>> THE GOVERNOR WON'T NEGOTIATE
IN PUBLIC.
WILL THAT HURT HIS TAX REFORM
PLAN?
>> A VOTE FOR THE MASS TRANSIT
BILL, NEW DRONE REGULATIONS
ADVANCE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
AND SCOTT PELATH SUGGESTS
CALLING OFF THE REST OF THE
SESSION.
>> THAT, PLUS A WAY TO IMPROVE
GIRL SCOUT COOKIES AND MORE ON
"INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW" FOR THE
>> THIS WEEK.
>> IT'S HALFTIME N THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY AND GOVERNOR MIKE PENCE
SAYS HE WON'T NEGOTIATE HIS PLAN
FOR CORPORATE TAX REFORM IN
PUBLIC.
THE GOVERNOR MET WITH REPORTERS
IN HIS STATEHOUSE OFFICE TO
EXPRESS CONFIDENCE THAT
LAWMAKERS WILL APPROVE AT LEAST
PART OF HIS PLAN TO ELIMINATE A
TAX ON BUSINESS EQUIPMENT.
THE MONEY FROM THAT
BILLION-DOLLAR TAX GOES TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND NO REPLACEMENT
REVENUE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED.
MAYORS, INCLUDING GREG BALLARD,
ARE CONCERNED, BUT PENCEESAYS
THEY WON'T BE "UNDULY HARMED."
>> I KNOW YOU ALL WANT ME TO
TALK ABOUT DETAIL.
I KNOW THAT.
OK.
BUT WE'RE INVOLVED IN
DISCUSSION, IN NEGOTIATIONS.
THERE WILL BE COMPROMISE AND WE
ARE LISTENING NOT JUST TO
MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
BUT WE ARE LISTENING TO OUR
LOCAL MAYORS."
>> WHERE WILL THE REPLACEMENT
MONEY COME FROM?
IT'S THE FIRST QUESTION FOR OUR
"INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW" PANEL.
DEMOCRAT DAN PARKER.
REPUBLICAN MIKE MCDANIEL.
JON SCHWANTES, THE HOST OF
"INDIANA LAWMAKERS" AND
JOHN KETZENBERGER, PRESIDENT OF
THE INDIANA FISCAL POLICY
INSTITUTE.
>> DAN PARKER, THE GOVERNOR SAYS
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WON'T BE
"UNDULY HARMED."
HOW MUCH HARM DO YOU THINK THAT
POSITION ALLOWS?
>> HOPELEY NOT TOO MUCH.
I MEAN, THE BIGGEST PROBLEM HERE
IS HE'S GOVERNING BY TALKING
POINTS INSTEAD OF DETAILS.
YOU JUST HAD THE CLIP THERE.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS -- THIS IS NOT
A GOOD WAY TO DO THIS.
SOME PEOPLE ON THIS PANEL HAVE
BEEN AROUND WHEN WE'VE DONE TAX
RESTRUCTURING BEFORE.
IT'S USUALLY BIPARTISAN.
THERE'S USUALLY A LOT OF DETAILS
ON THE TABLE FROM THE BEGINNING.
THERE'S BUYIN.
AND THE GOVERNOR GOESSOUT ON THE
ROAD SELLING IT.
AND HE'S NOT DOING ANY OF THIS.
I MEAN, HE CAN'T EVEN GET
AGREEMENT FROM HIS OWN PARTY LET
ALONE BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS.
AND THE PROBBEM IS, IS THAT IT
JUST DOESN'T ADD UP AND I THINK
THE REPORT FROM JON'S
ORGANIZATION HAS MADE IT EVEN
WORSE BECAUSE NOW THERE'S NO
ECONOMIC SENSE IN DOING THIS SO,
YOU KNOW, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE
SITTING HERE GOONG, YOU KNOW,
WHY DO WE HAVE TO HOLD THE BAG
FOR SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE?
>> HE SAYS HE DOESN'T WANT TO
PROVIDE DETAILS, BUT HOW DO YOU
DO ONE-HALF OF THIS?
YOU REDUCE TAXES ON BUSINESS
AND -- AND THEN DON'T DO THE
OTHER HALF AND EXPLAIN WHERE THE
REPLACEMENT MONEY'S GOING TO
COME FROM BECAUSE HE KEEPS
SAYING THIS IS NOT A TAX CUT,
IT'S TAX REFORM.
>> FIRST OF ALL, THE IDEA OF
ELIMINATION COMPLETELY WOULD BE
A BILLION DOLLARS-PLUS.
>> RIGHT.
>> THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
>> NOT IMMEDIATTLY.
>> IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN,
IT'SSNOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIS
SESSION.
>> WHAT WOULD HE PROPOSE?
>> WHAT HE SAID WAS THERE ARE
BILLS MOVING IN BOTH THE HOUSE
WOULD REDUCE -- TAKE 70% OF
THOSEEWHO PAY THE TAX OFF THE
TABLE AND DO THAT FOR A LOT LESS
THAN THE BILLION DOLLARS.
ACTUALLY --
>> HE PROPOSED GETTING RID OF
THE WHOLE THING.
>> HE'S SAYING DIFFERENT THINGS.
WANTED TO START THE PROCESS.
>> THAT'S WHAT HE SAID WHEN HE
BROUGHT IT UP AT THE LEGISLATIVE
CONFERENCE WHEN HE ANNOUNCED
THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME.
THE BILL IN THE SENATE THAT'S
MOVING, THERE'S A BILL IN THE
HOUSE THAT'S MOVING THAT
WOULD --
>> HEARING ON MONDAY.
>> AND THERE'S A HEARING ON
MONDAY ON THAT.
SO HE'S GOT TWO PIECES OF THIS
BOTH MOVING AT THE SAME TIME.
I DO THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE
SOME FORM OF BUSINESS PEESONAL
PROPERTY TAX RELIEF COME OUT OF
THIS SESSION.
>> WITH REPLACEMENT REVENUE?
>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT HOW
THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT, OR IF
THEE DO THE PART THAT'S IN THE
SENATE BILL 1 WHICH WOULD
ELIMINATE IS FOR 71% OF THE
BUSINESSES, SMALL BUSINESSES
WITH $25,000 OR LESS EQUIPMENT,
YOU COULD DO IT AND THAT'S NOT
VERY EXPENSIVE.
TO SOME LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, FOR
INSTANCE, THAT'S AS MUCH AS
MAYBE $16,000.
>> YEAH.
>> NOW, IF YOU START TALKING
ABOUT A BILLION DOLLARS, IT IS A
MAJOR HIT TO GOVERNMENT, THAT'S
WHY THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
BUT HE'S GOING TO GET SOME OF
THIS, HE'S GOING TO GET A PIECE
OF THIS AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE
TRYING TO NEGOTIATE RIGHT NOW.
THEY'RE TRYING TO GET WITH BOTH
THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE AND
COME UP WITH SOME HYBRID THAT
MAKES SENSE JUST AS THEY DID
LAST YEAR.
THEY GOT A PIECE OF WHAT THEY
WANTED WITH THE INCOME TAX LAST
YEAR.
>> JON, DO YOU THINK, IS WHAT --
WHAT WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT --
THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE CUTS
AND THERE ARE GOING TO BE
REDUCTIONS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT
WITH NO REPLACEMENT BUT IT WON'T
BE A BIG REDUCTION?
>> I THINK A LOT OF MAYORS ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THIS FITS
INTO A BROADER PATTERN, ONE THAT
INTO THE PAST THAN THE START OF
THE PENCE ADMINISTRATION.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT BACK TO 2008,
WITH THE PROPERTY TAX CAPS THAT
WERE ENSHRINED TWO YEARS LATER
IN THE INDIANA CONSTITUTION
WHICH LIMITS, TO A LARGE EXTENT,
THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE, PROPERTY
TAX REVENUE, THAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS CAN HAVE.
THEY'RE ALREADY REELING FROM
THAT.
NOW THIS.
YOU LOOK AT -- I THINK
THEY'RE -- THE FRUSTRATION THAT
MAYORS FEEL GENERALLY IS CUT AT
THE STATE LEVEL, OR AT LEAST
WASH THEIR HANDS OF THE NOTION
OF BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR A TAX,
PUSH IT DOWN THE PIPELINE TO
LOCALS, AND I GUESS IF YOU'RE IN
STATE GOVERNMENT, THAT THERE'S
SOME ATTRACTIVENESS TO THAT --
>> THAT'S WHY THE -- SAY THEY'VE
NEVER SEEN MAYORS UNITED IN --
>> REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS
ALIKE.
ALSO A FEW OF THE SUGGESTIONS
FOR REPLACEMENT FUNDS HAVE THEIR
OWN AGGAGE.
50% CUT, FOR INSTANCE, IN THE
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPPENT TAX
CREDIT WHICH WE SPEND A LOT OF
TIME TALKING ABOUT HOW INDIANA
WANTS TO POSITION ITSELF TO
OTHER COMPANIES, JOB PROVIDERS
OUTSIDE THE STATE.
CUTTING YOUR RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT TAX MAY NOT BE THE
RIGHT MESSAGE.
>> LET'S GET TO JOHN BECAUSE
YOUR ORGANIZATION, THE INDIANA
FISCAL POLICY INSTITUTE, ISSUED
A REPORT THIS WEEK, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, IT SAID THAT THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS OF
ELIMINATING THE BUSINESS
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX ARE NOT
NECESSARILY GREAT.
