Stated Preference v. Revealed Preference

"Revealed Preference" is a term that psychiatrists and economists use, particularly when juxtaposing what one says he wants with that which the person shows that he wants. This is explained much easier with an example.

I say that I want to eat healthy, but I reach for the chicken wings when they're around. My stated preference is to eat healthy; by revealed preference is that I don't really want to eat healthy.

So I think it is with public policy. Our national congress says they want to cut taxes for the middle class and not the wealthy, yet has made the middle class tax cuts temporary and the corporate tax cuts and estate tax cuts permanent. Which one is the stated preference? Which one is the revealed preference?

A thought:

The big tax cut for business owners and heirs to large fortunes will, in the long run, be paid for by people who are not business owners or heirs to large fortunes.

It may be paid for through the long-term middle-class tax increases that are laid out in the bill. Or it may be paid for through large cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs. Or it may be paid for through higher interest rates that raise the cost of new investment to deliver a tax windfall to old capital.

But there is a big tax cut coming for people who own businesses and for people who stand to inherit fortunes worth more than $11 million. And there will be a price for that.

Anyone have thoughts about this on the local level? Is there any "daylight" between Speedway's stated preferences and revealed preferences?

UPDATE:

In response to "Anonymous'" comment that the stock market will "certainly crash once the dems gain control, I submit the following graphics, without additional comment:

Another Reason I Love Speedway

When my family moved into our house, we were very excited to meet our new neighbors and were quickly rewarded for our enthusiasm by meeting our next door neighbor, who was a delightful woman. She was retired and thought my son (my daughter was not yet born) was just adorable and doted on him considerably. My wife got along with her as well, as they had a shared interest in gardening.

Shortly thereafter, I met the neighbor across the street. What a guy! He worked as a consultant in the building trades and did quality control; he was a salt-of-the-earth type who liked to hunt, fish, and drink beer... so we had one thing in common; we got along swimmingly.

So far so good, until my "across the street" neighbor told me about how he had previously gotten into a fistfight with my nextdoor neighbor within the past year or so. My inner voice immediately started pestering me with the "what in the hell did you get yourself into?" type questions. It was never an issue I had to address, as both sets of neighbors were gone within a year or so.

Let me make this absolutely clear: I think that grown men having a fistfight is embarrassingly juvenile. I was embarrassed for them, even if they weren't themselves embarrassed. I teach my young children not to fight and would expect that grown men would've learned this lesson by now.

My thoughts on that have now changed a bit, as I have now witnessed a lawsuit between and among neighbors and realize the Speedway situation could have been much worse.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a litigator so I'm down to sue people or defend those being sued. I do it for a living. I'm just glad that there isn't a lawsuit ripping my neighborhood in half right now; I'm glad my neighbors can contemplate the notion that perhaps they can just vent their frustrations with each other and proceed to live and let live.

So, to the juvenile grown men who want to solve their problems by punching each other in the face, grow the f**k up, but at least you didn't shoot each other and at least you didn't sue each other.

#Speedway

Kudos to the Town of Speedway

I got an email alert today about how the Town of Speedway is getting ready to start clearing dead trees from Meadowood Park. I have so many good things to say about this on so many levels:

1. As someone who lives in the Meadowood Park neighborhood, I am glad that the property owners are removing dead trees that tend to devalue the park. This goes back to the old "broken windows" theory - if people see that the little things aren't addressed (i.e. broken windows or dead trees), they will assume that big things won't be addressed either (i.e. selling crack on the street corner or perverted acts in the park). I generally discount the broken windows theory as oversold and overstated, but in this instance, I believe that it has some limited applicability.

2. As a civil litigator, I am happy to see that the Town is addressing some of the liability that those dead trees represent. It seems to me that there is no way to predict when or if a living tree will fall down and hurt someone; however, a dead tree puts the property owner on notice that it will come down eventually. Accordingly, the Town of Speedway is, rightly in my opinion, taking steps to address its possible liability.

3. I hate to see valuable resources wasted. That's why I don't leave my vintage guitar amplifier outside in the rain; I value it. Similarly, I believe that Meadowood Park is a valuable resource. Not only will neglecting it lead to additional problems (see point 1) but neglecting it also wastes the potential that it carries. The developers of this neighborhood could have built more houses on that land; instead they chose to build a park there. I believe that park is an asset. I don't want to see that asset wasted.

4. I can use the firewood. I know this is a bit silly, but dead Ash burns exceedingly well, and a backyard bonfire is an excellent opportunity to hang out with my neighbors.

I could go on, but I am so impressed with our local government for the simple fact that they actually address the actual problems facing their constituents.

Look, I know that I have strong disagreements with some members of our community, particularly around issues pertaining to parking, the Redevelopment Commission, Wilshaw, etc. Nonetheless, I think that we should all congratulate our local officials for doing the un-sexy work of addressing mundane, everyday issues affecting the citizens of Speedway. This congratulations extends to the Town Council, who sets the spending priorities, Jacob Blasdell (sorry if I mis-spell his name, but he is our town manager and a damn good one), Wendell Walters (Director of DPW, I think) and any other officials I am forgetting (I promise, it is not personal).

