Thursday, January 19, 2006

5 Reasons Mitch Daniels Is Not So Bad

Mitch has never been "my man," but his actions as Governor have caused me to warm to him. He is showing more and more each day that while he is a Republican by ticket, he is a Hoosier and a technocrat by nature. And before my Democratic readers disown me, let me explain. These are the top 5 things Daniels has done to impress me:

5. He refused to jump on the Intelligent Design bandwagon even though it is a sure-fire ratings booster in this state.

4. He has spoken out against legalized workplace and housing discrimination against gays and lesbians (and even added sexual preference to the State's anti-discrimination code). Further, he refused to take the lead on the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, as his party would have had him do.

3. He supports blanket approval of local consolidation in order to allow local governments to increase efficiency and decrease taxes. His counterpart Brian Bosma prefers to block consolidation and blame tax increases on Democratic mayors.

2. He parted ways with his party last year to propose a 1% income tax for earners over $100,000. Finally, a real fiscal conservative who values a balanced budget more than a tax cut for wealthy Americans. No good liberal could argue with taxing the rich to provide for the poor.

1. He organized trade trips to other continents in an attempt to bring business to Indiana. He adopted a proactive approach to economic development instead of resorting to the failed theory of "if you don't tax it, they will come."

In short, he has refused to be bought by the Crazy Evangelical faction and has focused his efforts instead on policy efforts that have already produced results. As long as he stays on this path and ceases holding Republican fundraisers in RV1, he may be on his road to being "my man" after all.

Brian Bosma, on the other hand, is still on my list.


Blogger Jason266 said...

I wouldn't go so far as to say he could eventually be "My Man", I agree with your 5 reasons. Actually, last night I had dinner with a couple friends and we had almost the same exact discussion.

I still have issues with how the BMV is running things. And I'm very concerned about privitization efforts within FSSA and DOC.

But he's driven by personal convictions, not party lines. So at the very least he has my respect.

8:31 AM  
Blogger torporific said...

He will never be "my man" but I agree that we could do worse than him as governor. I posted something similar in November entitled Mitch Daniels-We could do worse.

9:40 AM  
Anonymous Kate said...

It's funny... because I was so anti "My Man Mitch" when he ran. This was mostly because he has close ties with W who never came close to winning my favor with any move he's made. I'm pretty central in my views though I am liberal leaning certainly.

I am very pleasantly surprised by some of the moves Mr. Daniels has made. He's shown tolerance, courage in opposing fellow party members and the ability to actually accomplish something. The Republican views he supports seem to be the same ones I do... not the social conservatives, but the economically responsible financial conservatives. Over all else, I really believe in efficient government spending which is rare to find on any level and he's shown a real dedication to that cause.

Though I dislike his partisan politics, I can almost look past it for all the progress he's made. If he keeps it up, he may just have my vote in the next election. Respect is tough to earn these days as a politician when everything is so divided. I look forward to seeing what moves he takes in the future.

11:33 AM  
Anonymous J. Hull said...


Questions and Clarifications...

5. Do you agree with the reasoning behind his declined bandwagon leap or do you merely assent with the result because of the specific topic (I.D.)?

4. The issue of state recognized unions of homosexuals and the idea of "anti-discrimination" laws, may on the surface, appear to be closely linked, in truth they are completely separate.

One demands the state to be unbiased, which is a valid request, but the other is clearly flawed. While arguably it is sound and wise advice to use objective criteria when considering potential employees or tenants; it is not the state's place to make it necessary. Not only does this rob the freedom of the private business to operate as it so chooses, but it prevents the owner from making necessary decisions in certain circumstances. (conclusions or policies drawn from obvious demigraphical analysis may appear externally to be discrimination)

3. Decreasing taxes is always wise and of course, any power shift from larger government to smaller localized government is better. I understand your support for this point. Valid point, Mr. Mitch.

2. In the same paragraph in which you provide evidence that he indeed is not a fiscal conservative (and even include that any "good [fiscal] liberal" would, or atleast, ought to applaud this move) you declare him one! The words even mean anything anymore?

The Robin Hood principle is nothing but "justified" theft. Just ask Ayn Rand (at this point I am scratching my head to why you even care for her writing?). Not only is it evil, but as history demonstrates, it is unwise and leads to the destruction of societies. Bad move, Mitch, you fiscal fucking conservative!

1. Failed theory of "if you don't tax it, they will come"?! Are you seriously suggesting that business will not want to go where taxes are lower? What would you say is the motive of business? This challenges some of the fundamental assumptions of business and trade altogether. Could you provide evidence supporting your claim?

12:02 PM  
Anonymous Kate said...

Again, your pseudo-intellectual babble irks me and I feel the need to issue a response.

5. Does it matter if she agrees with it or not? Your point (or lack there of) is unnecessarily argumentative and irritating.

4. "The issue of state recognized unions of homosexuals and the idea of "anti-discrimination" laws, may on the surface, appear to be closely linked, in truth they are completely separate."

You are incorrect sir for one reason: The opponents of both of these so called issues are one and the same... the religious right. Mr. Daniels had chosen to distance himself policy-wise from this highly irrational group of so-called Republican conservatives (they've proven to be so only in the social sense).

These are also both issues of homosexual discrimination and BOTH demand that the state be unbiased.

So, if I read you correctly, do you not support policy that addresses discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, or age either? Isn't it lucky for you that you're white and male?

I've already written too much. I'll respond to your other points later if I feel like they're worthy of the effort.


12:47 PM  
Blogger Jezebella said...

5. I personally do not believe in intelligent design, but I agree with Mitch that the state has more important things to worry about.

4. Every person has the constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Private business has never had the right to interfere with this pursuit, though they have frequently done so without punishment. The state is not creating mandates for private business; rather it is ensuring that America treats its citizens equally.

2. I do not appreciate you adding [words] into my writing in order to create a [contradiction]. Mitch is a fiscal conservative because he believes in balancing the budget. Any year that there is a budget deficit, it translates into a future expenditure that is larger than the original deficit, because the state pays off debt with interest. How does the state pay off this debt? By taxing. So balancing the budget is a way of cutting taxes which has an exponential, positive effect in the future. I was merely pointing out that Mitch planned to attain a fiscally conservative goal (balanced budget) by using an idea that is uniquely liberal--taxing the rich. Economically, it is not taxing the rich to give to the poor. It is taxing the rich a little bit so that the state doesn't borrow money, rack up interest on its debt, and have to tax the rich's kids 3 times as much as the proposed 1% increase. That is fiscal conservancy. If you want to cut taxes, cut spending first.

1. States compete for businesses like private companies compete for market share. If a totally unknown company lowers their price, it makes no difference because nobody is inclined to buy their product in the first place. Likewise, if Indiana (with great qualities but none that are obvious to the outsider) lowers taxes (i.e. the price of doing business here) but nobody wants to come here in the first place, it does no good. Cutting taxes is an important step, but it has already been done. What we need is P.R. and that is what has made Mitch's actions successful.

Seriously, dude. You need to start your own blog.

11:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Free Web Counter
Web Counter