STATEHOUSE (July 15, 2011)- Leaders of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) this week appointed State Sen. Jim Banks (R-Columbia City) to their national Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force to work with state legislators and members of the private sector to develop free-market public fiscal policies.

“I am excited about this opportunity to study and learn from fiscal conservative state legislators from around the country to implement conservative reform to address today’s economic challenges – without implementing tax increases,” Banks said. “While Indiana is one of a handful of states who are fiscally solvent, we have much more work to do to reduce the tax burden on Hoosier families and businesses.”

According to the organization’s website, the task force develops policy to reduce excessive government spending and lower the overall tax burden. The group has developed budget reform policies, tax and expenditure limitations and legislation opposing Internet taxes.

As a voting member, Banks will participate in his first task force meeting during ALEC’s annual conference in New Orleans in August.

Banks said this panel serves as a public policy laboratory where legislators develop model legislation to use across the country.

ALEC officials said Banks was chosen because of his fiscally conservative values and legislative efforts in this year’s session of the Indiana General Assembly.

Banks introduced legislation to eliminate Indiana’s inheritance tax – also known as the death tax – to help attract investments and encourage economic growth. The Columbia City lawmaker said he plans to reintroduce the measure next year to send a positive message to Hoosiers and keep retirees in Indiana. He also championed an amendment to the state’s budget bill giving an automatic taxpayer refund if reserves reached a certain level.

Banks was recently named an “All-Star” by Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. for his efforts to amend Indiana’s Constitution to permanently safeguard worker’s rights to use secret ballots on union authorization votes. The Columbia City lawmaker also ranked among the top 15 of 50 Senate members with his employer-friendly voting pattern by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.

Today, Americans for Tax Reform announced that Sen. Jim Banks (R-Columbia City) will chair the Taxpayer Protection Caucus in the Indiana Senate.

To join the caucus, a legislator must have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, thereby putting their commitment to constituents and state residents to “oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes” in writing. With the addition of Sen. Banks, there are now 39 Taxpayer Protection Caucuses in 31 states. Every state (with the exception of unicameral Nebraska) will soon have both a Senate and House caucus consisting of all pledge signers in the legislature.

“Jim Banks is a true fiscal conservative and will serve as an essential proponent for Indiana taxpayers in this leadership role,” said Joshua Culling, Indiana state affairs manager for Americans for Tax Reform. “We couldn’t be happier that Sen. Banks has agreed to chair the Indiana Senate Taxpayer Protection Caucus as an advocate of lower taxes and limited government policies that will help Indiana families and businesses through private sector-led job creation and economic growth.”

The Taxpayer Protection Caucuses provide a single voice on tax issues among pro-taxpayer legislators, and form entire bodies of legislators that believe in the same principle: no new taxes. In Indiana, these seven senators will join together to resist any bills that would raise the net tax burden on Hoosiers. Considering the budget battles many states face across the country, taxes continue to be very high on the radar screen of voters and the media. Journalists will be able to go to the chair of the caucus for comments on tax issues.

“We look forward to working with Jim Banks in securing more Pledge signers in the Indiana Senate. Until you take tax increases firmly off the table, true and lasting spending restraint is impossible,”added Culling. “Senator Banks is a leader on fiscal issues, and we are ecstatic about his commitment to a fiscally conservative Indiana.”

Read more: http://www.atr.org/article-a6184#ixzz1SVofiIol

Unfortunately, the Indiana Supreme Court had other plans.

The outrage rolling across the state against an Indiana Supreme Court ruling has been one of the few things to unite people from different political backgrounds. With just a few simple words, Justice Steven David launched a devastating attack on individual Hoosiers’ liberties:

“We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We believe however that a right to resist unlawful police entry is… incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”

Contrast Justice David’s words with the actual text of the 4th Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

I will not short change the concerns about the specifics of the case that brought this matter to the attention of the Indiana Supreme Court. Domestic violence is a serious matter and law enforcement officials must be free to protect citizens in accordance with the rights and restrictions placed on these officers by the Constitution. Unfortunately, the court’s ruling in this case will do very little to protect citizens from the horrors of domestic violence and might even open the door to abuse by some law enforcement officials.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller went on the record stating the court has ruled too broadly. Newton County’s Prosecutor Jeff Drinski issued a statement clarifying that random “door-to-door” searches would NOT be permitted in his jurisdiction. Drinski took this action after comm ents attributed to Newton County Sheriff Don Hartman, Sr. suggested that his officers would do so since it was permitted by this ruling.

