Despite all the after-the-fact posturing and finger pointing, most of us know the truth about the Indiana General Assembly: its members simply refused to address the urgent problems Indiana faces.
Despite all the after-the-fact posturing and finger pointing, most of us know the truth about the Indiana General Assembly: its members simply refused to address the urgent problems Indiana faces.
Problem One: Indiana has long had a manifestly unfair property tax system. It was so manifestly unfair, and so widely recognized as unfair, that everyone in the legislature knew what the courts would do for years before it was ruled unconstitutional. Furthermore, it has been at least three years since the last appeal was decided. Plenty of time, in a world populated by reasonable beings, to address the problems created by a sudden shift to market-based assessment in a tax system over-reliant on property tax and inconsistent with the requirements of economic development.
Problem Two: we face a deficit. The budget (passed by the very same legislators now piously insisting that there is “fat” to be cut) was based upon economic projections that—due primarily to the recession—failed to materialize. At my house, when income goes down, we have to do without some things we want—maybe we eat out less, or buy fewer clothes. The State is no different. Its services cost us money. When people talk about “fat,” they are usually talking about a service someone else considers vital. That’s why the self-serving speeches by those who failed to do their jobs never identify the precise “fat” they claim is there for the cutting.
As dispiriting as this sorry performance has been, it points to a problem that is far graver even than Indiana’s precarious economics: We the people have lost control of the electoral process. To be blunt, we don’t elect these characters anymore. They don’t have to answer to us for their performance or lack thereof.
Indiana elects 150 people to the General Assembly. Of that number, perhaps twelve are elected from truly competitive districts.
While political parties have always engaged in gerrymandering, the advent of computers has brought refinement to the process. It doesn’t matter which party is in control; the result is the same. The majority party crams as many opposition voters as possible into as few districts as possible, and draws a greater number of “safe” districts for itself. The goal—and result—is an electoral map that is utterly predictable, and that effectively disenfranchises most of us.
Our legislators may not be diligent when it comes to our taxes and budget, but they give self-perpetuation high priority. Of the 150 members of the 2000 legislature, 73 ran unopposed. That means that almost half of our representatives and senators did not even have to conduct one of those pesky campaigns, or offer even a token defense of their performance.
It’s a system that allows both parties to privilege political advantage over statesmanship, and both have done so. This year, Republicans decided that fixing our problems would hurt their chances of taking back the Governor’s office. It was a risk-proof gamble. We the people no longer have the power to throw the bums out.