On Puerto Rico

I have seen a lot about our government's response to the hurricane that struck Puerto Rico, replete with the unflattering comparisons to its response to the hurricanes that struck Texas and Florida. While I have no doubt that our president views Puerto Rico as less authentically "real" American than "his" voters in TX and FL, I do not think that the government's response to the hurricane is a manifestation of our president's racism.

I think it's a manifestation of his childishly short attention span.

When the first hurricane hit, he was all over it; tweeting, sending in resources, etc.

When the second hurricane hit, he was on it; maybe not to the same degree as before, but FL has a long history of responding to hurricanes and it likely did not seem like much of a fall off because of that.

By the time the third hurricane hit Puerto Rico, the president was on to other things, real (N. Korea) and contrived (NFL).

I agree that President Trump is terrible; I just find him to be terrible for different reasons than many others in this particular instance.

Taxes - Pt. 7

Now we get to the meat and potatoes:

REPEALS THE DEATH TAX AND ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX (AMT) 

 The framework repeals the unfair Death Tax and substantially simplifies the tax code by repealing the existing individual AMT, which requires taxpayers to do their taxes twice. 

I notice that they are quick to ensure that this gets thrown in. Recall that, presently, the "death tax" (i.e. estate tax) applies to one's estate at the rate of  40%. However, the first $5.5m or so is exempted. So, unless you have $5.5m to leave to someone, this tax will never touch you. It's interesting how they are so vague with so many other parts of this "reform" plan, but so explicit about ensuring that those poor downtrodden millionaire heirs and heiresses don't have to pay taxes on that money that they won via the sperm lottery.

Also, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was put in place by Ronald Reagan to ensure that rich people (like Donald Trump) can't itemize their way to a $0.00 tax bill. Again, note how explicit this "reform" plan is about repealing that.

In a nutshell, this plank of their plan ensures that the extremely wealthy can take advantage of loopholes and never pay taxes; then, when they die, they can pass their wealth along to their children tax free.

Don't forget, if you spent all day nailing shingles to a roof, your wages for the first hour and a half of your ten hour day went to the federal government; this plan doesn't help you. Instead, it helps the guy who owns the shingle company and the lumber company avoid paying anywhere near the level of taxes you pay.

Food for thought.

Taxes - Pt. 6

Here is the next part of what the GOP tax "reform" purports to do:

DOUBLES THE STANDARD DEDUCTION AND ENHANCES THE CHILD TAX CREDIT 

 The framework roughly doubles the standard deduction so that typical middle-class families will keep more of their paycheck. It also significantly increases the Child Tax Credit. 

I certainly have no problem with doubling of my standard deduction or increasing the Child Tax Credit. I do, however, wonder whether this will be paid for in any way. Money isn't free, you know. If they double my standard deduction and increase the Child Tax Credit, that nominally lowers my tax bill. However, as I've stated before, I'd prefer not to save $100/year in taxes if that means that I will get his with an additional $5,000/year in tuition bills or have my children attend sub-par schools. Also, the next time Speedway Public Schools come calling with a referendum, understand why they need more money: they are getting less from the state, which is getting less from the feds.

As to this, I would say on its merits I have no problem with it. However, to repeat myself, tax cuts aren't free, and only a fool accepts them without inquiring as to what expenditure will be cut as a result. Despite what Hannity, Limbaugh, and FoxNews (FakeNews) claim, if you cut taxes, you have to either cut spending or incur debt. It's called "math."

Taxes - Pt. 5

Instead of regurgitating what others say about the newest tax "reform" on offer from Paul Ryan et al, why not address it directly?

Lowers Rates for Individuals and Families: The framework shrinks the current seven tax brackets into three – 12%, 25% and 35% – with the potential for an additional top rate for the highest-income taxpayers to ensure that the wealthy do not contribute a lower share of taxes paid than they do today.

 Well, there is not much to say about this. If my tax rate goes down to 12%, good. However, if the 35% rate kicks in at $5,000, then this is essentially a flat tax (and quite regressive at that). It is interesting to note that he doesn't commit on the "additional top rate." Is he going to support it or oppose it? How does he feel about that? At what income does this additional top rate kick in, and how much is that rate?

I'm also not entirely sure what to make of the last statement regarding the "share of taxes" paid by "the wealthy." Who are the wealthy? What does he mean by "share of taxes"?

Call me skeptical about this. I can only go on experience, and I can't help but think, based on that experience, that I will get a cut of about $200 while Jim Irsay will get a cut of approximately $2m.

On Taxes - Pt. IV (My Part)

I know I'm talking a lot about taxes today. I do want to make it clear that (1) I would certainly enjoy a break in my taxes; and (2) I remain willing and able to pay my share of taxes.

On Taxes - Pt. 3 (broken promises)

Remember the phrase, "If you like your plan, you can keep it"? As an Obama supporter, I came to dread hearing those words because I knew they weren't true. I wish he would never have uttered them, because broken promises hurt politically. 

Well, Mr. Trump, you have the floor:

"The rich will not be gaining at all with this plan," Trump declared again last week. 

OK. I'm not enough of a sucker to take Donald Trump (well-known serial liar) at his word. What about some others? Surely, a former Goldman Sachs executive would never lie to us!

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin vowed that "any reductions we have in upper-income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class."

OK. They both said it. Can we trust them? And for what it's worth, I don't "believe in" trickle-down economics for one simple reason: cutting taxes on the extremely wealthy has been tried (repeatedly) in the past few decades and that money has not "trickled down," even after waiting for decades. 

My test for credulity as to "trickle-down" economics is the same as it is for that perpetual motion machine: I'll believe it when I see it.

As Jerry Maguire so memorably said, "Show me the money!"

As an incidental note, I wonder how Indiana's congressional delegation intends to vote on this and whether they intend to (ever) hold a town hall to defend such vote.

On Taxes - Pt. 2

As an initial matter, let's notes that the American Enterprise Institute is a conservative think tank. It does not support liberal ideas, nor does it seek to defame Republicans with "fake news" or some other such partisan trick.

James Pethokoukis lamented yesterday at aei.org that the GOP can't come up with any serious ideas. I encourage anyone to click through and read what he has to say. A few snippets:

Doing big things in Washington is never easy, as the Republicans are currently demonstrating. But doing them is much harder when the plans themselves are so flawed. And make no mistake: Both the GOP health and tax plans are troubled policy at best. That’s the main reason Republicans are struggling — it’s the policy, stupid.

Look out for that drive-by Liberal Media!

You would think Republicans would be on safer ground with tax cuts. But their plan should be a non-starter given that it apparently would reduce federal revenue by $500 billion a year. And the only specific “pay for” so far — eliminating the state and local tax deduction — would cover maybe a third of that amount.

