The Only Advocate

There is only one consistent advocate on behalf of all citizens to keep more of their own money in their own pockets- the Libertarian Party. Republicans and Democrats are inconsistent on this at best, and more often, are leading the charge to do what they can to take money away from you by raising taxes.

This was enormously evident yesterday in Hamilton County, where only the Libertarian Party bothered to send representatives to both the joint retreat of the County Council and County Commissioners and to the County Council meeting later in the evening.

The value in these appearances is that the elected officials, all Republicans, knew that they were on the spot. They knew that there was someone taking notes, observing their direction either towards or away from new taxes. When I spoke on record in opposition to the proposed food & beverage tax, I raised the stakes. I reminded the County Council that four of them would be up for re-election in 2006, and that the Libertarian Party would eagerly look forward to running candidates against those who were on record voting for any new tax.

Later in the meeting, the vote was taken on the proposed additional wheel tax. This is a tax that I spoke on the record before the Council in opposition, back in early May. Knowing they were on the spot, the Council defeated the wheel tax, 5-1. Notably, all four Councilors up for re-election in 2006 voted against the tax.

It gets interesting from here. The County Council so want to be Governor Daniels' lap dogs. They want to do anything they can for him. When they spoke about the proposed food & beverage tax, they spoke about it in the past tense, as though it had already passed. However, it hasn't passed, and they know that they will again be put on the spot by the Libertarian Party. The Councilors will be made uncomfortable. We will see how uncomfortable. Uncomfortable enough to remember that they serve the citizens of Hamilton County and not the Governor?

The Governor is coming to Hamilton County on Tuesday, June 7 for a 5:30pm Town Hall meeting. It's a nice, inconvenient time, certain to attract the smallest attendance possible during the dinner hour. That's ok. The Libertarian Party will be there, again as the only reliable, consistent advocate for the taxpayers.

Outstanding Media Day

I love it when a plan comes together. I began the day as a guest on WXNT 1430-am, talking Hamilton County politics and Carmel bond issues on the Abdul In The Morning show. From there, I discovered that the Star got around to running my letter on the smoking ban, and then the Noblesville Daily Times ran my column on the Hamilton County budget.

Daily Times Column:

As the Hamilton County Councilors and Commissioners head to their joint retreat Wednesday afternoon, they might consider some ideas for solving the County's budgetary woes.

Any deficit can be resolved either by spending less, or by generating more income. The philosophy of the Councilors and Commissioners will be their guiding light. If they are fiscal conservatives, they will choose to spend less. If they are fiscal liberals, they will choose to generate more income, which is to say, raise taxes.

After the Council made a very commendable round of budget cuts, the County's deficit was reduced but not eliminated. The attempts to cut appear to be complete, which means that the next efforts to balance the budget involve increasing taxes.

At the County Council's last meeting, I took the opportunity to address the Councilors on the issue of a proposed wheel tax, and in response to my comments,
two challenges were issued to me:

What would you have us do? Cut the Sheriff's Office or other safety forces?Look at the budget. You won't be able to find any additional cuts to make without layoffs.

I would not advocate any cuts to the safety forces. Safety forces are always a government's top priority. Everything else should be subjected to deep cuts before even considering minor cuts to safety forces.

Additional cuts are possible without a single layoff, and without a single reduction in salary. Having obtained a copy of the 2005 budget, I examined it carefully, with a strict prioritization of needs:

No cuts to safety forces or courts.
No salary cuts or position eliminations.
Question those things that do not appear to be a core function of government.

Can the Council consider cutting all overtime? If all overtime were cut, almost $241,000 would be saved.

Can the Council consider cutting all seminars and training that are not related to safety or courts? If all other seminars and training were cut, more than $175,000 would be saved.

Can the Council consider cutting the 4-H Fair expenses? If this item were cut, $93,120 would be saved. Eliminating the 4-H from the sphere of county
government would save an additional $281,000. Why is 4-H a function of county
government?

Can the Council consider cutting the budget item "Other Travel" from the Auditor's office? If this item were cut, $10,000 would be saved.

