Milquetoast Joe Donnelly

To parrot what Sheila Kennedy wrote the other day, I think that Joe Donnelly is a horrible centrist sellout. I think that so many of his positions are cowardly, and I rank him down with Evan Bayh as a finger-in-the-air politico.

I will vote for him anyway, even if I have to hold my nose.

In light of that preface, I turn to a different but related topic: whether he should vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.

I think that he should not.

I actually wrote to the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette recently about this. My point, then and now, is that there is not a single Republican out there who is (a) aware of who Brett Kavanaugh is AND (b) will be swayed to vote for Joe Donnelly and against Mike Braun. Contrarily, I believe that there are plenty of progressives (whether they count themselves as Democrats or not) who will stay home if Sen. Donnelly votes to confirm Brett Kavanaugh. After all, if Sen. Donnelly votes like a Republican when it counts, why bother to campaign/canvass/fundraise for him? Why not just let the few remaining governing positions in Indiana go to Republicans if all of the Indiana Democrats are going to act like Republicans when the rubber hits the road anyway?

In light of that, I present this from Abdul Hakeem Shabaz (he used to be "Abdul in the Morning" but I think the plug got pulled on that):

A new poll of the U.S. Senate race gives Democrat Joe Donnelly a 12-point lead over Republican Mike Braun, but it changes depending on whether he votes to confirm Brett Cavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court.

The poll of more than 1,400 likely voters, conducted by The Trafalgar Group, gives Donnelly a lead of 50.8 to 38.6 over Braun.  Ten percent are undecided.

However, that lead drops to 39.4 to 38.5 if Donnelly votes for the confirmation.  And if Donnelly votes against the confirmation,  his lead only drops to 45-38.

The number of undecided voters also grows to 22 percent if Donnelly votes yes; 16 percent if he votes no.

The poll was taken from July 31 to August 7.

It has a margin of error of +/- 2.6 percent.

Of course, a poll taken 3+ months before an election, combined with $3, is worth approximately $3 (ask Hillary Clinton). Nonetheless, I note that Sen. Donnelly's lead over Mike Braun drops more if he votes to confirm Brett Kavanaugh than if he votes not to. (I also note that Abdul mis-spells Kavanaugh's name, but who really cares?)

So, to that end, Sen. Donnelly, I implore you to vote against Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation. I don't like that Supreme Court nominations are political. That doesn't mean that they aren't. Senators often have to take tough votes; sometimes right before an election. It seems to me that someone who represents me in a legislature should be willing to vote his conscience, even if it costs him an election.

Those Pence Brothers . . . They're Just so Nice!

Ugh! I think I need to go punch myself in the face just for writing that headline! Hopefully anyone who has ever read this blog recognizes the sarcasm in the title.

Anyway, this recently came to my attention:

Vice President Mike Pence turns nostalgic when he talks about growing up in small-town Columbus, Indiana, where his father helped build a Midwestern empire of more than 200 gas stations that provided an upbringing on the “front row of the American dream.”

The collapse of Kiel Bros. Oil Co. in 2004 was widely publicized. Less known is that the state of Indiana — and, to a smaller extent, Kentucky and Illinois — are still on the hook for millions of dollars to clean up more than 85 contaminated sites across the three states, including underground tanks that leaked toxic chemicals into soil, streams and wells.

Indiana alone has spent at least $21 million on the cleanup thus far, or an average of about $500,000 per site, according to an analysis of records by The Associated Press. And the work is nowhere near complete.

Well, I mean, what's $21m when you're a "christian first, conservative second, and Republican third" here in Indiana? It's not like you're some selfish school kid who wants to, you know, eat lunch or something. Million-dollar pollution problem? Great! Poor kids want lunch? Feed 'em to Rokita!

Kiel Bros. has paid for only a fraction of the overall effort.

OK. So here we are, the Pence family business has imposed tens of millions of dollars on us, the taxpayers, and people are still willing to believe in his so-called "fiscal conservatism." I tell you what, next time I'm looking for someone to get my spending under control, I'm not just going to let him (or her) do my spending for me!

In a statement, Pence’s older brother Greg Pence — who was president of Kiel Bros. when it went bankrupt and is now running for Congress as a Republican — distanced himself from the cleanup costs.

“Greg Pence has had nothing to do with Kiel Bros since 2004. This is another attempt by the liberal media to rehash old, baseless attacks,” campaign spokeswoman Molly Gillaspie said. 

A few things: first off, I forgot that the Pence brothers were multiplying . . . God help us! 

Second, Ms. Gillaspie, perhaps you weren't aware that underground pollution plumes take decades to develop. In fact, I'll bet that someone on one of the Pence teams has already acknowledged this:

Pence spokeswoman Alyssa Farah called the findings “a years old issue” that the vice president has addressed before. She did not elaborate.

So, what is it? Did the pollution occur during the Pence family's "stewardship" of Kiel Bros. or did it occur after? Maybe before? All I've seen is blah blah blah liberal media blah blah blah old blah blah blah liberal media blah blah baseless.

The fact that the company stuck taxpayers with the lion’s share of the cleanup bill rankles some observers, especially in light of the family’s reputation as budget hawks critical of government spending.

You don't say. It's like I've seen this tragicomedy before.

 Greg Pence, who is seeking the vice president’s old congressional seat, has total assets worth $5.7 to $26 million.