So, wait . . . am I to understand that all of the piety from Paul Ryan and company about the national debt was insincere? For shame!

So whatever the benefits of some individual pieces of this tax plan, it is fiscally and intellectually incoherent in its totality. It also makes a joke of the GOP’s supposed deficit worries during the Obama years.

From the American Enterprise Institute's mouth to God's ear!

Both the GOP’s health care and tax efforts show, if not an intellectually fatigued party, then one unwilling to speak truth to its voters: Tax cuts almost never pay for themselves. Universal health insurance coverage is a proper societal goal. ObamaCare isn’t to blame for slow economic growth. The future U.S. tax burden is far more likely to rise than fall. Trying to maintain policy fictions — whether to appease Fox News, talk radio, or voters with misplaced expectations — gets you a week like this one, a week full of bad politics and bad policy. And with little sign that GOPers are ready to acknowledge these hard truths, this bad week is unlikely to be the last one.

This card-carrying liberal couldn't have spoken it better himself. Although, columns like this one make me question whether I'm really a liberal or whether I simply can't stand the rank and pervasive dishonesty of one side of the political debate and thus default to the other side. 

On Taxes - An Ongoing Series

I see that the national political debate has moved from healthcare to taxes. Oh boy!

Tax policy is a rather complex topic, as pushing on taxes in one area creates results in an often-unrelated area. For example, if we do away with the mortgage interest deduction, that makes buying a house less tax preferred and probably hurts (a) the mortgage origination market; (b) the realtor industry's bottom line; and (c) the value of your home. If you don't get to deduct the interest you pay on your mortgage, perhaps you're less likely to take out a huge mortgage just because you can.

Anyway, I don't want to get too bogged down in that at the moment. Today, I'd like to talk about why I give a damn about whether other people's taxes go up or down.

Someday, I'm going to try to send my children to college.

This will likely (hopefully) be a state school, such as IU or (God help me) Purdue.

These schools get their funding from the State of Indiana.

The State of Indiana gets its budget backfilled by the federal government.

With less money coming from the feds, the State has less money to support public colleges. These public colleges have to fill their budget somehow, and that generally involves tuition increases. I attended IU in the late 1990s for $1,500/semester; I got a 50% tuition break because my mother was a nurse for IU Health, so most people paid roughly $3,000/year.

Today, tuition and fees total $10,534/year. That is roughly 350% of what it cost when I went there, and this does not include the ever-rising cost of living in Bloomington.

By contrast, median wages for college graduates have fallen since I graduated from IU in 1999.

So, to review, college has gotten 3.5X more expensive since I graduated, and the wages of the person expected to pay for the next generation's college education have, at best, remained stagnant. Do I want public aid to colleges cut? Hell no!

This is but one reason why I do NOT support the current plans on offer regarding tax "reform."

I assure you, dear reader, that there are plenty more reasons to come.

Taking a Knee

I will, cautiously, wade into the treacherous waters surrounding NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem.

I don't have any problem whatsoever with it.

These players are not wiping their rear with the flag, nor are they giving it the finger, nor are they spitting on it. They are solemnly taking a knee or raising a fist to demonstrate that while they revere this country, they and others of their skin color have dealt with (and continue to deal with) grave injustice that cannot be ignored. That they make millions of dollars to play a kid's game is of no moment; they rightly recognize that all the money in the world can't buy them justice, nor can that money buy justice for their families, who generally are not multi-millionaire athletes.

This is in spirit with similar protests nearly fifty (50) years ago:

Patriotism.

I do note that some haughtily claim that this is a disgrace when soldiers are fighting and dying overseas while making a tiny fraction of the income that NFL players make. While this argument is duly noted, its relevance escapes me. Does the injustice suffered by the black community somehow count less when there is a war going on? Did the black NFL players have some sort of collective conversation wherein they decided to trade their dignity for soldiers' blood? If the soldiers made more money, would the protest then be OK? What about if the players were amateurs or poorly paid? Would their protest then be more acceptable? Is this really that disrespectful?

Quiet Strength

My point is that I am proud, PROUD, to call myself a fellow citizen of these young men who had the courage (and temerity) to stand (or sit, or kneel, or raise a fist) for their convictions. That is what this country is about. If free speech means anything, it has to apply to just and noble causes such as this at least in the same measure that it applies to those "very fine people" in Charlottesville, VA, and elsewhere who march and chant for their abhorrent causes.

I note the disparity between protests such as the NFL and the 1968 protest, pictured above, and those shown below from more recent times:

I always like to remind myself that my opinions and reactions to all things will someday be judged by St. Peter at the Gate. When my turn comes, I hope that I can say that I supported those who stood for justice and opposed those who stood against it. Don't we all want to wind up on the right side of history?

UPDATE: I just saw this screed in the Washington Times today. A snippet:

Don’t kneel when my anthem is played.  Too many people died for that flag.  You are free to protest but not then.  I am free to not watch, or pay to watch you play if you do that.  The NFL should make it a rule that you stand for the national anthem.  There is no free speech to disobey a private employer on private property.  This would solve the problem immediately.

The NFL has deeply offended most of America.  They will pay an economic and reputational price, as they should.

If a player is free to protest, then he is free to protest. You, Mr. Conservative Columnist, have no right to tell him when he can and can't protest. I also find it interesting that he states simultaneously that (a) too many people died for rights in America, but (b) NFL players don't have the right to protest. Also, the league should make a rule governing the protests, the right to which many Americans died to preserve.

I also can't help but notice his comment about "private property." Citizens of Indianapolis and surrounding counties: You paid for Lucas Oil Stadium. Do you, having paid for the stadium, consider it to be the private property of someone else?

Finally, if Mr. Ass-Hat Conservative Columnist believes that the NFL will pay an economic and reputational price, and it doesn't, what then? Can we disregard him as full of it? Is that proof positive that this blowhard doesn't know what he's talking about and should forever thereafter be disregarded?

Priorities

Can't help but raise eyebrows at this one:

In 2016 more people were arrested for marijuana possession than for all crimes the FBI classifies as violent, according to 2016 crime data released by the agency on Monday.

How's that for priorities? Aren't you glad that, of each tax dollar you provide to our criminal justice system, more of it goes to arrest people for possessing a "dime bag" of pot than brutalizing people?

Indefensible.

Social Issues and Movement Conservatism

It is my belief that Movement Conservatism (most memorably defined by Ronald Reagan as standing for the proposition that government is the problem, not the solution) has been the dominant force in American politics since approximately 1981. I was 4 when it came to prominence.

