Republican Leadership in Marion County Continue To Destroy Their Own Party

I wish I could say I was shocked by the dismissal of two Marion County Ward Chairmen today, on the heels of a major victory for honesty, transparency and conservative ideals. Two Ward Chairs, outspoken supporters of newly selected State Senator Scott Schneider were dismissed Friday, at least one of them over some partially trumped up accusations. Even worse, the person who supposedly did the deed is an attorney that lives in HAMILTON COUNTY and isn’t even a Marion County resident but seems to somehow have far too much influence. Marion County folks should resent his influence if the county isn't good enough for him to live here.

The bottom line is that the Marion County Party leadership, which this past week not only suffered rumors that payroll checks had bounced, but also suffered a major blow when their chosen one, which they hoped to anoint as Theresa Lubbers successor, failed to overcome the more independent and ideologically conscious Senate District 30 Precinct Committeemen.

Unfortunately, one of those Ward Chairman was one of the Republican Party of Marion County’s (and of Indiana’s) hardest workers and strongest advocates, Elizabeth Karlson. The party even went so far as to accuse her of trying to recruit Republicans to switch to the Libertarian Party … SERIOUSLY? Are these guys for real? Are they REALLY that clueless and out of touch? Probably not, the bottom line is they needed a better excuse than, “You are more honest, more ethical, more ideologically grounded than we are, so being complete tools, we need someone to make an example of because we lost and we have to do something to pretend we are real men.”



Make no mistake, they are sore losers after not being able to place one of their law firm buddies, a City Councilor and seemingly nice guy that I hope can be saved from becoming another special interest controlled puppet, into the State Senate.

I can’t even begin to count the number of times Elizabeth Karlson has tried to sway me into jumping back into the Republican Party. She has even been working hard to create a home within her party for more pro-liberty members and candidates. Libertarian leaders had questioned her Republican influence at the occasional libertarian (small "l" ideological, not big "L" party) social events so it is sad, if not ironic, that the apparent bozos in her own party want to claim the opposite was happening. I suppose, maybe, they don't know the contextual difference between an ideological bent and a party label.

In striking indication of how strongly they really support free speech, intellectual honesty, integrity, independent thought and individual opinions she was criticized for daring to hold a panel of conservative (and one libertarian) bloggers at a GOP club meeting who discussed the corrupting influences in government and corporate welfare.

While they may have objected to the bloggers largely not being fans of the party leadership – the real problem is that some people can’t stand criticism and independent thought. We call them ‘dictators’ when they run countries and they do, indeed, stifle and kill dissent. Sometimes, dictators … say it again, DICTATORS … assassinate people just for having the wrong friends.

At least we know now why our government is so screwed up and we keep going farther and farther towards authoritarianism. The authoritarians start out as ideologically ungrounded party bureaucrats who are there for their own glory, not to protect the rule of law, the Constitutions or even their own party platform. Unfortunately, they do the same thing in weeding through and promoting candidates to eventually present to voters.

A credit to her party, Karlson has actively promoted Republican candidates to even her Libertarian friends. I’ll state right now that I voted for at least a couple of Republican City County Council candidates in 2007 based on feedback I sought out and got from her. She has consistently promoted the good character and intent of numerous Republican candidates, including my own State Senator, whom I personally have considerable respect for, but often hear his own party leadership does not (that darn honesty, integrity, reform, Constitutions stuff getting in the way again perhaps?).

I have stated several times in the past, as friends from Florida all the way to Indiana keep telling me, “You need to join the Republicans” (Liz being the loudest voice among them) and I have stated for the past couple of years, “The Republicans don’t want people like me. They want followers who will fall in lock-step to do whatever they are told or they want people who can help them all make partner at their law firms or otherwise cash in at taxpayer expense.”

When I ran for Congress, I remember doing a radio interview and conservative leaning local radio host, Greg Garrison, threw off his headphones as we cut to break and said, "Why don't you run as a Republican? You could win!!" ... Seriously? If the treatment of some of the most honest people I know in government, like Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, is any indication they wouldn't let me past the slating process, much less on the ballot.

Every once in a while I start to get encouraged, like the election of Senator Schneider the other day, the leadership shown on particular issues I’m fond of by Senators Delph or Walker. The fight for justice that State Treasurer Richard Mourdock undertook this year in trying to protect state pension funds from the Obama administration’s complete disregard for the rule of law. But, then…

...then I have a Monday night at the City Council Meeting (July 20) where Democrats are the ones fighting for free speech and to avoid unintended consequences of bad legislation and Republicans are voting en masse with the Democrats to transfer a million dollars of taxpayer money to private organizations. Then the leadership goes, and because of their own shortcomings, wreck vengeance on the wrong people when a truly fiscally conservative guy squeaks through their net. No wonder the electorate is frustrated and confused.

I hope that Marion County Chairman, Tom John, whom I have met personally once or twice (might write about that one day) will review the actions by his underling and reinstate both of the Ward Chairmen that were affected by this either (a) misunderstanding or (b) revenge tactic and warning for others not to think too much. It was either one or the other, you decide.

...

And, just for the record, we all know politics is a dirty, revenge ridden game. But, I naively have hope for a better tomorrow anyway.

...

Update: More on this story at Ogden on Politics

Indianapolis City County Council - Panhandlers Must Be Professionals?

Last night the Indianapolis City County Council was presented with two proposals to vote on that I found of particular interest, especially given that they were to be considered in back-to-back to votes.

