Thousands of Students Take Advantage of Voucher Program, Mostly Go to Catholic Schools

Indianapolis Business Journal, among many other sources, is reporting that some 3,200 students have taken advantage of Indiana's new school voucher program. More of those students are going to Catholic schools than to any other destination.

The move takes place the first school season after Indiana's legislature passed bold new school voucher laws that make some of the most aggressive changes in the nation. Supporters say the plan allows parents to pick the best education for their children, despite their personal economic situation. Opponents complain that the vouchers remove money from the public school system and may violate the separation of church and state.

With so many vouchers heading the way of parochial schools, those complaints about the church and state issues would appear to have some validity. Supporters, though, say it has little to do with the parochial nature of the mostly Catholic schools. They argue that it is because most parochial schools are better established and have standards more in line with what parents expect than other private schools do.

The argument of church vs state does not always add up. While it may be a valid argument, it feels like most of those using it do so to prevent money from leaving their beloved public schools, rather than to prevent some injection of religion into our government spending. If it was truly about separation of church and state, then the voucher opponents should be strong supporters of increasing the size of the charter school system. To the contrary, though, you find opponents of both charters and vouchers to be mostly the same people.

This first wave of students heading to private schools is bound to be only a small portion of the number of vouchers we see used in the coming years. As parents become more aware of the program's existence and how to use it, I fully expect this number to jump up greatly.

The real test will be the program's performance, of course. Watching same-student test results over the next few years is going to be very telling about how much difference a school can make.  Is it the child? How the child is raised? The neighborhood? The school? I suspect we will find all are factors, but for the first time we will have some reliable statistics to back either side of the argument with.

Bosma Calls for Hinkle's Resignation, Hinkle Says He Won't Run Again

Phil Hinkle

Following the craigslist scandal that has gotten so much attention, even from the national late night talk show circuit (via Conan O'Brien), State Representative Phil Hinkle has announced he will not seek another term, says the Indy Star. 

 Many news sources in town are breaking the story the Speaker of the House Brian Bosma has called for Hinkle's resignation.  The Star is saying that a written Hinkle statement is giving the impression that Hinkle decided after last year's election, though, that he would not be running again.

From the Star:

-->>"As for 2012, we, as a family, decided back in December after the 2010 election, that I would not be seeking another term," Hinkle said in a written statement.


Speaker Bosma



Hinkle's announcement that he will serve out his term came as the Speaker of the Indiana House called this morning for him to step down.

"We have a lot of compassion for Phil and his family," Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said. "But the right thing for him to do is to step down, and he needs to do it. It is absolutely the right thing for him and his family, and it's the right thing for the institution."

Bosma said Hinkle couldn't be removed from the House but that he would begin the process of removing Hinkle from committees he leads. Of Hinkle's decision to serve out his term, Bosma said: "I really don't know how he does that."<<--



Here's some other links to current coverage around the City.

WISH TV

WTHR

RTV6

Coleman Raises $65K in One Weekend

Indianapolis City-County Councillor Ed Coleman has had a great couple of days. This weekend, between a large donation from the Libertarian National Committee and donations from several other donors, Ed was able to raise approximately $65,000.

Ed is currently an At-Large councillor for Indianapolis who was elected as a Republican, but switched to the Libertarian Party after becoming disgusted with the internal workings of the local Republican leadership. He is running as a District 24 candidate this year.

From the Libertarian Party of Indiana's release in the subject's

-->>This is not just a game-changer for my race, but also for the entire Libertarian Party," said Councilor Ed Coleman. "We hope this serves as a signal to all elected Republicans and Democrats that standing on principle doesn't mean campaigning alone. The party of principle will work to help elect and re-elect Libertarians to make true change in the political arena. I would like to thank the LNC for recognizing this opportunity, and stepping up to keep the libertarian message moving forward."<<--

The donations obviously springboard Coleman into the realm of money that the two major parties may deal with regularly, but is uncommon among local third-party candidates. Even among the major parties, this kind of funding is uncommon in district council races, where $10-15 thousand is more the norm. His opponent, for example, most recently reported $4,000 raised, with $1,000 in debt.

