicians that represents me in the Indiana State House, and one of the few I respect quite a bit, pointed out how some of the same people who praised Governor Mitch Daniels’ great speech at CPAC spent the very next day blasting and criticizing CPAC for Ron Paul’s victory in their Straw Poll. Well, just keep this mind. As a Facebook post pointed out, “Ron Paul won that straw poll with 30% of the vote by INSPIRING people to be there. Mitt ‘RomneyCare’ Romney came in second place with 23% by PAYING people to be there.“

Nobody else garnered more than 6% and, thank goodness for small miracles, Sarah Palin only got 3% with the much more deserving Mitch Daniels ahead of her at 4%.

For all of the railing against the government takeover of healthcare under Obama where was all the fuss when George W. Bush pushed through the trillion dollar prescription drug benefit to Medicare? Where are the loud calls and protests to repeal that? Where is the acknowledgment about Mitt’s involvement with Massachusetts so-called “RomneyCare” program? Hey! If the CPAC results are any indication 23% of conservatives agree that government takeovers are okay so long as a Republican does it!

So, yeah, there are a bunch of us out there who want a little (or a lot of) intellectual honesty and consistency from our politicians and our government. But, until we get it from the followers and supporters of the two major political party cults (and that’s what they’ve devolved into), we aren’t going to have it from government. And, so, people like Ron Paul pose a problem because he continues to point out the inconsistencies in the current political dialog and our own hypocrisy. Supporters of the status quo, of an oppressive global American empire or people who want to use government to push their hateful, religious anti-gay people agenda really, really hate that.

“Atlas Shrugged” movie to be release April 15, 2011

By
LPIN Editor
Published: February 15, 2011

Will you go see it? View the trailer here:

Why do Libertarians Dislike the Patriot Act?

By
Jerry Titus
Published: February 14, 2011

(By Jerry Titus, Howard County Chairman. This is Part Two of a series on the Patriot Act. Part 1)

Why do Libertarians dislike the Patriot Act?

Sound outlandish? It certainly would be unusual, and unlikely to find an agent sitting at your desk. But the reality of the government’s ability to access and search your private records and files is outlandish.

The ‘Patriot’ Act gives government agents the powers to do these types of searches, and more. Rarely would you ever see an agent or likely even know that your records have been searched.

Why do Libertarians dislike the Patriot Act? Well a better question would be why do we like the Fourth Amendment?

Libertarians believe in the sovereignty of the individual and that all rights the state has to operate emanate from the individual. That the government works for us, and does what we say it can do. Not the other way around.

Properly understood, the United State Constitution is a contract that specifically limits the United States Government to exactly its functions. Unfortunately, like so many other sections of the Constitution, the contemporary interpretation of the fourth amendment has become so twisted that is little resembles the original intent.

The Fourth Amendment was specifically written to limit the State in its exercising of Police powers. Due process is the result of an almost 200 year struggle for the defense of individual rights to privacy and property. After centuries of losing the battle, a nation founded itself with this guiding principle:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ~ The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

The encroachment on civil liberties and due process has been ongoing from our founding it accelerated with the execution of the drug war. With the Patriot Act, the Federal government has given itself supreme police powers, totally ignoring the fourth amendment to the Constitution. It is maybe the greatest example of the government taking more power from its citizens in American history.

These principles of “due process” and of a government restrained in its police powers are further clarified in the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Key provisions of the Patriot Act are due to expire at the end of this month and failed to pass in an attempted procedural end run. Another vote will take place at 6 PM tonight.

We libertarians, as in the past, call on you to inform your Congressman and Senators to Vote no on any extension or renewal of the Patriot Act.

Privacy and Property Rights are the Foundation to Freedom

By
Jerry Titus
Published: February 14, 2011

(By Jerry Titus, Part 1 on the Patriot Act deals with the struggle to achieve privacy and property rights. Part 2)

Why is the fourth amendment important? Why do we even have it? Why was it important enough for our founders to include this in the Bill of Right? What specific circumstances caused them to insist that the ‘right to be secure in their persons, house and papers and effects.’ and to limit their Federal Government’s power to conduct searches?

The Semayne case was a landmark case for not only establishing ‘a man’s home is his castle’ – the ‘Castle Doctrine.’ The King and Parliament did NOT have unlimited sovereignty over the individual.

Left to their own forming of government, the people of the Colonies had embraced this new ‘liberal’ notion of individual sovereignty, of a government restrained by law; and incorporated it into not only their formal charters, constitutions and laws, but also their hearts, as a keystone principle of their new found lives of liberty.