Bravo!

Parallel Strains

I had a fantastic conversation with a Republican friend of mine a few weeks back. Once he got over his disgust that I would vote for Obama (TWICE! And I would've a third time if I could) and I got over my disgust that he would vote for Trump Agent Orange, we had a very interesting discussion.

The thumbnail sketch of the discussion is that, at least on the national level, "both sides" are infected with two strains of thought that I will oversimplify as: busybodies and "leave me the hell alone."

When it comes to family planning, Republican doctrine is rooted in the busybody tradition. They seem to believe that pregnancy should be a punishment for "improper" sex. They certainly want to outlaw abortion (Richard Mourdock, anyone?). They also want to limit access to birth control as much as possible (defund Planned Parenthood; ND; Hobby Lobby). On the other hand, most liberals tend to be in the "leave me the hell alone" camp when it comes to sex and birth control. Gay marriage? Abortion? Birth Control? Domestic partner benefits? Hell yes! Knock yourselves out!

Of course, the worm also turns. When it comes to property rights, liberals tend to be pretty busybody themselves. Want to tear down a historic building? Want to use your property in a way that it hasn't previously been used? Want to cut trees out of your forest? Want to hunt animals that go on your land? Rest assured that you will get confronted with the "remonstrators" that have joined up to form a "Historical Preservation Society" or a group of college students who want to protest the "ravaging" of "our" (uhhh) forests or the "slaughter" of these "innocent" creatures. Ask a conservative about this, and he'll tell you to knock yourself out.

I could go on and on with more examples, but suffice it to say that neither party has a lock on the "libertarian" notion, nor does either party have a lock on a notion of what the "collective good" requires.

Food for thought.

Speedway Liquor Stores

I don't really care how many of them there are.

Really.

I also don't care how many puppy supply places, yarn barns, wing shops, or bible publishers there are in Speedway.

The way I figure it, so long as there is a market for booze, or puppy supplies, or yarn, or wings, or bibles . . . someone will materialize to service that market.

On most national issues, I am unapologetically liberal. On local issues, I find myself siding more and more with the "leave me the hell alone" conservative strain of thought.

If there are too many liquor stores in Speedway, some of them will go out of business. It seems like a simple concept.

Palm, meet forehead

I read in the New York Times this morning a guest column by Kevin Dowd, the Republican brother of hot air purveyor sharer of meaningless musings columnist Maureen Dowd. A few annotated excerpts that will perhaps illuminate why I find the current national political "debate" to be so inane and frustrating.

I have tried to confine comments to four topics:

1. The Courts

Trump delivered on his promises to shake things up with a slew of executive orders undoing much of Barack Obama’s burdensome regulations and, more important, started to reshape the lower courts decimated by Obama’s appointments. The nomination of Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court may be his most lasting legacy.

As an initial thought, I always hear about "burdensome regulations" (as though people couldn't find another adjective, but I digress). I am still waiting to hear the from the person who is burdened by these "burdensome regulations" to tell me what the regulation is, the quantum of the burden, and what the burdened party would prefer.

As to the courts, I have yet to see the Obama, Clinton, Bush II, Bush I, or Reagan appointees who were a mere three years out of law school and never tried a case. We now have the name "Brett Talley" in the federal judiciary, with an irreducible salary and lifetime appointment. #MAGA, I guess?

Also, as to "lasting legacy" and Neil Grouch, the lasting legacy associated with that is that we will not again see a Supreme Court nominee confirmed by an opposition party. Mitch McConnell and company poisoned that well by stealing the seat from President Obama/Merrick Garland. This cannot be undone.

2. Foreign Policy

Trump’s presidency is unorthodox, but his blustering against Kim Jong-un is the only way to deal with a bully. And since Kim will want to get back at Trump, and Kim’s rockets may be able to reach only the West Coast, we’re probably all right until he can hit a red state.

This is simply appalling. For starters, this was the same line of argument as to how to deal with Saddam Hussein. Remember how Barack Obama got us involved in a never-ending war in Iraq? Me neither.

Further, what is this about we're "all right until he can hit a red state?" This is the kind of joke I hear all the time from my Republican friends, who nonetheless get their heckles all up should someone, say, take a knee during the national anthem or "jokes" that the victims of a random mass shooting had it coming because they were likely Republicans. Neither joke is funny. I fail to see why it is that Republicans are so comfortable de-humanizing their political opponents, devaluing their lives, and questioning their patriotism.

3. Health Care

Democrats say Obamacare needs only a tweak. My youngest son just received his bill for health care. It came with an annual premium of $8,100. At that price, I think he will continue to vote Republican.

Interesting point, from a partisan whose party's best idea on healthcare is that it should cost more. This gets back to the healthcare debate and the reason why Republicans couldn't pass any sort of "replacement" for the Affordable Care Act: they've been lying about both the ACA and their plans for replacement for years.