>> YEAH, I THINK WHAT YOU LOOK
AT, AND I -- I'M -- NOT TO TAKE
EXCEPTION TO DAN BUT I THINK HE
MIGHT HAVE OVERPLAYED IT JUST A
BIT.
>> I'M SUPPOSED TO.
>> AND YOU DID IT WELL.
WE LOOKED AT THE RESEARCH THAT
INDICATES THAT ON A REGIONAL
BASIS, IF YOU'RE GOING FROM ONE
REGION TO ANOTHER, THERE IS NOT
MUCH EFFECT FROM THE BUSINESS
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX.
IT'S MUCH CLOSER TO HOME THAT
THAT EFFECT IS GREATER.
NOW~--
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
COMPANIES MOVING FROM ONE --
>> RIGHT.
>> IF YOU WANT TO MOVE FROM
MINNESOTA OR OHIO TO INDIANA IT
DOESN'T MAKE A HIJACK
DIFFERENCE.
>> I WOULDN'T GO THAT FAR, MIKE.
>> THE RESEARCH DOESN'T SUGGESTS
THAT THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE
AT ALL.
RESEARCH SUGGESTS WHEN YOU COME
FROM ONE STATE OR RUN REGION TO
ANOTHERRING IT PLAY A BIGGER
ROLE.
IT'S A BIGGER ROLE WHEN YOU'RE
CLOSE WITHIN THAT REGION.
OHIO TO INDIANA OR FROM COUNTY
TO COUNTY.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO BE
CAREFUL WITH THIS CONOMIC
IMPACT BBCAUSE IT'S NOT
CONCLUSIVE.
AND IT'S PROBABLY NOT AS GREAT
AS IT'S BEEN EXPRESSED SO FAR.
>> AND IT SAID IT'S A TALL
ORDER.
>> WELL, THIS IS VERY
COMPLICATED AS WE CAN SEE FROM
THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD SO FAR
AND THE CAPS HAVE REALLY MADE IT
DIFFICULT BECAUSE --
>> THE PROPERTY TAX CAPS.
>> RIGHT.
THIS IS THE LAST OF FIVE
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES THAT
INDIANA USED TO HAVE.
40 YEARS AGO WE STARTED
ELIMINATING THESE, THE LAST ONE
WE ELIMINATED WAS THE INVENTORY
TAX.
WE DIDN'T HAVE CAMS AT THAT TIME
ON PROPERTY TAX SO IT WAS EASIER
TO FIND REPLACEMENT REVENUE.
NOW YOU HAVE THE TAX, NOW IT'S
HARDER TO FIND AND IT'S A MUCH
MORE COMPLICATED DISCUSSION THIS
TIME AROUND.
>> LET'S MOVE ON.
THE MASS TRANSIT BILL HAS PASSED
THE STATE SENATE FOR THE FIRST
TIME.
THE VOTE WAS 28-20 FOR THE BILL
THAT CALLS FOR REFERENDUMS IN
SIX COUNTIES ON HIGHER TAXES TO
FUND A BETTER BUS SYSTEM.
THE BILL PROHIBITS THE CREATION
OF LIGHT RAIL LINES.
IT COULD LEAD TO HIGHER
CORPORATE TAXES AND HIGHER LOCAL
INCOME TAXES WITH BUS RIDERS
PICKING UP 5% OF THE COST OF
IMPROVEMENTS.
SENATOR PAT MILLER.
>> THIS IS THE CAPITAL CITY AND
OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IS
INADEQUATE.
IT'S INADEQUATE FOR RESIDENTS OF
MARION COUNTY, IT'S INADEQUATE
FOR SURROUNDING COUNTIES AND
IT'S CERTAINLY INADEQUATE FOR
THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO COME TO
VISIT THIS CITY.
>> THIS IS AN ECONOMIC JUSTICE
ISSUE.
IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY ISSUE FOR
FAMILIES.
IF THEY CAN'T GET TO WORK ON
TIME, AND I CAN TELL YOU AS
RIDER, IT CAN BE REALLY
DIFFIIULT, IF YOU MISS YOUR OOE
BUS, YOU CAN BE LATE TO WORK.
>> BUS RIDER KEN MITCHELL THERE,
MIC McDANIEL, BRIAN BOSMA SAID
HE DOESN'T LIKE THE
FUNDING METHODS.
>> HE'S NOT "THE LONE RANGER" ON
THAT ONE, OTHER PEOPLE HAVE
PROBLEMS WITH THE FUNDING.
SENATOR MILLER IS ABSOLUTELY
RIGHT, CENTRAL INDIANA IS GOING
TO HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF
MASS TRANSIT PLAN EVENTUALLY AND
THIS IS A GOOD FIRST START, IF
WE CAN GET ANYTHING OUT OF THE
SENATE MOVING TOWARDS THE HOUSE,
THAT'S A GOOD FIRST START ON
THIS --
>> THE BILL DID PASSSTHE HOUSE
LAST YEAR AND DIED IN THE
SENATE.