If Coleman can use the  money to help himself achieve victory in November, the consequences will go well beyond just his race and local county politics.

With a Coleman victory this fall, libertarian-leaning Republicans and Democrats will have proof that switching to the Libertarian Party does not equal political suicide. Such switches, if they can remain viable candidates, will become more common across the nation. Membership in the LP could swell and much more money could be raised.

Make no mistake, a Coleman victory this November could be the biggest thing to ever happen to the third-party Libertarians. And it just became a whole lot more possible.

Coleman website

Libertarian Party

Libertarian Party of Indiana

UPDATE- corrected link to Coleman site.

Ron Paul's Website Attacked During Online Fundraiser

Libertarian-leaning presidential contender and congressman Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX) turned 76 years old yesterday. As part of his birthday celebration, Dr. Paul and his campaign team decided to hold a "money-bomb," or day-long online fundraising push.

The congressman has had extraordinary success with money-bombs in the past, and has them regularly. He was the first candidate in U.S. history to raise one million dollars in a day via the internet.

His goal for yesterday's birthday money-bomb was an aggressive $1.5 million. Not surprisingly, he was making great strides towards that goal as the day progressed.

Then came the devastating news from Paul's campaign. At approximately 10:40pm Eastern, the Ron Paul Facebook page posted the following status update:

"The ronpaul2012.com website is under cyber attack. Our team is working to fix this as we speak. So sorry to all who have tried to make donations and could not. We'll have more info ASAP."

Speculation as to the cause and source if the web failure began quickly circulating the internet. Some were saying that the website's servers simply couldn't handle the traffic (something this author doubts do to the large number of successful money-bombs Paul has had in the past). Others speculated that the attacker was some Republican that wanted to slow Paul's recent successes. (A little more reasonable of a theory, since Paul is often considered a radical to ignore within his own party, but has had many recent positive movements in his campaign.)

The truths is, it doesn't matter who the attacker is. It could be someone just out to make a name for themselves in the hacker world. Or, as earlier stated, there may be no attacker at all.

The site was finally up and going before midnight, and the site announced they were extending the money-bomb until noon today to allow a chance to donate to those that could not.

By the time midnight struck, the money-bomb had raised $1.49 million of their $1.5 million goal. Because there's some extra time on the clock now, the campaign has increased the goal to $1.75 million.

A Rant - The Bidding Starts at $60 Million (and other things I just don't get about mega-lawsuits)

Here we are, only days after the tragic collapse of an Indiana State Fair stage that has now claimed six lives and injured dozens more. The crumpled heap of metal and tarps and lights still lay on the infield of the Fairgrounds' dirt track. The memorial of flowers still grows just outside the Grandstand's entrance gates. The 2011 Indiana State Fair still has two days of Midway and livestock and deep-fried Kool-Aid to deal with before wrapping it up till next year.

Yep, we're really not that far past the tragedy yet. But the first of the lawsuits about the collapse have already started to roll in. One asks for $60 million. That's a whole lotta dough. It makes me wonder what the family will do with it if it is awarded to them. I doubt the pain of the death will vanish. Who knows, maybe it helps.

I just don't understand mega-lawsuits like this. I never have. I think they harm free enterprise and society. I feel like they do little to help the family's grieving process, and it's done by selling out the dead.

Where did the $60 million number come from? Was $1 million not enough? Why not $10 million?

We don't even know what happened yet. No cause has been determined. No investigation has been completed. (In fact, one of the lawsuits promises to slow that process by asking the heap to remain untouched for now.) There is no way to know who, if anybody other than Mother Nature, is responsible for what happened. No one yet to accurately blame.

But the lawsuits come anyway. They don't seem to care who is really to blame. They'll just blame everybody. And ask for their money. Lots and lots of it.

Some insurance companies will have to write some large checks. The taxpayers will surely foot big chunks of the bill. A business or two may cease to exist.

