10/29/2008 11:34:00 AM


[/size]

• Scott D. Pelath •Kyle-Pierre “K.P.” Nfr



Democrat incumbent, Libertarian newcomer vie for state rep seat

Amanda Haverstick
The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - Two candidates are vying for the District 9 Indiana State Representative seat: Democrat incumbent Scott D. Pelath and political newcomer Kyle-Pierre "K.P." Nfr, a Libertarian.

Pelath, 38, Michigan City, has served five terms, starting in 1998. He has been a human resources director at Swanson Center for nine years, has a bachelor's degree in public affairs from Indiana University and is a graduate of U.S. Army ROTC.

Pelath was a former chairman of La Porte County Democratic Central Committee, is a member of St. Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church and serves on the boards of Healthy Communities of La Porte County, Imagination Station, Voyager Program and Michigan City Black Expo.

Pelath is married to Kim Rendon Pelath and has two daughters: Israel, 10, and Isabella, 7.

Nfr, 46, lives on a farm in Coolspring Township and runs his company, blak corp. He has been a Libertarian all his adult life and has been affiliated with the Libertarian Party of La Porte County since 2002.

Nfr served in the U.S. Navy for eight years and studied physics at the University of Chicago. Nfr is a design and manufacturing consultant, and his wife Stephanie is a psychologist.

Nfr is a member of First Presbyterian Church of Michigan City. He also belongs to the Society of Manufacturing Engineers, the Association of Manufacturing Excellence, the Indiana Wine Growers Guild, the U.S. Practical Shooting Association, the National Rifle Association, Chartered Financial Analysts and is a Certified Commercial Real Estate Investment member.

Both say economic challenges confront the office.

Unstable economic conditions, Pelath said, have a direct effect on state revenues.

"Writing a state budget is certain to be an extraordinarily difficult task," Pelath said. "Adequate funding for our children's education and investments in health care for our workers must remain top priorities. At the same time, we must do better in ensuring that multistate corporations pay what they owe to Hoosier taxpayers."

Nfr said one solution is to make it easier to be an entrepreneur.

"For years, companies have relied on cost cutting to remain competitive. This leads to sending jobs overseas to low-wage countries, which hurts the local economy," Nfr said. "A better long-term solution is to focus on innovation, customer service and keeping jobs local."

Education and health care is a top priority for both candidates.

"The middle class in Indiana deserves safe, well-funded schools, solutions for making health care more affordable and fair policies that reward work," Pelath said.

Nfr suggests improving the school systems by creating specialty schools for arts, sciences and trades within the current structures.

"The path to careers, that's what would change," Nfr said. "In addition, there would be the core courses that all the specialties would take."

Health care, Nfr said, should implement transparency in terms of costs.

"(We need to) eliminate the role of the health care middleman and return to a time where patients interacted with physicians directly," Nfr said. "I'd like to see a fee schedule posted. Transparency would eliminate a lot of the problems."

The assessment system, Pelath said, must possess more speed and more expertise.

"At the state level, the Department of Local Government Finance must employ the expert minds necessary to swiftly evaluate assessment trends. If there are mistakes in a county's assessment methods, the DLGF must be capable of issuing quick and accurate corrections," Pelath said. "At the local level, we must empower property taxpayers by speeding up the existing appeals process. Counties have had a difficult time keeping up with continual state changes, and our administration must be a leader in preventing unreasonable backlogs of appeals."

Nfr said he believes in simplifying the system.

"I would propose a tax based on the square footage of the property," Nfr said. "Two houses with the same (floor plan) would have the same taxes no matter where they are situated."



[size="2"]

As a Vowel-American, I am not sure I can support Mr. Nfr.

He sure lost me there. A house located on the west side should pay the same tax as a house of the same size on the lakefront? What's the word I looking for here -- misguided? uninformed? stupid?

Me lost me there, too. Another issue for me is that I like the 2 party system, even with its flaws. Good or bad, the majority wins.

The two-party system has many weaknesses, among them that just two candidates run. Part of that is the one-member district system we have.

You know, there are two kinds of people: Those who divide everyone into two classes, and those who don't.

I believe Third Parties can have an important role in our elections as they can bring about positive change whereas they bring up many issues that ordinarly are overlooked such as the people forced from their homes due to the rising values of the property in their area. I would not like to join them on their trail of tears, but unfortunately the Two- Party system has muted their voice and failed to show any compassion towards them. I believe Honest Abe was from a Third Party at the time he was elected.

As an academic argument, you're right. Abe was a third party candidate, and in that sense, I too, can see the benefits of a third party emerging. But, here's where we might disagree. Abe and the Republicans challenged the Whigs; they won, and the Whigs went away. Now we're back to a "fresh idea" 2 party system. That I like. What worries me is that if there are 3 strong parties, the majority never wins.

The problem becomes you have two choices. There is no ala carte for people who don't think down one line of thought or the other. I have always been fascinated with the political systems in Europe where dozens of party's jockey for position. It allows people to really find a group that represents them. It bothers me that as a fiscal conservative, I am pretty much stuck with voting for someone who is against things like gay marriage, or voting for a guy who is the 180 degree opposite of what I believe economically.

You make some good points that I agree with. I took several Political Science classes 25-30 years ago, and I don't remember democratic governments having more than two parties in Europe. (They say your mind is the first to go) I'm going to do some homework before I respond any further. It is ingrained into me that a strong third party would ruin democracy b/c the majority would never win. I always believed keep the two parties and fight within.

Wikipedia has some great info on them. Israel is the one that stands out to me the most for some reason, I am guessing because of the amount of turnover at the top. It seems to me like Italy also has a pretty raucous system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system

I will check that out SSer! BTW, my husband & I have been having this same argument for 20 years. :)Now this thread has me going in another vein. Think about this: I can safely say that for the last 2 (maybe 3) elections, I haven't voted for a President b/c I thought he would be the best for this country. It seems that I'm voting for issues that flow to individual's freedoms. Why are gay rights and pro life even issues in any election? Those are private decisions that should be made by the individuals affected by them. I'm realizing that I'm not focused on the important issues: economy, jobs, health care, to name just a few. That's terrible to say; but you really made me realize it. I wonder if others are doing the same?

You pretty much hit on my version of the way things should be. The government was meant to be in our lives as little as possible when the constitution was written. I really feel that ideal should be honored if at all possible, and it seems to me you have one side bent on legislating personal freedoms, and another who wants to legislate economic freedoms.

You are right. Now, let's think of the "fix".

As we can all admit we are human, I feel the draftees of our Constitution in their ultimate wisdom found it impossible to legislate Utopia. Freedom in all areas was the "FIX", provided no objective harm was done to the citizenry and their possessions in the form of Theft, Murder, Fraud, Assult, Vandalism, Defamation of Character and the like, thus vital our Judiciary Branch of Government. Can it be said that there is a flaw in the current modern day form of Salem Witch trial Victimless Crime Legislation (seat belt laws and the like) without repercussion of some form? What is the underlying motive of those who subjectively support the agreement of paying heed to special interest parties that in essence divide us. I have not found in our Constitution whereas in earnest that a Bureaucracy be created to usurp the citizens, via agents of force, in order to gain unearned wealth from the truly productive members of our society such as yourselves, whom OBJECTIVELY haven't HARMED ANYONE or ANYTHING! I intend to vote to restore this WISDOM. Alas, MY PLEDGE is to the REPUBLIC for which it stands!