Candy Saves Barry From Toughest Debate Question

The scene during last night's debate was almost surreal. A question from an an audience member during last night's town hall style debate between President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney about the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, set up Romney for an opportunity to really pounce on the security failures that made the attack such an easy feat to accomplish. Shockingly, President Obama claimed that he had attributed the act to terrorism during his first comments the morning after the deadly attack despite the administration's public insistence for two weeks that the September 11 attack occurred as a result of a spontaneous demonstration outside the consulate gone awry in response to a YouTube video mocking Islam. When Gov. Romney challenged Obama's claim, he stood by it and, on cue, Candy Crowley, the debate's moderator, chimed in with an instant fact-check saying the President was correct, citing the transcript of his comments that day. Although she added that the administration had it wrong on the cause of the attack, her overt siding with Obama during the debate was tantamount to a referee during a game throwing a flag against a player for a penalty. It had all the appearances of a coordinated effort by the Obama campaign with the moderator to minimize the fallout of the only foreign policy question of the night and the one that posed the most risk for damage to Obama.

As they say, context matters. The President's comments the morning after the terrorist attack was a general statement that did not specifically characterize the cause of the preceding night's deadly attack. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said. The President himself in the days to come repeatedly refused to attribute the attack to an orchestrated terrorist attack. It was only after nearly two weeks of denials in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that the administration finally conceded it was a terrorist attack and not the supposedly offensive YouTube video. President Obama's response dodged the thrust of the question, which is why the administration had denied Stevens' request for additional security prior to the September 11 attack. He also doubled down on his accusation that Romney was seeking to politicize the deadly attack after Romney criticized the President for hopping aboard Air Force One to attend a Las Vegas fundraiser and a Colorado rally right after making his vague and general comments the morning following the attack.

What played out following the debate in the talking head community was a replay of what occurred the day of the deadly attack when Gov. Romney was roundly criticized by the media for condemning the Obama administration for suggesting the outrage in the Muslim community over the YouTube video justified the coordinated protests throughout the Middle East against the U.S., even though the State Department distanced itself from a public statement issued by the U.S. Egyptian embassy after it came under attack by unruly protesters the same day. For several days, the media focused on the so-called gaffe by Romney instead of the abysmal failure of the Obama administration to provide adequate security for Ambassador Stevens and his staff. Similarly, the media instantly tried to portray Romney's insistence that the Obama administration had steadfastly denied the Benghazi incident was a planned terrorist attack as a blunder in order to redirect attention from an obvious Obama weak spot.

Overall, I thought both candidates acquitted themselves well during last night's debate. They both obviously brought their A game. I was disappointed at some of the questions, which I felt reflected a left-leaning agenda on the part of the biased moderator. For the life of me, I don't understand why Republican presidential candidates election after election agree to debate moderator choices who are so clearly in the Democratic candidate's camp. I thought Crowley repeatedly cut off Romney from responding to several debatable assertions Obama effectively made against Romney's record and positions in an effort to prevent further scrutiny by Romney. For those keeping time, Obama had about three more minutes of talking time than Romney to speak. A CNN instant poll taken immediately after the debate gave the advantage to Obama by a 46-39% margin; however, on important economic questions asked of the poll respondents, Romney appeared to have the advantage.

Here's the video of the exchange that has Romney supporters hopping mad:

Hoosier Lottery Privatization Cover Up?

The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette's Niki Kelly sought answers about why Hoosier Lottery officials chose GTECH over gaming rival Scientific Games to manage the state's lottery for the next 15 years, effectively handing day-to-day control of the important state revenue generator to the Italian-owned company. What she got instead was an opportunity to review documents that were so heavily redacted that they were unreadable. More importantly, Lottery officials have so far refused to make public the agreement it said that it had signed with the company last Friday. The Daniels administration is already under fire by Scientific Games for conducting an unfair bidding process that resulted in GTECH's award despite a neglible difference in their bottom line offers and without consideration of transition costs since Scientific Games is an incumbent vendor for much of the lottery's operations. From the Journal-Gazette:

Hoosier Lottery officials made public the two bids to take over key operations of the system.

But the nearly 1,700 pages of documents are so heavily redacted that Hoosiers still have no idea how the new manager plans to hit lofty revenue targets. The bids also weren’t placed online for citizens to read. They are only available in a downtown Indianapolis conference room.

And despite finalizing the 15-year contract with GTECH Indiana LLC on Friday – and sending out a news release about it – the lottery has yet to release that agreement . . .

Gov. Mitch Daniels said Tuesday he would be willing to talk with lottery officials about whether GTECH and competitor Scientific Games went too far in their redaction of so-called “trade secrets.”

“I’m in favor of folks knowing all they can,” he said. “The more information folks have, the more obvious it will be that this was just a smart management move.” . . .

