The Indiana Chamber and MySmartGov have been champions of sensible government reform in Indiana, and have supported suggestions from the Kernan-Shepard Report that would eliminate townships, among other excesses. The Evansville Courier & Press now reports Governor Mitch Daniels will firmly put his weight behind these measures in the 2012 session:

Gov. Mitch Daniels will make one last push for local government reforms – this time, a select and scaled-back set of them – during the final legislative session of his administration, he announced Friday.

Daniels unveiled his legislative agenda for the Indiana General Assembly’s 10-week 2012 session, which starts Jan. 4, during a speech at the Kiwanis Club of Indianapolis.

He said he will lobby for structural changes at both the township and county levels, as well a crackdown on conflicts of interest among municipal workers who also sit on the elected bodies that set the budgets for their employers.

It’s another try at implementing more of the recommendations offered in 2007 by a blue-ribbon panel chaired by former Gov. Joe Kernan and Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard.

This year, as freshman Rep. Kevin Mahan, R-Hartford City takes over the chairmanship of the House Government and Regulatory Reform Committee, Daniels said he believes the conditions are right for more progress than he has made in the past.

“We’re going to try to approach it in a little simpler way,” Daniels said.

He said he hopes four local government changes that have stalled out in previous sessions can gain more traction this year. Those four are:

- Allowing counties to switch their executive structure from three-member groups of commissioners to a single county commissioner.

- Abolishing three-member township advisory boards that oversee township trustees’ budgets and bumping their fiscal oversight duties up to county councils.

- Eliminating nepotism – that is, the ability for local elected officials to hire their relatives to do the area’s work.

- Restricting “conflicts of interest,” or situations where those who are paid by local government, such as police, firefighters, park employees and more, also serve on the councils that set their budgets.

“I think if we could get action on two, three, four fronts like those, this would be good. Those are some important reforms. I’ve always believed that we wouldn’t do this in one or two big gulps; it would have to be an incremental process, and this would get the process moving forward,” he said.

Chamber President Kevin Brinegar explains how passing a right-to-work law will help enhance Indiana’s economy by attracting many new companies that currently won’t consider the state, according to site selection agencies. He also lays out the facts about right-to-work, noting how it does nothing to prevent unions from organizing; it just means workers won’t be forced to join to keep their jobs.  

Creating more jobs for Hoosiers by making Indiana the 23rd right-to-work state heads the list of the top 2012 legislative priorities for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.  Eliminating the state’s inheritance tax, protecting the education reforms of last session and implementing a statewide smoking ban are also among the group’s key goals.

"Far too often, Indiana is not in the running for business growth and expansion plans, as site selection experts across the country repeatedly emphasize that companies won’t even consider non-right-to-work states for these opportunities. And, with these opportunities come thousands of jobs – none of which are currently coming to our state," offers Indiana Chamber President Kevin Brinegar.

He expects the right-to-work debate to be intense at the Statehouse, but says that should not be viewed as a deterrent to pursuing the policy – or used as an excuse to stay on the sidelines.

"The stakes are too high. With over a quarter million Hoosiers unemployed, ways to generate more jobs should be welcome and top of mind for everyone. We need to do everything possible to lower our state’s unemployment rate and improve our economic competitiveness," Brinegar stresses.

"Right-to-work is the most impactful way to tackle those two needs, plus it offers workers more freedom. Right-to-work protects employees from being forced to join a union and pay dues. It does not prohibit labor unions or collective bargaining; it lets employees decide."

The 10 pre-session objectives fall into seven public policy areas: economic development, education, energy, health care, labor relations, local government and taxation.

Below are the Indiana Chamber’s top legislative priorities. The complete list is also available here.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
- Support the state adopting a right-to-work statute banning the practice of requiring union membership or financial support as a condition of employment.  Would remove a significant impediment to investment and job creation. Would help Indiana continue to distinguish itself from neighboring states and to build a national leadership position in economic development.

EDUCATION
- Support protecting the 2011 reforms involving charter school expansion, school choice, merit pay for teachers and teacher collective bargaining. These new laws are the most significant enhancements to the state’s education system in more than 20 years; they put the focus where it should be – on students and increasing their potential for academic achievement. We need to make sure these reforms stay intact and are executed as intended.

- Support expanding school accountability. Our system, while improving greatly under current state leadership, still offers far too many loopholes for perpetual failure.

ENERGY
- Oppose renewable energy mandates. Indiana already has significant renewable energy development without benefit of a mandate, which would present unreasonable costs to power consumers and utilities.