Notwithstanding the hysterics no the AM dial, neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama (the two democratic presidents in my adult life) is a wide-eyed socialist. Indeed, both of them generally sit somewhere on the left/right spectrum between Eisenhower and Nixon. Neither is as far left as FDR or LBJ.

Given that Movement Conservatism and its ideas have dominated our nation's politics for a generation, I believe that we should assess its strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately its level of success. Notably, to those who say, "real conservatism has never been tried," I would direct you to that pesky thing called "reality" that dictates what can and cannot be accomplished.

Ross Douthat, one of the NY Times' conservative apologists, recently wrote about what he characterized as "The Health Care Cul-de-Sac." Therein, he made the following observations:

What are the biggest threats to the American Dream right now, to our unity and prosperity, our happiness and civic health?

I would suggest that there are two big answers, both of which played crucial roles in getting a carnival showman who promised to Make America Great Again elected president. First, an economic stagnation that we are only just now, eight years into an economic recovery, beginning to escape — a stagnation that has left median incomes roughly flat for almost a generation, encouraged populism on the left and right, and made every kind of polarization that much worse.

Second, a social crisis that the opioid epidemic has thrown into horrifying relief, but that was apparent in other indicators for a while — in the decline of marriage, rising suicide rates, an upward lurch in mortality for poorer whites, a historically low birthrate, a large-scale male abandonment of the work force, a dissolving trend in religious and civic life, a crisis of patriotism, belonging, trust.

I tend to agree with Mr. Douthat. However, as I noted yesterday (really, Doug Masson noted it, to be fair), it seems to me that our economic stagnation is due to the fact that we have disincentivized work for so many people. When the boss holds, literally, ALL the cards and only gives raises when he absolutely has to, what is the point of working harder to improve oneself? When jobs are viewed as at the sufferance of the employer, how is one supposed to build a career on that? Jobs used to be stepping stones for careers. Now, upper management has succeeded in making nearly every job out there, save a select few, a veritable temp-to-hire position, where the hiring never actually happens. 

Further, we see employers bemoaning the supposed shortage of qualified workers. Well, what do you expect? If you don't offer any stability in the career, why would someone devote years of his life training for it? Why would someone devote years and thousands of dollars to learn, for example, advanced manufacturing, when the boss may or may not move the plant to Mexico (ahem, Carrier, ahem) to increase his already profitable business? Where does that leave the worker? Broke, unemployed, and in debt. 

Who blames the worker for avoiding that problem?

On to the second crisis we have: the degradation of our neighborhoods. I believe that this is related to the first. If the breadwinner is treated as temp-to-hire (and never hired), how is he supposed to find the time to run for school board or town council? He may lose his job tomorrow and find himself unable to make his mortgage payment the next day. Further, given the dynamic explained above that discourages people from bettering themselves, doesn't that same dynamic apply to bettering communities? 

I could go on and on, but I think that what this represents is a wholesale failure or, alternatively, an overextension of conservative dogma. If the dominant political dogma of the past generation has resulted in significant problems, perhaps its time to rethink the dominant political dogma. I would note to my conservative friends that its not always 1981; the answer is not always to cut taxes for the wealthy and do your best Ronald Reagan impression (Mike Pence does a pretty good Ronald Reagan impression, no?).

(Incidentally, I would say the same thing to my civil rights warrior friends: It is not always 1968. Racism is not the root of every problem.)

My point here is that when our dominant belief system, and all of its inherent assumptions, has produced some measurably bad outcomes, perhaps we need to rethink our assumptions. Is government the problem? Does cutting taxes result in more government? Should all employment situations be "at will" or should employees have additional rights? What about the "shareholder value" doctrine? Is creating wealth for shareholders the ONLY purpose of a corporation? If so, why do we grant corporations such expansive rights?

A few thoughts.

What do these people do?

I recently came to realize that in 2018 the people of Indiana will elect a State Auditor, State Treasurer, and Secretary of State.

Without looking it up, can you honestly say (a) who the current holder of any of these offices is; and (b) what the responsibilities of said office are?

If the answer is no, perhaps we should be asking ourselves why we are tasked with selecting who holds such office.

Kudos to Doug Masson!

Anyone who has never read Doug Masson's blog should do so immediately. I have never met Mr. Masson, but I find him to be a very thoughtful and insightful writer. His latest post is so good, I just can't help but quote it liberally here:

Our society’s thumb is firmly on the scale favoring property rights over other types of rights and, as a result, wealth is concentrated in few enough places that it’s distorting our markets and our democratic institutions. We end up spending far more on health care than other countries while getting the same or worse results. We can see other countries implementing educational systems that perform better than ours does but, for ideological and venal reasons, we pursue privatization rather than taking measures to enhance the professional status of our teachers and other steps that have been shown to yield educational improvements.

. . . . .

Humans need cultural myths and narratives to give them purpose. The American Dream has been that guiding story for much of our country’s history. As I always understood it, that Dream was that we are a nation of laws, not of men. If you work hard and play by the rules, you will prosper and your community will flourish. That dream was often more aspirational than real, but mostly it didn’t seem too far-fetched. These days, with the idle rich making money hand over fist, hard working Americans going bankrupt from medical bills or lack of opportunity, and the wicked going unpunished, that Dream is being stretched to the breaking point. Once deprived of the narratives that give our lives positive meaning, we succumb to nihilism or other pernicious ideologies.

Sometimes, all you can do is say, "Amen!"

 

Did Luke Kenley just compliment Barack Obama?

Luke Kenley, longtime state senator from Noblesville and staunch Republican, was quoted as thus in the Indianapolis Star by conservative mouthpiece Tim Swarens:

In 2008, when the Great Recession hit, the state was sitting atop healthy budget reserves. Then the nose dive began. "We burned through about $2 billion in 18 months," Kenley said. "It was the federal stimulus that helped us avoid deeper cuts to education."

You tell me. 

Today's Reading List (Partial)

I certainly won't do this every day, but I have the time today so what the heck. Here is a taste of what yours truly is reading today.

Albert Hunt at Bloomberg says, "Republicans Peddle Nonsense to Sell Heathcare Plan":

Congressional Republicans are rushing to overhaul the U.S. health-care system by passing a bill that is based on dishonest claims, avoids the usual professional analysis, and makes a mockery of serious legislative process.

He then goes through each of the claims being made by this latest monstrosity's supporters and debunks them. Informative.

Michael Fuchs at The Guardian asks, "Is Trump about to repeat George W. Bush's worst mistake?" Interested to know what Mr. Fuchs believes W's worst mistake was (such a bounty from which to choose), I read on:

In 2003, the United States initiated perhaps the greatest strategic disaster in US history by diverting attention from a necessary war in Afghanistan to an unnecessary war in Iraq. The Iraq war resulted in hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, untold economic catastrophe, states in the Middle East in complete ruin, and the rise of Isis – all while the effort to go after terrorists in Afghanistan languished.

