Cindy Noe (Uncertain)

Watchdog Indiana Home Page Taxpayer Friendly Scorecard Legislative Voting Record 11/02/04 Candidate Questionnaire 05/04/04 Candidate Questionnaire 11/05/02 Candidate Questionnaire 05/07/02 Candidate Questionnaire

Address: 5236 E. 72nd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46250
Phone: (317) 841-7777
E-mail: H87@ai.org
Website: http://www.in.gov/legislative/house_republicans/homepages/r87/

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? HAS NOT RESPONDED.
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? HAS NOT RESPONDED.
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? HAS NOT RESPONDED.
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? HAS NOT RESPONDED.
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? HAS NOT RESPONDED.
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? HAS NOT RESPONDED.
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? HAS NOT RESPONDED.
8. QUESTION: 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.

2006 General Assembly Voting Record
Voted YES on "Major Moves" House Bill 1008, which authorizes the Indiana Department of Transportation to enter into public-private agreements with private entities (operators) concerning tollway projects for I-69 between Martinsville and Evansville. HB 1008 also authorizes the Indiana Finance Authority to enter into public-private agreements with operators for the Indiana Toll Road.
Voted YES on House Bill 1001, a residential property tax reduction bill that increases the homestead credit for one year in 2006 to 28% and the homestead standard deduction for one year in 2007 to $45,000. Beginning in 2007 for Lake County and 2008 for all other counties, HB 1001 also establishes a cap on residential property taxes equal to 2% of the assessed value of the residential property.

2005 General Assembly Voting Record
Voted YES on House Bill 1001, the budget bill that included seven significant homeowner property tax increases.
Voted NO on House Bill 1120, which contained thirteen negative tax impacts including a regional Food and Beverage Tax to finance a new Colts stadium.

Watchdog Indiana Candidate Questionnaire - November 2, 2004, General Election
1. Guiding Principles for 2005-07 Biennium Budget. DID NOT RESPOND. Record: Voted AGAINST the 2004-05 state budget where General Fund and Property Tax Replacement Fund spending totals exceed current revenue totals for the eighth straight year. The 2004-05 state budget also includes Pension Stabilization Fund transfers, which worsen the $8.5 billion shortfall in teacher retirement funds.
2. Opinions on Homeowner Property Taxes. DID NOT RESPOND. Record: Voted AGAINST the 2004-05 state budget where the property tax relief promised to homeowners in the 2002 special session was reduced by the so-called Homestead Credit "correction."
3. Position on Indianapolis to Evansville Interstate. DID NOT RESPOND.
4. Additional Comments. DID NOT RESPOND. Record: See the Candidate Questionnaires for the November 5, 2002, General Election and the May 7, 2002, Primary Election. Also see the Legislative Voting Record.

Watchdog Indiana Candidate Questionnaire - November 5, 2002, General Election
1-2. Special session vote AGAINST several tax increases that will increase revenues $1.7782 billion from July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2005.
3. Special session vote AGAINST a 20% gas tax increase (from 15 to 18 cents per gallon) effective 01/01/03.
4. Special session vote AGAINST a phased-in shift of the inventory tax to (1) all other types of property through an increased property tax rate and (2) a tax on the income of individuals (in those counties choosing to do so) through the establishment or increase of a County Economic Development Income Tax (CEDIT).
5. DID NOT RESPOND to General Election Questionnaire. See the Candidate Questionnaire for the May 7, 2002, Primary Election.

Watchdog Indiana Candidate Questionnaire - May 7, 2002, Primary Election
1. VOTING RECORD: Voted on February 4 AGAINST the Indiana House of Representatives version of HB 1004, which did not have enough Property Tax relief in return for a 20% Sales Tax rate increase, imposed a new Business Franchise Tax (Business Activity Fee) based on net worth, and increased revenues $2.683 billion more than taxes would have been reduced through June 30, 2004. RESPONSE: I did not vote for the Indiana House of Representatives version of HB1004 for several reasons, including: 1) It was not revenue neutral, but collected $800 mil. in additional taxes from Hoosiers during a recessionary period, 2) 50% of the inventory tax remained and a new business activity tax was introduced (similar to franchise tax) which both tax the balance sheet side of a business and have no relationship to ability to pay, and 3) approximately 80% of the budget was exempt from spending restraints. The Senate version of HB1004 was more palatable because it was revenue neutral and had spending growth limits across the board. However, I could not fully support for several reasons, including: 1) it because it had two new taxes on small businesses and 2) no economic development provisions. I believe the best alternative offered throughout the session came from House Republicans. It took us in the right direction and gave everyone something they could take back to their constituents, which is important in this process. It was revenue neutral, had no inventory tax, had a 4% spending cap straight from the Governor’s State of the State address, maintained the democrats’ sales and cigarette tax increases but applied it to property tax relief, protected education funding and had a complete plan for economic development. Was it perfect? No. But underlying financial markets would have responded very favorably and we would have been well on our way to addressing the significant issues facing us in a very positive fashion.
2. VOTING RECORD: Voted on February 5 FOR the Indiana House of Representatives version of HB 1317, which would have raised the Gasoline Tax from 15 cents per gallon to 16 cents during 2003 and 17 cents after 2003. RESPONSE: I did support the version of the Gasoline Tax increase HB1317 passed by the House of Representatives. I see it as an economic development issue. It is a user fee that had last been raised one cent in 1988. Inflation since has lessened purchasing power and, given that we have the sixth lowest gas tax in the country, it is an appropriate step. I could not fully support the Senate version of HB1317 at a rate of seven cents increase. I would need some answers to questions, like, why does it cost so much to build a mile of roadway? Are we efficient? How are right of ways handled? What is the cost/benefit ratio of environmental impact studies, which seem to account for major bucks in the whole scheme of things? Certain lobbyists were pushing the senate version because it meant jobs for their clients. That type of thinking is problematic to a good, reasoned outcome.
3. VOTING RECORD: Voted March 13 to override the Governor's veto of HB 1083 in an effort to keep Indiana General Assembly members from being covered by the state's Public Access Laws. RESPONSE: Voting up or down on the Governor’s veto of HB1083 was tough. There was no good option. This was supported by many comments from the house floor recognizing we’d have to go in and readdress this issue next session regardless of the veto outcome. I had not voted on the original bill and went into the veto override open minded. I was leaning towards sustaining the governor’s veto, but cognizant that 70% of my constituents said they wanted their communications with their legislator to remain private. Discussion from the house floor by a variety of legislators told of the intimidating and arrogant posture of the media as the original bill was being considered. Among their targets was constituent communications. I AM for open government. How else can it be ". . . government of the people, by the people and for the people?" I do not believe that HB1083 was a thoughtful piece of legislation as much as a knee-jerk response to raging emotions of the prior session. However, it is the best option currently available to protect the confidentiality of constituent communications. That is why I voted to override the Governor’s veto. This issue will be addressed again. It is my hope that we will emerge with constitutional legislation that expects our government to operate in the light of day and yet does not discourage open and robust discourse.
4. I am a business owner who understands the value of having a vision and leading an effective and efficient operation in accomplishing the vision. It has become woefully apparent that we have not had a vision, or good leadership, in Indiana for years. I believe the skills and acumen of a business owner have high transferability to the political process. Jim Kittle, Indiana State Republican Chairman would agree when he says, "I think a business perspective in political activity is quite frankly the only way to be successful in the 21^st century." I have a good knowledge base on a variety of state and federal issues and believe I am a well-grounded and ready contributor. See the Candidate Questionnaire for the November 5, 2002, General Election.

This page was last updated on 03/25/10.