It’s hard to believe that the court can simply decide that modern conveniences like bail, prompt arraignment and civil recourse actually trump our Constitutional rights.

The Fourth Amendment wasn’t randomly demanded by the states. Rather, it reflected an outgrowth of protection that then-colonies had already recognized in many instances in their own codes of laws. There are several examples of these colonies adopting laws protecting ordinary citizens from similar illegal incursions by government authorities.

Put yourself in the shoes of an American colonist. At the time, the Common Law guarantees enshrined in the Fourth Amendment were not a given in the colonies. British soldiers did not require justification to enter and search your home. It was just one of many examples of how property rights were not recognized by the Crown in the lead up to the American Revolution.

News articles are already circulating about law enforcement supervisors who are more than ready to flex their muscles under the new-found “freedom” granted by this court ruling.

The nature of our part-time legislature in Indiana has left many citizens feeling powerless. I’ve fielded many calls and emails from constituents who are worried that we can’t stop this dangerous ruling from being implemented. Though we don’t return to the Statehouse until next January, I am already working with other senators on drafting an amendment that will ensure our freedoms can’t be encroached by unelected state Supreme Court justices.

Governors get to select a lawyer from a group vetted by a nominating commission. We citizens get to vote to keep them or throw them out by voting to retain them for another term. How many people will have their rights trampled before then?

While in the short term I’m committed to working with my fellow conservative legislators to restore these Constitutional rights, over the long term it is clear that Indiana needs to open a debate about judicial accountability. There are a number of options on the table-perhaps giving the people a voice on these nominations by requiring the Senate to consent to these appointments is appropriate (similar to Federal judges as well as the states of Delaware and New York). Another solution used in many states might be to elect justices to the bench rather than simple appointments.

The bottom line is that Hoosiers demand greater accountability across all levels and branches of government, and this ruling throws that need into stark relief. Join me and conservative Hoosiers across the state to make your voices heard on this issue, so we can fight back and prevent this attack on our liberties from taking hold in Indiana.

“Senator Banks realizes the importance of being the voice for those Hoosiers within Senate District 17,” Long said. “I congratulate him on achieving a perfect attendance record and thank him for the dedication he has shown to his constituents and this state.”

This session, 118 Senate bills moved to the governor’s desk.

“These pieces of legislation represent the people’s work, including a balanced budget, private-sector job initiatives, education improvements and a fair redistricting plan,” Long said. “I’m proud to say Senator Banks gave his best throughout the legislative process.”

This session, state records show 299 of 317 Third Reading roll call votes in the Senate were bipartisan in nature. Of these, 128 were unanimous.

STATEHOUSE (April 18, 2011) – State Sen. Jim Banks (R-Columbia City) today joined fellow lawmakers in supporting an amendment to a key anti-abortion bill that would strip public funding of Planned Parenthood – the state’s largest abortion provider.

Members voted 36-13 in favor of the amendment – prohibiting any state contracts or grants with Planned Parenthood or other organizations that provide abortions – sending House Bill 1210 to its third and final reading in the Senate. Banks credited State Sen. Scott Schneider (R-Indianapolis) for crafting the amendment.

“I wholeheartedly believe that Hoosiers’ hard-earned tax dollars should not be used to support abortion providers,” said Banks, sponsor of the legislation. “I am encouraged by this amendment as it marks a positive step toward our goal of reducing the number of innocent lives taken each year through abortions.”

According to Planned Parenthood of Indiana’s 2010 annual report, the organization conducted 5,580 abortions last year – up more than 2 percent from 2009.

If passed, the bill would cut off about $1.6 million that Planned Parenthood of Indiana receives from the state for medical services. Banks said the organization has 28 locations across the state.

Other provisions of HB 1210 would require a physician to inform a pregnant woman considering an abortion that the fetus might feel pain. It also requires a pregnant woman to view fetal ultrasound imaging, unless they decline in writing.

This bill also contains language requiring physician admitting privileges and prohibits health plans under the federal health care exchange from providing abortion coverage.

Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 241 to 185 to cut off the $350 million per year in federal funding Planned Parenthood receives. This measure was rejected in a 58-42 vote by the U.S. Senate.

This is one of eight hearings being held across the state seeking public input regarding new legislative boundaries for Statehouse and congressional seats. I encourage Hoosiers in Northern Indiana to take advantage of this opportunity to learn more about the redistricting process and share their viewpoints with lawmakers.