>> DIED IN THE OTHER DIRECTION.
SO THERE'S HOPE WE'RE GOING TO
GET SOMETHING DONE WITH WITH
THIS THIS TIME AROUND BUT THE
FUNDING MECHANISM IS
PROBLEMATIC, I LOOK FOR IT TO
TWEAK IN THE HOUSE AND I LOOK
FOR SOMETHING TO PASS THAT WOULD
GIVE THESE COUNTRIES THE
REFERENDUM TO MOVE FORWARD ON
MASS TRANSIT.
>> YEAH, PAT KELLY AT THE
INDIANA MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION AMONG THOSE SAYIIG
THE CORPORATE TAX PORTION OF
THIS THING ISSUNFAIR.
>> WELL, THE BIGGEST PROBLEM
WITH THIS AND MIKE JUST TOUCHED
ON IT IS THIS GOT STALLED LAST
YEAR, I'M GLAD SENATOR MILLER IS
A CONVERT, I'M GLAD WE DID THE
STUDY TO FIND OUT HOW IMPORTANT
THIS WAS TO FIND OUT WE NEEDED
TO DO THAT THIS YEAR.
I THINK IT'S ALL MICROMANAGEMENT
OF LOCAL ISSUES AT THE STATE
LEVEL.
IF ANYTHING, THESE LAST TWO
ISSUES SHOULD TELL US THAT THE
STATE LEGISLATURE SHOULD GET OUT
OF THE WAY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND LET LOCAL GOVERNMENT RULE AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL AND GET OUT OF
THE WAY.
I MEAN, THE FACT THAT THEY'RE
DICTATING NO LIGHT RAIL HERE,
GOT TO DO THIS, YOU GOT TO DO
THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT, PUT IT TO
THE PEOPLE FIRST, LET'S SEE IF
THEY WANT IT AND THEN WE CAN
FIGURE IT OUT.
BUT I THINK INDIANAPOLIS AND THE
SURROUNDING REGION CAN FIGURE
THAT OUT ON ITS OWN AND IT
DOESN'T NEED THE LEGISLATURE
TELLING IT WHAT TO DO.
>> YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE STATE
LEGISLATION TO -- DAN, YOU'VE
GOT TO HAVE STATE LEGISLATION TO
ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST
PLACE.
>> YOU NEED TO HHVE STATE
LEGISLATIOO BECAUSE IT'S CALLING
FOR A TAX INCREASE.
>> RIGHT.
>> HOW IRONIC IS IT HERE ON THE
ONE HAND YOU'VE GOT THE GOVERNOR
TALKING ABOUT TAX CUTS AND HERE
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TAX
INCREASES.
>> WELL, I THINK THE DIFFERENCE
IS, IS THAT IN THIS CASE YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT A TAX INCREASE FOR
A VERY SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND THE
IDEA IS THAT THE PUBLIC WILL
WANT THIS AND ENDORSE IT, WE'LL
HAVE TO SEE BECAUSE A REFERENDUM
WILL BE INVOLVED.
I NEED IT GOES TO THE POINT THAT
DAN WAS MAKING AND THAT IS WHERE
DOES IT END WHERE YOU GET THE
ENABLING LEGISLATION FROM THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE LOCALS ARE
ALLOWED TO MANAGE THAT, WHEN
THHRE ARE STIPULATIONS PLACED IN
THE LEGISLATION BY THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY, IT NOT ONLY MAKES IT
DIFFICULT FOR THE LOCALS TO
MANAGE IT, IT MAKES IT ALMOST
IMPOSSIBLE T TO GET THE
LEGISLATION PASSED.
LAST TWO SESSIONS WITH MASS
TRANSIT MANY OTHER ISSUES, THE
QUESTION WITH HOME RULE.
>> TEA PARTY SPEAKING OUT
AGAINST THIS, THEY SAY THEY
DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY TAX
INCREASES FOR TRANSIT PURPOSES.
DOES THAT HAVE A BEARING ON WHAT
GOES ON INSIDE THE STATEHOUSE?
>> IT HAS A BEARING, YES.
BUT IS IT A DETERMINANT?
PROBABLY NOT.
THIS IS AN ISSUE, WE TALK ABOUT
IT BEING TWO SESSION -- NOW TWO
SESSIONS THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE.
ACTUALLY, YOU THINK ABOUT HOW
THIS HAS BEEN STUDIED AND
DEVISED AND PLANNED YOU COULD
MAYBE GO BACK A DECADE AT LEAST.
>> FOR TRANSIT, YEAH.