Can the Council consider cutting landscaping and lawn maintenance? If so, the county would save $54,000.

Areas such as these seem like opportunities for innovation. For instance, couldn't the county conduct a bidding for landscape contractors to provide these services at their cost in exchange for advertising? The payoff could be signs that read, "Lawn care services provided by ABC Landscape Company."

These are items where, if full cuts were enacted, would yield a significant savings — more than three-quarters of a million dollars. And yet, it still does not bring about a balanced budget.

The purpose of the joint retreat is to discuss capital projects. These projects tend not to represent absolute needs, such as safety forces are. These projects can certainly have the effect of enhancing life in our county, but without them, it is unlikely that life here will suffer.

The most startling line item in the budget is found in the county general fund: "Land Acquisition." This item features a $16 million allocation. This amount represents more than a quarter of the county's total budget.

The County Council could ignore all of the cuts suggested above simply by cutting this single line item in half. Doing so would actually create a budget surplus. No wheel tax necessary. No 1 percent food and beverage tax required.

An allocation as large as this should be subject to sharp scrutiny. It should be fully justified as a need in today's budgetary climate. This can be shown easily enough in the case of acquiring additional land to support new bridges that are being built to replace old ones that were crumbling and of insufficient width besides. $16 million buys a lot of right-of-way. What is this money allocated for?

If this is a time of budgetary crisis, and the rhetoric heard from these Republican county officials suggests that it is, then pet projects should be the first put on the chopping block — not items of essential need, such as safety forces or courts. It seems that the priority list has been upside down to date.

It would be a wonderful thing to see this budget balanced without an increased tax burden. Imagine balancing the budget on cuts and then getting word that the COIT issues have been resolved. With the money coming back to the county from the state, the Council could begin discussing raises for county employees instead of layoffs, look at lowering the tax rate, or begin those pet projects.

I believe that the majority of Hamilton County residents are fiscal conservatives who would prefer to see more cuts before more taxes. I urge the County Councilors and Commissioners to re-examine their spending priorities and to balance this budget as fiscal conservatives.

Mike Kole, Fishers

Mike Kole was chair of the Libertarian Party of Hamilton County in 2004-2005, and was secretary of the Libertarian Party of Indiana from 2003-2005.

Star letter:

Education better than forced compliance

The most regrettable thing about the smoking-ban ordinance was that it created an either/or choice between public health concerns and the right of business owners to set their own policies within their establishments.

The Star's May 25 editorial praising passage of the ordinance was equally lamentable. It justified stomping the rights of business owners on the basis that those rights have been curtailed before by having to post exit signs and conform to other regulations. Following The Star's logic, it would be acceptable to trample First Amendment rights, or any other civil rights, so long as they have been trampled before and a health issue could be conjured to justify it.

It would have been significantly better for the health of liberty in Indianapolis had the council and The Star resolved to ramp up educational campaigns to persuade changes in behavior rather than to promote forced obedience.

Mike Kole
Fishers

Not Just The Doughnut Facing Tax Increases

The counties surrounding Marion Co. are all facing 1% tax increases on food & beverages at the very least. Hamilton County, reputed as the most Republican county in the state, has also thrown a wheel tax increase on the table.

Madison County lies just outside the doughnut, and they are also considering a wheel tax increase on the table.

Check out the Anderson Herald Bulletin article, and especially the comments below. It looks like finally, at long last, the good people of Anderson and Madison County have reached a breaking point on taxes. This is good news for the Libertarian Party of Madison County, which is the only pary opposing these taxes. Thanks to Paul Zimmerman for the email tip on this item.

But that's the usual. Republicans and Democrats support tax increases. The Libertarian Party opposes tax increases and supports the people keeping their money in their pockets.

Guest Commentary

So, I opened by Noblesville Daily Times yesterday, and what did I find? Guest commentary from one Rex Bell, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Wayne County. Article link.

Look here, Rex. Pretty high and mighty of you, showing up our members here in Hamilton County with an article in our local paper. Perhaps the Richmond paper isn't good enough for you anymore.

