WITHIN CITY LIMITS: Episode IX, The Nineties Are Calling ... They Want Their Politicians Back.

Within City Limits

Episode IX, The Nineties Are Calling ... They Want Their Politicians Back.

By Nick Vaughn, Guest Columnist

With Evan Bayh announcing he is seeking his old senate seat and Hillary Clinton being endorsed by Bernie Sanders, I felt like a baby again. Being born in 1997, I am only familiar with the political landscape by looking backwards, something Democrats are never advocating -- until now.

When President Obama was running for President and reelection, he had the slogans of “Forward” and “Progress,” but today's Democratic Party is running on nostalgia and backwardness. You can argue with me about platform points and “evolving on issues” like gay marriage, but the bottom line is that these politicians who are the standard bearers for the Democratic Party nationally and on an Indiana state level are still the same politicians who were the standard bearers in the 1990s.

The top three candidates on the Democratic ticket in Indiana are all rehashes from a bygone era where the state's economy was in the toilet, brought on by large deficits and high taxes. We looked a lot like Illinois back then. Hillary Clinton, John Gregg, Evan Bayh; all rehashes. While their talking points are much different than they were back then, they are still the same people. 1990s politicians should not be the ones solving the problems of the 2000s and beyond.

Beyond my displeasure and discontent with the rehashing of candidates, all three represent special interests, Wall Street, and back room politics at their absolute worst. John Gregg is still taking advantage of the state’s healthcare for elected officials being paid by the taxpayers, a practice that has ended. Furthermore, Gregg was a lawyer for the Bingham McHale law firm, where lobbying records show he was a well connected lobbyist for various topics. You can read more about his lobbying here: Gregg's lobbying record doesn't worry Democrats.

Evan Bayh used to be a public servant until he decided to retire from the U.S. Senate to take a lobbying job. Bayh epitomizes what is wrong with Washington, D.C. He went there as a senator and cashed in on the special interest money by fighting the laws he helped pass (including Obamacare). Plus Bayh just recently moved back to Indiana. He had previously lived in DC in a $2.9 million dollar home and had a modest vacation home in Florida worth over $3 million.

Bayh saying he will represent everyday Hoosiers might be the biggest lie of the campaign season. He is out of touch and filled to the brim with special interest money. Read more about Bayh the Lobbyist here: Lobbyist Evan Bayh Lit On Fire By The Left and here Evan Bayh Won’t Rule Out Becoming A Lobbyist After His Term Ends.

Hillary Clinton. Well, enough said.

So that I get my point across, I think it is inherently hypocritical and ironic that the Democrats have long been the party of vilifying the rich and lobbying class that infests Washington, D.C. and Indianapolis, yet all three of their candidates at the top of the ticket have deep ties to Wall Street, special interest money, and lobbying. For Pete’s sake, two of them are former lobbyists! Not to mention all three are rehashed candidates of a bygone era.

My question is: will the people of Indiana hold these three accountable? Or will they be fooled by the talking points? Also, do the Democrats who reject the Wall Street, special interest, and lobbying culture of Washington, D.C. and Indianapolis hold their nose and vote for three candidates who epitomize what is wrong with our system of government? Or will they stand for what they believe in and hold their party and their candidates accountable?

And as always, I leave you with the quote of the day: “In 2005, the progressive watchdog group Public Citizen reported that 43 percent of the members (of Congress) who retired from 1998 to 2004 registered as lobbyists.” -- Huffington Post

Indiana Chamber of Commerce awards its apples.

The weirdest rumor I've heard lately is that State Representative Ed Clere will have a Tea Party challenger in the primary next time around. Seems unlikely, although perhaps someone might ask Dave Matthews, or at least launch another rumor to the effect that Matthews started the first one.

Meanwhile, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce has released its annual "scorecard" for state legislators, finding that "The highest full-time voting record for 2013 was Rep. Ed Clere (R-District 72 of New Albany) at 97%."

2013 Legislative Vote Analysis (29th Edition)

It is informative to examine the components of the chamber's yardstick. As such, and for much needed balance, here's a 2010 article at Mother Jones. It's about the US Chamber of Commerce, but birds of a feather ...

Fact-Checking the US Chamber of Commerce; America's most overblown business lobby, busted, by Josh Harkinson

With a name that evokes Main Street and Little League teams, and with millions of dollars to spend on lobbying, the US Chamber of Commerce has long been a powerful force on Capitol Hill. But as it's taken more extreme positions on a range of hot-button issues, from flirting with climate change denial to fighting health care reform, its reputation as a predictable pro-business group is crumbling.

Last fall, Nike, Apple, and three major utilities quit the Chamber or its board of directors over what one company called its "extreme rhetoric and obstructionist tactics." Companies such as Dow and General Electric distanced themselves from the group as environmental and labor groups piled on with criticism of the Chamber's cozy relationship with special interests ...

"With respect to rental property, however, government must assume a more active role."

Council representative John Gonder has taken up the code enforcement mantle again in essay form, relaying both the council code enforcement committee's report and related commentary, on his blog:

Providing safe housing for themselves is a basic responsibility of every homeowner. A safe dwelling allows the family to live free from concern for unsafe mechanical systems, pest infestations, or other threats to health and well-being. In such places the costs for heat, water and sewage should be reasonable and predictable. Responsible homeowners routinely take the initiative to ensure that these basics are provided. Government’s role in the regulation of owner-occupied housing is somewhat limited: inform the community of accepted standards, and ensure that life-safety issues are in compliance with existing code provisions.

With respect to rental property, however, government must assume a more active role. The same basic requirement exists: the property must be safe in all respects. But the offering for sale, lease, or lease/rent-to-own of housing units is a business. As such, the conducting of that business places a greater burden and a greater responsibility on landlords because this business affects the entire community. The quality and standard of maintenance of rental properties can dictate the level of commitment neighboring owners and, in fact, other landlords may show to dwelling units. The committee found that some, mostly older, neighborhoods have as many as half of the houses under various rental agreements...

John's continuing dialogue and leadership on the issue are much appreciated and I won't quibble with many of the body's most basic findings. Still, I see the results of the council's rental committee, shared in full for what for me at least was the first time, as somewhat lacking in substance. Essentially, no recommendations beyond what already exists on New Albany's books were made.

Compared to legislative processes associated with smoking and adult cabarets, in which the laws of many communities were researched and variously assembled into proposed legislation that mimicked what was collectively determined to be best practice, the committee's report on code enforcement brings to mind a recitation of the obvious with no suggestions as to how to actually handle the enforcement problems found.

I know that many of those best practices have been provided the council by various citizens who've taken it upon themselves to learn in the hopes that they may share knowledge with others. I also know that the same procedure occurred during deliberations over public smoking and pole dancing. The resulting council actions, however, were very different with the latter material incorporated into law while the former was not so much as mentioned in council documents.

Gonder says that any necessary code adjustments identified by the enforcement process can be quickly addressed. Again, though, other recent legislative processes have sought to proactively identify those potential boondoggles rather than waiting for the guidance of experience, most often doled out in the form of lost legal battles.

Do we want to define what constitutes a "reasonable" heating system in our housing code voluntarily or under court order?

The difference in the processes and council's reaction to them, though, is perhaps best delineated not by how they happened but by who participated. Put simply, the advise of professional lobbyists was heeded and expertise offered by citizens was not.

Perhaps, as the senior editor suggested in the comments of a previous post, that realization provides clues as to how best proceed.