Indiana Democrats hold call-in show for constituents
CHAMPAIGN – Indiana state Rep. Vernon Smith of Gary may be temporarily living at the Comfort Suites in Urbana as part of the Democrats' walkout from the state legislature, but that isn't keeping the professor of education from teaching classes at Indiana University Northwest.
When Smith isn't taking part in caucuses with his fellow Democrats, he teaches two classes via Skype.
"One of my colleagues passes out materials in the classroom, and I do PowerPoint presentations by Skype," Smith said. "The students' papers are shipped to Urbana, where I grade them and send them back."
Meanwhile, state Rep. Greg Porter, whose company is building a hospital in Indianapolis, said he has been conducting business from afar by telephone and computer.
"I've brought two computers with me to Urbana: one for my job and one for government," Porter said.
Smith and Porter were among 12 Democratic legislators from Indiana who took part in the "Afternoons With Amos" talk show Wednesday afternoon on WTLC radio in Indianapolis.
The show originated from the studios of WDWS in Champaign.
Radio host Amos Brown said he often presents his talk show from outside the House chamber in Indianapolis.
"Now we're speaking from outside this other unofficial House chamber in beautiful Champaign-Urbana," Brown said. "We're learning today about Illini hospitality, and it is fabulous."
The legislators took calls from listeners in Indiana and talked about their concerns over proposed legislation affecting education and labor.
"It was good to have an opportunity to educate teachers, union people and non-union people about the issues that affect them," said state Rep. Earl Harris of East Chicago.
"I am grateful for the opportunity to get on the radio and talk to the folks back home," said state Rep. Jeb Bardon of Indianapolis.
State Rep. Charlie Brown of Gary said he believes the legislative proposals of the Republicans are part of a plan to make President Obama a one-term president.
"They want to dismantle unions that have been staunch supporters of President Obama and the Democratic Party," he said.
"I don't think the Republicans understand that we are standing on principle," said state Rep. Cherrish Pryor of Indianapolis.
Charlie Brown said the Democrats' walkout, which began in February, is beginning to have a financial impact on the participants.
He said the legislators who have left Indianapolis have voluntarily given up their $155 per diem payments since they left Indianapolis and are facing $250-a-day fines for not showing up at the General Assembly. Smith said he has been told those daily fines may soon increase to $500 a day.
"Will it hurt us? Yes," Smith said. "I went to Walgreens and looked at my Chase checking account and noticed it is going down. Normally it is pretty steady or it increases because every Friday we have a deposit for our per diem placed in our account. Yes, a $500 fine is going to have an effect. Will it make me go back? No."
"The sacrifices we are making with our families and our jobs have been painful," Bardon said.
We don't have much room to brag about politicians in IL, but I definitely would not be wasting my vote for another term on any one of those people. Really proving a point they could give a poo about their constituents by hiding out 3 hours away for what, like a month now? Man! Sure would be nice to have 2 jobs and have the one boss say "Oh it's cool, take all the time you need to prove what again?" Tax payers sure are getting their money worth...
Not since Abraham Lincoln jumped out a window and ran away to prevent the Dems from having a quorum have any Illinois legislators shown this much backbone. True American heroes, except to the millionaire freeloading class and their dupes. Perhaps there are some future presidents among them! America could use another Lincoln.
So basically you just said that Indiana dems running away from their responsibilities are more courageous than Ronald Reagan staring down the communists at the height of the cold war.
Don't like that one? I know, maybe they have more backbone than Barack Obama? He's an Illinois politician isn't he?
Ronald Reagan didn't "stare down" anyone. He benefited from decades of out-spending and out-innovating a nation with half our population located at about the same latitude as Canada. The fall of the Soviet Union is the result of hard work by millions of people throughout the U.S. and the world. The sooner people realize there's more to history than myths of the right, the better off we'll be. Quit living in dreamland.
Riiight. Thank you for those insightful comments. I'm sure you feel much better now that you got your Reagan bashing in for the day. I didn't say he took down the Soviet Union, I said he 'stared' them down, which is exactly what happened in Rekjavik.
