Greg Walker (Taxpayer Friendly)

Watchdog Indiana Home Page Indiana General Assembly & Governor Ratings Legislative Voting Record

Address: 3129 25th Street, Unit 342, Columbus, IN 47203
Phone: (812) 603-6952 
E-mail: S41@in.gov 
Website: http://www.in.gov/legislative/senate_republicans/homepages/s41/index.htm, http://votegregwalker.com/  

2013 General Assembly Voting Record
Voted YES on House Bill 1001, which is Taxpayer Friendly because the 2013-15 state budget makes better use of the existing state Gasoline Tax and state Sales Tax revenues from gasoline purchases with NO NEW TRANSPORTATION TAX INCREASES to increase transportation funding for INDOT by 11%, cities and towns by 34%, and counties by 23%.
Voted YES on House Bill 1011, which is Taxpayer Friendly because construction of a costly light rail transportation system cannot be approved by a new central Indiana transit district before March 14, 2014.
Voted YES on House Bill 1313, which is Taxpayer Friendly because it (1) supports the establishment of a 2013 interim committee to study local government regulation of  residential leases and (2) prohibits a local government from adopting regulations for landlord licensing, mandatory landlord classes, and rental inspection and registration fees until July 1, 2014.
Voted YES on Senate Bill 319, which is Taxpayer Friendly because it prevents a significant shift of the property tax burden to farm working families by (1) using the current soil productivity factors until 2015 and (2) requiring the Department of Local Government Finance to confer with the College of Agriculture of Purdue University and submit a 2013 interim study committee report on soil productivity factors.
Voted YES on Senate Bill 389, which was Taxpayer UNfriendly because it created the possibility for a minority of county income tax council members representing a minority of the county population to impose a county-wide motor vehicle excise surtax and wheel tax. 

2012 General Assembly Voting Record
Voted YES on House Bill 1003, which is Taxpayer Friendly because (1) public access to government meetings and records is improved and (2) it is less likely that public agencies will intentionally violate the Public Access Laws.
Voted YES on House Bill 1005, which contains six Taxpayer Friendly local government Conflict Of Interest provisions and sixteen Taxpayer Friendly local government Nepotism provisions.
Voted NOon House Bill 1376, which is Taxpayer UNfriendly because (1) the automatic taxpayer refund excess reserves trigger is increased from 10% to 12.5% and (2) Hoosier working families will possibly receive an automatic taxpayer refund every even-numbered year instead of every year.
Voted YES on Senate Bill 25, which was Taxpayer Friendly because (if it had passed the House) much improved oversight would have been provided for redevelopment commissions and departments.

2011 General Assembly Voting Record
Voted YES on House Bill 1001, which includes among its 16 Taxpayer Friendly state budget provisions no tax increases and an operating surplus in both the 2012 and 2013 fiscal years with a satisfactory reserve balance on June 30, 2013.
Voted YES on House Bill 1002, which is Taxpayer Friendly because (1) charter schools have the potential to help increase the academic growth of lower socioeconomic students, (2) the number of Indiana nonprofit private colleges and universities authorized to create charter schools is limited, (3) the Indianapolis mayor is the only Indiana mayor who may authorize charter schools, (4) conversion from a public school to a charter school is sufficiently stringent, and (5) property taxes are NOT improperly used to support charter schools.
Voted YES on House Bill 1003, which uses state K-12 tuition support money to fund scholarships for nonpublic school students and is Taxpayer UNfriendly because (1) nonpublic private and parochial schools are not equally open to all children, (2) nonpublic school budgets are not approved by a directly elected public body, (3) evidence-based research does not support greater school choice as a means to achieve overall educational improvement, (4) it is very likely unconstitutional, and (5) state tuition support dollars would go to nonpublic schools that are not uniformly distributed throughout the state.
Voted YES on House Bill 1022, which would have implemented a number of Taxpayer Friendly local government provisions related to nepotism and officeholder conflict-of-interest.
Voted YES on House Bill 1074, which provides that school board members selected by election must be elected at November general elections and is Taxpayer Friendly because the greater voter turnout in general elections will make it more difficult for local vested interests to unduly influence school board elections.

