Economic Development Question

I hear often about "economic development" plans from localities that are essentially subsidizing private projects via tax dollars, either directly by backing bonds or indirectly by giving tax deferrals. Either way, these subsidies amount to millions of dollars spent by localities in furtherance of private industry.

Two examples of taxpayer-subsidized projects come to mind: Lucas Oil Stadium and the Wilshaw development. I have said before that if the Town of Speedway wants public parking, it should just build a parking garage instead of borrowing the money to build one, lending that money to a developer, then leasing the garage to the developer in exchange for revenue from the garage. It's a rube goldberg device.

I also hear justification for Lucas Oil Stadium in the form of "look at how many jobs it creates" with all of the hotel, restaurant, convention, etc., traffic created by the facility.

I suppose my big question is this: Why don't we just directly invest in those jobs by doing things like hiring teachers? Paying for their health insurance? Hiring construction workers to build better roads? (the NW corner of 465 comes to mind, but that's just because I commute past that area every day).

In a nutshell, it appears that there is a bipartisan consensus that government spending to create jobs is OK. In that instance, why settle for low-wage ALICE ("asset limited income constrained employed") jobs? Why not go for good middle-class jobs with benefits? It seems that we could do so if we cut out the middle man, i.e. Jim Irsay or Loftus/Robinson.

Just a thought.

School Comparisons

For the first time, the Indiana State Board of Education has released a study comparing the effectiveness of charter schools versus traditional public schools.

Before getting to the real meat of this post, I note that the Indy Star has precisely zero mention of this report on its home page (the main page right now discusses how the Indiana Lottery often ends high-prized scratch-off games before awarding all prizes . . . an issue of importance I'm sure, but I value a quality education for my children (and the rest of the children in this state) over getting something for nothing via the lottery, but that's just me).

I had to go to the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette for some actual (what do they call that?) reporting. Some highlights:

As of the 2016-17 school year, there were 93 public charter schools serving 44,444 students. That is about 4 percent of total enrollment in the state.

Good to know that baseline number.

On enrollment, it found charter schools enrolled more free-and-reduced-price-lunch students but fewer special education students and English-language learners.

On performance, it found charter students are doing better in improvement on state tests but worse when it comes to passing the test. 

OK. That seems like fair reporting. I've always believed that charter schools cherry pick their students, but perhaps it's a bit more complicated than that. Similarly, the school choice advocates I know maintain that charter schools perform better, but you can see that too is a bit more complicated than a bumper sticker slogan.

In accountability grades, charter schools received more A's and fewer F's than similar traditional public schools.

I question that statistic. It would seem that given the disparities in numbers, traditional public schools would have both more A's and more F's. After all, charters only account for 4% of total enrollment in the state.

All four virtual charters received an F grade in 2016-17.

And, above, we have the award for the most predictable outcome.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Jennifer McCormick said other states focus a lot of quality and not “choice for the sake of choice” and asked about charter school closures.

Twenty-three charters closed between 2011 and 2017. 

23 huh? There are currently 93 operating, and 23 more have closed in the past 6 years? If we have a total of 116 charter schools opening since 2011 and 23 have closed, that is a closure rate of nearly 20%. That is pretty distressing. What happens to that 20% of charter students? Are they then dumped back into public schools after missing a year or more of instruction in their destined-for-closure charter school?

Over all, I think that charter schools can be a positive force for good; it all depends on how they are implemented. A former teacher myself, I was always concerned that charter schools would take what was the figurative equivalent of working at a GM factory in the 1970s and turn it into the figurative equivalent of working at Wal-Mart. Conversely, a charter school could be the figurative equivalent of a small law firm . . . it does one or two things really well and is owned by the teachers (as law firms are owned by the lawyers).

Food for thought. I'm hungry.