Even with the Semayne ruling, the King and his agents brazenly did as they pleased in their pursuits of revenue. The new found liberties that the colonists enjoyed – individual rights, property rights and privacy, were still not the status quo of the day and held no sway with the English monarchy who continued to do as he pleased.

In defiance to the King’s taxes, the Colonists started a black market. They nullified the King’s laws by skirting and often openly ignoring them by trading in contraband goods.

Determined to collect his taxes, King George II and Parliament passed the Excise Act of 1754:

“which gave tax collectors unlimited powers to interrogate colonists concerning their use of goods subject to customs and permitted the use of a general warrant known as a writ of assistance, allowing them to search the homes of colonists and seize “prohibited and uncustomed” goods.[4]

In turn the Massachusetts Assembly countered with laws over ruling the Writs. The battle waged on for four more years between the colonists and their King until 1760, when George the II died, rendering his writs expired.

Seizing advantage of the crisis a group of businessmen in Boston brought suit. In a fiery five-hour speech, James Otis attacked the King’s Writs and Warrants. While losing the battle, Otis’ oratory was a fierce battle cry that was echoed amongst the colonies. In the crowd that day was John Adams, a young man of 25. Later he wrote of the experience:

“The child independence was then and there born, every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance.

Otis’ speech was “as the spark in which originated the American Revolution.”

An examination of the first draft of the Declaration of Independence shows this influence:

he has suffered the administration of justice totally to cease in some of these colonies, refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers:

he has made our judges dependant on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and amount of their salaries:

he has erected a multitude of new offices by a self-assumed power, & sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people & eat out their substance:

for protecting them by a mock-trial from punishment for any murders they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;

for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

for imposing taxes on us without our consent;

for depriving us of the benefits of trial by jury;

Both the Virginia Declaration of Rights by James Mason and the Massachusetts Declaration of the Rights by John Adams contained property rights protection through warrants.

Then in 1787 James Madison, one of the principle authors of the Constitution, added the unequivocal statement of due process to deny unrestrained police powers.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

~ The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Properly understood, the United State Constitution is a contract that specifically limits the United States Government to exactly the limits of its functions. Unfortunately, like so many other sections of the Constitution, the contemporary interpretation of the fourth amendment has become so twisted that is little resembles the original intent.

The Fourth Amendment was specifically written to limit the State in its exercising of Police powers – ‘due process’. It was the result of an almost 200 year struggle of assertion and defense of the individual rights to be free of tyrannical police powers waged by the Monarchs of England.

How did the General Assembly Spend its Thursday Afternoon?

By
LPIN Editor
Published: February 14, 2011

(Editor’s Note: Instead of spending time debating (in the public) the budget, redistricting, school reform, or job creation/tax reform, the Indiana House of Representatives worked on restricting freedom and trying to control Indiana’s population. This is a recap of Thursday’s “marriage strengthening” debate.)

By Evan McMahon, Executive Director of Atlas Liberty PAC

On Thursday the Indiana House of Representatives held a vote with limited debate on an amendment to remove the second line from HJR-6, an amendment to the Indiana State Constitution banning all recognition of any form of same-sex union. The amendment failed 32-60, not along party lines.

“Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Most, if not all, of the supporters of the change to HJR-6 said that it was over the ambiguity of “substantially similar” and the fear that these two words could have far reaching and unintended consequences.

Rep. Terri Austin (D-Anderson), who authored Thursday’s failed amendment, said during the debate “I think we can uphold the institution of marriage and still protect fundamental rights that people who may live, believe and love differently than we do are entitled to.”

I’m left questioning what makes Mrs. Austin think that by simply removing “substantially similar” from this constitutional amendment that the state would be protecting the “fundamental rights” of effected Hoosiers?
In response to questions as to why the state needs a constitutional amendment when there is already a state statute banning same-sex marriage, Rep. Eric Turner (R-Cicero), author of HJR-6, said the amendment is needed to prevent activist judges from voiding the current law. Turner went on to cite a similar case in Iowa where judges had struck down a state statute for violating the Iowa Constitution. He pointed to the strict language of other states. But he also said this amendment is not an attack on any one group or community.

I question this since Indiana DoMa (Defense of Marriage Act) has been around since 1997 and was upheld as constitutional in Morrison v. Sadler (Jan. 20th 2005).

IC 31-11-1-1
Same sex marriages prohibited

Sec. 1. (a) Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female.
(b) A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized.

