Bowes On Tax Presents

It's gotta feel good to get to tell the pundits, "How do you like me now?"

A day after I went on Abdul in the Morning and stated that Marion County Assessor Greg Bowes was in a tough position in his bid to become prosecutor because he works in an office that routinely gives bad news (passes out property tax bills), he announced that tax bills will be on time for the first time in four years, and an astounding 82% of rate payers will be seeing decreases in their property taxes. Nine percent will see decrease of 10% or more, Bowes states.

That's an awful lot of good cheer he gets to spread for 2010.

Of course, it comes with a cost to government services. Wish-TV reports the likelihood of further cuts in the arts and parks budgets because of lost property tax revenue. I understand that when money gets tight, "recreation" seems a lesser priority than core services, such as public safety. But when the outgoing Republican council prez, Bob Cockrum, tells you the public safety, police, and fire budgets can have some fat trimmed out of them, I listen.

I hope the council will go get that money first before making more cuts in arts and parks; otherwise, everything that makes Indianapolis a good place to live will suffer.

Bowes On Tax Presents

Idle Speculation About Child Abuse Deaths?

Normally, I use this blog to persuade you, valiant reader. Today, I'm going to provide facts and let you reach your own conclusions.

1. There are two annual publications of note in Indiana that deal with child abuse and neglect fatalties.

2. One report, which has no title, is prepared by the multi-disciplinary State Child Fatality Review Team, chaired by Dr. Antoinette Laskey, a forensic pediatrician from Riley Hospital for Children & the IU School of Medicine.

3. One report, entitled, "Child Abuse & Neglect Annual Report of Child Fatalities," is prepared by the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS).

4. The reports review causes of "reported" child abuse and neglect deaths and provide recommendations to policymakers to lower the number.

5. Each report runs in state fiscal years. The "2007 report" covers from July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007, which makes calling it the "2007 report" a misnomer. (This sounds like boring accounting goobledygunk, but it will be important later).

6. Among the "reported" fatalities, Indiana made a pretty drastic improvement for state fiscal year 2007. Going back the past five years, the annual reported abuse and neglect fatalities are as follows:

SFY 2003 - 51
SFY 2004 - 57
SFY 2005 - 57
SFY 2006 - 56
SFY 2007 - 36

7. The time it takes DCS to produce/release its report varies. It's quickest time to go public was 6 months in 2003. The longest time it has taken to produce a report is....this year. The clock is about to strike 2010, and DCS still has not produced its report for FY 2008, which ended 18 months ago.

8. In 2008, Governor Mitch Daniels ran for re-election.

9. DCS issued the SFY 2007 report in March of 2008, or only nine months after the close of the 2007 fiscal year. This was faster than 2005 (11 months) or 2006 (14 months).

10. Governor Mitch Daniels' campaign website issued a press release in April of 2008 touting the reduction in child abuse and neglect fatalties to 36. This release, in the same paragraph, celebrated the hiring of 800 new family case managers (a process which began in 2005).

11. The Governor's press release noted that that only 9 of the 36 kids who died had contact with DCS.

12. The general public has no precise idea how Indiana (and DCS) has done since July of 2007, as no report has been issued for the 2008 or 2009 SFYs. (Sure, we've seen child deaths in the paper, but that's hardly comprehensive).

13. If DCS completed its report in six months, as it did in 2003, we would know how we did for both SFY 2008 and 2009, specifically, whether there were more than 36 fatalities in either year, or whether more than 9 children were killed who had contact with DCS in either year.

14. What we learn in those reports might or might not serve as a compelling rationale for legislative funding. In the Governor's own press release, it states:

(Dr. Laskey) questioned whether the 36 child deaths reported Monday was truly an accurate number.

“I just don’t know what that number is,” said Laskey, a forensic pediatrician at Riley Hospital for Children and the IU School of Medicine. “I don’t know what that number means without looking at all the child deaths.”

The group issued a report last month that said the lack of financial support from the state and lack of a fatality network has severely curtailed the scope of child fatality review in Indiana.

Many states review every child death (including all natural deaths) each year,” the group’s report said. “Thorough reviews of all deaths have led to improved knowledge an prevention programs with measurable outcomes. Indiana needs to rise to this level.”

Child Services Director James Payne said some states try to review all child fatalities, not just those documented as abuse and neglect.

“We hope to be able to get to that,” he said. “There is an issue of commitment of persons not only by the department, but commitments of law enforcement and others. There is an issue of funding that has to go with that, but our goal ultimately is to look at all cases.”

15. James Payne runs the Department of Child Services. If there is an issue of "commitment" of persons in the department, he can remedy it or fire people.

16. James Payne has been an actively lobbyist for DCS at the Indiana General Assembly, and DCS has its own lobbyist. The Governor and Director Payne both have legislative liaisons.