 

Speedway Permitting

I had an interesting discussion recently regarding the issue of getting permits to do home improvement in Speedway. A few thoughts:

• With respect to contractors, I am not too worked up about the idea that Speedway's permitting process may be a bit antiquated. After all, it is a contractor's job to ensure that all permits are properly obtained. While it may add a bit in cost to remodeling projects, I don't see that the public necessarily owes it to professionals to make their jobs easier. After all, as much as I would like the courts to be a bit less antiquated, I hold myself out as someone who knows how to navigate them. It's not up to the public to pay to make my job easier.
• That said, I think that when certain "public" systems (i.e. courts, permitting, etc.) become too cumbersome, they then impose costs on the public writ large. For example, if the courts are so inefficient that it takes 5 years for your civil complaint to be heard, that is a significant cost to the litigants; this without even considering the fact that attorney fees tend to escalate as litigation drags on, litigants may be entitled to pre-judgment interest (or in the alternative, inflation erodes the value of the relief obtained in court), etc. As to permits, if it becomes unwieldy to get a building permit in Speedway, the cost of household improvements will escalate relative to greater Indianapolis, the housing stock in Speedway will be depleted, and the value of all of our homes will depreciate.
• Clearly, there ought to be a balancing of interests in this regard.

With respect to "DIYers" or "Weekend Warrior" home improvement types, however:

• We (and I use that term very loosely) are NOT experts in obtaining proper permits.
• We are doing it ourselves, probably, because we are looking to save a few bucks.
• The last thing we want is to be told during the late stages of a project that we need to start over because, for example, a doorway is 3" too narrow. Not being a contractor, I don't know the specifics of building code.

I have always found the public officials in Speedway to be very conscientious of the burdens they are placing on the citizenry, and I applaud these officials for addressing this issue before it becomes too cumbersome, as referenced above. I believe that they are earnestly attempting to strike a proper balance between, on the one hand having an efficient and easy to understand permitting process, and on the other hand making sure that structures built in Speedway are safe, code compliant, etc.

Too often I find myself being critical of things on this blog. As the old saw goes, the news never reports when the plane lands safely, right? Only when it crashes. This is a welcome opportunity for me to write affirmatively about the efforts undertaken on our behalf by our public officials.

Bravo!

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.

Bike/Golf Cart Route - An idea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Taxes - Pt. 8

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

Anyway, here is the next plank of their plan:

CREATES A NEW LOWER TAX RATE AND STRUCTURE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES 

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

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

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

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

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

Be The Change

I attended the meeting of Concerned Citizens and Business Owners of Speedway at the American Legion on Georgetown Rd. yesterday. I'm not sure what to say about it. Karlee Macer was there. She's nice I guess, though I could have done without her comment about how she is a Democrat, but she has common sense. Uhhh. What about being a Democrat necessarily implies that you don't have common sense, and what about being a Republican necessarily implies that you do?

Anyway.

I noticed that there was a lot of general griping about how people don't feel as though they are being properly respected by their town councilors. (I do note that one gentleman, to his credit, had a specific complaint about the town council's procedures).

I would say two separate things about this:

First, if your town councilor does not pay you the mind or attention that you think s/he ought to, unseat him/her. It's really that simple. If your ideas/demeanor/instincts are superior, you should be able to defeat your town councilor. Take a page from the Tea Party and get people together to protest. Hang out in front of Kroger on Saturday afternoon and at Charlie Brown's on Saturday morning and talk to people.

Be the change.

Second, as to the gentleman's (very well done) criticism regarding the town council's procedure, that too is a political problem that is to be solved with political means. The gentleman asked Rep. Macer if there was some sort of state law that could be passed to require that town council meetings be conducted a certain way, and I couldn't disagree with that approach more. I don't want some know-nothing state representative from Fort Wayne or Buck Creek coming into Speedway and telling us how to run our community. I do, however, want to see a competitive political environment in Speedway.

Be the change.

I've written before, and I will reiterate, that we get the political representation we deserve. If 51% of Speedway's voters automatically vote for the Republican on the ballot, regardless of who it is or what they know about that person's past, agenda, etc., then the Republican candidate will win, regardless. If the Republican candidate only has to ensure that she stays in the good graces of a half dozen Marion County Republican Party officials, then she could not care less (literally) about what the people of Speedway think. After all, why should she? As long as she gets on the ballot with an R next to her name, she is guaranteed victory. Everyone else can go pound sand.

If you don't approve of the way that Speedway is run, be the change. Talk to the candidates. Talk to your neighbors. Protest the town council, if you want. They have publicly noticed meetings. Conduct a protest march down Main St. if you want.