That business plan was a large part of the bid, and lottery officials said earlier this month that it included expanding the customer base by selling tickets at big box retail stores.

But those plans and more have been redacted from the documents available for public review, including how the games themselves would be improved and marketed.

Some of the pages that were left untouched included statistics comparing the Hoosier Lottery with other states and various biographies of GTECH employees.

Also, the bid promised to name Fort Wayne community leader Ian Rolland to its advisory board, along with Ball State President Jo Ann Gora and former professional basketball player George McGinnis.

State House insiders could have predicted in advance that GTECH would be awarded the lucrative contract by hook or crook simply by virtue of the fact that the company was represented by Barnes & Thornburg's Bob Grand and Brian Burdick. The two were at the center of the corrupt awarding of the costly and flawed privatization of FSSA's welfare services for the benefit of ACS, a company they represented which formerly employed then-FSSA Secretary Mitch Roob, a close political confidante of Daniels and Grand. Burdick's sister, Betsy, is a also a deputy chief of staff in Daniels' office.

Daniels Portrait Unveiled

 

 

The official portrait of Gov. Mitch Daniels painted by Lafayette artist Richard Halstead was unveiled at the State House. What do you think?

Rasmussen Poll Shows Big Lead For Romney Over Obama In Indiana

What a difference four years make. The latest Rasmussen poll of likely Indiana voters shows Mitt Romney with a commanding lead over Barack Obama. The poll of 600 likely voters has Romney leading Obama by 13 percentage points, 54-41%. The Rasmussen poll mirrors a Howey-Depauw poll taken three weeks ago that similarly showed Romney with a commanding double-digit lead, 52-40%. In 2008, Obama edged his Republican opponent, John McCain, by a little more than 25,000 votes, a difference of just one percentage point, 50-49%.

Indiana seems to stand alone among the battleground states that Obama carried in his historic 2008 victory that is firmly back in the Republican column this year. In neighoring Ohio, Obama defeated McCain by just four percentage points and many polls have consistently showed Obama with a narrow but similar lead over Romney in the Buckeye state this year. In Missouri, polls have shown Romney leading Obama, but not by the double-digit margins we've seen here in Indiana. McCain won Missouri by the slimmest of margins in 2008. The two candidates have traded leads in Florida where Obama won by a little more than two percentage points in 2008. Romney has held very slim leads in North Carolina, which Obama won by less than one-half of a percentage point in 2008.

Coats Pitching Mourdock To Indiana Voters

Gov. Daniels Sold Chicago On Indiana?

 

An observant reader wonders why this Chicago Water Management truck spotted recently would have an Indiana license plate. Are Chicago municipal vehicles leased in Indiana?

Carmel Council President: Mayor Brainard Lied About $100,000 Payment To Libman

A plan to bail out the Carmel Redevelopment Commission has hit a snag after Carmel City Council President Rick Sharp discovered that a $100,000 payment was made to the former head of the Regional Performing Arts Center, Steven Libman, who resigned amidst allegations by Mayor Brainard that Libman was having an inappropriate relationship with a staff member and misusing funds. The story blew up shortly after Libman's abrupt resignation after it was learned that Brainard had hired a private investigator to spy on Libman. According to Sharp, both Brainard and the city's legal counsel, Doug Haney, had insisted that no settlement payment had been offered to Libman in exchange for his resignation. From WTHR:

A Carmel City Council member is calling for the ouster of the City Center's Development Commission after discovering its leaders paid the former CEO of the Palladium $100,000 to leave and not file a lawsuit.

After the CEO of the Carmel Palladium abruptly resigned last year amid serious allegations of misconduct, Eyewitness News has learned of a six-figure settlement to help him go away.

The discovery came as the Carmel City Council set out to investigate the Redevelopment Commission Debt . . .

Until now, Councilman Rick Sharp says City Attorney Doug Haney and Mayor Jim Brainard denied paying Libman any money. New documents now show that was not true.

Sharp revealed that the mayor and city attorney later paid $100,000 to Libman to keep Libman from filing a lawsuit against them. The settlement had never been disclosed to the council.

"When you're trying to deal with a body, an entity, an administration that has proven that they will actively cover up things, it's kind of tough for me to pull the trigger on a potential $200 million debt issue until I can feel that I have clearly gotten to the bottom of it all," said Sharp.

Sharp tells us he won't vote for the bailout until the city becomes more transparent.

In a statement released to reporters, Brainard defended the $100,000 settlement as a necessity for avoiding litigation with Libman over his firing. Brainard said he was unable to discuss the settlement details due to the confidentiality of the agreement. He suggested Sharp's criticism had more to do with his mayoral ambitions than his concern for the payment being made. "It would seem, however that the campaign for mayor has started early," Brainard said.