I love it when lefties get so upset when people talk about a great conservative president. It just makes me all warm inside.
That 'great conservative president' raised taxes and loved unions and collective bargaining:
"Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost!"
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/03/ronald-reagan-loved-...
So, was St Ronnie right or wrong about that?
John, I'm not a Reagan worshipper, and I definitely never called Reagan a saint, although I think it's very sweet of you to speak of him in such a kind, caring way. I called him a great, conservative president. The truth is that he did a lot of compromising to get things done, and if you read the article I linked to, it says exactly that.
I don't see where people correcting you is necessarily "Reagan bashing" no more than you are a "Reagan worshipper." You seem to have a problem with criticism though. Also, further dividing us among ideological lines (especially lines drawn by popular media) is unproductive.
I don't have a problem with criticism. I enjoy it, which is why I post here. I post something, someone disagrees or criticizes my argument, we go back and forth. It's fun for me, and I assume other's too. I'm glad people like Bill D and Sid Saltfork and John O and Commonsenseman rip on my posts, because it makes the world interesting. And it let's me know there are other people out there who actually think about issues like these. I'm still not sure where I've been corrected though.
You seem to have a problem with saying what you really want to say. You start of by trying to come across as neutral, but then go on to say I've been corrected, and that I'm dividing the country for buying into popular media talking points. You don't mean 'all' of us, because you didn't say all, you just replied to my post. Just say what you want STM. Let it out. It's America, you're allowed.
John, St. Ronnie the Great was right! Thanks for bringing up a quote by someone I've never heard or seen you quote. I didn't know you were an admirer . . . seriously, just a joke. The next sentence by St. Ronnie was that freedom is never more than a generation from extinction.
Now, let's ponder the thought that "free unions" and collective bargaining are tied to freedom. Let's compare St. Ronnie to the author of the bill that the Indiana Democrats fled the state over: "State Rep. Wes Culver, R-Goshen, filed a bill Monday that would make it a criminal offense for any employer to compel union membership as a requirement for employment." Source: http://tribstar.com/local/x1964519130/Indiana-lawmaker-revives-right-to-... Hmmm. Free unions and compelled to join would be the opposite of St. Ronnie's dream (that you quote). Free unions would mean that one would be free to join or not to join, wouldn't it? John, thanks for bringing up a great point! St. Ronnie resolves the issue. Are the unions, and by extension their members, going to be a bastion of individual freedom or are individuals' in bondage to unions -- compelled -- going to continue in such an ignominious fashion? Let's hope that St. Ronnie's call to free unions will one day become a reality. All hail St. Ronnie!
That would be cute if it were true. Lincoln left AFTER he voted nay; there was a quorum the day he jumped out the window (and his party, the Whigs, lost the vote). That happens in the democracy. His biographer and confidant, Danville's own Ward Hill Lamon, stated that Lincoln always regretted such a cowardly action. Imagine if all the Republicans left the day Obama was sworn in, effectively ending the republic as we know it. Such cowardly tactics, circumventing the will of the people, would be damaging to a republic. No, the Republicans lost in 2008. Still, they voted against the stimulus bill and Obamacare instead of holding government hostage. Then the voters had/have the right to choose who should make the policy, as happened during the November 2010 election.
I hope the democrats hang tough. The repugs don't even hide it anymore. This is a war on the working class. First they kill the unions, then they kill the minimum wage. To see the impact of union busting, just look at Danville. It is a city of pawn shops, government offices, hole in the wall churches and loan companies. The city has million dollar streets and 50 cent jobs. Pay is low and mandatory overtime is the rule of the day. Village mall is full of empty stalls and government agencies. As late as the 1970s, there were plenty of good paying jobs in Danville. small businesses abounded and people had the money to buy products. This was because most of the factories were union. those that were not union had to pay a decent wage to compete for workers. I am still asking the question for which I have not received a legitimate answer. What are the wealthy contributing to the kitty to fix the economy?
