Mediaboss Marketing

Mayor Joe Hogsett, left, and Sen. Jim Merritt participated in an IBJ/Indy Chamber debate moderated by then-IBJ reporter Hayleigh Colombo. Hogsett won the mayor's race easily. (IBJ photo/Eric Learned)

Despite no state or federal elections in 2019, Indianapolis and its suburbs made plenty of political news. Voters across the state cast ballots in municipal elections, re-electing Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett plus three Hamilton County mayors. The year also brought plenty of 2020 news.

With nearly 72% of the vote, Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett easily won a second term leading the Circle City. Republican State Sen. Jim Merritt challenged Hogsett, running on what he saw as Hogsetts shortcomings: not moving the needle enough on potholes and violent crime. But Merritt lost by more than 44percentage points. In his victory speech, Hogsett said theres still plenty of work to do.

Democrats on the Indianapolis City-County Council already hold a majority, but in 2020, that majority will grow even larger. Democrats picked up six seats from Republicans, bringing their majority to 20-5. Among Republican casualties were council veterans Minority Leader Mike McQuillen andJanice McHenry.

Styron

Political newcomer Emily Styron, a Democrat, beat Republican incumbent Tim Haak to become Zionsvilles third mayor. She has said the towns lack of a successful track record for economic and community development led her to step forward as a candidate. Styron has been critical of progress made in Creekside Corporate Park, where development hasbeen slow since the town invested more than $4.5million in infrastructure improvements to attract corporate businesses.

In Hamilton County, Democrats won their first seats ever on two city councils: two spots in Fishers and one in Carmel. In Fishers, Jocelyn Vare and Samantha DeLong displaced Republican incumbents. In Carmel, Miles Nelson beat a Republican in a newly formed district.

Fishers Mayor Scott Fadness and Carmel Mayor Jim Brainard won their Republican primaries and were unopposed in the general election. Republican Westfield Mayor Andy Cook won in the general election over Libertarian Donald Rainwater. Noblesville voters chose Republican Chris Jensen in the primary; he was unopposed in the general election to succeed retiring Mayor John Ditslear.

Next year, the Westfield City Council will experience a dramatic shakeup when five new members take office. In the Republican primary, voters ousted three incumbents and elected candidates endorsed by the Fiscal Conservatives of Hamilton County, meaning spending in the growing city could be curtailed in coming years.

In June, Indiana U.S. Rep. Susan Brooks, a Republican who has represented Indianas 5th Congressional District since 2013, announced she would not seek a fifth term. Brooks said she was looking forward to spending more time with her family. Democrats see the open seat as a possible pickup in 2020.

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg entered the race for president, joining a crowded field of Democrats seeking the partys nomination. Early on, Buttigieg had been considered a long shot, but by November, he had risen to the top of the pack in an Iowa poll, where the nations first nominating contest will take place, on Feb. 3. Since April, hes raised more than $44million, according to reports.

See original here:
2019 YEAR IN REVIEW: Big year for Hogsett, Buttigieg and Dems in Boone, Hamilton counties - Indianapolis Business Journal

To the liberal administrators and Democratic politicians who try to blame skyrocketing college costs on decreases in government support, rather than administrative waste and government loans, I hate to say I told you so. But I absolutely told you so.

My first op-ed ever professionally published was in the Boston Globe, titled, Students pay the price for a culture of waste at UMass. A student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst at the time, I took campus officials to task after yet another tuition hike, decrying the fact that only about half the school's $1.2 billion 2016 budget was spent on education or financial aid, much of the rest lost due to profligate waste and in the whirlwind of rent-seeking and cronyism known as higher education administration.

I also pointed out how administrative salaries at UMass had skyrocketed in recent years, growing far faster than the student population.

The response? Campus leadership called me a liar and threatened to sue the newspaper. This, of course, might have something to do with the fact that UMass Amhersts chancellor, Kumble Subbaswamy, earns almost $600,000 a year and that 97 out of 100 of the state of Massachusettss highest-paid employees worked for the university system. The vitriolic backlash and denial of all responsibility is par for the course.