Rep. Ralph Foley (R- Martinsville) was correct when he said that marriage is not a religious term, but a legal term defined by the state. He said this as a deflection from the argument that this measure to define marriage in the state constitution is a religious effort.

Rep. Ed DeLaney (D-Indianapolis) called that very argument into question. He insisted that the members of the Assembly be honest with their motives for supporting HJR-6. He stated he felt that most of this measure’s supporters are doing it for religious reasons not out of some civil protection.

DeLaney went on to address the notion that this will not impact contracts, as Rep. Turner suggested. If people are not afforded any “legal status” their contracts, wills, bank and parental instructions, medical visitation and power of attorney forms can all be successfully challenged in court by an ‘unsupportive’ or hostile family member.

There are also questions to whether an employer can offer health benefits to their employee’s same-sex partner. Under the new Federal healthcare law it is unclear what is and isn’t covered by the state. For sure we know that if that matter was to go to court for resolution, the couple would have no legal status.
Rep. Matt Pierce (D-Bloomington) cited logical economic reasons for supporting the removal of the second line. He shared a story about a gay couple who relocated their businesses and all of their assets to Bloomington, Indiana after their home state of Virginia passed a constitutional amendment almost identical to the currently proposed one. After spending countless hours and vast amounts of money making sure they were legally protecting each other in the event of death or dissolution…they were advised by a lawyer that their ‘paper work’ was probably no longer valid in Virginia.

Pierce said that the couple was an asset to the community and that he feared they would leave, with their businesses, if HJR-6 was passed in its current form.

Rep. Sheila Klinker (D-Lafayette) spoken of the gay and lesbian teens she worked with as a teacher. How touched she was when they spoke to her of the respect that she had shown them in the classroom. She said at one point, “The State and US Constitution were written to protect people’s rights, not to take them away.”

Since the amendment to HJR-6 died 32-60 the full resolution will now move to a floor vote in the coming weeks.

Libertarians Support School Choice

By
LPIN Editor
Published: February 14, 2011

(By Kenn Gividen, 2004 Libertarian Party of Indiana Gubernatorial Candidate)

When a horde of unionists converged on the Indiana state capital to voice their objection to education reform and school choice, many Hoosiers were caught off guard. A few were even shocked. These were, after all, educators carrying picket signs denouncing legislation that promises to shift the Hoosier state’s educational system into high gear.

What’s irking the unionists is state legislation that would allow Indiana’s parents to use vouchers to fund private (read, non-union) education.

Libertarians were not surprised. The voices of those unionists clamoring against school choice are, at the core, motivated by greed that is enforced by a government monopoly. We’ve known it all along. And, again, we told you so.

Nearly seven years ago I took center position in a debate between now-governor Mitch Daniels on my right and then-governor Joe Kernan (appropriately) at my left. While my opponents gently tiptoed through the tulips of political correctness I had the audacity to tell the world via national television that teachers unions were inherently evil. They were driven, not be an altruistic passion for educating our children, but by a sycophantic urge to protect their professional turf.

Leading the charge

While Libertarians may have lit the lamp that illuminated the dark side of teachers unions, we are pleased that some Republicans have, at last, seen the light. More accurately I should say the GOP is finally grasping the advantages of school choice. Granted, their legislation is far removed from the ideal of total school privatization, but the road they trod is the path blazed by Libertarians. It leads in the right direction.

While credit is due, it is not expected. After all it was a Libertarian endeavor that launched the massive Tea Party movement. And those of you had presence of mind to record the 2004 gubernatorial debates can relive the spark that was lit by this Libertarian and his compatriots that ignited the rebellion against oppressive property taxes. Stated colloquially, we were anti-property tax when anti-property tax wasn’t cool.

On July 4, 2007, Andrew Horning led the first “tea party” with 500 other Hoosiers on the lawn of the governor’s mansion declaring an end to the property tax system. (Ultimately, the Governor and the Legislature have made moves to enshrine property taxes in to the Constitution.)

Wising up

And it’s not just the Republicans who are catching fire. The media is also illuminating.

Radio talkster Abdul Hakim-Shabazz is one example. Affectionately known to his fan base as “Abdul,” the master of sardonicism has managed to ply his gift for playful sarcasm to wedge a thorn in the sole of unionists. Those of us who frequent Abdul’s blog, IndianaBarrister.com, mused at his observation:

“If these folks are so smart and know what works, because according to them no one else does, then the unions should be willing to put its money where its mouth is and start a school, owned and operated by teachers.”

Abdul also noted that it cost about $250,000 to launch a charter school. The teachers union invested more than four times that amount – over $1,000,000 – to help pro-union Democrats retain control of the Indiana House of Representatives. They lost.