4. Taxes

If Republicans cannot pass tax reform, they are not Republicans and deserve to be fired. 

Too bad their ideas as to "reform" are about as helpful as their ideas on healthcare. If you think that the Simon family has been getting the shaft and the citizens of Speedway, IN, have been getting a free ride, then by all means support the present tax "reform" on offer. I, for one, bristle at the idea of some poor Simon heir only getting the first $11,000,000 in inheritance tax free. (sarcasm)

Republicans like to call everything they do "reform." Is it "reform" when you make the current system worse? If I crash my car into a ditch, have I "reformed" my bumper?

I could go on, but I'm tired of this.

On Giving Thanks

Thanksgiving is an ever-perplexing holiday. When I was younger, I was confused about why we even bothered having Thanksgiving. After all, we had dinner every night; it's not as though Thanksgiving dinner was all that different, except that it was the one day a year we had turkey and stuffing. As I got older, I was confused as to why we got a holiday to eat and drink to the point of gluttony; don't get me wrong, I was happy to have the opportunity. Now that I am at a point in my life where I think I recognize the importance of giving thanks, as an organized and annual ritual, in a way that I did not previously, I would like to share my thoughts as to why I think Thanksgiving is important and why proper observance of the holiday is difficult. Please pardon the untimely nature of the post.

I know two things for certain about humanity: we are fallen and we are ambitious.

There can be no doubt but that mankind is a fallen creature. We were given the entire garden of paradise, only to be cast out for disobedience and insubordination. Any skeptics as to man's fallen status need look no further than modern warfare and weaponry to conclude that his copious conscious creative and intellectual prowess, unmatched in the natural world, has been in appreciable part squandered on counterproductive measures, wasted. Any argument that mankind is not fallen crashes on the shoals of a history that includes the holocaust, centuries of "holy" wars (a paradox if ever there was one), organized genocide, and all sort of human atrocities.

Mankind's ambition is likewise undeniable. It is man who looked at the moon and decided to go; who approached great expanses of ocean and instead of steering to the safe harbor ventured to the great unknown. Mankind has explored the depths of the oceans and the peaks of the mountains; the equatorial jungles and the polar ice. Man's insubordination that cost him Eden was his ambition; he ate from the tree of knowledge because he wanted to be more.

So far as we know, it is only man that has a conscious understanding of his own being and a belief that his future is based on his own determinations. Perhaps mankind's belief in his own self-determination is an expression of his own hubris; nonetheless, the belief in self-determination is (rightly, in this writer's opinion) a basic foundation of all principles of freedom we espouse.

Two of mankind's most defining traits are precisely why it is so difficult for us to humbly and sincerely give our thanks. We are hardwired to believe that we are in charge of our own destiny. We refuse to believe that we can't do something. It is both a compliment to mankind and a criticism of him to point this out.

Thanksgiving is the occasion to genuflect to the fact that we are mortal and we are merely mortal; we show a piece of our own grace by owning up to, at the very least, the possibility that we are human precisely because we remain subordinate to a higher power. This subordination is an essential element of humanity.

Accepting this principle requires accepting the coordinate principle that, because there is a higher power than man, certain things are out of man's hands. This is a difficult premise, I believe, for many of us to accept, but accept it we must if we continue to believe, as I do, in a monotheistic ordering of the universe.

In light of the above, Thanksgiving is the time when we humbly accept our lot as a species and pay heed to the Great Chain of Being; recognize our limitations and give thanks for the undeserved blessings we have received. We give thanks, not for the success we have achieved on our merit, but for the divine providence that has intervened on our behalf.

If it's awesome, why lie about it?

I have written before about this, but I saw that Matt Yglesias has made the exact same point on Vox with a piece entitled, "If the GOP tax plan is so good, why do they lie so much about it?"

A few key quotes:

There’s a lot that’s controversial about tax policy, after all, but not everything is controversial. It’s obvious that if you cut a tax that’s only paid by married couples who’ve amassed at least $11 million that you are helping rich people. It’s obvious that if you enact a special discount tax rate for people who own LLCs then you are helping Donald Trump, who owns a ton of them. And it’s obvious that if part of your plan is permanent and part of it is temporary, and the part you made temporary is the part that helps the middle class, then helping the middle class wasn’t your priority.

I want to be fair to the conservative point of view here, and I think that this quote is necessary:

The case Republicans are making for their proposal is simple, straightforward, and perfectly reasonable — while Democrats want to have the government give people a lot of new social services, Republicans want to just give them more money instead.

I think that this encapsulates the conservative/Republican argument well. If any readers think it is an unfair characterization, please inform me as to why.

The difference is that while Democratic programs may or may not be a good idea, the bills they write that they say will expand the provision of social services in the United States really do expand the provision of social services.

I think that the above statement is true. Democrats wanted to expand access to healthcare for the lower income population, so they wrote Obamacare. Whether you think that was a good or bad piece of legislation, there is no denying that it expanded Medicaid and attempted to impose uniform rules on health insurance so as to preclude the claims avoidance practices that had/have become so prevalent among health insurers.

If the GOP wants to cut taxes on their wealthy donors, they have that right. They won the 2016 election, by all accounts. With victory comes policy prerogatives. However, it would be refreshing if they would simply own up to what they are doing, instead of continually lying about it.

I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.

 

On leaving people the hell alone

I see that once again, the Speedway conservatives vocal minority has decided to protest yet another piece of progress, this time Big Red Liquors' attempt to open a store at the development at 30th and High School.

Some thoughts:

1. The owners of that property, much like the owners of other property, should be allowed to use their property as they see fit so long as such use doesn't bother others' use of their own property. I see nothing in a liquor store that would "hurt" the area any more than having (a) a bar (McGilvery's, an establishment of which I am a modest fan) and (b) empty property (that attracts blight, squatters, etc.).

2. I thought that Speedway was die-hard Republican/Conservative. It's not exactly the same thing anymore, but it is a pretty good overlap. Where are all of these small-government "conservatives" when it comes to their own neighborhood? Is small government only something that is imposed on others? I see that they all want to "remonstrate" against this proposal, much as many of the same culprits "remonstrated" against Wilshaw.

NEWSFLASH: when you "remonstrate," you are merely asking that the government intervene on your behalf to prevent others from doing as they please with their own property.

I am not entirely against remonstrations, by the way. If someone wanted to put a fracking compound in to replace Meadowood Park, I would be concerned, as that use would disturb my use of my own property by, among other things, polluting the air and water in the immediate vicinity of my home. However, if someone wants to put a porn shop in next to Kroger, who am I to complain? My recourse is to not shop there.

Bottom line here is that this little song and dance routine gets very old, very fast. You can't call yourself a "small government" "libertarian minded" "live and let live" "conservative" and turn around and remonstrate against every little change/development because "it impedes on my 'free' parking" or "it is in an inappropriate place" (i.e. too close to my house). If you want the government to intervene on your behalf, you are not a "small government conservative."

Of course, the biggest irony I can see is that some of the same vocal minority protesting everyone else's use of their own property are the same ones that believe that additional Wall Street regulations or health insurance subsidies are an enormous and unacceptable infringement on FREEDOM.

Some Dickens criticism, for no apparent reason

I love Charles Dickens. There. I said it. I especially love "A Tale of Two Cities."

Everybody remembers two things about that book: the opening phrase, and the terror. The opening phrase has been lifted so many times, it has almost become a cliche ("It was the best of times, it was the worst of time . . ."). Everyone seems to remember "the terror" because it culminates in (spoiler alert) Sidney Carton getting beheaded.

The thing about the book before the terror, though, is that is pretty slow moving. It takes a long time to get to the point where the French peasants decide they're going to start beheading the nobility. For no particular reason, I was thinking about that recently. I read (somewhere that I can't remember) a critique of the book that referenced the incomparable George Orwell writing about that book. I quote Mr. Orwell's criticism in part for you, dear reader, with a few phrases bolded for emphasis:

 Dickens sees clearly enough that the French Revolution was bound to happen and that many of the people who were executed deserved what they got. If, he says, you behave as the French aristocracy had behaved, vengeance will follow. He repeats this over and over again. We are constantly being reminded that while ‘my lord’ is lolling in bed, with four liveried footmen serving his chocolate and the peasants starving outside, somewhere in the forest a tree is growing which will presently be sawn into planks for the platform of the guillotine, etc., etc., etc. The inevitability of the Terror, given its causes, is insisted upon in the clearest terms:

It was too much the way... to talk of this terrible Revolution as if it were the only harvest ever known under the skies that had not been sown — as if nothing had ever been done, or omitted to be done, that had led to it — as if observers of the wretched millions in France, and of the misused and perverted resources that should have made them prosperous, had not seen it inevitably coming, years before, and had not in plain terms recorded what they saw.

And again:

All the devouring and insatiate monsters imagined since imagination could record itself, are fused in the one realization, Guillotine. And yet there is not in France, with its rich variety of soil and climate, a blade, a leaf, a root, a spring, a peppercorn, which will grow to maturity under conditions more certain than those that have produced this horror. Crush humanity out of shape once more, under similar hammers, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms.

In other words, the French aristocracy had dug their own graves. But there is no perception here of what is now called historic necessity. Dickens sees that the results are inevitable, given the causes, but he thinks that the causes might have been avoided. The Revolution is something that happens because centuries of oppression have made the French peasantry sub-human. If the wicked nobleman could somehow have turned over a new leaf, like Scrooge, there would have been no Revolution, no jacquerie, no guillotine — and so much the better. 

Quoted for no particular reason. Sleep tight.

Tending the Garden

I hear all the time about "unleashing" the American economy and all of the growth that will surely follow. This has got me a'thinkin'.