HEALTH CARE
- Support ban on smoking in the workplace. Smoking is detrimental to employee health and productivity, and contributes to higher premiums for businesses providing employee health benefits.

- Oppose any health care mandates or assignment of benefits (AOB) policy. Mandates and AOB both serve to increase the cost of health care premiums for employers and their employees.

LABOR RELATIONS
- Support work share component incorporated into state’s unemployment insurance system. Would allow employees to collect reduced wages and partial unemployment benefits – as opposed to losing their jobs; is a temporary and practical alternative to layoffs.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT        
- Support common sense simplification and reforms to local government structures and practices. Current local government system lacks high standards against nepotism and allows for too many conflicts of interest. This, coupled with the streamlining of duties and functions as appropriate in county and township government, will result in a more effective system and better use of taxpayer dollars.

TAXATION
- Support elimination of the state inheritance tax. Only 1% of the state’s revenue pool comes from this tax, but the consequences are much higher. Why? This tax serves as a big deterrent for high income individuals to remain in Indiana (and spend money), or keep their assets here. It’s more beneficial for the state and its residents to remove the tax.

- Support exempting the taxation of machinery and equipment. Indiana needs to be on a level playing field with surrounding states – some of which have already made this move or are considering it now. Exempting machinery and equipment from property tax would be another strategic step in our economic development efforts.
 

Some not-so-cerebral ex-Capitol Hill staffers now find themselves unemployed after Tweeting about their exploits on the job — including drinking Jack Daniels at work and referring to the Congressman they work for as an "idiot." To Rep. Rick Larsen’s credit, they were fired immediately upon discovery. The Washington Times reports:

Staffers of Rep. Rick Larsen boasted over Twitter that they were drinking and otherwise goofing off on the job, according to a story in the NW Daily Marker.

The website said the tweets gave off the impression of "a staffers-gone-wild bash" in the Washington Democrat’s office, including insults lobbed at the congressman himself.

"My coworker just took a shot of Jack crouching behind my desk," one staffer tweeted, apparently referring to Jack Daniel’s whiskey.

Later, the staffer tweeted that he "couldn’t pass a field sobriety test right now."

Bryan Thomas, a spokesman for the congressman, said that the office became aware of the tweets at noon Thursday and that all three staffers involved were fired a little more than an hour later.

"Neither Congressman Larsen nor his other staff were aware of the actions by these three staff members before today," Mr. Thomas said. "Congressman Larsen is disappointed by their actions and takes this very seriously. He has made it clear that he will not tolerate this kind of behavior."

The three staffers were a legislative correspondent and two legislative assistants, according to NW Daily Marker.

In other messages, staffers called the congressman everything from "my idiot boss" to unprintable derogatory terms such as the one George W. Bush used to refer to a New York Times reporter in 2000.

So let this serve as a reminder to folks in all sectors to watch out for rogue Tweeting by your employees — and it never hurts to draft a sensible social media policy. If you need a reference, our soon-to-be released Model Employee Policies Handbook – 6th Edition contains valuable information and sample policies on the topic.

While some might say the lack of activity in Congress in 2011 is a good thing (the no action, no harm mentality), the numbers certainly back up the feeling that Congress has been largely missing in action when it comes to proactively enacting laws to better our country.

No political fights here about who is to blame. Just some statistics from The Washington Post that demonstrate the depth of what has not taken place.

Through Nov. 30, the House had passed 326 bills, the fewest in at least 10 non-election years, according to annual tallies in the Congressional Record. The Senate had approved 368 measures, the fewest since 1995.

By comparison, the House approved 970 bills in 2009 and 1,127 in 2007. The Senate totals for those years were 478 and 621, respectively. (Both chambers are expected to pass more bills before adjourning this month, but probably not enough to change the overall picture.)

And the White House need not fear an ink shortage — Obama had signed only 62 bills into law through November. The last time there was a new Republican majority in the House and a Democrat in the White House, 1995, President Bill Clinton signed 88 measures.

James Thurber, the director of American University’s Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, called the overall numbers “Exhibit A in showing how dysfunctional the Congress has become.”

In particular, Thurber noted that Congress has spent significant time and political effort this year squabbling over a series of short-term spending bills and raising the debt ceiling.

“The failure of the appropriations process has limited their ability to do other things,” Thurber said.

As for bills becoming law, split control of Congress has obviously played a role in the relatively low number; the House and Senate have had difficulty agreeing on anything this year.

The last comparable dynamic came in 2001, when Republicans controlled the White House and the House and Democrats held the Senate after May, when Sen. James Jeffords (Vt.) left the GOP. President George W. Bush signed 136 bills into law that year. 