Saturday’s hearing is scheduled to start at 2 p.m. (EDT) in the Allen County Public Library, 900 Library Plaza.

For those who will be unable to attend Saturday’s Fort Wayne hearing or may be travelling in Northern Indiana on either Friday or Saturday, there are other hearings at which you may share your input:

• Friday, March 25, at the Faith Baptist Community Center, 5526 State Road 26 E., Lafayette, from 10 a.m. to Noon (EDT);

• Friday, March 25, at the Crown Point High School Auditorium, 1500 South Main St., Crown Point, from 3 p.m. - 5 p.m. (CDT); and

• Saturday, March 26, at the Memorial High School Auditorium, 2608 California Road, Elkhart, from 10 a.m. - Noon (EDT).

Under the Indiana Constitution, the General Assembly elected during the year in which a federal decennial census is taken shall fix by law the number of senators and representatives and apportion them among districts according to the number of inhabitants in each district, as revealed by the census.

Yet, I disagree with almost all of their conclusions.

As a new member of the legislature, it surprises me so many of these writers, some personal friends, believe I would leave them vulnerable to an unfair evaluation system developed and managed by state bureaucrats.

I am working every day to keep that from happening.Many expressed a fear that I would “break” the teachers union and end mandatory public-sector collective bargaining.

Yes, that’s exactly what I would do. There’s no good reason for public-sector unions to exist — for teachers or for students.

“There never was a ‘labor problem’ in government for unions to solve,” writes Dr. Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the U.S. Department of Labor. “Government has always been a model — read generous — employer, lavishing good pay, the eight-hour day, fringe benefits and civil-service protections on its own.”

The unions support a dynamic that drive our best teachers out of the classroom while attracting the mediocre and the misplaced. They push up costs by increasing staffing levels. They oppose the use of budget-saving volunteers. They create a bureaucratic and inefficient workplace, discouraging bold innovation.

Again, the letters on my desk, heartfelt and sincere, offer no good reason for teachers unions to exist.

Educators in a dozen other states go to class everyday without any collective bargaining whatsoever. Twenty-two states have “right-to-work” laws that free workers from being forced to join a union or pay union dues.

Some argue that Indiana is being outpaced by those states.

“Unionism seems to coincide with poor state government management,” argues Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute. “States with higher public-sector union shares tend to have higher levels of government debt. And the states with higher union shares do more poorly on grading by the Pew Center regarding the quality of public-sector management.”

The laws of economics cannot be suspended by decree. What some of my letter writers think of as their “rights” inevitably translate into fewer opportunities, lower pay, less job security and certainly less freedom for all teachers, especially the accomplished.

For taxpayers, collective bargaining adds an estimated eight percent to the cost of state government. And there are other apposite bits of information missing from the public discussion.

First, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 establishing a “right” to collective bargaining does not apply to teachers or any other workers in the public sector. There are so many legal, political and economic differences between public-sector unions and the private-sector model they shouldn’t be called “unions” at all.

And please know that Indiana’s Collective Bargaining Act was a political compromise, not an assertion of constitutional right. It was passed into law only a generation ago with the blessing of a Republican governor in exchange for property-tax reforms. Former Lt. Gov. John Mutz, then a state senator, played a key role in that decision. He now says it was one of the worst mistakes of his career.

The property-tax reforms were subsequently undermined but collective bargaining lived on. Its unintended consequences mount. Its disincentives are reaffirmed each session by Democrats and Republicans alike. We created a professional class of politician dependent on the teachers union, actively or passively, for their Statehouse employment.

Which brings me to my core objection. No, it is not because Indiana government is under financial stress. Indeed, I agree with the protestors that teachers should not be singled out in balancing a state budget.

Nor could I name a state superintendent who could command teachers to do a better job or do it more efficiently. Nor would I withhold full reward from those who now do it so successfully.

I object because public-sector unions corrupt our state government and the democratic process.

The Indiana State Teachers Union is allowed to use its statutory privilege as a political machine. It controls the full range of policy debate in Indianapolis. We would abide such power in no other privately controlled organization.

Dr. Charlie Rice, former dean of the Notre Dame Law School, explains it well:

“Mandatory collective bargaining for any employees of government involves multiple distortions of sound policy and practice. It confers on an unaccountable financially interested private entity — the certified union — a portion of the lawmaking authority of the state. In the process, the interests of the public employees are subordinate to the interests of a privileged union. This is compounded when the bargaining unit is the public school and the ‘products’ of the enterprise are not nuts and bolts but vulnerable school children.”