Nearly a decade after going under, Kiel Bros. sites still ranked among the top 10 recipients of state money for such cleanups in Indiana in 2013, the last year for which the petroleum industry has reliable spending data for the company. That was out of more than 230 companies seeking cleanup money that year, including major gas station chains with a substantially larger presence in the state.
Founded as an oil distributor by businessman Carl Kiel in 1960, the company expanded into the gas station business. Pence’s father, Edward, joined in the early years and, by the mid-1970s, rose to corporate vice president.
Mike Pence says he worked for the business — which mostly operated under the name Tobacco Road — starting at age 14. But it was his brother who took over after Edward Pence’s 1988 death and eventually became president.

Just so we're clear: the Pence family made a ton of money running this company. This company cut costs by polluting our air and water. Now we get to pay to not be poisoned while the Pence family gets to go and bring their special sauce to the nation as a whole.

 When an underground tank leaks, companies are liable for the damage, but Indiana has been especially amenable to using public money to pay for heavily contaminated soil to be excavated and for high-powered pumps to suck toxic liquid and vapor from the soil.

The state’s payout limit was $2 million per site until Mike Pence signed a 2016 law as governor, increasing it to $2.5 million. In 2016, Indiana paid out nearly two-and-a-half times the national average per incident, according to records.

I for one can't imagine why the state can't afford to do such trivial things as reform its child welfare issues, after a mere 15 years of studying the issue.

Pence 2018: Starve the kids and poison the water!

Shameful

When I last lived in Ft. Wayne (2013-2014), I heard constantly about how the "good conservative folks of Northeastern Indiana" would do this and that, would always act politely, gathered the facts before acting hysterically, etc. This was always pointed out in juxtaposition to Obama (a nation turns its lonely eyes to you Barack Obama). Among the things that the "good conservative folks of Northeastern Indiana" have been doing lately, apparently, is this:

Fort Wayne's Planned Parenthood Health Center is closing effective today after several years of increased harassment and intimidation.

“I'm pretty angry about this,” said Christie Gillespie, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky. “This is not how decent and compassionate people behave. These are actions of harassment and intimidation that are done in the name of faith, religion and Jesus.

“It's an awful day for the Fort Wayne community. We will be back stronger.”

The Fort Wayne location at 3914 W. Jefferson Blvd. does not perform abortions and has four employees.

Gillespie said the community is losing a trusted health care provider that conducted tests for early diagnosis of cervical, testicular and breast cancer, provided birth control options and tested for sexually transmitted diseases.

Gillespie said the tactics used by Allen County Right to Life and other area groups go far beyond protesting outside the facility.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky provided copies of a mailer sent to Fort Wayne neighborhoods where a Planned Parenthood nurse practitioner worked.

It included her name and picture and said “There are killers among us.” It said the woman enabled “child killing by coordinating abortions off site.” It also gave her home address.

Absolutely disgusting and shameful. If, as they say, you are judged by the company you keep, then this list of people should be judged for keeping company with Allen County Right to Life and its shameful tactics.

NOTE: I haven't even addressed the fact that Fort Wayne Planned Parenthood (a) does not provide abortions but (b) provides no/low-cost STD screening. Perhaps someone can explain to me how these so-called "right to life" groups are targeting abortion and not conducting the so-called "war on women" with these kinds of tactics directed at clinics that don't provide abortions?

Royal Wedding - Enough Already!

I will just say it: I do not care about what the British Royal Family does, whether that includes celebrating someone's birthday or having a wedding. I just don't give a damn. It doesn't affect me in any way, shape, or form.

I notice that the news has a seemingly "mandatory" discussion of the damn royal wedding nearly every day. I can't help but contrast coverage of the royal wedding with the scant coverage of the recent Supreme Court decision striking down a law known as PASPA.

In a nutshell, PASPA is (was) the federal law that made gambling on sports illegal in every state except Nevada. Note that you can presently play slot machines at Indiana Grand but you can't place a bet on the Colts' game. I suspect that is about to change.

I also suspect that the sports book won't just stop with professional sports. How long until we have a sports book on the Butler or IU game? How about the Speedway H.S. baseball game? Ask yourself how susceptible a high school or college kid would be to a point shaving scheme?

After considering the consequences of the royal wedding and the recent Supreme Court decision, ask yourself which one will affect your life. What do you think? Do you get the feeling that your attention is being diverted?

"Right to Work"

I am pro-union.

Now that we have that out in the open, let's get to the substance of this post: Why right-to-work (RTW) laws are disingenuous, fundamentally unfair, and probably unconstitutional.

1. They're Disingenuous

I have never met someone who (a) wants to work for a particular company, (b) wants desperately not to be a member of the union in place; and (c) can't find comparable non-union employment. This is the individual who this law is designed to "protect," and such individual resides, I think, right between Moby Dick and Santa Claus. In other words, whoever this law is supposed to help (according to its proponents) does not exist.

The real beneficiaries of this law are the business owners who want to suppress wages, plain and simple. Note to such business owners, if you need the government's aid to suppress wages in order to stay in business, you have a business model problem and you are depending on the government for your livelihood every bit as much as a welfare recipient.

These laws are disingenuous in their purported efforts to "protect workers."

2. They're Fundamentally Unfair

I know that "fairness" is a dirty word these days; make of that what you will in regard to the society that we've created. However, a right-to-work law states that one can't be forced to pay the union for its services. It does not say that the union doesn't have to represent these freeloaders. In fact, the union is forced to represent these freeloaders, come hell or high water.