 

Ballard Lies: Tells Councilors Homestead Credit Only Benefits The Rich

In an appalling appeal to class warfare politics, Mayor Greg Ballard told a caucus of Republican councilors ahead of tonight's City-County Council meeting where the council  took up adoption of the city-county government's 2013 budget that the homestead property tax credit only benefited the rich, and that middle and lower income taxpayers would not be affected by its elimination. Ballard has proposed elimination of the tax credit, a move that would increase property taxes on homeowners by about $8 million annually. Despite riding an anti-tax wave to win his upset election over former Mayor Bart Peterson in 2007 and proclaiming his mantra of making public safety job one, Ballard has turned into a tax-and-spend liberal, insisting on a tax increase on homeowners to help close a $50-$60 million budget deficit for 2013.

An analysis of the homestead credit by Ballard's own controller proves that his claim that only the rich would pay more taxes if the homestead credit is eliminated is patently false. About 38% of  homeowners, including many of those living in higher taxed areas with higher-assessed homes receive no benefit from the homestead credit because their taxes have already hit the 1% cap imposed under state law. As fellow blogger Pad Andrews' explains, the city controller's figures show that a majority of the tax increase that will result from the elimination of the homestead credit will be borne by those owning homes valued at $150,000 or less. Those figures show that only 99 homeowners will see a tax increase of $100 or more with an average home value of $368,674, while more than 46,000 homeowners with an average home value of $103,2227 will see a tax increase, albeit a smaller tax increase on average than those with higher-priced homes who have not yet reached the state-imposed property tax cap. "So, eliminating the homestead credit has little to do with rich folks paying their due," Andrews notes. "The tax increases will tend to hit those with lower value homes. If you live in a higher tax area, then you'd escape a tax increase for a home value lower than someone living in a lower tax area."

Ballard took office in January 2008 with the benefit of a 65% increase in the county option income tax passed by the Democratic-controlled council and signed into law by Peterson, the so-called public safety tax, which was intended to shore up a budget deficit and to provide sustainable funding for the city's public safety departments. Voter discontent over the income tax increase, coupled with skyrocketing property tax bills, helped Ballard win a narrow victory over Peterson and elect a Republican-controlled council. State lawmakers passed landmark property tax reform legislation that brought permanent property tax relief to property owners; however, all taxpayers were hit with a permanent one percentage point increase in the state sales tax to pay for the tax relief afforded to property owners. Ballard, for his part, made the Peterson income tax increase permanent despite campaigning against its enactment. Despite the promise the tax increase would allow for the hiring of 100 more police officers, the City now has a police force that is 300 officers smaller since enactment of the public safety tax increase. Ballard blamed the economic recession and property tax caps on the lack of funds to adequately fund public safety.

Two years into office, Mayor Ballard pushed through more tax increases to bail out the CIB, which claimed to be running a $47 million deficit and at risk as a going concern because it had assumed full responsibility for the $20 million a year in operating and maintenance expenses on the newly-opened Lucas Oil Stadium, and because it had no revenue stream to cover the added costs after giving billionaire Jim Irsay's Colts rent-free use of the stadium. As a consequence of raising the city's hotel taxes and auto rental tax, Indianapolis now has one of the highest tax rates of any city in the country for visitors to Indianapolis despite the large investment the City has made in expanding its convention facilities to attract more conventions and visitors to the city. Visitors pay a hotel tax rate of 17%, an auto rental tax rate of 15% and a food and beverage tax rate of 9%. The CIB now sits on a $67 million cash reserve, even after making a $33.5 million public subsidy to billionaire Herb Simon's Indiana Pacers, who claims without substantiation that his NBA franchise is losing money and who has threatened to move the team elsewhere if the CIB didn't pick up maintenance and operating expenses for the Fieldhouse, even though the team gets rent-free use of the facility and retains most of the revenues from non-game events hosted at the Fieldhouse.

Rather than eliminating the homestead credit, Democratic councilors proposed an alternative $15 million payment-in-lieu of taxes (PILOT) to be assessed against the CIB on the nearly $1.5 billion in facilities it operates in downtown Indianapolis that are used primarily for the for-profit benefit of the billionaire sports team owners and the downtown convention business. Mayor Ballard immediately denounced the PILOT as a move that would imperil the financial stability of the CIB despite its ongoing private discussions with Herb Simon to re-up the multi-million dollar public subsidies for his Indiana Pacers. In the real world, the Ballard administration and the CIB would be undertaking discussions with the two billionaire sports team owners to pay their share of property taxes like every other business owner in this city, particularly given how much the City is forced to spend every year providing public safety services for the events at these facilities. The Hulman-George family has always paid its fair share of property taxes on the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, which conducts far fewer events annually than either the Fieldhouse or Lucas Oil Stadium. It's not fair that billionaires Jim Irsay and Herb Simon get rent-free use of these facilities for their multi-million dollar business organizations and pay absolutely nothing in property taxes on those facilities. The only people favoring the super rich over ordinary taxpayers in this debate is Mayor Greg Ballard and the Republicans on the council who've followed his misguided fiscal policies over the past five years in lockstep. Time and time again Ballard has chosen the side of the downtown mafia that is filling his pockets with campaign contributions, free tickets, meals and country club memberships and other lavish gifts and overseas junkets over ordinary taxpayers.

