This is proof they violate campaign laws. We have lots of other screen shots too.
The city is on our blog nearly every day for several hours.
Are you an election inspector?
The Marion County Election Board has worked for months to make changes so the general election Tuesday will run more smoothly than the primary election. A key person at each of the county's 917 precincts are inspectors. If you're an inspector, do you feel you've gotten adequate training and are ready for voters to show up on Tuesday? Share your thoughts or concerns by calling reporter Rob Schneider at 444-6278. You can also contact him via email at firstname.lastname@example.org
Hat Tip to Indiana Minority Report. Below we've copied their column today.
EXAMPLES OF EXTREME GREED IN PETERSON ADMINISTRATION:
Shrewsberry & Asscociates
Well lets look at Deputy Mayor, I mean Bill Shrewsberry. Without an environmentalnor engineering degree, Shrewsberry left his position with Mayor Bart Peterson and the same year, viola, he owned an Environmental Engineering company, Shrewsberry & Associates, and immediately received HUGE public contracts as an mbe!
Guess who sits on Shrewsberry’s advisory board?
Rep. Bill Crawford, Rep. Carolene Mays, & Cripe (majority company) in this partnership
Center Township Investment
The investors in the ghetto messy 300 East Tavern. If you recall, greedy wealthy blacks and crooked black politicans took over a wing in the publicly owned Julia Carson building in violation of dozens of codes. They, occupied the space for months without rental payment nor a lease, destroyed a neighborhood park for valet parking for their mercedes and bmw's. They put in a bar with many chairs for drunk patrons to sit and buy alcoholic drinks before getting into their valet parked cars and driving drunk through our residential neighborhoods, risking our childrens lives.
But, for the Center Township Investment groups investors, Joyce Rogers, President of Indiana Black Expo, William Mays, Monore Gray's wifes, Lacy Johnson and Alex D. Oak, of Cripe Architects & Engineers*, and the other "silent partners" having their drunk patrons run over black children forced to play in the street now that the park is gone, leaving their skulls cracked and brains splattered all over street from their drunk patrons is not important. Afterall, black on black crime is acceptable in black Indianapolis and if you've got the juice, use it. You certainly won't hear about it in the Indianapolis Recorder, since they don't report the same old bad news like you hear everywhere else. Particularly if the bad news mentions crooked black legislators or the owner and publisher of the Indianapolis Recorder. Despite protests from neighbors and remonostrators, the Center Township Investment group intimidated neighbors and high-jacked the neighborhood association in the same fashion taught them by their leaders, Aaron Haith. They deceived, lied and manipulated the entire the project through--all with the rubber stamp of Bart Peterson's administration. The investors in this group lack dignity and morals, and for those who hid behind the notoriously greedy, selfish Bill Mays -- No courage.
Further insulting the residents in center township, in September Mayor Bart Peterson's rubber stamp awarded Center Township Investments with an mbe certification.
*Cripe hired Julia Carson's grandson, Aaron Carson, immediately after he was selected for the city-county council.
ARCHIVE REPORT 1
ARCHIVE REPORT 2
ARCHIVE REPORT 3
City-County Council President Monroe Gray's phoney mbe construction company certified by Bart Peterson in 2004 has left a trail of debt in its short two year life span that is currently close to a million dollars and the tally is not closed yet. Of course, he did not disclose any of his contracts until the public complained and he was forced to disclose. Gray did not pay employees, had his equipment repossessed, and when caught by the public he committed "juice abuse" by voting to break the tie on his own ethics investigation.
Robin Winston, an unscrupuous political hack who once advised me to "stay away from Senator Howard and other black people. Be around white people only, it's not good to be around black people--your career will go further if you avoid black." I wonder how old Winston was when he "discovered" white people. Ironically, despite his dislike for black people, he is no stranger to eating from the mbe/wbe trough and acts as a "broker" to mbe/wbe contracts. Winston recently sent out a letter attempting to bribe funds from mbe/wbe’s for Monroe Gray’s fundraiser.
Monroe Gray must be a little short on funds since his scam/front mbe firm, Mid-Region Concrete received a $600,000 judgment. This company has contracted with IPS, Veolia Water and the Airport. How could Bart Peterson not know this was happening?
Monroe Gray's city council challenger, Kurt Webber.
City-County Councilor Jackie Nytes, who is fleeing for higher ground to the library board. Nytes, my own city-county counselor, took advantage of the city contracting for her business, Printing Partners, yet failed to ensure that her very own minority and women constituents participated in contracting and allowed the other 20% left on the table to reverts back to majority companies, a category which includes her company, Printing Partners; despite the existence of wbe/mbe printing companies who recieved very little if any contracts with the city and the fact that the city is only at 1-2% towards it goals of 15/8%/.
City Council member, Cherish Pryor
Hasn't Pryor been on the Bart Petersons payroll for several years? Why did she recieve a city contract in 2006. Why is Bart Peterson refusing to release the mbe/wbe reports for the balance of 2005, all of 2006 and 2007?
We received this press release today from Greg Ballard. Mayor Peterson (who promised he would not run a negative campaign) turned on his word yesterday by airing negative commericials which state Ballard is not qualified to run our city. Ballard is far more qualified than Bart Peterson is to run a large staff. Perhaps Peterson would be a better mayor if he had military training and the discipline that goes with it...not to mention personal HONOR, which the Marines hold in high regard and Peterson has lacked since taking office. Please forward Ballard's press release to everyone on your list and lets elect a new PRO-PROPERTY TAX REPEAL Mayor who will serve THE PEOPLE and not political self-interests.
-- The editor
Indianapolis--Greg Ballard, Republican candidate for Mayor of Indianapolis, commented today on Bart Peterson's latest campaign television advertisement. Mr. Peterson's commercial takes a negative tone and attacks Greg Ballard's experience and ability to serve as the Mayor.
Ballard said, "Yesterday was a sad day in Indianapolis politics. To date the candidates for Mayor have engaged in a frank and open discussion of the problems facing Indianapolis without resorting to personal negative attacks.
Mayor Peterson's latest campaign ad is a turn in the wrong direction."
The Mayor's charge, using the words of the local newspaper, is that a twenty-three year career in the U.S. Marines Corps leaves you "inexperienced" and "unqualified" to serve as mayor.
"Mr. Peterson's ad demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the education and training men and women in the military receive," said Ballard, "For my part, I graduated from the Marine Corps Command and Staff College and earned a Master's Degree from the Marine Corps University."
Ballard continued, "In my twenty-three year military career, I held numerous positions that called upon the same kind of skills one would utilize as mayor. I am sure that I am more prepared now than Mr. Peterson was when he first ran for mayor eight years ago and I am certainly prepared to lead Indianapolis today.
"But the worst part of Mr. Peterson's ad is that it implies that service or a career in the military just isn't good enough and it tells Hoosiers in the military that they are not qualified for public service," said Ballard. "History, of course, says otherwise. Our nation's veterans have historically used their military training and leadership to become some of the best leaders in politics, business, and their communities."