What if I "unleash" the growth in my wife's garden by unburdening it with all of those pesky "regulations" I impose about what can and can't grow therein? It seems that if I do so, I will likely get considerably more "growth" in the garden; the only problem is, the "growth" I get is not beneficial whatsoever. Instead of having blueberries, I will have thistles. Further, I could tend my garden such that all of the "growth" produces very few "fruits." This wouldn't be a problem if there were very few people attempting to eat from this garden; however, if I were trying to feed my family from this garden, using the entire garden to produce enough "fruits" for just me would be no way to tend the garden.

I think my point is that the kind of economic growth our country gets is an important consideration that is being utterly ignored. This nation has spent no fewer than 40 years genuflecting at the altar of "growth" without ever considering the type of growth that we want. When we talk about GDP, all we are doing is measuring the quantity of growth. There are other metrics by which we could measure the quality of growth we get; but one example is to consider the "median" wages.

Side note: Always be suspicious when people talk about "average" wages or "average" tax cuts. If my 4-year-old son, my 2-year-old daughter, and Bill Gates are all in a bar, the "average" wealth of the three of them is rather impressive and VERY misleading.

Back to my point:

Ours is the most prosperous, dynamic, powerful country in recorded history. There is no reason whatsoever that we can't have an economy that "grows" in such a way as to benefit more than 1 out of every 500 or so people. That we have such an economy is the product of our collective choices.

We have chosen this economy, collectively. Now we get to live with it, individually.

Gun Control - 2 Modest Proposals

I have very mixed feelings about the issue of gun control.

I sympathize and respect someone who lives in the inner city and is tired of seeing handguns being as easy to obtain as hairbrushes. I get why that person would want to see guns harder to obtain, and I completely agree.

I also sympathize and respect someone who lives in the same inner-city neighborhood and wants to get a gun to protect him/herself and his/her family from the gun-toting would-be thugs roaming the neighborhood. I get why that person is thankful to have a gun, and I completely agree.

I further sympathize and respect those who live in rural areas, and for whom gun ownership is a cultural thing and a rite of passage. Look, both of my grandfathers were gun owners and hunters; my father learned to hunt growing up in eastern Michigan in the 1950s and 1960s.

I get it.

However, I also get that America is the only developed nation on Earth that has this problem of serial mass shootings. Canada, England, France, Spain, Australia, Germany, Poland, etc. don't have fewer crazy people than America does. They don't have fewer frustrated "ticking time bombs" than America does. They have fewer guns.

Now, some would say that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." I would alter that just a bit to say that guns don't kill people, bullets do. Nonetheless, point well taken.

It is in light of the above that I propose two seemingly simple policies:

1. Barcode Firing Pins

When a gun is fired, the firing pin strikes the bullet, igniting the gunpowder and sending the bullet out to its fate, be that a sandbag or a skull. We have the technology already whereby we can take a bullet and a gun and determine whether a particular bullet came from a particular gun. Why can't we mandate that gun makers place a microscopic barcode on the firing pin of the weapons they well, thereby imprinting the bar code on the bullet? Imagine, if you will, a situation where as soon as the bullet is discovered, we (the people) know which exact gun fired it. I believe that this would go a long way in solving violent crime, and it would not infringe on the right to own a gun whatsoever.

As my grandfather often told me, don't aim at something you don't want to shoot; don't shoot at something you don't want to kill. If you have a problem owning that you shot that bullet, then perhaps you shouldn't shoot that bullet.

Seems pretty simple to me. As an added bonus, it actually helps us delineate between the so-called "good guys with guns" and the "bad guys with guns." Once we find the bullet, we'll know whether the gun owner is a "good" or "bad" guy.

2. Mandatory Insurance Premiums Upon Bullet Purchase

If you drive a car, you have to carry liability insurance, just in case you injure an innocent third party. If you shoot a gun, shouldn't the same liability insurance requirement attach? 

Let's say, hypothetically, that my neighbor wakes up to find an intruder in his house. My neighbor then picks up his Saturday Night Special and blasts that intruder straight to hell. The only problem is that he shot three bullets at the intruder, and two of them either missed or passed right through the intruder and wound up in my gut.

Now, assuming I know who shot the bullets, I suppose I can sue someone for the untold damages this gunshot wound to the gut would inflict on me. I support my entire family with my job, but if I'm laid up in a hospital for 4 months, it's a bit hard to litigate, no? What about my exorbitant medical bills? Should I have to bear that cost?

Let's assume for a moment that the shooting was something less noble. Let's say that there were two cars on Moeller Rd., and one of the drivers had road rage. They then shoot at each other, and one of the shots misses and again lodges in my gut. The damages are the same. Do I just suck it up and call that the price of freedom? When I am not a gun owner; I didn't shoot anyone; I didn't do anything to incur this risk?