To the point of disingenuous, stated above, nowhere do the supporters of these laws acknowledge that the union must represent all the workers, whether they pay dues or not. RTW supporters like to say that unions will "earn their membership through the free market," but this too is disingenuous: who pays for things they get for free? Why would I pay for representation when I get it for free anymore than I would pay for sunshine?

3. They're Probably Unconstitutional

Not that I expect our stolen Supreme Court (looking at you Gorsuch) to do anything about this, but follow me here:

• Corporations are people (distasteful as that may be);
• Unions are corporations;
• Therefore unions are people;
• RTW laws preclude unions from collecting mandatory dues from members of the bargaining unit (employees at the same place);
• The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) forces unions (people, remember) to representing all members of the bargaining unit (employees at the same place);
• Therefore, RTW, in combination with the NLRA, forces unions to work on behalf of people without compensation.

Someone explain to me how this does not enslave the unions.

End Note

As I said at the outset, I support unions and will debate their merits with any and all comers. However, this post is NOT about the merits of unionism but rather about right-to-work laws.

Campus Bias

I read a few interesting articles in the Indianapolis Star yesterday that got me thinking about campus bias. The first one blares the headline, "Why Indiana, Ball State, Purdue universities are facing lawsuits alleging racial bias." Here are a few excerpts, specifically about IU:

At Indiana University, Kim Morris-Newson, an associate director for the Office of Community and School Partnerships, was told there was a hiring freeze for a position above her. But IU later hired a white woman for the job without posting the position, her lawsuit said.

Also at IU, former education professor Ray Haynes said he was unfairly denied tenure. Haynes recently lost his case, with a judge ruling against him, but his attorney said he plans to appeal.

According to the suit, Haynes was hired as part of a diversity initiative but felt like an outsider, surrounded by people who didn't look like him and didn't reach out to him.

He believed he was on track to earn tenure, his lawsuit said. When he applied, he went through a convoluted process, where he said some of his choices of reviewers were turned down, so he was evaluated by people unfamiliar with his area of study — mentoring people of color. 

I make no comment on the merits of these suits, but I do feel a bit for IU, which appears to be getting flack from both sides. Here is the Indianapolis Star's Conservative House Organ Tim Swarens with his "fairly" titled column, "How a Young Conservative Navigates Liberal IU":

So one day, when an English professor called out students in class for not being more active in liberal causes, Chambers had to decide whether to challenge the instructor's assumptions. He chose, probably wisely, to stay quiet. 

"You have professors here or there who are hostile to your world view. Some professors will go out of their way to insult conservatives and Republicans. That's their right; the classroom is not a democracy," Chambers said. "You just try to get through it, and you hope it won't have an effect on grades."

So, to combine these stories, IU is being lambasted for being TOO liberal and for not being liberal enough. Huh.

As to the apologist Swaren's column, I note a few important details.

First, the student highlighted is a student at the Kelley School of Business at IU. I also note that his complaint is about an English professor. Does the subject of this column have anything to say about the overwhelming conservative bent of the business school? I know numerous IU business grads, and they all say they same thing: the B-school is very conservative. This is unsurprising, given that conservatives who deify the free market tend to want to be a part of that free market. Contrarily, I was an English Education major in undergrad. Is it any surprise that people who are willing to work for peanuts and are happy to be critical of abstract notions in literature tend to be liberal? Is it any surprise that liberals are less swayed by the rewards of capitalism than conservatives, and thus choose their career paths accordingly? Is this just more Conservative/Affirmative Action whining?

Second, I note that there are not columns about the cold slap in the face that is the professional world. Here is a tip for anyone out there who hasn't learned it yet: your boss doesn't care about your 1st Amendment rights, and they don't apply to him. If I was your boss and wanted to fire you for voting Republican, I am within my rights to do so. If my boss wants to fire me because I'm a snarky liberal, or a Cubs fan, he can do so. I have yet to read a column about some poor idealistic liberal who was forced to temper his/her views about the world to avoid enraging his/her conservative boss.

Third, as to those who are suing IU . . . come on. I am a supporter of civil rights, as I should hope goes without saying. I support the Fair Housing Act, Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Acts, etc. However, when these get pushed to their illogical extreme, you tend to turn people off. I have defended a few civil rights cases, and I can state categorically that my clients did nothing wrong nor did they intend to do anything wrong. Nonetheless, their good names got drug through the mud all because someone decided that suing was a better option for getting money than working. 

Just because someone got fired within a year of filing her third worker's compensation claim does not mean that she was retaliated against. Just because she got fired within a year of making her third unsubstantiated sexual harassment claim does not mean that she was retaliated against. Just because you are required to comply with the terms of your lease, mortgage, neighborhood covenant, zoning laws, etc., does not mean that you were denied fair access to housing.

As to the article about IU . . . just because you got turned down for a job AND happen to be black/female/gay/(insert protected group here) does not mean that you were turned down for the job because you are a member of the protected group.

As I've said many times before: I am an equal-opportunity hater.

Here we go again

I couldn't help but notice this polished turd in today's Indianapolis Star.

Once again, our local leaders (who plead poverty when it comes to such luxuries as police, schools, and street lights) are lining up to throw bags full of cash at well-heeled corporate leaders. This time, it is Amazon that Mayor Joe Hogsett of Indianapolis (he of the "insiders who rig our system and steal our tax dollars" ads) and Mayor Scott Fadness (fiscal conservative, right?) of Fishers are tripping over themselves to "lure" with our tax dollars.