The 70's are over dude. If we could only go back to the good ole' Carter days right? Please. You know what companies create new jobs by opening new manufacturing facilities in the U.S.? Honda, Toyota, BMW, and many other foreign manufacturing facilities. And most of them are non-union. And people would LOVE to have those jobs. And you know where they like to open factories - in the non-union south, and Texas, and Indiana. They avoid this state like the plague because of our poor business climate. That is why Danville lost so many decent jobs, not because of 'repugs' as you put it.
The unions did a lot of good for this country. They have also over-played their hand a little, and the voters and the economy are reeling in their power a little.
The corporations created some jobs, then took them away. I think that they have overplayed their hand more then just a little. If you want to kill unions, then all corporate lobbying, political activity and political contributions should be banned. Unions provide a level playing field and big business hates that.
When facts meet opinion, sometimes the opinion sounds crazy. "First they kill the unions," has no basis in reality. Even in this case, there is no mention of destroying unions in the private sector. The case is made for limiting or removing unions in the public sector. Sound crazy? FDR said that public unions will corrupt; to this day, since Jimmy Carter, Federal workers do not have unions. Yet, they still have excellent benefits, seniority, and a good salary. Who killed the unions? When? How? Where? Cite examples and facts over hyperbole.
Then you ask, "What are the wealthy contributing to the kitty to fix the economy?" Excuse me, but in America, up until recently, what one earned one kept. Even those lucky enough to inherit wealth had a private interest. I'm am sorry that you believe that you and the rest of Americans are entitled to other people's wealth. To me, their private property is, well, private. Cuba and the Soviet Union, of course, disagreed with such a philosophy.
Ronald Reagen - 1980 - air traffic controllers. You sound like a typical repug. Anything you don't agree with is simply opinion.Since the Reagan years, the repugs have assaulted Taft-Hartley and any other regulation that benefits the working class. In the 1950s, the top tax rate was 90% and the country prospered. You can't talk about keeping what you earn when the workers (who you hate so much) are the ones paying all of the taxes. I'm entitled to what I earn. I should not have to take wage cuts and poor working conditions so some CEO can make millions a year.
Okay, you just say I'm simply saying you are stating opinion as a means to ignore your points. I saw it as, "Where are the facts?" I still don't see them. How and when did the Republicans assault Taft-Hartley? Please, I just don't see facts to back up the argument that you posit that "First they kill the unions." Enlighten us!
True, the tax rate was very high in the 1950s, but that is a bad example because, as this typical repug can point out, Democratic President John Kennedy significantly lowered the top tax bracket and increased revenue after the 90% debacle. The good ole 1950s tax bracket is refuted by later actions (one could mention, too, that Reagan did the same thing Kennedy did). Simply put, higher tax brackets means people shield money or move it over sees, resulting in lower revenue and less investing. Hey, this repug does believe the results of uber-Democrat Kennedy. You don't? (Notice, since you never said that, I'm going to let you speak for yourself instead of creating innuendo.)
Excuse me, but you stated I said I hate the workers. Please quote me so I can figure out what I've said. Silly me! Please provide some darn facts, because until there are facts to back up one's statement, then the view is simply an opinion. The facts in my post do not show your opinion. Again, I'm sure you will refute this simply by quoting me. I look forward to this trashing!
Then you state you are entitled to what you're paid. I hope CEOs and those who work in the private sector are entitled to what they're paid, too (just like you!). Yet, the taking of tax money -- the CEO's -- is what leads to the ability to pay the public sector. You state taking 90% is good. I guess they could disagree (or in the alternative, want you to also pay 90% so we do not discriminate!), and in the off chance in a democracy that the people sided with people who work not for the government but themselves, we would bow to the will of Wisconsin, er, the people. Kudos.
