IDS election endorsements

Editor's Note: The Indiana Daily Student's Editorial Board is comprised of opinion columnists and the opinion editors. Columnists and editors submitted their votes via email to determine the Editorial Board's endorsements.

Brad Ellsworth for Senate

Most political pundits, formulas and voters believe this race is out of Brad Ellsworth’s reach.

We believe he’s arriving on the scene just in time, and that’s why we’re throwing our endorsement his way.

When it comes to his voting record, Ellsworth is in stride with current Hoosier values. His votes for health care, the stimulus and for Wall Street reform only prove he is committed to pick this nation up from the ground floor.

Furthermore, Ellsworth has shown his Hoosier constituents he will not settle for anything less than what his voters deserve. His “no” vote for the cap-and-trade bill proves this point.

Public policy aside, the Democratic candidate snagged our support because of his personal background and values. Ellsworth is a man who understands how fast this country must progress as a nation. He has been a life-long Hoosier, and unlike his opponent, he has never voiced his desire to live in any other state but Indiana.

Finally, before becoming a congressman, Ellsworth made law enforcement his full-time position for over 25 years.

This is the complete opposite image than his opponent, who was a Senator-turned lobbyist.

Brad Ellsworth is a straight-shooting type of man who abides by his word, morals and constituents.

Campaign Website

Staff Vote:
Dan Coats - R (3 votes)
Brad Ellsworth - D (10 votes)
Rebecca Sink-Burris (1 vote)
Abstain (2 votes)

(Reluctantly) Baron Hill for House

Baron Hill is, in many ways, far from the ideal congressperson. He’s a conservative, Blue Dog Democrat, a fact borne out both in his votes in Washington, D.C. and his reelection campaign at home.

In 2007, Hill voted with Republicans against expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That year he also voted with Republicans to expand spy agencies’ power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order. In 2009, Hill was one of only 20 Democrats to vote against the Omnibus Appropriations Act.

Hill’s commercials have relied on despicably backward, ‘otherizing,’ and ad hominem attacks on his Republican opponent, Todd Young. When Young’s policies are so definitively conservative, Hill should have contested them rather than attempting to character assassinate Young.

But at the end of the day, Baron Hill is the only real choice for 9th District voters.

Todd Young is associated with the Tea Party.  The Libertarian agenda of Greg “No Bull” Knott (Yes, his name actually appears as such on the ballot) is hardly more tenable.

The IDS Editorial Board therefore gives Baron Hill a conditional endorsement for Indiana’s 9th Congressional seat. Vote for Hill so the Obama Administration doesn’t end up gridlocked with a Republican Congress. And vote Hill because even his conservative, Blue Dog brand of politics will produce somewhat more desirable outcomes than a Tea Party candidate. 

If we send Hill back to Washington, hopefully he will vote more conscientiously in his next term.

Campaign Website

Staff Vote:
Baron Hill - D (11 votes)
Todd Young - D (4 votes)
Greg "No Bull" Knott - L (0 votes, despite the name)

Pete Buttigieg for Treasurer

We endorse Pete Buttigieg for Indiana State Treasurer. He was educated at Harvard before he attended Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar to study economics. Buttigieg has a wide range of experience, from work as a businessman to a pastiche of areas including “economic development, retail strategy, energy and logistics.”

But it isn’t just his strong background that makes him an excellent candidate — he brings fresh and much-needed ideas to the position, solutions which all should benefit from and approve of, regardless of party.

Buttigieg’s “Hoosier Capital Connector” plan intends to link small businesses planning to expand or create new jobs to a community banking partner in a linked-deposit program. Under this plan, the state does not spend money but invests it.

“The risk remains with the banks, not with the taxpayers,” Buttigieg said. 

Moreover, he is very much an open-government man who wishes to make the state’s investments transparent. Right now, as Buttigieg notes, a citizen must go through an information request process “much like an investigative journalist.” He wishes to free up this process through the web, “which gives us the perfect tool to make transparency possible — cheap and easy.”