Ballard concluded, "Mayor Peterson and I have disagreed a lot about our city's problems and the solutions, especially taxes, spending and crime. But I have not questioned his personal abilities and I am disappointed that the Mayor's campaign has taken a different course."
At this Wednesday's (10/31) hearing before Judge Fisher in the Indiana Tax Court, citizens are seeking immediate injunctive relief from two unconstitutional acts;
1) The illegal vote to increase by 65%, income taxes or the COIT on Marion County residents (taxation without representation)
2) The unauthorized deadline extension, for Indiana counties to adopt increases in the county option income tax (COIT).
The lawsuit is filed by attorney John Price and is part of StopIndiana.com 's efforts to force our politicians to obey the rule of law.
Here's the link to Peterson Plan III. You can tell how much he cares because he came out with the plan seven days before the election. Why wasn't he acting on Plan II? Why isn't he telling us what he accomplished in Plan II? The answer is that Peterson fails to complete his plans.
It's hard to stay focused on a plan when you are bed-hopping the entire political arena.
Most activists believe he's even in bed with wealthy members of the G.O.P.! And everyone knows he sleeps with the entire Carson Machine. He would not even speak out about the ethics violations of CCC President and IFD ghost employee, Monroe Gray! Don't you think Monroe Gray has plenty of dirt he's holding over Peterson's head should he decide to chastise the CCC President's behavior?
We know that the objectives in Peterson Plans I and II were a joke as nothing within the plans was accomplished. Remember Peterson's "War on Abandoned Homes" launched in 2003 (after the scathing NY Times expose of our problem)? Since then Peterson's administration cannot even tell the press how many abandoned homes are in our city today. Most activists indicate that the number of abandoned homes has doubled since Peterson launched his war.
Lots of democrats getting paid for kissing Bart's behind are afraid of losing their jobs. They spin rhetoric that Ballard has no plan. Sure he has a plan and we've heard it in the debates and in our conversations with him. Our friends over at the Digital Farmers blog have outlined point by point what Ballard plans to do in a recent entry called "Peterson Plan III: The Creature Lives".
Don't believe Plan III. It's just another lie.
Beginning on November 1 and working through the election on November 6, the Ballard Team is recruiting 300 people to assist with Get Out the Vote calls, walking neighborhoods, distributing Greg's information at polling sites and working at the polls as clerks, judges or watchers.
You may have already volunteered to assist and if you have, we would like for you to recruit neighbors, families and friends. If you have not, this is your perfect opportunity.
Volunteer meetings are being held Tuesday, October 30 from 5-7 PM and Thursday November 1 from 5-7 pm if you would like to attend
and sign-up. The volunteer meetings are at 120 E. Vermont.
Call 317-635-8881 or email email@example.com for more information.
We're hearing all kinds of scary rumors today over at Indy Undercover including Peterson is paying people $20 to rent their front yards for his yard signs! We also hear that his campaigners get $10/hour to pretend they are Peterson's grass roots support.
Today a new website popped up to bring more attention to Monroe Gray's ethics demanding an invetigation. Like Peterson, Monroe was too stupid to buy his own name as a domain name. What kind of politician lets that happen?
Check it out! http://www.monroegray.com/
We are getting disturbing reports today that Peterson's campaign calls this weekend are lying to people about Ballard's intentions when he takes office.
Some people were told that Ballard intends to end spay-neuter programs in an effort to scare animal rights sympathizers. Seniors were told that Ballard will end trash pick up and meals-on-wheels programs. If you have a story, please tell us.
The truth about Ballard is that he came back to Indianapolis after honorably serving his country as an officer in the Marine Corps only because this is home, he loves our city, and wants his children to always think of Indy as home. Ballard is not in bed with any big money interests and he really cares about the People and turning our city around.
Ballard is not delusional and knows that when he is elected he has a huge mess on his hands to clean up. It's going to take all of us working together- to save our city...both before and after the election.
Call us now to help distribute the voter endorsement cards.
The activists are meeting again tonight in front of the CCC for the last meeting before the election. There will be signs provided or bring your own to hold in the meeting. Remember, the media loves zooming in on clever signs and they help us drive our message to the voters.
Indiana Voters League will have thousands of voter endorsement cards that need distributed all over the city. We need every last hand to help with distribution and several activists will have large quantities of endorsement cards to pass out.
We are getting encouraging news and want to send a message to the People that we can save our city from the thieves that control it. Every single vote matters and remember, the voter endorsement cards will help people understand which candidates will best represent the People's interests and work as servants to the people.
We need everyone at the CCC at 5:30. Meeting starts at 7pm.
Political activist Ed Angleton used to be a democrat. He told us he quit that habit. Ed won on Jeapordy a while back and he also authors a blog. We think he's a pretty smart fellow. Certainly smarter than a lot of the folks on our CCC.
Lately he did a little number crunching with figures the city provided for the oft blamed inventory tax which our politicians love to use to blame for the property tax crisis.
And guess what? Well you'll have to read Ed's blog to see his very clearly stated analysis. We promise it will make your stomach turn.
Thanks Ed for the analysis. And thanks too for your patriotism!
Posted by M Theory at Friday, October 26, 2007
We found this document which appears to be an economic study by Reedy & Peters, LLC Certified Public Accountants to detail the impact of the IndyWorks merger touted by Mayor Peterson as a huge money saver to the public. The document is dated November 8, 2005. A copy is scanned on a blog site called Indy Corrupt. If this is a genuine document, then the mayor knew all along the merger would cost the taxpayers a 97% increase in property tax. The site makes claims it has more information, so we will watch it.
Part of the analysis warns:
GENERAL/PROPERTY TAX EFFECTS:
We find that although the Works proposal shows property tax reductions from its implementation, no property tax reduction is anticipated. Also, we find the result of not providing property tax reductions would cause a $40.5 million tax shift out of the IPD and IFD areas onto the township areas outside IPD and IFD. Further, we find the graphs and table in the "Property Tax Benefit Section" in Works to not be representative in base data or potential savings
Posted by M Theory at Friday, October 26, 2007
Please email the following pro repeal State Representatives and Senators and encourage them to stick tight to their pro repeal positions. Let them know that The People rally around them and we want to see them re-elected if they will continue to support property tax repeal.