Have you forgotten the Reagan years? He began a campaign to gut Taft - Hartley. He tried to undercut the minimum wage by allowing companies to pay a "training wage". The argument that we should cut taxes for the rich so that they don't shield their money overseas is ludicrous. Using that line of thinking, why don't we allow people to go to the banks and help themselves so they wont be robbing them? If they are illegally shielding their money, then they should go to prison and have their assets seized.Do you really think that the wealthy use their money to create jobs? Newsflash! they do not. They use their wealth to buy each other out. Look at AT&T. They are using their wealth to buy out T Mobil and have already announced that it will result in thousands of lay offs. If they have 39 billion extra dollars laying around, they have been overcharging the consumers for their product to a ridiculous degree. They have a call center near me and they pay their workers a tiny fraction of what those at the top make. Trickle down economics does not work. It only redistributes the wealth upwards.
First, I applaud the very civil argument. Some posters go off on wild tangents trying to create something nefarious. You obviously are not doing that! A couple of points. We will have to agree to disagree about the Reagan years. What I do remember is the lower unemployment, lower interest rates, and lower inflation. Were they perfect? Compared to Carter, yes! To me, the comparison to robbing banks is not well founded because shielding money overseas is legal and has been shown to happen (compare Kennedy's tax cut versus the 1950s and more money was raised with lower taxes!). It is legal to move overseas. Heck, when John Kerry tried to register a yacht in Delaware versus Massachusetts so he would pay lower taxes, the media made a circus of it. I'm certainly no Kerry fan, but hey, he sounds intelligent in this endeavor. Another point is that several economists, many well noted, believe the minimum wage does more harm than good (and point this out with many studies in the US and else where). Lastly, you state that the wealthy do not use their money to create jobs? Government is not the answer and cannot create wealth. They simply redistribute it. If this were not so, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and China pre-capitalism would have won the Cold War.
I get so tired of repugs whining about people wanting to "redistribute the wealth". the people want back what has been taken from them. The other replies to my post blindly stick up for the wealthy. they like to romanticize them. If one is not born into money, the odds of them succeeding are very poor. Companies move to nonunoin states because they are too cheap to pay their workers a decent wage. As for a good business climate, the repugs consider no corporate taxes, regulations or minimum wage to be the ideal climate. what if the workers had the same mentality as those at the top? They wouldn't want a fair wage, they would want thousands per day just to show up. Nobody begrudges someone for making a fair profit; however, making a billion a year on the backs of the workers and the consumers is a bit extreme. As for killing unions, where is the air traffic controllers union at today? It starts with the public sector and moves to the private sector. I could go on but I am talking against money people here so I won't change the opinions of those who are bought and paid for.
All these righteous Republicans. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Were you spouting the same insults during the Indiana Republican walkouts of 1975, 1991, 2001, and 2004? And yes, I know that Indiana Democrats have also walked before, in 1995 and 2005. If you want to live in a country where one party runs the show, well, you're a little too late for the Soviet Union but China would be glad to "re-educate" you. Otherwise be appreciative of the fact that you live in a democracy.
Of course not. It's only bad when dems do it. Some people seem to think that democracy means they have a right to have everything go their way. When Democrats win, it's because they stole the vote or are somehow illegitimate (see ACORN and the whole birther conspiracy nuttery).
When Republicans use procedural measures to forestall majority rule in the house and senate, that's just fine. But let Democrats use the rules to their advantage, and some Republicans will whine no such thing has ever happened before. Citing examples of Republicans doing exactly the same thing Democrats are now doing is sadly ineffective. Watch, they'll ignore it, dismiss it, argue that it's not the same thing, or deny it happened at all (as in the Lincoln example above).
Mitch Daniels certainly did not act the righteous Republican; he said that walking out is a part of politics. Sure, I consider it cowardly from both sides and am very happy that the Republicans did not do such thing to Obama (even though I wish they would have substantially altered many bills). To me, there is a majority -- some can deride it as one party -- and they get to set the agenda. Pelosi had that role, regardless of whether Republicans or others wanted that. There are winners and losers. Does that make us like China or the Soviet Union? No, because at the next election the people can vote. Now, with that said, do I agree with Wisconsin passing a bill while the Wisconsin Democrats were in Illinois? Absolutely! The Wisconsin Democrats gambled and lost. When the Wisconsin Democrats brought up a budget increase in 2008 -- when they were in the majority -- and surprised the Republicans with no hearings or amendments and rushed the budget through in a day, that is how democracy works sometimes. Eventually everyone has to persuade enough voters that their course of action was correct.
