More Feeding at the Trough

Senator Brandt Hershman (R-Buck Creek) is leaving the Indiana legislature to go to work as an "attorney" in Barnes and Thornburg's Washington, D.C. office.

A quick look through Sen. Hershman's biography  reveals a man who was first elected to the Indiana legislature in 2000. Thereafter, and while serving in the state legislature, Sen. Hershman advocated for small government all the while attending law school on the government's dime (Todd Young, anyone?). Apparently, small government and self reliance is good for all of us "little people," but when it comes to getting perks from the government, Sen. Hershman exempts himself from his pious urgings regarding self reliance.

Now, of course, having spent nearly two decades in the Indiana statehouse, building connections with the largest law firms in the state (including but not limited to Barnes & Thornburg); after using the state government to pay for his law school (a nice $75,000 gift); after repeatedly cutting taxes on large law firms' corporate clients; after piously proclaiming that he works "for the people," "doing the people's business" for all of these years, he takes a job at one of said large law firms' D.C. office.

Does Sen. Hershman have any experience actually practicing law, as opposed to writing it?

Does Sen. Hershman have any reason why he should practice law in D.C.?

Is Sen. Hershman actually going to practice law in D.C. as opposed to doing that other thing that nobody likes to say out loud (psst, "lobby")?

When will we wake up and realize that these so-called "conservative" lawmakers that we routinely send to our state legislature are serving nobody's interests except their own and their corporate masters'? Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with someone making a living; however, when he makes his living in a manner that is absolutely counter to his public proclamations, it's the hypocrisy of the whole thing that irks me so much.

For anyone interested to know who has bought Sen. Hershman, and for how much, the list of his donors is here. It would be interesting to see how his donor list overlaps with his future lobbying activities, wouldn't it?

Roundabout Musings

A few thoughts on roundabouts:

1. I saw a news story about all of the roundabouts in Carmel. Apparently, the number of automobile accidents where someone is hurt and requires ambulance transport has decreased by 75%, in real terms, since the late 1990s. By way of comparison, recall that the population of Carmel has increased significantly, yet the number of serious injury accidents has decreased significantly. Anyone who says that roundabouts don't increase public safety is making an assertion that is at odds with the evidence.

2. I think that the Speedway roundabout has significantly improved the intersection of 16th/Crawfordsville. Now, I fully recognize that there are those in the neighborhood bounded by 25th/Lynhurst/Crawfordsville/Georgetown who lament the closure of Georgetown Rd. For two reasons, I can't really speak to the merits of their concerns: I don't live in that neighborhood and thus don't experience their concerns firsthand; and I did not live in Speedway prior to the closure of Georgetown Rd. What I can say, however, is that prior to the closure of Georgetown Rd., the 16th/Georgetown/Crawfordsville intersection was approximately the least desirable place one could think of to go. That intersection is now considerably more aesthetically pleasing and presents a much more favorable and positive image of Speedway.

3. I have heard that the OSCNA is lobbying to put a 40' flag pole in the middle of that roundabout. Really?!?! Do we need another large American flag flying in Speedway? Don't we have enough of them? By my count, we have such flag poles in front of every one of the six schools; in front of the Town Hall; at the track; in front of Allison Transmission; etc. Why not try to do something a bit unique and/or creative? Perhaps we could do a joint deal with IMS and put a huge replica of the Borg-Warner trophy in there? How about a large piece of public art? I used to live in Grand Rapids, MI, and they have "the calder" downtown. These are the kinds of things that make cities and towns unique places to go or generic places to go through. In my own opinion, yet one more 40' flag pole makes that roundabout the kind of generic unremarkable place that one simply goes through; a representative piece of art that embodies Speedway would go a long way towards announcing to the world that Speedway is a unique place to spend time and money.

Meadowood Park Tree Clearing - Well Done!

I wrote a few weeks ago about how proud I am that the Town of Speedway was taking steps to address the dead-tree problem in Meadowood Park. Well, the problem has been addressed.

I can't congratulate our Town officials, including the town council and our town manager Jacob Blasdell, enough. I believe I was told one time that those dead trees represented a $200,000+ project to be tackled. I wouldn't be surprised, as they took more than 50 trees out, but I really don't know.

Anyway, thank you to the powers that be for addressing actual problems (as opposed to made up problems or speculative problems that don't exist yet, if at all . . . no need to go borrowing trouble when you have plenty of it already).

Well done and thank you from a grateful citizen.