I find myself in the unusual position as a life-long Republican and elected Republican precinct committee person siding with the Democratic-controlled council on this matter. Fortunately, the Democratic budget that rejected elimination of the homestead credit was approved on an 18-11 vote. Two Republicans voted with the Democrats, including Councilors Christine Scales and I believe Councilor Jason Holladay, but I'm not certain of Holladay's vote. On a 16-13 party-line vote, the council also approved the CIB budget, which included the $15 million PILOT. The Republican arguments that the PILOT is being illegally imposed was effectively shot down by the council's counsel, Fred Biesecker. Republicans argue that because an assessment on the property was not made by March 1, the PILOT could not be imposed as part of next year's budget. Biesecker pointed out that on one prior occasion, a $4.9 million PILOT was collected from the CIB several years ago. Biesecker noted that no tax had been assessed that year by March 1 on CIB properties before the council adopted the PILOT. He further reminded councilors that a PILOT is not a property tax by definition; rather, it's a substitute payment for services provided to otherwise tax-exempt property. He added that the enabling statute for the PILOT merely imposes a cap on the amount that may be assessed; it does not provide the specific manner for assessing the property. Further, Biesecker says that state law allows for assessments to be imposed on property omitted from the tax assessment rolls for up to three prior years.

UPDATE: The Mayor's office wasted no time putting out a statement to denounce the council's actions tonight on the budget:

"Budgeting is not a one-year exercise.  It requires prudence and a focus on the long-term fiscal health of our city.  The budget in any particular year must help set up future budgets. 

"The Council majority's current plan is unfunded, increases spending, more than doubles the deficit for 2014, and strips support of our downtown economy in order to give tax breaks to a select few. 

"The budget I proposed to the Council this year was responsible for the long haul and ensured that income tax dollars are being used to support our police officers and firefighters.  There is money for public safety in this year's proposed budget, but only if the Council has the will to make tough choices.

"In the meantime, we must talk frankly about what public safety and criminal justice will look like over the next 20 years.  If we don't, the budgeting process will be painful for the next few years.

"I will spend the next few days reviewing the final document adopted tonight and the many options afforded me by law as Mayor of Indianapolis."
 

Incidentally, the Mayor has no legal authority to veto the CIB budget as it is a separate municipal corporation over which he does not serve as the executive. The audacity of the mayor to accuse the Democratic-controlled council of stripping "support of our downtown economy in order to give tax breaks to a select few." This coming from a man who accepts free floor seats to all the Pacers games and then instructs his appointees to the CIB to hand out a $33.5 million subsidy to the billionaire owner of the team. This coming from a man who gave $6.5 million of our taxpayer dollars to the man who bankrolls his campaign and pays for overseas junkets that he and his wife take after tripling the rates we have to pay to park at the damn metered spots downtown so his money man can build a new parking garage from which he alone will derive financial reward. Nearly 50,000 homeowners, Mr. Mayor, is not a "select few." How dare you attack working class homeowners. You are simply pissed off that the CIB won't have the money to give your buddy Herb another multi-million dollar public subsidy. You don't care about public safety, and you sure as hell don't care about the ordinary citizens who pay the lion's share of taxes in this community. You have turned into the worst enemy of the people who busted their asses to put you in office. You are a worse traitor than Benedict Arnold.

Rasmussen Poll Puts Mourdock Up By Five

A Rasmussen poll released today with just three weeks to go in the U.S. Senate race between Richard Mourdock (R) and Joe Donnelly (D) shows Mourdock with a 5-point, 47-42% lead over Donnelly. Other polls have shown the two candidates statistically tied in the race to succeed Senator Richard Lugar (R). Mourdock trounced the six-term incumbent in the May primary election, capturing 61% of the vote. Mourdock has been repeatedly lambasted by the mainstream media in Indiana, which is seeking revenge on him for toppling their favorite Washington insider. The race has become one of the most costly Senate races in the country with millions of dollars in independent expenditures being spent by SuperPACs on behalf of both candidates. The Rasmussen poll of 600 likely voters was taken October 10-11 and has a sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. Rasmussen is viewed as one of the most reputable polling firms in the country. Its polling during the 2008 presidential election proved to be the most accurate of all polls.