Despite documented evidence and ample research showing the effect administrative bloat and subsidized government loans have had on the skyrocketing tuition rates, many liberals deny it all and insist that pouring more taxpayer dollars into the university system, or socializing it altogether, is the only solution. Yet new research reveals this argument for the bunk narrative it always was.

In the book Restoring the Promise: Higher Education in America, economist Richard Vedder reports, If the ratio of campus bureaucrats to faculty had held steady since 1976, there would be 537,317 fewer administrators, saving universities $30.5 billion per year and allowing student tuition to decrease by 20%. Per Max Edens recent review, Vedder's work also finds "colleges have bloated up on bureaucrats and spend an ever-decreasing share now about one third of their expenditures on instruction. This makes it perfectly clear once and for all that if campuses didnt waste so much on administration, higher education would be much more accessible and affordable than it is now.

Dont expect the liberal narrative to adjust in any meaningful way, though.

A sensible path to making college more affordable has always been offered up by some conservative and libertarian intellectuals, and it has even been put into practice in a few real-world examples, such as Mitch Daniels's reforms at Purdue University. Through a combination of cutting back administrative bloat, ending wasteful spending, and scaling back federal loans that cause tuition price inflation, we know how we can make college reasonably affordable again.

See the article here:
New data proves what's actually causing the spike in college tuition rates - Washington Examiner

Back in the dark ages when mandatory seat belt use was relatively new in Indiana, I had a colleague who liked to say that she never nagged people about buckling up when they were riding with her. In fact, she never mentioned it to her passengers.

Why? she was inevitably asked.

Natural selection was her answer.

I like to use that story as a good analogy for what I consider proper government. She gives people the information needed to make good choices, sometimes offers incentives for making good choices and can even provide the mechanisms to make good choices easier. But if people insist on making poor choices anyway, well, thats on them.

Of course, our government driver (to continue the analogy) seldom stops when she should. She employs various coercive tactics to get those passengers in line. (Yes, I am being deliberate in the choice of pronoun; were talking about the nanny state, after all.)

Such as, buckle up or this car isnt moving. Or, if you dont buckle up, I will harangue you mercilessly for the whole trip. Or, the penalty for not buckling up, payable at the end of the journey, will be a hefty fee that I will send collectors out to get from your childrens children into the 10th generation.

In my experience, people who advocate for government solutions, and even bigger and more expensive government when those solutions fail to materialize, seldom have to justify themselves. They are merely following the spirit of the age, no explanations required.

But those of us who advocate government restraint or, heaven forbid, limited government, are always put on the defensive. We are either insensitive to human misery to the point of heartlessness or hopelessly ignorant of the need for immediate action to avert imminent disaster.

In all the response I get to these columns (thank you very much), by far the most common form of criticism is from readers who misinterpret, either carelessly or deliberately, the libertarian thrust of my government critiques.

I always mean, in those pieces, the least government necessary, which, believe it or not, was a founding principle of this country. They always insist I really meant, no government at all, then proceed to deliver the Gotcha! they think I deserve.

What about the fire department when your house is burning down, they will ask, or the police department when youre robbed? What about that pothole you want filled in?

Arent those all socialism, you self-serving hypocrite?

Actually, no, theyre not. They are legitimate government functions.

My favorite Gotcha! showing up in my email with tiresome regularity is, So, I guess youve refused your Social Security payments, huh?

No, I have not. Had I the opportunity to opt out and use the money for my own retirement investments, I would have done so. But participation was mandatory. To whom am I trying to prove what if I dont take money out of the system I was forced to put money into?

The tenet of libertarianism people seem to have the most trouble grasping, though it really should be the easiest, is that government legitimately tries to keep us from hurting each other but risks overstepping its bounds when it tries to keep us from hurting ourselves. Autonomy should be sacred.

So, I find myself having to explain that, no, I do not object to Gov. Eric Holcombs proposal to ban Hoosier motorists from using their cell phones while driving unless theyre hands-free.

