The problem as I see it is the lack of imagination in government when it comes to reducing spending/costs. I see it at my job, our budget shrinks and cuts need to be made. Problem is, there is no creativity (outside the box thinking) in coming up with solutions. Hell, they way Indy's budget is formed boggles the mind. For instance, all job losses (firing, retire, quitting) equal x dollars no longer being spent. So, if in a given year we lose 100 officers, we should have money for MORE than 100 as rookies are MUCH cheaper to hire. Sadly, that money disappears from our budget. It gets sent to Indy's general fund and they spend it as they see fit. If I am driving along in my patrol car and someone hits me, totals my car, their insurance cuts a check to IMPD for the replacement cost. The money does not go to IMPD but again to the city's general fund. We are left a car down and no money to replace it. We wanted to hold a charity event at the dept's CrossFit gym to raise money to fix/replace equipment. Can't since any cash we may raise goes to the general fund. How can the department get creative with such archaic financial rules?Here's where we differ. I don't want to see any taxes on anyone, shifted or not. Downsizing government is the logical response, not the response that I saw in the politicians quoted. Yes, in the final analysis all taxes are paid by individuals, that's a given, but I see no need to keep the gravy train rolling, if Pence's suggestion should go forward, (even though he gave himself a cowardly out in the JC article I read). Cut government to cover the lost "revenue", don't shift taxes to individuals, families or anyone else.