Author Archives: Sheila

Framing the Framework

Eliot Spitzer may be defective in sexual morality (not to mention taste), but he made a very important point in a recent speech reported by ACS–the American Constitution Society.

As the ACS blog put it:

Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, during a keynote speech at an ACS event examining corporations’ influence on the federal courts, said that progressives have been far too passive in the debate over the meaning and reach of the U.S. Constitution. Spitzer called the Constitution a “wildly progressive document,” and urged progressives to stop being silent about the richness and vitality of the nation’s governing document.

“I think we are about to lose the Constitution,” Spitzer said at the Feb. 8 “Federal Courts, Inc.?,” event. “I don’t mean in some dramatic way, like it’s going to be ripped away from us. But I do mean, just as we lost the conversation about what government should do, just as we lost the ability to speak with pride and vigor and define what a government can do for our communities, because we failed to make a counter argument, we are losing the narrative about the Constitution, because we are letting the other side claim it.”

Spitzer continued:

The Constitution is a wildly progressive document. It is an amazing thing. We all appreciate that. But our failure to stand up and defend it permits them to claim it. This charade of reading an edited version of the Constitution on the floor of the Congress, as though some how the parts of it we don’t like didn’t exist, as though somehow therefore they can have both an originalist interpretation, but ignore the originalist pieces they don’t like; I mean the internal incoherence of what they do is so palpable. And yet we don’t stand up and push back and say ‘Shame on you, stop, read it, see that there were warts in this document, see that it has grown, see how wonderful it is, and understand it because it has a dynamic and has grown to show us where society can go. We’re quiet. I would have loved to see the president push back on that – in the State of the Union. I would have love to see him say ‘I want to read the Constitution to you, and explain to you what it means, and how it grows.’

Kicking the Dog–Extended Version

Watching the Indiana legislature reminds me more than anything of those days—and we’ve all had them—when nothing has gone right at the office, we’ve made fools of ourselves in a meeting, and we’re just in a foul mood. So we go home and yell at our spouse, snap at our children and kick the dog.

Our lawmakers are faced with massive problems, not all of which they created themselves. We have horrendous budgetary and fiscal problems, fights over education policy are reaching the boiling point, the Chief Justice and the Governor have stressed the need to rethink incarceration policies, and notwithstanding the constant hype from state officials, Indiana’s job creation has been anemic (to put it mildly).

So our legislators are kicking the dog—in this case, gays and immigrants.

Not that Indiana’s legislature has ever distinguished itself in the “serious and responsible” category. (When the late Harrison Ullmann edited NUVO, he regularly referred to the General Assembly as The World’s Worst Legislature.)  But this focus on gays and immigrants (more accurately, brown immigrants) is not only wrongheaded, it’s counterproductive. As the CEO of Cummins, Inc. wrote in this morning’s Indianapolis Star, Cummins has been a bright spot for employment in Indiana, creating jobs at a time when many employers have been cutting back. But much of their growth has depended upon international trade, and immigrant-bashing will hinder further job creation.

“We plan to add even more people given our ambitious plans for growth. These new jobs could be located in many places in the world; for us to add them in Indiana we must have an environment that is welcoming to all people and where diversity is valued and allowed to flourish.”

Cummins was one of the large Indiana employers who testified the last time the legislature tried to amend the Indiana constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. All of them made the same point: legislation bashing “the other” not only accomplishes nothing (immigration policy is a federal responsibility, and there is no same-sex marriage in Indiana), it inhibits job creation and economic development.

As I have previously noted, Indiana’s economic development policy has focused on recruiting and growing high-tech and biotech employers. Those tend to be companies that are gay-friendly, companies that also employ significant numbers of gays. Passing an anti-gay constitutional amendment sends, shall we say, a somewhat “mixed” message.

Leaders of Indiana’s religious and business communities have spoken out against these efforts to marginalize and disenfranchise. Editorial writers and lawyers have cautioned against the unanticipated consequences of the bills currently pending in the Indiana General Assembly. Administrators at institutions of higher education, including my own, have warned that these bills will make it difficult for our international students, and may jeopardize hard-won domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian employees.

All of these groups have warned that the risks of passing these measures are real, while the “benefits” are non-existent.  The immigration bill violates federal law, and if passed, will be struck down, and as many of us have pointed out, the only way Indiana will ever get same-sex marriage is if the United States Supreme Court rules that the U.S. Constitution requires it—and if that happens, a state constitutional provision won’t be enforceable anyway.

I hope some of our legislators are listening, but I doubt it. Kicking the dog doesn’t solve any of our problems, but it’s easier than dealing with fiscal and policy realities. And it evidently makes them feel better.

Comments

Kicking the Dog

Watching the Indiana legislature reminds me more than anything of those days—and we’ve all had them—when nothing has gone right at the office, we’ve made fools of ourselves in a meeting, and we’re just in a foul mood. So we go home and yell at our spouse, snap at our children and kick the dog.