President Donald Trump’s first speech before the United Nations general assembly this week made clear that Trump wants to take America down a similar path by diverting much-needed attention from North Korea to starting an unnecessary conflict with Iran.

Well, I don't necessarily agree with the analysis but it's an interesting conversation starter. Here's to hoping that the only wars America fights in the future are absolutely necessary and unavoidable.

Sharyl Attkisson at The Hill revives President Agent Orange's claim that Pres. Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, given the latest revelations that Paul Manafort was suspected of being a foreign agent prior to the election. A snippet:

Officials involved in the surveillance and unmasking of U.S. citizens have said their actions were legal and not politically motivated. And there are certainly legitimate areas of inquiry to be made by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. But look at the patterns. It seems that government monitoring of journalists, members of Congress and political enemies — under multiple administrations — has become more common than anyone would have imagined two decades ago. So has the unmasking of sensitive and highly protected names by political officials.

She makes an interesting point. Sometimes I wonder if the government is spying on me, then I realize that I'm not nearly important enough for that kind of effort.

The always "full of it" Victor Davis Hanson writes in Investor's Business Daily that "Allegations of Foreign Election Tampering Have Always Rung Hollow." The one who shamelessly pushes "Voter ID Laws" to "ensure the integrity of our elections" says this:

allegations that a president won an election due to foreign collusion have been lodged by losers of elections throughout history. Some of the charges may have had a kernel of truth, but it has never been proven that foreign tampering changed the outcome of an election.

An example he tosses out of tampering that rings hollow:

Democrats allege that during the 1968 campaign, Republican nominee Richard Nixon opened a back channel to the South Vietnamese to convince them to stall peace talks to end the Vietnam War. 

Well, perhaps this was alleged because it was true. Perhaps these things don't ring as hollow as Mr. Hack Hanson would have his readers believe. Of course, he ends with an attempt to shift the argument:

Hillary Clinton lost the election for dozens of logical reasons. Foreign collusion was never one of them -- nor has it ever been a valid reason for a presidential candidate's defeat. 

This is not the basis of the charge against the president. Regardless of whether Russian efforts actually tilted the election, was Donald Trump and/or his campaign either actively involved in these efforts or complicit in them? If the answer is yes, then the American people have a right to know. If the answer is no, then the American people have a right to know. Regardless, the American people have a right to know.

Phillip Lemoine at National Review opines (unsurprisingly) that "Police Violence Against Black Men is Rare." A taste of his argument:

In reality, a randomly selected black man is overwhelmingly unlikely to be victim of police violence — and though white men experience such violence even less often, the disparity is consistent with the racial gap in violent crime, suggesting that the role of racial bias is small. The media’s acceptance of the false narrative poisons the relations between law enforcement and black communities throughout the country and results in violent protests that destroy property and sometimes even claim lives. Perhaps even more importantly, the narrative distracts from far more serious problems that black Americans face.

I can't imagine a more serious problem than being randomly targeted and disproportionately killed by those tasked with protecting and serving your community. When discussing these "far more serious problems," Mr. Lemoine notes that it is "likely" that just as many black men are unjustifiably killed the police every year as are struck by lightning. 

I do find it interesting that one of the publications that is loudest about the "tyranny of big government" when it comes to stuff like providing healthcare is so uncritically supportive of that part of big government that actually carries guns and kills people, i.e. the police and military. I can't square that circle; maybe someone else can.

The New Republic talks about "Deadbeat Democrats" and declares that Bill Clinton set the stage for the GOP's war on the poor.

Feeling hemmed in by white voters who had responded to Reagan’s racemongering about the shiftless poor guzzling up government benefits, Clinton decided to make a sort of Faustian bargain: He would “reform” welfare in a way that would detoxify the politics around it, gambling that the move would create more support for a strong safety net in the long run. 

How'd that work out Bill?

Since 1995, the number of Americans living on $2 or less a day has nearly tripled—including some three million children.

Well, let me tell you I'll be proud to brag about that statistic when I meet St. Peter at the pearly gates. (I hope my sarcasm shines through).

Daniel Kishi writes at The American Conservative that Google, Facebook, and Amazon are the new robber barons, and it's time for a conservative focus on anti-trust and busting monopolies. I say, "Amen Brother!" A snippet:

Although the modern Republican Party stands accused of cozying up with corporate interests, the history of conservative thought has a rich intellectual tradition of being skeptical—if not hostile—towards economic consolidation. For conservatives and libertarians wedded to the tenets of free market orthodoxy—or for Democrats dependent on campaign contributions from a donor class of Silicon Valley tycoons—redefining the legal definition of monopoly and rekindling a bipartisan interest in antitrust enforcement are likely non-starters.

But for conservatives willing to break from the principles of free market fundamentalism, the papal encyclicals of the Roman Catholic Church, the distributist thought of Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton, the social criticism of Christopher Lasch, and the observations of agrarian essayist Wendell Berry provide an intellectual framework from which conservatives can critique and combat concentrated economic power. With a respect for robust and resilient localities and a keen understanding of the moral dangers posed by an economy perpetuated by consumerism and convenience, these writers appeal to the moral imaginations of the reader, issuing warnings about the detrimental effects that economic consolidation has on the person, the family, the community, and society at large.

There is certainly more than this out there, but this is a sampling of today's reading. 

 

Be The Change

I attended the meeting of Concerned Citizens and Business Owners of Speedway at the American Legion on Georgetown Rd. yesterday. I'm not sure what to say about it. Karlee Macer was there. She's nice I guess, though I could have done without her comment about how she is a Democrat, but she has common sense. Uhhh. What about being a Democrat necessarily implies that you don't have common sense, and what about being a Republican necessarily implies that you do?

Anyway.

I noticed that there was a lot of general griping about how people don't feel as though they are being properly respected by their town councilors. (I do note that one gentleman, to his credit, had a specific complaint about the town council's procedures).

I would say two separate things about this:

First, if your town councilor does not pay you the mind or attention that you think s/he ought to, unseat him/her. It's really that simple. If your ideas/demeanor/instincts are superior, you should be able to defeat your town councilor. Take a page from the Tea Party and get people together to protest. Hang out in front of Kroger on Saturday afternoon and at Charlie Brown's on Saturday morning and talk to people.

Be the change.

Second, as to the gentleman's (very well done) criticism regarding the town council's procedure, that too is a political problem that is to be solved with political means. The gentleman asked Rep. Macer if there was some sort of state law that could be passed to require that town council meetings be conducted a certain way, and I couldn't disagree with that approach more. I don't want some know-nothing state representative from Fort Wayne or Buck Creek coming into Speedway and telling us how to run our community. I do, however, want to see a competitive political environment in Speedway.