>> AND THE PLAN HAS MORPHED,
IT'S BEEN REDUCED IN ITS SCOPE,
IT'S BEEN ALTERED, THE WHOLE
NOTION OF HOME GOVERNANCE AND
LETTING PEOPLE PAY FOR THEIR OWN
TRANSPORTATION THANKS SORT OF A
COMPROMISE AT SOME POINT IN THIS
CONTINUUM.
SOMETTING'S GOT TO GIVE.
I MEAN, AS LONG AS GOVERNMENN IS
EXPECTED TO PROVIDE CERTAIN
SERVICES, THE MONEY'S GOT TO
COME FROM WHERE AND BILL GATES
PROBABLY ISN'T INCLINED TO --
>> THE MOMENT IT'S AN ANTILABOR
PROVISIONS IN THIS THAT
DEMOCRATS ARE OPPOSED TO SO
DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR IT TO KEEP
IT ALIVE.
>> THAT'S A PROBLEM, TOO, MIKE
MENTIONED SOME PROBLEMS, YOU
MENTIONED THE TEA PARTY.
I WOULD SAY THE FRIDAY NOON
DEADLINE FOR FILING AND NOT A
LOT OF PRIMARIES FREEZE A LOT OF
PEOPLE TO FREE UP THAT THEY
DON'T HAVE TO VOTE FOR THE TEA
PARTY.
>> YOU THINK LEGISLATION IS
GOING TO MOVE FOR QUICKLY
BECAUSE -- AT NOON TODAY WAS THE
FILING DEADLINE AND THERE DON'T
APPEAR TO BE ANY MEANINGFUL
PRIMARIES ON EITHER SIDE.
>> DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT.
MIKE CAN SPEAK TO HIS SIDE A
LITTLE BIT MORE.
>> I CONCUR.
[LAUGHTER]
>> MORE SMOOTHLY?
>> NO, I CONCUR THAT THERE
REALLY AREN'T TOO MANY
MEANINGFUL PRIMARIES
>> TIME NOW FOR VIEWER FEEDBACK.
EACH WEEK WE POSE AN
UNSCIENTIFIC, ONLLNEEPOLL
QUESTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR
ICEMILLER E-MAIL AND TEXT
ALERTS.
THIS WEEK'S QUESTION IS:
ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY HIGHER
-TAXES FOR A BETTER BUS SYSTEM?
YOUR CHOICES ARE --
A. YES.
B. NO.
LAST WEEK'S QUESTION WAS:
SHOULD CIVIL UNIONS BE LEGAL?
92% SAID YES, 8% SAID NO.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE PART
IN THE POLL, GO TO WFYI.ORG/IWIR
AND LOOK FOR THE POLL.
>> STATE LAWMAKERS TOOK ACTION
THIS WEEK TO LIMIT THE ABILITY
OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO
DO VIDEO SURVEILLANCE USING A
DRONE.
THE ONE-SIDED VOTE IN THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES WAS 85-11 FOR
A BILL THAT WOULD REQUIRE A
SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE USE OF A
DRONE-MOUNTED CAMERA OVER
PRIVATE PROPERTY.
THERE WAS SOME CONTROVERSY,
HOWEVER.
HERE'S REPRESENTATIVE MATT
>> THE STATE SHOULD NOT BE
ATTEMPTING TO GET INTO YOUR
PRIVATE BUSINESS AND SEE THINGS
YOU'RE DOING, KIND OF RESPECT
YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY, UNLESS
THEY HAVE SOME CAUSE TO BELIEVE
THAT YOU'RE ENGAGING CRIMINAL
ACTIVITY.
>> I AM NOT INTERESTED IN, IN
ADVANCE, LIMITING THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT.
I'M SORRY, I THINK THAT'S
SOMETHING WE SHOULD NOT ENGAGE
IN.
>> STATE REPRESENTATIVE ED
DELANEY THERE.
JOHN KETZENBERGER, ARE YOU
WORRIED ABOUT THE COPS
VIDEOTAPING IN YOUR BACKYARD?
[LAUGHTER]
>> LET ME CALL MY WIFE AND HAVE
HER COVER UP ALL THE BUSHES.
[LAUGHTER]
>> NO, ACTUALLY, I'M NOT.
BECAUSE I -- THERE ARE A LOT OF
THINGS THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN
BEFORE WE GET TO THIS POINT.
I SEE WHAT THE LEGISLATURE'S
TRYING TO DO, I UNDERSTAND WHAT
THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY BUT I
THINK REPRESENTATIVE PIERCE
RAISES A GOOD CIVIL LIBERTIES
QUESTION, BUT I THINK A LOT OF
THAT'S GOING TO BE ANSWERED BY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INSTEAD
OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT.