As a final note, I saw that the new parks and recreation director is selling "commemorative" trees with plaques for $250. I would definitely encourage anyone with the means to buy one of these, if for no other reason than the ability to come back in 20 years to see a plaque with your name on it next to a beautiful mature tree. Along those lines, I think that a commemorative brick sale would be a good revenue generator for the Town, but that is a post for another day.

More thoughts on Smug Satisfaction

I have been thinking a lot about the moment where one of Pres. Trump's judicial nominees struggled to answer questions that most first-year law students could address, and I think the problem isn't really with the fact that so many of these nominees don't have trial experience.

Think about the "trial experience" line for a moment. Who, with the kind of gold-plated credentials necessary to get an Article III judicial nomination, would have extensive trial experience? The only people I can think of are career prosecutors, and the last thing we need is more prosecutors on the bench or, for that matter, in positions of power, period. For example A of the misguided notions that career prosecutors hold onto, facts be damned, see our present attorney general, Mr. Curtis "never saw a 'tough-on-crime' policy he didn't like" Hill.

We need more judges with a breadth of experience and understanding in the, dare I say it, real world. Neither Ivy Leaguers nor prosecutors can speak much to the experience of the guy who had a tough time making ends meet and decided to sell a dime bag to supplement his income. The more we refuse to understand the dime bag guy's experience, the more misguided and counterproductive we will be in our efforts to enforce the law and pursue justice.

This is simply my $0.02. I think that I have made fairly clear my distaste for prosecutors, even though I have a dear friend who is one (and he probably gets tired of my constant snide remarks).

Interesting Take in the NY Times

I know, the "liberal" New York Times. I remember, in my youth, when most people considered the NY Times "The National Paper of Record." Of course, that was also a time when facts mattered.

Anyway, the Times had an interesting editorial today arguing that the impending shit sandwich tax bill will not only create more inequality, but it is the result of the inequality we already have. Basically, as more and more of the nation's wealth has gone to fewer and fewer people, those few people have used their enormous wealth to accrue political power, which they in turn use to steer more wealth their own way. Kind of a vicious little cycle, no?

The editorial also had a great graphic, but for some reason I'm unable to embed it. I would highly recommend reading the editorial. So as to not deprive this post of any graphics, however, I found this one online:

A Moment of Smug Satisfaction

As I have made no efforts to hide, I am a lawyer. Some may say that implies that I have a forked tongue and cloven hoof, but if that is the case, I haven't seen it and tend to base my evaluations on the actual evidence and not my own prejudices. Nonetheless . . .

I have noted that one of the big triumphs that my conservative friends see in the Trump administration is the theft of Merrick Garland's seat on the Supreme Court and handing it over to the interloper Justice Gorsuch. This is an irreversible development. Mark my word, not again in my lifetime will the U.S. Senate confirm a Supreme Court Nominee from the opposing party. I find this to be a troubling development for the legitimacy of the Court as a non-partisan, counter-majoritarian institution. However, with all of that being said, this post is about the nominees put forth for the lower federal judgeships, i.e. trial court and "intermediate" court of appeals.

For those who haven't heard of Brett Talley, he was the first embarrassingly unqualified nominee to hold an Article III judgeship that President Agent Orange put forth. Apparently actually "practicing law" or even having a "working understanding and knowledge" of the courts and their procedures is not necessary to be a Trump judicial nominee - you just have to be liked by the Federalist Society (a right-wing organization on every law school campus in America).

In light of this, Senator Kennedy (R-LA) had an interesting interchange with another one of Trump's nominees. I have posted the video below:

Now, for starters, I will readily concede that I take some smug satisfaction watching this "elite" struggle with elementary questions. For those keeping track at home, the Daubert (pronounced DOWbert) standard refers to a case the Supreme Court decided that had to do with what makes someone an expert. Motions in Limine are pre-trial motions where you attempt to persuade the judge to keep certain evidence from the jury. The abstention doctrines (Pullman and Younger) deal with situations where the federal court should NOT decide a case (I may be getting them backwards, but Pullman says that federal courts can't rule not he constitutionality of a state law until the state court weighs in on how the state law should be interpreted; Younger says that you can't bring a civil rights case in federal court that is related to a pending state court matter - i.e. you can't bring a civil rights lawsuit against IMPD for violating your 4th Amendment rights when they bursted into your home and found your box full of cocaine and dead body).

Like I said, I take some smug satisfaction in being able to recall these things while Mr. "Article III, Lifetime Tenure, Irreducible Salary" future judge (who invariably believes that people who draw a check from the government are moochers and don't have real jobs . . . huh) struggles. One small point is that Sen. Kennedy's focus on abstention doctrine seems a bit misguided, as it is a doctrine that is rarely invoked. Additionally, I feel like Sen. Kennedy's grandstanding is a bit beside the larger point: So many of these people are rated unqualified by the American Bar Association not because they are unable to recall details that, to non-litigators, are trivial; rather, they are rated unqualified because they have reactionary views that fail to respect and adhere to centuries of legal tradition.