Robert Behning, (R)
Robert Bischoff, (D)
Bruce Borders, (R)
Tim N. Brown, (R)
James R. Buck, (R)
Larry Buell, (R)
Woody Burton, (R)
Dave Cheatham, (D)
Robert W. Cherry, (R)
Bill Davis, (R)
Jerry L. Denbo, (D)
Tom Dermody, (R)
Sean Eberhart (R)
Jon Elrod, (R)
Bill Friend (R)
David Frizzell, (R)
Craig R. Fry, (D)
Terry Goodin, (D)
Eric Gutwein, (R)
Tim Harris, (R)
Phil Hinkle, (R)
Sheila J. Klinker, (D)
Tom Knollman, (R)
Eric Koch, (R)
Donald Lehe, (R)
Dan Leonard, (R)
Jack Lutz, (R)
Richard McClain, (R)
Michael B. Murphy, (R)
Timothy Neese, (R)
Cindy Noe, (R)
Michael Ripley, (R)
Paul J. Robertson, (D)
William J. Ruppel, (R)
Steven Stemler (D)
Marlin Stutzman, (R)
Jeffrey A. Thompson, (R)
Vern Tincher, (D)
Jerry Torr, (R)
Eric Turner, (R)
John Ulmer, (R)
Jackie Walorski, (R)
David Wolkins, (R)
Ron Alting, (R)
Phil Boots, (R)
Mike Delph, (R)
Jeff Drozda, (R)
Brandt Hershman, (R)
Lindel Hume, (D)
Dennis Kruse, (R)
Sue Landske, (R)
Patricia Miller, (R)
Johnny Nugent, (R)
Marvin D. Riegsecker, (R)
Brent Steele, (R)
Greg Walker, (R)
Brent Waltz, (R)
John M. Waterman, (R)
Thomas K. Weatherwax, (R)
Richard D. Young, (D)
R. Michael Young, (R)
The US Army oath for officers states this: "…I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter…"
It's time to do just that.
Governor Daniels: For Indiana to truly lead the country in tax reform, we need to show the nation how prosperous a state can be without property tax. We know that investors from all over the country will flock to Indiana to buy property if there is no tax. That will bring investment to our local economies and change the real estate market to one that is fluid. We are not warm to the idea that the value of our property will be determined by a state official. We also believe that the appraisal and assessment of every property in Indiana is an expensive venture and not necessary. Further, it is unfair to penalize us for buying a high risk property in a high crime depressed area, sink our money into improving it, and later be penalized with higher taxes because our investment appreciates due to our hard work. Where is the incentive to invest? While your plan encompasses spending caps and is definitely moving in the right direction, we want public debate and numbers crunching on the reality of property tax elimination. --HFFT
THE GOVERNOR'S ADDRESS
For the last few months, no subject has been on my mind, or the mind of most Hoosiers, as much as property taxes. In almost every county, some homeowners were hit with huge increases; in some counties, it seemed almost everyone got a big jump. Assessments were inconsistent and often grossly unfair. It is not acceptable that any citizen cannot afford to keep the home they may have worked all their lives to buy. The status quo is not tolerable and we must act to fix it.
Several causes combined to produce this situation. Back in the ‘90s, courts ordered a change to assessments based on market prices. In 2002, the legislature repealed the inventory property tax on business, and switched from reassessment once a decade to once a year, or “trending”. And, the biggest factor of all, total local spending on schools, libraries, school construction, and other services has continued growing faster than taxpayers’ incomes. When that happens, property taxes can only go up.
We’ve been here before. Repeatedly over the last 35 years, state government has tried to help out. State taxes have been raised and the money used to subsidize local budgets and reduce property taxes. By now, 85% of school operating costs are paid for by our state taxes, not our property taxes. Half the sales tax, 3 cents out of 6, is sent back to support local government, or your property taxes would be far higher than they already are.
What we do next must learn from this history, because the old approach has not worked. In every case, a few years later our state taxes were higher and our property taxes were, too. It only took 5 years this time.
I have looked at every option for change. I have talked with Hoosiers all over the state. I have studied Indiana’s past approaches to this issue and the attempts of other states to deal with their own problems. When Indiana acts this time, and act we must, our steps must be fair, far-reaching, and final.
I have prepared and will recommend to the legislature a proposal to cut every homeowner’s property taxes sharply and cap them forever, at no more than one per cent of a home’s true value. This last provision must be added to the state’s constitution to ensure its permanence, and guarantee that no Hoosier ever again pays more than a penny on the dollar of their home’s value.
We can lower the average Hoosier property tax bill by more than a third by removing forever the rest of school operating costs, and the cost of protecting abused and neglected children, from the local to the state level. Immediate relief should be provided to every homeowner on the May ’08 bills, and the full 1% ceiling protection put in place by 2009.
We can fund this reform through a one-cent increase in the sales tax, and by using a small share of the surplus we have restored to the state budget these last three years.
Before settling on the cut and cap approach, I looked hard at the idea of totally eliminating property taxes in our state. Much as I would like to have taken that route, the risks to our schools, to small business, and to our economy generally, dissuaded me. In particular, I could not support the large increase in personal income taxes, paid by every Hoosier worker and most small businesses, which would be necessary for total elimination.
Any plan that makes a real difference in property taxation will have to go to its root cause, and that is excessive spending. Total local spending on school construction, libraries, fire departments, and all other local services simply cannot keep rising faster than Hoosier incomes.
To achieve better discipline while preserving local control, we must have single-point accountability for spending. Today, no one is responsible; each local taxing district sets its budget and sends you its part of the bill, which is only added up when it hits your mailbox. The County Tax Board in each county must accept the duty of reviewing the total of local spending plans and trimming those budgets as needed to keep our taxes down.
As further protection against overspending, we should strengthen taxpayers’ direct say in local decisions, especially the borrowing for new schools and other construction which has been the biggest driver of property tax increases. I will propose that any significant new capital project, or any spending in excess of the growth in local income, must be approved by voter referendum.
Next, we must protect other property taxpayers from being exploited. I will propose hard ceilings, with no exceptions and no loopholes, of 2% for rental properties and 3% for other businesses, also written into our constitution.
Finally, our unfair and unfixable assessment system must go. I will propose the elimination of all political assessors and the appointment by each County Council of a single, qualified and certified assessor to oversee trained professionals in conducting future appraisals.
Immediate relief for every homeowner; a one per cent permanent cap on every homeowner’s taxes; an end to unfair and inaccurate assessments; real limits on local spending. As bold as these changes would be, I am very optimistic of achieving them, especially if you will help.
In the last 3 years, we have already solved problems like the state government deficit and the state highway shortfall that people said would take years or were simply impossible. We can solve this one, too, and open a new era of opportunity in which Indiana is the nation’s leader in defending and promoting the American dream of home ownership.
Thank you and good night.
While we applaud the Governor for listening to us and for considering repeal as a solution, we are not convinced it repeal is not possible. We like the fact that the governor is introducing referendums, so that the taxpayer has the final say on big public expenditures because we want a say in how our money is spent. We want our public officials to be accountable to the public.
We would like Dr. Styring's plan to be given serious public debate and the numbers of Governor Daniels plan compared and made public.
Mark Rutherford, small business lawyer and former State Chairman of the Libertarian Party, appeared on Abdul in the Morning today to speak about the Libertarian's plan for property tax reform. As usual the Libertarians were years ahead of their time. The Libertarian plan was released in 2001, two years before the first big property tax fiasco in 2003.
You can read about the Libertarian Property Tax Reform Plan for Indiana on Mark's blog.
Thanks to our friends at STOPIndiana.com for the update!
Wednesday October 24th from 6pm
The Great Property Tax Debate in Indianapolis
Meridian Kessler Neighborhood Association
Fellowship Hall, North United Methodist Church - 38th / Meridian St
Bill Styring, former tax advisor to Governor Otis Bowen, and current advisor to STOP Indiana, will debate IBJ Columnist and former Indiana University Kelley School of Business Professor Morton J. Marcus on what's become the most discussed issue in the State in recent months, namely: Should We Eliminate Property Taxes In Indiana?