Watchdog Indiana Candidate Questions - November 2, 2010, General Election
1. QUESTION: Do you support or oppose the November 2, 2010, Constitutional Amendment to (a) make the 1% - 2% - 3% property tax caps permanent and (b) protect homestead property tax deductions from legal challenge? ANSWER: DID NOT RESPOND.
2. QUESTION: How should the 2012-2013 state budget be balanced? Please address such issues as Medicaid spending, K-12 education, the possibility of a statewide income tax increase, and whether reserve funds should be replenished. ANSWER: DID NOT RESPOND.
3. QUESTION: Do you pledge to maintain both the Homestead Standard Deduction and the Homestead Supplemental Deduction without ANY change to help homeowners control their property tax burden? ANSWER: DID NOT RESPOND.
4. QUESTION: Do you support changing the Indiana Code so approval of the General Assembly is required before I-69 becomes a toll road between I-64 and Martinsville? ANSWER: DID NOT RESPOND.
5. QUESTION: Do you wish to make some additional comments about your candidacy? ANSWER: DID NOT RESPOND.

2010 General Assembly Voting Record
Voted YES on House Joint Resolution 1, which gives voters statewide the opportunity to amend the Indiana Constitution to (1) make the 1% - 2% - 3% property tax caps permanent and (2) protect homestead property tax deductions from legal challenge.
Voted YES on House Bill 1001, which contains 21 Taxpayer Friendly government ethics reform provisions including a 365-day wait after leaving the General Assembly before a legislator can become a lobbyist or legislative liaison, the reporting of certain expenditures by the legislative liaisons of state agencies and state educational institutions, and a reduction from $100 to $50 in the minimum reportable amount for the total daily gifts given by a registered lobbyist to a legislative person.
Voted YES on House Bill 1086, which contains 7 Taxpayer Friendly provisions including the HJR 1 Constitutional Amendment ballot language.
Voted YES on House Bill 1367, which contains 5 Taxpayer Friendly K-12 education provisions that preserve and protect instructional programs.
Voted YES on Senate Bill 23, which delays the scheduled increase in unemployment insurance premiums for one year until 2011.
Voted YES on Senate Bill 396, which mandates an adjusted six-year average that eliminates the highest value to calculate the base rate for the assessment of agricultural land.