AND I THINK REPRESENTATIVE
DELANEY TALKING ABOUT THE
EFFECTIVE --ING TRYING NOT TO
SHUT DOWN LAW ENFORCEMENT BEFORE
YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE WORKING
AGAIN, AGAIN, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT'S GOING TO DICK
TAUGHT A LOT OF THESE THINGS, I
THINK.
>> THIS BILL DEALS WITH OTHER
FORRS OF WHAT THEY CALL DIGITAL
SURVEILLANCE, GPS TRACKERS, CELL
PHONE TRACKERS.
IT'S TOUGH TO KEEP UP WITH
TECHNOLOGY AND -- AND MATCH IT
TO THE LAW.
>> NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT, JIM.
THESE ARE ISSUES THAT NEVER MIND
THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF INDIANA,
THESE ARE ISSUES THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN UNTHINKABLE WHEN WE FIRST
SHOWED UP AT THE STATEHOUSE A
COUPLE DECADES AGO.
AND YOU'RE RIGHT, THIS IS YET
ANOTHER INSTANCE WHERE THE LAW
IS STRUGGLING MIGHTILY TO KEEP
UP.
BUT EVEN IF YOU PROHIBIT DRONES,
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT FROM GETTING
THESE IMAGES, I PRESUME THERE'S
NOTHHNG THAT WOULD PREVENT, SAY,
A POLICE HELICOPTER FROM GETTING
THE EXACT SAME IMAGES, THE ONLY
DIFFERENCE BEING IT'S A LITTLE
BIGGER AND THERE'S SOMEBODY
FLYING IT AND IF YOU REALLY WANT
TO CARRY THIS FURTHER, I'M NO
EXPERT ON SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY
BUT, YOU KNOW, IF -- I THINK YOU
CAN GET A PHOTOGRAPH NOW FROM
SPACE WHICH WOULD SHOW SOMEBODY
HAS A HANGNAIL.
SO THERE'S REALLY -- I MEAN,
WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?
DO YOU PUT A BUBBLE OVER -- I
DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING INTO
JOHN'S BACKYARD, FOR EXAMPLE --
>> I THINK YOU'RE SUGGESTING
THAT MAYBE LAWMAKERS SHOULD
WORRY ABOUT OTHER THINGS.
>> IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN
JUST THE DRONE ISSUE.
>> THE VOTE WAS 85-11, OK?
YOU PICK TWO PEOPLE ON THE VIDEO
THAT WERE AGAINST IT.
>> NO, NO.
HE'S FOR IT.
HE'S FOR IT.
>> IT BROUGHT ERIC COOK AND MATT
PIERCE TOGETHER.
>> TOGETHER.
>> OK?
OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM.
DO WE AGREE?
>> 85-11 ON THIS VOTE.
AND WHAT THEY'RE WORRIEE ABOUT
HERE IS THE FUTURE OF WHETHER OR
NOT YOU OUGHT TO HAVE A SEARCH
WARRANT TO COME TO YOUR
PROPERTY.
AND THIS IS ANOTHER FORM, LIKE
YOU SAID, THAT MODERN TECHNOLOGY
THAT'S INVOLVED HERE IS
SOMETHING THAT'S NEW TO
EVERYBODY.
WE'VE SEEN WHAT THESE DRONES CAN
DO IN BATTLE SITUATIONS OVERSEAS
AND PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A SITUATION
WHERE IT CAN BE USED ILLEGALLY
TO SEARCH YOUR PROPERTY.
AND THAT'S A SERIOUS
CONVERSATION TO HAVE.
IT'S NOTHING TRIVIAL ABOUT THAT.
>> THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS
ALREADY HAVE THEM.
GREENFIELD USES ONE FOR ACCIDENT
INVESTIGATION.
>> I TALKED TO MATT PIERCE ABOUT
THIS, I MEEN, THE AUTHORS OF THE
BILL DID THIS IN CONSULTATION
WITH THE STATE POLICE AND OTHER
POLICE AGENCIES, AND IT DEALS --
>> A LOT MORE -- AND A LOT MORE
THAN JUST DRONES.
AND IT'S A POLICY THAT NEEDS TO
BE PUT IN PLACE.
AAD THERR'S JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT.
SO I'M, YOU KNOW, PUT ONE DOWN
FOR WHERE MIKE AND I AGREE AND
YOU GUYS ARE OFF -- I DON'T KNOW
WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.
[LAUGHTER]
>> I'M NOT UNSYMPATHETIC.
>> TRY TO MAKE THE STATEMENT
THAT THIS IS A TRIVIAL
DISCUSSION IS JUST WRONG.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT THE SENATE
BILL IS A LITTLE BIT MORE
TRIVIAL.
THIS IS A SERIOUS DISCUSSION
ABOUT WHERE THE POLICY NEEDS TO
GO FORWARD WITH ELECTRONIC
SURVEILLANCE.
>> I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE
AUTHORS OF THE BILL, I BELIEVE
THERE SHOULD BE PRIVACY.
I'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT THERE
ARE PRACTICALITIES HERE THAT
MAKE SOME OF THIS MOOT.
IF IT'S MANNED AIRCRAFT, IF IT'S
OTHER TECHNOLOGY, I'M JUST --
THERE'S A PRINCIPLE, AND THEN
THE APPROACH I THINK IS A GOOD
ONE.
>> A DRONE WITH A HIGH DEF
CAMERA AT 200 FEET OVER YOUR
PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE
INCREDIBLY USEFUL FOR FIGURING
OUT WHAT'S GOING ON.
I DO THINK THERE'S A SERIOUS
POLICY QUESTION HERE BUT I DO
THINK ALSO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS TO FIGURE OUT HOW
TO REGULATE THESE DRONES FIRST
AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT'S GOING
TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THOSE
REGULATIONS.
IT'S NOT LIKE YOU CAN START
POPPING THESE THINGS IN THE AIR
AND NOT WORRY ABOUT WHAT'S GOING
TO HAPPEN.
IT HAS TO BE SETTLED AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL FIRST BEFORE YOU
CAN WORRY IT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
>> MOVING ON
HOUSE MINORITY LEADER SCOTT
PELATH COMPLAINED THIS WEEK
ABOUT THE FOCUS OF THE 2014
GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
HE SAID THERE IS TIME FOR
LEGISLATION ON FERAL CATS AND
-CURSIVE WRITING BUT NOT FOR ME
IMPORTANT ISSUES.
>> IF WE'RE MERELY HERE TO WORK
ON BANALITIES AND IF WE'RE
MERELY HERE TO INDULGE THE
BACKWARD-LOOKING FANTASIES OF A
CEASELESS RIGHT-WING AGENDA, I
THINK IT'S MAYBE TIME TO
CONSIDER WHETHER IT'S BEST FOR
THE PEOPLE OF INDIANA IF WE JUST
ADDOURNED.
>> JON SCHWANTES, IS THAT SORT
OF RHETORIC CONSTRUCTIVE?
>> OH, I DON'T KNOW.
I THINK THAT'S, IN THE SCHEME OF
THINGS.
>> FERAL CATS.
>> FERAL CATS.
I -- WELL, REMEMBER IT WASN'T
TOO MANY YEARS AGO THAT PEOPLE
WERE UP IN ARMS ABOUT REFERENCES
TO BOMB -- CAR BOMBERS AND
OTHERS WHEN HIS PREDECESSOR WAS
LABELED SUCH BY MITCH DANIELS?
A LITTLE BIT OF THIS IS GOING TO
GO WITH LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS KIND
OF RHETORIC.
PEOPLE ARE JOCKEYING FOR
POSITION.
I ACTUALLY DON'T THINK THIS
IS -- I MEAN, THERE'S NO
PERSONAL ATTACK.
YOU'RE GOING -- WHERE YOU WANT
IT.
>> HE'S THE ONE THAT'S TALKING,
NOT ME.
I FIND IT INTERESTING TTAT --
SCOTT PELATH IS IN A SMALL
MINORITY AND HE'S GOT FREEDOM
HERE TO SAY THINGS.
>> HE HAS TO.
HE'S TRYING TO SEIZE THE
OPPORTUNITY.
WHEN E'S IN THE MINORITY,
ESPECIALLY THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE
DEMOCRATS, YOU HAVE TO TAKE
EVERY OPPORTUNITY, MAKE EVERY
HOLE THAT YOU CAN.
SO HE'S DOING THE RIGHT THING.
I THINK HE'S HAD A PRETTY GOOD
SESSION IN THAT REGARD.
HE'S BEEN A GOOD QUOTE SO HE
GETS A LOT OF PLAY FROM THE
MEDIA, HE'S BEEN ACCESSIBLE.
HE'S PICKED ON THE RIGHT ISSUES
AND WORKED WITH HIS CAUCUS TO
PRESENT A UNITED FRONT.
I THINK HE'S HAD A PRETTY GOOD
SESSION.
>> MOST OF THE SESSION'S BEEN
DOMINATED WITH THE TOPIC OF THE
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT.
AND PELATH PUTTING OUT ABOUT
INCREASING THE MAJOR WAGE,,%
INCREASING JOBS IN THE STATE.AN-
HE'S RIGHT.
WE'VE FOCUSED ON THE WRONG
THINGS AND FINALLY WE'RE INTO A
TAX CUT WHERE IT DOESN'T --
>> WHAT THE GOVERNOR AND
REPUBLICAN LEADERS WILL TELL YOU
IS THE MEDIA HAS FOCUSED ON THE
MARRIAGE DEBATE AND THERE'S BEEN
A LOT GOING ON.
THE GOVERNOR SAID IT'S BEEN A
PRODUCTIVE SESSION SO FAR.