In other words: Good work, Rex! Nice article on the nature of rights, governments who would compel people to act contrary to their conscience, and prescription drugs.

Radio Appearance Scheduled

It's always a good bet to tune in to Newstalk 1430-am WXNT for Abdul In The Mornings and for Neal Boortz. An even better reason presents itself on Tuesday, May 31, when I will be one of Abdul's guests, at 8am.

We'll talk about politics in Hamilton County- the myriad taxes proposed by the liberal Republicans, the budget deficit situation, the county's death tax, etc.- and about my campaign for Secretary of State.

Also, tune in Monday morning when Libertarian Party of Indiana Executive Director Brad Klopfenstein joins Abdul in the studio as guest host, from 6-9am. Rah rah WXNT!

Letters Results

The Star did not print my letter, but gratefully, they did print two letters by Libertarians in the wake of the smoking ban in today's edition.

Diluted smoking ban still stinks for businesses

The smoking ban passed by the Indianapolis City-County Council may be diluted from the original plan, but it still stinks like a cheap cigar.

Council member Angela Mansfield says the community wanted this, but did she think about the business community that will suffer from the law she wrote?

People smoke of their own personal choice; so let the businesses make their own choices on what goes on inside their buildings.

Christopher D. Ward
Chair, Libertarian Party of Hancock County
New Palestine

Council plays it safe on smoking, gay issues

The May 23 vote on the smoking ordinance was very disappointing. Yes, I abhor the smell of smoke and its effects, but I abhor the loss of personal freedom, an ever-expanding government and the belief that individuals have the right to dictate to others how to run their business. The hypocrisy and inconsistency involved is overwhelming.

From a consistency standpoint the City-County Council should have passed the anti-bias ordinance also. On one hand the council said landlords can choose whom to rent to but business owners cannot choose whom to serve. However, it voted safe on both issues, not on principle.

Greg A. Dixon
Chair, Libertarian Party of Marion County
Indianapolis

Link to Chris Ward's letter

Link to Greg Dixon's letter

Star Editorial and Subsequent Letter

The Star published an editorial this morning that praised the passage of the smoking ban ordinance.

Two paragraphs in particular really got my goat.

A government intrusion into the free enterprise system? Perhaps. But it's hard to make that case in light of the fact that government now tells restaurant managers how many fire exits they must have and how clean the kitchen must be kept.

The smoking ordinance, as approved Monday by the City-County Council, is a reasonable compromise that balances health concerns with common patterns of public behavior. Bars and private clubs are excluded. Most restaurants will become smoke free by March 1.

Here's my letter in response.

The most regrettable thing about the nature of the smoking ban ordinance was that it created an either/or choice between public health concerns and the right of business owners to set their own policies within their own establishments.

The Star's recent editorial praising the passage of the ordinance was equally lamentable in justifying stomping the rights of business owners on the basis that those rights have been stomped before in directing businesses to post exit signs and conform to other regulation.

Following the Star's logic, it would be acceptable to trample First Amendment rights or any other civil rights, so long as those rights have been trampled before and a health issue could be conjured to justify the trampling.

It would have been significantly better for the health of liberty in Indianapolis had the City-County Council and the Star resolved to ramp up educational campaigns to pursuade changes in behavior rather than to promote forced obedience.

In Praise of the Indy 500

Actually, I'm not a big race fan. I really enjoy watching Monte Carlo type races, with cars weaving through the city. That's very interesting for me to watch.

What I like about the 500 and the other events at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway is the fact that the site is family owned, with strictly private funding making it happen. Not a single penny of tax money is taken from the people of Speedway, or Indianapolis, or Marion County, or the doughnut counties surrounding Indy.

Unlike the Colts current stadium, and new stadium. Indy Star story.

Remember: Republican Governor Mitch Daniels pushed this project and these taxes. Republican State Senator Luke Kenley of Noblesville pushed these taxes. Republicans on the Indianapolis City-County Council will likely vote in favor of these taxes.

Libertarians can't wait to run against them all, pointing out where Republican rhetoric fails to match Republican policy on taxes, limited government, and personal responsibility.