Look, the law wasn't written in a day. We can go back to the Magna Carta, or for that matter the Ten Commandments, to seek the genesis of our legal system. It has taken  a long time to get where it is. We don't need a bunch of reactionary (or radical) ideologues intent on overturning centuries of thoughtful jurisprudence.

I know this is a bit of an obscure issue for many people. Please bear in mind that each and every judge who is confirmed will be on the bench for decades and will shape the law in this country in ways large and small, predictable and otherwise. When handing that kind of power to someone, I would think that careful consideration would be appropriate.

More Kudos to Gov. Holcomb

I note that Gov. Holcomb has issued twice as many pardons in his first year in office than Mike Pence did in his entire time in office. Perhaps that is because Gov. Holcomb ran for governor of the State of Indiana to be the governor of the State of Indiana. Novel concept . . . running for an office to occupy that office, as opposed to using it as a springboard for the next step.

Anyway, here is a portion of the story from the Indiana Lawyer:

I note Gov. Holcomb's pardons exist in stark contrast to our drug-warrior/prosecutor Attorney General Curtis Hill, who's never seen a counterproductive criminal justice policy he doesn't like. I could rant about him for a long time, but for now, I want to commend Gov. Holcomb for his rationality and mercy toward his fellow man.

Faustian Bargain

A former English teacher, I have always assumed that people understand what the phrase "Faustian Bargain" means. Perhaps I've assumed too much. From wikipedia:

Faustian bargain (plural Faustian bargains)

1. (idiomatic) An agreement in which a person abandons his or her spiritual values or moral principles in order to obtain wealth or other benefits.

   The expulsion of the competent and the abandonment of founding values in exchange for a boost in the university's Satanic social status was a Faustian bargain.

2. (idiomatic) A deal in which one focuses on present gain without considering the long term consequences. quotations ▼

Synonyms[edit]

• deal with the devil

Always remember, Faust initially thought the deal was worth making only to later find out, as Dick Armey so famously stated, "When you make a deal with the devil, you become the junior partner." Let's all try to remember this the next time we are asked to compromise our moral compass for an immediate benefit.

Thank You to the Commenters

Too often, the comment sections of blogs reverts to pointless personal attacks on either the writer or the fellow commenters. Clearly, the commentariat that reads Speedway Matters is of a different breed and class, as the comments I get tend to be thoughtful and helpful to the discussion with only a few isolated (and probably well deserved) shots at the writer.

Specifically regarding Speedway's former director of the Redevelopment Commission, I would like to thank the readers to this blog for their thoughtful contributions to the discussion. While opinions can and do vary, I commend the readers for grounding their opinions in facts and, even more so, taking the time to learn the facts pertaining to the Home of the American Dream (i.e. Speedway). It is because of you (and those like you who are willing to take the time to care) that Speedway is a special place. Kudos!

Priorities & Perspective

I got an email from a loved one the other day all about how offensive it is that NFL players take a knee during the national anthem.

Really. Someone took precious time out of her day to forward this video to me, carrying the implication that of all things, this is the thing that gets her fired up.

Not the fact that our president is an admitted sexual predator.

Not the fact that our president, nearly a year into his administration, refuses to make his finances public to dispel any notions that he (an admitted con artist - see "University, Trump") is lining his own pockets with the spoils of his position, while still in office.

Not with the withdrawal of national monument status for western monuments that are as important to the indigenous people of the west as Jerusalem is for Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Not with the needless inflammation of the Arab world by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (something that Israel has wanted for a generation and for which Israel was willing to make concessions in the long-hoped-for peace process) without getting anything in return.

Not with the soaring cost of healthcare in this county. By the way, for those keeping score at home, it's official . . . I will spend more on health insurance in 2018 than I will to keep a roof over my family's heads. Think about that for a moment. I will sleep in my house 355+ times in 2018 and maybe (MAYBE) go to the doctor twice. Nonetheless . . .

Not with the soaring cost of higher education in this country. See graphic below:

Not with the soaring inequality in this country. As with college tuition, I will just let the picture do the talking:

This loved one is not upset that America has been involved in Afghanistan for 16 years and counting, with no end in sight.

This loved one is not concerned that funding for education is being slashed or that wages have not moved in a generation.

Nope.