>> EVERYTHING HE PROPOSED IN HIS
STATE OF THE STATE SPEECH IS
STILL ALIVE IN BOTH HOUSES.
IN SPITE OF EVERYTHING ELSE.
PRETTY GOOD BATTING AVERAGE.
I WOULD THINK.
ALL THE PROGRAMS THAT
REPRESENTATIVE BOSMA BEFORE THE
SESSION STARTED ARE STILL ALIVE
AND ACTIVE AND --
>> SUPERMAN.
>> THEY WERE IMPORTANT THINGS.
THAT'S THE POINT HERE.
THEE WERE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ORIENTED, THEY'RE BUSINESS
TAXES, THEY'RE HIGHWAY FUNDING,
$400 MILLION.
THEY'RE PRE-K EDUCATION.
ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE VERY
IMPORTANT THINGS ARE ALL STILL
ALIVE AND HERE'S WHAT'S GOING
ON, WHAT SCOTT PELATH RUNS THE
RISK OF DOING IS HE'S DOING
EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID HE WASN'T
GOING TO DO, TO GET CAUGHT UP IN
THE TRIVIAL RHETORIC OF THE HARD
CORE --
>> IT'S TRIVIA?
>> MINIMUM WAGE IS TRIVIAL?
>> CONSTRUCTIVE IN HIS COMMENT
AND HE'S NOT.
AND BECAUSE WHAT HE SAID --
>> MINIMUM WAGE IS TRIVIAL?
>> BECAUSE NOTHING IS BEING
DONE, AS HE SAYS, WHEN ALL THE
IMPORTANT THINGS ARE DONE, HE
RUNS THE RISK OF BEING LESS
CREDIBLE THAN CHICK LITTLE.
>> WHEN THEY MOVED TO ADJOURN ON
THE FLOOR HE SAID HE WOULDN'T.
FINALLY
IT'S GIRLLSCOUT COOKIE TIME, AND
IT'S ALSO TIME TO PROVEETHAT THE
TRADITIONAL RECIPES CAN BE
IMPROVED.
THATT' WHY FIVE LOCAL CHEFS
COMPETED IN COOKIE COOKOFF AT
BANKERS LIFE FIELDHOUSE.
IT WAS TO BENEFIT THE GIRL
SCOUTS.
THE IDEA WAS TO MAKE NEW
DESSERTS OUT OF GIRL SCOUT
DEANA POTTERF OF THE GIRL
SCOUTS.
>> THEY'RE ALL REALLY EXCITED
ABOUT THIS OPPORTUNITY TO
HIGHLIGHT WHAT THEY CAN DO, AND
SO THEY ARE ALL USING DIFFERENT
GIRL SCOUT COOKIES.
THEY'RE EXCITED THAT IT'S NOT
JUST A COMMON DESSERT, THEY CAN
GET THEIR CHOPS OUT THERE AND
SEE WHAA THEY CAN DO.
>> THE LEAST I CAN DO IS HELP
THEM CONTINUE TO HELP YOUNG
GIRLS IN OUR COMMUNITY,
ABSOLUTELY .
AND HOPEFULLY PEOPLE WILL BUY
MORE GIRL SCOUT COOKIES FOR THIS
MONTH.
>> THAT'S WINNING CHEF SAM BROWN
WHO MADE SAVANNAH SMILES SHRIMP
>> DAN PARKER, ARE GIRL SCOUT
COOKIES THE BEST FUNDRAISING
IDEA EVER?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THE TAG ALONGSSLASTED ABOUT AN
HOUR THE OTHER NIGHT AT MY
HOUSE.
>> I ORDERED THREE CASES.
[LAUGHTER]
>> DO YOU GET TIRED OF RUNNING
INTO GIRL SCOUTS AT THE STORE.
>> NO, I LOVE IT.
I'M TRYING TO CONVINCE MY WIFE
EATING A BOX OF THIN MINTS WOULD
MAKE ME THINNER.
[LAUGHTER]
>> I DON'T KNOW WHY ANYBODY
WOULD THINK THAT A SHOW LIKE
THIS WOULD ENGAGE IN ANYTHINGG%
TRIVIAL.
[LAUGHTER]
OUR PANEL IS DEMOCRAT DAN
PARKER.
REPUBLICAN MIKE MCDANIEL.
JON SCHWANTES OF "INDIANA
LAWMAKERS" AND
JOHN KETZENBERGER OF THE INDIANA
FISCAL POLICY INSTITUTE.
IF YOU'D LIKE A PODCAST OF THIS
PROGRAM, YOU CAN FIND IT AT
WFYI.ORG/PODCAST, OR STARTING
MONDAY YOU CAN STREAM IT OR GET
IT ON DEMAND FROM XFINITY OR
BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS.
>> I'M JIM SHELLA OF WISH-TV.