INDIANAPOLIS - Indiana House Democratic Leader Scott Pelath from Michigan City announced today that House Democrats will propose a $2 billion plan to improve state and local roads and bridges over the next four years.

Pelath said the Crossroads Tomorrow plan [get a summary here], to be offered during the 2016 session of the Indiana General Assembly, would direct proceeds from the state’s gasoline sales tax and special fuels sales tax toward state and local infrastructure projects. Combined, the two taxes generate close to $525 million a year.

In announcing the plan, Pelath issued the following statement:

“After a summer that Indiana motorists would like to forget, even the sunniest optimist agrees that the Legislature must do more to improve the state of our state’s roads and bridges.

      “Since our Republican colleagues have encouraged us to play an active role in the debate that will be coming in the 2016 legislative session, Indiana House Democrats have decided we must take some bold steps to help Indiana resume its place as the ‘Crossroads of America.’

“The need is apparent to everyone, even those who claim that the state is doing everything in its power to improve infrastructure. Such claims ring hollow when over 1,000 Indiana bridges are deemed ‘structurally deficient’ and one of our state’s major arteries – Interstate 65 – was closed from Lafayette to Lebanon for over a month and more than $70 million in taxpayer dollars was spent on slipshod asphalt that fell apart as soon as a car touched it. The windfall that was Major Moves is all but tapped out.

“Indeed, if there weren’t such serious problems out there, I seriously doubt the governor would be suggesting a new infrastructure plan as he’s trying to convince people that everything is OK.

“The problem is that the governor’s plan is meek. It doesn’t go far enough, it ignores the needs of local government, and it relies upon bonding, which would put a greater burden on taxpayers for years into the future. You can judge its effectiveness by the tepid response it received from the leadership of his Republican supermajorities, none of whom erupted into paroxysms of joy when the plan announced.

“Our plan is based on a simple concept. Every tax you pay at your gas station should go to fix your street or highway or bridge.

“Right now, when you fill your car with gasoline, you pay a sales tax on your purchase. Those taxes go just about everywhere except toward the road you drive.

“This plan would fairly redirect more than $500 million a year toward highway maintenance and construction. Over the time frame of the governor’s plan, it would provide $2 billion for roads and bridges.

“It would make sure that locals get a piece of the pie, and it would not take an extra dime out of anyone’s pocket.

“Take a moment to consider the lasting value here. Unlike some other public services, roads have lasting, measurable value. Once skilled workers are done with the job, the improved road and bridge becomes a lasting asset to businesses, manufacturers, and people earning a living. They in turn can generate new jobs and revenues for the rest of us…and before you know it, the reserves are back where the accountants don’t get the shakes any more.

“Would this fix every road or bridge in Indiana? No, but it is bolder, fairer, and more understandable to the public than anything suggested so far. It is what is needed in Indiana right now.”

Jennifer Nelson for www..theindianalawyer.com

An ex-husband who sought “all-or-nothing” relief when he asked the court to terminate his ex-wife’s incapacity support instead of reducing it after she remarried lost his appeal before the Indiana Supreme Court.

The justices agreed with the trial court that Anne Stokes’ finances had not changed so substantially that revocation of spousal maintenance was warranted once she remarried. When she and Kevin Gertiser divorced after 25 years of marriage in 2007, the court ordered Gertiser to pay Stokes $1,182.50 in incapacity maintenance per month, finding her legal blindness materially affected her ability to support herself. At the time, her income was under $10,000 per year in Social Security disability benefits and under $1,000 in earnings from part-time medical transcription work from home. Gertiser earned about $144,000 a year at that time.

Both remarried and Gertiser sought to terminate Stokes’ spousal maintenance on the basis that her remarriage created a substantial and continuing change in her financial condition that made any further maintenance unreasonable because Stokes’ husband brought substantial assets and income into the marriage and has a statutory duty to support her. The trial court disagreed and kept the maintenance order in place. The Court of Appeals reversed.

“We recognize this record could have supported Kevin’s position, if the trial court had accepted it. But there is also ample evidence to support the contrary view reflected in the trial court’s findings — and those findings support the refusal to revoke maintenance,” Chief Justice Loretta Rush wrote.

The justices held that courts may revoke incapacity maintenance for recipients whose ability to support themselves is no longer materially affected, even if they are still disabled. Stokes had argued maintenance could only be modified, but never revoked, if one is still disabled.

Addressing the trial court’s findings, the high court noted that proving that a change in circumstances is so “substantial and continuing” as to require revoking maintenance is a steep showing.  The justices also noted that $253,000 of Stokes’ marital assets do not constitute any change in her financial circumstances, and the remaining value of the $371,000 of assets her husband brought to their marriage can be discounted. Of that money, nearly half is his legal interest in a trust that holds title to his parents’ property; and most of the remaining amount is held in retirement accounts for which withdrawals would incur substantial penalties, Rush wrote. She also pointed out that while Stokes’ husband’s income is higher than Gertiser’s, he has to pay more than $2,500 each month in maintenance to his ex-wife and child support.

“Again, revoking maintenance required Kevin to prove not merely that the maintenance award had become unreasonably excessive, but its very existence had become unreasonable. And under the facts as found by the trial court, any change in Anne’s finances was not of a magnitude that made it unreasonable to leave a maintenance order in place. Since Kevin made no alternative argument for a reduction, we need not consider (and express no opinion about) whether a modification might have been warranted. In this procedural posture, where Kevin chose to seek all-or-nothing relief, we agree that these findings support denying the drastic remedy he requested,” Rush wrote in Kevin Gertiser v. Anne Stokes f/k/a Gertiser, 29S02-1511-DR-643.

Governor Mike Pence today announced that the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) has completed the full payoff of the unemployment insurance loan, saving Hoosier businesses $327 million in taxes, which equates to $126 per employee in the state. This payoff removes the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) penalty facing employers in January 2016.

“Hoosier businesses and employees can now rest assured that this tax on hiring has been eliminated,” said Governor Pence. “Thanks to our prudent fiscal management and financial planning, we are able to save businesses a total of $327 million in 2016 – funds that can be used for hiring new employees, growing existing companies, raising wages, and more. By paying off our unemployment insurance loan, Indiana is proving once again the importance of growing and maintaining healthy state finances.”

This payoff of roughly $250 million comes after the Governor’s announcement in October that the state of Indiana would advance funds to DWD to eliminate the outstanding federal unemployment loan, and would eliminate the FUTA penalty on employers, which currently stands at 1.8 percent, the highest penalty in the country. The advance will be repaid to the State from the collections of existing state unemployment taxes. It is expected that the advance will be repaid by the end of fiscal year 2016. Once repaid, the funds used to eliminate the outstanding FUTA penalty will be available to be used for other priorities.