There are rules for the road that are open to challenge on libertarian grounds. There is no reason to require me to use seat belts when driving or wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle except to keep me from behaving stupidly.

But there are also rules that protect me from others stupid behavior, such as the one against driving while drunk.

Mandating hands-free-only cell phone use falls into the latter category. I am the one you might run into while youre fiddling with that stupid phone.

See? Simple.

Of course, there are a couple of potholes in the road an earnest libertarian should be aware of whenever he gives in and acknowledges that, yes, OK, fine, government should do this.

One is the maxim that by the time government acts, government action is usually beside the point. Most cellphones today have Bluetooth, and most new cars have systems that sync to it, so its likely that the moment you get behind the wheel your phone automatically become hands-free.

The other is that when government is given the legitimate inch, it will go the illegitimate mile. Setting reasonable speed limits is a legitimate function, but it requires local knowledge of local conditions. But few were shocked to see a national 55 mph limit that, for a time, was the most ignored law in America.

If Holcomb gets his way with cellphones, all sorts of distracted driving will be on the endangered list, everything from playing the radio to scarfing down those fries you got from the drive-through. Then dont be surprised if there are hefty fines for talking to your in-car companions and there are calls for hands-free nose-picking.

Government will always always, always, always go too far.

I know you might not believe that. But the evidence is plentiful if you choose to ignore it, thats on you.

I respect your autonomy.

And, you know. Natural selection.

Leo Morris is a columnist for Indiana Policy Review, a magazine published by the conservative think tank Indiana Policy Review Foundation, which is headquartered in Fort Wayne. Contact him at leoedits@yahoo.com.

See the article here:
Flashpoint: Holcomb and cell phones: The inch that becomes a mile - Terre Haute Tribune Star

While a pregnant woman should be legally required to help the fetus survive outside of her body whenever that is possible, she should retain the legal right to evict the fetus at any time during her pregnancy.

That was the resolution of a public debate hosted by the Soho Forum in New York City on December 8, 2019. It featured Walter Block arguing for the resolution and Kerry Baldwin arguing against it. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated.

It was an Oxford-style debate. That means the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most groundmostly by picking up votes from the "undecided" categoryis victorious. Block prevailed by convincing 13.85 percent of audience members to change their minds. Baldwin was not far behind, picking up 12.31 percent of the audience.

Block is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a prolific author on Austrian economics and libertarian theory. He's the author of Defending the Undefendable I and II, among many other books.

Kerry Baldwin is an independent researcher and writer with a B.A. in Philosophy from Arizona State University. Her work can be found at MereLiberty.com and at the Libertarian Christian Institute.

The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.

Produced by John Osterhoudt.Photo credit: Brett Raney.

Filaments by Scott Buckley https://soundcloud.com/scottbuckley Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported CC BY 3.0

Link:
Libertarianism and Abortion: A Debate - Reason

You may love your CBD gummies from Verma Farms, but most of the CBD products you enjoy sit in a gray legal area. The laws are complicated and confusing, and the history is even more complicated and confusing. With the rising popularity of CBD gummies, and hundreds if not thousands of brands cashing in, the government has taken a very relaxed attitude toward the gray areas, as will likely continue until the full lift on prohibition of cannabis finally happens.

Hemp and its products were made illegal outside of medical use with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. It became prohibitively expensive and difficult to grow, harvest, or use any part of any hemp plant. At this time, all hemp plants were seen to be in the same category of marijuana plants, and there was little known about the difference between the types of hemp.

The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 made all use of marijuana completely illegal, and put it on the list of Schedule I Controlled Substances. Types of hemp were still undifferentiated, and all hemp plants were illegal to cultivate. The term, The War on Drugs, was coined by Richard Nixon in a press conference in 1971, and since then, the Federal Government has taken a hard-line stance on all things related to cannabis.

In 1996, California legalized marijuana for medical use. In 1998, Alaska, Oregon, and Washington followed suit. Over the next decade, states began to recognize the medical benefits of cannabis products. They all set up their own laws regulating the use, in defiance of the Federal Government, which still classified hemp and hemp products as a Schedule I controlled substance (this category is reserved for substances that have no medical value, come with significant health risks, and are highly addictive).