The first was a proposal to grant $1,000,000 (one million dollars) of taxpayer money to "the arts". When I think of arts organizations I think of people producing a product that they either need to figure out how to sell or charge money for. Tickets to the museum or symphony are good examples. I find it abhorrent that the brute force of government is so often used to pry loose money from taxpayers and private organizations can then go "panhandling" at the City Council, State House or Federal legislative chambers.

The second was a proposal that would have essentially banned holding signs or panhandling within 50 feet of an intersection (measure how, nobody was sure). The target of the bill was, indeed, panhandlers and was prompted by one Councilor who indicated a few bad interactions with panhandlers. Personally, I find them generally standing on corners, holding their signs minding their own business unless money is offered; but, I do note the many private security people who actually step out in the roadway to direct traffic for business parks, eating establishments or parking garages.

There are laws already on the books regarding panhandling in roadways, blocking or impeding traffic or pedestrians and, certainly, accosting or assaulting somebody. The point was made quite clear, largely by Council Democrats, that these laws existed but were not necessarily being enforced.

Instead of tabling the bill and trying to come to some better solution or evaluate options to strengthen the current laws or get increased enforcement, the Republicans pushed ahead. The Democrats even offered up concern about Constitutional issues regarding free speech in public places (I'm sure they would not have brought up the Constitution if this had been a "right to self defense" issue). Fortunately, the measure narrowly failed 14 to 12 (with 3 councilors not in attendance - it otherwise would have likely passed).

It will likely be brought up again at the next meeting and I'm hoping at least one of the Republicans will realize how wrong this is and what kind of unintended consequences there could be. Oddly, NONE of them seemed very concerned about unintended consequences. Seriously, what is the hurry? If you're going to do something, do the right thing properly not just rush through a bad proposal.

Bringing a handful of chuckles from the crowd, Councilor Pfisterer actually commented, "This is not a restriction on free speech, this is a restriction on where you can have it." Huh? I guess everyone eventually has a "I voted for it, before I voted against it" moment.

At the end of the day two core principles were under assault. The are as follows and politicians need to learn and understand these concepts:

(1) People have a natural right to their property. Stealing their property to transfer it to private organizations that should be privately funded is inappropriate. If one of those people mugged someone in the street to subsidize museum tickets or something it would be a crime, it should also be a crime when legislators do it their behalf just because they put on a suit and came begging. The "good intentions" or perceived improvements to livability in the community do not matter, if those things are legitimate and important than private donors should give to the cause and/or legislators should promote the idea and help them raise funds for such purpose without using taxpayer money.

As Bastiat wrote, once the government (the Law) is used as a tool to transfer from one group to another unjustly, it opens the doors to it being a free for all. You lose all moral authority to challenge other similar arrangements. I'll give legislators a pass for roads, police and fire protection but not on private arts organizations, government operating what should be private businesses (like stadiums and convention centers) or subsidizing sports teams.

(2) People have a natural and Constitutional right to free speech. Your rights exist to the extent that you do not harm or violate the rights of others. Just because a couple of bozos were "unprofessional panhandlers" doesn't mean you can just set Freedom of Speech aside and ban people from standing roadside or on a corner with a sign. This is ill considered legislation and without meaning to, comes across like jack-booted thugs trying to recklessly stomp out something just because they are annoyed by others' behavior. Personally, I'm annoyed by the "elected class" more than anything these days.

Besides. The panhandlers downtown are great when I need parking meter change. Give 'em a dollar and ask for 75 cents back and good for an hour.


COPY OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF MARION COUNTY PRESS RELEASE ON THESE ITEMS IS BELOW:

INDIANAPOLIS, IN - In back to back votes, a majority of Council Republicans voted to transfer $1 million of taxpayer money to private "arts organizations" and then immediately moved to restrict the freedom of speech of panhandlers who may be passively seeking VOLUNTARY contributions.

Tim Maguire, Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Marion County said "There are already significant laws on the books regarding panhandling that perhaps just need better enforcement, but this fell on deaf ears as Republicans worked to rob taxpayers on behalf of private arts organizations and then, immediately following, tried to tell poor people they can't even hold a sign asking for money."

"We had a room full of people seeking to panhandle by using the force and power of government to extract money from citizens while, at the same time, a motion to restrict those who might seek voluntary contributions by denying them their rights to free speech was next on the agenda." said Sean Shepard, Communications Director for the Libertarian Party of Marion County.

"We are proud of Councilor Coleman, the sole Libertarian on the council, for voting against both of these terrible proposals." Maguire added.

Laws against standing in traffic or otherwise impeding the progress of traffic or pedestrians already exist. New laws against passively holding signs will accomplish nothing other than to restrict unpopular speech.

Councilor Coleman (L) noted during debate that it is not reasonable or appropriate to try and ban every little thing that annoys people.

Maguire also noted that, "Perhaps the Council should make laws against solicitations in the City-County Council chambers so private companies and organizations don't come begging for tax money."

My post on Wednesday, June 10 regarding the coming explosion in the U.S. Government's cost of borrowing now has company in this article from the UK's Daily Telegraph.

From the article:

In a 2003 paper, Thomas Laubach, the US Federal Reserve’s senior economist, calculated the impact on long-term interest rates of rising fiscal deficits and soaring national debt. Applying his assumptions to the recent spike in the US fiscal deficit and national debt, long-term interests rates will double from their current 3.5pc.
The impact would be devastating by making it punitively expensive to finance national borrowings and leading to what Tim Congdon, founder of Lombard Street Research, called a “debt explosion”.