Proposed State Constitutional Amendment on Ballot?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • gmcttr

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    May 22, 2013
    8,593
    149
    Columbus
    I just reviewed our local ballot and found a proposed change to the Indiana State constitution as follows.

    RATIFICATION OF STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT...PUBLIC QUESTION #1..."SHALL ARTICLE 10, SECTION 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF INDIANA BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ADOPT BALANCED BUDGETS FOR STATE GOVERNMENT THAT DO NOT EXCEED ESTIMATED REVENUES UNLESS A SUPERMAJORITY OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND TWO-THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE VOTE TO SUSPEND THE REQUIREMENT?"

    I believe the current Article 10, Section 5 reads as follows.

    "Section 5. State debt

    Section 5. No law shall authorize any debt to be contracted, on behalf of the State, except in the following cases: to meet casual deficits in the revenue; to pay the interest on the State Debt; to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or, if hostilities be threatened, provide for the public defense."

    It sounds like the proposed change makes it easier for them to amend Section 5 to allow the state to take on debt with a simple supermajority vote (if that is ever a simple thing).

    In that politicians on both sides always seem to go for more money, I'm not sure which way to go with this.

    Your thoughts?
     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    I will vote no to anything that allows them to go into debt.
     

    Dr.Midnight

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Jul 24, 2011
    4,414
    113
    Monroe County
    Unless they can sell me on why this is necessary, I say absolutely not. Politicians aren't worth a damn when it comes to managing someone else's money, so no way do I want to allow more spending power.
     

    ATOMonkey

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 15, 2010
    7,635
    48
    Plainfield
    Thank you for bringing this up, I didn't know it was a thing.

    I absolutely agree that this amendment should not go through. If there is one thing that the left and the right can both agree on, it's spending more money. A supermajority won't slow that down one bit. We'll be in debt up to our eyeballs before you know it.

    If they want to spend more, then they need to tax more. If taxing more makes them unelectable, then good.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,690
    113
    .
    Must be more well connected groups with programs they want than the state has money to spend without raising taxes. They'll get it done somehow, never underestimate the abilities of self serving leadership when it comes to grabbing chips off the table.

    Always follow the money
     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    https://ballotpedia.org/Indiana_Public_Question_1,_Balanced_Budget_Amendment_(2018)

    [h=3]What would this measure do?[/h][FONT=&quot]The amendment would provide for a constitutional requirement that the [/FONT]state legislature[FONT=&quot] enact a balanced budget for each biennial budget period. In other words, expenditures enacted by the legislature for a budget period would not be allowed to exceed the estimated revenue of the state for the same budget period. The measure would also require public pension funds to be actuarially funded during each budget period. A two-thirds vote in each chamber of the legislature would be required to suspend the requirements of a balanced budget and funding pensions for a budget period.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The amendment was also designed to forbid court-ordered tax increases without the legislature's approval.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

    Is this even a thing?


     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    [FONT=&quot]I am also confused. I was under the impression that as the Constitution as written required a balanced budget.

    This is the text they want to add. It looks like they are trying to add a requirement that their pensions be funded in perpetuity. They will never get 2/3 of house and senate to give themselves money.

    Section 5. (a) No law shall authorize any debt to be contracted, on behalf of the State, except in the following cases: to meet casual deficits in the revenue; to pay the interest on the State Debt; to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or, if hostilities be threatened, provide for the public defense.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot](b) The following definitions apply to this section only for purposes of the limits on the State budget under this section:[/FONT]
    (1) "Revenue" means all income received by the state general und and all other state funds, excluding the proceeds of bonds or other loans.(2) "Expense" means the ordinary operating costs of State government, including any debt service payments made during the biennial budget period.(c) The total amount of expense appropriations enacted by the General Assembly for a biennial budget may not exceed the estimated revenue of the State in the biennial budget period.
    (d) A State budget enacted by the General Assembly must appropriate money for the State's prefunded pension funds in the amount necessary to actuarially fund the accrued liability of all such pension funds during the budget period.
    (e) If expenses exceed actual revenue received by the State when reconciled at the close of a biennial budget period, the subsequent biennial budget must subtract any shortfall from the projected revenue available for that subsequent biennial budget.
    (f) The requirements under subsections (c) and (d) may be suspended if at least two-thirds of the members of the House of Representatives and at least two-thirds of the members of the Senate vote to suspend the requirement.
    [FONT=&quot](g) A court that orders a remedy pursuant to any case or controversy arising under this section may not order any remedies other than a declaratory judgment or such other remedies that are specifically authorized by the General Assembly in a law implementing this section.[4][/FONT]
     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    The Constitution says that you cannot go in debt except for very specific reasons.

    This adds fully funding pensions.

    It also adds a vehicle to throw it all out and spend like drunken sailors, but we know that can never happen in Indiana.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,860
    113
    Merrillville
    The Constitution says that you cannot go in debt except for very specific reasons.

    This adds fully funding pensions.

    It also adds a vehicle to throw it all out and spend like drunken sailors, but we know that can never happen in Indiana.

    Drunken sailors stop when they run out of money.
     

    gmcttr

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    May 22, 2013
    8,593
    149
    Columbus
    The Constitution says that you cannot go in debt except for very specific reasons.

    This adds fully funding pensions.

    It also adds a vehicle to throw it all out and spend like drunken sailors, but we know that can never happen in Indiana.

    This is my take on it as well...making my vote NO.

    I hate going to vote and being surprised by a question/item to be voted on and have no background info on it.

    I also hate the "should this Judge be retained" questions and having no knowledge of their history.
     
    Top Bottom