If the purchase of a bullet automatically results in the payment of an insurance premium, at least there would be a pool of money with which to compensate the very real innocent third parties that are harmed by inadvertent, negligent shootings.

As it sits right now, the cost of such inadvertent or negligent shootings are borne privately by the recipients of the bullets involved in the shootings. Why should they pay? Why not the category of people who have the greatest ability to avoid the harm . . . the shooters.

Finally, the cost of this insurance premium could be directly proportionate to the risk. Perhaps .22 caliber bullets don't represent the same risk that .45 bullets do. Well, premium goes down. Perhaps bullets bought from Store A have historically wound up in cadavers. Well, premium goes up. Along these lines, I suspect the increased cost for one bullet is minimal whereas the increased cost for the person who wants to fire 1,000 rounds/week would (hopefully) be prohibitive.

Conclusion

These are just a few thoughts on what to do about the prevalence of gun violence in our country. I recognize that some people don't think this is a problem. I recognize that others have determined that the best way to address gun violence is "do nothing." I am not one of those people. To detractors, I would say that unless you have a better idea, you don't have any ideas, and talking about how "we need to get God back" in XXXXXXX (insert classroom, govt., etc.) or how "we need stronger families" is not a solution; it is lamentation.

As a final note, I would say this to our elected "leaders." As long as your policy prescription to this problem is "nothing," you have made a legislative determination and policy decision that the lives of those who have died from gun violence are an acceptable price to be paid in service of something (what that something is, I can't begin to imagine).

Bike/Golf Cart Route - An idea

So, here is the image that I have come up with that is a first-stab effort at a bike/golf cart route going through Speedway. As I've said before, this is essentially a suggestion that we mark certain roads that key people into the idea that they're "on the path" and won't get lost.

Admittedly, it is not perfect. However, all great ideas start off as partially formed, so-so ideas.

The comically oversized line represents where I would suggest we mark a bike/golf cart lane. You'll notice a few things about this map:

1. This is clearly a rather outdated map, as it does not show the development on Main Street, the roundabout (though it's covered up by my comically oversized line), the 10th Street "swerve" or various other developments in Speedway.

2. You'll also note that Main Street and the "main" network are not connected. This is by design, as 11th through 15th Streets are perfectly acceptable for bicycle/golf cart travel.

3. The routes through the Meadowood Park area are the most thought out, as I live there and think about this often. Along those lines, the area around Leonard Park is not all that well thought out, as I spend very little time in that area. This is by no means a slight of that neighborhood; it is merely a recognition of my limited understanding. Any and all suggestions are welcome.

4. I still haven't figured out the best way to connect the route across Crawfordsville Rd. on the western edge of town. Again, any and all suggestions are welcome.

5. The "Winton Corridor" is probably the main artery going north and south; I chose this as it crosses Crawfordsville Rd. at a light already, and that intersection could probably be adapted to handle golf cart/bike traffic.

6. The route also cuts through the high school parking lot. This is by design to attempt to keep bicycle traffic off Lynhurst Ave.

OK. There it is. If Speedway had a parking problem, this would be one suggestion to solve it.

Bike Lanes & Golf Carts - Compatibility

My sole regular reader (Hi "Anonymous") pointed out that I have advocated for both bike lanes as well as the ability to use golf carts to get around Speedway. I see no reason why these two things are or would be incompatible.

As I noted in my bike lanes post, I envision them being essentially "laid on top" of the current streets. I would say the same thing with respect to preferred golf cart routes.

I tend to think that having people ride bikes on Crawfordsville Rd., Lynhurst, High School Rd., Cunningham, etc., is a good option only for those with a death wish. For the rest of us, I think that residential streets are the way to go, and all we need are safe ways to cross the aforementioned "busy" streets.

Again, I ask, how nice would it be if you could hop in your golf cart and drive from Mug n' Bun (barf) to McGilvery's? How about taking a bike ride from Speed Bakery to YoguLatte?

These are ideas that require barely any financial outlay; they merely require vision. Where are our town councilors on this? I can't imagine that the necessary paint to mark these routes as bike/golf cart routes, plus the added pedestrian crosswalk on the busy streets (i.e. Crawfordsville/Winton; 15th/Lynhurst), could be as expensive as the cost to remove but a few dead trees in Meadowood Park (which also needs to be done, but that's a post for another day).

On Bike Lanes and Neighborhood Connectivity

As much as I would like to advocate to have some sort of a shuttle that takes residents of Speedway from one end to the other, I fully recognize that such a service is likely prohibitively expensive. I would, in its place, like to advocate for a bike "thru-way" through our town. Such a thru-way could be done for a fraction of the cost and would provide a wonderful amenity for the people of Speedway.

First off, I think that the goals of the thru-way need to be clearly defined. I, for one, don't think that this bicycle trial should necessarily be built for the fitness gurus of the world. While it is great that some people slather on the spandex and want to go riding for scores of miles, I think that a lot more people simply want to ride their bikes down to Main St. or over to the grocery store.

Thus, Tabletop Joe's Principle #1: the thru-way is primarily for transportation.

The second thing is that it has to be inclusive. The way I figure it, there are essentially four (4) Speedway "neighborhoods" (for lack of a better term). I live in Meadowood, and I believe that Meadowood is one neighborhood. Some good friends live by Main, and I believe that the Old Speedway neighborhood (10th - Crawfordsville; Main - Lynhurst) is a second neighborhood. I think that the Allison neighborhood (Lynhurst - Georgetown; 25th - Crawfordsville) is a third neighborhood. I think the last neighborhood in Speedway is essentially the area that is from the River to Lynhurst, and 10th to Crawfordsville.

Tabletop Joe's Principle #2 is inclusivity. The bicycle thru-way should go through, and connect, each of these four neighborhoods.

The third thing is cost. I don't want boondoggles. We already have roads that go through Speedway's neighborhoods. I see no reason why some of these roads can't be painted something uniquely Speedway (probably checkered flags, or some sort of racing theme) to let people know what roads the bicycle thru-ways are on.

Tabletop Joe's Principle #3: Don't overspend. We don't need newly built trails a la Carmel. Simply paint the bicycle thru-way on the existing residential streets.

The fourth thing is access. I don't want to ride a bike on Crawfordsville Rd. or Lynhurst. I don't imagine many of my fellow townspeople do either. Keep the thru-way focused on the residential streets. Also, people generally don't want to ride a bike in the dark, as they're afraid they'll get run over. Keep the thru-way well lit via street lights.

Tabletop Joe's Principle #4: Access. Make it something that as many people as possible can use as often as possible.

My suggestion would be to ensure that people could get to the main commercial "hubs" at the four corners of Speedway: 30th/High School Rd.; IMS; Crawfordsville/High School Rd. strip mall; Main St.

I will post more in the future regarding proposed routes.

Deficit Hawkery and Charlatanism

I understand the term "Deficit Hawk" to mean one who wants to avoid a budget deficit as a top-line priority. Note that deficits happen when the intake of the government is smaller than the outlays.

That is called math, notwithstanding the fact that Mike Pence and company repeat ad nauseum that we have a "spending problem" and not a "taxing problem." The fact of the matter is that deficit happen when tax collections are smaller than outlays. Full stop.

We have no deficit hawks in charge in Washington, D.C.

I saw Rep. Mark Meadows (R - N.C.), prominent member of the so-called "Freedom Caucus" destroy his own credibility on deficits this morning on ABC News w/ George Stephanopolous. He was asked directly whether he would be willing to cut taxes knowing that it would increase the federal debt by $1.5 trillion over the next decade.

Recall that Rep. Meadows spent the Obama Administration talking about the "road to serfdom" being paved with government debt.

Rep. "Road to Serfdom" Meadows replied to the $1.5T question by saying that "we know that GDP will go up" and pay for the tax cuts. "We know this will happen."

Do we?

I mean, it was 16 years ago that George W. Bush cut taxes significantly. Have we had this elusive 4% growth since then? Have those tax cuts paid for themselves and solved any deficit problems our nation may have? 

Recall that W. inherited a budget surplus from Clinton. Recall that he left Obama with annual $1T deficits as far as the eye could see, and Obama handed Trump deficits about half that size.

So, to Rep. Meadows and all the other "swashbuckling Republican taxcutters" out there who insist that cutting taxes on Corporations and wealthy Manhattanites will somehow benefit Speedway's rank and file, I say show me how well this worked the last time you did it.

The reason they all talk about Reagan, and not W, I believe, is that memories of Reagan have over the course of the past few decades become  more of a glossy caricature, and people actually remember that W's tax cuts did precisely none of the things that were promised.

So, in sum, Rep. Mark Meadows and Speaker Paul Ryan, with the full  support of Tennessee Trey, Susan Brooks, Luke Messer, and Todd Rokita (all self-proclaimed deficit hawks) are about to vote for a tax bill that will increase the deficit, will over time raise middle class taxes, gives 80% of its benefits to the wealthiest 1% of Americans, and won't boost the economy one iota.

The term "charlatan" is a strong one; sometimes it's not strong enough.

Tax Burden Distribution

As I've commented on previously, there is a large effort underway to "reform" the tax code. Of course, you'll hear a lot about how these "reforms" will lead to more money for the middle class; however, you have to take a lot of "trickle down" economic theory on faith to believe that any of that money will ever reach the middle class.

What is guaranteed in this "reform" effort, of course, is that corporate taxes and inheritance taxes will go down considerably. So, if you stand to inherit more than $11,000,000 then you are guaranteed to benefit from this plan. If you work for a living, you have to take it on faith that corporations will take their newfound money and, contrary to experience from the past 20 years, raise wages.

That is the easy part.

The more interesting part, to me, is the distributional effect this will have. It seems to me that our government's priorities should be determined by a combination of our moral compass and our sense of "he who pays, plays."

Here is an interesting data point. In 1952, the corporate income tax accounted for 33% of federal tax collections. Today it accounts for 9%.

As an interesting corollary, here is a graph showing corporate profits and wages as a percentage of all money made in America in a given year.

Now, I'm not statistician, but it appears to me that wages (the red line) have consistently shrunk, whereas profits have consistently risen.

It's almost as though we have actual evidence that trickle-down economics is a hoax and has no basis in reality. I mean, if you look at the chart above, it would almost lead you to believe that corporations don't actually use increased profits to pay increased wages! Amazing what happens when you look at actual statistics and facts and cut through the rhetoric and talking points!

However, I want to go one level deeper.

If corporations are only paying 9% of federal tax collections, why is it that so much American military might is expended to keep corporate assets, from oil rigs to container ships to intellectual property, safe?

If they're only paying 9% of the tab, why do they get so much of the benefit? Why is it that all the talk as far as paying for these corporate tax cuts is centered on cutting social security or medicare? The people who would get their benefits cut are the ones who have paid the freight for their benefits!

Just think about that the next time Sen. Empty Suit Toy Soldier Todd Young or Vice President Taliban Cotton Mather Pence talks about "reforming" the tax code.

My Letter to the Journal Gazette, published 11-2-17

As I've noted before, I tend to write letters to the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette more often than I write letters to the Indy Star. Perhaps it's because I grew up in Ft. Wayne. I don't know. Anyway, here is the text:

I have read in The Journal Gazette and elsewhere recently that NFL players have a First Amendment right to kneel for the national anthem. I suppose they do, but it is entirely beside the point. The government is not threatening repercussions for their kneeling.

We all have First Amendment rights to free speech. This guarantees us the right to express ourselves without having to fear government retribution. The First Amendment does not deal with private actors, including employers. Unfortunately, if your boss wants to fire you for being a Democrat, the First Amendment won't protect you. If Jerry Jones wants to fire his quarterback for kneeling during the national anthem, the First Amendment won't stop him.

The NFL players' protests are, in my opinion, respectful and tasteful. I see nothing in their actions that demeans the troops, first responders, firefighters, apple pie or anything else people consider to be “all American.” They seem simply to be expressing the radical notion that duly empowered law enforcement officers should not be so cavalier when shooting members of their community. I hope they continue to kneel as long as they feel the need to do so.

Nonetheless, let's be clear about what the First Amendment does and does not protect: It protects your speech from restrictions by the government; it does not protect your speech from restrictions by overbearing bosses.

TABLETOP JOE

Speedway

Former Fort Wayne resident

A Modest Proposal

I remember during my first year of teaching that I had one rule in my classroom: don't misbehave. Unsurprisingly, my students found that rule confoundingly difficult to follow. In years subsequent, I defined the rule a bit better: turn your homework in on time, be in the classroom before the bell, don't talk when I'm talking, do what I tell you to do promptly. Again, unsurprisingly, compliance with my rules got a lot better. I made it easy to be "on the right side of the rule."

Anyone who has read much of this blog knows that I am not some small-government ideologue. I don't want to shrink government out of some hostility to the common good, and I do not believe that freedom and the size of government are inversely proportionate or correlative. I do, however, believe that if you want people to follow the law, people should be able to simply and easily understand the law.

In particular, I am talking about the Fair Housing laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The law says that buildings must be designed and built such that they are handicap accessible. Who knows what that means? I sincerely doubt that there are any developers out there today (who are not named Donald Trump) who want to stick it to people simply because of their disabilities. However, if you are a developer, chances are that you're not a general contractor or an architect. You hire these functions out.

If an architect designs a building to local building code, and the contractor builds the building to local building code, doesn't it seem as though the building ought to pass muster with respect to handicap accessibility? Should the developer really have to hire one more "consultant" to "opine" as to whether the building complies with the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act? Don't you think that passing local building code, passing inspection, and properly getting your permits ought to shield you from charges, after the fact, that the building does not comply with the FHA, ADA, etc?

As it presently sits, the answer is that a developer can fully comply with every local zoning law, get all the proper permits, pass inspection, and still get hit with a big nasty lawsuit for failure to follow the Fair Housing Act and its Americans with Disabilities requirements, all because the architect and contractor built the building according to what the law requires. Any guess on what this does for the cost of housing or the willingness of developers to build multi-family housing? Anyone wonder why the cost of housing has soared past inflation in the past 50 years? Perhaps this has something to do with it (though admittedly, the cost of housing is a very complicated story that involves many moving parts).

Again, I tend to default to simplicity. I've said until I'm blue in the face that if your policy ideas are so great, you shouldn't have to lie about them (see Trump, Donald; Ryan, Paul; Price, Tom). Along those lines, if laws are important enough to enforce, shouldn't they be important enough to be written in such a manner as those against whom enforcement is sought actually have the opportunity to understand what the law requires and how to comply with it? Stated another way, if you want people to comply with a rule, you should tell them what the rule requires.