It has proven almost impossible to attend a property tax rally or forum without hearing the isue of eliminating property taxes raised. Is it a good idea? Is it even feasible? STOP Indiana cites Bill Styring as its source for saying it is not only feasible, but in fact desirable. Morton J. Marcus writes the "Eye On The Pie" column for the Indianapolis Business Journal, and has written extensively, in recent months, on the property tax issue. As part of the debate, a panel of tax experts, including Steven Johnson from the Indiana Tax Policy Institute, will pose questions for the debaters. We hope you, and the residents of your neighborhoods, will join us for this interesting and informative discussion
Wednesday October 31st from 9:30am
Constitutional Tax Case Hearing
Indiana Supreme Courtroom
Room 317, State House
Reconciliation or "Gotcha" tax bill
Marion County taxpayers forced to pay an upcharge or "reconciliation" bill
A shotgun assessment based on what standard, exactly? Constitution?
Posted by M Theory at Tuesday, October 23, 2007
You may recall Beth White bragging that if she were election clerk, there would be zero problems with the elections. You will also recall that last May, under Beth White's supervision, 3000 voters did not have a place to vote because their polling places did not get opened.
Today she tells the Indy Star that everything is ready. We hope so. We all have a lot riding on this election and every single vote is critical.
It is very important at this election that every ID is checked, every "i" is dotted and "t" crossed. The people of Indianapolis have a lot riding on this election and we're going to hold Beth White accountable if people are not able to vote due to polling places not opening on time or at all. We also expect every person's ID is checked, every time according to the rule of law. No exceptions, not even for Project Big Vote bus!
IndianaVotersLeague.org has room for more volunteers to pass out voter endorsement cards at the polls. To volunteer, please email.
Posted by M Theory at Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Be sure to tune in Tuesday, October 23rd at 6pm. The Governor will unveil his property tax plan via statewide satellite from his office.
We received this press release from Senator Hume's office today. -- The editors
INDIANAPOLIS – A proposal released today by State Senator Lindel Hume (D-Princeton) would provide property tax relief for Indiana residents through a complete elimination of the Homestead tax. A long time proponent of property tax reduction, Hume said a constitutional amendment to eliminate Homestead property taxes would be a more responsible approach to providing permanent relief for homeowners than a total repeal of taxes for all property classes.
“Unlike many of the other proposals being discussed, my plan directs one hundred percent of the tax relief to our homeowners and renters,” Hume said. “If all property taxes were eliminated, more than half of the relief would benefit businesses at the cost of Indiana workers.”
According to Hume’s plan, the state would pay the property tax levy on homeowners’ behalf for all properties that qualify as Homesteads under current state law, which includes primary residential properties occupied by the homeowner. Additionally, renters would see increased tax relief through a new income tax credit.
“The goal is to provide direct, permanent and complete property tax relief for homeowners,” Hume said. “Through minimal tax shifts we can also significantly reduce the tax burden for family farms while continuing Indiana’s hospitable tax environment for business.”
Senate Minority Leader Richard Young (D-Milltown), also an advocate for property tax reduction, endorses the plan and said he believes it will provide an immediate solution for Hoosier homeowners. “We could solve the dilemma for homeowners now, not wait until next year,” Young said. “There are a lot of ideas for reform being discussed. This legislation could be enacted in November and be in place in 2008 while further solutions are debated.”
Hume said the plan’s focus on Homestead property taxes intentionally provides an opportunity to be used in concert with other initiatives, including further action in assessment and local government reform. “We have two state commissions working on recommendations for improving Indiana’s tax system and local government structure. This plan would advocate for Hoosier homeowners while allowing other necessary reform to take place,” Hume commented.
Hume is a special advisor for the Commission on State Tax and Financing Policy and serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee and State Budget Committee.
Other components of Senator Hume's Plan:
Homestead property taxes provide approximately $2.2 billion in revenue to local governments in 2007, with estimates growing to more than $2.9 billion over then next three years. A combination of income and sales tax increases would be used to raise the revenue necessary to replace the lost funding from Homestead property taxes for local units.
Indiana’s income tax rate would increase by 1.6 percent to 5.0 percent. This increase is expected to create approximately $2.1 billion in new revenue in the first year.
Indiana’s sales tax rate would increase by 1 percent to 7 percent. This increase is expected to create approximately $812 million in new revenue in the first year.
Relief for Renters
By converting the state’s renter’s income tax deduction to an income tax credit of 8 percent of rent paid during the tax year, tax relief would roughly quadruple for renters. The credit is designed to refund a portion of rent that is based on the property tax.
Local Government Flexibility
School and other local unit revenue would be unaffected as would local tax incremental funding (TIF) districts and abatements. Local governments would still have the ability and responsibility to manage local government spending, including school construction costs. Local officials would also still have the opportunity to provide property tax relief to other classes of property through local income taxes.
Relief for Farmers
Farmers who own a home and live on their farm would benefit from the elimination of property tax payments on the residential portion of their property. By removing Homestead taxes, the average farmer would see a 40 percent reduction in his total property tax bill.
Long Term Security
A Local Government Security Trust Fund would be established under the plan to capture income and sales tax revenue above the amount required for Homestead tax replacement. The fund’s balance would be regulated by the state and used to replace shortfalls in revenue or to guarantee bonds for local projects.
For more information on Senator Hume, his legislative agenda or other State Senate business call 1-800-382-9467 or visit http://www.senatedemocrats.in.gov./
The first thing any politician should do is spend a lousy $10 bucks to buy their own domain name. Thanks to the folks at Bart Lies for pointing out the www.BartPeterson.com website. Whoever owns it is doing a service to the people of Indianapolis. We wish our mayor would take his advice.
The Libertarians vote against tax increases and for tax decreases, that is why we have many Libertarians working as tax activists. Mark Rutherford put up a link to the new property tax commericial being run by the Libertarian party. You can hear it here.
Heads up politicians. A rogue group of fed-up real estate professionals is putting on another big rally on the circle. Politicians (especially pro-repeal politicians) would be smart to attend and network with the people who will suppport you if you engage them to do their will.
THIS IS THE RALLY ANNOUNCEMENT RECEIVED BY HOOSIERS FOR FAIR TAXATION
TAX SCAM SATURDAY Monument Circle October 27th, 2pm
State Representatives who are working toward property tax repeal for their constituents are strongly encouraged to attend and join with the People who support you. We want property tax repeal, a constitutional change, and support Dr. Bill Styring's plan for the complete elimination of property tax.
Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians...black or white...rich or poor...homeowners or renters are uniting! We send a strong message back to our politicians and are beginning the process of removing those who do not support property tax repeal from power.
Scary costumes and grim reapers allowed. We will focus on a way to vote out the corruption in our cities and state. Word is being spread to every neighborhood in the city as this will be a party like no other!