An excerpt or two from the Star:

The two cities that have been the most successful at luring technology companies to Indiana are making a combined pitch to win Amazon.com Inc.'s prized second headquarters.

Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett and Fishers Mayor Scott Fadness on Monday announced they are collaborating with other state and regional economic development officials to submit a proposal to Amazon. The mayors said they will emphasize Central Indiana's existing tech ecosystem, its growing business climate and a plethora of available real estate sites in a proposal that is due Oct. 19.

It is nice that the local Gannett franchise Indianapolis Star at least buries the lede in order to spare us "little people" from the ugly truth of what our government is doing in this "combined pitch." Alas, the lede can't be buried forever:

Hogsett and Fadness said they would look to Gov. Eric Holcomb and the Indiana Economic Development Corp. for leadership, including discussions about tax incentives, while hoping those officials would agree that metropolitan Indianapolis would make the best home for Amazon.

Nice euphamism: "tax incentives." I suppose when I went to keggers in college, the host was providing "beverage incentives" for people to show up, right?

More from the story:

Hogsett and Fadness declined to discuss their own appetites for tax breaks. 

So, the Star buries the lede and only mentions in passing that this is all about a big tax giveaway. Then, it credulously reports that our leaders "declined to discuss their own appetites for tax breaks" and leaves it at that. Where is the outrage from our local paper, demanding that Hogsett and Fadness explain themselves and their willingness to give our tax dollars away to a corporate entity that doesn't need them?

A small modicum of actual "reporting" would probably have revealed this element of Amazon's "search" for a new headquarters' site:

Among the criteria Amazon will use to determine where its second headquarters will go is everything you'd expect: a large-enough population, good schools, solid public transportation.
And, inevitably, tax breaks. Loads and loads of tax breaks.

"Incentives offered by the state/province and local communities to offset initial capital outlay and ongoing operational costs will be significant factors in the decision-making process," said Amazon's request for proposals. "The initial cost and ongoing cost of doing business are critical decision drivers." 

 I couldn't say it any better than U.S. News & World Report already did:

In a perfect world, every state and city would just agree not to throw any money at Amazon, and make the company choose the home of its next headquarters on the merits of place alone. But of course that's not going to happen; too few lawmakers are willing to take a stand for fiscal sanity, and too many are willing to undercut everyone else for the chance to be at a ribbon-cutting. So no matter which city Amazon ends up choosing, the internet giant itself is going to be the real winner, and the taxpaying public is going to lose.

 Can someone, just once in my lifetime, say NO to the well-heeled interests? Just once?

Flood Insurance Subsidies Must Go

The National Flood Insurance program is a disaster on more levels than I can even count. For the uninitiated, allow me to explain:

If you live in an area that is prone to flooding (say, for example, a large, historical city that is below sea level or in a coastal area that historically floods during hurricane season), no mortgage lender is going to want to lend you the money to buy a house there, because the odds are pretty good that the house will flood before you finish paying for it. If your home floods before you finish paying for it, the odds are pretty good that you'll just walk away from the loan, leaving the lender to hold the bag. Now, the lender can either charge an exorbitant interest rate to attempt to account for this risk, the lender can refuse to lend in flood-prone areas, or the lender can require the purchaser/borrower to carry flood insurance.

For areas that are, as a whole, prone to flooding, option #3 tends to be utilized frequently. The problem with flood insurance is the same with lending money to buy houses in flood-prone areas: the odds are pretty good that people's homes will flood. As such, insurance premiums on flood insurance are not cheap. By way of example, a relative of mine resides in Broad Ripple and has to pay upwards of $400/mo (I believe) for flood insurance on his house. $400/mo ain't chump change. It's also the premium for flood insurance in Indianapolis, a place that is nearly 1,000 miles away from the ocean. This insurance is also subsidized by the government.

Needless to say, flood insurance is expensive. That's a big reason of why the government subsidizes it, and for my relative, government subsidy is a good thing, worth untold amounts in flood insurance premiums. I would bet that subsidized flood insurance for those in Speedway who live in the flood plain is likewise a good thing.

I still think it needs to go.

Subsidizing flood insurance, while a well-intentioned plan, has horrible unintended consequences. Here are a few:

1. Because flood insurance is subsidized, it brings down the cost of coastal living and helps contribute to the degradation of our nation's barrier islands, wetlands, and coastal areas. I appreciate a beach vacation as much as the next guy, but the FL panhandle was initially covered in Mangrove trees precisely because it got repeatedly hit with hurricanes during the late summer/early fall. Now that condos can have subsidized flood insurance, all of the coastal areas are now covered in condominium resorts. This is great for Spring Break, but it is terrible for (a) indigenous wildlife; (b) hurricane and weather mitigation; and (c) fossil fuel consumption control (just think about how many power plants have to run to keep all those a/c units going). I could continue, but the point is fairly clear that coastal living contributes to the environmental degradation of those coastal areas. There's a reason that people didn't develop on the coast until about a hundred years ago, and it has very little to do with a supposed distaste for the beach in our Victorian forefathers.

2. Flood insurance is a subsidy for the wealthy, by and large. Who can afford to own beachfront property? I assure you, it's not cheap. Even owning a 2-bedroom condo on the beach can run upward of $500,000, and that's not even in the "stylish" areas like South Beach but rather in the panhandle of Florida. Half a million dollars for a vacation home, and you're asking me to help pay your insurance premiums? Thanks but no thanks. I believe that if government is going to subsidize things, one of the foundational questions should be, "Does this person need the help?"