In the meantime, I will enjoy the spectacle that the Indy 500 creates. I'll be grateful for real economic gains taht it brings- because it comes with no dead weight loss.

Net Results Watch

The smoking ban will soon be law, but the City-County Council is not finished. It will soon be considering a host of new taxes to pay for the Colts new palace and a new convention center. Taxes on the table include:

1% Marion County food & beverage tax
Increased taxes on rental cars
Increased taxes on hotel rooms

So, if you are a conventioneer, coming to Indy means that you can't smoke, your meals and drinks will cost more, your rental car will cost more, and your hotel room will cost more. As a conventioneer, what value do you get from this? Nada.

I have to believe that some conventions will just skip Indy due to the smoking ban. Word is that the firefighters won't come here any more. You have to be realistic about the outcomes of policy. These new laws and taxes make Indy less attractive, not more.

Do this enjoyable excercise:

1. Indianapolis? Or, Las Vegas?
2. Indianapolis? Or, New York City?
3. Indianapolis? Or, Las Angeles?

OK. That's not really fair. Try this:

1. Indianapolis? Or, Nashville?
2. Indianapolis? Or, Columbus?
3. Indianapolis? Or, Cleveland?

This is what conventioneers do. The first set of three is a no-brainer. Conventioneers will put up with smoking bans in New York, mainly because New York is New York. If Indianapolis is on par with Columbus in terms of attractions, do conventioneers now choose Columbus because their prople can smoke? Do they choose Cleveland or Nashville because the rooms, cars, food and drink is cheaper?

It would be way smarter to pass some laws that would make the choice for Indy easier instead of harder.

Spin In Your Grave, Voltaire!

Famously, Voltaire was quoted as saying, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Libertarians tend to carry the spirit of this quote as an underpinning to their philosophy.

For instance, I hold cigarette smoking in extremely low regard. Smoking is damaging to your health, and makes the air surrounding the smoker stinky, unpleasant, and harmful to me besides. That's why I choose to limit the time I spend in smoky bars. It's tough, too, because I love to play poker, and with poker the fad that it is, many bars host free-to-play poker tournaments as a way to draw traffic. But if you want to smoke, it's your life. Smoke away. I don't think it's smart or pleasant, but hey- have a nice day.

Because smoke is stinky and harmful is why I choose to not let people smoke in my house. It's my house, and I set the rules in my house. My house is my dominion. OK... it's our dominion. Ame and I agree on this.

But your house is your dominion. You set the rules there... unless you are a business in Indianapolis. Then, the City-County Council sets the rules in your house regarding smoking. As reported here last night, the City-County Council passed the smoking ban by a wide 18-9 margin. Indy Star story.

Proponents of the smoking ban were at once pleased and disappointed. They were pleased that the ban passed. They were disappointed that it didn't cover more areas of life. Proponents are calling the ban that passed 'a good first step', indicating that they do want to go further in the future.

It begs the question, "how far"? From the Star:

But Republican Councilman Scott Schneider, who voted against the ban, questioned whether -- in the name of health -- the city might someday ban fried foods.

"Where do we draw the line as a society?" he asked. "Where does this body stop?"

Today, my house is my house unless my house is a business. Will tomorrow's ban include my residence? Your car? We see that nanny laws already extend into the car.

Click It Or Ticket is a nationwide campaign to get people to wear their seat belts. Like the smoking ban, it is meant as a safety campaign. Like the smoking ban, it pits health and safety against liberty. Indy Star story.

Wearing the seat belt is probably the smart choice. Sure, there is the study that shows that when people wear seat belts, they fell safer, so they drive faster, resulting in more accidents. But, if you are in that accident, you are probably not going to die. Your car will need repairs, though, so that's probably why the insurance companies and auto body shops have always been in favor of the seat belt laws.

A big complaint with the smoking laws or with Click It Or Ticket is that the safety forces are diverted from their usual business in order to make a political demonstration. This is clearly not the best use of safety forces. From the Star on Click It Or Ticket:

"There will be zero tolerance. That's zero. None," Col. Larry R. Rollins, assistant superintendent for the Indiana State Police, said at a news conference Monday.