HOOSIERS FOR FAIR TAXATION
S.T.O.P. INDIANA (Stop Taxing Our Property)
INDIANA VOTERS LEAGUE
INDIANA MINORITY REPORT
HOOSIERS FOR HONESTY IN GOVERNMENT
Now is the time to write to David O. and tell him that nothing short of publicly pushing for repeal of property tax will get your vote. In his letter below, David does not give numbers to back up his claim that Dr. Styring's plan will not work. In fact none of the politicians who will not back repeal have offered numbers to back why Strying's plan will not work. Let your elected politicians know that WE THE PEOPLE are not going away until property tax is repealed and repeal is the only solution that you will accept. We all know that no matter how much they lower property tax, as long as property tax exists, they will raise it again in the future and your home will be in jeapordy. -- The editor
Thank you for writing. We do need to fix our property tax system, and I am hopeful that we will be able to do so when we reconvene. As for abolition, I have taken a close look at Bill Styring's plan, and while I have great respect for him, his numbers just don't add to enough to cover 100 percent of property taxes. So far, I haven't seen a proposal for abolition that I think can work--the increases in other taxes would be too high to be accepted by the public. That said, my mind is open to any suggestions for change, and if we can figure out a way to get to abolition, that would be great.
We must ask....why must a taxpayer who owns a modest home that is valued at $387,000 LESS than Bart Peterson's home, pay $734.32 MORE in annual property tax fees? This individual's home is on a perfectly good well and septic system. The city is trying to force him to pay $8,000 to $10,000 (in addition to property taxes higher than Bart's)to hook up to the sewer when he doesn't need or want it. You might recall that CCC president Monroe Gray's bankrupt concrete company got no-bid sewer contracts from the city. Why is this man, who cannot keep a company receiving no-bid government contracts afloat, in charge of deciding how your tax dollars are spent? Ask the democrats on council that appointed him.
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007
I am in receipt of your second of three installment bills and its accompanying letter. Please be advised that no payment will be made for the school portion until the constitutionality of your bills has been determined; as you know there are at least two lawsuits on these matters, in the courts. You have taken an oath of office, to uphold and defend the State Constitution. Why are you not abiding by that oath? ( See: Article 8, Section 2, below / and Article 6, Section 8, below)
Additionally, the second to last sentence which reads: “Finally, we have the opportunity to make major and reasonable changes to our tax system” is simply ludicrous. You and your predecessors have had since 1998 to make necessary changes. Instead, you ignored the assessment of commercial property and failed your responsibilities to such a great extent that the assessment was deemed intolerable. Thus, for another two-million dollars, we will (In your own words) “See little or, No relief”. How is it then, that you expect us to believe anything you have done to be correct?
Further; I am in possession of the assessment of one, Mr. Bart Peterson, of Washington Township, who’s assessed property value stands at $513,000.00. My assessed value in the same township is a paltry $126,000.00. Mr. Peterson’s semi-annual tax bill is $1659.53. My semi-annual bill is $2,026.69. The value of Mr Peterson’s property is 407% greater than mine; however, his semi-annual payment is 83% lower than mine. Please, explain to me how this fits into the constitutional decree of Fairness and equity? (See: Article 10, Section 1, below)
In summation, the statute you are erroneously attempting to enforce is blatantly unconstitutional, as are your methods of applying them. I insist on a complete explanation of why it is believed that your office can operate outside of the laws of this State.
I look forward to your reply.
Indiana Constitution, Article 8, Section 2.
The Common School fund shall consist of the Congressional Township fund, and the lands belonging thereto; The Surplus Revenue fund; The Saline fund and the lands belonging thereto; The Bank Tax fund and the fund arising from the one hundred and fourteenth section of the charter of the State Bank of Indiana; The fund to be derived from the sale of County Seminaries, and the moneys and property heretofore held for such Seminaries; from the fines assessed for breaches of the penal laws of the State; and from all forfeitures which may accrue; All lands and other estate which shall escheat to the State, for want of heirs or kindred entitled to the inheritance; All lands that have been, or may hereafter be, granted to the State, where no special purpose is expressed in the grant, and the proceeds of the sales thereof; including the proceeds of the sales of the Swamp Lands, granted to the State of Indiana by the act of Congress of the twenty eighth of September, eighteen hundred and fifty, after deducting the expense of selecting and draining the same; Taxes on the property of corporations that may be assessed by the General Assembly for common school purposes.
Article 10, Section 1. Assessment and taxation Section 1. (a) The General Assembly shall provide, by law, for a uniform and equal rate of property assessment and taxation and shall prescribe regulations to secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, both real and personal. The General Assembly may exempt from property taxation any property in any of the following classes: (1) Property being used for municipal, educational, literary, scientific, religious or charitable purposes; (2) Tangible personal property other than property being held for sale in the ordinary course of a trade or business, property being held, used or consumed in connection with the production of income, or property being held as an investment; (3) Intangible personal property. (b) The General Assembly may exempt any motor vehicles, mobile homes, airplanes, boats, trailers or similar property, provided that an excise tax in lieu of the property tax is substituted therefore.
Article 6, Section 8. Impeachment of other officers
Section 8. All State, county, township, and town officers, may be impeached, or removed from office, in such manner as may be prescribed by law.