3. Flood insurance encourages risky behavior. Let's face it, building next to the ocean is risky. If people had to pay the full cost of the risks they bear, they would likely bear fewer risks.

4. Building in flood plains, even if they are away from the coast, contributes to environmental degradation. Wetlands and flood plains are often the same thing, and wetlands act as nature's water filter. We need more wetlands, not fewer. We should not be subsidizing the building of structures in places where our health depends on not building structures. This seems like a fairly elementary principle: don't encourage your populace to do things that are bad for them.

5. Our nation has bigger priorities. We have trillions of dollars in debt. We have trillions of dollars in yet-to-be-funded healthcare and retirement obligations to our populace. We don't need to be handing money to people so they can put their houses in an area where the house is likely to be destroyed, just so we can start the entire ridiculous charade over.

I could go on and on.

Yes, I recognize that flood insurance protects the value of people's assets. My relative's Broad Ripple house would be worth very little if the cost of flood insurance doubled or trebled; so too would the houses in Speedway that are in a flood plain.

It saddens me that elimination of this program would have so many negative side effects. However, I think that if it were phased out, perhaps over the course of 30-50 years, the hit would not be nearly as sudden, drastic, or sizeable. Nonetheless, given our nation's pressing needs, I believe that continuing to subsidize the vanity purchases of the wealthy at great environmental and human costs is simply a poor policy choice.

This post is purposely written to be a compliment to my post regarding the fruits of one's labor. When people choose to move to flood-prone areas, that is their right. However, they do not have the right to demand that I subsidize that choice.

Food for thought. Happy Thursday.

UPDATE: Apparently I jumped the gun to discuss this prior to Hurricane Irma making landfall. For what it's worth, the National Flood Insurance Program (that subsidizes flood insurance) was $24,000,000,000 in debt before Irma and Harvey made landfall. Given my personal policy choice, I would rather spend $24bn in public money on food or healthcare for poor kids as opposed to subsidizing the McMansions of the wealthy . . . that's just me. Others have their own policy preferences, of course.

Bloomington - Most Expensive City? (Part 2)

Speaking of incentives in the system, in-state tuition was traditionally based on the notion that in-state students' families had been underwriting the public colleges for a long time and, thus, the children of these citizens of the state should be given preferential treatment in said public colleges.

As state support for public colleges has waned, so too has the preferential treatment. However, as any economist will tell you, prices are sticky. It's hard to suddenly jack up tuition on in-state students and close the gap against out-of-state students. So, out-of-state tuition is raised in concert with in-state tuition, and generally cross-subsidizes in-state tuition. In other words, out-of-state students become profitable.

In a country where certain portions (NY, NJ, the east coast in general) are wealthier than others (IN, KY, MI, OH, TN, AL, etc.), yet these relatively "poor" places have excellent educational institutions, it is understandable that a lot of people in the "wealthier" portions of the country want to send their children to these colleges. If you're someone living an upper-middle-class lifestyle in the New York metropolitan area, doesn't it make sense to send your child to a B1G (Big 10) university and save a boatload of money on housing? Compare rent in Bloomington to that in New York City. It's not even close.

Therefore, the rent in cities like Bloomington can be at rates that would be laughable in Fort Wayne or most of Indianapolis. If the alternative is renting a $2500/month shoe box in New York City, a $1400/month swanky loft in Bloomington, IN, seems like a really good deal.

This is my theory of why Bloomington is the most expensive city in the state.

Happy Saturday.

Bloomington - Most expensive city? (Part 1)

I stumbled across this in the Star today.

For those who aren't going to click through, the article is about how Bloomington is the most expensive city in the state. While I suppose this isn't terribly surprising, it got me thinking about Bloomington now vs. Bloomington in the 1990s, when I was a student there.

In the '90s, my tuition at IU was rougly $1,500/semester. My mother worked for IU Health, and that got us a 50% tuition reduction. I suspect that my cost of living at the time was sub-$1,000, so an entire year of school could be financed on approximately $13,000, give or take. While this is more than a kid could make over the summer, it minimized the financial strain on my parents (who thankfully "put me on scholarship" for four years of undergrad studies).

If memory serves, when I moved back to Ft. Wayne after college, I found things to be more expensive in Ft. Wayne. I kind of figured that as the city got larger, the prices did too. This made sense, when I thought about the jump in cost of living from Ft. Wayne to Indianapolis (and there was one when I moved in 2003, but that may have been due in part to a bit of a neighborhood upgrade as well). I always knew Chicago was more expensive than Indy, and NY more expensive than either. Of course, that it made sense to me didn't mean that I liked it, but that was how I understood the world to be.

Now, of course, developments like Bloomington being the most expensive city invariably have me asking why that is. Shooting from the hip, I have a theory:

It used to be (back in the mythical, halcyon days) that college was hard to get into and relatively easy to afford. If people had student loans, they were generally minimal (sub $10,000) and they would generally pay them off within 5 years or so of graduation. This arrangement necessarily involved many people in Indiana paying taxes for a college they could not attend. One can see both the virtue and the vice in this arrangement.

Now, it seems as though the worm has turned, and college (somewhere, not necessarily at the flagship state university) is now relatively easy to get into and difficult to afford. People routinely graduate from college with debilitating debt the size of a mortgage. To compound the issue, there are so many people now going to college that it no longer makes a job candidate stand out, and there is less of a financial premium, to be a college graduate. These are of course aggregate, macro observations.

My belief is that two major policies have contributed to this situation:

First, the state has by and large withdrawn support for public institutions of higher learning. This is likely a combination of a few things:

1. It likely reflects an increasingly libertarian bent in our society that believes that each individual should pay his/her own way and not depend on the public to underwrite their desires. This goes hand in hand with a belief that one values something more if he personally pays for it. . . the whole idea that nobody washes a rental car or mows the grass at a public park.
2. It also likely reflects a conservative view that institutions of higher learning are liberal bastions of proto-socialist thinking.

I make no real comment on the veracity of either of these views, but I do believe that a combination of the two has resulted in less-generous funding of post-secondary educational institutions.

As the state has withdrawn support for public colleges, tuition has gone up as students have been expected to shoulder more of the burden. This is to be expected, in line with the libertarian bent noted above. To fill in this void has stepped the second major policy:

Public/private funding of student loans.

With most loans, if the borrower defaults, the lender winds up eating some of the cost (ask Donald Trump's creditors). This idea is built into the process of acceptance/rejection of loan applications and underwriting of interest rates. The greater the risk that the borrower will default, the higher the interest to pay for that risk in the long run.

When you get a student loan, though, you're generally a terrible credit risk. After all, you're only 18, have no education, no assets, and probably few if any skills.

So, the government steps in and more or less insures your loan. The public pays for this insurance.

Now, we have a situation where the lender is not bearing the risk but gets to reap the profits. Add to this that bankruptcy laws were changed in the mid 00s rendering student loan debt non-discharge-able, and you have a situation designed to put an albatross around the neck of the borrower.

In such a situation, if you were the lender, why wouldn't you extend as much credit as possible? You're going to get paid one way or another, either by the borrower (who can never discharge the debt, no matter how unlikely it is that it will ever get paid) or by the government (if the borrower dies before paying, or defaults). Your profits are a percentage of your loan portfolio.

Add into this situation that, as mentioned above, if you're an 18-year-old kid, you stand very little chance at prosperity in your 40s if you don't go to college.

So, the student has little choice but to take out debt, yet is too young to fully reckon with the consequences of racking up such a debt.

The lending institutions have very little incentive to minimize borrowers' debt obligations or to underwrite their portfolios.

The colleges have very little incentive to control costs, other than avoiding negative publicity.

Nice system we've created here.

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.

Fireworks, Tolerance, and Trash

Recently, someone was complaining on NextDoor about people letting off fireworks in Meadowood Park. A few thoughts:

First, insofar as there were some comments on the thread about "no hablo inglise," I can't help but ask what the relevance of that is. Would it make a difference if the people doing this are from Mexico or Missouri? What difference does their language make?

Second, to the degree that people complain about fireworks upsetting their dogs, the 4th of July is not going to change its traditions just because your dog gets upset. I accept the same principle as to my kids. Just because it makes it a bit harder to get them to sleep does not mean that I have any right to expect people to stop having fireworks on and around the 4th of July. Expecting them to stop that would be akin to expecting people not to light up their homes for Christmas because the blinking lights are upsetting.

Finally, because I am an equal-opportunity hater, for those who leave the trash from their fireworks all over the place, there is a special place in hell for litterers. Need I say more?

In sum, if you have a problem with fireworks within a week or so of the 4th of July, let it go. Life is too short to be a kill joy. For those who let off their fireworks around the 4th, clean up your mess. We all live here together; a little bit of courtesy combined with a little bit of tolerance goes a long way.

UPDATE: I see that there is more complaining about fireworks from last night. To the complainers, I will reiterate that this is once per year and has been happening for decades. It's not going to stop just because your (insert dog/cat/infant) gets upset because of the noise. I have young children and a dog as well, and some of the noises keep them awake. It is once per year. I'm sure that I do things at least once per year that annoy people around me too. To them, I say thank you for tolerating me and contributing to the greatest neighborhood/small town in America!

And the award for most competent public official goes to . . .

I'm not really talking about the Town Council, but they are included in this observation. So far as I can tell, here are the people who represent me at all levels of government, starting here in Speedway:

• Eileen Fisher (R), Speedway Town Council
• Joe Hogsett (D), Indianapolis Mayor
• Rep. Karlee Macer (D), IN House of Representatives
• Sen. Mike Young (R), IN Senate
• Gov. Eric Holcomb (R), IN Governor
• Rep. Andre Carson (D), US House of Representatives
• Sen. Joe Donnelly (D), US Senate
• Sen. Todd Young (R), US Senate
• Pres. Donald J. Trump (R)

Of all of these people, I would say that I have the most confidence in Gov. Holcomb. While I tend to disagree with some of his priorities, I believe him to be a competent manager of people who is in the office because he wants to do something as opposed to being in the office because he wants to be something.

As pertains the remainder of those on this list:

• I have no doubt that Eileen Fisher is a nice lady. I have been fortunate to meet her and found her pleasant and agreeable. However, I have not seen much by way of any policy ideas that she has pushed. Insofar as she has acquiesced to the extortion over parking that is going on down on Main St., my feelings on this are well known.
• Likewise, Joe Hogsett seems like a nice enough guy. However, his track record as US Attorney leaves much to be desired.
• Karlee Macer is a nice lady who I have had the pleasure of meeting. She likewise seems pleasant and agreeable, and I am glad to have at least a few seats in the state legislature occupied by anything other than the self-proclaimed "conservatives" of the Republican party. However, I am unable to identify any major achievements of hers.
• Mike Young is your typical pseudo-conservative politician: feed at the public trough while lecturing others for doing the same . . . make sure that policy comforts the comfortable and afflicts the afflicted. 
• Andre Carson . . . inherited his seat from his grandmother and has no legislative accomplishments.
• Joe Donnelly. Caved on the Neil Gorsuch nomination. Resides squarely in the "Joe Lieberman/centrist/spineless" camp
• Todd Young - see my comments on Mike Young, and multiply by a thousand.
• Donald Trump - turn on the TV.

Gov. Holcomb, however, actually has ideas and is willing to take risks to do what he believes is in the state's best interest. Could you imagine Mike Pence agreeing to raise taxes, for any reason, at any time? Me neither. Gov. Holcomb recognized that roads need to be paid for, and taxes pay the government's bills. He recognizes that if the populace wants "stuff," they have to pay for it; "starve the beast" has been a miserable failure, perhaps "serve the bill" will work to shrink government.

Gov. Holcomb also recognizes (unlike the US Atty. Gen.) that the opioid epidemic is a public health problem and not merely a criminal justice problem. Again, can you imagine our ex-Gov. Empty Suit Mike Pence conceding something this monumentally obvious?

So, congratulations Gov. Holcomb, you have the vote of confidence of TableTop Joe. Congratulations, or something.

Where is the townhall meeting?

In case you missed it, the GOP just passed a healthcare "replacement" for the Affordable Care Act. While this law would materially benefit me, I think that it is, on net, bad for America. Certainly people disagree with me, and that is their right. However, should not those who "represent" us in Washington, D.C., and vote on such matters as national healthcare policy, make themselves available for questioning on their positions and votes?

I have put together a handy little chart of Indiana's congressional delegation, and whether they are holding any townhall meetings during the present recess.

Close to home, let's start with Todd Rokita, who represents the area just west of Indianapolis. Here is his district:

No plans to appear publicly in Indiana. If you are so inclined, here is his contact information. Send him an email and let him know what you think.

Moving on, let's talk about Susan Brooks. She is a nice lady who plays a moderate in public. Regrettably, her voting record does not support the reputation of "reasonable moderate conservative" to which she aspires. Here is her district:

Rep. Brooks does not have anything on  her web page that shows events. I take that to mean that she is not having any. Here is how you can email her. Please note, unless you live in her district, she doesn't give a damn what you have to say. She won't take your comments. Just saying.

Next, we have good old Luke Messer, Mr. "My wife gets $20k/month from the Town of Fishers, but I think the government spends too much money on poor people" Conservative. I always believed he was a little too slick, and this kind of $hi+ surprises me not in the least. Anyway, here is his district:

Again, no information whatsoever as to whether he will hold any townhalls. I presume this means he will not in any meaningful sense make himself available for questioning by his constituents. Real class act, this one . . . Anyway, here is how you can contact him and share your thoughts. Again, if you don't live in his district, he doesn't want to hear from you. Remember this when he inevitably runs for senate in 2018.

Speaking of worthless (I'm a bipartisan hater), how about Rep. Inherited my Congressional Seat from My Grandma Andre Carson. At least he has an "Events" section on his web page, even if it only lists events that have already happened (kind of defeats the purpose). If you have thoughts on how he has comported himself in Congress, here is his contact info. Again, he only wants to hear from people who live in his district. I doubt he will ever run for any higher office, so if you don't live in Indianapolis south of 38th Street, you're stuck with him. Here's his district:

Last but not least, we have Tennessee Trey Hollingsworth. Here's his district:

I'm sure you'll be shocked to find that he has no intention of holding any public events. Here is his contact info if you feel like carrying on a conversation with a coffee table.

In sum, it seems clear to me that the entirety of the central Indiana congressional delegation is either incompetent (in the case of Andre Carson) or indifferent (the rest). Ain't democracy grand?

Wilshaw, Bonds, and Rube Goldberg Devices

I have been thinking more and more about the bond that will be issued to support the Wilshaw Project.

For starters, understand that issuing a bond is essentially no different than taking out a loan, except you're not borrowing from one lender but instead borrowing from hundreds or even thousands of lenders. Each of those lenders is entitled to be repaid.

So, in light of that, here is my understanding of the money flow with respect to the bond. If either reader of this blog know of reasons why this understanding is incorrect, please let me know.

1. The bonds will be issued (i.e. the money will be borrowed) by the Town of Speedway. I have surmised this from the "Notice of Public Hearing of the Speedway Economic Development Commission."

The Bonds will be issued by the Town

2. The Town will then lend the money raised through the issuance of the bond to another entity, the Speedway Municipal Facilities Corporation.

The Town will lend the proceeds of the Bonds to the Speedway Municipal Facilities Building Corporation (the “Corporation”) to finance the construction of a portion of certain economic development facilities, consisting of a two level parking facility, site development work, foundations and related costs (the “Parking Facilities Project”).

As I have stated before, I believe that incurring debt to build a parking facility is short sighted and wrong, but I understand that some in the community disagree with me. We'll agree to disagree over whether publicly financing parking is appropriate.

3. The Speedway Municipal Facilities Corporation will then take the money to finance the construction of a parking garage, the majority (if not the entirety) of which will be for use by Wilshaw.