...

But Rollins and others dispute that notion, arguing that driving should be considered a regulated privilege, not a right.

"It's a political issue," Rollins said. "But I think that everyone in a motor vehicle needs to be restrained."

On smoking:

Councilwoman Marilyn Pfisterer, a Republican, questioned whether police officers should be taken away from more serious crimes to deal with the ban. She also questioned whether the Marion County Health Department, with its roughly 30
inspectors, was prepared to enforce the measure.

"The ordinance is virtually unenforceable," she said.

Maybe these energies would have been better spent in educational campaigns, showing people how better choices could be made. This would at least leave people liberty enough to make the choices that affect their lives, taking the results as their own, too. That way, police could chase murderers, rapists, and violent criminals rather than decent citizens who make choices some might not say are smart.

Wouldn't it make Indianapolis more attractive if it were a more tolerant place and less a place were busybody, know-it-all nannies micromanage the details of our lives?

Not Even Close

Deep down, I was pretty well convinced that the smoking ban would pass. Those of us who opposed it from the beginning, when it stood to be the most restrictive ban in the United States, are pleased to a minor degree that at least this law was beaten back to the extent it was. But, word was that this vote would be close. It gave opponents of the ban a glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, the Council would vote in favor of liberty. Alas, the final tally was 18-9. Indy Star story.

However, this vote was every bit as much a referendum on the right of business owners to set their own policies within their own establishments as it was a public health issue. The way the authors of the law set it up, it really was an either/or proposition.

So, thank goodness I left Marion County just about one year ago to the day. Don't get me wrong- I don't smoke. I find it a detestable habit. In the spirit of Voltaire, I don't like smoking, but I'll defend the right to use the legal product tobacco. I don't care for smoggy bars, but I'll defend the right of bar owners to have that atmosphere, if they so choose. The City-County Council is not nearly so open-minded or tolerant as that, so they ban things. That is the atmosphere I am pleased to have left.

Show Up!

The Indianapolis City-County Council is expected to vote on the proposed smoking ban tonight. Indy Star story.

Take Woody Allen's advice: "90% of success is simply showing up".

Business owners have the right to set their own policies regarding the use of a legal product in their own private establishments. Most City-County Councillors do not accept this principle. The only hope of causing them to accept this, sadly, is with a show of numbers. People who support liberty need to be present. The Council members only know how to count.

The Curiosities of Campaigning

As I move further along the trail, I pick up my own curious observations. For instance: Did I ever think I would suffer a sore shoulder as a result of campaigning? Why, no. I did not, although I suppose I might expect that result from holding a bullhorn for 12 hours on end.

Saturday afternoon, the LP of Wells County hosted an event featuring target practice with a variety of firearms. I took aim at 10 clay pigeons, striking 5 with slugs from the 12-gauge shotgun. I was immediately dismayed that I only took 5. A few years ago, I would have gotten 9. When I got home, I was dismayed with the deep soreness in my right shoulder. That gun had some kind of kick!

Thanks to Chair Brandon Harnish and Wells County for hosting a fun, safe event. Harnish is a fervent supporter of the 2nd Amendment and a gracious host.

Smoking Ban Up For Vote

Indianapolis will at long last put the proposed smoking ban up for a vote, next Monday. Indy Star story.

Indianapolis residents opposed to the smoking ban are encouraged to attend the public meeting at 7pm in the Public Assembly Room of the City-County Building.

While the proponents focus on the health benefits they seek, libertarian opponents stand firm that this proposal is an offense to liberty and to property rights. We continue to assert the right of property owners- in this case, of restaurants, bars, and other entertainment establishments- to set their own policies in their own establishments, as involves the use of a legal product.

Fortunately, the Libertarian Party of Indiana has had an impact on this proposal, working to see it scaled back from what was the most restrictive ban in the country when first proposed. Chances are good that the compromise will pass and become law. If people of principle show up and speak up, maybe we can get this thing scaled back some more.

Hey, Look! A New Tax!