You may recall that council heroine Virginia "Ginny" Cain filed a complaint for investigation last week against Aaron Haith citing conflict of interest. Here's the court summary of the 2001 disciplinary action by the Indiana Supreme Court against Aaron Haith. You may recall last summer that Aaron Haith is the man that sits by CCC president Monroe Gray and constantly whispers into his ear. When not acting as puppeteer to Monroe Gray, Aaron Haith enjoys throwing taxpayers out of the council auditorium when they complain about over taxation or applaud the efforts of councilors that attempt to block further taxation and inaccountability of city government.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA IN THE MATTER OF
CASE NO. 49S00-9711-DI-630
AARON E. HAITH
February 28, 2001 Per Curiam
Lawyer Aaron E. Haith was convicted twice of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and convicted once of operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of at least .10 percent. Today we find that, by virtue of the acts underlying those convictions, he engaged in criminal acts reflecting adversely on his fitness as a lawyer in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law. This attorney disciplinary case is now before us for final resolution upon the duly-appointed hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The respondent, pursuant to Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 23(15), has petitioned this Court for review of the hearing officer’s findings and conclusions. Because of the respondent’s petition, our review of this matter is de novo in nature, and will involve a review of the entire record presented. Matter of Warrum, 724 N.E.2d 1097 (Ind. 2000). We now find that on June 25, 1985, the respondent was convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) in Marion Municipal Court. The incident leading to that conviction involved a motor vehicle accident that resulted in personal injury. On September 17, 1991, the respondent was convicted of operating a vehicle with .10% or more by weight of alcohol in his blood, a class C misdemeanor, in Marion Municipal Court. On September 29, 1995, the respondent was convicted of OWI, a class A misdemeanor, in Marion Municipal Court. Again, the basis for that conviction was a motor vehicle accident resulting in personal injury. After each conviction, the respondent successfully completed his sentencing requirements, including terms of probation, to the extent ordered. The sentence for the 1991 offense included mandatory alcohol counseling. The 1995 sentence included, as terms of probation, alcohol evaluation and treatment, if necessary. To satisfy those terms, the respondent obtained short-term private substance abuse counseling. The counselor observed the respondent on six occasions between January and July 1996, and concluded that the respondent had an alcohol abuse problem and that he met the diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependency. The respondent re-initiated contact with the counselor in January of 1999. The counselor’s most recent professional opinion is that the respondent and the community will be best served by the respondent’s abstinence from alcohol, continued professional endeavors, and aggressive outpatient therapy coupled with community-based mutual self-help participation. At hearing, the Commission’s expert witness, a medical doctor specializing in addictions, testified that he concurred with the assessment that the respondent is alcohol dependent. The hearing officer found that the respondent is alcohol dependent. The respondent disputes that finding. The hearing officer concluded that the respondent violated Ind.Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b) by committing the criminal acts of operating a vehicle while intoxicated and operating a vehicle with .10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in his blood. According to the hearing officer, these acts reflected adversely on the respondent’s fitness as a lawyer. The hearing officer also concluded that the Commission failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d), which provides that it is professional misconduct to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. In his petition for review of the hearing officer’s findings, the respondent argues that his convictions of driving while intoxicated or with illegal levels of alcohol in his blood do not reflect adversely on his fitness as a lawyer. His misconduct, he contends, must be distinguished from this Court’s prior decisions finding Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) violations for convictions of alcohol-related motor vehicle offenses because the acts at issue in prior cases included attendant misconduct such as failures to abide by courts’ orders of probation, the commission of other acts violative of the Rules of Professional Conduct, or offenses committed by lawyers responsible for enforcement of this state’s laws. To support his argument, the respondent relies on Matter of Oliver, 493 N.E.2d 1237 (Ind. 1986) (lawyer who was serving as special prosecutor found to have committed crime involving “moral turpitude” in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility for conviction of OWI), Matter of Martenet, 674 N.E.2d 549 (Ind. 1996) (violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) for three convictions of OWI, the last occurring while the lawyer’s license was suspended), Matter of Welling, 715 N.E.2d 377 (Ind. 1999) (two OWI convictions and conviction of intimidation in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b)), and Matter of Coleman, 569 N.E.2d 631 (Ind. 1991) (Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) violation for three OWI convictions, failure to appear at hearing after release on bond, use of client’s funds without authorization). The respondent contends that his three convictions, standing alone and without some subsequent violation of terms of probation, do not reflect adversely on his fitness as a lawyer. We disagree. Lawyers are professionally bound to comply with and uphold the law. Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 22. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate an indifference to legal obligation. Comment to Prof.Cond.R. 8.4. A lawyer’s multiple convictions for OWI or similar offenses may indicate a willingness to ignore the law and may damage the public’s perception of the legal profession. Welling, 715 N.E.2d at 378. Such conduct also implicates a lawyer’s fitness as one who can be trusted to keep his client’s secrets, give effective legal advice, and fulfill his obligations to the courts. Martenet, 674 N.E.2d at 550. Thus, a lawyer’s commission of OWI and similar offenses, even standing alone with no attendant misconduct, have been found to violate Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b). Matter of Jones, 727 N.E.2d 711 (Ind. 2000) (three OWI convictions and a fourth conviction withheld on terms of probation). Further, even considered separately, the respondent’s offenses are not minor, given that two of the three involved personal injury. Accordingly, we find that the respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b). We adopt the hearing officer’s finding with respect to the Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) charge. Having found misconduct, we now turn to the issue of proper sanction. Relevant to this determination is the hearing officer’s identification of several aggravating factors. Among these are the respondent’s failure to abstain from the use of alcohol or to acknowledge his alcohol dependency and his failure voluntarily to seek long-term treatment. In mitigation, the hearing officer noted that the respondent, prior to the present action, has practiced law for 20 years with no prior disciplinary history, that he completed his criminal probation successfully, and that he generally enjoys a good reputation in the legal community. The hearing officer recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months; that after serving one (1) month of that suspension, the respondent be conditionally reinstated and placed on probation for two (2) years; and that the respondent be fully reinstated to the practice of law upon compliance with the terms and conditions of probation. According to the hearing officer, those terms and conditions should include abstinence from alcohol use, supervision by a monitor, reporting requirements, random substance screenings, intensive out-patient treatment, and psychological evaluation and treatment. In recent cases involving similar misconduct, pursuant to agreed resolutions this Court has imposed six month suspensions from the practice of law, with some or all of that period stayed to terms of agreed probation aimed at treating the respondents’ alcohol dependencies. See, e.g., Martenet, supra (six month suspension all stayed to aftercare), Welling, supra (six month suspension with four months conditionally stayed), Jones, supra (six month suspension conditionally stayed to period of suspension to run concurently with criminal probation). We conclude that a similar sanction is appropriate in this case as well; however, we find further that the respondent’s failure to abstain from alcohol use and his reluctance to admit his alcohol dependency warrant in this case a lengthier period of suspension stayed to stringent aftercare provisions. It is, therefore, ordered that the respondent, Aaron E. Haith, be suspended from the practice of law in this state for a period of twelve (12) months, effective immediately. That period of suspension is conditionally stayed to a two (2) year period of probation. During that period of probation, the respondent must: Remain free from alcohol useBe subject to the supervision of a monitor approved by the Disciplinary Commission, with periodic meetings with the monitor who will provide regular reports to the Disciplinary CommissionParticipate in an intensive out-patient treatment program approved by the Disciplinary CommissionParticipate in psychological evaluation and treatment, as recommended by the out-patient treatment program Participate in Alcoholics Anonymous or similar 12-step programAgree to be subject to and receive random alcohol and drug screeningsAgree to a waiver of all assertions of confidentiality or privilege associated with his monitor or treating health care providersImmediately report any noncompliance with the terms of this probation to the Disciplinary CommissionPay all costs of compliance associated with the terms of probation.
Should the respondent violate any terms of his probation, he shall be required to serve the twelve month period of suspension which was originally stayed, at the conclusion of which he shall be required to petition this Court should he desire reinstatement. Should he successfully complete the two year period of probation, at the end of that period he shall be fully reinstated to the practice of law in this state. The Clerk of this Court is further directed to provide notice of this order in accordance with Admis.Disc.R. 23(3)(d) and to provide the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the clerk of each of the United States District Courts in this state, and the clerks of the United States Bankruptcy Courts in this state with the last known address of respondent as reflected in the records of the Clerk. Costs of this proceeding are assessed against the respondent. SULLIVAN, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur. SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, J., dissent from the sanction imposed, and would impose a sanction calling for a period of executed suspension in addition to a period of suspension stayed to aftercare provisions.