More and more states began decriminalizing marijuana. Prohibition had not been completely lifted in these states, but penalties were not as strict as they were before. States recognized the financial and social benefits of not imprisoning everyone who got caught with a small amount of the green stuff for their own personal use.

By 2012, Colorado and Washington voted to legalize the recreational use of marijuana for adults, with actual legal sales beginning in Colorado in 2014. They have seen major financial gains ever since, and Colorado reached $1 billion in tax revenue in just over four years. Crime rates have not been affected, as the bills opposers originally feared, and the benefits have far outweighed the cost.

As of 2019, 11 states have legalized the use of recreational marijuana for adults over 21. Medical use of marijuana is legal in 33 states. A total of 44 states are in direct defiance of federal law, but the Federal Government has decided not to pursue action.

Hemp has been a source of food, textiles, and building materials, for thousands of years. Historical references note its use in Ancient China and Rome as medicine. Early American settlers used hemp to make ropes, oil, and clothing. Even Henry Fords original Model T prototype was fueled by hemp.

The Marijuana Tax Act was likely a matter of corporate competition, and it became illegal in the US to use hemp for anything. What was once an important crop that nearly everyone grew and cultivated, became outlawed. By the 1970s, there was no distinctinction between the stuff people used for food, medicine, and fuel, and the stuff people used to get high.

With global warming becoming more of a reality every day, and solutions to the problems that come with this crisis few and far between, the interest in hemp is growing once again. Hemp is a crop that is easy on the earth. It acts as a biofilter that can clean the soil and the air in its surrounding environment. It is easy to grow, and is one of the most beneficial crops in existence.

Hemp is an excellent source of food, containing essential amino and fatty acids, it can be used to make almost any product that we use petroleum to make now, and it is an efficient source of energy storage. Food shortages, the non-renewable energy crisis, and rising medical costs, can all be mitigated with the hemp plant.

In 2014, the distinction was made between the marijuana plant and industrial hemp. Industrial hemp contains less than 0.3% THC, and cannot get anyone high. A bill passed through the Senate, allowing research to take place on industrial hemp under very restrictive circumstances.

Hemp farming became an important part of Kentuckys economy again, and in 2018, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell slipped an expansion of the legalization of farming industrial hemp into the Farm Bill.

This means that it is now legal to farm and cultivate industrial hemp, and manufacture hemp products. For certain farmers. Under certain circumstances. With special licensing. And under strict supervision. All CBD produced must be under the guidelines of the Farm Bill of 2018, and the USDA is now in charge of overseeing all regulatory processes related to the plant.

It took more than sixty years, and direct defiance from 44 states, to even begin to clarify key differences between marijuana and hemp. These clarifications have led to a few more gray areas. Now that the USDA is in charge of regulating the farming of hemp, the FDA needs to bring its policies into alignment. Which will likely take quite a bit of time.

As of right now, the FDA is in charge of regulating interstate commerce related to any CBD product marketed as a medicine, supplement, food, or cosmetic. It has determined that CBD cannot be added to food, and it recently released a statement indicating that it will pursue legislation against any company purporting CBD to treat, mitigate, or diagnose serious illnesses like diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimers.

Where does this leave CBD gummies? It seems as though they fit directly in the gray area. Which seems to be where most CBD products fit. 92% of cannabis businesses operate in the gray area. Only 4% are fully legal, and 4% are clearly violating the law.

Brands selling CBD gummies are in the gray area, but there are thousands of brands in it together. While the amazing health benefits of CBD gummies are apparent, it will likely be several years before they can be marketed as a supplement, or to treat medical symptoms. In the meantime, the best thing CBD companies can do, is use their blogs to educate people and point them in the direction of the research that backs their claims.

CBD gummy brands take heart! Legislation is moving fast, and changing in favor of the hemp industry every day.

The rest is here:
How CBD Gummies Gray Areas Should Be Handled - The Libertarian Republic