What? In Hamilton County? The most Republican county in the state of Indiana? Well, any more, that's precisely where I expect to find new taxes- where Republicans are involved.

The latest is a hike in property taxes in Fishers, where I live. Noblesville Ledger story. This will give a 5% bump to the schools. What's maddening about this is that the population growth alone should be sufficient to give the schools all they could ever want. As farmland converts to residential, the property tax collected skyrockets.

Here's the list of current tax hikes in the county that are soon to be voted on:

Countywide 1% food & beverage tax
Countywide wheel tax
Carmel 1% food & beverage tax
Fishers property tax increase
Fishers 1% food & beverage tax
Noblesville 1% food & beverage tax
Westfield1% food & beverage tax

Only Libertarian office holders will have a total commitment to keeping these taxes at bay. The Republicans are the ones who put them on the table.

Trump Reads Kole Hard Facts?

It makes me wonder. My proposal for the replacement for the World Trade Center was simply to replace the buildings as they originally were, except one story taller.

Donald Trump unveiled his plan, in an AP story:

Standing in the lobby of his Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue, the developer turned TV star on Wednesday presented a model of his own envisioned towers, reflecting the original shape of the skyscrapers that fell Sept. 11, 2001.

The towers he advocates would be 111 stories tall - one floor taller than the lost towers.

Mr. Trump? You're hired!

Here is a link to my original post on Kole Hard Facts from Thursday, November 20, 2003.
Here is a link to my similar post on Blogcritics, with commentary, from September 10, 2004.

Latest From Libertarian Writer's Bureau

Sheri Conover Sharlow weighs in with applause for new BMV chief Joel Silverman, and observes how Silverman's cost-saving measures are decried by a prominent Republican.

GOP's Garton shows how self-preservation trumps Indiana's well-being
by Sheri Conover Sharlow

It's no surprise that the Republican General Assembly lacks the backbone to deliver the small government its party brags about. Even their own party members must work around these political invertebrates if they hope to just slow the rate of growth.

Here it is in a nutshell from a story in last week's The Indianapolis Star:

Senate President Pro Tempore Robert D. Garton, R-Columbus, called the planned license branch closings a "sneak attack."

Garton, the most powerful Republican in the Senate, said he believed the closings -- including one in Hope, about 20 miles from Columbus -- were deliberately timed to be announced after lawmakers left town last week.

Asked if he had been sneaky, Joel Silverman, commissioner of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, said: "Yeah. I'll be honest."

It's pretty pathetic that Silverman had to sneak around his own party's leadership to make necessary cuts.

Never mind that taxpayers must pay $1 million a year to keep open offices that locals don't care enough to use. License branches are doing less business because users have more attractive options that don't involve taking a number and waiting. We can buy license plates by mail or at the BMV web site, and renew our drivers licenses online.

Later in the Star story, Garton was quoted saying that government should not be run like a bottom-line focused business, but "government should be run for the customer. The citizens are the customers. It's different. I hope at some point, in what I hope is a short career in government, (Silverman) learns that."

Actually, it's Silverman who understands this, not Garton. The BMV chief knows that the real customers are those who pay the price. That's us taxpayers.

The mesmerizing part is that Garton is so terrified of the handful of constituents who use the Hope BWV branch in his district. His district is so rigged that Democrats haven't bothered to field candidates in the past election. He has won by 18,568 votes in 2002. Even if every one of the about 12,000 users the Hope BMV office voted against Garton, he's unlikely to lose.

Could it be that his only challengers – Libertarian candidates – have him scared silly?
If Republicans like Garton can't handle an easy yet necessary cut like this, how are they going to make the tough yet necessary cuts in Medicaid and education spending or stand up to those who want to extract even more money from Hoosiers?

Hint: They won't. And they didn't.