Be the change.

I've written before, and I will reiterate, that we get the political representation we deserve. If 51% of Speedway's voters automatically vote for the Republican on the ballot, regardless of who it is or what they know about that person's past, agenda, etc., then the Republican candidate will win, regardless. If the Republican candidate only has to ensure that she stays in the good graces of a half dozen Marion County Republican Party officials, then she could not care less (literally) about what the people of Speedway think. After all, why should she? As long as she gets on the ballot with an R next to her name, she is guaranteed victory. Everyone else can go pound sand.

If you don't approve of the way that Speedway is run, be the change. Talk to the candidates. Talk to your neighbors. Protest the town council, if you want. They have publicly noticed meetings. Conduct a protest march down Main St. if you want.

As a final note, to all those who talk about their disapproval of the Redevelopment Commission . . . if you feel that nobody listens to your complaints about the Redevelopment Commission, and you feel like it is going to do what it wants to do despite popular opinion, then perhaps you are misreading public sentiment. Perhaps the Redevelopment Commission is doing what it does because of popular opinion. My general impression is that people support the Redevelopment Commission's (imperfect) efforts. If they didn't, the SRC would not have the mandate that it does.

Campus Bias

I read a few interesting articles in the Indianapolis Star yesterday that got me thinking about campus bias. The first one blares the headline, "Why Indiana, Ball State, Purdue universities are facing lawsuits alleging racial bias." Here are a few excerpts, specifically about IU:

At Indiana University, Kim Morris-Newson, an associate director for the Office of Community and School Partnerships, was told there was a hiring freeze for a position above her. But IU later hired a white woman for the job without posting the position, her lawsuit said.

Also at IU, former education professor Ray Haynes said he was unfairly denied tenure. Haynes recently lost his case, with a judge ruling against him, but his attorney said he plans to appeal.

According to the suit, Haynes was hired as part of a diversity initiative but felt like an outsider, surrounded by people who didn't look like him and didn't reach out to him.

He believed he was on track to earn tenure, his lawsuit said. When he applied, he went through a convoluted process, where he said some of his choices of reviewers were turned down, so he was evaluated by people unfamiliar with his area of study — mentoring people of color. 

I make no comment on the merits of these suits, but I do feel a bit for IU, which appears to be getting flack from both sides. Here is the Indianapolis Star's Conservative House Organ Tim Swarens with his "fairly" titled column, "How a Young Conservative Navigates Liberal IU":

So one day, when an English professor called out students in class for not being more active in liberal causes, Chambers had to decide whether to challenge the instructor's assumptions. He chose, probably wisely, to stay quiet. 

"You have professors here or there who are hostile to your world view. Some professors will go out of their way to insult conservatives and Republicans. That's their right; the classroom is not a democracy," Chambers said. "You just try to get through it, and you hope it won't have an effect on grades."

So, to combine these stories, IU is being lambasted for being TOO liberal and for not being liberal enough. Huh.

As to the apologist Swaren's column, I note a few important details.

First, the student highlighted is a student at the Kelley School of Business at IU. I also note that his complaint is about an English professor. Does the subject of this column have anything to say about the overwhelming conservative bent of the business school? I know numerous IU business grads, and they all say they same thing: the B-school is very conservative. This is unsurprising, given that conservatives who deify the free market tend to want to be a part of that free market. Contrarily, I was an English Education major in undergrad. Is it any surprise that people who are willing to work for peanuts and are happy to be critical of abstract notions in literature tend to be liberal? Is it any surprise that liberals are less swayed by the rewards of capitalism than conservatives, and thus choose their career paths accordingly? Is this just more Conservative/Affirmative Action whining?

Second, I note that there are not columns about the cold slap in the face that is the professional world. Here is a tip for anyone out there who hasn't learned it yet: your boss doesn't care about your 1st Amendment rights, and they don't apply to him. If I was your boss and wanted to fire you for voting Republican, I am within my rights to do so. If my boss wants to fire me because I'm a snarky liberal, or a Cubs fan, he can do so. I have yet to read a column about some poor idealistic liberal who was forced to temper his/her views about the world to avoid enraging his/her conservative boss.

Third, as to those who are suing IU . . . come on. I am a supporter of civil rights, as I should hope goes without saying. I support the Fair Housing Act, Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Acts, etc. However, when these get pushed to their illogical extreme, you tend to turn people off. I have defended a few civil rights cases, and I can state categorically that my clients did nothing wrong nor did they intend to do anything wrong. Nonetheless, their good names got drug through the mud all because someone decided that suing was a better option for getting money than working. 

Just because someone got fired within a year of filing her third worker's compensation claim does not mean that she was retaliated against. Just because she got fired within a year of making her third unsubstantiated sexual harassment claim does not mean that she was retaliated against. Just because you are required to comply with the terms of your lease, mortgage, neighborhood covenant, zoning laws, etc., does not mean that you were denied fair access to housing.

As to the article about IU . . . just because you got turned down for a job AND happen to be black/female/gay/(insert protected group here) does not mean that you were turned down for the job because you are a member of the protected group.

As I've said many times before: I am an equal-opportunity hater.

What Doesn't Ch. 13 Bankruptcy Discharge?

Disclaimer, I am not a bankruptcy attorney. However, I was reviewing a Ch. 13 petition for bankruptcy the other day and found it somewhat interesting the debts that cannot be discharged in Ch. 13 bankruptcy, largely because I figured they were important policy determinations. You tell me what the underlying policy being promoted on each category of protected asset is; my best guess is enumerated below:

1. Domestic Support Obligations - just because the debtor got in too deep, that does not mean that his children need support any less. Society has an interest in guaranteeing that children, who had no choice in who their parents are, get support lest society itself is obligated to provide it.
2. Taxes and Certain Other Debts Owed to Governmental Units - government wants to get paid, and it doesn't want people shirking tax obligations by not paying when due, only to get too deep in debt and then not pay the government.
3. Claims for Death or Personal Injury While Debtor Was Intoxicated - just because you declare bankruptcy, you still have to answer for getting drunk and running someone over.
4. Student Loan Obligations
5. Other Domestic Support, Separation Agreement, and Divorce Decree Obligations - as noted in regard to #1, plus the added bonus of all the divorce asset-hiding shenanigans in which people engage.
6. Obligations to Pensions or Profit-Sharing, and Other Similar Obligations - as noted in #1, 2, and 3; generally I believe this is a business consideration. We don't want the boss shortchanging the pension just because he is dating the secretary behind his wife's back and buying the secretary new cars every six months, driving himself into bankruptcy. Those pension obligations need to be paid, as the employees who depend on that had no part in making the financial decisions that led to bankruptcy.

