"A Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious"

This was a phrase my father used to use: a blinding glimpse of the obvious. Essentially, it meant that for anyone paying attention, the answer to whatever question being posed was right in front of you the entire time.

In light of that phrase, I present this article from The Atlantic. A few notable quotes:

The most basic criticism of the GOP’s tax cut was that the boons for corporations and their shareholders would far outweigh the benefits for ordinary workers. That’s exactly what seems to be happening. Stock buybacks announced between January 1st and February 15th reached historically high levels, totaling about $170 billion in that period. That’s 28 times larger than the total value of end-of-year bonuses that were credited to the corporate tax bill—some of which had been announced months earlier and had nothing to do with the tax cuts. Companies might be advertising new bonuses. But they’re quietly reaping the benefits of higher profits.

Well, for those who actually believed all of the noise about trickle-down economics, notwithstanding the absolute absence of any evidence to support the conservative-predicted effects of this tax cut; for those who slept through the Bush era, perhaps this is news.

I remember the Bush tax cuts; I remember the predicted wave of American awesomeness. Funny thing is, this economic BOOM that was predicted . . . I don't remember it. 

However, being the liberal I am (as they say, liberals refuse to even take their own side in an argument), it's only fair to also present this quote:

Nothing like this has happened before—a massive, deficit-busting tax cut on capital during a period of steady growth and nearly full employment.

Economic historians can’t easily predict what’s going to happen because big rich countries practically never do what Republicans just did. 

Well, in sum:

It all adds up to this: The GOP law was always an enduring corporate tax cut advertised as fast middle-class tax relief. But because it represents a novel fiscal experiment, it’s not entirely clear what the short-term or long-term implications of the plan will be. If I wrote, “The GOP tax cut is essentially a discount coupon for technology that will raise corporate profits at the expense of labor in the long run,” I’d be telling a reasonable story. If I wrote, “The GOP tax cut is an inflation machine that will raise the price of goods and labor and encourage the Fed to raise rates accordingly, thus punishing corporate profits,” I’d also be telling a reasonable story.

Maybe I've been the naive one. Perhaps the GOP repeatedly cuts taxes on the wealthy and on corporations not because they want to help the non-wealthy and actual human beings, but because they earnestly believe that the most pressing problem in America is that wealthy people and corporations are taxed too little. I guess when someone shows you who he is, you should believe him.

Chicken Hawks

Regrettably, I allowed myself to comment on a "debate" on NextDoor regarding the NRA's supposed "Don't be a Victim" conference. One thing I have noted about the pro-gun crowd is how quickly most people are to bring up the notion that they "won't be victims" to "thugs." Formulate this anyway you want, it sounds to me like some people have seen one too many bad action flicks.

Case in point: the NRA likes to say that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." OK. Where was the "good guy with a gun" at the Broward Co. HS while the shooter was offing teenagers? Waiting outside.

To be clear, this is a person who is ostensibly trained to address "threats" such as this.

He was waiting outside.

Now, I don't mean to pile on this poor guy. For the rest of his life, he will have to look in the mirror and admit to himself that when the time came, the time that would have defined his entire life, he hesitated.

Nonetheless, I continue to hear all NRA pro-gun types talk as though, what with their 30 minutes/month on an empty shooting range, they will be the heroes that save the day. Case in point:

The president also said he would have run into the South Florida high school where 17 students and faculty members were killed in a mass shooting, even if he was not armed, and he criticized law enforcement officials who were at the scene of the school shooting but did nothing to try to stop it. He called their performances “frankly disgusting.”

Interesting, isn't it, how people get their courage up after the fact to talk about what they would have done in a particular situation.

For a small intellectual exercise, let's just contemplate a few questions:
Q1. Has Donald Trump ever been faced with a situation where he may have been required to confront a "bad guy with a gun" who wanted to shoot at him?
 A1: As it turns out, Donald Trump was alive during the Vietnam War, and he was drafted.

Q2: Assuming that Donald Trump was faced with a situation where he would have been required to confront a "bad guy with a gun" who wanted to shoot him, would Donald Trump have rushed into the situation, even if he was not armed.
A2: No. He wouldn't. In fact, Donald Trump received draft deferments in 1964, 1965, and 1966 under the 2-S (college deferment) program. He then received a deferment in 1968 for a supposedly short-term medical problem (bone spurs in his feet); on Feb. 17, 1972, he was permanently classified as unfit for medical service.

All of this "good guy with a gun" post hoc discussion is nothing but chicken-hawkery at its worst.

"Cultural Totem"

This amazing piece from Doug Masson should be required reading for thoughtful people who have a difficult time understanding the absolute resistance to any form of gun control, no matter how modest and marginal.

A quote:

The gun-as-cultural-totem is a much more emotional issue. A totem is a spirit being, sacred object, or symbol that serves as an emblem of a group of people. So, when firearms are serving this purpose, the gun control issue bleeds into a person’s identity and their view of what it means to be an American. It becomes a marker for who is “Us” and who is “Them.” Real Americans versus The Other. Those who wish to preserve the culture of the country they love versus those who are contributing to the cultural decay in these Fallen Times. When you enact firearm legislation, you aren’t regulating the proper distribution of a tool. Rather, you’re empowering the forces of rot and ruin while emasculating the morally upright who embrace the true values of this country. With respect to this group, you can’t do a lot in the way of regulation without stabbing at the core of who they are.

In this respect, I think the NRA and other agents of gun manufacturers have probably taken a marketing cue from the likes of Coke and Pepsi. It’s tough to develop loyalty and move product when you’re selling sugar water.  But, when you’re selling an image or a lifestyle, you can transcend the utility of the underlying product by creating an emotional connection to the product. This emotional connection to firearms makes the discussion about appropriate regulations much more difficult. And, when the discussion centers on the firearm-as-tool, the discussion will ultimately miss the point since the utility of the object really isn’t at the heart of objections over that regulation.

I would highly encourage anyone to read the whole thing. 

Arming Teachers?

This might be the stupidest idea I've ever heard. I'm a former teacher; I didn't get into teaching so I could carry a gun to work. If I wanted to do that, I would've grown a mustache and joined the Army or become a cop.

As to anyone who supports this idea, I will tell you in precise detail why this is such a stupid idea as soon as you explain to me in precise detail why the gun show loophole (which, frankly, would allow the head of ISIS to buy an assault rifle at the Pepsi Coliseum, no questions asked) shouldn't be closed, and why the assault weapon ban shouldn't be reinstated.

Once you're done defending those two indefensible things, I will defend the utterly reasonable position that teachers should not be compelled to be soldiers.

Further, we know that those who suggest arming teachers aren't serious, aren't sincere, and don't mean to do anything because they (a) have not actually introduced any legislation and (b) refuse to address the actual bills that Congress could actually pass right now.

I mean, just look at what the super-majority Republican IN legislature did in the wake of the latest mass school shooting: made it so that people could bring guns into schools that share physical space with churches.

Georgetown Rd. Closure

I don't really care. There, I said it. I don't care . . . largely because it does not affect me.

Perhaps I should clarify the above statement. I don't have any problem with the closure of Georgetown Rd. In fact, I am happy that it happened, not so much because Georgetown Rd. is now closed to thru-traffic, but because it has enabled the development of the roundabout at 16th/Main/Crawfordsville and the entryway to to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

For the Russian trolls reading this site (f*** you for messing with our election and saddling us with Donald Trump), Georgetown Rd. is a north/south road in Indianapolis that used to run from 16th Street on the south end to Lafayette Rd. on the north end; it ran right next to the west end of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and enabled traffic to go from 30th Street to 16th Street. It is now a dead end just north of 16th Street.

Here is a map as Georgetown Rd. used to be, with a big red arrow showing the part that is now a roundabout:

Please note that the picture is not perfectly oriented. Where the arrow points is now a roundabout and is actually at the southwest corner of the track. Note also that the road running parallel with the north end of the track is 25th Street. For a map (which I had problems embedding today for some reason), see here. That intersection, which used to rank as one of the worst and most dangerous intersections in Indianapolis, is now a roundabout (which, if the research in Carmel is to be believed, renders the intersection considerably safer than it once was.

(Gratuitous picture of Georgetown Rd. on race day):

Anyway, many people in Speedway seem upset about this closure of Georgetown Rd. I've noticed that the anger over this development is largely concentrated in two camps:

Camp 1: These people generally reside on Auburn Street, which is the next street to the west upon which traffic can get from 25th Street down to Crawfordsville Rd. This was previously (and still officially is) a "side street." Traffic that would otherwise have gone down Georgetown Rd. now goes down their street. I find Camp 1 to have a legitimate grievance that is eminently solvable. All one needs to do is have Auburn Street go one way north from 21st to 25th, and one way south from 21st to Crawfordsville Rd. Problem solved. Of course, this would require a little bit of change for the residents of Auburn St. I don't blame people for wanting things to not inconvenience them, but this is a very solvable problem.

Camp 2: I find Camp 2 to be considerably more difficult to stomach. Generally, Camp 2 is populated by people who seem, to me at least, to be contrarian by nature and believe that by being contrarian to and nitpicking at the Speedway Town Council and the Speedway Redevelopment Commission, they are somehow "sticking it to the man" or "looking out for the little guy." Newsflash Captain Contrarian - your constant complaining doesn't help anything. If you have such a problem with what the Speedway Redevelopment Commission has done in the past decade, go ahead and sell your house (in this white-hot housing market). Go ahead and pocket the tens of thousands of dollars in appreciated real estate from which you have benefitted, largely thanks to the forward-thinking members of the Town Council (reminder, not all of them are forward thinking) and the Speedway Redevelopment Commission (which is certainly fallible but not worthy of the derision heaped upon it).

Bottom line: change is hard. I'm certain that when the Meadowood Park neighborhood was built back in the mid 1960s, plenty of people had a problem with it. "It's gonna destroy the character of the Town!" However, if Speedway refuses to change, Speedway will only deteriorate.

Again, if Speedway refuses to change, Speedway will only deteriorate.

The Most Prescient Show of Our Time

I know that the Simpsons jumped the shark long ago. Nonetheless, I can't think of another television show in my lifetime that has been even remotely as smart, funny, and on point. In light of that, I give you today's video postings:

Bad Faith Argument

"Bad Faith" is a term that is thrown around a lot in the industry in which I work (litigation, insurance). I think that it is a term of art in the world of insurance, but I'm talking about the greater notion of "arguing in bad faith."

Lets try an example: I think that there is little doubt that I am pro-teachers unions. I used to be an official in one. If one of my readers proposes busting the Speedway Teachers Union, there is no doubt that I would be opposed to it on the grounds that I am pro-union. However, if I argued that, while I too hate unions, the best way to get rid of them is to encourage people to willfully quit the union by paying the teachers better and giving them fewer responsibilities; that is a bad-faith argument. I have claimed to support goals that I do not, in fact, support; I would have then used my supposed shared purpose to advocate a policy that achieves the exact opposite effect.

Here's another example: Staying with the unions, if one of my readers proposed busting the Speedway Teachers Union and I responded by attacking the motives of the person making the proposal . . . "You just want to bust up the union because you couldn't hack it as a classroom teacher and now you want to punish those who can because you're jealous." That too is a bad-faith argument. I would not have addressed the merits of the argument and instead responded with an ad hominem attack.

One final example: Again with the union, instead of responding to the proposal to bust the union by refusing to state my real goal or attacking the person making the proposal, I instead attack the motivations of the person making the proposal. "You don't care about the teacher's union; you're just trying to score political points so you can run for Town Council." Again, I would have failed to address the merits of the argument and instead have attacked the motives of my opponent.

Let's play a parlor game this weekend, as discussion of guns and so much else fills up the Sunday morning talk shows and the Friday evening PBS political discussions: How many times can you spot these three examples of bad faith argumentation? Here they are, once again:
1. Lying about your goals;
2. Attacking the opponent, not the idea;
3. Attacking/questioning the motives of the person proposing an idea, and not attacking the idea.

Please share any examples you may find.

The 2nd Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I am always stricken by how many people focus on the latter part of this Amendment at the expense of the former. The Amendment could have read, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." 

It doesn't.

Rule of Construction #1 is that every word of a contract, law, regulation, etc., should be given meaning. As I pointed out above, the 2nd Amendment could have been shorter, more direct, and more to the point. It wasn't and it isn't.

The next time some NRA absolutist starts spouting off about his 2nd Amendment rights, perhaps my readers can calmly (and without making any sudden moves, lest you upset the delicate snowflake and get shot) direct him to the first part about "well-regulated" and ask this NRA absolutist to what degree he feels his right to bear arms should be regulated in order to be "well regulated" and within the confines of the 2nd Amendment.

Absent the well regulated part, it isn't a constitutional issue and is instead a policy decision made by our elected "leaders."

On the FL School Shooting and the FBI

I have noticed that many of the Trump Defenders and Gun-Rights people (generally the same crowd, amirite?) have taken to furrowing their brows at this notion that law enforcement "dropped the ball" as pertains the FL school shooter.

What ball(s) did they drop? (Insert Tea Party Joke here).

Let's just play this out a bit. Say the FBI field office in Miami coordinated with the Broward County Sheriff's office and apprehended the shooter a month ago.

As of that time, he was a "law-abiding gun owner." If the FBI had taken his guns away from him, what do you think the position of the NRA/Right Wing/Trump Administration would have been? Would it have been:
a. Good job law enforcement. You guys acted on a tip and managed to prevent the needless tragedy of some guy shooting up a high school; or
b. This is just another example of why we need our guns; these overreaching, jack-booted government thugs want to come and deprive law-abiding citizens of their rights!

If you choose A, I have some ocean-front property in Speedway I'd love to sell you; and that is why I believe that all of this talk about "the problem is mental health, not guns" is just a red herring. As soon as someone wants to do something about "mentally ill" people carrying guns, the same NRA/Right Wingers immediately start accusing people of depriving others of their constitutional rights.

Also, as a small aside, don't the same people who continually try to push the blame for these shootings on mental health simultaneously, deliberately, and ceaselessly attempt to defund public health programs?

I, for one, am tired of being bullied by a small sliver of our population that has somehow equated hatred of your own government with love of your country. I am tired of being bullied by people who continually operate in bad faith. I am tired of being bullied by people who refuse to read the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment; who refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of their willful misreading.

Perhaps the next time society approaches gun control, the gun owners of America will attempt to show at least half as much respect for those of us who (a) don't want to own a gun and (b) don't want to live in a society that requires gun ownership as we have shown for them (and their misguided fetishization of lethal weapons).

An Open Letter to Congress

To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:
We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford

Jimmy Carter

Ronald Reagan

Dated: May 3, 1994 

Sympathy for the Trump Voter

I am a liberal, at least as it is defined in our modern parlance. I don't think that this is any big secret.

With that said, I too often hear the stories about Republican voters voting against their own self interest. Thomas Frank memorably wrote, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" on the topic. Lately, it seems that a number of "mainstream" media sources have had a field day with their, "look at these dupes who voted for Donald Trump and got screwed" pieces. See here, here, and here.

While I have my own policy preferences (which very much do not align with our current president's preferences), I am disinclined to view President Trump's voters as dupes. Allow me to explain.

First, I believe that most Republican partisans were going to vote for the Republican nominee regardless of who it was. This is in line with Grover Norquist's preference to have a president who can simply operate a pen sufficiently to sign conservative legislation. I have many friends and family who fall into this category: reluctant Trump voters, reliable Republicans. Some Republicans did not vote for Donald Trump. A friend for whom I have great respect wrote in a vote for Paul Ryan. I disagree with the choice of write-in, but I can respect the man for voting his conscience.

With all that said, there was a new kind of voter coming out for Trump; a first-time voter who previously cared very little for politics. I have great respect for him as well and can understand his perspective.

This guy (let's call him Rick) grew up in a fairly small town in Indiana. His family ran a business and he worked like a rented mule from the time he was about 6 for that family business. He always figured that if he worked hard and played by the rules, he would someday take over the family business and enjoy a reasonable modicum of prospecrity. He always worked hard and he eventually did take over the family business, only to find out that the family business was no longer profitable due to competition from big box stores and foreign imports. Now, Rick works in one of those big box stores for something like $14/hour.

Think of that fall from grace for Rick. He did everything right. He worked hard; he stayed close to home; he waited to get married until he had professional prospects (or so he thought); he waited to have kids until he got married; he developed expertise in a given field.

He works at WalMart.

Rick is far from the only guy in this position.

I was raised to believe that each generation stands on the shoulders of the generation before them. In other words, while my great grandfather may have been a sharecropper (he was), his son/my grandfather was able to become a soil and water conservation officer after fighting in WWII (he was as well), and his granddaughter/my mother could go to Henry Ford Hospital to learn to be a nurse, and his great grandsons (my brother and myself) could go on to be a doctor and lawyer, respectively. That is the land of opportunity that I was taught to believe America was.

Regrettably, there are a lot of people, like Rick, for whom this contract has been breached. Rick worked hard, did the right thing, took care of his family, and looked out for his community. What was his reward? Hourly wages just enough to keep him from starving, but not enough to keep him from losing his "pride of place"; an economy that assessed what he had to offer and said "No thanks, we can find it cheaper overseas."

No wonder Rick, and so many like him, want to see the system burned down. For Rick, the system burned down long ago and the only part that remains serves to benefit those who burned it down in the first place. Might as well see them suffer as he has.

DISCLAIMER: Rick is an amalgamation of more than one person I know and is not any single person. Numerous people's stories have been combined for clarity and brevity.

Self Dealing

As any reader of this blog knows, I am a supporter of the efforts by the Redevelopment Commission. Full stop.

I am also a fan of using government to make its citizens' lives better. Full stop.

However, as to both topics (really, the Redevelopment Commission is a sub-topic of the "use government to make peoples' lives better" topic), it is entirely destroyed if one uses such interventions for personal enrichment.

I do now know the veracity of this, but I have heard that a former member of the Redevelopment Commission has bought as many liquor licenses as possible in Speedway through his participation in the commission. As I said at the outset, I don't have an opinion on the veracity of this rumor, and I know that rumors can spread through this small town quicker than wildfire.

Nonetheless, my point is that we live in a time of such cynicism toward our own government that a significant plurality of the society sincerely believes that "government is the problem," and would rather turn our labor laws over to the roofing subcontractors of the world, our environmental laws over to the oil refiners of the world, and our financial laws over to the payday lenders of the world. Self dealing, as described above, only makes this cynicism worse.

If you know about public officials' self dealing, please let me know and I will do my best to publicize it insofar as I am able. I believe we are fortunate to have ethical leadership here in Speedway. However, I am troubled by this rumor and sincerely aim to be vigilant with respect to the government's fulfillment of duties toward the citizenry.

Senator Todd Young's Response to Mass Shootings

I was told that Sen. Todd Young, a Marine (as he would never let anyone forget) was a man of action. He would keep Hoosiers safe! I am starting to wonder whether that safety is only important when the potential perpetrator is a brown-skinned man of a different religion from a different country. Heaven forbid that Senator G.I. Joe do something, anything, to protect his constituents from the depravities of mass shooters here at home.

(As an aside, why are these mass shooters not called "terrorists?" The only thing I can think of is that "terrorist" has come to imply "muslim" in our popular discourse, but I would like to think I'm wrong about that.)

Anyway, my wife and I emailed Sen. Todd Young and pleaded that he do something, anything, to make the procurement of military grade assault rifles more difficult. Below is his vacuous response, annotated with the thoughts of yours truly:

Thank you for contacting me regarding gun violence and the 2nd Amendment.  I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

Senator Young, we do not appreciate contacting you on this issue. We are forced to contact you on this issue, over and over again, because you refuse to do anything about it. You're more than willing to impose onerous requirements for people to vote, notwithstanding the absence of any evidence whatsoever that in-person voter fraud is a problem in IN; however, you refuse to do anything about assault weapon proliferation, notwithstanding the monthly mass shootings using such assault weapons.

          As your Senator, I respect that Hoosiers have strong and diverse feelings on how to prevent gun violence while protecting the 2nd Amendment rights.

I'm calling bullshit. You don't respect my feelings on the 2nd Amendment, nor do you respect the actual text of the 2nd Amendment. You respect a lowest-common-denominator version of the 2nd Amendment that races us to the bottom.

I strongly believe in upholding the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, and I know we all share a common desire to prevent acts of gun violence, such as through strengthening mental health, enforcing current gun laws, and fully funding our existing background check system.   

Notably absent? Any discussion of banning military assault weapons for civilian ownership. Where does Sen. Young stand on my right to own an M-60? My right to landmine my front yard? My right to own a tank? Given his stance on assault rifles, I think my questions are reasonable. Sen. Young, does the 2nd Amendment protect my right to build and possess a hydrogen bomb?

And Sen. Young, you weren't elected to "share a common desire" to do anything. The difference between you and me, Sen. Young, is that you have 1 of 100 votes in the U.S. Senate. I don't. You are a member of a very elite club. Did you seek to join that club to be a senator or to do something with the power that being a senator carries? It's one or the other, and I suspect it is much more of the former than the latter.

          As criminal investigations move forward in the recent Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs attacks, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on firearm accessory regulation and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System on December 6, 2017. Although I am not a member of the Committee, please be assured that I will continue to support efforts to prevent violence while upholding the 2nd Amendment right of law-abiding Americans.

Criminal investigations? We know who did it. We know who died. We know the type of gun used. The perpetrator has been charged. There is no "investigation" to speak of. The only question that remains unanswered is why "we" (by which I mean You, Sen. Young, and your bought-and-paid-for cronies) cannot or will not do anything to stop it. What will you do Sen. Young, other than cash your campaign check from the NRA? "Continue to support their efforts?" Spare me.

          Again, thank you for contacting me.  It is an honor to represent you in the United States Senate.

You're not welcome Senator. It is a shame and an embarrassment to be represented by you in the United States Senate. I recall when we had senators of whom we could be proud . . . Richard Lugar, I turn my lonely eyes to you. Governor Holcomb, you're our only hope.

Counting Freedom

I hear lots of discussion of gun ownership as a function of "freedom." I suppose that "freedom" is the "freedom" to own a device capable of killing multiple people per minute?

Before getting into this discussion, a note about the 2nd Amendment. As the reader of this blog knows, I am an attorney; I have taken constitutional law; I have read the Constitution and its amendments more than once. Insofar as we discuss the 2nd Amendment, any argument that takes the general form of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not warrant a response from me for this simple reason: If you, Mr. Pro Gun Rights, can read out of the 2nd Amendment the part about "well-regulated militia," then I, Mr. Gun Control, might as well read out the part about "not be infringed." Pure and simple.

Moving on.

People talk about "freedom" a lot. What about my freedoms? What about my freedom to send my kids to school, here in Speedway, and not have them come home with bullets in them? What about the freedom of those high school kids in Florida to get their education without getting shot at in the process? What about the churchgoers in Texas and their freedom to worship freely without being shot? Concert goers in Nevada? People in Orlando who simply wanted to go out for some drinks and dancing? Parents to send their small children to school without being slaughtered? People to go see a Batman movie without someone using the theater to "shoot fish in a barrel"?

Why is it that some guy's right to own a mass killing device (no doubt to compensate for the sub-standard size of his genitalia) trumps all of these peoples' right to simply live their lives without fear of being slaughtered?

Rights are constantly balanced. My right to due process is balanced against the State's rights to swift justice. My free-speech rights are curtailed in numerous ways . . . an obvious example is that I can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, thereby inducing a panic. The old saw is that my right to swing my fist through the air ends as soon as my fist hits your face.

Well, the gun ownership fist of society has repeatedly hit the face of society's citizenry that merely wants to live its life in peace. As a reminder, while there are more guns than people in America, only about 1/3 Americans own a gun and 3% of Americans own 50% of its guns.

I am tired of this. I am tired of seeing slaughter so often that I can't even remember all of the ones in the past year. I am terrified of having to explain to my 5-year-old son why he needs to be prepared for someone to walk into his school and try to shoot him.

My generation has allowed this debate to go so far off the rails. We expected our Baby Boomer parents to be able to do something about this. We were foolish. Our Baby Boomer parents have solved precisely zero problems during their tenure in charge, and they need to be replaced.

We are the adults now. We are the ones responsible for the direction of our community. If we continue to do nothing about the proliferation of guns in our society, we will have nobody to blame but ourselves as these mass shootings happen again and again and again and again and again and again . . .

I will have more on this.

Huh . . .

Paul Ogden taught (maybe he still does) at my law school. He worked at the Dept. of Insurance and (seems to) despise my old boss Jim Atterholt. He writes this blog. He is from Indianapolis and very conservative. I agree with him on "next to nothing." 

He wrote this on his blog recently:

So two foreign nationals, the Australian diplomat and British intelligence officer Steele, reported to the FBI concerns about Russian interference in the 2016 election, while everyone on the Trump campaign team remained silent about the Russian contacts with the Trump campaign.

Read his blog yourself.

The Lives That Matter

Remember "Black Lives Matter"? I do.

Remember how people were convinced that saying that black people shouldn't be randomly shot by the police was somehow disrespectful? I do.

Another thing: remember how the protests were concentrated, in particular, in Baltimore? I do.

Well, an interesting story recently:

A federal jury convicted two Baltimore police detectives Monday for their roles in one of the biggest police corruption scandals in city history.

Detectives Daniel T. Hersl, 48, and Marcus R. Taylor, 31, were found guilty of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy and robbery. Prosecutors said they and their comrades on the Gun Trace Task Force had acted as “both cops and robbers,” using the power of their badges to steal large sums of money from residents under the guise of police work.

Please note that these are not allegations. These are convictions by a federal jury. The charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. More quotes about "the blue":

“Their business model was that the people that they were robbing had no recourse,” acting U.S. Attorney Stephen Schenning said after the verdict. “Who were they going to go to?”

To protect and serve, indeed. (BARF)

Prosecutors said police handcuffed a man, took his house keys broke into a safe in his basement and found $200,000. They took half the money, prosecutors said, returned the rest to the safe, and then filmed a video showing the officers “discovering” the smaller amount.

Exhibit A in why some people distrust the police. A (civil) defense attorney by trade, I am generally inclined to disbelieve accusations against people, particularly when levied by those in positions of authority. Stories like this don't help. I do, however, recognize that as a white male who earns an above-average living, I am a walking poster board for privilege, especially when it comes to the police.

Hersl was charged with taking part in the robbery of $20,000 from a Carroll County home after a man and his wife were detained without having committed a crime. Officers testified that Hersl was among a group that split up the money at a bar afterward.

I think my point has been made. For those who haven't grasped it, I will put the point in bold for you: The Black Lives Matter protests were justified, and the people participating therein had a point.

I wonder, though, what a Google search of "IMPD convicted" would turn up? Of course, we would get some David Bisard stories. Who among us has ever heard of the following, though:

• Christopher Charles' domestic violence issues;
• Allen Johnson's drinking/driving/crashing into telephone poles proclivities;
• Bryan Neal's "drinking and copping" hobby;
• John Constable using his girlfriend as a punching bag;
• David Butler stealing from the dead;
• Jason Edwards, Robert Long, and James Davis' drug-dealing ring; or
• Courtney Harris raping a woman while on duty.

I don't mean to pick on the IMPD. Coming from Ft. Wayne and having lived in Chicago, I can say that the IMPD is head and shoulders superior to the police force in those cities. Furthermore, I can say that my impression of the Speedway Police Department has been overwhelmingly positive. 

Nonetheless, remember these things the next time someone ponders why people would protest the police or mindlessly refers to the Black Lives Matter crowd as somehow "criminal." Sometimes, the police neither serve nor protect and instead merely victimize, just like those the police are paid to put in jail.

Public Trust Doctrine

There is a very old notion in the law called the "public trust" doctrine. It essentially states that the government holds certain things in trust for the public; that those things belong to the public and can't be sold by the government.

The doctrine, so far as I can tell, was initially applied in America when some prototypical Chicago politicians sold the lake bed underneath Lake Michigan to some cronies investors. Well, the issue has been a hot one in Indiana, and the Indiana Supreme Court recently addressed it in the matter of Gunderson, et al v. Indiana, et al.

The entire opinion is here, for those interested in reading it. A few interesting excerpts:

A century ago, our Court of Appeals recognized that, among those rights acquired upon admission to the Union, the State owns and holds “in trust” the lands under navigable waters within its borders, “including the shores or space between ordinary high and low water marks, for the benefit of the people of the state.”

Indiana “in its sovereign capacity is without power to convey or curtail the right of its people in the bed of Lake Michigan.” 

That is the public trust doctrine, as Justice Massa so ably states.

 But the question remains: What is the precise boundary at which the State’s ownership interest ends and private property interests begin?

The nature of the dispute was that people who owned beachfront property on Lake Michigan didn't want people walking along the beach on "their" property. As Justice Massa asked, however, "Where does private property end and State property begin?"

Today, we hold that the boundary separating public trust land from privately-owned riparian land along the shores of Lake Michigan is the common-law ordinary high water mark and that, absent an authorized legislative conveyance, the State retains exclusive title up to that boundary. We therefore affirm the trial court’s ruling that the State holds title to the Lake Michigan shores in trust for the public but reverse the court’s decision that private property interests here overlap with those of the State.

That is the law in Indiana, as announced by the state Supreme Court. Here are a few more interesting quotes from the opinion:

The basic controversy here is whether the State holds exclusive title to the exposed shore of Lake Michigan up to the OHWM, or whether the Gundersons, as riparian property owners, hold title to the water’s edge, thus excluding public use of the beach.

For the record, OHWM stands for "ordinary high water mark." So, the question is whether property owners' rights extend to the water, or merely to the high water mark.

Here are some more interesting quotes. Please note, these are excerpts from the case. If you want to understand the matter fully, I suggest you contact an attorney.

At the conclusion of the American Revolution, the people of the original thirteen states, as successors to the Crown, “became themselves sovereign” and acquired “the absolute right to all their navigable waters and the soils under them for their own common use, subject only to the rights since surrendered by the Constitution to the general government.” Waddell’s Lessee, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) at 410. Those states subsequently admitted to the Union, on an “equal footing” with the original thirteen, likewise acquired title to the lands underlying the waters within their boundaries that were navigable at the 8 time of statehood.

The State of Indiana, upon admission to the Union in 1816, acquired title to the shores and submerged lands of all navigable waters within its borders[.]

Shively acknowledged Congress’s authority to make pre-statehood “grants of lands below high-water mark of navigable waters” as necessary “to perform international obligations, or to effect the improvement of such lands for the promotion and convenience of commerce with foreign nations and among the several states.” 152 U.S. at 48. But such grants are extremely rare[.]

A thorough examination of the authorities reveals that variations in characterizing equalfooting lands are simply alternative expressions of the same rule of law: lands on the waterbody side of the OHWM pass to new states as an incident of sovereignty, whereas lands on the upland 14 side of the OHWM are available for federal patent and private ownership.

Rather than positioning the OHWM at the water’s edge, early American common law defined that boundary as the point “where the presence and action of water are so common and usual . . . as to mark upon the soil of the bed a character distinct from that of the banks, in respect to vegetation, as well as in respect to the nature of the soil itself.”

For anyone who was interested in a legalese-laden discussion about riparian rights, congratulations! Today's the day!

 

 

More Bad Ideas from America's Worst Legislature

We are indeed blessed, in a certain sense of the word, to live in Indiana. There is no shortage of stupidity going on in our state legislature to mock!

Here is the latest:

Conservative groups urged Indiana lawmakers Thursday to pass a bill that would require parents to “opt in” in order for their children to take sex education classes in public schools.

The proposal, which was debated during a House committee hearing, would require parents to be notified — and give them the opportunity to review — any curriculum dealing with sexual activity, sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill would also prohibit public schools from providing that education without a parent’s written permission.

House Speaker Brian Bosma said it’s appropriate for parents to make these decisions and “not local teachers or school administrators.”

Well, I think that the "conservative groups" referenced in the story are the same conservative groups that gave us RFRA and refuse to allow a Hate Crimes bill to be passed in Indiana (at least one that actually protects marginalized groups).

As always, Speaker Brian Bosma sounds reasonable here. The only problem is that this is already a decision that is made by parents. The only difference is that Indiana presently has an "opt-out" system, whereby the little precious snowflakes (and I mean the "conservative" parents) can opt out of their children learning about those awful liberal things (you know, like the biology of your own body).

The bill sponsored by GOP Sen. Dennis Kruse of Auburn is slated for a committee vote next week. It was previously approved by the full Senate.

Kruse praised the idea of requiring parent to “opt in” rather than merely giving them the opportunity to opt their kids out of sex ed. 

Now, former educator TableTopJoe has some experience with Dennis Kruse (he of the "creation curriculum" in science class). I tend to think that if Dennis Kruse had his way, his religion would trump science.

Sex education is not required under Indiana law, so schools handle it differently. Many use an opt-out manner where schools send notification to parents about sex education classes and parents must send the form back if they want their child excused from class.

Democrats on the committee said opt-out is working just fine. However, some people are critical of that approach, noting that silence from a parent doesn’t mean consent.

As a simple aside, I wonder how many of the "people [who] are critical" of the opt-out approach and note "that silence" "doesn't mean consent" adopt that position with respect to the "yes means yes" initiatives on some college campuses.

That aside, my real critique of this is that it imposes additional hurdles on teachers and schools (who are already drowning in obligations imposed on them by "conservative" "small government" lawmakers who want to shield their snowflake constituents from modernity).

If a parent is passionate that his/her child not learn about human sexuality, that parent has the right (and I would argue the obligation) to affirmatively opt the child out. There are so many parents that are busy and don't have the time to specifically "opt in" to curriculum, and imposing such a requirement is, for educational purposes not to mention societal ones, a terrible idea.

Perhaps the thing that would get through to Kruse and Company is a threat of what would happen if the screw turns: Sen. Kruse, should I be able to opt my own children out of subjects in school, including any and all positive mention of Ronald Reagan, movement conservatism, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, or supply-side economics? How about any and all positive mention of capitalism, Sen. Kruse? Should I be able to opt my children out of that? Is that wise policy or is it simply counter-productive micro management?

Russian Update

No collusion! No collusion! (Kind of makes you wonder whether the people yelling "no collusion" understand what the term "collusion" actually means, but nonetheless).

Here is an interesting update on the Mueller Russian Investigation:

Thirteen Russians and three Russian entities were charged Friday with an elaborate plot to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, federal prosecutors announced Friday.

The indictment, brought by the office of special counsel Robert Mueller, alleges that Russians used bogus social media postings and advertisements fraudulently purchased in the name of Americans to sway political opinion during the race between Republican Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent.

The charges are the most direct allegation to date of illegal Russian meddling in the election.

The goal, the indictment says, was to “sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 presidential election.” 

Charges include conspiracy, wire fraud, bank fraud and aggravated identity theft.

The charges arise from Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the election and whether there was improper coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

Before Friday, four people, including Trump’s former national security adviser and former campaign chairman, had been charged in Mueller’s investigation.

The White House had no immediate response to the indictment.

I have nothing to add; just wanted to share the information.

Legal Standing

I am pretty sure I've written about this before, but in light of a recent NextDoor post I saw, perhaps we should revisit the issue.

First off: What is standing? Simply put, standing is the right to bring a lawsuit. If someone almost runs me off the road but I'm not hurt, I can't sue that person.

Second: What are the requirements to have standing? Well, the Supreme Court has outlined what one must have in order to have standing:

1. One must have an injury in fact. 
2. One must be able to trace the injury in fact to the conduct complained of.
3. The injury must be able to be redressed by a favorable decision.

Taking them individually, I think I illustrated the first requirement above pretty well. If someone does something awful that almost or could have caused an injury to me, I don't have standing.

As to the second requirement, if Alan runs me off the road and I'm injured, I can't then sue Bob. Bob didn't cause my injury.

As to the third requirement, I cannot sue Duke Energy for climate change because even if I win the lawsuit, the court doesn't have the power to roll back global climate change. (Of course, I could sue to enjoin Duke from making the problem worse, but that is a VERY long discussion for another day).

As a final note, I know that ranting on NextDoor is a far cry from bringing a lawsuit. However, when I see people assert things about "negligence" and "liability," my legal radar perks up and any litigator will tell you that one of the first things you look at is whether the person complaining has standing.

On Guns (Again)

How many times are we going to do this?

Step 1: Guy kills a bunch of people in horrific fashion.
Step 2: People ask, "Why does this keep happening?"
Step 3: NRA types blame it on mental illness.
Step 4: People point out that America doesn't have a higher mental illness rate than other countries and that the only outlying stats are (a) gun ownership and (b) mass killings.
Step 5: NRA types offer their "thoughts and prayers."
Step 6: NOTHING HAPPENS.
Step 7: Repeat cycle.

Amazingly, when you do nothing in response to a repeating problem, the problem continues to repeat. This year is 36 days old, and we have had 24 school shootings.

This is shameful.

Not for nothing, this May, Speedway H.S. will graduate a new cohort of students. Not a single one of them will be old enough to buy a beer. Every one of them will be old enough to buy an assault weapon.

Does this make sense?

On Respect

I was watching the Olympic Games tonight, and was quite proud to see Shaun White win the gold medal. I was not aware of his recent injuries, etc. However, I couldn't help but notice thereafter, that Mr. White carried the American flag over his back for a moment, and then drug it along the ground, occasionally stepping on it.

I am not one who is given to empty sentimentality, and this is an action from which I would personally refrain. I do wonder, however, whether the Tweeter in Chief will have something to say about this. This was, by any metric, a casual disregard for the traditional understanding of "respect" for an American symbol. I don't believe that Mr. White meant to make any sort of a protest against America and I certainly don't dispute his right to do so if that was his intent. I just wonder whether this will engender the type of controversy that Colin Kapernick did.

It's not like Shaun White knelt during the National Anthem to protest the killing of people who looked like him by people who didn't in the name of the government that purported to represent him.

PLEASE!

Go read Paul Waldman's article in the Washington Post today. It could not be more spot on.

One single quote, as a teaser:

What we have to remember is that the deficit will increase significantly for the time Trump is the president. And then as soon as the next Democrat takes office, Republicans will once again cry that debt threatens to destroy America and that if we don’t immediately slash spending, we will be plunged into a dystopian nightmare of starvation and despair.

Time and again on this topic, the Republicans have proven they are operating in absolute bad faith. If the knowledge of that fact does not inform your understanding of everything they say about spending and deficits, you are a partner in their con.

Air BnB

There has been an ongoing "discussion" of sorts regarding Air BnB on Nextdoor of late. Leaving aside the ad hominem attacks that are the hallmark of any discussions among neighbors, I believe that there is a genuine controversy within this discussion that could use some fleshing out.

The fact of the matter, as with so many other matters, is that any policy regarding Air BnB will require trade-offs. Always remember: no matter how it is couched or how good it sounds, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

On the one hand, the Town of Speedway could take a complete "hands off" approach*. The upsides to that include a community affirmation of property rights, i.e. you can do whatever the hell you want with your own property. Also included as an upside is the opportunity for residents of Speedway to turn their own homes into profit centers by renting same out to visitors; it would also provide new customers for the retail businesses on Main Street, most notably the restaurants. These are all good things.

Of course, with the good comes the bad. It's a package deal. While people would be free to use their property as they see fit, that "as they see fit" could (and likely would) entail some pretty annoying stuff. Today that "as they see fit" might be renting to Air B n B travellers; tomorrow that "as they see fit" might be a brothel or CAFO. I would sincerely prefer to keep either of those uses out of my neighborhood. Also, what is the impact on real estate values? It is certainly possible that owning Speedway houses as Air B n B properties would be very profitable, encouraging others to buy such houses in the community. I'm all for my own home increasing in value, but if we're talking about a quick run-up followed by a precipitous crash, thanks but no thanks. Another potential problem would be with the tenants of these homes. Everybody likes visitors until the stereotypical obnoxious tourist shows up, partying all night, parking on people's yards, littering, etc. (If you're thinking of coming to Speedway to trash the place, and there is no 500-mile race going on this weekend, please go elsewhere.)

There are two sides to the "no regulation" coin. There are also two sides to the "full regulation" approach.

Hypothetically, Speedway could still allow Air B n B properties yet regulate them to the gills. This would include such things as posting a bond for each and every time that you rent your home, to cover the possible cost to the town of responding to nuisance or other calls associated with these guests. The town could require that a home be subject to inspection each time a new "renter" signs a new "lease." For the owners of long-term rentals, this would impose a hassle at least once per year. For an Air B n B owner, this would be a hassle as often as a few times per week. If the Town forced the property owner to pay for these inspections, the hassle would also be a financial obligation. There are numerous other ways that the Town could regulate these properties, but they all have their down side.

For starters, as to the bond, enforcing the collection of it would be nearly impossible and the Town would spend more attempting to enforce such collection than it would likely ever recover. Further, there are moral dilemma problems with this: if you've already paid for breaking something that is unbroken, perhaps you are more willing to break that thing. If that thing is our community, I don't want visitors to act as though they've already paid for breaking it. As far as the inspections, this could drum some of the smaller landlords out of business right along with Air B n B houses. It could scare off potential real estate investors that want to develop areas, such as the area north of Crawfordsville Rd. near I-465. Why would you invest in Speedway if the town has shown that it will essentially destroy your investment via regulation?

Anyway, I believe that the discussion is a healthy one for the Town of Speedway. I ask that my neighbors consider the larger issues when they decide where they stand on this issue, and attempt to consider the possible side effects of any purported action. Just because it annoys you does not mean that it is bad for Speedway; just because it lines your own pocket, consider that it may be problematic for your neighbor.

Once again, I find myself returning to the latin phrase: sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas.


*I am speaking hypothetically here, of course, because I for one believe that such an approach would violate the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, the takings clause of the 5th Amendment, and the dead letter "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment . . . but that Constitutional law discussion is for another day. Further, these extremes are taken outside of the context of other laws, such as nuisance laws. Today is about policy, not law.

About those Deficits

Anyone remember in 2009 when the nation was at risk of another Great Depression? Anyone remember all of the tea partiers that talked ceaselessly about "The Road to Serfdom" and the need to "tighten the belt?"

I guess since the president and leaders of Congress now have the letter "R" next to their name (and the president is no longer a kenyan muslim socialist terrorist fist bumper black guy "tax and spend big-government type") "deficits don't matter" again/any more?

I remember charts like the above one, from the Mercatus Center (spoiler alert: right-wing/libertarian organization, but I'm sure you already knew that). What I don't recall, and don't see in that chart, is any acknowledgement of what the federal deficits were from 2001 (remember the surplus?) through 2009. What I also don't recall is Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, et al telling the American people that they planned to run deficits every bit as large as President Obama's. The only difference was that they would run deficits to accomplish the sacred goal of cutting the tax bills of plutocrats, whereas President Obama ran deficits for the stupid liberal goal of providing poor kids healthcare.

Anyway, this:

The ballooning federal budget deficit under President Donald Trump will force the U.S. to borrow more than $1 trillion this year and risks worsening the frenzy behind the global sell-off in stock markets.

The budget deal Senate leaders reached late Wednesday would add nearly $300 billion in government spending over two years and push the deficit higher. Even beforehand, Bank of America Corp. senior U.S. economist Joseph Song warned in a report that the federal deficit was on track to exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product by 2019, by far the largest for the economy while at full employment since World War II.

That is “exactly the opposite of what the economic textbooks say lawmakers should be doing,” Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics Inc., said in an email. “Deficit financed tax cuts and spending increases in a full-employment economy will result in more Fed tightening and higher interest rates.”

The combined impact on the deficit of the Republican tax cuts and the spending deal over the next two years will likely exceed the $580 billion President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus added in 2009 and 2010 during the depths of the recession.

The next person that takes Republican deficit hawkery serious needs to get punched in the face. Hard. Anyone who pays attention knew all along that this was nothing more than a cynical ploy to attempt to shrink the size of government and preclude it from doing anything to help the less fortunate.

Post-Rant Confession: I don't really care about the federal deficit all that much. I think it should be paid down during good times (like times of full employment and a soaring stock market) and should be expanded during bad times (i.e. when there is a generational financial crisis). Mine is the classic Keynesian view of economics, and it has been vindicated repeatedly.

Josh McDaniels - Don't Let the Door Hit Ya!

Perhaps readers will recall this post from yours truly a few weeks ago lamenting the seemingly awful decision to hire Josh McDaniels.

Well, I suppose SMH has turned into LOL, as the kids say. Josh McDaniels, the same one who thought that Tim Tebow was an NFL-caliber QB, has decided to leave the Colts at the altar.

Mr. McDaniels, take your mediocrity elsewhere. Good riddance! Maybe you look good when you have QB Tom Brady and Head Coach Belichick to do the actual work for you. Your tenure elsewhere has been less than impressive. You were given another chance at "the big job." You left the Colts twisting in the wind and handled the situation in the worst way possible. Methinks that no owner, with the possible exception of Bob Kraft (who may be facing legal liability for tortious interference with contractual relationships or at the very least some sanctions from the NFL), will touch you with a 10-foot pole.

That is the funny thing about reputations: good ones take a lifetime to earn and a moment to destroy; bad ones take a moment to earn and a lifetime to live down. Mr. McDaniels, what kind of reputation do you believe you now have?

Mitch Daniels - Trying to Solve Actual Problems

I read this in the Washington Post by Mitch Daniels, and wanted to share with both readers of this blog. I highly recommend reading the entire article. A few excerpts:

Just for fun, let’s design an economic sector guaranteed to cost too much. Then you guess what it is. For openers, we will sell a product deemed a necessity, with little or no option for the customer to avoid us altogether. Next, we will arrange to get paid for inputs, not outputs — how much we do, not how well we do it. We will make certain that actual results are difficult or impossible to measure with confidence. And we’ll layer on a pile of complex federal regulations to run up administrative costs.

Then, and here’s the clincher, we will persuade the marketplace to flood our economic Eden with payments not from the user but from some third party. This will assure that the customer, insulated from true costs, will behave irrationally, often overconsuming and abandoning the consumerist judgment he practices at the grocery store or while Internet shopping.

Presto! Guaranteed excessive spending, much of it staying in the pockets of the lucky producers.

I have my suspicions that Mr. Daniels wants us to think that he's talking about healthcare but is instead talking about higher ed. Let's read on.

It worked so well in health care, we decided to repeat the formula with higher education. Some sort of postsecondary education is, in fact, necessary for a fully productive life in this economy, but by evading accountability for quality, regulating it heavily, and opening a hydrant of public subsidies in the form of government grants and loans, we have constructed another system of guaranteed overruns. It is the opposite of an accident that the only three pricing categories that have outpaced health care over recent decades are college tuition, room and board, and books.

So true. Let me tell you, as the father of young kids, that I am thrilled about how I get to be overcharged for healthcare now only to look forward to being gouged for my kids' college later. What an awesome way to construct an economy! Of course, I suspect that Mr. Daniels' "solution" to higher college costs is much like his "solution" to overly expensive healthcare: make it cost more for people.

Health care has been crab-walking its way toward a modicum of consumerism through higher co-payments, deductibles and health savings accounts. 

Raise your hand if you think that higher co-payments and deductibles help with the cost of healthcare, as opposed to just convincing people to do without needed care; it seems to me that this is like skipping oil changes on your car as a way to save money: penny wise and pound foolish. Anyway...

As a condition of participating in the federal student aid programs, universities could be required to either guarantee a percentage of the dollars loaned to their students, or be penalized a specified amount based on default rates. Or be charged a yearly premium for an insurance fund that would, at least partially, protect taxpayers against what has turned into the latest massive driver of national debt.  

This seems reasonable at first glance. Of course, it would likely spell the end to programs in the arts, music, philosophy, the humanities, etc. Pretty much everything except healthcare and business. Methinks that for Mr. Daniels, this is a feature and not a bug.

While I disagree with Your Man Mitch in his proposed solutions, at least he has properly defined the problem. College is essentially necessary for a middle-class lifestyle and income going forward, yet has become increasingly unaffordable for anyone who has to finance it him/herself, unless that person plans to be a doctor or a well-paid salesperson (or has a well-endowed trust fund). 

Something's gotta give. At least the president of a Flagship State University recognizes the problem, even if he misdiagnoses the nature of it and mis-prescribes the solution. Progress is progress.