As a final note, to all those who talk about their disapproval of the Redevelopment Commission . . . if you feel that nobody listens to your complaints about the Redevelopment Commission, and you feel like it is going to do what it wants to do despite popular opinion, then perhaps you are misreading public sentiment. Perhaps the Redevelopment Commission is doing what it does because of popular opinion. My general impression is that people support the Redevelopment Commission's (imperfect) efforts. If they didn't, the SRC would not have the mandate that it does.

Tax "Reform"

"Reform" is one of those words like "change" or "improvement." The beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I say that in light of all the talk of our national leaders' desire to "reform" the tax code. Call me cynical, but I tend to think that every time they "reform" the tax code, it seems like the well-to-do get a tax cut they probably don't really need, and either the deficit gets structurally worse or those who can't really afford an increase in their taxes get one nonetheless. After all, those school teachers are "lucky duckies" while hedge fund managers have to get by on ONLY a few million per year, but I digress.

I have seen the recent ads on TV and heard them on the radio, trying to influence our lawmakers to "reform" the tax code. There is all kinds of talk about how people can't get good-paying jobs because of our tax code. Disingenuous as ever, particularly given that corporate profits are at a post-war high as a share of GDP, and wages are at an all-time low. 

Corporate profits as a share of GDP since the end of WWII

Wage trajectory from 1960-2012

I thought I was the only one to notice how cynical these ads , until I saw this piece by Matthew Yglesias at Vox. 

Here are a few key excerpts:

Obviously many Americans have lost jobs over the years and often subsequently struggle to get new jobs that pay as well as their old ones. But corporate income tax is a tax companies pay on their profits. If your employer is paying any corporate income tax at all, they are making money. If your employer is being driven out of business by the Chinese, they are not making profits or paying taxes on them.

Can't help but agree with that. I fully recognize that our tax system has too many loopholes. However, I also recognize that every loophole in our tax system has a constituency. There is a reason that big businesses pay so little in taxes.

More excerpts:

A more honest accounting of the case for a corporate tax cut would go like this.
The corporate income tax is, in the grand scheme of things, a kind of tax on capital and business investment. Many people believe — with some support from economic theory and well-known models — that taxes of this sort are harmful to long-term economic growth. With lower taxes on investment income, there will be more investment. And more investment will, in the long run, create a large stock of capital goods and thus more jobs and higher wages for everyone.
The best empirical research on recent tax changes tends to contradict this line of reasoning but it’s certainly a subject about which well-qualified economists disagree.

That said, one subject on which there is very broad agreement is that corporate profits are currently quite high. 

If a business isn't making any profits, it's because the business has a business-model problem. It is not because taxes are too high. Further, when corporate profits are at record highs and wages are at record lows, it seems a little too cute to try to sell the idea that taxes are precluding wages from rising. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here is an interesting data point:

The effective corporate tax rate appears to have largely gone one direction in the past 70 years: down.

As I've said numerous times before: If your policies are so awesome, you should not have to lie about them to get them passed. If you're lying about your policies, perhaps it's because they're terrible.

Too often, people are bamboozled into the following fallacy:

1. There's a problem
2. We need to do something
3. "This" is something
THEREFORE
4. Let's do "this."

As our national leaders debate their tax "reform," let's all be sure to ask what they are doing to reform the system. What is "this"?

Gov. Holcomb & Drug Treatment

"We're not going to arrest our way out of the opioid crisis."

So says Gov. Holcomb, a man for whom I have much respect. While I tend to disagree with the Republican party on many things, their choice to put Eric Holcomb at the helm of the State of Indiana is one decision that I wholeheartedly endorse.

Readers of this blog may be familiar with my previous post regarding drug addiction, i.e. it's not a moral failure. I believe that drug addiction should be treated as a public health crisis, not unlike obesity, instead of a criminal justice problem.

In that light, I was very pleased to see this. Some excerpts:

Governor Eric Holcomb announced Wednesday that Indiana’s Family and Social Services Administration’s drug treatment program will be opening five new facilities in Allen, Johnson, Monroe, Vigo and Tippecanoe Counties.

“This is how we are going to attack this problem. We are going to put people first. Even those who are surrounded by darkness,” said Gov. Holcomb.

