Indiana dollars to fight reform

April 1, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has joined several other states to legally challenge the recently passed federal health-care legislation. This means Indiana tax dollars will be spent challenging the bill.

He says by joining the already filed suit, we’ll save money. But should this money be spent in the first place? If you support the legislation, you may argue no. It’s seen as a waste of money fighting something a lot of Americans want. On the other hand, those who are against the legislation will say this is necessary to protect Indiana dollars as well as its residents who in the future will be required to purchase insurance or face penalties.

And, it may depend on what political party you align with as to whether you support this suit. Democratic legislators here have criticized the AG, saying he’s wasting taxpayer money. According to AG spokesman Bryan Corbin, the work is being done in-house, so employees aren’t getting paid any additional money for it, just their salaries.

I wonder if the AG’s office has enough resources to devote time to this or if other areas will suffer because of the suit.

What do you think? Is this a smart move to have multiple states fight the legislation or just a waste of money?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT