Worth a Thousand Words

I am asked from time to time why I don't just give Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt. My answer? He appoints people like Scott Pruitt, who made a career of suing the government over the EPA's efforts to regulate oil and gas companies, to head the EPA; he appoints people like Betsy DeVoss, who is an avowed enemy of the very concept of public education, to lead the Department of Education; he appoints people like Rick Perry (he who once forgot about the Dept. of Energy) to lead the Dept. of Energy.

Simply put, I have a hard time believing that this crew actually wants to do the things that the legislative branch has directed them to do (I will avoid the three branches of government/schoolhouse rock lecture here).

Here is a fine illustration:

Brenda Fitzgerald, the Georgia doctor who Trump appointed to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has resigned amid allegations of conflicts of interest.

The allegations came to light Tuesday evening when Politico reported that Fitzgerald had purchased shares in a tobacco company one month after taking her position at the agency — but also that she had a history of tobacco investments prior to taking her post at CDC.

The ridiculousness of this is obvious: Fitzgerald led a federal agency focused on driving down rates of smoking — the number one preventable cause of disease and death in the United States.

Is is possible to find a more apt analogy for the staffing of pretty much the entire Trump administration?

Richmond Hill Explosion - update

I recall watching the Richmond Hill debacle unfold as I was finishing up law school and wondering whether I, or someone I know, would wind up representing anyone associated with it. For those who don't recall, this was the house on the south side that blew up and essentially leveled all of the surrounding houses and damaged the rest of the neighborhood.

I also recall working in Ft. Wayne while the trial was going on . . . it got venue'd out of Marion County due to the press coverage. Anyway, the Indiana Lawyer updated today as follows:

Mark Leonard, the man convicted in the massive 2012 Indianapolis house explosion that killed two in the Richmond Hill subdivision, has died at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, a spokesman for the Indiana Department of Correction confirmed Tuesday. He was 48.

Leonard and his brother, Bob, were convicted on a slew of charges after they caused a natural gas explosion at the home of Monserrate Shirley, Leonard’s girlfriend. The explosion killed Shirley’s neighbors, Jennifer and Dion Longworth, and damaged or destroyed dozens of homes in the neighborhood on Indianapolis’ far south side.

Bob and Mark Leonard each were sentenced to life without parole. Shirley was sentenced to 50 years in prison.

story continues below

Earlier this month, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Mark Leonard would not appear before them again after denying transfer to his challenge of one of his numerous felony convictions.

I take no satisfaction in untimely deaths of anyone, be they Mark Leonard or Jeffrey Dahmer. It is for that reason that I disagree with the death penalty. 

Mr. Leonard, methinks you were not given sufficient earthly penalty, but I am neither a judge nor the Almighty. I suspect you have bigger questions you have to answer now. Best of luck, and my God have mercy on you as I hope he has mercy on all of us. 

A(nother) Moment of Silence

Maybe some day we as a society will actually do something about this:

A 15-year-old student opened fire with a handgun inside his rural Kentucky high school Tuesday, killing two classmates, injuring 17 others and sending hundreds fleeing for safety.

While it is fortunate that the 17 wounded students have survived, let's not forget that at least some of them will have life-altering injuries and medical expenses that will probably bankrupt them and their families.

Hug your kids extra tight today. You never know whether you'll get to tomorrow. 

Tackling an Actual Problem

It is a nice reprieve from all of the voter ID laws that seem to never be "tough enough" for their proponents to see that the Indiana legislature is tackling a bona fide problem:

County election boards that beef up security around voting equipment and elections will be able to seek reimbursement for their expenses under a bill approved by a state Senate committee Monday.

Senate Bill 327 requires counties to make sure their voting systems follow new security procedures and allows county election boards to apply to the Indiana Secretary of State for full or partial compensation of any resources or staff implemented to meet the new standards. However, it does not say where the money is coming from.

I don't claim that this is a perfect measure, but I do know that a doctor I know opines regularly that "the enemy of 'good' is 'better'." It is good to see that the IN State legislature is trying to solve an actual problem, as opposed to the usual exercise in "solutions" looking for problems to justify themselves.

Let's applaud a step in the right direction.

Monday Quote

Because I am an equal opportunity hater, I provide today's quote from the inestimable Sheila Kennedy:

I have been very critical of the GOP (with good reason), but honesty compels me to recognize that a portion of the Democratic party is also composed of zealots who would rather be right than win elections–who prefer assuming postures of moral superiority to the hard work of coalition-building and persuasion. 

To my friends on the left, I must ask: would you rather win or be right? 

YIMBY

I think that most people have heard of the term "NIMBY." This stands for Not In My Back Yard and generally refers to those who want to remonstrate or otherwise impede development. Further, it reflects the idea that many people are perfectly fine with developing property so long as that property is not to close to their own homes.

There is a movement in other cities, in response to NIMBYism, called YIMBY, i.e. Yes In My Back Yard.

Count me in. I would like to see development in my backyard. I want to see Wilshaw built, particularly if it is not dominated by parking structures. I want to see increased bus routes between Speedway and every other part of the city. I want to see a train connecting the airport to downtown via Speedway. I want to see condos built around IMS for wealthy racing team owners to stay in, hopefully for more than just a few weeks in May. I would like to see more bars and restaurants open throughout Speedway, not just on Main St. I want to see the Speedway Supercenter (i.e. the Kroger development) grow like gangbusters. I would like the McGilvery's development to fill in, whether it is with liquor stores, bible stores, health clubs, or whatever.

Along those lines, I love the International Marketplace on W. 38th Street! In a city that is dominated by chain franchise restaurants and stores, it is so refreshing to see all of those independently owned and operated restaurants and other businesses. I try to patronize them as often as I reasonably can.

As I wrote a long time ago, the traffic that comes along with these developments is evidence that people actually want to be here. That is a good thing. If there is no traffic and considerably more parking than would ever reasonably be required, that is evidence that our home is not worth visiting to those who don't live here. That is a bad thing!

PLEASE in my backyard! Maybe instead of YIMBY we should call people like myself PIMBYs.

David Frum - QOTD for Friday, January 19, 2018

David Frum was a speechwriter in the George W. Bush administration. He was notoriously fired from the American Enterprise Institute after criticizing Republican tactics in opposition to Obamacare. He was, unsurprisingly, a "Never Trumper." He has, surprisingly, remained so.

Today, I read the following quote from his latest book, Trumpocracy:

If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy. 

That is a scary thought, folks. I hope he's wrong.

53/47

I remember a few years ago when a favorite talking point among my conservative friends was that 47% of Americans "don't even pay any taxes." As discussed yesterday a bit, that is not remotely true. All Americans that work pay payroll taxes. All Americans that drive pay fuel taxes. All Americans who buy things pay sales taxes. The "any taxes" that my conservative friends liked to reference was confined solely to federal income taxes.

Now, calling something the "federal income tax" is a bit misleading because, as we know, the payroll tax is levied on your income as well, it's just called something different.

Anyway, I just got my W-2 for 2017 and thought it would be enlightening to discuss the distribution of all taxes I paid on my income in 2017.

My W-2 taxes, which of course does not capture sales taxes, property taxes, etc. (including health insurance) amount to approximately 26% of my income.

Of the total W-2 taxes paid, the breakdown is as follows:

• 49% in Federal Income tax
• 25% in Social Security Tax 
• 13% in State of IN tax
• 7% local income tax
• 6% in Medicare tax

I consider myself fortunate to have an income large enough to create a federal income tax liability. I also expect to get a refund, as I generally choose to have more withheld so that I can get a refund, as opposed to having less withheld so that I get a bill. Nonetheless, take a look at that distribution and recognize that when people don't pay federal income taxes, they still pay a lot of other taxes; and this is only the taxes that are withheld. Again, this does not include taxes that are paid on the spot, such as sales taxes.

One final point: If you include what I spent on health insurance premiums in the past year, I paid an income tax rate of 34%. If you include both health insurance premiums and deductibles, I paid 42% on income taxes. Note, this amount does not include the amount that my law firm has paid for my health insurance; this is simply the amount that I pay in cash to insure my wife and children. By that math, you could rather easily increase the deductive taxation on me from 26% - 42% and give me public instead of private health insurance, and the only thing that would change for me would be that I no longer need to worry that my coverage will be rescinded.

About Those Millions of Unfilled Jobs

I heard it again during the Governor's "State of the State" address: Indiana has a million unfilled jobs and those poor employers just can't find the right employee with the necessary skills to fill the position.

What a crock.

I have long believed that if you can't find something at the price you're willing to pay, the logical response is to either adjust what you're willing to pay or adjust what you're looking for.

Indulge an example: 

My law firm presently has an opening for a senior-partner level attorney who has a book of business that all but guarantees $2,000,000 in billable collections per year; who has litigated no fewer than 100 cases from start to end;  who has argued at least a dozen times before the U.S. Supreme Court; and who has a winning record before the Supreme Court. My law firm will pay this person $4,000/year. We have an unfilled job opening, right?

I can't help but feel that this is what so many employers are doing. It is the equivalent of me saying that I would like to buy a Ferrari for $50 and when I can't find a willing seller, I then lament that "we just don't have enough luxury cars."

Well, I read this in Slate today and would like to share some excerpts.

Articles in which executives moan about their inability to find qualified workers for job openings are business pressperennials, typically focusing on “middle skill” industries like manufacturing and constructionthat don’t require a bachelor’s degree. In the years immediately following the Great Recession, there seemed to be an entire cottage industry devoted to blaming America’s stubbornly high unemployment rate on the notion that workers just lacked the specific talents employers needed, rather than, say, the hangover from a housing bust and financial crisis that had crippled the economy.

It is so tiring to listen to MBA types talk about how the "real problem" with American workers is that they get paid too much. 

If good workers were really in short supply, you’d expect pay to rise quickly as companies tried to outbid each other for talent. Instead, employers spent years carping about a lack of good job applicants while letting pay stagnate.

Another thing that is tiring is listening to beneficiaries of current injustices dissemble and create reasons why the current injustices are indeed just.

 In the years following the Great Recession, the U.S. labor market was incredibly concentrated, with a relatively small number of businesses posting help-wanted ads across different industries and cities. That appeared to put downward pressure on wages; the more concentrated the local market, the lower pay tended to be, the study’s authors found. This, the study’s author’s argued, was a sign that U.S. employers had an enormous amount of monopsony power—meaning they were essentially free to set low wages, because few other businesses were around or hiring. 

An example of how this works:

Let’s say you manage a small construction company, and you’ve been getting away with paying your crew relatively little because there aren’t that many other contractors posting help-wanted ads in your town. You need a new carpenter. But you don’t want to tick off the rest of your men by offering this new potential employee a more generous wage. So you post the job with the same mediocre hourly rate you’ve offered for the past three years. Nobody good responds, and to you, this looks like there aren’t enough talented carpenters out there. But in reality, there’s only a shortage of people willing to work at the artificially low wage you’ve set your heart on paying. The real problem isn’t a skills shortage, it’s that you aren’t offering market wages, because the market isn’t functioning.

 I've written previously about monopsony power. The idea is that when there is only one buyer, that buyer maintains considerable bargaining leverage with any and all sellers. Anyway, I would encourage anyone who wants to know more about this dynamic to go read the Slate article. It's really good.

Middle Class Tax Reform

A simple idea: If we want to cut taxes on middle class wage earners, why don't we simply cut the taxes of middle class wage earners? The payroll tax is currently set at 16% of the first roughly $120,000 of your income. Your income thereafter is not subject to the payroll tax.

Here:

The top line is the combined payroll tax. The green shaded area rising on the left is the maximum amount of money that is subject to the payroll tax.

In all of the recent debate about cutting taxes and the massive cut in corporate income taxes, cutting the payroll tax was never even brought up. Just think about that the next time you hear Mike Pence or some equally obnoxious a$$bag talk about how they delivered "middle class tax relief."

Again, if you want to cut taxes on the middle class, it seems that a good place to start would be by CUTTING TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS.

For the record, when I say that the payroll tax is a "regressive" tax, I mean that it hurts those who make less than the threshold a lot more than those who make more than the threshold. If I earn $100,000/year, my entire income is subjected to this. However, if I make $400,000/year, only the income I make through roughly mid-April is subjected to this.

A data point:

Note that this chart is dated 2010, when we reduced the payroll tax temporarily as part of Obama's "stimulus." I think the chart speaks for itself and leads me to say, one final time for this post:

If you want to reduce taxes on the middle class, a good way to start would be by reducing taxes on the middle class. If you want to reduce taxes on the wealthy, you reduce taxes on the wealthy. If you want to reduce taxes on the wealthy and get re-elected, you reduce taxes on the wealthy and then cite some discredited economic theory (i.e. trickle down economics) to justify it.

Colts' Next Coach

Generally, I refrain from posting much about sports, largely because most of the people I know have forgotten more about sports than I'll ever know. Don't get me wrong, I like to drink beer and watch football as much as the next guy; I just have no idea how to make my team win more and/or the hated Patriots/Steelers (there are many more, but I'll limit it to two today, as I'm talking about the Colts, and straying too far from the AFC is just a distraction).

Anyway, I saw this unfortunate headline in today's Indianapolis Star: "Josh McDaniels nearing deal to become Colts' new head coach." Oh Lord help me.

For starters, I readily concede that the hated Bellichick is probably the greatest coaching talent in a generation. However, his coaching "offspring" have been far from impressive. Let's take a look at some past examples before we assess the enormity of the mistake that the Colts are about to make.

Past Belichick assistants:

• Eric Mangini - remember all of those winning seasons the Jets put together from 2006 - 2008? Me neither; the internet tells me he went 23-25. How about the 10-22 record in two seasons with the Browns? Underwhelming.
• Speaking of the Browns, how could we forget Romeo Crennel? Recall that from 2004-2008, the Browns had the "advantage" of having Bill Bellichick's "defensive guru" coaching them. This advantage translated into a record of 24-40 in his four years in Cleveland. Thereafter, proving that NFL coaches "fail up" more than most other professions, Coach Crennel went 4-15 in a season and change in Kansas City.
• Speaking of "advantages" conferred on the teams that are blessed to have former Bellichick assistants, who could forget Charlie "decided schematic advantage" Weis? He was paid nearly $20m to take Notre Dame to 35-27. Hardly elite level coaching, it seems. He was then paid $2.5m/year to coach the Kansas Jayhawks (football team, for those who didn't realize they had one) to a combined record of 6-22 over the course of three seasons. (Note, Coach Weis got paid for five years, even though he got fired after three).

I could certainly go on. Rest assured, there are some bright spots, such as Nick Saban, who reportedly called working for the hated Bellichick "the worst years of my life." Coach Saban also, and famously, was not nearly as successful in the NFL as he has been at the collegiate level.

Anyway, on to Josh McDaniels. What do they have to say about him in Boston?

His last foray away from Foxborough did not go as planned; a hot start with the Denver Broncos (6-0 first six games) quickly dissolved (5-17 final 22 games) and was surrounded by controversy around a videotaping scandal. His cup of coffee with the St. Louis Rams did not go down smoothly, either, as the Rams finished the 2011 season (his lone season with the team) with the fewest points per game and second-fewest yards per game in the NFL.

Well, to be fair, Boston sports fans are notorious a$$holes, so we can expect their media to be much the same. What about dispassionate observers?

The Pats have by far the best offense in the NFL this year, and while Brady is insanely great and he has one of the greatest TEs in history to throw to, 1)Brady’s 40 and 2)Brady obviously gets more of an edge from clever gameplans, exploiting matchups, etc. than say Rodgers or Wilson or Stafford. At least within the context of Belichick’s system — a big caveat, to be sure — he’s very good at his job. And while he was an abject disaster in Denver he was very young and absurdly given personnel control; it’s entirely possible that he’s matured.

Still, he’s not only failed once as a head coach, he even failed as an OC outside of New England. 

Well, that's a bit better I suppose.

At the end of the day, all we can do is speculate. I am speculating that this coach, much like Coach Pagano and Coach Caldwell before him, will fall short. Perhaps its the pessimist in me; I am a lawyer after all.

So, in closing, here's to hoping for the best (and preparing for the worst). Happy MLK day! 

Devil his Due

I really hate that expression, because it implies that the person you're crediting is indeed evil. Maybe I'm sensitive about that expression because it is so close to the term "Devil's Advocate," and me being a lawyer . . .

Anyway, the point of this post is to concede that just because Donald Trump advocates for something doesn't mean the thing for which he is advocating should be opposed. (Would that my conservative friends took this approach to President Obama, but water under the bridge and all . . .).

Anyway, I saw this in the Opinion section of the Indianapolis Star this morning. )Full disclosure, one of the authors of the piece, Fran Quigley, is (or at least was) a professor at the IU-McKinney School of Law, where I attended. I did not have Prof. Quigley for any courses.) Here are some quotable pieces of the article, starting with cold statistics:

 A vial of insulin can cost a person with diabetes 10 times as much as it did in the late 1990s.The price of an EpiPen has risen 450%. Some new treatments for cancer and other diseases are priced as high as $750,000, even when taxpayers paid for the most critical research to develop those drugs.

That last part about taxpayers paying for the most critical research is very important, it would seem to me. No innovation is done entirely from whole cloth; instead it is created by combining pre-existing components with small amounts of new innovation to create a newly usable product. In the case of so much R&D, "we the people" are footing the bill for the foundational research.

Well, at least some entities are getting fabulously wealthy. Martin Shkreli anyone? However, what are the real-world effects of pricing these necessary drugs so high?

One of every five Americans report either skipping medicine doses or failing to fill prescriptions each year due to cost.  As physicians and a lawyer working on health-care access in Indiana, we have talked with people who have suffered strokes after they could not afford to fill their doctors’ prescription for blood pressure medicines. We have talked with mothers who have lost adult children who had been forced to ration their insulin.

That sounds perfectly awful! I guess that means that Americans just don't care about each other?

Americans are outraged, and rightly so. In poll after poll, strong majorities of people across different political parties agree that our government needs to do more to rein in drug pricing abuse.  

Oh. Never mind.

What strikes me as  interesting about this whole debate is the ferocity with which people argue against the government bargaining for better prices.

For a quick detour, I'd like to explain a bit about what life as an insurance defense litigator is like. For starters, I am handed 1-2 lawsuits per week by various insurance carriers. Because I get such a volume of business from them, I charge less than I would to a "private, one-off" client. I would likely quote a rate of $200/hour to a private client (a pretty good deal by local standards . . . go ask a litigator at Ice Miller to handle your matter for that price and see how that works out). Insurance companies, on the other hand, won't pay above $150/hour. Mind you, all of my overhead is the same for the insurance company cases as it is for the private cases, but I can rest assured that the insurance company will actually pay my bill and will continue to send me business. That's why I take the lower rate.

Something similar happens with doctors vis a vis Medicare. My brother is a surgeon and despises the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services because they pound his rates down so aggressively. Nonetheless, his practice continues to accept Medicare patients. I don't really know why, but they have determined that it is in their business interests to do so.

Nonetheless, for some reason, Big Pharma (looking at you, Eli Lilly) gets a special dispensation. 

Negotiation is the right prescription for curing out-of-control drug price increases. Thanks to benefitting from taxpayer-supported research and government-granted monopolies, the pharmaceutical industry enjoys some of the highest profit margins in modern history, even after spending more of its revenue on advertising than on research. That is why President Trump and a whopping 92% of Americans support allowing our Medicare program to negotiate down drug prices.

Wow. Mark today on the calendar. I, and 92% of my fellow Americans, agree with a Donald Trump position.

Negotiation is the right prescription for curing out-of-control drug price increases. Thanks to benefitting from taxpayer-supported research and government-granted monopolies, the pharmaceutical industry enjoys some of the highest profit margins in modern history, even after spending more of its revenue on advertising than on research. That is why President Trump and a whopping 92% of Americans support allowing our Medicare program to negotiate down drug prices.

Interesting twist on American exceptionalism, no?

As a final point, I would reiterate to my more conservative friends that if the market isn't working, the market won't be used. If the current system is not delivering, it will eventually be replaced, and all of the filibustering and lying about the replacement won't change that.

The widespread frustration over our U.S. health-care system’s tragic flaws, where we pay the world’s highest costs for very poor coverage and health outcomes, is building momentum for a single-payer system here. Over half of Americans support single-payer, and more than 100 members of Congress have signed on in support of Medicare for All legislation. Businesses of all sizes are struggling with health-care costs, leading leaders like Warren Buffet to support a single-payer system. 

Talking points can only take you so far. Eventually, people will figure out that we don't have the best healthcare system on earth, that the insurgency is not in its last throes, and that you can't necessarily keep your plan even if you like it. 

As a final point, please bear in mind that this is not to disparage the hard-working healthcare professionals in this country. They did not create the system of financing healthcare. However, if the present system continues to work for fewer and fewer people, the present system will be replaced sooner or later.

Data Point

This:

Median wage in constant 2017 dollars:

1990: $27,468

2016: $30,533

Total increase in median wage, 1990-2016: 11.16%

Total increase in S&P 500 average, adjusted for inflation, January 1990 – present: 305.6%

Geo-Engineering - Interesting Proposal

Being Speedway's Resident Liberal (I guess), I'm sure it is no surprise when I say that I (a) believe the global climate is changing; (b) believe that this change is anthropogenic; (c) global climate change is problematic, from a human existential standpoint; and (d) we should do something about it.

My initial instinct has always been to advocate for "lesser impact" living where possible. Reuse; Reduce; Recycle, as they taught us in school. I read an interesting article tonight in The Atlantic, which I highly recommend. A few highlights:

For the past two years, Wolovick has studied whether a set of targeted geo-engineering projects could hold off the worst sea-level rise for centuries, giving people time to adapt to climate change and possibly reverse it. He is exploring whether building underwater walls at the mouth of the world’s most unstable glaciers—huge piles of sand and stone, stretching for miles across the seafloor—would change how those glaciers respond to the warming ocean and atmosphere, dramatically slowing or reversing their collapse.

If they work as planned, these large walls could make glaciers last as much as 10 times longer than they otherwise would. In rudimentary simulations, the walls make a glacier that would collapse in 100 years last for another millennium.

More and more, I find myself thinking that my own focus on preventing global climate change, or at least minimizing it, has perhaps blinded me to the other end of the stick, so to speak, as to solutions. We not only need to focus on living more sustainably, but we also need to focus our building codes and engineering projects with an eye toward mitigating what we have already done.

The idea referenced above is interesting to me because it takes for granted that upon which we do agree, i.e. that the glaciers are melting. It then moves forward from a position of pragmatism. What can we do that will minimize this problem?

Another idea that occurs to me is that, particularly near rivers, creeks, and streams, we ought to be building and refraining from building in such a way as to promote the natural function of creekbeds: absorb and purify water. Reclaiming wetlands goes right along with this. I used to live in Ft. Wayne, and there is an enormous wetland directly south, and a little to the north of, Engle Rd. there. This used to be a fallow field that could easily have been sold for commercial development; it was right off U.S. 24/W. Jefferson Blvd., which is kind of the big E/W thru-way in the Fort.

Anyway, the wetland is more than just hippy-dippy tree-hugger stuff. Directly to the southeast of the wetland is the largest landfill I have ever seen. The landfill is more or less built on an enormous, industrial, clay shower floor that drains to a series of pipes. Imagine all of the pollution in that drainage, but it has to go somewhere. Hence the wetland. I am given to understand that this landfill drainage ("leachate") is filtered a few times, in various ways, and then sprayed out over the wetland. The landfill operators get an environmental-donation tax benefit; migratory birds get a stopping point; the landfill gets drained; the water gets cleaned. We can only hope that this is a win-win.

I am meandering off the point, though. Go read the article in The Atlantic. 

Curtis Hill, Clueless Attorney General and Quixotic Drug Warrior

My feeling about Indiana's Drug Warrior in Chief Attorney General Curtis Hill, I believe, are well documented. I just read one more story reinforcing my opinion of Mr. Hill as a know-nothing ignoramus who will throw every civil liberty he can find directly under the bus in order to continue "enforcing" his version of "morality" (i.e. temperance, I guess).

From the Indiana Lawyer, a portion of the Attorney General's Press Release regarding an ongoing lawsuit about Bill Levin's First Church of Cannabis:

“The pro-marijuana plaintiffs began calling themselves a church in 2015 in order to poke fun at Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which they opposed, and to argue for the right to smoke pot as a matter of religious liberty,” read a Dec. 18 press release from Hill’s office. “On this basis, the group then filed a lawsuit against state and local officials seeking relief from Indiana’s anti-marijuana statutes.”

Apparently A.G. Hill believes that whether a group of people who share a belief can be called a "church" is a determination for the government. I tend to disagree.

More from the press release:

“RFRA was never intended to protect illegal conduct masquerading as religious faith,” Hill’s statement said. “Even if this were a bona fide religion in which the plaintiffs sincerely believed, the state’s compelling interest in protecting public health and safety from the dangers of drug abuse would override the plaintiffs’ desire to treat marijuana as some kind of sacrament.”

A.G. Hill, the law says what the law says. You, sir, hold yourself out as a strict constructionist. That means that words mean what they say and intentions are beside the point. Further, the A.G.'s insistence that the State of Indiana has the power to define what is and what is not a "bona fide religion" is offensive to my understanding of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, as incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment.

Well, maybe someday we'll elect something other than a former prosecutor to be the attorney general of the state.

 

Speedway Paradise

Anytime I think about the downsides of Speedway or Indianapolis, generally, I just have to remind myself of my teenage hometown: Fort Wayne, IN. . . home of the greatest concentration of churches, strip clubs, self-righteous conservatives, and biker gangs in the Midwest. Don't get me wrong, I love my friends from Ft. Wayne dearly. However, I simply can't abide the self-righteous conservatives that overwhelm the place.

In that spirit, please indulge a letter printed in the Journal Gazette today and authored by W. Patrick Sefton, annotated with TableTopJoe's thoughts:

The train of common sense tax reform has left the station, and Sen. Joe Donnelly has missed it.

I must have missed this "common sense tax reform." All I saw was a (at least) $1.5 TRILLION DOLLAR tax giveaway to corporations and wealthy heirs, but hey, what do I know?

By voting “no” on final passage of the 2017 Tax Reform Act, Donnelly has turned his back on hard-working and overtaxed Hoosiers.

Again, I'm not sure which "hardworking and overtaxed Hoosiers" will see much of a tax break from this bill, particularly in the latter years of it. Sure, the Simon family will get a break, as will the Irsays and the Hulmans. Contrary to popular belief, this liberal is happy for them. However, the massive corporate tax cut will benefit those who own the corporations that are getting tax cuts. Unless a significant portion of your income is derived from investments, you aren't getting much of a tax cut . . . and if the majority of your income is derived from investments, perhaps we have different definitions of the term "hard-working."

The reforms eliminate multiple tax rates down to just a few.

Wrong. There will still be seven tax brackets. No different than before. The only difference is that the top rates come down. Again, if you make more than $500,000/year, awesome for you! Remember, the rate reduction is in marginal dollars earned, so the rate reduction is on your income above that number, not the entirety of your income.

Employers in Indiana have already seen the benefits of these tax reforms and have given their Indiana workers bonuses.

This is just stupid. The tax "reforms" haven't even kicked in yet, and no sentient being can possibly believe that a massive bill rammed through on party lines, which is unpopular on its merits, will last longer than the turning of the screw. If anyone believes that it will, I direct your attention to the dreaded "Obamacare."

Donnelly just complains that he wants middle class tax cuts, but wants to put higher taxes on the back of small businesses.

Uhhhh, where to even start with this. Mr. Sefton, American business profitability is at a percentage of GDP unmatched for two generations, and their return on investment is unmatched in recorded American history. Find a better argument, preferably one based on facts.

Donnelly has joined Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton on higher taxes.

Ahhh, let's roll that one out. It must be the shrill liberals, eh? Seriously, can anyone explain the relevance of this? I might as well say that Donald Trump has joined Benedict Arnold in his preference for "executive time." What is the point? It's just stupid ad hominem argumentation.

Taxpayers in Indiana deserve better leadership in the Senate.

I agree. Preferably, we could get leadership that isn't intent on helping the executive branch use the justice department to go after political enemies; maybe leadership that doesn't proudly steal Supreme Court seats. Just naming two things off the top of my head. 

The GOP has multiple candidates who will bring back common-sense leadership in the Senate.

Are we talking about in IN or nationally? Allow me to refrain from Roy Moore references as I note that Todd Rokita is roundly considered an a$$hole by the people who work for him, Luke Messer is (through his wife) feeding at the Fishers, IN, public trough to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars per month, and Mike Braun was a democrat for years prior to 2012 (apparently when he determined that being a Republican in Indiana carries better odds of electoral success).

The tax reform train has left the station and is heading back to Indiana, and the voters will remember that Donnelly has decided to take the train to nowhere.

We will remember, at least I will. Don't get me wrong, I have very little positive to say about Joe Donnelly. I am so tired of working to elect Democrats who promise to stand up to Republican idiocy, only to hear bromides to bipartisanship the moment the votes are counted. Joe, buddy, listen to me when I tell you that they don't want to work with you.

Anyway, join me in laughter at this idiocy or revel in my cluelessness. Either way, at least we live in the Garden Spot of Indiana (TM).

Transit Innovation

I want to clarify what I mean by "transit innovation." As an initial matter, I would prefer to have an underground train system throughout, at the least, the center of Indianapolis. Alas, it is very difficult, if not impractical, to get "there" from "here." That is why I am a fan of transit innovation. We are not stuck with a binary choice between spending billions of dollars on a train system and continuing to use the automobile for every trip.

There are alternatives.

These alternatives come in forms such as bus routes; biking routes; embrace of golf carts; walkable development.

I am not wed to any of the above ideas, nor have I dismissed other ideas that I didn't mention above. My point is that we cannot continue to expect that simply paving more roads will solve the problems that we will face as a growing community. We need to think practically about how we (a) maintain property values, not just in Speedway but in Indianapolis generally, and (b) how we marshall public resources for the best outcome (i.e. do we spend more money on roads, or do we try something else? Which option will result in the maximum amount of utility and human happiness?).

Why I Support Transit Innovation

Speedway has been around for a long time. The houses are old. The land has a lot of history, to put it kindly. While my neighborhood was initially seen as green field development at the edge of Indianapolis, that is no longer the case. Some 40 years after my house was built and 100 years after Main St. and IMS were built, these things are about as near Monument Circle as much of anything else. Don't forget; Monument Circle is the spiritual, if not physical, center of the State.

Speedway will never again be the newest suburb with the newest houses. That ship has sailed. I tend to believe that Speedway must, imperatively, capitalize on its assets while it still can. I read an old piece in the Urbanophile that discussed the life span of suburbs:

When you offer an older, inferior version of the same basic auto-oriented product as the suburbs, but with higher taxes, don’t expect many takers.

I think that is the essence of it; Speedway can either be the "older, inferior version" of Carmel, Avon, etc., or it can be the place where you can live and be connected with the remainder of Speedway as well as downtown Indianapolis. Frankly, I could not care less if they construct something out to the east side; I don't live there and rarely go there (if I can help it).

This goes along with my previously expressed beliefs and thoughts about golf carts and bike paths through Speedway. Urbanism is the key, people. We are not a green field suburb anymore. We can either be a part of "slumburbia" or we can remain a bona fide neighborhood set inside of a great American metropolis. We can embrace our urban nature or fight and deny it. As I say with so many things, the choice is ours. We get the future we deserve.

Trickle Down

I can't take credit for this cartoon, as I didn't draw it. It is, however, quite awesome:

Happy New Year.

Aspirations for 2018

I hate resolutions. I'm not generally a resolute individual. However, I do like to believe that I am an aspirational person. With that in mind, I offer aspirations for 2018:

1. Reform of Occupational Licensure Requirements

I am not a conservative, so I am told, but nothing erodes freedoms more than economic regulations that can deprive one of his ability to make a living and feed his family. It matters not to me whether one makes his/her living braiding hair, making dog treats, doing paralegal work, or coding medical bills. I don't see that a license is necessary to do any of this, much less a license that necessitates thousands of dollars in training that an employer used to provide(s).

Instead of having a highly trained and mercenary work force, we instead have the same work force with large tuition debt hanging over them; we have made society worse. Let's stop doing that. Instead, how about we allow people to pursue a livelihood without throwing up gratuitous barriers.

As a final note on this point, I can't help but think that so many occupational licensure requirements are simply "incumbent protection rackets." For example, the fact that an English teacher who is fully certified in Michigan has to sit through a battery of tests in Indiana to teach English is nothing but a protection racket for IN English teachers (a member of such group as I used to identify). Requiring thousands of dollars in gratuitous and unnecessary "training" to become a hair stylist merely serves to limit the universe of hair stylists and drive up the cost of stylist services. This makes everyone except incumbent stylists poorer: consumers pay more, aspiring stylists can't get into the industry. I could go on and on about this, as there are so many useless occupational licensing requirements it makes one's head spin.

2. Minimization of Land Use and Zoning Regulations

I view land use and zoning regulations, to a lesser extent, in a similar vein as occupational licensure requirements. Zoning does nothing but make incumbent landowners wealthier in most cases. Why can't someone who owns a home on Lynhurst open a public business there? What about on 15th St?* I also think that if someone is so inclined, he should be able to buy a parcel on Main St. and build whatever the hell he wants on it so long as he is not bothering others with his use of his own property. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. I fully recognize that some in this community don't necessarily see eye to eye with me on this. I do sincerely hope we can all agree to disagree.

3. Decriminalization of Harmless Behavior

There is a concept in the law known as "standing." It essentially says that you can't bring a lawsuit unless you can show a few things, including that you, the complainant, have been harmed. Generally, the enforcement of a law is presumed to be in the public interest, conferring standing on the prosecutor's office.

What if the elimination of the criminalized behavior is not in the public interest? What if enforcement of certain laws creates more of the undesirable behavior that we seek to eliminate in the first place?

The War on Drugs is the first thing that comes to mind. Unless a prosecuting authority can demonstrate that an actual human being was harmed, the prosecution should fail as a matter of policy. If there is an arms-length transaction, who really cares what is exchanged? Particularly with respect to marijuana, who cares? If an adult, who has full agency and freedom, decides to spend his hard-earned money on some pot, who cares? Why do we then tax that same adult to hire police and build prisons so that people who participate in this exact same behavior can become wards of the state? What in the hell are we doing?

Another example is prostitution. I certainly have a problem with human trafficking and the like, but again with the arms-length transaction . . . if a woman wants to sell an hour of her time doing "whatever" for a considerably larger amount than she could otherwise command for an hour of her time, who am I to say that I know better? I grant you that if there were "ladies of the night" "plying their trade" in Meadowood Park, my position would be different, as the entire community would be harmed in such an instance. However, if she sells her goods for three hours per night, out of her own home, what business is it of mine?

I could go on, but I think that the point has been made. Enough expenditure of public resources on morality crusades, which brings us to the next point . . .

4. Judicious and Equitable Use of Public Funds

I could go on for some time about this, whether we are talking about using public money to finance a private developer's parking garage or using public money to finance enforcement of some theocrat's version of morality, enough is enough.

Along those same lines, I know that there has been considerable discussion of late of the antics of Scott Harris vis a vis the Redevelopment Commission and the State Board of Accounts. Is it too much to expect to have the system, from which Mr. Harris repeatedly embezzled thousands of dollars, to institute reforms? Is it too much to require that anyone who handles public funds post a performance bond? I don't think so, but I'm not on the Town Council. Perhaps we should ask them.

Additionally, as pertains "equitable" use of public funds, can we think long and hard about who benefits from public expenditure and whether they need it? Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled that IMS is here and I recognize that it is the lifeblood of Speedway, if not Indianapolis. Nonetheless, I don't think that IMS needs taxpayer handouts any more than Mr. Billionaire/3 and 13/$750m stadium Jim Irsay needs our money, or the Simon family needs our money. Somehow, they all manage to get my tax money; I guess they need that money more than I do? I am perfectly happy to see my tax money spent to maintain and improve Speedway's schools, roads, sidewalks, parks, etc. I'm happy to see public money go to having free meals for poor kids when school isn't in session. It grates me a bit when those who are wealthy beyond my wildest dreams have their hands in the public till. Have you no shame?

5. Forward-Looking Use of Public Resources

This is the flip side of the "use of public funds" wish. I am given to understand that the Speedway Redevelopment Commission presently owns approximately $5m worth of real estate, primarily near the intersection of Crawfordsville Rd. and I-465. To those on the SRC, PLEASE think ahead when you determine what to do with this property. I do not believe that time is of the essence when it comes to alienating and developing that property; getting it right is of primary importance.

I am sure that a developer is more than willing to put a medical office park there. Woo frickin' hoo. Isn't that what was initially at the development just northwest of Crawfordsville/Lynhurst? Look at what a blight that is now. If you want to see more examples, just drive around Indianapolis and look at all of the initially-profitable-but-now-blighted medical office parks around the city. They're useful for perhaps 10 years as Class A office space, then they become Class B, eventually turning into essentially garbage office space, suitable for very little except for exceedingly cheap rent.

I am similarly sure that a developer would be willing to build a regular office park there. I believe that the same dynamic applies that applies to medical office parks. Office buildings retain their value when they are in desirable places, i.e. on the Circle, on Mass Ave., etc. Perhaps an office building would retain value on Main St., but even that is questionable.

I could sit here for hours and list all the things I don't want to see there. What would I like? Frankly, I don't know; an outdoor concert venue would be wonderful but I question whether it would be viable.

CONCLUSION

I write this post not as a rant but as an aspiration for the new year. As I am not an elected official in any capacity, there is very little I can do about these things other than apply pressure to public officials. That is one of the beauties of Speedway. I am one of only about 12,000 people who live here. Compare this to a citizen of Indianapolis, who is one of roughly 864,000 people who live there. As far as I can calculate, that means that I have 72X the influence in Speedway that I would have in Indianapolis.

As 2017 (a truly horrible year that I am happy to see close) fades into memory, I can reflect on my good fortune to live in a community such as this one and do my best to see to it that Speedway continues to thrive and improve. Here's to 2018; Cheers!





* As with most of these ideas, there is a legitimate end point even if I can't explicitly state where that is. I do not believe that food regulations should be eliminated, nor do I think that someone should be able to open another Crystal Clean in the middle of a residential area. I do, however, think that people should be able to do business in more places than they currently can. Also, I believe that some occupational licenses are necessary. I prefer that my healthcare provider be trained in providing healthcare. Unfortunately, however, so many of these licensure requirements have become rackets designed solely to protect the incumbents in the market at the expense of new entrants and a dynamic market.