Bravo Governor! I particularly like the comment about "those who are surrounded by darkness." Anyone who has ever witnessed a loved one struggle with addiction can certainly sympathize with the "darkness" referenced. I'm also heartened to hear the rhetoric about putting people first.

I see this as a refreshing alternative to the "lock 'em up" approach championed by Atty. General Curtis Hill, among many others.

Origination

For the 4th of July, I will leave aside the cheap jingoism that too often accompanies the holiday and instead focus on what I believe was the founding idea of this great nation of ours.

For millennia, the commoners (like my ancestors) were expected to live at the pleasure of their royal "betters." The "landed gentry" was a term that arose in the context of a society where there were a few people who had land, and then there was everyone else who worked said land for the pleasure of its owners. These were the feudal lords, and at the culmination of this system were the titular royals who had the authority to grant land and titles, both of which directly correlated to more bountiful and comfortable lives. Pardon the oversimplification.

At some point, our founding fathers determined that they could set up a new system whereby power and wealth amassed not based on one's parentage but based on one's merit. Again, pardon the oversimplification.

I still believe that this is a beautiful aspiration: the populace governs itself, instituting policies that are based on objective evidence, and rejecting the policies that repeatedly fail. . . stubbornly refusing to repeat the mistakes of our peoples' collective history. A place, not unlike ancient Rome, where good ideas are always welcome; where we understand that those good ideas make our society better and are more than a mere vehicle to launch people into perpetual un/underemployment.

Maintaining such an idea requires vigilance and a constant longview. What may be good for today and tomorrow may be immeasurably bad for the day after. We need to be mindful of such things.

As I've written before, good policy outcomes in the past don't necessarily mean good outcomes in the future. Perhaps, we should have a conversation as to what outcomes we want. Then, we can move on to how we get there. That is the essence of self governance.

Happy 4th of July. Be careful.

Healthcare - Thoughts on Improvement

As I asked yesterday, what is the end goal of "reforming" the healthcare system in this country? I still haven't heard a good answer to that question, but I read an interesting article by David Frum in the Atlantic yesterday, entitled "How Republicans Can Fix American Health Care."

While he discusses a lot of things associated with the Medicaid expansion, for the purpose of this post, I'm only going to discuss market reforms. I'm not going to debate whether it is a good idea to expand the social safety net (which I believe it is a good idea, but I also respect the undeniable fact that opinions differ as to this).

For those who are unfamiliar with Mr. Frum, he was a speechwriter for George W. Bush and the author of the regrettable phrase "Axis of Evil." Notwithstanding several flaws of his, he is a thoughtful conservative who has productive contributions to our debates, I believe. A few excerpts from his Atlantic article:

It’s generally reckoned that half the people who gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act did so via Medicaid expansion. The Republican ACA alternative would undo that expansion. Unlike the many regulatory changes Republicans had in mind, such a stripping away of an existing benefit is easy to understand—and a natural target for political payback. No surprise then that the senators flinched.

Well, we will see if they continue to flinch, but OK.

In that third week in March in 2010, America committed itself for the first time to the principle of universal (or near universal) health-care coverage. That principle has had seven years to work its way into American life and into the public sense of right and wrong. It’s not yet unanimously accepted. But it’s accepted by enough voters—and especially by enough Republican voters—to render impossible the seven-year Republican vision of removing that coverage from those who have gained it under the Affordable Care Act. Paul Ryan still upholds the right of Americans to “choose” to go uninsured if they cannot afford to pay the cost of their insurance on their own. His country no longer agrees.

As I've asked before, if I forego a necessary medical treatment because I cannot afford it, is that a triumph of the free market or a human tragedy? I suppose, as the lawyers like to say, "it depends." Anyway, continuing:

The Republican health care plan has been derided as a tax cut plan masquerading as a health plan. The rest of the plan is a mess, it is argued, because Republicans’ highest priority is to lighten the ACA’s tax load on upper-income earners.

This is a refreshingly frank assessment of the modern Republican party. Its priority is to "lighten the . . . tax load on upper-income earners." I suppose we're all entitled to our priorities, but doesn't it seem rather strange that approximately 51% or more of the federal government is dedicated to a proposition that only materially benefits roughly 2% of the population? Perhaps that is why many people don't listen to much from Republicans: because over and over again, these "proposals" have been nothing more than tax cuts for the wealthy paid for with either (a) cuts to the social safety net, or (b) debt that we pass along to our children. Anyway, I'm ranting. Let's see what else Mr. Frum states:

That statement of the problem also points the way to some solutions.