2009 General Assembly Voting Record
Voted YES on Senate Joint Resolution 1, which amended the Indiana Constitution beginning 2012 to include a cap on homestead property tax in 90 counties at 1% of gross assessed value. Until 2020, existing debt service prior to July 1, 2008, is exempted from the 1% homeowner gross assessed value cap in Lake and St. Joseph counties ONLY. The effective constitutional homeowner property tax caps in Lake and St. Joseph counties are 1.88% and 1.52% respectively until the 1% cap takes effect in 2020.
Voted YES on House Bill 1001 SS, the 2009-2011 special session budget bill that (1) provides enough resources for good government AND (2) satisfactorily protects Hoosier working families from state and local tax increases. A YES vote supports a budget that is sufficiently Taxpayer Friendly. A NO vote would have shut down much of state government.
Voted YES on Senate Bill 348 to have a Library Services Plan developed and approved by a Public Library Service Planning Committee (with an "opt out" referendum provision) in every county (except Marion County) to help more effectively use working family dollars currently spent on library services (with the option to equitably replace public library property taxes with a county economic development income tax).
Voted YES on Senate Bill 452 to prohibit employees of a local government unit from serving as elected officials within the same local government unit, move the elections of municipal officers to even-numbered years, move all school board member elections to the November general election in even-numbered years, establish the use of vote centers as an option for all counties, and require a city clerk-treasurer in a third class city to attend fiscal officer training provided by the state board of accounts. 
Voted YES on Senate Bill 506 to (1) allow a single County Chief Executive Officer or County Manager, (2) allow the County Council or the Board of County Supervisors to exercise both the fiscal and legislative powers of the county, (3) provide for voter-initiated referendums on county government reorganization, (4) repeal the requirement that political subdivisions must approve local government reorganizations initiated by voters, (5) assign the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations four responsibilities to identify and monitor good local government practices, (6) prohibit County Manager nepotism, (7) repeal unproductive reporting requirements, and (8) continue to elect the County Assessor.
Voted YES on Senate Bill 512 to (1) abolish on January 1, 2013, each township board in every county (other than Marion County) and make the county fiscal body also the fiscal body and legislative body of each township, (2) require a township when formulating an annual budget to consider whether the part of the ending balance in each township fund in excess of 10% of budgeted expenditures should be used instead of imposing additional property taxes for the ensuing year, (3) prohibit a relative of a township officer or employee from being employed by the township in a position that would put the relative in a direct supervisory or subordinate relationship with the officer or employee, (4) require a township trustee's annual report to list separately each expenditure to reimburse the trustee for the trustee's public business use of personal property, (5) require each township office to include the address, phone number, and regular office hours (if any) of the township office in at least one local telephone directory, (6) prohibits a public meeting or a public hearing of a township official or governing body from being held in a private residence, and (7) requires the State Board of Accounts to submit an annual township examination report to the executive director of the Legislative Services Agency and to county councils.
Voted NO on House Bill 1607 to require a referendum before establishing a Northern Indiana Regional Transportation District, which is a new tax-imposing level of Indiana government in Lake, Porter, LaPorte, and St. Joseph counties controlled by a board with unrestricted powers (where most board members have no real connection to the taxpayers' community). 

Watchdog Indiana Candidate Questions - November 4, 2008, General Election
1. BACKGROUND: Senate Joint Resolution 1 passed the Indiana Senate 40-7 and the Indiana House 79-20 on March 14, 2008, and was signed by the Governor on March 19, 2008. SJR 1 amends the Indiana Constitution to cap homeowners' property tax bills at 1% of assessed value, rental and agricultural property at 2%, and business property at 3%. For property taxes first due and payable in 2012, 90 of Indiana's 92 counties must have a homeowner property tax cap that is 1% of the gross assessed value. Until 2020, existing debt service prior to July 1, 2008, is exempted from the 1% homeowner gross assessed value cap in Lake and St. Joseph counties ONLY. The result of these two existing debt service exemptions equates to a 1.88% homeowner cap in Lake County and a 1.52% homeowner cap in St. Joseph County. The homeowner caps for Lake and St. Joseph counties must become 1% in 2020. The exact same version of SJR 1 that passed in 2008 must again pass in the General Assembly in 2009 to put the 1% constitutional homeowner property tax cap amendment on the 2010 ballot. We the people can then vote to make the 1% homeowner property tax cap a permanent part of the Indiana Constitution. Never has it been so easy to separate those who are part of the property tax relief solution from those who are part of the property tax spending problem. A General Assembly candidate who pledges to vote for Senate Joint Resolution 1 in 2009 is part of the solution, otherwise the legislator is part of the problem. QUESTION: Do you pledge to vote in 2009 for the exact same version of Senate Joint Resolution 1 that passed in 2008? DID NOT RESPOND.
2. QUESTION: Do you wish to make some additional comments about your candidacy? Do you have an E-mail address? Do you have a website? DID NOT RESPOND.