As you can see, I am a bit at a loss re. #4. I suppose it makes sense to ensure that wealthy professionals don't walk away from their student loan obligations right before their big pay day (i.e. doctor completes residency; attorney makes partner). However, that seems like a bazooka killing a gnat to me, and it smacks of the student-loan industry buying statutory provisions. 

Intellectually Dishonest Criticism

I get that there are legitimate concerns people have regarding transitioning America's healthcare system to a single-payer system (i.e. "Socialized Medicine"). However, in keeping with my previous points (repeated, seemingly, ad nauseum), if your concerns are so legitimate, you don't need to lie about them.

Today's example comes from the FoxNews of newspapers, the New York Post. Titled in such a manner as to scream "no agenda here," the post is called, "How BernieCare slams working people." Skeptic of the New York Post that I am, I decided to read it and see what their argument was. Here is the nut of the argument:

BernieCare guarantees you hospital care, doctors’ visits, dental and vision care, mental health and even long-term care, all courtesy of Uncle Sam. Amazing, right? But read the fine print. You’ll get care only if it’s “medically necessary” and “appropriate.” Government bureaucrats will decide, and they’ll be under pressure to cut spending.

Good point. The only thing missing from the article is any acknowledgement whatsoever that this practice already goes on in the private insurance industry. It's called "medical underwriting" and "claims management." If whatever treatments your doctor prescribes are deemed "not medically necessary" by your insurance company, then your insurance company won't pay for the care.

I read this criticism to be a defense of the present situation. However, if I criticize a proposed change for doing precisely what the present situation does, what is my criticism all about? It remains a mystery.

More Friends Like These

Guess who is being described?

a self-obsessed, intellectual lightweight who lacked even the most basic qualifications and temperament

The Freedom to get Ripped Off

If you haven't heard about the Equifax hack yet, welcome to Earth . . . we've missed you. Here is the thumbnail sketch:

• Equifax is a credit reporting agency.
• As a credit reporting agency, Equifax compiles information on consumer spending, including such trivial items as credit accounts, utility accounts, bank accounts, social security numbers, income, etc.
• Equifax and Experian are the "Coke" and "Pepsi" of credit reporting agencies, though even that analogy may understate their dominance in the industry.
• Credit reporting agencies are how your credit score is derived.
• Equifax was provided with information in March that informed it that its information was vulnerable to hackers.
• Equifax was provided with a fix for this vulnerability, in March.
• In May, this vulnerability was exploited by hackers.
• To repeat, Equifax was notified of the vulnerability in March, offered a fix for the vulnerability in March, and was then hacked via this vulnerability in May.
• Three top executives then dumped more than $1m worth of stock in Equifax days after discovering that it had been hacked, but well before publicly acknowledging the hack.
• Equifax announced that it had been hacked, exposing sensitive information on 143,000,000 Americans on September 7.

So here we are. If your own sensitive, personal information did not get ripped off in the equifax hack, then either the person to your left, the person to your right, or both of them had theirs ripped off.

I note that often times when businesses get hacked, there is at least a bit of responsibility on the consumer's part (even if illusory). If Big Red Liquors gets hacked and somehow my credit card number is stolen from their database, I suppose I could possible be a bit to blame in that I chose to shop at Big Red Liquors. I could have shopped at 21st Amendment or Kroger (or not imbibe, but who are we kidding?) after all.

Equifax is different. I never made any sort of a conscious choice to do business with them or expose my information to them. 

Nonetheless, they had my sensitive information. They were careless with it. They lost it.

For all of those out there who believe that "Government is not the solution; government is the problem," I ask you what is the solution to a situation like this? Is there a market mechanism whereby Equifax will in the future be willing to expend resources to keep the information of its "marks" safe? Why would they? Wouldn't their executives and stockholders simply prefer higher profits and less security? It's not as though their "marks" have any choice in whether to have their credit monitored by these "big brother" organizations.

Perhaps we should ask those lovers of "freedom" representing Indiana at both the state and national level. Congressman Rokita, any thoughts? Congressman Messer? Senator Young (IN and D.C. versions)? How do we address a problem like this without "big government"?

Anyone have any ideas? I tend to think this is a matter for government regulation. Is that what makes me a liberal?

"Obama Phones"

Perhaps you remember all the talk about Obamaphones? As readers will recall, Obamaphones were talked about incessantly in right-wing media; supposedly this was a program for welfare recipients to get the nicest, newest iPhone (or whatever phone) without having to pay for it. Of course, the implication was always that your hard-earned money was going to support those people who didn't want to work. You know that rusty old trope they pull out: lazy, shiftless, not to be trusted, no work ethic, etc.

Anyway, good liberal that I am, I was listening to NPR on my way to work this morning and there was a talk about "rural broad band access" and increasing the "universal service fee" from $0.16/month to $1.97/month. For the uninitiated, the "universal service fee" is what paid for rural telephone access and was a program initiated by Ronald Reagan . . . it is also the program that was derided as "Obamaphones."

Well, now that it's "rural" (read "white") folks who want to socialize the cost of their telecommunication needs, I can't help but wonder where Greg Garrison and company are on this. Why haven't we heard a snappy "TrumpBand" or "Trumpernet" epithet?

Personally, I don't really care one way or the other about the additional $1.90/month. However, let's be clear: this is a tax, whether it is levied and collected by the government or levied and collected by a telecommunications company at the behest of the government. This is subsidization. This is in dereliction of the free market.

Where are all the John Galts of the world now? Oh yeah, I forgot, they only threaten to "go Galt" when its urban people of color who are subsidized. When it's rural white people, apparently there's some distinction (that escapes me).

Just one more observation of how the hysterical right has changed now that there is a rich, white, male plutocrat in office.

Equal Opportunity Hater - Healthcare Edition

Readers of this blog know that I have been rather critical of "conservative" posturing on healthcare, particularly since the opportunity to actually do something about the dreaded end of freedom as we know it Affordable Care Act has resulted in the Republican party doing precisely nothing. (Side note: Am I the only one thinking about those old "dog that caught the car" jokes?).

Anyway, I believe that one of the reasons why the Republican party failed so spectacularly at their efforts to repeal (and ostensibly replace) the Affordable Care Act have one predominant cause: they lied about what they were going to do for years; when the truth became known, people no longer supported their efforts.

As I have said repeatedly, if your policy ideas are that awesome, you shouldn't need to lie about them to get them enacted. If you have to lie about your policies to get support for them, your policy ideas probably suck.

With that said, I note that the coming default Democratic position on healthcare is going to be single payer (socialized medicine, for the scaremongers out there). I think that this is a great idea, given that other countries who have instituted some form of single payer generally have better outcomes for less money than does the United States. Uh, get 30% more for 30% less cost? Yes please! Of course, not all things are milk and honey in the world of single-payer healthcare. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

It is in this spirit that I implore my friends on the left: tell the truth about your plans for healthcare. The truth will come out sooner or later; telling the truth up front preserves your credibility.

Roundabout Right of Way

I hear people complaining often on Nextdoor.com about the roundabout in Speedway and all of the confusion it supposedly creates. In light of that, please note that Indiana Code Section 9-21-8-10.5 provides as follows:

 Sec. 10.5. (a) When approaching or driving through a roundabout, a person driving a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to the driver of a vehicle with a total length of at least forty (40) feet or a total width of at least ten (10) feet that is driving through the roundabout at the same time or so closely as to present an immediate hazard, and shall slow down or stop if necessary to yield. However, this subsection does not require a person who is driving a vehicle through a roundabout to yield the right-of-way to the driver of a vehicle with a total length of at least forty (40) feet or a total width of at least ten (10) feet that is approaching the roundabout.

     (b) If two (2) vehicles each having a total length of at least forty (40) feet or a total width of at least ten (10) feet approach or drive through a roundabout at the same time or so closely as to present an immediate hazard, the driver on the right shall yield the right-of-way to the driver on the left, and shall slow down or stop if necessary to yield.

As added by P.L.11-2017, SEC.3.

(Emphasis Added).

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. EACH SITUATION IS UNIQUE AND THIS BLOG SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS A COMPLETE STATEMENT OF ALL RELEVANT LAWS FOR YOUR SITUATION. IF YOU NEED LEGAL ADVICE, CONTACT A LAWYER. 

Here we go again

I couldn't help but notice this polished turd in today's Indianapolis Star.

Once again, our local leaders (who plead poverty when it comes to such luxuries as police, schools, and street lights) are lining up to throw bags full of cash at well-heeled corporate leaders. This time, it is Amazon that Mayor Joe Hogsett of Indianapolis (he of the "insiders who rig our system and steal our tax dollars" ads) and Mayor Scott Fadness (fiscal conservative, right?) of Fishers are tripping over themselves to "lure" with our tax dollars.

An excerpt or two from the Star:

The two cities that have been the most successful at luring technology companies to Indiana are making a combined pitch to win Amazon.com Inc.'s prized second headquarters.

Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett and Fishers Mayor Scott Fadness on Monday announced they are collaborating with other state and regional economic development officials to submit a proposal to Amazon. The mayors said they will emphasize Central Indiana's existing tech ecosystem, its growing business climate and a plethora of available real estate sites in a proposal that is due Oct. 19.

It is nice that the local Gannett franchise Indianapolis Star at least buries the lede in order to spare us "little people" from the ugly truth of what our government is doing in this "combined pitch." Alas, the lede can't be buried forever:

Hogsett and Fadness said they would look to Gov. Eric Holcomb and the Indiana Economic Development Corp. for leadership, including discussions about tax incentives, while hoping those officials would agree that metropolitan Indianapolis would make the best home for Amazon.

Nice euphamism: "tax incentives." I suppose when I went to keggers in college, the host was providing "beverage incentives" for people to show up, right?

More from the story:

Hogsett and Fadness declined to discuss their own appetites for tax breaks. 

So, the Star buries the lede and only mentions in passing that this is all about a big tax giveaway. Then, it credulously reports that our leaders "declined to discuss their own appetites for tax breaks" and leaves it at that. Where is the outrage from our local paper, demanding that Hogsett and Fadness explain themselves and their willingness to give our tax dollars away to a corporate entity that doesn't need them?

A small modicum of actual "reporting" would probably have revealed this element of Amazon's "search" for a new headquarters' site:

Among the criteria Amazon will use to determine where its second headquarters will go is everything you'd expect: a large-enough population, good schools, solid public transportation.
And, inevitably, tax breaks. Loads and loads of tax breaks.

"Incentives offered by the state/province and local communities to offset initial capital outlay and ongoing operational costs will be significant factors in the decision-making process," said Amazon's request for proposals. "The initial cost and ongoing cost of doing business are critical decision drivers." 

 I couldn't say it any better than U.S. News & World Report already did:

In a perfect world, every state and city would just agree not to throw any money at Amazon, and make the company choose the home of its next headquarters on the merits of place alone. But of course that's not going to happen; too few lawmakers are willing to take a stand for fiscal sanity, and too many are willing to undercut everyone else for the chance to be at a ribbon-cutting. So no matter which city Amazon ends up choosing, the internet giant itself is going to be the real winner, and the taxpaying public is going to lose.

 Can someone, just once in my lifetime, say NO to the well-heeled interests? Just once?

Hurricane Evacuation

I am always amazed at how good We Americans (myself very much included) are at armchair quarterbacking the decisions of other people. I note that this trait is particularly prevalent among the smug.

After Katrina, we heard over and over about how the government shouldn't be expected to come in and clean up after other people's mistakes. They should have evacuated! The same thing seems to happen with every natural disaster.

In the spirit of these arguments, I provide the following two excerpts from our beloved media.

Exhibit A:

People who live in the possible paths of Hurricane Irma, which could make landfall on American shores as soon as this weekend, face the difficult decision of whether to stay in place or flee. In addition to weighing the costs of leaving town, many also have to consider whether evacuating could put their job at risk. 

Almost as soon as government officials started warning residents of many parts of South Florida to get out of Irma’s path, people began seeking advice on social media on what rights and protections workers have during the storm. One of the most common questions surfacing on Reddit and Twitter was whether workers could be fired for not showing up to work because they had left town ahead of the storm. 

The answer to that question, in many cases, is that they can indeed be fired. Sharon Block, the executive director of the Labor and Worklife program at Harvard Law School and a former Department of Labor employee, says a major storm, even one that yields a state of emergency, doesn’t suspend labor laws. This means that laws that protect workers’ pay still stand, but because in Florida, workers are employed at-will, it also means that (barring a collective-bargaining agreement or contract stating otherwise) workers can still be fired for their absence. “You can be fired for a good reason [or] a bad reason—as long as it's not an unlawful reason, which is usually discrimination,” Block says.

 Now, I don't live in Florida. I don't practice employment law.

I do, however, provide for my family. If there was a hurricane bearing down on Indianapolis (far fetched hypothetical, I am aware) I would most assuredly not evacuate if it meant that I may lose my job for failing to show up for work the morning after the hurricane struck.