The writers of the letters on my desk should know that none of this necessarily means lowering education standards or even providing less money to public education — not a single dime less.

Rather, it means recognizing that no coherent rationale for public-sector bargaining has ever been offered.

It means allowing workers to freely choose whether they want to belong to a union and pay its dues as their sole bargaining agent.

It means moving the decision-making process away from the Statehouse or even the superintendent’s office and toward principals and teachers deciding what is best in their particular school buildings.

This week, a group of Indiana legislators heard Lisa Snell of Reason Foundation explain how all that is happening in Louisiana under Gov. Bobby Jindal. There, school funding can be attached to the student and not the administrative district. Individual teachers and principals are thereby freed to design curriculum to fit the needs of students. Such true systemic reform is happening other places throughout the nation.

I must tell you, though, it is not happening enough in Indiana.  That is true even under measures proposed this session by my own political party.  We have only begun to summon the courage to dip so much as a toe in the waters of reform.

This is true even as a Feb. 27 Rasmussen report found that although Americans generally believe public education is a good investment, 61 percent say public schools have become worse over the past decade. Another 17 percent say they are unsure whether it has gotten worse or better.

Think about that. Despite spending levels that threaten the financial solvency of so many states, and despite government’s full power to license, regulate, consolidate and monopolize, less than a quarter of Americans can say public schools have improved.

My disagreement with the letters on my desk carries with it the responsibility to change that — at least for Indiana.

The unions had their chance. They failed.

The author represents state Senate District 17, Columbia City.

————————-

Resources

Arthur Laffer, Stephen Moore and Jonathan Williams. “Rich State, Poor States: Alec-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index.” The American Legislative Exchange Council, April 7, 2010.

Morgan Reynolds and Craig Ladwig. “Why Collective Bargaining Is no Bargain.” The Indiana Policy Review, winter 1991.

Senate Joint Resolution 10 passed the Senate 32-16 and now moves to the House of Representatives for further consideration.

“This resolution is a proposal to amend Indiana’s Constitution to help guarantee the right to use secret ballots on all unionization votes,” Banks said. “I am grateful for the bipartisan support this resolution has received and I look forward to working with members of the House of Representatives.”

Currently, workers have a chance to vote for or against unionization in a supervised secret-ballot election – a voting method in which an individual’s choice is confidential.

Banks said under a proposed federal law, known as the Employee Free Choice Act or card check, if more than 50 percent of workers at a facility sign a card, the government would certify the union and the need for a private ballot election would be eliminated – even if workers request one.

“If card check passes, union organizers could ask for an employee’s signature in favor of unionization at any time – including lunch breaks in front of other employees or even at home,” Banks said. “Many believe organizers would use this system to intimidate workers into supporting unions they might otherwise vote against in a secret ballot election.”

Banks said the Associated Builders and Contractors of Indiana, Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Indiana Manufacturers Association and Indiana Policy Review are in support of the resolution.

If SJR 10 passes, the measure would need to be approved by a second consecutive, separately elected legislature to be placed on the ballot for Hoosier voters to decide.

Banks said Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah have passed similar constitutional amendments.

State Sen. Jim Banks (R-Columbia City), co-author of Senate Bill 328, said the measure now moves to the House of Representatives for further consideration.

Currently, Indiana only requires women to be told verbally about the operation, procedure risks, gestational age of the baby and availability of an ultrasound or heartbeat monitoring services. This year’s legislation would require abortion providers to print the same information – made available online by the Indiana Department of Health – and distribute it to patients who may be considering an abortion.

“For any minor surgeries doctors are required to explain procedures to patients in detail,” Banks said. “Senate Bill 328 would ensure that women who seek abortions are given that same consideration and access to information.”

Banks said the proposal would apply today’s customary standards in the medical marketplace to provide patients with verbal and printed information about a medical procedure. The bill also expands the amount of required information to include other important criteria:

• Potential infertility and danger to a subsequent pregnancy;
• Possible risks of infection, hemorrhage or breast cancer;
• Physicians’ 24-hour emergency contact information;
• Availability of follow-up care;
• Documentation showing human physical life begins at conception; and
• Materials citing sources who say a fetus can feel pain at or before 20 weeks of post-fertilization age.

Senate Bill 328 would also allow abortion doctors to have admitting privileges in the county where they perform the procedure or in an adjacent county. Doctors would also be required to notify the patient of the hospital location where she can receive follow-up care by the physician.