Somehow I doubt you harbored equal outrage when the senate Republicans engaged in an unprecedented number of filibusters, placed anonymous holds, and used other procedural methods to stall the Democratic agenda. Walker, as well as the Republicans in Indiana and Ohio, did not run on the radical agenda they're trying to coordinate. As Walker himself said when he thought he was talking to that billionaire financier, it was a national effort by Republicans to further attack workers and the middle class.
It is of course now backfiring badly on the Republicans. Many face brutal recall efforts and polls show that, if they knew about the radical agenda bait and switch, voters would not have elected Walker and Kasich. Not only that, but a judge stayed the Wisconsin anti worker bill because it was not legally passed. It looks like they'll have to vote on it again.
Republicans in Washington are doing the same thing. They campaigned on jobs but are now more interested in policing women's uteruses and defunding Planned Parenthood and NPR. They are repaying their right wing Republican 'Tea Party' voters by pandering on culture war issues instead of helping to create jobs or contributing to the economic recovery.
This and the anti worker state level bills show how anti worker and anti middle class Republicans really are. They are overreaching and the backlash in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and elsewhere is just the beginning.
John, I do applaud the continual civil discourse. Did I harbor equal outrage to a very unequal event? The question answers itself. On the national level, the Republicans, just as Democrats of yore, worked within the system. After Kennedy's seat went Republican and the Democrats used a procedure to bypass reconciliation, I was not outraged. There are winners and losers. This is very different than running out to try to hijack the system. As the minority sometimes you will be the minority. Wisconsin and Indiana legislators leaving is very different, even if Republican Governor Mitch Daniels disagrees with my assessment.
Maybe this will backfire badly, just as the Pelosi-Reid years did (even backfiring in the so called "recovery"). We will know soon enough. Also, I believe the government should get out of the radio and parenting business (as well as leave abortion to the states) and many other intrusive endeavors. As far as your comment that Republicans are anti-worker and anti-middle class, you know I will take a different stand. To me and many other Republicans, measures such as Obamacare and many other such bills are the real anti-middle class.
I'm just tired of the right being so wrong. They're not even conservative anymore. They want to break down institutions. That's what anarchists do. Conservatives should want to preserve the things that work and build upon it. We once had a great, thriving middle class. They're trashing it. They're making teachers the "bad guys" in this fight to destroy unions. Some of the same unions that have been keeping American workers from returning to the miserable conditions of the past.
Tell you what, when Labor Day rolls around this September, I want all Tea-baggers and Republicans to be at work...if they still have jobs.
This is democracy "inaction". Do you ever remember Republicans running from the state capital? The voters made a choice and elected a majority of Republicans. Now that democratic vote is being nullified by a few. Do elections matter? Do legislators have a duty to show up and work? Or is democracy only good if the Democrats like the results? Is it fair to nullify the vote of a majority? This is a dangerous precedent.
I again welcome the Indiana legislatures and trust they have everything needed to their liking. I want to personally thank you democrats for standing on your principals by using those means available to you, (Lawfully performing your duty), in thwarting the GOP move to dismantle what democracy has forged for this country. It is truly an honor to bear witness to your vigilance and testament much like President Lincoln, (A Republican), accomplished after jumping out a second story window to thwart what he knew in his heart was wrong. You make Illinois very proud. Well done, keep up the great work you do. Disregard comments from the chicken coop or regard them and make yourselves feel right at home, lol. Democracy civilizes the world. Republics steal the profits from it.
whether republican or democrat, they were elected to do a job! This running away tactic is juvenile. This country has major problems and everyone is going to have to make a sacrifice. But first, we have to hold our representatives responsible, if they are being compensated by whatever interest, this needs to be outlawed so that the overall population is being represented. Special interest groups who control a politician are what is wrong with our system . Ask for change, limits on campaign spending, where the contributions come from, and term limits, before what this country stands for and was built on is gone forever
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.