Dear Zach,

I see you have finally stumbled upon this humble little blog.  Thanks for stopping by.  I appreciate your attempt at civil discourse in the face of a challenge.  I just thought I’d share with you and everyone reading a few facts and answer a few questions.

First of all, Hoosier Access was launched on August 1st, 2007.  It was a joint effort by five people, but much of the vision for the site was my own.  Since 2007 the contributor list has grown into the double digits with many user blogs established in which to build a blogging community here.  In addition Hoosier Access has also become one of the most widely read and respected blogs in Indiana.  Indeed, I have done most of the writing, thus most people assume it’s my blog.  I do have editorial control, but like Brian over at ICH, I let my contributors post what they feel like writing.

I bring this up for two reasons:  1) I was not employed by Congressman Burton, as you insinuate, in 2007.  I did work for him in an official capacity in 2001-2002.  Have I been a loyal friend to and defender of the Congressman since then?  Yes, and it remains to this day.  2)  I returned to work for Congressman Burton in June of 2009.  You will notice that between June and now, I have not written about any of the 5th District candidates except in passing and in a very benign way.  Others may have written about them, but I’ve already addressed that they take their own positions.  And despite Dr. McGoff’s run in 2008, the coverage of the 5th District race during the 2010 cycle has been few and far between.  Frankly, there are more interesting races to cover.

Second, yes, I am the Congressman’s Director of New Media.  The information you either don’t know or have conveniently left out, much like you do when you quote the Congressman on your blog, is that it is, again, in an official capacity.  I have nothing to do with the campaign except to attend Lincoln Day Dinners.

Third, I have always been forthright, in radio interviews and television interviews as well as on this blog, about my support for and prior, as well as current, work for Congressman Burton.  To say otherwise, you would either have to be ignorant or not know me.  And since we’ve never met, I’ll chalk it up to you not knowing me.  I had my bio on this blog for more than two years.  I only recently took it down because I wanted to promote this site and it’s talented list of contributors more than myself.  Because in the end, this site isn’t about me or my support for one candidate or the other, it’s about conservative and Republican ideals as well as supporting and getting the word out about the candidates that best fit those values.  And believe it or not, there are some who contribute here who have different opinions than I do.

You see the thing is Zach, no one has ever come to this site wondering if I support Dan Burton or not.  They know.  They don’t wonder if I’ve ever been federally employed by Congressman Burton.  Most of time, they know.  I have always made that information abundantly clear.  Why?  Because I’m proud of my work for him.  I’m proud he’s my Congressman.  (Who is yours?  Oh, that’s right, Andre Carson.)  And I’m proud to work for my Congressman.  He’s a man I can trust.  His votes and leadership are votes I can trust and leadership I can count on.  He’s always been loyal to me and I am happy to return that loyalty.  Does that make me biased?  Heck yeah it does.  But no more than your bias towards Luke.  And that I can also appreciate.

One final note.  To respond to your outrageous accusation, no, I’m not paid to blog on Hoosier Access for any candidate, Burton or otherwise.  Never have been.  In fact, no one here is.  And frankly, to assume so is laughable.  The only times I’ve ever been paid to blog have been to promote the Kernan-Shepard Report and support Governor Daniels government consolidation efforts and to blog in an official capacity for Congressman Burton’s official site.  But that’s just small part of my role as Director of New Media in the congressman’s office.

Will I promote the Congressman here?  Yes, I will, but you’ll notice that since June of last year, my coverage has been of his work on the Hill and not of the campaign.

Thank you again for taking the time to come by.  Next time, put your research skills to work before you leave comments.

-Josh

P.S. – Just for the record, that’s how you do full disclosure.

Hoosier Access is pleased to bring you this exclusive op-ed by U.S. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Health Care and Closed Doors

by House Republican Whip Eric Cantor

…not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are…

That is a direct quote from then Presidential candidate Barack Obama two years ago this month. Between 2008-2009, both candidate and President Obama is on record making similar comments to the extent that health care negotiations should be open, transparent, and broadcast on C-SPAN. In fact, President Obama made the promise at least eight times on video.