Our lawmakers are faced with massive problems, not all of which they created themselves. We have horrendous budgetary and fiscal problems, fights over education policy are reaching the boiling point, the Chief Justice and the Governor have stressed the need to rethink incarceration policies, and notwithstanding the constant hype from state officials, Indiana’s job creation has been anemic (to put it mildly).

So our legislators are kicking the dog—in this case, gays and immigrants.

Not that Indiana’s legislature has ever distinguished itself in the “serious and responsible” category. (When the late Harrison Ullmann edited NUVO, he regularly referred to the General Assembly as The World’s Worst Legislature.)  But this focus on gays and immigrants (more accurately, brown immigrants) is not only wrongheaded, it’s counterproductive. As the CEO of Cummins, Inc. wrote in this morning’s Indianapolis Star, Cummins has been a bright spot for employment in Indiana, creating jobs at a time when many employers have been cutting back. But much of their growth has depended upon international trade, and immigrant-bashing will hinder further job creation.

“We plan to add even more people given our ambitious plans for growth. These new jobs could be located in many places in the world; for us to add them in Indiana we must have an environment that is welcoming to all people and where diversity is valued and allowed to flourish.”

I hope some of our legislators are listening, but I doubt it. Kicking the dog doesn’t solve any of our problems, but it evidently makes them feel better.

Comments

Nuts and Bolts

As the Republican party has continued to move to the right, long-time GOP operatives responsible for the nuts and bolts of elections and messaging are become more concerned. A lot of the grumbling has been behind the scenes, but some party officials are “coming out” with their criticisms. Case in point:

“Colorado Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams dropped his reelection bid on Monday, and fired some parting shots at the Tea Party and the hard-line conservatives he thinks are hurting the party’s electoral success.

“I have tired of those who are obsessed with seeing conspiracies around every corner and who have terribly misguided notions of what the role of the state party is while saying ‘uniting conservatives’ is all that is needed to win competitive races across the state,” Wadhams wrote in a memo to the Colorado Republican State Central Committee obtained by The Denver Post.”

When the man who had been dubbed “Karl Rove’s successor” tells the Denver Post that he  has “loved being chairman” but is “tired of the nuts,” it’s telling.

It is hard not to sympathize with Wadhams. It sometimes does seem that the inmates are running the asylum.  A friend shared a recent “Petition” sent from one Leo Toby, of Orleans, Indiana to Speaker of the House John Boehner and the Republican leadership; it began with a variety of “whereas” clauses, followed by a demand that they vote not to raise the debt ceiling, and it concluded with the following paragraph:

“Republicans and Democrats,

Let there be no doubt that if the mandates of the election of 2010 are not realized by the Republican Congress, we will vote you out of office in 2012. We are not joking when we tell you that we have had enough. Got it????

We expect nothing from the Marxist Democrats that (Including John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, and some other Republicans in name only) will save the republic because they have demonstrated over and over again their intention of destroying the United States . They intend to reduce us to a third world country. Making the entire world miserable is not the answer and we will fight to the bitter end no matter what it takes.”

In what alternate universe is Lindsay Graham a Marxist?

Nuts indeed.   No wonder Republicans are bolting.

Comments

A Light Begins To Dawn…

It has been nearly four years since the Kernan-Shepard Commission, a bipartisan group of Indiana leaders, studied the structure of Indiana government and issued a report.  A genuinely bipartisan effort, the commission was led by former Governor Joe Kernan and Chief Justice Randall Shepard, who accepted the task at the request of Governor Mitch Daniels.

The Commission’s recommendations were sensible, but hardly novel or surprising.  As I noted at the time, “It is telling that the Commission’s recommendations closely mirrored those made by Gov. Paul McNutt—in 1936.  Never let it be said that Hoosiers rush into anything.”

Decisions about structuring Indiana government made in 1816 and 1851 are still in effect, and as a result, Indiana citizens pay for, and are governed by, more than 10,300 local officials. The state “boasts” 3,086 separate governing bodies, hundreds of which have taxing authority. When we compare Indiana to 11 other states our size, we have more levels of government than all but two of them.

In Indiana, we don’t put tax revenues to work enhancing our quality of life. Instead, we use them to pay for 1008 Township Trustees and other officeholders we no longer need. And despite the credentials of those who served on the Kernan-Shepard Commission, despite polls that show large majorities of Indiana citizens supporting elimination of Township Trustees, our legislature has stubbornly refused to act—and many of us have scratched our heads, wondering why.

An article in this morning’s Star may offer a clue.

A previous story had reported that the Township Trustee in Hamilton County had paid 10,000 (from tax monies!) for seats at the gala opening of Carmel’s new Palladium Opera House. This morning’s story noted that the Trustee’s lawyer had advised him to repay the money. And who was that lawyer? None other than Brian Bosma—Speaker of the Indiana House.

That reminded me of something I was told by a Kernan-Shepard commissioner a couple of years ago.  He noted that several of the Trustees paid large sums of money with some regularity to well-connected lawyers, for “legal services.” Given the relatively simple legal issues Trustees deal with, he concluded that what they were purchasing was clout—political insurance, you might say—rather than legal counsel.

Ya’ think?