2008 General Assembly Voting Record
Voted YES on Senate Joint Resolution 1, which amended the Indiana Constitution beginning 2012 to include a cap on homestead property tax in 90 counties at 1% of gross assessed value. Until 2020, existing debt service prior to July 1, 2008, is exempted from the 1% homeowner gross assessed value cap in Lake and St. Joseph counties ONLY. The effective constitutional homeowner property tax caps in Lake and St. Joseph counties are 1.88% and 1.52% respectively until the 1% cap takes effect in 2020.
Voted YES on House Bill 1001, which phases in the SJR 1 constitutional property tax caps by 2010. Also, 2008 property taxes are reduced 26% from the prior year. An increase in the sales tax from 6% to 7% and local option income taxes will be used to replace the property tax revenue reductions that result from the property tax caps.

2007 General Assembly Voting Record
Voted NO on House Bill 1001, the budget bill that is Taxpayer Friendly because the General Fund & Property Tax Replacement Fund $26.0722 billion expenditures total for the 2008 and 2009 fiscal years is less than the $26.1946 billion revenues total. HB 1001 also includes additional homestead credits from the Property Tax Reduction Trust Fund of $300 million in 2007 and $250 million in 2008. LEGISLATOR RESPONSE: Even though the state budget balances, on paper, you are still going off of revenue forecasts that are tenuous at best. I have no faith or confidence that the Indiana economy will grow 4.2% in 2008 and 4.9% in 2009. I guarantee you any update of these forecasts today would prove my belief in April; we will not sustain this kind of economic expansion. The 2008-2009 budget has built in spending increases of 4.2% the first year, and 4.9% the second year. These budgets spend faster than our GDP growth;  therefore, they are not taxpayer friendly. Yet only seven members of the Senate voted against it. I was one of those seven. This years budget bill YES vote got a taxpayer friendly for one House member, who voted yes strictly because he was able to get $2M to go to his home county for work on the 4H fairgrounds. Another taxpayer friendly legislator, by your reckoning, held out for additional school funding formula money for his district at the expense of every other school system in the state. The HB1001 also stripped out any attempts to examine charter schools, blocked the virtual charter schools before they had a chance to prove or disprove themselves in Indiana, and funnel more and more money into a public education system that is weakening by LACK of any competition.  We clearly understand how competition is the tide that raises all boats...yet we spend half of the entire states budget on education, and take steps to further the monopoly power of public education?    This was all pushed into the budget bill.  How is any of this taxpayer friendly?The state of Indiana has dangled tax "relief" in front of taxpayers 13 times in the past, by promising various funds to offset property taxes. The one prior to this year's using of slot machine licenses was the increase in sales tax from 5 to 6%. You should see the real issue each time we authorize more taxes without eliminating the offending funding source, property tax, is doomed to fail. I have no faith or confidence that the licensing money for selling slots to racetracks will go to real reductions in PT because of history. People on the streets still think lottery money goes to pay for schools. That is nonsense; the money goes into the general fund for legislators to peel off any way they see fit. I do think we need to make local spending a local expense in order to get accountability. The more the state shifts revenues around and pays for the overspending in Marion and Lake counties, for example, the worse time we will ever have getting a handle on overspending. If Lake and Marion get bailed out, what stops a flood of counties clamoring for the same redistribution of money that is supposed to be dedicated to supporting local government? 
Voted YES on House Bill 1478, which is Taxpayer UNfriendly for the following reasons: (1) Homeowner property taxes will increase 1.2% each year from 2009 through 2013 with annual decreases in the Homestead Standard Deduction. (2) The 2% Circuit Breaker Cap on residential property taxes passed by the General Assembly in 2006 has been watered down to the point where it is almost eliminated. (3) The new local option income tax for property tax relief will be offset by future property tax increases unless the new local option income tax to replace property tax increases is implemented. (4) Using the new local option income tax to replace property tax increases means that income tax increases on Hoosier working families would lower the proportionate tax burden of businesses and utilities by freezing business and utility property taxes without a corresponding increase in other business and utility taxes. (5) A new local option income tax has been authorized for public safety.
Voted NO on House Bill 1835,which is Taxpayer Friendly because it uses slot machine licensing fees and wagering taxes to establish the Property Tax Reduction Trust Fund, which is to be used for property tax relief in any manner prescribed by the General Assembly. LEGISLATOR RESPONSE: I cannot consider an increasing number of Hoosiers throwing money at slot machines as a taxpayer friendly solution. Just because it is a voluntary tax (preying on those with a get rich quick mentality in my opinion) does not mean it is taxpayer friendly. We will all pay the social costs for this kind of tax collection, and slot machines net no new money for the state, unless you have a serious amount of money come from out of state as they do in Nevada. Gambling is not an industry that has any kind of multiplier for economic benefit. I read many studies from across the nation that question if the social and economic burdens created by state authorized gambling completely offset any revenue generation.
Voted YES on Senate Bill 401, which is Taxpayer UNfriendly because state legislators voted themselves a perpetual pay increase that is 20% more than the typical Hoosier working family earns during an entire year. SB 401 also eliminated taxpayer-paid lifetime health insurance and the $4 taxpayer match for each $1 of legislator pension contribution, but General Assembly members should not have received an excessive salary increase in return for eliminating extravagant perks they should not have in the first place. LEGISLATOR RESPONSE: As is documented on your webpage, there were two significant taxpayer friendly portions of this provision. One was the elimination of the lifetime healthcare insurance benefit for self and extended family. There were estimates this benefit cost Hoosiers millions, in not tens of millions in future unfunded expenditures as presumably more and more legislators would qualify for the benefit plan. That was eliminated. Furthermore, the egregious $4 match to every $1 contribution in retirement plan savings was also modified to match the benefit available to all state employees.  These two elements of the bill more than offset the $9,150 pay increase you calculated for the bill. The net savings are for the state of Indiana. I was not pleased to see future salary increases tied to the salaries of unelected officials. That was a compromise in the bill originating in the House. But I did make a campaign promise to eliminate the unjust benefits in my primary and general election campaign comments and literature. Based on my understanding of the total cost of the benefits, and the resulting adjustment to "salary", not total compensation, the resulting bill will still lower costs to all Hoosiers. The state saves money by actually lowering overall compensation for most legislators, but even more importantly it is the transparency of the transaction that is crucially important. ON PAPER, state legislators had not had a pay increase since 1983 or 1986, can't remember....yet compensation was increasing through secretive means, by methods not available, or undesirable, to the private marketplace. Yes, it was the first salary increase in about 20 years...again not my favorite solution but I can tell you this: the greater percentage of total compensation in real salary dollars and the less in retirement/old age lifetime perks, the more average working stiffs like myself can afford to run for the office. If only well-heeled cronies who have made their mark can afford to do the work, you will get a disproportionate share of legislators who do not know what it feels like to chose between paying property tax bills and making a mortgage payment, or saving for a child's college education (we have four kids 6 - 13 years old). We need more transparency in government, not back door deals that profit the few at the expense of the many.
ADDITIONAL LEGISLATOR RESPONSE: Sorry, I forgot All Day Kindergarten.  I am a no vote on an unproven government program, All Day Kindergarten, that study after study shows no increase in learning or cognitive abilities, costing us what...$40 million dollars?  Why was that not a pivotal vote for the state? Do you not take into consideration a 42 cent per pack increase in the cigarette tax this year that I voted against? I was one of only three Senators to vote against a bill to extend the ability of the IEDC to grant funds to successful business operations - I spoke on the floor against corporate welfare!! 

Watchdog Indiana Candidate Questionnaire - November 7, 2006, General Election
1. BACKGROUND: Effective December 1, 2002, the Indiana sales tax increased from 5% to 6% with a promise that the proceeds would be used to decrease homeowner homeowner property taxes by 16.3%. As summarized at http://finplaneducation.net/betrayal_incompetence.htm, Indiana General Assemblies and Governors have turned the promised 16.3% decrease into a Pay 2007 property tax increase of 20.3% for the average Hoosier homeowner. Local governments are now pushing for more flexibility to levy income, sales, and other taxes under the guise of property tax relief. QUESTION: Should local Indiana governments be allowed to impose additional income, sales, and other taxes? ANSWER: ONLY with an irrevocable statute to offset dollar for dollar existing property tax assessments. Otherwise I would not support it..
2. BACKGROUND: The state's budget the last two fiscal years has been balanced without fund transfers for the first time since 1998-99 (see http://finplaneducation.net/indiana_cash_flow_data.htm). QUESTION: Should the state's total budget expenditures be no more than total revenues for the next biennium? ANSWER: YES.
3. BACKGROUND: The state's current budget is balanced with the inclusion of a one-time increase from $35,000 to $45,000 in the state-paid Homestead Deduction for Pay 2007 property taxes. This decreases property taxes for the average homeowner by 6%. QUESTION: Should the $45,000 Homestead Deduction be continued beyond 2007? ANSWER: YES.
4. BACKGROUND: Mandatory full-day kindergarten for all of Indiana's 75,000 kindergartners could cost up to $150 million. QUESTIONS: Should the state pay for full-day kindergarten?  If YES, where should the state get the funds needed for full-day kindergarten? ANSWER: NO.
5. BACKGROUND: The $3.7 billion proceeds from leasing the Indiana Toll Road ("Major Moves") will be used to establish a Bond Retirement Account to pay off bonds selected by the Indiana Finance Authority, an Administration Account, an Eligible Project Account for highway improvements throughout Indiana, and a $500 million Next Generation Trust Fund to be used exclusively for the provision of highways, roads, and bridges. QUESTION: Do you anticipate the need for any state gas tax increases the next ten years? ANSWER: NO. Excise taxes are the most fair method of tax collection, but the lease should prevent any increases in the rate of tax.
6. BACKGROUND: "Major Moves" projects include $694 million for a new terrain I-69 extension from Indianapolis to Evansville as well as a $500 million Next Generation Trust Fund. QUESTION: Should the "Major Moves" expenditures be combined with the Next Generation Trust Fund proceeds to build a new terrain I-69 extension without state tax increases? ANSWER: I prefer an existing terrain route that would not be detrimental environmentally and save money.
7. BACKGROUND: The 2006 "Major Moves" legislation authorizes a toll road for an I-69 extension between Martinsville and Evansville. QUESTION: Do you favor legislation that removes the toll road authorization for an I-69 extension? ANSWER: YES.
8. QUESTION: Do you wish to make some additional comments about your candidacy? ANSWER: I have signed a tax pledge to not raise taxes (which does allow for the re-allocation of tax revenues as long as they are not an increase in overall tax burden).

Watchdog Indiana Candidate Questionnaire - May 2, 2006, Primary Election
1. What will be your guiding principles for the 2007-2009 biennium budget? Specifically, what mix of spending cuts, tax increases, and/or reserve depletions will you support? HAS NOT RESPONDED.
2. What are your opinions regarding homeowner property taxes? Specifically, do favor freezing all property taxes and funding budget increases through both individual and business income tax increases? Or, do you favor a mixture of income tax, sales tax and meals tax increases to reduce property tax growth while providing additional revenue to local governments? HAS NOT RESPONDED.
3. Considering the "Major Moves" legislation passed by the General Assembly this year, do you anticipate the need for any state gas tax increases the next ten years? HAS NOT RESPONDED.
4. What is your position regarding the construction of an interstate from Indianapolis to Evansville? Specifically, should the $500 million Next Generation Trust Fund that is part of "Major Moves" be used exclusively for a new terrain I-69 extension so as to avoid state gas tax increases? HAS NOT RESPONDED.
5. Do you wish to make some additional comments about your candidacy? Do you have an E-mail address? Do you have a website? HAS NOT RESPONDED.

Watchdog Indiana Home Page Indiana General Assembly & Governor Ratings Legislative Voting Record

This page was last updated on 04/30/13 .