Indiana General Assembly Archive

Libertarian Guidelines for Legislation

LPIN Editor

Published: February 13, 2012

As the Indiana General Assembly session rolls on, Libertarians across Indiana are examining and discussing bills being considered by legislators. This facebook group can be found here.

Several helpful guidelines have been written by the group to be used when examining legislation:

LPIN Purpose and Principles:

That all people possess certain unalienable natural rights, and that among these are rights to life, liberty, justly acquired property, and self-governance.
That the only moral basis of government is the preservation and protection of unalienable natural rights.
That no person or institution, public or private, has the right to initiate the use of physical force or fraud against another person, and that all people are bound, without contract, to abstain from infringing upon the natural rights of other people.
That all people are entitled to choose their own lifestyles, as long as they do not forcibly impose their values on others.
That the voluntary and unrestricted exchange of goods and services is fundamental to a peaceful and harmonious society.

Source: LPIN By-laws, Article II – Statement of Purpose and Principles; http://lpin.org/about/lpin-by-laws/

LP Statement of Principles

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

Source: Libertarian Party 2010 Platform, Statement of Principles; http://www.lp.org/platform

YES, sign me up as a member of the Libertarian Party. To validate my membership, I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

Source: https://www.lp.org/membership

Maurice McTigue’s Accountable Legislation Test, a simple filter for responsible lawmaking:

Where is the proof that the problem that this proposal/legislation seeks to remedy actually exists?
Is any program or activity currently …working to address the same problem?
Where is the proof that the remedy suggested by this legislation (allocation of funds or resources) will actually solve the problem?
Is there any evidence to show that the value of fixing this problem is such that it is a higher priority to solve it than to use the same resources to solve another problem?
When do we expect the problem to be fixed and when will we finish funding this activity or program?

Jerry Titus’s (current LPIN Vice Chairman) condensed list of Libertarian guidelines for legislation

Are any of our stated principles being violated? Force, coercion?
Are the rights of the individual being protected or violated, served by this law?
Is the Rule of Law, the Constitutions, being followed and protected? Violated?
Can laws be repealed rather than new laws passed?
Does this legislation promote more individual freedom?
Does this legislation promote less government?
Does this legislation identify/favor/harm a class of specific people?
Is this legislation being passed to fix bad legislation?
Are we moving further away, or closer to a government based on Libertarian ideals?
When all else fails, apply the Golden Rule – is this something I’d like done to, or for me.

House Rules!

Chris Spangle

Published: February 24, 2011

Phyllis Klosinski over at LPIN.org wrote an article on the Democrats fleeing and the Constitution. I urge you to read it.

The Democrats keep trying to cry filibuster, but that’s not what this is… A filibuster is NEVER mentioned in the rules of the Indiana House or Constitution. In my own opinion, the Democrats are clearly violating the rules, and they should face the consequences laid out by their own rules. Brian Bosma estimated this stunt has cost us $90,000 so far.

Someone else in the Libertarian Legislative Think Tank decided to look up the house rules on a member’s absence from the General Assembly. The house rules can be found here. I’ve quoted the section that best applies:

PART IV. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MEMBERS A. GENERALLY

36. Attendance. No member shall be absent from the service of the House unless excused by the Speaker, is sick or is unable to attend.

43. Breaches of Order.

43.1 If a member transgresses the rules of the House, the Speaker or any other member may call the offender to order, in which case the member called to order shall immediately sit down, unless permitted to explain. The House shall, if appealed to, decide on the case, without debate, in accordance with Rule 24. If there is no appeal the decision of the Chair shall be submitted to. If the decision is in favor of the member called to order, he or she may proceed; if the decision is not in favor of that member, he or she may not proceed if any member objects, without leave of the House. If the case requires it, a member may be liable to the censure of the House.

49. Absent Members.

49.1 A member who is absent from the House without excuse may, by order of the members present, be sent for and taken into custody wherever found by the Doorkeeper or other person appointed for that purpose.

49.2 When a member is discharged from custody and admitted to the House, the remaining members shall determine whether a fine, censure or other penalty should be imposed. The House shall determine whether a delinquent member, taken into custody, shall pay the expenses incurred.

A doorkeeper’s definition:

33. Doorkeepers. 33.1 It is the duty of the Doorkeepers to attend to the House during its sessions, to maintain order in the hall, to execute all process issued by the authority of the House and directed to them by the Speaker and in all things to execute the commands of the Speaker of the House.

I know Democrats, and some libertarians, are cheering this example of democracy… We are a Republic, not a Democracy. There are written rules and they should be followed, especially when it’s costing us a lot of money.

(Cross Posted at Chris-Spangle.com)

It’s Time to End the Tennis Match in Indianapolis

Dan Drexler

Published: February 24, 2011

If Mitch Daniels gets effusive praise from Republicans for being a “political genius,” why did they ignore their leader? Going in to this legislature, his message was clear: avoid the unnecessary divisive issues. You’ll need that political capital for the budget fight.

This is the long session for a reason. The General Assembly must draw up a budget for the next two years. As you well know the economy is bad, and State and local tax revenues have sharply declined since the 2009 budget. Most have no idea what the economy will do the rest of 2011, let alone 2012. The reality is that further cuts to government need to be made, and that was going to be a difficult sell to Democrats.

Add Rethinking Redistricting on top of that, and you’ve got one of the nastiest sessions in memory. A lot of Democrats see fair districts as hurting their chances at seeing a majority again. One of the worst victims of the House Democrats political stunt was the death of an independent redistricting commission that would take drawing electoral maps out of the hands of politicians. Voters would finally choose their politicians instead of politicians choosing their voters.

Instead the House and Senate Republicans have spent the first half of the session discussing abortion, an addition to the Constitution banning gay marriage, an immigration bill that has the real possibility of fostering discrimination and hurting business, licensing several industries including massage therapists, adding a grocery bag tax, and a commuter tax. Right to Work was just another distraction. Most of these are just intrusions by government in to your personal and economic life by the so-called “party of limited government.”

As the Lafayette Journal-Courier wrote today in their piece titled “Shame on both parties at Statehouse” both parties are to blame for this mess:

“To call this bill (Right To Work) overreaching by the Republicans is an understatement. Right to work was not raised as an issue during the 2010 campaign, one that resulted in a GOP majority in the House.”

Is this a defense of Democrats? Absolutely not! If you’ve followed LPIN.org or our facebook page this week, we’ve had a lot of strong words for their failed leadership.

Some are calling for the recall, or firing, of the 37 House Democrats. I say they all need to go! I am not sure I’ve ever seen a better example of why three parties are desperately needed.

Help us elect Libertarians to the Statehouse next year and end the tennis match in Indianapolis by donating $100, $50 or $20, or join the 1994 Society as a monthly contributor to sustain our efforts.We will use this money to recruit and train candidates in House districts across Indiana in 2012!

Members of both parties are tired of the games being played by their leadership, and they are looking for an alternative. We need good candidates. If you are ready to start planning a campaign, organizing a team, and ultimately spreading the libertarian message please contact us by clicking here. Our Executive Director will get in touch with you to lay out the process.

In Liberty,

Sam Goldstein

Chairman

House Democrats Kill Independent Redistricting Commission That Would End Gerrymandering

Chris Spangle

Published: February 23, 2011

At last count, 23 bills were killed by the House Democrats fleeing Indiana yesterday to avoid a quorum. Meeting quorum meant a vote had to be taken on several important bills.

One of the worst victims of this political stunt is a nonpartisan redistricting commission, HJR 0001. This would establish a commission to draw electoral districts, and be an enormous step towards ending Gerrymandering. It would take map drawing out of the hands of politicians. Gerrymandering means politicians choose their voters instead of voters choosing their politicians.

The Libertarian Party of Indiana has been a long advocate for this commission. To find out more on responsible redistricting, please visit here.

The House Democrats also failed to meet today, February 23. This puts many house bills in jeopardy. From the Indianapolis Star:

A: Key deadlines were looming when House Democrats walked out. Tuesday was the last day for 23 bills — including the so-called “right to work” legislation — that had cleared committees to also clear a procedural hurdle so they could be presented to the full House. Unless the Democrats returned, the bills would be dead.

Thursday is the deadline for 25 other bills to have their “second reading” — basically, to be presented for further amendment on the House floor. Friday, any House bill that hasn’t received an up-or-down vote by the full chamber will be dead. (However, particularly with the budget bill, there is some room for creative options — such as having the Senate add a bill’s language into another bill that has cleared the House.)

Pat Bauer Vacations Presents Democrat Island!

LPIN Editor

Published: February 23, 2011

If you are looking to travel this spring, Pat Bauer can help you plan your next trip! We hear Urbana, IL is lovely this time of year.

What does the Indiana Constitution Say About the Democrat’s Disorderly Behavior?

phyllisjklosinski

Published: February 22, 2011

Disorderly behavior by the House Democrats has exposed the root of the right to work debate. When does the individual right not to be forced to work become a violation of another’s right to have the work performed? When there is a contract.

Elected officials take an oath of office paramount in that sworn duty is the responsibility to perform their elected functions regardless of controversy. Flight to states with Democratic Governors to avoid taking difficult votes is a dereliction of duty.

After the behavior of the House Democrats, I think two sections of the Indiana Constitution apply: Article 4 Sections 13 and 14.

Section 13 lays out that all meetings shall be open sessions and committee meetings are Constitutional requirements, not discretionary actions. Democrats are continuing to discuss the public business of amendment to several bills absent their presence in the Chambers in violation of their Constitutional duty.

Section 14 lays out discipline for disorderly behavior. It is limited to enforcement by the Legislators performing their sworn duty.

Continued discussion by absent House Members denies the Indiana citizen their right to representation under the Constitutional contract. It is disorderly behavior to not be present to conduct public business and invoke sanctuary in another state to avoid performance.

Failure to compel absent House Members to honor the terms of their employment with the citizens of Indiana violates the right of the employer (us) to receive the benefit of their work, which has been entered into by the contract of being elected to public position.

Legislators fought to be elected by promising to be the person better to do the job than their opponent. When it comes time to do the difficult work they were hired to perform, where are they?

By Phyllis Klosinski, a Brown County Libertarian. Ms. Klosinki’s opinion does not necessarily reflect the view of the LPIN or it’s legal counsel.

LPIN Press Release: House Democrats Show Failed Leadership

LPIN Editor

Published: February 22, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – State House Democrats imitated their counterparts in Wisconsin by fleeing the state and failing to do the job Hoosiers hired them to do: Meeting Indiana’s challenges head on. Instead of exercising bipartisanship they pulled a political stunt to kill HB 1468, or the Right to Work bill.

“Legislators are hired to serve the public, not special interests,” said State Chairman Sam Goldstein. “By ignoring the State’s business today, the House Democrats are serving a large campaign contributor, not Hoosiers. This is another reminder that Democrats are lacking on principles and leadership. Unacceptable political stunts are why principled people are investigating the Libertarian Party in historic numbers.”

Indiana legislators make an annual salary of $22,616, as well as $155 per diem in session or at a committee hearing. They receive $62 in expense pay every other day. (Source: Indianapolis Star)

“House Democrats should refund their per diem to the taxpayers for any days that are missed,” said Chris Spangle, LPIN Executive Director. “The message from taxpayers to lawmakers is clear: This was not an excused absence, and it should not be a paid vacation day.”

Right to Work Deserved to be Heard on the House Floor

LPIN Editor

Published: February 22, 2011

(By Dan Drexler, Vice Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Indiana.)

Regardless of the ultimate position one takes on Right-to-Work (RTW) legislation, the vote along party lines to move this bill out of committee and onto the full House floor for debate was the right action to be taken.

In a session that has seen the GOP majority wasting time challenging civil liberties on social issues, it is refreshing to see GOP committee members finally moving legislation forward that could impact the state’s economy. Regardless of how difficult a decision can be, making these decisions is what our elected officials are employed to do. It’s all part of doing the people’s business.

Democrats, on the other hand, appear to have abandoned their sense of duty by imitating their Wisconsin counterparts and staging a walk-out of the Indiana Statehouse. They can claim this is a political tactic that must be employed in defense of their constituency, but the reality is they are shirking their responsibilities and ignoring the oaths taken to serve the State. If Democrats prefer not to face the tough decisions of legislating, I am certain some of my fellow Libertarians would welcome that calling.

What is most puzzling, though, is why Democrats appear to be admitting defeat on a very divisive political issue that is anything but black or white – conservative or liberal. Some small government advocates struggle equally with the role government should play in defining private contracts. Other politicians in traditional swing districts truly dread having their hands called on this issue.

In La Porte County, Republican Representative Tom Dermody treads a fine line between advocating the interests of a vocal union workforce, primarily concentrated within the region’s steel mills, with the more traditionally conservative values of the rural district that runs from Winamac up to Michigan City.

While the district can swing either direction any election cycle, the challenges for incumbents are not limited to the general election. Primary contests can prove equally dangerous. In 2010, Dermody faced a stiff primary challenge from Hanna small business owner, Todd Reinert. Reinert ran on a RTW agenda. Dermody held on to the seat, but did not come out of the contest unscathed.

Dermody’s experience is not unique in swing districts. State Democrats are foolish to think that all Republicans fall in line on right-to-work legislation. Conversely, they should not be so secure believing that their own caucus is lockstep on a controversial issue.

Even in libertarian circles, arguments can be heard on both sides of this labor issue. In fact, in the early 2000′s, the Libertarian National Party platform included language that rejected state efforts to enact RTW legislation based on a small government position that a private company has the right to contract with their employees as they see appropriate. A common argument is that smaller, less intrusive government allows for collective bargaining in the private sector and legislation should not be passed restricting these private contracts.

Of course, that position holds that a government-created corporate entity has equal rights to an employee’s. Libertarians more steeped in civil liberties would argue that it is the role of government to protect an individual’s interests foremost over those contractual interests of a corporation. Forcing a person to pay into a system, regardless of membership in the union violates that individual’s free speech and right to freely associate.

Driven by the data of the economics surrounding the issue, I personally come down on the side of the individual over the corporation. Organized labor will have you believe that wages in states that have passed RTW legislation are lower across the board and the legislation is bad for the working class. There very well could be some merit to their arguments in the short term.

However, in the long term, it has been shown that the twenty-two states that have RTW protections have more vibrant economies, lower unemployment rates on average and a lower cost of living. According to a published report by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), the long-term earnings potential for workers eclipses those of non-RTW states by nearly $3,000 per working individual. Indiana could truly set itself apart from neighboring states by passing RTW legislation.

However, the legislation at the center of Indiana’s firestorm presents other technical problems. HB1468 is a flawed bill that very well could be voted down by a bi-partisan majority. In his efforts to craft legislation acceptable to most legislators within his own party, Representative Gerry Torr built in special interest exemptions for construction workers, U.S. government employees and workers subject to the federal Railway Labor Act. In Indiana, there are about 220,000 individuals employed in the construction industry. These special interest exemptions could very well sabotage this effort.

Rather than flee the Statehouse, Democrats would have been better served by actually representing their constituents, building alliances across party lines and working to defeat what many view as flawed legislation.

While their actions will undoubtedly make Indiana a sub-heading to Wisconsin’s labor stand-off, it is incredibly shameful that this is the tactic our Indiana Democrats choose to take. As one blogger appropriately noted today, it’s a case of “Donkey See, Donkey Do.”

How did the General Assembly Spend its Thursday Afternoon?

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

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

The Session: Will a New Government Class Keep You From Getting Divorced?

Chris Spangle

Published: February 9, 2011

(Originally Published by the Indianapolis Star via their legislative blog, The Session.)

The tea party presented a choice for Republican leadership the last two years: liberty or central planning?

State Rep. Cindy Noe has recently introduced House Bill 1248 that will increase the fees for those seeking marriage licenses. The fee will still be $18 for those who have completed a new marriage counseling class designed by the office of the secretary of Family and Social Services. For those not taking the class, the fee will be increased to $78.

This is an attempt by Republicans to lower our divorce rate in Indiana. Divorce is a spiritual and personal problem with no government solution, and marriage is none of the government’s business.

A supporter has called this a “positive intrusion” in your personal life.

Why do I need my government parents explaining to me the basics of marriage? Sadly, the view of Hoosiers by the legislature is that we aren’t able to make life decisions for ourselves anymore, and they think they have a solution. That isn’t liberty.

Indiana General Assembly: Sovereignty’s Imminent Date with Destiny

phyllisjklosinski

Published: February 1, 2011

(By Phyllis Klosinski, A Brown County Libertarian)

The Supremacy of Indiana and your individual liberty is being determined by Indiana Legislators making a calculated Constitutional move. The Libertarian Legislative Think Tank has considered three constitutional amendments and a bill amending Indiana Code defining state sovereignty to block the implementation of certain federal laws in Indiana.

Define Sovereignty to establish the Autonomy predominating both the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions: the destiny of any and all individual freedom of choice is forever to be determined.

Proposed legislation attempts the protection of rights by declaring the “inapplicability of certain federal law in Indiana”, using the limits of federal authority delineated in the U.S. Constitution Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Is the Federal government adhering to the limits in the Constitution, NO. Since the Federal government is violating the contractual agreement of the U.S. Constitution, Indiana has the duty to challenge the violation of that contract and provide citizen protection by blocking implementation.

An Indiana resident has a “private right of action to enjoin” implementation or enforcement of a federal law declared void in Indiana; so what? Right of action already exists in both Constitutions. Right to opt out of health care system specifies certain rights with respect to any health care system, yet Legislators have left it up to the individual citizen to seek private action. State sovereignty and health care choice legislation SB 0319 (2010) mandated provision that the attorney general shall provide for the legal defense of health care providers and residents of Indiana, this crucial protection is noticeably absent from current legislation.

It is noble to declare a statute of the United States found inconsistent with Indiana Constitutional rights inapplicable, but where does the individual go when the IRS directly imposes the Federal Mandates through seizure of your paycheck and property?

The Libertarian Party Platform holds the individual not government has the right to exercise sole dominion over their own life recognizing the freedom of individual determination of all health care needs. LP Platform holds we must follow and protect the Constitution (both), which in turn are the written guarantees of the absolute limits of government.

LPIN members should support SB 0505, however when contacting Legislators impress the need for inclusion of critical State defense language, protecting the individual.

To register your position contacts are:

Senators: Tomes, Kruse, Banks, Steele, Alting, Waterman

INLP should support these Indiana Cons. Amendments, proposing identical protection.

HJR 0008: Representatives; Turner, Stemler, Koch

SJR 0011: Senators; Kruse, Tomes

SJR 0015: Senators; Grooms,

The Session: New Ways to Tax

Chris Spangle

Published: January 28, 2011

(I am a contributor to the Session, a blog of the Indy Star. Please visit it for up to the date thoughts on the IN General Assembly.)

After the 3, 2, 1 property tax caps went in to effect, everyone slowly began to realize that local governments were going to be hit very hard without the revenue from over-charging on property tax bills.

The legislature has introduced five bills for revenue generation at the local level. First is the much discussed Senate Bill 53, or commuter tax. This is proposed by Republican Jim Buck.

Senate Bill 31 introduces a new municipal income tax of 1%. This is also proposed by a Republican, Randy Head.

Democrat John Broden has introduced Senate Bill 356. It will allow increases of the Local Option Income Tax levy for public safety from 0.25% to 0.50% for everyone but Marion County.

While these won’t cost an individual taxpayer thousands per year, they will take more money from economies that are struggling to keep revenue flowing to local small business owners. The commuter tax alone will take around $100 per year out of your paycheck.

The Decriminalization of a Constitutional Right – SB 506

phyllisjklosinski

Published: January 28, 2011

(By Phyllis Klosinski, Brown County, IN)

The Libertarian Legislative Think Tank has swiftly reacted to a Senate bill proposing measured restoration of the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms, prompting extensive discussion overwhelmingly expressing support.

A Restoration of a Constitutional right: why have we become so willing to “accept” back what government has arbitrarily taken from us? This legislation is an attempt to provide less government, and correct legislation which limits individual freedom by moving closer to the explicit terms of the Constitution.

The LP platform promotes individual freedom, including the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, with the qualification of accepting individual personal responsibility. It is up to the government to prove an individual has relinquished the right to bear arms.

Instead under current law, the individual must prove they are worthy of exercising their Constitutional right.

Read the rest of this entry »

Revenue, Revenue, Revenue: A Look at the General Assembly’s New Taxes

LPIN Editor

Published: January 27, 2011

(By Jerry Titus, Howard County Chair)

While the ‘traditional’ media brings you news of the General Assembly’s diligent efforts to trim and reform our State government, it appears that they’ve missed reporting on several new tax and revenue generating bills that have been introduced this session.

At the Libertarian Legislative Think Tank on Facebook, we’ve been diligently sorting through the 971 pieces of legislation filed this session. It’s slow going, but so far we’ve found several new taxes and revenue generation that we think our fellow Hoosiers should be aware of.
New Taxes

Read the rest of this entry »