Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Friday, April 26, 2013
Fellow blogger Paul Ogden makes a great point in his blog about the inheritance tax. LGBT couples might be the biggest winners.
You see, a spouse was previously tax exempt from the inheritance tax. But since Indiana doesn't recognize gay marriage, even lifelong couples only at best qualified as a friend, and had am enormous tax burden because of it.
Although I sincerely doubt there were any intentions of this law being to help gay couples, in many ways they benefit the most. No longer does it matter who you spent your life with when or comes to the amount of inheritance tax you pay. A gay couple now pays the same tax treasure as a straight couple does, at least in this area.
That's a win.
Ogden has some interesting math in his big showing just how much the tax could impact a gay couple before. Make sure you check out his blog for that info, and more details on this story.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Throughout the day Wednesday, news began surfacing that the Boston bombing suspects used gunpowder scavenged from fireworks to create the deadly bombs used to terrorize this year's Boston Marathon.
I'm willing to bet that before next week is out, there is a minimum of one state making lots of news because it's legislature is going to begin considering strict new fireworks legislation because of this. That's the way it always happens with these tragedies.
- Something horrible happens
- Something the vast majority of people use safely in their lives is found to be involved
- Legislators panic and make rash decisions about what can be done to prevent tragedy again
- Mostly safe item has crazy new restrictions placed on it or is banned
- Hardly anyone, if anyone at all, is saved while millions deal with ridiculous new regulations
Here's what I expect to see lawmakers suggesting across the nation:
- Styles of fireworks allowed to be purchased limited to only those with the smallest amounts of powder
- Number of fireworks purchased to be severely limited
- Anyone attempting to buy large amounts of fireworks to have police called on them
- Every fireworks purchaser to have their name recorded along with the contents of each purchase
- Digital connectivity required between different fireworks resellers so that attempts to buy large amounts via small amounts purchased from several retailers will be thwarted
- Fireworks purchaser license required
- Background checks required for fireworks purchasers
- Fireworks safety courses required before anyone is allowed to purchase fireworks
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Last week, Ballard announced that Indianapolis was going to be building a $6 million cricket venue. The project had apparently already been in the works for at least two years, but the administration had been keeping it hush hush. To make things even more interesting, the first announcement of the plans didn't come to the residents of the City of Indianapolis, or even to an audience here in the Good Ol' US of A. Instead, when Ballard decided to make these plans public, he did it in Hyderabad, India.
That's right, Ballard kept plans to spend six million taxpayer dollars on the down low for years, and waited until he was halfway around the world to make the information public. And he did so with some utterly suspect quotes, obviously planted in his head by whatever group convinced him this was a great idea.
Cricket is not exceptionally strong in the U.S. right now. I need to change that.
When people from around the world think of cricket, I want them to think of Indianapolis.
Can't you just hear the ego flowing out of those statements? HE needs to change that? Are we to believe that Ballard is some huge cricket fan that has been secretly putting together these plans in some grand scheme to make the citizens of this country suddenly believe that cricket is God's gift to the sporting world? And does he really believe that the way that will happen is by putting a handful of fields on Post Road?
The answers, of course, are a resounding no. Ballard doesn't care about cricket. And making this
And now things are getting even more interesting for Ballard, as his own party is expressing dismay in what is going on. According to an article in Monday's IBJ, the City-County Council plans to discuss the matter and request more information from the Ballard administration on it.
The Council knows it is powerless to stop the park at this point, but they are seeking some specific projections on its cost and potential revenue. Republican Councillors Ginny Cain and Janice McHenry, and Democratic Councillor Pam Hickman are quoted in the article as having expressed specific concerns. Cain and Hickman both address the budget woes the parks are already facing...among which include potential lay offs and reducing maintenance. McHenry, who serves on the Council's Parks Committee, noted that the administration never even bothered to bring the plan before them.
As you might expect, though, spokespersons for the administration are rushing to the plan's defense. Public Works Director Lori Miser believes that the project will be a revenue generator for the parks department. She also believes that maintenance can be arranged through public-private partnerships.
Um...a revenue generator? Really? Let's just pretend that the venue can fill 10,000 spectator events (and don't get me started on where those people are going to park in that area,) and that each person's presence generates $20. That means that it will take 30 capacity events to just break even at this location. And that's if there are zero costs involved, which is obviously not the case.
And public-private partnerships taking care of the maintenance? Right. Because the Ballard Administration has such a strong track record of those partnerships working out to the taxpayers' advantage. **cough water company cough** **cough parking meters cough**
The truth is, this is some idea that was spoon fed to Ballard by a person or persons that stands to make a lot of money off the deal. Just like so many other of this administration's projects, an insider is ready to make a mint off of Ballard's corrupt management of the City. I said I'd lay good odds to that fact, and I mean it.
In fact, my money's on the soon-to-be-richer insider being David Ladd. The IBJ article closes saying,
Ladd, a former business acquaintance of Ballard's, said the mayor first raised the idea in 2009...
Ladd agreed to help.
Keep your eye on this one, folks. Whatever news is allowed to surface is sure to point in corruption's way.