His fan base echoes Abdul’s sentiments, though perhaps with less flare. One reader recalled the Michigan businessman who offered $200 million to fund Detroit’s charter school system in 2003. The unionists objected. They walked off their school jobs to rally by the thousands at that state’s capital. The businessman was forced to withdraw the offer. But the story doesn’t end there. More recently reports have surfaced that Detroit’s government schools are faking it. Failing students are routinely given C grades. They appear to be outperforming charter schools. In reality, they are out-cheating charter schools. [1]

The unionist rally at Indiana’s state house is déjà vu; a replaying of the Detroit episode. The outcome will be the same. Union members will have job security and the Hoosier state’s school system will remain entrenched in a failed government monopoly. That presumes, of course, that the unions get their evil way.

Advancing black students

There are also notations that charter schools are delivering the educational goods with black students. While unionists accuse charter schools as the embodiment of racial segregation, respected Harvard economist Roland Fryer sees no problem. He cites statistics that prove high-performing black students suffer from discrimination from other black students in integrated government schools. Charter schools with black student bodies are the exception. High-performing black students face virtually no digression of popularity among their peers. Fryer, by the way, is black. [2]

Urban Prep Academy for Young Men in Chicago’s crime-ridden Englewood district is an example of a successful black charter school. Allowing only black males to attend, the school boasted that 100 percent of its first senior class had been accepted to four-year colleges. If you had a choice, would you prefer your son attend the Urban Prep Academy? Or its crime ridden public-school competitor? Teachers unions say there should be no choice. [3]

Helping to advance the cause excelled education is The Foundation for Educational Choice. Their website, edchoice.org, offers a petition that supports the legislation and an article lauding Gov. Daniels for endorsing it. [4]

Not all are bad apples

Painting teachers unions with a broad brush may seem a bit unfair. After all, there is a vast difference between teachers and the unions that portend to represent them. Not all union members are enthralled with the union directions.

Furthermore, to their credit, the unionists have some valid complaints. The silly notion that government oversight can enforce teacher quality by attaching student outcome with teacher wages in an invitation to abject cronyism. Teachers will gravitate toward schools where student performance is enhanced by parental involvement and economic privilege. Schools populated by underprivileged students will become a dearth of quality educators. This impending scenario will also be an invitation to more government tweaking; an effort to balance classrooms. Expect someone to suggest more school bussing.

Even so the unions are driven by greed and self-interest more than quality education. That observation is bound to evoke charges of anti-unionism or, if I may coin a term, unionphobia.

A Libertarian by any other name

The truth of the matter is: The truth is what matters. Name-calling, while always annoying and often hurtful, is the heat that comes with the kitchen of transparent idealism. Libertarians have learned to tell the truth and suffer the unpleasant consequences.

Case in point: I’ve been accused of homophobia by those on the left while those on the right are certain I’m satiated with homophilia. There are those who call me “racist” why their counterparts denounce me as “race traitor.” It is no surprise, then, that Libertarians are occasionally accused of being anti-union (or unionphobic). Most are not.

When I was discussing the detestable actions of Indiana’s teachers unions on a Louisville talk show, one caller bluntly asked why I was “anti-union.” The truth of the matter is I am not anti-union. I know of no Libertarians who are anti-union. If I were a teacher I would belong to the union and be proud of it. What I would not do, however, is sell my unionist soul to the devils of government domination. I would welcome the challenge of competition. Union greed, not unions per se, is the problem.

So call us what you will – homophobes or homophiliacs, racists or race traitors; unionists or union busters. The truth is we are none of those. We simply adhere to a core principle that government is too big, too invasive and too inefficient. And when the need arises to train the spotlight on other government excesses, we will tell you so.

[1] Detroit Free Press, Feb. 10, 2011; http://tinyurl.com/4qfre99
[2] New York Daily News, Aug. 24, 2010; http://tinyurl.com/282yz8v
[3] Chicago Tribune, March 5, 2010; http://tinyurl.com/4enelrh
[4] EdChoice.org

LPIN Press Release: Republicans and Democrats Seek To Add Discrimination to the Constitution

By
LPIN Editor
Published: February 11, 2011

Despite the Governor’s call to avoid wading in to divisive issues, The Indiana Republican Party has ignored the head of their party by trying to make discrimination a permanent part of the Indiana Constitution. HJR-6 is a bill that will define marriage between one man and one woman. It is co-authored by two Republicans and two Democrats.