The bidding opened at $60 million. That's just the starting point. Over the next several months we will see a lot more lawsuits filed. Some will ask for more. Some will ask for less.

How much is really needed? Cover hospital bills? Sure. Cover final expenses? Yep. Cover time away from work? Of course.

But how do you calculate how much more is needed? How much is all this really worth? Why $60 million?

I've never had a lawyer knock on my door and say, "I'm sorry about your recent tragedy. I can make you very rich from it, though." I never want to. But if something like this did happen to me, I'd hope I could tell the lawyer to go to hell. It'd be hard to, in the face of riches, I'm sure. But I'd hope I could keep my resolve.

Pay my costs and throw in a little extra for the trouble, and allow me to live the rest of my life without the guilt of feeling like I sold out my loved one's death. That's how I'd like to think I'd handle it. I never want to know.

Am I wrong, here?

Lawsuits Start in State Fair Tragedy

The Star and RTV6 are this morning both reporting that the first lawsuits have been filed in the State Fair stage collapse tragedy.

The RTV6 story indicates the lawsuit, filed on behalf of Tammy VanDam, who was killed in the tragedy, is asking for an injunction to preserve all evidence.

The Star's story's headline indicates it is asking for $60 million in damages. That story is currently accompanied with a non-functioning web link, at least for mobile devices, so I can't follow up.

Except to start seeing a lot more of this. Nearly everyone involved will be filing lawsuits in the coming months. They will fill our news for some time.

UPDATE - Found a working link to the Star's story via author Jon Murray's Twitter account and added it.

Unopposed Candidates No Longer Will Appear On Ballots

The news teams at RTV6 and The Indy Star have been covering a story by  The Lafayette Journal & Courier about a new law in Indiana that will remove from ballots both the name of unopposed candidates and the offices they are running for.

The law, which went into effect July 1st, states that, "an election may not be held for a municipal office if there is only one nominee for the office."  The result, which many are now saying was unintentional, is that a race for an office that is unopposed no longer exists to voters.  When we step into the booth, we will have no indication that the office is even up for election.

The purpose of the law was apparently to save a few pennies by making ballots shorter.  If you know me, you know I'm all about saving some taxpayer money.  This is not a good way to go about that, though.  The very, very small amount of money that will be saved is simply not worth it.  These few pennies will only create confusion among voters, and add a level of invisibility to our elected officials.

Voters walking into booths this fall expecting to see every council and mayor race will be faced with confusion when the races they may be there to vote on are not on the ballot.  I expect the confusion created among many voters, and the resulting questions, will end up greatly slowing down the voting process for all involved.  Even if you know what to expect when you step into the chute, the voter in front of you in line may not.  Now we'll all have to wait a little longer while the election officials sort this all out with voters.

Of course, we as citizens have every right to full disclosure about who is representing us.  A large part of that can come from their name on the ballot.  Even if unopposed, every voter should be allowed to see the name of the person that is going to be filling the office for the next term.  Removing those names adds a level of invisibility that I am not comfortable with.

Finally, I feel every voter should have the right to vote for or not vote for every single candidate on the ballot.  Voting is about more than simply picking elected officials.  It is about making a statement.  Voters should be able to make a statement, even in an unopposed race, that they either support or do not support the person who will be sworn in.

From the Lafayette Courier & Journal Story:

-->Peggy Mayfield, clerk in Morgan County and legislative liaison for the Indiana Association of County Clerks, said the wording of the bill as passed is different than she thought it would be.


The association championed the change, but when discussing the idea last spring Mayfield's understanding was that it would only negate ballot names and offices when there were no contested races in a district.

"This is not what we expected as the result, but that's what happened," Mayfield said.<--


I hope that she's right, and this is not at all what was intended.  If so, the Legislature can step in and correct it with little or no opposition in the next session.

I am confused about Mayfield's statement, though, that she thought this law would only take effect on ballots where NO races had opposition.  I highly doubt there are too many of those that exist, Peggy.  It sounds to me like you're backpedaling.