Americans believed in President Obama’s promise of transparency and are understandably angered over his failure to live up to those assurances.

So what’s changed?

Health care reform, Obama-style, is no longer is an abstraction to the American people. Taxpayers have woken up to the fact that they are on the hook for this massive government takeover of our national health care system. The more they see, the more they don’t like it. The pendulum has swung decisively against President Obama’s plan, and sunlight will therefore only harm its chances of passage.

The American people have the right to know how Washington is spending their tax dollars, especially regarding health care, an issue that affects one-sixth of our nation’s economy, and affects every man, woman and child in America.

Instead of laughing off his campaign pledge as Speaker Pelosi has done, President Obama should honor his vow to the American people. An open and transparent process to reform health care is essential so that all Americans can see what’s going on and decide for themselves how to reform and pay for health care. We must call on President Obama to open up the closed doors so that all Americans know what will happen to their health care.

From the USA Today via IndyStar:

WASHINGTON — The unemployment rate jumped almost half a point to 9.7 percent in August, the highest since 1983, reflecting a poor job market that will make it hard for the economy to begin a sustained recovery.

I somewhat remember the recession of the early Reagan years, and the tail end of the Carter Administration. Though where I lived at the time (da Region) we felt it hardest during the tail of of the Carter Administration when Big Steel was closing or laying off in droves. We were not a Steel family but majority of my neighbors in the neighborhood were Steel families. Republic, US Steel, Inland Steel, J&L, etc. and a smaller group worked at what used to be known as Standard Oil (now known as BP).

(Read More Below The Fold)

By: Brian Sikma

The turmoil that has enveloped Chrysler Corporation has had a substantial impact on our state.  From the parts suppliers who employ Hoosiers at their Indiana factories to the dealerships that dot the state and provide jobs to local mechanics and sales personnel, many have been impacted by Chrysler’s inability to stay solvent and afloat amidst a serious economic downturn.  But what has happened to the automaker also impacts Hoosiers who have never worked with or for the company or its many suppliers and vendors.  Because the state invested some road construction trust funds and some of the assets of the state’s police and teacher pension trust funds in secured Chrysler debt, the government’s mismanagement of the company’s reorganization has cost Hoosiers roughly $5 million.

The loss that these pension funds and the road construction fund have sustained has come about not because of Chrysler’s inability to stay solvent but because of the federal government’s decision to rewrite decades of bankruptcy law precedent.  Whenever a bond holder, such as these three state trust funds, invests in corporate bonds that are considered secured debt, they are investing in the company and, should the company fail, they are guaranteed a recovery of their investment by the sale of the company’s assets.  

When the federal government stepped in and began the process of organizing and managing Chrysler’s restructuring, they did so in a way that disregarded the fact that holders of secured debt are supposed to be first in line to recover their money.   This means that as Chrysler tries to restructure itself in the shelter of a bankruptcy court according to a blueprint forced on it by President Obama’s administration, it is jeopardizing the soundness and sustainability of trust funds that many Hoosiers rely on as part of their retirement.  Additionally, the state’s ability to build the roads that would generate jobs, improve the state’s transportation infrastructure and make Indiana a more attractive place for businesses to come to is threatened by the federal government’s actions.

Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock has used his authority as manager of the threatened funds to file pleadings against the currently proposed Chrysler restructuring.  Mourdock is rightfully arguing that retirees and state taxpayers should not be forced to bear the brunt of this loss imposed by the disturbing actions of the federal government.  While it is important that Chrysler rework its structure and prepare itself to emerge from bankruptcy, it must not do so while following a plan that destroys the very trust on which it will be able to rebuild its business.

(Read more below the fold)

As most of you have probably heard, Andy Horning is moving to Texas.  Oddly, the Star has given greater coverage to his departure than they did any of his campaigns.  The thing is, Indiana is losing one of the good guys.

Andy has been a constant defender of liberty and of limited government.  Andy may have been a Libertarian, but his greatest success (if you can still call a loss a success) came as a Republican (lesson learned to Libertarians?  Just saying).  That election directly impacted the way two individuals looked at politics and the role of government.  I’m talking about Chris Spangle and me (of course!).  Now, I stayed with the party, whereas Chris has gone on to be quite the influencer in Indiana Libertarian politics.

But I have taken the lessons I learned on that ‘04 campaign for Congress and tried to bring them back to the Republican party in the hopes of making the change from the inside.  For that, I’m very grateful for and to Andy.  We may not agree on all the issues, but he challenged the way I thought and looked at government.

The ever present candidate, Andy has never been a politician.  Sometimes he speaks over people’s heads, but he never quits educating people.  And quite frankly, even more than a candidate, he was an educator on the campaign trail.

He may have never won many votes, but I know he challenged the way people thought and changed opened a few minds in the process.  Let’s be honest, during the gubernatorial debates last year, it was more of a debate between Andy and Mitch.  Jill Long Thompson was just along for the ride on a major party ticket.

So to you Andy, a man I consider a friend and a teacher to me, I wish you well in Texas.  Indiana is losing a friend and one of the most reasoned voices for limited government.

By the way, there is a going away party for Andy tomorrow night at Rick’s Cafe Boatyard.  Click here for more details.

Have any good Andy stories?  Leave them in the comments section!

A British economic analyst and writer has made dire predictions for the global economy if the “Buy American” provision that was heavily backed by Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN 1) stays in the stimulus bill and is signed into law by President Obama.  Comparing the provision to the “protectionism” of the 1930s (more specifically the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of the 1930s, which raised tariffs on over 20,000 different products) Financial Times writer Willem Buiter declared “if the Buy American provisions of the Economic Stimulus Package were to become law, this would amount to an economic declaration of war on the rest of the world.”

What one of Indiana’s own Congressmen has failed to learn from history and economics is nevertheless being picked up on by economists both here at home and abroad.  Engaging in populist economic protectionism is risky when times are good and catastrophic when times are bad, as they are now.  Even though in percentage terms the American economy, and thus most if not all of the global economy, is still stronger than it was during the Great Depression or even some of the bleak economic times of the 1970s and the start of the 1980s, it certainly will not be able to survive the shock of a massive limitation on trade policy.

There were many factors that contributed to the implosion of the housing market and the financial markets that relied so heavily on the easy lending and loose monetary policies that made the housing market expand like a California wildfire.  But the single impact of suddenly clamping down on the global market and attempting to halt trade by limiting government purchasing contracts to only those products made here at home will be perhaps the single most important factor in taking us into a full blown depression.

It is true that the “Buy American” provision does not raise tariffs on any imports and that it is confined to only government spending as part of contracts provided for in the $825 billion stimulus bill-spending that I believe is not the best way to stimulate the economy-but when that government spending accounts for a significant portion of a nation’s GDP (the newly added debt would push the total amount of government debt obligations to 95% of GDP by 2010), it has reverberations throughout the non-government sectors of the trade markets.

As Mr. Buiter said in concluding his article “Yes we can. I hope we don’t.”  America does not need to travel the road to serfdom to reach economic prosperity.  Good intentions will not change the fact that the current path our government is on will have deeply unfortunate, and frustratingly avoidable, consequences.

Yesterday will be remembered as a tremendous day in American history. It will be remembered for the fact that the American people inaugurated its first African-American President, not for the prose or so-called “poetry” spoken at the ceremony. Most pundits we watched on television agreed on two things: 1. President Obama’s speech was pedestrian, middle-of-the-pack in historical terms of inaugural addresses., and 2. Obama seems to grasp the gravity of the job and knows his term will not be an easy one.

That said, what lays ahead for us Republicans? Two local bloggers (RTV6’s Norman Cox and Abdul Hakim Shabazz ) seem to think the GOP could be headed to the wilderness for a while with not much hope for breaking entrenched minority status.