The Libertarian Party of Indiana affirms that personal relationships are an individual’s choice and government has no authority to define, license or restrict marriage. This Constitutional amendment increases the power of the government over the lives of all Hoosiers, and is designed to discriminate against homosexual couples.

“The very first section of the Indiana Constitution states that all people are created equal,” said Sam Goldstein, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Indiana. “All consenting adults should have equal protections under Indiana law when making a personal and private decision to share their life with someone. Its mind boggling that Republicans would campaign on personal liberty, and then seek to add discrimination to the Constitution. Democrats should also be upset that their legislators are co-sponsoring this bill, and the Indiana Democratic Party has been silent through this process. Where are their principles?”

Goldstein continued, “Employers that are looking to relocate their business will have a hard time choosing Indiana over other states if we allow our government to force those business owners to deny benefits for ALL of their employees. This is a very bad bill for jobs as well.”

In this current session of the General Assembly, both parties have sought to “strengthen marriage.” One Republican idea is adding a pre-marriage class to the license process (HB 1248).

“It’s clear that the Republican Party of Indiana has failed in its promise to stop the tide of government control brought on by Democrats,” said Executive Director Chris Spangle. “They have a super majority in the Senate and close to 60 votes in the House. If they were serious about a small government, they have the ability to bring it about. We’re almost halfway through the session, and there has been a limited discussion of budgetary issues.”

Media Contact: Chris Spangle, 317-920-1994

A Declaration of Independence: Make Your Choice

By
Chris Spangle
Published: February 11, 2011

In 18 days, Egyptian citizens banded together using facebook and twitter to demand the true liberty that all living people deserve. They demanded it peacefully while withstanding attacks by Mubarak’s hired thugs.

In 18 days, 30 years of iron-fisted rule has ended. The majority of the nation’s population probably never envisioned true liberty. It wasn’t a possibility until January 25. “The government was too big. The people are too passive.”

After dissolving the bands that held them tightly, now they must fight for a government that upholds these qualities.

Are you part of the population that never envisions anything changing? Or are you willing to peacefully uphold these values:

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776

Press Release: LaPorte Libertarians Encourage Longer Review Time for Countywide Zoning Ordinance

By
lplpchair
Published: February 11, 2011

(LPLP Press Release)

Following a unanimous vote of its membership, the Libertarian Party of LaPorte County (LPLP) announced
opposition to the proposed Countywide Zoning ordinance now being considered by city and county officials.
Characterizing the ordinance as anti-business, LPLP leadership is proposing the ordinance review process be slowed down to allow the public more time to understand the land use changes and the impact on business attraction and expansion.

In a prepared statement, LaPorte County resident and state party Vice Chairman Dan Drexler noted, “There seems to be a rush by our plan commission members and elected officials to pass this without understanding the contents of the ordinance. It reminds me of the mammoth federal healthcare legislation, ‘We have to pass it to find out what’s in it.’ Changes continue to be made to this ordinance, even as recently as this week’s La Porte City Plan Commission meeting. This is a moving target that needs a final version drafted and available for public review before it is voted on.”

Drexler continued, “Once we have a final copy, let’s see how it impacts land use and businesses. The argument that we need this for economic development purposes simply doesn’t hold up to closer scrutiny. More prohibitive industrial land use regulations and less friendly building code will only go to dissuade businesses from looking here and challenge our rural school districts to balance budgets without raising current property taxes.”

Libertarian small business owner Greg Kelver said, “As a small business owner, there are a number of provisions buried in the ordinance that could have detrimental effects on small rural and home-based businesses. LaPorte County could offer a lot to growing small businesses and companies who are ruralsourcing jobs instead of outsourcing them overseas. But the unintended consequences of this poorly written ordinance could kill those potential jobs and economic growth in LaPorte County before they even get started. Hopefully, our elected commissioners will send this back to planning commission for the additional corrective work it sorely needs.”

The one-size fits all approach to this ordinance could face strong legal challenge as well. County Vice Chairman and attorney Andy Wolf observes, “The needs of small rural communities like Union Mills or Rolling Prairie are very different than the needs of Michigan City or La Porte. It simply doesn’t make sense to have a single countywide ordinance that treats these communities identically. Lacrosse is not Michigan City and La Porte is not Hanna.”

“Parts of this ordinance are overly restrictive and clearly unconstitutional,” Wolf continued. “When you deny a
landowner the economically beneficial or productive use of his land, you violate his property rights. This ordinance excessively limits how a person can use his land, in some cases changing zoning designations that have existed for decades.”

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »