Happy Halloween

It's that time of year. I get to share two of my favorite things about formerly being an English teacher (there's no such thing as a former teacher, from my experience; just teachers who no longer teach). 

First, this gem by Uncle Edgar:

The Raven

BY EDGAR ALLAN POE

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,

Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore—

    While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,

As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.

“’Tis some visitor,” I muttered, “tapping at my chamber door—

            Only this and nothing more.”

    Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December;

And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.

    Eagerly I wished the morrow;—vainly I had sought to borrow

    From my books surcease of sorrow—sorrow for the lost Lenore—

For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore—

            Nameless here for evermore.

    And the silken, sad, uncertain rustling of each purple curtain

Thrilled me—filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;

    So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating

    “’Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door—

Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door;—

            This it is and nothing more.”

    Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,

“Sir,” said I, “or Madam, truly your forgiveness I implore;

    But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,

    And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door,

That I scarce was sure I heard you”—here I opened wide the door;—

            Darkness there and nothing more.

    Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing,

Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before;

    But the silence was unbroken, and the stillness gave no token,

    And the only word there spoken was the whispered word, “Lenore?”

This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the word, “Lenore!”—

            Merely this and nothing more.

    Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,

Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before.

    “Surely,” said I, “surely that is something at my window lattice;

      Let me see, then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore—

Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore;—

            ’Tis the wind and nothing more!”

    Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,

In there stepped a stately Raven of the saintly days of yore;

    Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;

    But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door—

Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door—

            Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,

By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,

“Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,” I said, “art sure no craven,

Ghastly grim and ancient Raven wandering from the Nightly shore—

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night’s Plutonian shore!”

            Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

    Much I marvelled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly,

Though its answer little meaning—little relevancy bore;

    For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being

    Ever yet was blessed with seeing bird above his chamber door—

Bird or beast upon the sculptured bust above his chamber door,

            With such name as “Nevermore.”

    But the Raven, sitting lonely on the placid bust, spoke only

That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour.

    Nothing farther then he uttered—not a feather then he fluttered—

    Till I scarcely more than muttered “Other friends have flown before—

On the morrow he will leave me, as my Hopes have flown before.”

            Then the bird said “Nevermore.”

    Startled at the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken,

“Doubtless,” said I, “what it utters is its only stock and store

    Caught from some unhappy master whom unmerciful Disaster

    Followed fast and followed faster till his songs one burden bore—

Till the dirges of his Hope that melancholy burden bore

            Of ‘Never—nevermore’.”

    But the Raven still beguiling all my fancy into smiling,

Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird, and bust and door;

    Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking

    Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore—

What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore

            Meant in croaking “Nevermore.”

    This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing

To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom’s core;

    This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining

    On the cushion’s velvet lining that the lamp-light gloated o’er,

But whose velvet-violet lining with the lamp-light gloating o’er,

            She shall press, ah, nevermore!

    Then, methought, the air grew denser, perfumed from an unseen censer

Swung by Seraphim whose foot-falls tinkled on the tufted floor.

    “Wretch,” I cried, “thy God hath lent thee—by these angels he hath sent thee

    Respite—respite and nepenthe from thy memories of Lenore;

Quaff, oh quaff this kind nepenthe and forget this lost Lenore!”

            Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

    “Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil!—prophet still, if bird or devil!—

Whether Tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,

    Desolate yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted—

    On this home by Horror haunted—tell me truly, I implore—

Is there—is there balm in Gilead?—tell me—tell me, I implore!”

            Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

    “Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil!—prophet still, if bird or devil!

By that Heaven that bends above us—by that God we both adore—

    Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the distant Aidenn,

    It shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels name Lenore—

Clasp a rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore.”

            Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

    “Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!” I shrieked, upstarting—

“Get thee back into the tempest and the Night’s Plutonian shore!

    Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!

    Leave my loneliness unbroken!—quit the bust above my door!

Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!”

            Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

    And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting

On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;

    And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming,

    And the lamp-light o’er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;

And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor

            Shall be lifted—nevermore!

 For reasons I can't figure out, my linking feature isn't working right now. For those of you who don't know, this is The Raven, by Edgar Allan Poe. The Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror did a particularly memorable rendition:

"Leave my loneliness unbroken!"

Supply Side Economics in Sum

From today's Washington Post:

“Do we have any historical evidence that lowering tax rates, particularly among the richest strata, generates economic growth, as the Republicans always predict? Has this ever worked?”

— A reader

The answer is “no.” 

"Charitable" Donations and Tax Deductions

I understand why I would get a tax deduction if I donated, say, $500 to the Speedway Drama Dept. Like all drama/arts/music programs, it is a worthy cause and generally does not get the support that, say, the football team does (though I would still get the tax deduction if I donated to the Speedway football team).

It makes sense from a policy standpoint that we would want to encourage private actors to donate to charity. Tax deductions are a well-accepted mechanism whereby the government encourages such donations. So, if I donate $500 to the Speedway Drama Dept., I can deduct $500 from my taxable income at the end of the year. Stated another way, I don't have to pay taxes on that $500.

What if, however, my better angels were not controlling.

What if, to take a single example, I wanted to donate my $500 to "Americans for Tort Reform," a "non-profit" 501(c)(3) group that advocates for easier access to the courts in personal injury cases. As both readers of this blog know, I am a litigator. I litigate personal injury cases, generally from either side of the "v," though more often than not on the defense side.

If I am encouraging legislation, through my non-profit donation, that aids my bottom line, is that really charity? Or is that simply self-interested lobbying?

While we're at it, recall that political donations are NOT tax deductible. So, if (when) I decide to donate money to the "Re-Elect Gary Raikes for Speedway Town Council Fund," I have to pay taxes on that money. Both dollars (Sorry Gary, they haven't passed the "make it easier to sue people, rendering defense attorneys more valuable Act of 2017" yet) are taxable.

I suppose the point of this blog is that not all "charitable donations" are created equally. That is one of the problems we run into when we equate money with speech. Is some speech more "worthy" than other speech? Probably. Is the government empowered to make that determination? Maybe. Should the government make that determination. You tell me.

"Disrespecting" the Flag

Here is a story about a contracted ref for a North Central H.S. volleyball game walking out on his contract after becoming so upset by a teenager taking a knee for the anthem. I suppose this is what happens when we go all in on "divisiveness" and decide to armor up, choose sides, and fight amongst ourselves. In the world of litigation, we call this "staking out a bargaining position." Of course, in the world of litigation, all controversies must end, eventually. However, as to this story, I found a few points to be illuminating:

Jim Saddler is sorry. That’s the first thing he wants you to know. Not sorry for being angry — he’s still pretty angry — but for the way he handled his anger when he saw a volleyball player kneeling during the national anthem. 

Kudos to Mr. Saddler, as an initial matter. He understands, perhaps in a way that Pres. Agent Orange, VP Empty Suit, Speaker of the House Eddie Haskell, Senate Majority Leader Doublechin, (see what I did there, giving Trumpian names?) and so many others don't, that we are supposed to be the adults. Our children are watching the way we interact with each other and will imitate it. Let's try to give them a good template. Well done in your penitence, Mr. Saddler. Hats off, if only for that.

As to the merits of your position, well . . .

That’s why when he saw a North Central girls varsity volleyball player kneeling before an Oct. 9 match he was supposed to line judge, he couldn’t stay and do his duty.
He was barely able to contain his anger when he saw fans “sitting on their butts” during the national anthem, but once he saw the player on a knee, he had to leave.
Saddler calmly walked to the scorer’s bench, turned in his flag, then approached the North Central coach to inform him why he couldn’t stay.

Well, Mr. Saddler, I suppose that is your right. However, this article addressed a few important points:

1. Neither the kneeling teenager nor Mr. Saddler's actions have anything to do with the First Amendment, as has been pointed out on this blog ad nauseum. The First Amendment has to do with government actions, not private ones. That a private individual chose to kneel,  and another private individual chose to walk out of the occasion, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment.

2. Mr. Saddler had a contractual obligation to referee the game. Punctas sans servandas, "promises are to be kept." Whether Saddler was paid $1 or $1m to ref the game is immaterial; he had a contractual obligation and he breached the contract. Between Saddler and the girl who knelt for the Anthem, Saddler is the one who is in the wrong. He breached a contract.

3. Saddler identifies himself as a vet, and the article goes on to describe his service as a flight attendant aboard Air Force One. I don't want to go too far out on a limb here, but I do not believe that all vets are created equally. 

If you're a combat veteran, I believe that you deserve every bit of the respect that you are given, ten times over. One of the reasons I did not join the military after 9/11 is that I am deathly afraid of dying, particularly in a violent manner. To the combat veterans of the world, you have my undying (no pun intended) respect. 

To non-combat veterans, I appreciate your service too, but let's not fool ourselves into believing that your service stateside or in Germany or Japan is the same as the Marine who took Fallujah. There are a lot of people who work for the government, with crappy pay and worse working conditions; teachers come to mind, as do social workers. 

Bottom line: When it comes to the kneeling-for-the-anthem "controversy," perhaps we should all just chill out a bit.

On Robert Mathis

So, Robert Mathis got picked up for a DUI in Carmel this past weekend. What a shame, particularly since he only blew a 0.05 BAC.

Robert Mathis' playing weight was approximately 245 lbs. For a 245-lb. man to blow a 0.05 BAC, he would have to drink approximately three drinks. Think about that for a minute. One drink before dinner. Two drinks with dinner. DUI for dessert.

To add insult to Mathis' injury, he was pulled over in a neighborhood.

So, the facts are as follows:

• Mathis blew a 0.05 BAC
• He was in a neighborhood
• He probably had 3 drinks
• Indianapolis (at least some of its citizens) will now remember Robert Mathis for a DUI, as opposed to all of his on-field success (for which he worked his entire life) and off-field charity (that he did out of the kindness of his heart).

What a shame that Mr. Mathis was arrested on what appears to be a "ticky tack" foul. It seems to me that, as a rule, if someone gets pulled over and has had too much to drink, he should just have his vehicle impounded and be brought home; perhaps inform his insurance company so that his rates go up. Of course, if someone is drinking and driving and hurts someone, I think he should be arrested, etc., but in a situation like the one Robert Mathis was in, wouldn't a hiked insurance rate and an impounded car do the trick? Do we really have to destroy someone's legacy?

This reminds me of another experience, many years ago, that was clearly on a much smaller scale. The Superintendent of the school corporation for whom I taught was arrested on a DUI charge. Does he really need to be remembered for, one time, having one glass of wine too many before driving home, given all the good that he did for that township?

I don't think so. Then again, there's a reason I'm not a prosecutor.

Another Thing Awesome about Speedway

There are so many things, it's hard for me to keep up on what I have mentioned and what I haven't. I recognize that I've spent a lot of time recently bemoaning the (genuinely terrible) things that President Trump and Vice President Pence are doing to the nation. However, I want to focus on what is close to home: Speedway.

This post is specifically directed at Speedway's awesomeness around Halloween. On NextDoor, I have seen no fewer than 3 or 4 public Halloween celebrations (American Legion, Speedway Baptist, Lion's Club, etc.). This is what makes a community thrive, and I tip my cap to all of the dedicated people who put this together and apologize to anyone who I may have omitted.

Thank you. A hundred times over. Thank you.

As a side note, I work with a gentleman (in the truest sense of the word) who coaches H.S. football. His team played recently at Northwest H.S. and he commented to me the stark difference between 34th/Moeller and 25th/Moeller. Thank you, Speedway, for continuing to make our small town a standout among its surroundings and for making it such a wonderful place to raise a family. I hope to see you, my neighbors, out and about.

QOTD 10-24-17

Here it is:

The stakes in delivering big tax cuts to corporations and investors could be equally plain if, ultimately, Republicans decided to fully offset their cost by raising other taxes or cutting spending on government programs. But it seems much more likely that tax cuts will, ultimately, end up being financed by a mix of new borrowing and wishful thinking on economic growth just the way Reagan and Bush did it.

Don't Say You Weren't Told

I've stated before how frustrating it is when I hear people say something to the effect of "Who could have predicted that X would have had Y consequences?" It's frustrating for me when I predicted that this action would have those consequences. Not to toot my own horn too much, but I predicted:

• That the War in Iraq would go poorly
• That deregulating financial markets would result in a financial crisis
• That Obama's policies would not create runaway inflation, at least not in the short-to-medium term (we still don't know if/whether Obama's policies, if continued for 50 years, will create runaway inflation; however, 50 years from now, it's hard to continue to characterize them as "Obama's policies")
• That "Obamacare" would not result in the end of freedom and a 1,000-year reign of socialist terror (or whatever the nightmare scenarios being pushed on Hannity are at the time)

Of course, it is easy in hindsight to sit around and say, "I told you so." 

So, given that, I will tell you this up front:

•  The Republican Party's "tax reform" is anything but reform, though it will be
•  An enormous tax giveaway to the already wealthy that will
• Explode the national debt and
• Explode the annual deficit and will
• Not achieve the stated goal of increasing economic growth

With respect to the growth, here is a chart of American growth over the years:

Note that Ronald Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1986, and George W. Bush cut taxes dramatically in 2001 and 2003. Do you see the dramatic and lasting leaps in GDP growth? I don't. This idea that cutting taxes on the wealthy will kickstart economic growth is simply not supported by the facts.

As a litigator, I know that if I have to argue my theory of the case despite the facts, I'm in for a bad day. Perhaps someday, the median Republican voter will realize that she has been sold a bill of goods on this "trickle down" theory of economic prosperity.

In closing, by way of regurgitating that I am telling you right now what the results of this tax "reform" will be, I leave you with a quote from Paul Krugman:

I very much doubt that additional facts or analysis are going to matter much for the fate of the Trump tax cuts. It’s obvious to pretty much everyone – I suspect even those pushing the cuts – that they will confer huge benefits on the wealthy, do little if anything for the middle class, and greatly increase the deficit. 

Shameful

Lawrence County, Indiana, used to have a needle exchange program. This program was, so far as I can tell, part of the greater effort in Southern Indiana to battle the fallout from the opioid epidemic. Recall a few years ago when Scott County, IN, had such a needle/opana problem that it had one of the highest AIDS/HIV rates in the nation.

Even Mike Pence eventually got on board with needle exchange programs, if belatedly, as a necessary means to save lives.

Well, Lawrence County (i.e. Bedford) just ended their program. That's bad enough, if you ask me. I would be willing to pay a bit more in taxes to keep such a program going; I would also be more than willing to stop just ONE corporate tax giveaway to keep it going. However, if the community generally can't afford the program, I get it. Lord knows there are a lot of things that I can't afford, so I go without.

However, from what I can tell, Lawrence County did not end this program because of finances. Here is what WishTV reported:

[C]ounty Prosecutor Michelle Woodward told the commissioners she couldn’t support a program that facilitates illegal drug use.

Madison County ended its two-year-old needle exchange program in August after officials in the central Indiana county voiced similar concerns.

Well, color me shocked. A prosecutor sanctimoniously approaches the drug epidemic from a law enforcement perspective and wants to arrest/prosecute our way out of the drug problem (because that has worked so well for the past 40 years!).

Here is what NBC reported:

Rodney Fish, one of the council members who voted against keeping the needle exchange program going, said he does not approve of needle exchange programs and cannot condone the county’s sponsorship of one.
“I did not approach this decision lightly. I gave it a great deal of thought and prayer. My conclusion was that I could not support this program and be true to my principles and my beliefs.” “It was a moral issue with me. I had severe reservations that were going to keep me from approving that motion,” Fish said.

So, to be clear, Mr. Fish views this as a moral issue and, as a result, votes to ensure that more people overdose and die. I will never understand this view of the world, even if I live to be 100 years old. Real world decisions have real world consequences. Burnishing one's ideological credentials at the expense of some of the most powerless members of our society is shameful. However, NBC soft peddled Mr. Fish's approach here. 

This is what Vox reported:

Before he cast his vote, Fish quoted the Bible — specifically, 2 Chronicles 7. It says, “If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people; if my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

Well, we all have to answer to St. Peter some day. So, Mr. Fish, I speak directly to you when I raise the possibility that St. Peter asks you about your vote to kill this program; about your justification for it and what you have to say for yourself. Please, consider the possibility that "They were drug addicts and sinners, and they didn't deserve help" may not be a sufficient answer.

Just consider it.

any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee

Budget Hawkery

There are a lot of congressional critters who like to claim that they are budget "hawks" and want to reduce the budget. Similarly, I know a lot of people who proclaim their "fiscal conservatism," which I take to mean something similar to budget hawkery.

Let's test the mettle of these convictions.

If you claim to be a budget "Hawk," I want to hear from YOU either (a) how much more you are willing to pay in taxes to erase any fiscal deficits this nation may have; or (b) which programs that you actually use you are willing to see eliminated in order to erase any fiscal deficits this nation may have.

Point of order - The following are considered non-responsive and get no credit:

• General statements of principle and ideology (i.e. "government should be smaller," "government should not be in the education business" (if you don't have kids), etc.)
• Cliched pablum (i.e. "cut waste," "the rich should pay their fair share")
• Statements demonstrating a stunning ignorance of the actual facts (i.e. "cut taxes and that will grow the economy so much that we won't have to cut any programs," "eliminate foreign aid")

For eight years I heard Republicans, both local and nationally, bitch and moan about the budget deficit after uttering nary a peep from 2001-2009. Now that a Republican is in the White House, apparently the budget deficit and the national debt (two different things, by the way) stopped being a problem.

Now is the time to "put your money where your mouth is." As they say at the poker table, "put up or shut up." 

Full Disclosure: I don't actually expect any good-faith answers to this question from any self-styled "fiscal conservatives." If I get one, I will be shocked.

Worth a Thousand Words

Happy Holidays

What with the holiday season coming up, I know that we are in for some more bed wetting about the "War on Christmas." I can hardly wait!

Of course, as a pre-emptive response to all of the bed wetters, I would like to channel a comment I saw on SNL's Weekend Update this past weekend.

"All Holidays Matter."

Local Ordinance Lesson: Golf Carts

Speedway is a very small town. So small, in fact, that it seems perfectly reasonable to me that one would get a golf cart to drive around the town. How nice would that be to be able to take a golf cart from Meadowood to Main? How about taking a golf cart to the Speedway H.S. football game from Old Speedway neighborhood near 10th and Main? Of course, I understand that we don't want golf carts on Crawfordsville, Lynhurst, 16th, 10th, High School, or (sort of) Moeller Rd. However, one can pretty much get anywhere in town on back roads.

Alas, our local laws prevent it.

Speedway Code Section 10.24.030(5) states, "It shall be unlawful for any nay person to operate a golf cart, all-terrain vehicle (ATV), snowmobile, pedal cab or any similar vehicle on the streets of the town. Any person in violation of this section shall be fined $75.00 per offense." Believe it or not, this applies on Race Day as well. Does that make sense? People who live in Speedway can't transport people TO the track in a golf cart, yet IMS can have people AT the track to transport people in golf carts. In fact, the Speedway P.D. is empowered to confiscate any golf cars they see operating in public.

Huh.

I think Speedway should repeal this law and replace it with a law that specifically allows the use of a golf cart on "secondary" streets throughout town. It would be necessary for Speedway to pass that law in order to permit use of golf carts locally, as Indiana Code Section 9-21-1-3.3, which states in relevant part, "A city, county, or town may adopt by ordinance traffic regulations concerning the use of golf carts or off-road vehicles, or both on a highway under the jurisdiction of the city, county, or town."

How about it Town Council?

Any interest in allowing the residents of Speedway to operate golf carts on the "Secondary" streets? I won't even get into how this could positively affect the so-called "parking problem" we have in Speedway, but suffice it to say that a standard golf cart parking space is 4' X 8', whereas the standard vehicle parking spot is 9' X 18'. By my calculation, that means that parking a car requires 162 sq. feet and parking a golf cart requires 32 sq. ft. Stated another way, a golf car requires less than 20% the parking space as a standard vehicle.

Huh.

Local Ordinance Lesson: Farm Animals

Speedway has an ordinance that prohibits the keeping of farm animals. 

Specifically, Section 7.05.140 states, "It shall be unlawful for any person to own, keep, or harbor upon his premises within the town any cow, pig, bull, horse, chicken, rooster, or other domestic farm animal."

The Town has recently adopted a convoluted "Rube Goldberg" scheme whereby one who wants to keep an urban chicken flock can apply for some sort of a "waiver" from his neighbors. See Section 7.05.032. For what it's worth, I think that this is a terrible statute that gives my neighbors veto power over my property rights, and vice versa, but that is a post for another day.

However, my point in writing this is to point out that all of the ordinances and legislation in the world doesn't make a damn bit of difference if you haven't thought it through.

When 7.05.032 was being debated, I suggested that it was unnecessary and 7.05.140 should simply be reformed to exclude chickens. They could keep roosters in the statute; just eliminate chickens. Much cleaner. Much simpler. The town already has nuisance ordinances, so keeping chickens clean is neither here nor there.

Alas, my advice was ignored. I think that there are simply some people, either on our Town Council or otherwise, who just don't want people to have chickens in Speedway. My personal opinion is that this is rooted in the kind of thinking that gave us suburbia, McMansions, etc., i.e. outdated thinking. Urban chickens are a big thing these days and are a far cry from the fears some may have regarding an urban CAFO (confined animal feeding operation).

So, where does that leave us? I would suggest that, for those of you who want fresh eggs and can't get a waiver from your busybody neighbors, you get a duck or three. I note that the term "domestic farm animal" is not presently defined in the Speedway Code, and ducks are not specifically listed. Herego, you are entitled to house ducks on your property as long as you are not constituting a nuisance.

If you haven't had them, duck eggs are delicious.

On Taxes - Pt. 8

I have taken a small hiatus from writing about taxes, but I'm back for the next installment in this series. I have simply been responding to the "details" of the latest iteration of GOP plan to afflict the afflicted and comfort the comfortable Tax Reform. If you want to see it, click here.

Anyway, here is the next plank of their plan:

CREATES A NEW LOWER TAX RATE AND STRUCTURE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES 

The framework limits the maximum tax rate for small and family-owned businesses to 25% - significantly lower than the top rate that these businesses pay today. 

Don't get me wrong, some day when I become a partner at my law firm I will gladly take the 25% rate as opposed to the 39% tax rate; I will simply pay myself an annual salary of $1.00 and characterize the remainder of my fees as "law firm profits" as opposed to "wages."

For some reason, I don't think that this is what people are supposed to take away from this.

Furthermore, I don't see any thought to the notion that when the government takes in less money, it has less money to spend on such things as early childhood education (or wars in exotic places). Once the proponents of this plan seriously grapple with the idea of paying for their "reforms," then I will seriously grapple with the idea of taking their "reforms" seriously.

There is no evidence to suggest that this will somehow "unleash" the American economy. However, as they say, it is difficult to get a man (generally, a conservative congressman) to understand something when his salary (or re-election funds) depends on him not understanding the thing. Paul Krugman has a nice writeup on this here. I highly encourage anyone interested in this subject to read what Mr. Krugman (who has won a Nobel Prize in economics . . . something that I, at least, have not done) has to say.

Meadowood Park Concert

There has been some discussion on NextDoor in the past day or so regarding the concert that occurred in Meadowood Park yesterday (Saturday, 10/14).

As an initial matter, I was not there and would like to extend my apologies to the organizers. I have no good excuse for my lack of attendance, I have erred, and I am sorry.

However, with respect to the discussion on NextDoor, this is ridiculous. People are on there complaining about the language of some local rapper.

Granted, the rappers should know his audience and not drop the f-bombs when he is surrounded by small children. However...

1. Kids These Days

Maybe the next discussion on NextDoor will not turn into an opportunity for people to brag about how they raised their own kids right but nobody else raised their kids wrong. It will be a first. The other thing I particularly love is how people "back door brag" about themselves by invoking their parents and "I was raised a certain way . . .".

Look, if you think that you're the last person to value hard work, you're not. You're just a narcissist. Similarly, if you believe that you are the first person in the world to think that "kids these days" just "don't have any respect" and feel "entitled" to everything, you're looking and a lot like my grumpy old uncle who died in the early 1990s. Care to share any complaints about "kids these days" with their "rock n' roll" and their "sock hops"? "Why, in my day, we listened to the sound of the belt hitting our behinds, and daggumit, we liked it!"

Simply put, take a broader view. The kids are fine. They are doing fewer drugs than "we" were doing, they are having less sex than "we" were, and they are studying more in school than "we" were. If we think their music sucks and fails to pay proper respect to their elders, perhaps that is normal and to be expected? If we didn't feel that way, perhaps something would be amiss.

2. First Amendment Thoughts

I've spoken a lot about the First Amendment on this blog. This is particularly interesting because I do not practice law in any area that is remotely associated with First Amendment (or Constitutional, for that matter) jurisprudence.

However, I want to be clear. The First Amendment does not apply to private actions; it applies to governmental actions. The suggestion that a permit to hold a concert in a public park should be contingent on the content of the speeches/performances in the park is blatantly unconstitutional. To withhold such permits because you don't like rap music is no different than withholding the permits because you don't like what Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump want to say at the political rally they (hypothetically) intend to hold in the park.

Inasmuch as we have obscenity laws, it is certainly within the purview of the SPD to write the rapper tickets or shut him down upon the explication of said profanities. Insofar as we don't, perhaps the Town Council wants to pass some (or not). If enough people in Speedway were passionate enough about the issue, one would presume that our political system would respond. Personally, I don't think that it's worth it, but I'm also not on the Town Council.

3. What DO You Want?

As I noted at the outset, I am very appreciative of the effort to put on this concert. I wish more such efforts would be undertaken in this neighborhood. I could hear the bands from my back yard, and I thought they sounded amazing!

I think that Speedway, the Home of the American Dream, should encourage local kids to play in rock n' roll bands (and by that term, I include rap, hip hop, metal, etc.). Playing music is a positive form of expression and a positive expenditure of youthful energy and exuberance. The kids who are good at basketball get a world of support, but the kid who likes to play drums is mostly looked upon suspiciously and given an "opportunity" to march in the band. (Don't get me wrong, I love the marching band. However, it is my experience that there are a lot of kids who love to play music but aren't wild about the opportunities to do so in school. Imagine if the only sports that Speedway offered were polo and cricket; I think a lot of kids would yearn for football, basketball, and baseball).

These musically inclined kids/young adults are the beating heart of this community, and we should be encouraging them to participate, just as the organizers of yesterday's festival did. Otherwise, what is the park going to be other than a place where people walk along the trail and look at the woods? (I note that a lot of the same people complaining about the music also complain about the kids in the park. I can't even . . .).

Bottom line on this is that Meadowood Park is going to be as awesome as we allow it to be. We can use it for positive purposes, as noted above, or we can fail to do so and allow the worst element to fill that vacuum. One way or another, the park will be put to use. I prefer it be used for positive and fun things, such as concerts, festivals, farmers markets, etc., as opposed to neutral or negative uses.

Just my opinion.

4. Yesterday is Gone

It ain't coming back folks. The days of having the sock hop with the Beach Boys cover band are over. If we are going to have events that are designed to encourage young people to live in Speedway (or even visit here), we have to accommodate modern preferences. Speedway can't, and shouldn't, remain Mayberry forever. The more we allow this Town's discourse to be dominated by a longing for yesteryear, the more this Town's discourse will neglect tomorrow.

I vote for an agenda focused on improving tomorrow, as opposed to a spiteful and futile attempt to recreate yesterday.

In conclusion, I heartily thank the organizers of the festival and all of the people who came out as spectators as well as all of the bands that participated. To the bands, I know you probably didn't get paid, and I thank you for donating your Saturday. To the organizers, I know you likewise probably didn't get paid, and I thank you for putting the needs of your community (regardless of how broadly you define "your community") ahead of your own needs.

To the detractors of this event, I understand your point; I think that inasmuch as you are concerned about this community, please dedicate those concerns to positive efforts that will enhance the value of the community and refrain from the backbiting and second-guessing that is destructive of our community.

Russian Hacking

In the past week, I have gotten 4X as many views on this blog from Russian readers as I have from American readers. Huh. Perhaps someone has a theory as to why so many Russians want to read my little blog about Speedway, IN, that doesn't involve ongoing efforts by Russia to meddle in our national discourse. I have no desire to overstate the importance of this blog, which is probably only read regularly by a few dozen people; I just find it interesting that my "Trump Critical" views attract so many Russian readers.

My stats must be fake news.

"Right to Work"

I am pro-union.

Now that we have that out in the open, let's get to the substance of this post: Why right-to-work (RTW) laws are disingenuous, fundamentally unfair, and probably unconstitutional.

1. They're Disingenuous

I have never met someone who (a) wants to work for a particular company, (b) wants desperately not to be a member of the union in place; and (c) can't find comparable non-union employment. This is the individual who this law is designed to "protect," and such individual resides, I think, right between Moby Dick and Santa Claus. In other words, whoever this law is supposed to help (according to its proponents) does not exist.

The real beneficiaries of this law are the business owners who want to suppress wages, plain and simple. Note to such business owners, if you need the government's aid to suppress wages in order to stay in business, you have a business model problem and you are depending on the government for your livelihood every bit as much as a welfare recipient.

These laws are disingenuous in their purported efforts to "protect workers."

2. They're Fundamentally Unfair

I know that "fairness" is a dirty word these days; make of that what you will in regard to the society that we've created. However, a right-to-work law states that one can't be forced to pay the union for its services. It does not say that the union doesn't have to represent these freeloaders. In fact, the union is forced to represent these freeloaders, come hell or high water.

To the point of disingenuous, stated above, nowhere do the supporters of these laws acknowledge that the union must represent all the workers, whether they pay dues or not. RTW supporters like to say that unions will "earn their membership through the free market," but this too is disingenuous: who pays for things they get for free? Why would I pay for representation when I get it for free anymore than I would pay for sunshine?

3. They're Probably Unconstitutional

Not that I expect our stolen Supreme Court (looking at you Gorsuch) to do anything about this, but follow me here:

• Corporations are people (distasteful as that may be);
• Unions are corporations;
• Therefore unions are people;
• RTW laws preclude unions from collecting mandatory dues from members of the bargaining unit (employees at the same place);
• The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) forces unions (people, remember) to representing all members of the bargaining unit (employees at the same place);
• Therefore, RTW, in combination with the NLRA, forces unions to work on behalf of people without compensation.

Someone explain to me how this does not enslave the unions.

End Note

As I said at the outset, I support unions and will debate their merits with any and all comers. However, this post is NOT about the merits of unionism but rather about right-to-work laws.

A Data Point on Housing and Wealth

Interpret as you will:

Almost half of all postwar suburban homes built in the United States had FHA mortgage guarantees. From 1934 through 1962, whites received 98 percent. 

Repeatedly Wrong

The weatherman on the news probably has the best job in the world. He is wrong, over and over again, yet people still believe him.

The rest of the world doesn't work that way.

If I tell clients that I will win a lawsuit and then I don't, those clients probably will not retain me again. If I tell a client that the worst-case scenario of a lawsuit gone bad is a verdict of $100,000 against him, and the jury comes back with a $250,000 verdict, I have a lot of explaining.

If a mechanic tells me that the problem with my car is the fuel pump, I expect him to be right when I pay him $500 (or however much) to fix the fuel pump; I expect that to address the problem.

However, if you are a prominent member of Congress who spent the years 2009-2017 warning that a certain, unnamed president was going to create "runaway inflation," you apparently get to keep your credibility, even though you couldn't have been more wrong. You might even get to become Speaker of the House.

Indeed, some of those who spent such years warning that deficit spending of any kind would absolutely destroy America now have jobs directing the federal Office of Management and Budget, even though none of these predictions came true.

It's a good thing we listen to these same people now, don't you think? Now that I think of it, aren't these the same people who told us that the Iraq War was going to be a huge success, that we would be greeted as liberators, that the "insurgency" was in its "last throes" in 2004? Have these people ever atoned for their errors? Have they ever been held to account? Has anyone who voted for these people ever asked, "Why do I believe anything these people tell me, when they've been proven wrong repeatedly over the years?"

Huh.

Gun Control & Mental Health

Sometimes, I wonder if The Onion is still satirical or, rather, the only publication with the guile to accurately describe the world in which we live.

Take, for example, this mock-op-ed by "Paul Ryan":

The simple truth is, mass shootings like this aren’t about gun control we refuse to pass. They’re about access to mental health care that we will continue to gut.

You can already hear the calls from the left. In the aftermath of this mass murder, millions of people are once again pushing for an assault weapons ban that I won’t allow lawmakers to give even a moment of consideration, let alone bring to a vote. If these folks actually examined the realities of the issue, they would see that the real culprit in these incidents is, and always has been, our country’s inadequate mental healthcare system that leaves troubled, potentially violent individuals without the support they need, and which my colleagues and I have spent most of our careers seeking, often successfully, to defund. 

The reason we have tragedies like this is because of how our healthcare system that I am dead set on undermining fails to serve Americans in desperate need of psychological treatment. Not because of a lack of gun ownership regulations, the slightest toughening of which will never even receive a single second of debate on the floor of the House on my watch.

Sometimes, all you can do is tip your hat. Please read the whole thing for perspective.

Gerrymandering

This is what partisan gerrymandering looks like, and it is wrong on both sides. Please take special note of the vote totals, particularly in the presidential years of 2008 and 2012.

There is a case before the Supreme Court right now asking whether this is (a) constitutional and (b) justiciable. I suppose we'll see what Justice Kennedy has to say (because Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch will uphold the district lines, guaranteed; Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer will likely vote to strike them down . . . that leaves Kennedy).

This Must be #FakeNews

The federal government just awarded Equifax a multi-million dollar, no-bid contract to verify taxpayer identities and prevent fraud.

Yes, that Equifax.

From Above the Law:

I was initially under the impression that my staff was sharing a copy of The Onion, until I realized this story was, in fact, true.

— Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), in a letter to the IRS, after learning last week the agency awarded the beleaguered Equifax a government contract worth $7.25 million under a no-bid contract. Under the terms of the agreement, Equifax will be tasked with verifying taxpayer identities and preventing fraud.