Buttigieg also has refused to take money from banks and special interests, which he believes is a clear conflict of interest — one he hopes to work with the legislature to prohibit once he is in office. We endorse Peter Buttigieg — he’s a sharp guy.

Campaign Website

Staff Vote:
Pete Buttigieg - D (6 votes)
Richard Mourdock (2 votes)  

Vote Yes on MCCSC Referendum

Every once in a long while, voters are given the opportunity to have a truly positive impact on how their local communities work. There are few greater examples of this sort of opportunity than the Monroe County Community School Corporation funding referendum.

Everyone in Monroe County who cares about the quality of education in our schools should vote yes on Public Question #2, the  MCCSC funding referendum.

School corporations across the state have had to make impossible decisions about what basic programs to fund since the state government cut funding to local schools and communities in the last budget.

The MCCSC referendum would raise property taxes in Monroe County by 14 cents for every $100 of assessed property value. While this is, in fact, a tax increase, even traditional opponents of higher taxes should be in favor of this proposal.

Because of the budget cuts by the state government and the resulting decreased revenue in local governments, truly drastic changes have had to be made in MCCSC.

Budget cuts have resulted in the elimination of 71 teaching positions in our local schools. That’s 71 fewer teachers and assistants that are present for local students. Voting yes on Public Question #2 will fix that.

All grade levels’ class sizes have had to increase because of budget cuts. That means local students get less individual attention from their teachers and have fewer people to learn from. Voting yes on Public Question #2 will stop the lay-offs of teachers and allow teachers that have been laid-off to be rehired.

The number of programs for at-risk students — the students most likely to drop out or to fail to succeed academically — has been cut dramatically because of the cuts.

Voting yes on Public Question #2 will reinstate programs for at-risk youth in our community.

Extra-curricular programs have been cut or eliminated all-together because of the cuts. Programs such as music education, arts classes, after-school sports programs, middle and high school sports teams, student government support, academic competitions and theater programs have all received cuts. Voting yes on Public Question #2 will allow local schools to reinstate funding for excellent after-school programs and extra-curricular activities.

And if this referendum fails, even more drastic cuts will have to happen for the schools to provide even the most basic, standard services. School district librarians will have to be fired, classes will have to be disturbingly larger, more teachers will need to be fired and the few extra-curricular activities that still receive funding will also have to be cut. Voting yes on Public Question #2 will prevent all of that.

For the children of our community, vote yes on Public Question #2. We don’t get many opportunities to have a direct say in the future of our communities. This is one of the few.

Campaign Website

Staff Vote:
Yes (9 votes)
No (4 votes)

Vote No on Property Tax Cap Referendum

The most important decision voters will make this election does not involve any candidates.

It comes at the end of the ballot, and the language is somewhat complex.

The choice facing voters, however, is simple. The IDS Editorial Board robustly encourages you to vote “no” on Public Question # 1.

If approved, the public question will amend the Indiana State Constitution by capping property taxes. At first, that may not seem to be such an awful thing. After all, no one relishes paying property taxes. High taxes on homes may have seriously averse consequences, such as forcing the retired to move from the place they have lived their entire lives.

A constitutional amendment, however, is not a real solution. Property taxes currently fund essential services such as public libraries, schools and parks. Constitutionally capping taxes will restrict the money available to support these institutions.

State law has already capped property taxes. If voters incorporate the caps into the state constitution, it will be significantly more difficult to remove them when Hoosiers inevitably realize their adverse effects on the quality of essential services.

Property taxes may have problematic elements. But we should search for answers that do not involve blanket caps, and we should certainly reject this inappropriate attempt to amend the state constitution.

Staff Vote:
Yes (4 votes)
No (9 votes)

OTHER RACES

Secretary of State
Vop Osili - D (6 votes)
Charlie White - R (3 votes)
Mike Wherry - L (0 votes)

State Representative
Mike Pierce (6 votes)
Kevin Suddeth (1 vote)