SHEPARD, Chief Justice, dissenting. Several decades of research about healing chemically impaired people suggests that therapy is typically unsuccessful when a dependent person believes he is not. Formal analysis thus coincides with intuition: people who think treatment is unnecessary are unlikely to work very hard at it. The present case involves a lawyer who is generally well liked and successful. But, he has had three criminal convictions for drunk driving in twelve years. His own therapist, the Commission’s medical expert, and our hearing officer have all concluded that he is alcohol dependent. He insists he is not. He also maintains that the evidence does not reflect adversely on his fitness to serve clients. The Court says it disagrees on both points, but it sends this message so softly it seems unlikely the respondent will hear it. A short period of actual suspension seems more likely to lead to a successful result.
Council heroine Virginia Cain filed a request for investigation with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary commission this week against city council attorney Aaron Haith. In addition to representing the city council, Aaron Haith also serves as personal counsel to Monroe Gray and Ron Gibson.
You may recall that last summer Aaron Haith had taxpayers thrown out of the city council auditorium for applauding the actions of councilors who acted in their best interest.
Aaron Haith's actions were eventually leashed once the Indy Star told the story.
Aaron Haith is also heavily involved in "Project Big Vote". This organization's bus rounds up the homeless, drug addicts, prostitutes and the likes and takes them to the polls with instructions to vote straight ticket democrat. Many reports surface that their charges are given cigarettes, money, alcohol, and/or food in exchange for voting. Other reports tell us that Aaron Haith's Project Big Vote will register homeless folks to abandoned houses for purposes of needing to register an address. During a Julia Carson congressional campaign, poll workers took note of addresses registered to suspicious voters and later drove to homes which they discovered were abandoned and boarded up.
Tax Panel Explosion Largely Overlooked
Editorial by Paul Wheeler
Looking for an update in the Star today on the tax panel self-destruction news earlier this week; sadly none. Despite the brief Star article, the Ft.Wayne and S.Bend papers via Associated Press (AP) carried several quotes and revealing comments from lawmakers regarding this story, which the Star did not carry. It seems odd that the hardest taxed property is Marion County; in particular Broad Ripple and Meridian-Kessler neighborhoods, which especially would be interested in these reasons, excuses, and irresponsible comments from this panel. Indy was not told the whole story, but Ft.Wayne and S.Bend gave wider coverage which revealed a spectacle of sarcasm, negligence, and kicking the can back to the Governor, knowing the lawmakers will still have to deal with it on the rebound. The fact that comments were made that little, if anything would be done in the upcoming legislative session because it will be a political year, is info we as residents should have been informed. I have to wonder why we have to go to secondary papers to get the top story of the month, and that residents care about most; even ahead of crime and the economy in the polls. Is this negligence, a news blackout so residents aren’t alarmed and want to protest 2 weeks before election, or a poor editing dept. Blackout or not, we deserve better. Further, there should have been investigative reporting and follow-ups with each panel member to account to the people why they hold their fellow members in such low esteem and wasted fruitless weeks resulting in a blank piece of paper to the Governor.
The Star has too many resources to take a back seat to S.Bend and Ft.Wayne reporting.
Even worse, it’s taken right off the AP wire, so what’s the excuse of editing valuable info on the foremost story of the year and one that we have waited weeks to hear.
The Star has too many resources to take a back seat to S.Bend and Ft.Wayne reporting. Even worse, it’s taken right off the AP wire, so what’s the excuse of editing valuable info on the foremost story of the year and one that we have waited weeks to hear.
Take a look what we found on IndyFlashover this morning. Are Monroe Gray and Vernon Brown so selfish that they would put their own welfare and re-election hopes ahead of what is good for the people they are elected to serve???
One of our over taxed Butler Tarkington/Meridian Kessler residents sent us the story below. The person referenced is the State Democratic Communications Director, Jen Wagner. She frequently attacks tax activist Melyssa Donaghy as the mouthpiece of the democratic party. It appears she will succeed in alienating members of her own party with her latest remarks made in utterly poor taste.
Democrat Appears to Belittle Those Without College Degree
The State Democrat Party Communications Director seems to imply that people with no college degree are somehow inferior. On a post this morning, she chided the governor because he "sent someone who doesn't have a college degree" to represent him at the inauguration of the new IU president. Who did he send? The Lt. Gov. of the State of Indiana. Ms. Skillman is a shining example of what you can achieve with hard work and determination. It appears to me that the Democrat Party Communications Director thinks you need a college degree to be worth a darn. Perhaps it would have been better had Becky Skillman not been "all dolled up". Or perhaps the Democrat Party operative is a bit envious that she was not the one who got to meet the new IU president, who apparently "has a sexy accent."
Hopefully, her post will stay up long enough for the Democrat base to learn what their party thinks of folks who don't have a college degree.
The History of Property Taxes and Why They Should be Eliminated
Guest Column IN.gov News Room
It is no secret that property taxes have become a major issue in Indiana. Property taxes continue to drastically increase, and Hoosiers are demanding action. The only way to completely reform Indiana's broken tax system is to permanently repeal property taxes through a constitutional amendment and voter referendum.
To understand why property taxes must be eliminated, we need to look at the history of property taxes in Indiana.
First Corporate Gross Income Tax was created (eliminated in 2002)
First Individual Gross Income Tax was created (replaced with Individual Adjusted Gross Income Tax in 1963)
Two new "temporary" taxes were created in order to provide property tax relief, but the taxes remained in place for years to come and the relief was short lived.
First sales tax was created at 2%
Individual Gross Income Tax repealed and replaced with Individual Adjusted Gross Income Tax of 2%
The purpose of this was to provide property tax relief, but the relief was temporary.
1967 (The sales and income taxes were bringing in more money than initially anticipated.)
8% of the sales tax went to local governments
8% of the income tax went to local governments
The purpose of this was to provide property tax relief, but the relief was temporary.
Governor Otis R. Bowen implemented a property tax plan that was "substantial and visible"
Again, the relief was temporary.
Due to inflation, 1986 property taxes were at the same level as they were in 1973
All of Governor Bowen's property tax reductions were erased within 5 years
We cannot let this chain of property tax shifting continue. Now is the time to fully and permanently eliminate property taxes. The history of property taxes shows us that Band-Aid approaches will not work. Hoosiers will continue to be burdened with property taxes unless they are completely eliminated.
From special interest groups to various levels of government, people are saying that it cannot be done. If everyone says it can't be done, it will not happen. These groups have voiced numerous concerns about repealing property taxes.
Businesses are concerned about increases in business taxes. Realtors are concerned about increases in transaction taxes. Farmers are concerned about increases in equipment taxes. This is only the beginning of the long process to fully eliminate property taxes in Indiana. As the long process to eliminate property taxes takes its course, more and more people are going to come forward with concerns about eliminating property taxes. They may all be justifiable concerns, but I encourage Hoosiers to stay focused on the goal of ridding Indiana of this unfair and burdensome tax. The only way we will be able to achieve this goal is for the public to stay engaged.
It is obvious that by eliminating property taxes, we will have to replace the lost revenue with another form of taxation. For example, increasing the sales tax is one way to reduce Indiana's reliance on property taxes, but this can only happen when property taxes are constitutionally repealed. In the current system, only those who own property pay for local government services, such as fire departments, libraries, and schools. If these services were paid for by an increase in sales tax, everyone-even illegal aliens and drug dealers-would contribute. Although I do not support these activities, if someone uses the services paid for by property taxes, he or she should be required to contribute to the funding.