The most pressing thing that this person came up with to forward to loved ones was a video about NFL players' posture during the national anthem.

Let me ask you, the readers, how much attention you paid to athletes during the national anthem prior to this controversy. Do you really care whether they stand, kneel, stay in the locker room, scratch their asses, etc? Have you actually suffered any detriment when these guys kneel? Has anyone, for example, made sending your kids to the doctor prohibitively expensive? Has anyone made sending your kids to college prohibitively expensive? Has anyone declared a war without end in your name? 

My point here is that we all need to get our priorities straight. What really counts? I know that I am as guilty as the next person of elevating the trivial, but this has got to stop. At some point, can't we all just gain the smallest modicum of perspective?

Strategy 101 and Revisiting Stated v. Revealed Preferences

I have inveighed repeatedly against the GOP tax bill making its way through Congress. For more reasons than I have time to lay out, I believe this is a terrible bill. The most prominent reason being that if we have an extra $1.5T to spend, perhaps there is something more worthwhile to do with the money than give it to the wealthy, i.e. universal pre-k, universal healthcare, control the cost of higher education, improve infrastructure, etc. Really, anything other than playing "loot the till, robber baron style" is preferable.

Nonetheless, if the Republican caucus could see past its own nose, it would have done this:

 [T]hey could have drafted the kind of bill they promised. A legislative text that cut taxes on the middle class while closing loopholes and avoiding giveaways to the rich would have put Democrats in a tough spot. The GOP would essentially have picked the low-hanging fruit of the revenue-raiser world (things like closing the carried interest loophole) and then expended it on something popular and hard to take away (middle-class tax cuts). That would have made it very difficult for the next Democratic administration to pursue aggressive welfare-state expansion.

If shrinking government was the goal, they would have done this, presumably. However, as noted in the previous post about stated preferences vs. revealed preferences, I tend to think that the stated preference is a giveaway to the donor class rather than having anything, whatsoever, to do with an ideological aversion to the size of the government. Could it be that all of this posturing about government debt for the past 8 years was just an excuse to complain about an otherwise good and competent president? Say it ain't so Joe! 

What they actually did was raise taxes on the middle class in the long run to cut taxes for incredibly profitable multi-national corporations, their major stockholders, and wealthy heirs (a la Eric Trump). These are easy things to undo in the future, and the smart money is on them being undone.

He Spent YOUR Money on WHAT?

I am sure that I am not the first person to see this:

A former Speedway official is accused of misappropriating thousands of dollars’ worth of city funds.

A special investigation report filed Monday by the state cites dozens of instances between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2015, where Kenneth Harris had used or not correctly recorded the use of city funds. 

According to the audit, Harris owes the city of Speedway almost $20,000 for undocumented purchases, cell phone bills and other expenses. Harris is also being charged for the cost of the investigation into his charges.  

The report includes undocumented credit card purchases cell phone, travel and reimbursement expenses and over-contributions to his Health Spending Account. 

I have heard general rumors regarding Mr. Harris before, though I have refrained from discussing them on this blog for a variety of reasons. First, I do not know Mr. Harris; I've never met him; I've never had any dealings with him; I don't know much of anything about his policies. I am absolutely willing to trash an elected (or appointed) official because of his/her policies. I am absolutely willing to trash someone because of his/her behavior. I try not to trash people based on rumors I have heard about them. So, I have refrained discussing Mr. Harris' doings on this blog.

Additionally, while I had heard about this particular at least a year ago, I know that accusing someone of illegal activity is defamation per se, and the last thing I need is the Speedway Old Boys Network (TM) reigning misery down on me in the form of a lawsuit.

Credit

Thank you to the astute commenter who pointed this out. The people of this Town need to know what is being done in their name, and what those who purport to act in their name are doing. This is your tax money that they are spending, whether it is on "undocumented and unsupported credit card purchases," large pieces of property near Crawfordsville Rd. and I-465, or parking garages that they finance for wealthy developers.

While I have significant differences with the publishers of the Speedway Town Press, I applaud their efforts to engage people in Speedway politics. As I've said before, when we mindlessly vote our national party preference in local elections, we wind up with "representatives" who could, literally, not care less about what we as voters think; our "representatives" only care about what the party insiders and donors think. While I don't know this for a fact, I presume that Mr. Harris maintains some pull around Speedway; I believe his wife is the head of the Speedway Chamber of Commerce. I can't help but speculate as to the level of influence he continues to exert on our public policy in Speedway.

As a final note, I have heard additional musings regarding Mr. Harris' past dealings. I will not, however, divulge what I have heard, as it is no more than a rumor. See above.