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just approved a push for swifter union control through speedier elections that could occur within two to three weeks after filing a petition. Before the rule goes into effect, it will be drafted into final language for a subsequent NLRB vote within the next three weeks.

Comments from Indiana Chamber of Commerce President Kevin Brinegar on this development:

"This is yet another attempt by organized labor to abandon the historical democratic process within labor-management relations and tip the scales in favor of employees voting for a union. Currently, the average time it takes to have an election is 38 days. By cutting that time in half, unions are boldly trying to rob employers of their time to fully discuss the impact of unionizing their workplace.

"It all comes down to fairness. Employees need to be able to fully hear both sides of the union organizing argument, and then let them make an informed decision. What the NLRB is attempting is basically an ambush and once again illustrates the Board’s increasing abuse of power."

There are other concerning changes covered in the new rule, says Brinegar, including no pre-election appeals to the Board and any post-election review of issues would be strictly discretionary.

Background:
The NLRB has less than three weeks to finalize its recommendations since the Board loses its quorum of three members later in December, including one key supporter of the approved election changes. The Board’s vote on Wednesday was 2-1. There are up to five members in total on the Board at any one time.

The National Labor Relations Act provides employees with the right to form or join a union in order to collectively bargain with their employer. To be recognized by an employer, a union must demonstrate it has the support of a majority of the employees. Any union election process is supervised by the NLRB.

As a mushy moderate, I’m in the unfortunate position of actually trying to seek out facts when it comes to economic policy — so contrived sound bites from people who are paid to BS me for a living don’t really do it for me (my apologies to Fox News and MSNBC). So, if you will, please take this brief journey with me as I try to sift through analysis on the impact of the federal stimulus package — all based on from what I can glean is the exact same report from the Congressional Budget Office, mind you.

Jay Bookman of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution contends… the CBO says it was a "major success":

The Congressional Budget Office has released its latest assessment of the 2009 stimulus package and the economic impact of its various components.

According to the CBO analysis of stimulus provisions:

They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 0.3 percent and 1.9 percent,

• They lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.2 percentage points and 1.3 percentage points,
• They increased the number of people employed by between 0.4 million and 2.4 million, and
• They increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 0.5 million to 3.3 million. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)

 Two other points:

•  The CBO estimates that the impact of the stimulus will continue to be felt over the next year, increasing GDP by up to 0.8 percent next year and creating up to 1.1 million jobs over what it would have been.
• The longterm economic impacts of increased borrowing to fund the stimulus will be minimal or nonexistent. “In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, ARRA will reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates—by between zero and 0.2 percent after 2016,” its economists predict.

The Washington Times relays… Nay, the CBO says it was but a short-term fix, but will cause negative long-term consequences, sucka!:

The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.

CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the stimulus piled up “crowds out” private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run — by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.”

The analysis confirms what CBO predicted before the stimulus passed in February 2009, though the top-end decline of two-tenths of a percent is actually deeper than the agency predicted back then.

All told, the stimulus did boost jobs and the economy in the short run, according to CBO’s models. At the peak of spending from July through September 2010, it sustained anywhere from 700,000 to 3.6 million, which lowered the unemployment rate by between four-tenths of a percent to 2 percent.

The Obama administration had promised 3.5 million jobs would be produced at the peak of spending.

For this current quarter CBO said the stimulus is sustaining between 600,000 and 1.8 million jobs, which has improved the unemployment rate by as much as 1 percent versus what it otherwise would have been.

The White House did not return a message seeking comment Tuesday afternoon, but officials there previously have said the Recovery Act stopped the economy from falling into another Great Depression…

CBO has re-evaluated the stimulus every three months, and its estimates for the total cost have varied. Initially the package was pegged at $787 billion, rose as high as $862 billion at one point, and is now projected to be $825 billion once all the money is paid out.

The nonpartisan agency also has changed its model for the spending’s impact on the economy, and the new calculations show the Recovery Act did less than originally projected.

CBO said it has concluded there is less of an indirect multiplier effect of federal spending.

Those changes caused it to drop its estimates for total employment sustained by the spending in 2011 from between 1.2 million and 3.7 million down to between 600,000 and 3.6 million.

As for the long-term situation, CBO said its basic assumption is that each dollar of additional federal debt crowds out about a third of a dollar’s worth of private domestic capital.

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, which is why the Recovery Act boosts the economy in the near term.

So, in closing, the federal stimulus package was clearly a wonderful/dreadful initiative.