• They've refused to limit Medicaid coverage to only those items the federal government orders states to spend, meaning that those on welfare in Indiana have access to more comprehensive health-care coverage than those who work full time.
• They've refused to cut off colleges who build pricey and unnecessary new buildings, particularly in places where buildings could be leased for far less, forcing students to pay more for tuition.
• They've refused to say 'no" to corporate welfare for the Indianapolis Colts. Everyday Hoosiers will pay an extra sales tax to subsidize millionaires. They try to pass it off as 'just 1 percent" on a restaurant tab, neglecting how much every little tax and regulation on restaurants has added up into a huge burden, especially on small businesses. No wonder mom-and-pop restaurants give up.
• They've refused to stand up to the overpriced, unnecessary Interstate-69 project. The expensive new-terrain option will cost millions more, at the cost of upgrading and maintaining other federal roads throughout the state for at least a generation. It's even politically crazy: This project rewards a Democrat governor's supporters.

Republican legislators are afraid that the boogeyman of the moment – nasty Democrats, liberal interest groups, the media – will say something unkind to those who do the right thing.

They'd rather complain about the game being rigged. How rigged can it be? They're the majority.

Now we have proof that too many Republicans want leadership titles without providing real leadership, which requires doing the right thing. That's why Silverman deserves applause.

The game is actually rigged against us, the people who pay the bills. Taxpayers and voters must let them know that these so-called leaders will not stay in office if they refuse to cut spending. Don't discount impeachment or recall threats, no matter how impractical.

These guys are chickens and it obviously takes little to scare them.

Opinion Wanted!

OK, Hoosiers. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) wants to know what kind of a job you think they are doing. Are they a good value for the taxpayer dollars? Are they a black hole for dollars to disappear into? Are they part of the bureaucratic quagmire? Let 'em know! Questionaire.

I took the quiz and am darned proud to have participated as a citizen!

Taping Today

Huge thanks to the Libertarian Party of Allen County, and Doug Horner. Doug invited me to be interviewed on their cable TV show. It will broadcast to the greater Fort Wayne area.

The questions are in Doug's corner, but I imagine we will talk about my campaign for Secretary of State and issues related to that office, but also the role the Libertarian Party is increasingly taking and can take in Hoosier politics. I'll post an update with a schedule when I find out when the show will air.

Smoking Nannies Beaten Back- Again

The proponents of the Nanny State from both parties were dealt well-deserved disappointment yesterday when the City-County Council sent the proposed smoking ban back to committee, lest it be defeated outright. Indy Star story.

"I'm very unhappy," said Greg Bowes, a Democratic sponsor of the ban. "I think the community was all ready for this."

If the community is ready for it, how about taking the proposal out of the hands of the Council, and putting it on the ballot, so that the people really can decide. Didn't think so.

There has been one consistent opponent of the ban: the Libertarian Party of Indiana. The Chamber of Commerce is actually in favor of the ban. The restauarant and tavern interests have been somewhat soft on this, surprisingly. The owners of the restaurants and bars know who is on their side, and who isn't.

Be clear on this: No Libertarian I know is extolling smoking as a virtue or urging non-smokers to take up the habit. The basis for the opposition is the defense of business owners, who have the right to set their own policies, and who should be free from the heavy hand of government interference. If you don't like secondhand smoke, why not just avoid places that permit it? Is that too high-minded of me? To ask for a little tolerance of people engaging in behavior you don't quite approve of, in places that do not belong to you?

Libertarians have helped expose the fact that some of the money from the big tobacco lawsuit settlement, that was supposed to go for education, has instead gone into lobbying and into issue advocacy lobbying. From the Indy Star story:

At least one opponent -- Brad Klopfenstein, executive director of the state Libertarian Party -- questioned why government is spending thousands on an advertising campaign.

"I personally find it offensive that this money belongs to the state of Indiana," Klopfenstein said. "Suddenly, you have the state of Indiana lobbying other agencies to pass an ordinance."

So, the vote has been postponed. This had begun as the most restrictive law on smoking in the United States. With the help of the Libertarians, it has lost much of its authoritarian bent. It is assumed that the proponents will go back to the committee and pare the regulations down further.

We'll keep fighting to beat it back further. It's one thing for government to decree that smoking is forbidden in government owned place. It's another thing entirely to dictate to individual property owners on how to manage what belongs to them.