This is the time in the long discussion over local government reform in Indiana that we could, justifiably, write an opinion so blistering that young children and other gentle souls would risk life-long consequences if left too long in its presence.
Today, however, we will spare you that stew of scorn and outrage.
It's not that members of the Indiana House Government and Regulatory Reform Committee don't deserve strong censure for once again shielding their cronies in township government from public accountability. They most certainly do.
Disapproval, however, should be reserved for those for whom there's still hope, who have yet to dive willingly into a dark pit, filled to the brim with disdain for the public's best interests. Observers then would have a responsibility to try to rescue them from their fate.
However, it's too late for Democrats in the Indiana House, under the authority of Speaker Pat Bauer (we withhold the word leadership). They already have plunged willingly and deeply into that pit. They have, in fact, sunk so low that they now pretend that the muck they have stirred up can be sold to the gullible as a form of preserving "local control.''
Most Hoosiers, however, have smelled both rose petals and cess pools. And they know the difference -- no matter what cynical politicians might tell them.
It would have seemed unlikely just a few months ago, but it now seems quite apparent that Pat Bauer is so drunk with power that he thinks he can do every conceivable thing to show contempt and disdain to the public and still hold on to his power. I think the guy is going to be eating a lot of humble pie instead of Indiana's sugar cream pie when his members face re-election in 2010 and deservedly so.
4 comments:
A previous Star article quoted Bauer's response to the Taxpayer Reform Rally as 'almost beating a dead horse'. Not only do Bauer's own words show contempt for Hoosiers, but his utter disdain for due process when Hoosiers are hurting reflects more about his protectionism of government than the citizen. Coupled with the scathing editorial, one wonders if he views himself as the most powerful political figure in Indiana politics.
That new hair piece he got at the beginning of this session must have really emboldened him, Paul.
Anyone remember J. Roberts Dailey? Drunk on power, ruled the Indiana House with an iron fist...lost his seat. Even the voters in his hometown got fed up.
How about Bob Garton? Drunk on power, ruled the Indiana Senate with an iron fist...lost his seat. Even the voters in his hometown got fed up.
See a pattern?
I understand Democrats want to preserve local offices they control, but it's funny that the Star so easily dismisses the notion of "local control" without also blasting Republicans for their hypocrisy on governmental layering in its own right.
Many Republicans said they hate the federal government deciding for us; it's too far away. Let the states decide! Then at the state level, they say, "We hate the bigwigs in Indianapolis deciding for us. It's too far away. Let the counties decide!" But apparently you can't say you don't want the counties deciding?
Seriously, are Republicans really the party of decentralized power, or has that always been a bunch of results-oriented crap?
I mean, Republicans have always said, "Let the states decide key issues" and then they passed a federal law to make sure gay people married in State A can't get recognition in State B. They said, "Let the states decide!" But then they enacted federal tort reform. They said, "Let the state's decide." But then they enacted a federal education bill (No Child Left Behind...which only left the money to fund itself behind). They said, "Let the states decide," before the president used his executive order to stop stem cell research EVERYWHERE.
Now, on the state level, it's the same thing. County judges used to control what services they ordered for families and juveniles. Under HB 1001, we said, "Sorry, we can't trust you county judges to do what's right, so the Governor's office is cutting the checks now."
I guess my question is what exactly IS the magic number of constituents that one must have before he/she becomes non-responsive according to Republican orthodoxy? Don't township officials serve more constituents than city-county councilors? Why don't we just disband the council and let the mayor run everything? That would save us a lot of money that the Mayor could give to the Pacers (tongue-in-cheek, of course).
Post a Comment