If Republicans are most offended by the way the ACA is paid for, then instead of repealing the whole ACA, they should concentrate their energy on changing its financing. 

If we agree that the goal is to provide universal health care, and we're only arguing about how to pay for it, then I'm listening. I do doubt, however, that federal Republicans much care to provide universal healthcare, given their positions and proposals. However, if we are going to discuss how to finance universal healthcare, I have no loyalty to the present way we do so.

The surtaxes on rich are pitifully inadequate to the job of financing the ACA’s expansion of health coverage. 

Excellent point! I notice that Republicans' insistent refusal to ever raise taxes for any reason has given liberals a too-easy out when proposing their utopian schemes: "we'll just pay for them with taxes on the wealthy." Because Republicans always block taxes on the wealthy, the public rarely sees that this is inadequate to pay for what liberals advocate and the public seems to want. But, if the surtaxes on the rich that are in Obamacare are insufficient to pay for the services it provides, where does the money derive?

That comparatively small revenue stream forces the architects of the ACA to pay for their ambitions in other ways. The most important of those ways is the invisible internal redistribution within the ACA, from young to old and from middle-income to lower income. Healthy young people in the individual market pay much higher premiums than they would have to on a pure risk-adjusted basis. Their excess premiums contribute to reducing the premiums paid by people in their 50s and 60s. Likewise, the ACA offers generous subsidies to lower-income people, but steeply fades them out for workers in the $40 to $50,000 range, who are not poor but who cannot easily afford insurance at market prices either.

Hmmm. Interesting. I can sympathize with this. My family's health insurance premiums, as I've made known, are rather oppressive. To the degree that someone in my position was getting beaten up with rising and inflationary taxes in 1978, today we're getting beaten up with rising and inflationary health insurance premiums, co-pays, etc. But, let's talk about how we pay for subsidies for those who buy their insurance on the market:

The ACA needs a replacement funding stream that yields more revenue and that taxes more broadly. This was the deal that Republicans should have demanded in 2009-2010. It will be harder to achieve today (because with ACA an accomplished fact Republicans now have less to trade), but it still should be their goal. One way to achieve that more difficult goal is to propose funding streams that are not only larger than the surtaxes on high incomes, but that Democrats and liberals will find even more attractive. I’ve long urged a carbon tax as a way to fund health-care expansion. President Trump’s abrupt and unconsidered call for a federal internet sales tax raises another possibility. The U.S. has entered a revolution in retailing that threatens literally millions of jobs. The continuing de facto subsidy to online shopping looks even less justifiable now than ever. Why not a federal tax set to some averaging of state sales taxes on physical stores? Such a tax would raise far more than $35 billion and would equalize the playing field between retailers in a way that helpfully slows the creative destruction of retailing jobs.

Interesting.

At the same time, Republicans should also welcome higher excise taxes on choices that raise healthcare costs: on alcohol, on processed sweeteners, on marijuana where it is legal. (My own wish, and I recognize how impossible this is, would be to tax bullets as well, but that too radically challenges present political dogmas.)

I am certainly listening now, however my skepticism remains as to whether federal Republicans actually want to stabilize the health insurance market and enable people to buy insurance thereon. Part of me honestly believes that they really don't care and just want to cut taxes. However, I will not allege bad faith against them and I will try to take them at their word that they actually want to improve healthcare for the majority of people in this country.

Of course, in addition to how we pay for healthcare, it is also important to address how much we pay for healthcare. Regrettably, again, I have not seen any cost-controlling measures in either GOP "plan" presently on offer other than "free market, something, something, something, lower prices."

The future of health-care cost-cutting in America is top-down cost-cutting, not bottom-up. It’s the providers who will have to be squeezed, not the consumers. 

If healthcare policy is driven by a desire for providers to make money, this will never happen. It does remain to be seen how it will shake out.

To hazard a generalization, America over-invests in medicine, but under-invests in public health. No country on earth does a better job of saving premature and underweight babies than the United States. Few developed countries do a worse job of ensuring that pregnancies come to a full and healthy term. 

Agreed.

 It’s precisely the party less beholden to the medical-industrial complex that is better positioned to act as America's rational health cheapskates.

Also agreed. Which party this is remains to be seen, but as of right now, it looks like both parties are rather beholden to the medical-industrial complex.

As the health-care industry becomes ever more closely tied to the public sector, the GOP—as the party of the private sector—should accept the responsibility to become the party of skepticism about the claims and perquisites of that industry. If the GOP is to be the party of seniors, it cannot also be the party that rationalizes every price demand of the pharmaceutical sector.

Well said. Mr. Frum does have to end on a big "however," though:

A future in which health-care anxieties trouble Americans less will be a future more open to arguments on behalf of entrepreneurship and free enterprise. Economic risk-taking will become more attractive, not less. 

Stated another way, there is no magical tipping point beyond which the country slips irrevocably into socialism, notwithstanding the hysterical screeching of Hannity, Limbaugh, et al.

It may not be a coincidence that the Republican drought in presidential voting since 1988 has coincided with the years of most intense national debate over whether all should have health insurance. It’s very possible—and I personally think likely—that Republican chances at the presidency will improve once a vote for the GOP ceases to be a vote against health coverage for all.

I can't really argue with that. It's hard to vote for someone who promises to make health care more expensive for me.

Mindlessly Pulling the Lever

I have been told that Speedway will never elect anyone but a Republican to its Town Council. Perhaps, but I have some thoughts on that.

I have noted the frustration with which many have viewed the town officials and decisions made regarding redevelopment. As an example, I got the following comment yesterday:

and I might add the Wilshaw company just got done building themselves a nice office area on Main Street. The Town is corrupt, with all of the players from the redevelopment, town council and chamber all being in on the happenings, each member jumping from one group to another playing president or some other such office. The sad thing about all this TIF talk is just that-talk. Everything has already been decided behind closed doors. The players just think they are being transparent when they "legally" inform the public of these bond hearings, but as any public person can tell you, the players have already made up their mind about how it will go.

This is a commonly voiced frustration: that the same people are in charge of everything and take no input from those they putatively represent.

Am I the only one who sees the disconnect here? If you don't like what your officials are doing, vote them out. You can't simultaneously bitch about the performance of your public officials and then either (a) fail to vote or (b) mindlessly pull the lever for the same party over and over. As they say, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is textbook insanity.

I understand partisan loyalty, mind you, but these greater ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats have no bearing on local government. Consider;

• Speedway's local government has precisely zero say about abortion, gay marriage, or any other social issue
• Speedway's local government has nothing to do with any foreign policy on any level
• Speedway's local government has very little to do with your tax burden

They do, however, have a lot to say about how our local amenities are constructed, financed, etc.

I suppose what I'm saying is that if you have a problem with your town councilor, vote for someone else in the next election. The political parties do not hold primaries and instead "slate" their candidates based on the internal decisions of the party. When the residents of Speedway mindlessly vote Republican, and the "slated" Republican candidate is guaranteed victory, that is democracy in name only and a willful forfeiture of your right to choose your political representatives.

Vote, and do so after considering the candidate, not the party.

High School Hours

I am a former high school teacher and, accordingly, take a particular interest in many things "educational."

I saw something on CBS this morning about how middle school and high school kids aren't getting enough sleep, and I was utterly unsurprised. I spent numerous years seeing kids come in groggy eyed. Now, of course, I don't completely excuse the kids themselves in the following analysis . . . I know, it's shocking to think that there might just be a certain amount of laziness in teenagers.

BUT

It makes a lot of sense to consider pushing school back 2-3 hours. Teenagers require 8-10 hours/night of sleep, and it is simply not reasonable to expect them to get to bed every night by 10 p.m. When I taught, school went roughly from 8-3. Why not push that back 3 hours?

School starting at 11 a.m. would not necessitate a shortage of sleep.

My experience is that most "teenage trouble" happens from the time they get out of school until their parents get home from work. It certainly did for me. If I got out of school at 6, when would I have had time to get into trouble?

As far as sports and extra-curricular activities go, they could either be scheduled after school, until 9 o'clock or so, or in the morning. Exercise in the morning is good for teenagers, and may help cancel out negative effects of having to get up too early.

Now, of course there is the drawback of not having mom and dad there to make junior get up and go to school in the morning. However, methinks that the kids who would just skip school likely don't have a lot of parental enforcement of school attendance in the first place.

Another idea is to have the school open for 10 hours and simply require that teenagers get 7 classes in during that 10 hours. That would probably be something teachers would like, presuming that they aren't required to teach 10 classes per day and keep their current classload. Some teachers, based on the demand, would get in early and off early. Some would get in late and off late. It kind of seems like an efficient use of capital goods (classrooms) and flexible use of human capital.

I wonder how the community would react if Speedway H.S. went to this kind of a schedule. I would certainly be supportive, but I notice that many people think that high schools should simultaneously be (a) exactly like they used to be back in "the good old days," and (b) perfectly suited to modern requirements and knowledge. (Kind of hard to be both)

An Open Letter to the President

Mr. President,

I voted against you in 2016 and will likely vote against you in 2020. My reasons for doing so are my own, but I'd like to share with you the thing you could do to get my vote, and millions of others, in 2020.

Institute single-payer national health insurance.

We currently spend approximately twice as much per capita as other wealthy nations on healthcare, yet we still (even after Obamacare) don't cover all of our citizens. How is it that other countries spend less per person and still manage to cover all people? As you would say in other contexts, we're getting ripped off.

Currently, my family's health insurance premium is almost as much as my mortgage. An illness would bankrupt my family. I would add that you need not feel bad for us, as we're doing pretty well. I'm an educated professional who is gainfully employed, yet we're still no more than a single illness away from bankruptcy.

All of this talk about "choice" in health insurance is fine and good, but what choice will a 55 year old me have when I can only afford, for example, prostate cancer coverage or cardiology coverage, but not both? Should I alternate between coverage each year and have my claims denied under the "known loss"/pre-existing condition doctrine?

Richard Nixon went to China, something a Democrat could never do. Mr. Trump, you could institute single-payer healthcare and save us all 30-50% on our healthcare bills. You campaigned on being a different kind of Republican. You campaigned on negotiating better deals on behalf of regular Americans.

You, of all people, could finally put to rest this notion that America has the "best healthcare system in the world," outcomes (26th best life expectancy, right behind Slovenia) and cost (approximately twice what other wealthy nations spend per capita) notwithstanding.

Now is the time. Put up or shut up. You ran as an anti-elitist outsider. Now is the time.

Lowering the Bar

Can we, for once, insist on excellence?

I went to the State of the Town in Speedway the other day, and I could swear some of the speakers were apologizing for it. I'm still trying to figure out why someone would apologize for the state of Speedway. What was once a deserted alley next to industrial property now rivals Broad Ripple Ave., Mass Ave., and Fountain Square with respect to having something to do in the community.

It used to be that if you wanted to go out for dinner and a drink in Speedway, you were more or less relegated to Dawson's or McGilvery's. Please know, I have nothing but positive things to say about both of those places. However, I would assert that having a dozen options now is better than having the 2 options from a few years ago. This is not something for which to apologize.

I was moderately impressed with Ken Hull. I'm a former teacher, so education policy is near and dear to the heart. The Superintendent should talk less about test scores and more about his educational vision. What is it that Speedway H.S. is all about? For the mathematically inclined, I would suggest engineering. For those who are into English, marketing seems apt. I could go on. My point is that Speedway schools are excellent, among the very best schools in Marion County. This is something to be proud of; we need not apologize for it.

I propose a revolution of competence in our community and our country. I don't care how you incorporate your faith into your job or, frankly, what your faith is. I don't necessarily even care which party you come from. If you are a local official, I really don't care about your position on abortion or foreign policy. I want you to be good at your job.

Here in Speedway, that means that I want you to continue working on economic development. The old college try isn't good enough either; I want results. I want you to effectively reach out to IMS and Allison Transmission. Those are the two biggest businesses in Speedway and anchor each end of Main St. Pray tell, why do we only reach out to them when we want money? Why are we not partnering with them? For example, does Speedway H.S. have a partnership w/ them? I mentioned marketing and engineering above. IMS does a lot of marketing; the teams that race there, as well as Allison, do a lot of engineering. Do we have a summer jobs program? An "exploratory employment" program?

Please direct my attention to another town of 12,000 that has a world-famous event such as the Indianapolis 500 (IMS). Please direct my attention to another town of 12,000 that is home to a corporation that employs thousands globally. That our town officials don't leverage this is a tragic wasted opportunity.

Competency.

Please.

Rescuing Addicts from Themselves

I read some back and forth on NextDoor (the neighborhood knitting circle) today where one of my neighbors questioned whether it was wise for the Speedway Police to administer Narcan (I think that's what it's called) to someone who had overdosed on Heroin.

My understanding is that Narcan reverses the effects of an overdose and saves lives.

The question was whether it is wise to publicly fund the use of such a drug on addicts who overdose repeatedly. Perhaps, some say, this represents moral hazard. I disagree.

When someone attempts to lose weight after receiving treatment for diabetes, we don't cut off treatment for the diabetes if the person "falls off the wagon" and eats some chocolate cake.

When someone attempts to quit smoking after being diagnosed with any number of health ailments, we don't cut off treatment for the ailments if the person "falls off the wagon" and has a cigarette.

If someone's house gets burglarized multiple times, we don't stop prosecuting the crime.

I would like to say this as clearly as I can: DRUG ADDICTION IS NOT A MORAL FAILURE.

Rest assured, I will do my best to ensure that my own children never dabble in hard drugs. Mercifully, I avoided that calamity myself. However, as an ex-smoker, I understand that addiction can be brought to bay but can never truly be beaten. I am addicted to cigarettes for the rest of my life, no matter how long it has been since I had my last one. I can only assume the same for other addictions.

The sooner we address drug addiction as a health problem and not a moral failure or criminal justice problem, the sooner we can get a handle on it as a society.

In closing, I would also like to point out that the punitive approach that has been the hallmark of the War on Drugs has been an abject failure. As some have wryly noted, "The War on Drugs is over. Drugs Won."

Perhaps I wouldn't put it that bluntly, but the chart below is revealing.

"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

Given that we live in a world where pharmaceutical opioid pain medication is driving further addiction, perhaps we can take a reasonable approach in the future and treat this as the public health problem that it is instead of the criminal justice/moral problem that it isn't.

Your Statehouse in Action

For those of you who don't read Sheila Kennedy's blog, I highly recommend it. She had a post yesterday regarding a bill presently pending in the Indiana state legislature that would have struck a blow to partisan gerrymandering practices.

For those unfamiliar with the practice, gerrymandering is a process whereby the incumbent controlling political party shapes districts such that it can obtain an outsized portion of power. For example, you can imagine a situation, albeit an extreme one, where one party gets 51% of the vote yet 100% of the seats.

Here in Good Ole Honest to Goodness Indiana, the Indiana state legislative seats are set up so that one party gets about 55% of the vote but 70% of the seats in the legislature. Guess which party that is.

Anyway, there is a bill (HB 1014) pending in the IN state legislature that would reform this practice.

Currently, districts are drawn by the party in power. There is no reason to believe that the party in power would not draw districts to its own advantage. Doing otherwise would be political malpractice. However, it generally has a variety of negative consequences. For example, a Democrat from a solidly democratic inner-city district who wins the general election by 30% has no incentive to moderate his positions; her only political concern is losing a primary to someone more "loyal" and "pure" to the party. The same analysis goes for the Republican from the solid-red district. Her only concern is losing a primary to a more "conservative" and "pure" candidate. Given this reality, why would either the Democrat or Republican ever cooperate or compromise with the other in order to do what is best for the state? There is no incentive to do so.

HB 1014 would reform this process by putting the power to draw legislative districts in the hands of a non-partisan commission. There was a hearing on this bill the other day, and State Representative Milo Smith refused to even allow a vote on it during committee. Just so we're clear, the bill was not voted down. There was not even a vote on it, because Rep. Bumpkin Milo Smith decided it was not worth a vote.

I, for one, believe that the positions of those on the Elections and Apportionments Committee (the committee assigned to this bill) should be public. Along those same lines, I'd like to know the position of my own elected officials on this.

Rep. Macer?

Sen. Young?

Bueller?