Ironically, because I work in a "white collar, professional" job, I have the flexibility to evacuate, work remotely, make up the time I lost, meet urgent deadlines as I see fit, etc. In other words, I have flexibility. Along with that, I have the (limited) means to evacuate my family, i.e. I can afford to fill the gas tank up even with inflated prices; I can put my family up in a motel a few hundred miles away; I can spring for a few days' meals at a restaurant.

What about those who work hourly retail jobs? They have families too, but they can't really afford to evacuate; they have little or no employment or income security; they can't afford to lose their jobs. What are they to do? Alas, our national media has provided another pertinent piece of commentary

Exhibit B:

BATON ROUGE, LA—As punishing wind and rain from the former Hurricane Harvey made landfall, government officials urged Louisiana residents Wednesday to evacuate dangerous lower income brackets. “Given the extent of the potential destruction, we urge anyone in the path of the storm to make their way to higher median incomes immediately,” said Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, adding that residents should resist any urge to wait out the dangerous weather below the poverty line and proceed directly to a higher tax bracket. “We know from experience that in hazardous conditions like these, the safest place for Louisianans to be is at least four or five times wealthier than they are now. This is no time to take risks—please, leave right now and make your way to the upper-middle class if at all possible.” Edwards went on to say that while no one could be forcibly evacuated, anyone who chose to remain in a lower income bracket should not expect to receive help anytime soon.

Courtesy: The Onion. Spot on as always!

9/11 Memories

What to say? The worst day in American History in my lifetime was 16 years ago. I got home from class at IPFW and heard that a plan hit the World Trade Center. As I was watching the news reports, a second plane struck the WTC. Shortly thereafter, the towers came down and the entirety of the attack became apparent.

Horrific.

I still had to wait on tables at Applebee's in Fort Wayne that evening. I note that for no purpose other than to point out that our capitalist machine grinds on, indifferent to human suffering, for better and worse.

Flood Insurance Subsidies Must Go

The National Flood Insurance program is a disaster on more levels than I can even count. For the uninitiated, allow me to explain:

If you live in an area that is prone to flooding (say, for example, a large, historical city that is below sea level or in a coastal area that historically floods during hurricane season), no mortgage lender is going to want to lend you the money to buy a house there, because the odds are pretty good that the house will flood before you finish paying for it. If your home floods before you finish paying for it, the odds are pretty good that you'll just walk away from the loan, leaving the lender to hold the bag. Now, the lender can either charge an exorbitant interest rate to attempt to account for this risk, the lender can refuse to lend in flood-prone areas, or the lender can require the purchaser/borrower to carry flood insurance.

For areas that are, as a whole, prone to flooding, option #3 tends to be utilized frequently. The problem with flood insurance is the same with lending money to buy houses in flood-prone areas: the odds are pretty good that people's homes will flood. As such, insurance premiums on flood insurance are not cheap. By way of example, a relative of mine resides in Broad Ripple and has to pay upwards of $400/mo (I believe) for flood insurance on his house. $400/mo ain't chump change. It's also the premium for flood insurance in Indianapolis, a place that is nearly 1,000 miles away from the ocean. This insurance is also subsidized by the government.

Needless to say, flood insurance is expensive. That's a big reason of why the government subsidizes it, and for my relative, government subsidy is a good thing, worth untold amounts in flood insurance premiums. I would bet that subsidized flood insurance for those in Speedway who live in the flood plain is likewise a good thing.

I still think it needs to go.

Subsidizing flood insurance, while a well-intentioned plan, has horrible unintended consequences. Here are a few:

1. Because flood insurance is subsidized, it brings down the cost of coastal living and helps contribute to the degradation of our nation's barrier islands, wetlands, and coastal areas. I appreciate a beach vacation as much as the next guy, but the FL panhandle was initially covered in Mangrove trees precisely because it got repeatedly hit with hurricanes during the late summer/early fall. Now that condos can have subsidized flood insurance, all of the coastal areas are now covered in condominium resorts. This is great for Spring Break, but it is terrible for (a) indigenous wildlife; (b) hurricane and weather mitigation; and (c) fossil fuel consumption control (just think about how many power plants have to run to keep all those a/c units going). I could continue, but the point is fairly clear that coastal living contributes to the environmental degradation of those coastal areas. There's a reason that people didn't develop on the coast until about a hundred years ago, and it has very little to do with a supposed distaste for the beach in our Victorian forefathers.

2. Flood insurance is a subsidy for the wealthy, by and large. Who can afford to own beachfront property? I assure you, it's not cheap. Even owning a 2-bedroom condo on the beach can run upward of $500,000, and that's not even in the "stylish" areas like South Beach but rather in the panhandle of Florida. Half a million dollars for a vacation home, and you're asking me to help pay your insurance premiums? Thanks but no thanks. I believe that if government is going to subsidize things, one of the foundational questions should be, "Does this person need the help?"

3. Flood insurance encourages risky behavior. Let's face it, building next to the ocean is risky. If people had to pay the full cost of the risks they bear, they would likely bear fewer risks.

4. Building in flood plains, even if they are away from the coast, contributes to environmental degradation. Wetlands and flood plains are often the same thing, and wetlands act as nature's water filter. We need more wetlands, not fewer. We should not be subsidizing the building of structures in places where our health depends on not building structures. This seems like a fairly elementary principle: don't encourage your populace to do things that are bad for them.

5. Our nation has bigger priorities. We have trillions of dollars in debt. We have trillions of dollars in yet-to-be-funded healthcare and retirement obligations to our populace. We don't need to be handing money to people so they can put their houses in an area where the house is likely to be destroyed, just so we can start the entire ridiculous charade over.

I could go on and on.

Yes, I recognize that flood insurance protects the value of people's assets. My relative's Broad Ripple house would be worth very little if the cost of flood insurance doubled or trebled; so too would the houses in Speedway that are in a flood plain.

It saddens me that elimination of this program would have so many negative side effects. However, I think that if it were phased out, perhaps over the course of 30-50 years, the hit would not be nearly as sudden, drastic, or sizeable. Nonetheless, given our nation's pressing needs, I believe that continuing to subsidize the vanity purchases of the wealthy at great environmental and human costs is simply a poor policy choice.

This post is purposely written to be a compliment to my post regarding the fruits of one's labor. When people choose to move to flood-prone areas, that is their right. However, they do not have the right to demand that I subsidize that choice.

Food for thought. Happy Thursday.

UPDATE: Apparently I jumped the gun to discuss this prior to Hurricane Irma making landfall. For what it's worth, the National Flood Insurance Program (that subsidizes flood insurance) was $24,000,000,000 in debt before Irma and Harvey made landfall. Given my personal policy choice, I would rather spend $24bn in public money on food or healthcare for poor kids as opposed to subsidizing the McMansions of the wealthy . . . that's just me. Others have their own policy preferences, of course.