The Indiana Chamber of Commerce recently reported that Hoosiers want the government to find ways to cut spending. A big step in the repeal process involves holding elected officials accountable for spending. I have suggested creating a local government budget board for each county, similar to the State Budget Agency that makes budget recommendations for the state. The members of the budget board would consist of local elected officials who would have the authority to set a budget for everything that is currently funded by property taxes. This would allow the public to know who is directly responsible for spending in their community. In politics, the closer an elected official is to home, the easier it is to vote them out of office if they are not holding up their end of the bargain.
I have merely mentioned a few of the issues involved in the process of permanently repealing property taxes. It is important for the public to stay involved, and it is equally important for state leaders to continue to develop a plan that will result in permanent and long lasting reform. It is also important that you contact your state senators and representatives and let them know how you feel about permanently eliminating property taxes in Indiana.
Look again at the history of property taxes. Not once in the past 74 years have we truly reformed Indiana's property tax system. It is time to quit shifting the weight of property taxes from one tax to another. We need to completely and permanently eliminate property taxes once and for all.
For more information on repealing property taxes in Indiana, contact me by email at H58@iga.in.gov, telephone at (317) 232-9747, or by mail at State Rep. Woody Burton, 200 W. Washington St., Room 401-6, Indianapolis, IN 46204.
For immediate release:
Oct 05, 2007
Posted by: [r58]
Contact: Corrie Bennett
Phone: (317) 232-9661
Are our legislators too cowardly to make bold moves for Indiana? Are our legislators not listening to the people? We want property tax ELIMINATION! Looks like they are headed towarding wasting another legislative session pussy footing around. Do they not have the fortitude to do their jobs?
Senator Kenley who chairs the Commission on State Tax and Financing Policy shows us once again he doesn't have the stomach or ideas to lead us out of the property tax crisis. WSBT TV tells us today that Kenley stated,
"We haven't had hearings on the plans that the different legislators have put
together," Kenley said. "I think in an effort to kind of achieve a bipartisan
approach to this, we'll probably stay away from that.
We like the new blog Property Freedom and hope other bloggers will link and include them. Real estate professionals can definitely play an important part toward the goal of property tax elimination. They also stand a lot to gain once property tax is repealed and investors begin to flood to Indiana. Property values (and the booming commerce that follows) is arguably the most important key in the long term economic prosperity of our state.
Tell your legislator that you will vote them out if they do not push for property tax repeal.
The time is now to contact your state legislators and tell them nothing short of their support of total repeal of property tax will earn your vote.
Today it is reported in Ft. Wayne's Journal Gazette that the tax panel is passing on property tax repeal because the constitutional amendment will take six years! Isn't the future of Indiana's homeowners and citizens worth a six year effort? Senator Kenley and the others must not think much of Indiana's citizens who overwhelmingly favor complete abolishment of property tax to be replaced with a more fair form of taxation.
While the constitutional ban of property tax works its way through the state house hurdles, there is a way to provide short term relief. Legislators simply credit all property tax bills 100% and immediately tweek the income and sales tax according to economist Dr. Bill Styring's solution.
There, now that wasn't rocket science, was it?
We think Ballard won the debate with a couple points:
#1. Indianapolis needs a new course
#2. Promised openness and accountablity in local government
#3. Will work to get abandoned houses turned around in 6 months rather than 24 months
#4. Brought up $68 million city budget line item called "other" and made it clear that was unacceptable
#5. Firmly stated how much he loved our city and wants its future secure for his children to call Indianapolis home.
#5. Got choked up when he talked of his wife's naturalization ceremony which showed us that he is deeply patriotic.
Peterson loses for not stepping up in regard to Monroe Gray's ethics and ghost employment. As chief executive of Indianapolis, he should be outraged that an $83,000 year ghost employee is on the IFD payroll!
Who do you think won the debate and why?
Melyssa falsely assumed that the communications director for the state democrats would answer direct a question about democrat Bart Peterson. For pushing the question "what promises has Bart Peterson kept?", Melyssa was removed from posting privileges from Jen's blog.
Jen Wagner and Wilson T. Allen (the guy who radio journalist Abdul Hakim-Shabazz recently exposed for inciting arguments on his blog under different aliases) spend a great deal of space labeling Melyssa as "insane", a "prostitute", a "sex worker", etc.
Here's the question and comments Melyssa posed on Jen's blog:
"I want to know what promises Bart Peterson has kept?
For asking that question I was accused on this blog of suggesting some kind of armed revolt when I mentioned that we are about a bullet FREE revolution. I don't condone violence.
Jen has threatened to remove me permanently from posting here (and I really don't care).
I don't find her to be a credible person because she cannot defend the statements she makes.
When backed into a corner with a question when she doesn't like the answer, she reverts to calling me a long list of not-so-flattering names. (Long ago I learned not to let words spoken by people without honor hurt me). I came onto this blog specifically to find out what promises Bart Peterson has kept. So far no one from his camp can tell me anything except he promised to keep the Colts and did.
I want to know which is more important to Bart Peterson....keeping the Colts or keeping people from losing their homes.
It is a very relevant question at election time about the mayor's priorities.
Jen hates being shown to be a hypocrite."
Posted by: Melyssa Oct 16, 2007 at 05:37 PM
Jen Wagner's comment:
Strike three, Melyssa.
See ya 'round.
Posted by: TDW Oct 16, 2007 at 05:39 PM
Here is a challenge from Hoosiers For Fair Taxation. Can anyone from Mayor Peterson's staff or the democratic party tell the people of Indianapolis what promises Bart Peterson kept during the nearly 8 years he has held office and back it up with documentation? We want to give Peterson a fair shake to show the tax payers he worked in their best interest during his two terms.
The message below was left in the comments section of our blog. We are planning to go and want everyone who reads this to attend. We do not know who the organizers are and it doesn't matter. This is a time for all people to unite to send a message to our politicians that we have had enough and nothing short of property tax REPEAL is acceptable to the people. Wear costumes and bring plenty of signs. The activists associated with Hoosiers For Fair Taxation are willing to help in anyway. Please contact us if we can be of more assistance.
Spread the word...
On Saturday October 27th, there will be a massive protest starting at 2 p.m.Thousands of people will attend and organization is under way. We need people marching and chanting. We need to unite whether Republicans, Democrats, or Libertarians...black or white...rich or poor...homeowners or renters.
This time we must send a strong message back to our government and start the process of removing these politicians from power
Event: Tax Scamed Saturday
Date: Saturday October 27th
Time: 2 p.m.
Location: Monument Circle
Events:Public Speech Forum - south side of the monument
Activist Leaders / Public officials - north side of the monument.
Booths and events surrounding the monument. Scary costumes and grim reapers allowed. We will focus on a way to vote out the corruption in our city. Spread the word to every neighborhood in the city as this will be a party like no other!