17. Knowing the ways Indiana children have been dying over the past two fiscal years might serve as a clarion call for funding, legislative changes, or both at the current Indiana General Assembly session.

18. For example, if deaths from parents sleeping with their children have risen in either of those years, even by one, someone might rethink the decision to cut the public service announcement budget by 63% for ads warning against this practice.

19. The last report issued by Dr. Laskey's team in February of 2008 says the following:

"Many recommendations in this year’s report mirror those made for SFY2005."

20. The only way recommendations from a 2008 report would be made again is if nothing changed in 2007.

Are we really better at protecting children, or was SFY 2007 an anomoly? We still don't know. Let's hope we are as good as advertised and that an opportunity to make things better hasn't been squandered.

Idle Speculation About Child Abuse Deaths?

Electrical Workers Make Shocking Donation?

I consider the folks at IBEW Local 481 my brothers and sisters in arms.

I’ve phone-banked out of their hall at 1828 North Meridian Street on at least a dozen Democratic campaigns, and a few weeks ago, I attended Democratic Superior Court Judge David Dreyer's holiday party there. (Kountry Kitchen wowed again. If you haven't been, make a point of going - 1831 N. College Avenue).

So how do I explain the $5,000 IBEW Local 481 gave to Republican Carl Brizzi's 5th District Congressional campaign on May 13, 2009? (Technically the donation is from the IBEW PAC in D.C., but that doesn't happen without local boosting, and Brizzi's campaign lists it as a 481 donation).

Democrats have such strong relationships with unions, it's easy to expect them to support only Democrats. That's unfair. Unions are interest groups, and their leaders survive by safeguarding their members' interests. Sometimes unions have to keep peace with an incumbent Republican likely to win re-election. This may be why the IBEW supported Brizzi in 2006 when he ran against Democrat Melina Kennedy.

If you read contribution reports, you'll know car dealers donate to Attorneys General, manufaturers donate to Governors, and stock brokers donate to Secretaries of State. Why? To keep enforcement bodies out of their hair.

The offices Republican candidates do well garnering union support in are law enforcement-related (prosecutor, sheriff). This makes all the sense in the world. Were I running a union, I'd like the comfort of knowing a prosecutor wouldn't pounce on my local and get headlines only to say later, "Sorry, we were mistaken." As Tim Durham knows, you can't buy back credibility.

Just as often, though, unions have to choose the lesser of evils. Maybe the IBEW viewed Brizzi as the least offensive Republican candidate in a district certainly staying Republican. (The the other R candidates are Brose McVey, Luke Messer, Mike Murphy, and Dr. John McGoff). Brizzi certainly couldn't have done worse than Burton, who has a 14% lifetime AFL-CIO voting record.

I understand tough choices. What I don't understand is the timing. Brizzi repeatedly said he would not run unless Burton retired, so why not wait until Burton stepped aside?

I ask because at the close of September of 2009, Brizzi still had $22,000 in his federal campaign committee coffer. It would have been $23,000, but two weeks after receiving that IBEW donation, Brizzi gave $1,000 to Mike Pence.

Yes, the Mike Pence with 0% AFL-CIO rating in 2008 and a lifetime rating of 7%. You know, the chair of the House Republican Conference, committed to regaining GOP control at the midterm elections. Since Pence doesn’t have any real challenge this time around (sorry Dems), all the IBEW’s money could end in the account of a staunch opponent of organized labor. Less than fifty days after Brizzi's donation, Pence shipped $25,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

The moral of the story is that giving a donation to a Republican at the inception of a five-way fire-fight that you don't even know he's in is not the same as giving it to him in a two-way shoot-out that's near the finish line. It’s also not the same as paying for independent expenditures that you control. When you hand over a check without conditions, all bets are off.

IBEW 481's history of massive donations, manpower, facilities, and political strategy to Democrats will always outweigh an occasional ill-fated decision like this, but I hope other unions will view this post as a cautionary tale.

Before you hand a check over to a "lesser evil," you might want a commitment that the candidate will use the money for his own race or refund it. Otherwise, you risk propping up those who would destroy everything you wish to preserve or achieve.

UPDATE: The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 103 also gave Brizzi $1,000 on May 27, 2009. They also gave $1,000 to now defunct Republican sheriff candidate, Tim Motsinger, on March 6, 2009, and another $500 on May 8, 2009, donations that illustrate nicely my point about unions and law enforcement R candidates. In folding up his committee, Motsinger stated:

I have made the decision that it is appropriate to return any and all financial contributions and loans that my campaign has received from him (Tim Durham) or his affiliated businesses.

As Local 103 isn't a Durham company, I'm assuming it didn't get its money back from Motsinger. Was it spent, or will there be another Republican committee benefitting from labor union generosity?

Electrical Workers Make Shocking Donation?