Let us remember history comes quickly. Just four years ago, Republicans celebrated the re-election of George W. Bush, whose vision was to create a permanent Republican/conservative majority. The GOP had just defeated the second sitting Democratic Congressional leader in ten years (Daschle in ’04, Foley in ’98). Pundits asked if the Democrats were a permanently entrenched minority party stuck in the wilderness.

That was only four years ago! Since then two things happened: the Republicans failed to hold together their base and the Democrats finally found their candidate who could unite theirs. That’s what electoral victories come down to: getting your voters to come out in greater numbers than your opponent. Looks at the 2008 numbers show that both factors, not one, helped Obama win. Obama’s energizing Democrats certainly led to him winning Indiana, but turnout was lower in many battleground states in 2008 than in 2004, despite much larger media hype. Democrats came out, but conservatives stayed home or voted for minor-party candidates.

There is certainly the possibility that Republicans are destined for ten or more years without a national victory. Mr. Cox is right that if Obama succeeds in accomplishing his lofty agenda, the GOP will be the minority for a while. But rarely is a president able to achieve such success. Obama will make decisions that will not be popular amongst conservatives. Can the GOP unite its base to take advantage in congressional/local elections?

The GOP base will be the key. We do not believe Obama has formed a permanent electoral majority for Democrats—not yet at least. But we do believe that the GOP needs to develop its agenda again to give its base and voters in general a reason to come out and vote for them. You don’t have to look far to see the discontentment; Libertarian attempts to use Republican Party discontent to try and fatten their ranks—locally and nationally—are more common on Indiana conservative blogs than supportive words for Republicans not named Mitch Daniels.

That is the challenge before the Republican Party. Not an insurmountable one, but a large challenge nonetheless.

By: Brian Sikma

When the economy started to slide towards recession, the reaction of the federal government was bold, decisive, and misguided. When investment banks began teetering on the brink of viability the federal government stepped in, first serving as a sort of “organizer” for bank mergers, then dictating the terms of the buyouts, and then simply becoming part owners in some of the nation’s largest financial institutions. As markets fell through a sort of yo-yo motion of two steps back, one step forward, it was only a matter of time before other industries felt the squeeze of a contracting economy.

The next benefactors of informal nationalization were General Motors and Chrysler Corporation, two of the nation’s Big Three automakers that found themselves in dire financial straights. Since Congress, perhaps in a rare bout of sanity, declined to give the executive branch the tools it needed to bolster automakers who were finally paying the price of extravagant union compensation contracts (among other things), the President and Treasury Secretary simply took some of the money they already had and handed it to the two auto manufacturers. Merry Christmas.

With the precedent for receiving federal money now strongly biased in favor of those who can successfully claim they are “too big to fail”, we will probably continue to see more industries make their way to Washington to plead for a government dole. Already it appears that the commercial real estate industry will be in line soon pleading for government support as more and more retailers close down and banks become wary of putting their money in commercial real estate investments.

Although the examples of private industry surrendering to quasi-government ownership, or at least to increased government interference, are disturbing, the recent news that states are now looking to the federal government for help in overcoming budget deficits is downright alarming. The free market has been an important institution in American self-government and its centrality should not be underestimated, but when states seek to obtain handouts from the federal government another important feature of our self-government is assaulted: the concept of federalism. Federal encroachment on either the free market or federalism would be bad enough, but when one follows right after the other in such quick succession a cry of alarm should be raised.

(Read more below the fold)

By: Brian Sikma

What if we were to learn that in the state of Indiana in 2007, 11,150 avoidable deaths occurred as the result of a very identifiable cause? What if this statistic were not a one-time statistic but instead an annual figure that changes only slightly from year to year? Think of all the potential that these people had but were never able to realize because they died as a result of something that was avoidable. Think of how our communities and neighborhoods were tragically deprived of these people’s full contribution to life.

If these deaths were the result of poorly engineered and unsafe roads, we could probably expect there to be a group of highly frustrated citizens forming a coalition to pressure local and state highway officials to undertake a massive redesign of our transportation infrastructure. Studies would be commissioned, expert engineers sought out for their opinion and government revenues appropriated for the purpose of building newer and safer roads.

What if these deaths were the result of school violence? We would see a public uprising as parents, citizens and school officials rightfully demanded immediate action. School regulations would change, more police officers would be deployed to schools and teachers and students would be trained in how to be alert for imminent attacks and how to respond if the nightmare did become reality.

What would be the result if these deaths occurred because of medical malfeasance? If health care professionals engaged in such egregious carelessness as to cause this many deaths, surely a day of reckoning would be called for them. Prosecutors would review cases to determine if criminal activity took place while grieving loved ones properly brought civil wrongful-death claims against those who so utterly neglected to live up to their professional duty.

Fortunately, none of the preceding three scenarios is true, yet the statistic still stands. You see, every year in Indiana 11,150 people lose their lives as a result of aborted pregnancies. True, these people are unborn, but that does not minimize the fact that every year we lose a resource that has great potential to contribute to the society that we live in. Every year we deprive ourselves of the creativity and ingenuity and joy these people could have brought to our lives. Every year we deny them the same basic, unalienable rights we demand that our government respect.

(Read more below the fold)

I agree with him on virtually nothing politically, but this post by Doug Masson is both disturbing and interesting. It involves a driver who is suing a homeowner because the driver drove off the road, hit the homeowner’s mailbox, and the driver’s car was damaged. The homeowner is being sued through no apparent fault of his own.

I am reminded of a story from Harrison County about a guy who lived along a busy road just outside of town. Kids (high school teenagers) would leave the nearby bowling alley on weekend nights and drive along the road past his house.

Because the guy who lived along the road was a teacher, they would frequently bash in his mailbox just for kicks. Eventually, the kids took to driving the road at a high rate of speed and just driving over his mailbox, bending the post at the ground or breaking it off entirely.

Needless to say, the guy got tired of repairing and replacing his mailbox, so he (being a teacher, and some teachers are deviously clever and cunning in ways that most normal people–and certainly students–just don’t appreciate) devised a practical and clever solution.

(Read more after the leap)

By: Brian Sikma

In the wake of November’s disastrous election results, Republicans and conservatives have been pondering their future. Pundits with solutions abound. Going forward, it has been rightly noted, the future of conservatism is not tied to the future of the Republican party. In this time of analysis and internal discussion, the GOP is more in need of rejuvenation than the conservative movement, though work must be done in both camps.

In the conservative movement there are some who are advocating for a new conservatism, one that apparently accepts some of the premises advanced by left-leaning cultural institutions. Some observers argue that conservatives need to move beyond issues like abortion and replace them with issue planks dealing with the need for a green energy future and policies to reduce global warming. It is posited that we must set aside our views on some issues in favor of new causes that supposedly have attracted the public’s attention in ways that now surpass its prior fascination with the issues we have traditionally debated.

(Read More Below the Fold)

By: Brian Sikma

Just before Thanksgiving, Planned Parenthood of Indiana distributed a press release announcing that for the first time ever they were offering gift certificates that could be redeemed at any one of their 35 locations around the state. The press release suggested that these gift certificates would make a wonderful and appropriate Christmas or holiday gift for someone you know.

As we approach that season of the year when we celebrate the greatest birth in all the world, the birth of the Christ-child, it is deeply unfortunate that Planned Parenthood of Indiana has taken this opportunity to promote their dark practices. As we celebrate birth and take a little extra time to recognize those who may need our assistance and kindness as they struggle through a difficult period in their life, we should give no place to organizations or entities that promote an agenda and culture of needless and unwarranted death.

The values and virtues of thankfulness, generosity, love, peace, joy, kindness and life are what we celebrate at this season. These qualities define what it means to have a respect and love for humanity and they are hardly the attributes of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood has a dark history of promoting abortion irrespective of the situation or the dictates of ethics and love. No other single organization has done more to implement in practice the concept that unborn life is not worthy of our respect and not worthy of the protection which we or government would offer it.

(Read more below the fold)