4. Wilshaw and the Speedway Redevelopment Commission will jointly and severally lease this parking facility from the Speedway Municipal Facilities Corporation.

5. Payments on that lease will be made to the Speedway Municipal Facilities Corporation by Wilshaw and the Redevelopment Commission. The money will come from either TIF money, the Developer, or a special benefits tax levied by the Redevelopment Commission pursuant to IC 36-7-14-27.

The Redevelopment Commission’s lease payments under the Lease will be payable from (a) tax increment revenues generated in the Redevelopment Area (the “TIF Revenues”), (b) payments under the Developer Obligations Agreement and Third Party Guaranty (each as defined in the Economic Development Agreement), and (c) to the extent TIF Revenues and payments under the Developer Obligations Agreement and Third Party Guaranty are ever insufficient to pay lease rentals, from the revenues of a special benefits tax levied by the Redevelopment Commission pursuant to Indiana Code 36-7-14-27.

Presumably, Wilshaw will increase the value of the land upon which it is built so much that the increased value of the land will raise the tax revenues on the land to the point where the debt pays itself. Additionally, Wilshaw has some sort of "Developer Obligations Agreement" that is likely available for viewing at Town Hall from 9-4 M-F (precisely located squarely within the time frame during which I, and most of my neighbors, earn our living) and has not, to my knowledge, been posted online. There is also some mention of a third-party guarantor, the identity of whom is not revealed. Is that the citizenry of Speedway? Vladimir Putin? God only knows. Should neither of those options suffice, the Redevelopment Commission will levy a special tax on the Main St. TIF area.

Schematic Representation of this Financing Deal

I have a variety of thoughts on this scheme, not all of which have been thoroughly sorted out. However, as a first draft:

1. As mentioned above, I believe that spending taxes so that people have a place to park their enormous iron machines (i.e. cars) is a waste of tax money. We don't ask the public to provide us a place to work or sleep. Heck, this nation has had a revolt of late over asking the public to provide us basic medical care, but we don't bat an eye when it comes to spending public money so that people can park their cars? Priorities people. Priorities.

2. Why the rube goldberg device for where the money goes? If we (however wrongly) do decide to publicly finance a parking garage, why all of the misdirection as to where the money goes, comes from, etc? I can't help but think that this is one of those situations where we, the Town of Speedway, shoulder all of the risk while Loftus-Robinson (i.e. Drew Loftus and Kyle Robinson) stand to profit. As they say, if you're sitting around the poker table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you.

3. The notice mentions a statute but never indicates the import of it. I can't help myself here, as I am a nerd about this kind of stuff. Here is what I think the relevant portion of the cited statute (IC 36-7-14-27) is:

The redevelopment commission, with the prior approval of the legislative body, shall levy each year a special tax on all of the property of the redevelopment taxing district, in such a manner as to meet and pay the principal of the bonds as they mature, together with all accruing interest on the bonds or lease rental payments under section 25.2 of this chapter. The commission shall cause the tax levied to be certified to the proper officers as other tax levies are certified, and to the auditor of the county in which the redevelopment district is located, before the second day of October in each year. The tax shall be estimated and entered on the tax duplicate by the county auditor and shall be collected and enforced by the county treasurer in the same manner as other state and county taxes are estimated, entered, collected, and enforced. The amount of the tax levied to pay bonds or lease rentals payable from the tax levied under this section shall be reduced by any amount available in the allocation fund established under section 39(b)(3) of this chapter or other revenues of the redevelopment commission to the extent such revenues have been set aside in the redevelopment bond fund.

Note that this is a bit opaque. After about a half hour of research attempting to locate the exact locale of the TIF district for Speedway, this is what I was able to come up with:

How much will this cost?Approximately $120 million of infrastructure will be funded by public investment, which will help attract an additional $400 million in private investment in Redevelopment Area One.

How will the public investment be generated?

The Town of Speedway has the financial strength necessary to make the investment through the creation of a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district, which provides the town with a healthy revenue stream and credit. 

Given that they want to obligate people to repay  over a hundred million dollars, you would think that we could get an easily accessible map or something. The best I could come up with is this, with a map on pg. 5 of 33.

I note that, should this not work out, the other business owners on Main will be on the hook to pay for this parking garage.

Seems like a bad idea to me.

I don't suggest for a moment that our officials on the Redevelopment Commission, Town Council, etc., are in any way acting in bad faith. However, please remember that Loftus-Robinson is a fairly new company that does not have an extensive track record, and Ice Miller has been playing this "get public money for private projects" game for a long time. Please see Lucas Oil Stadium as Exhibit A.

It seems to me that we are allowing ourselves to be lured into quite an obligation that benefits Wilshaw rather handsomely and is rather dubious with respect to its benefits for Speedway. As I've stated before, if we want to publicly fund a garage, we should do it and have the Town of Speedway own it, operate it, and service the debt. Straight forward.

When I hear the words "public/private partnership," I tend to assume that I'm about to be taken to the cleaners. If it's worthy of public money, then it's worthy of public ownership.

Senator Young's "Response" to My Letter

I can't imagine why people believe that their "representatives" fail to represent them unless they bring a big fat campaign donation. Here is Senator Young's response to my letter, annotated with my comments:

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX,

          Thank you for contacting me regarding efforts to repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).  I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

I suppose my letter was about your effort to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. If you had a better idea than Obamacare, you would have my wholehearted support. Your efforts, since going to Congress, have only been an attempt to make healthcare less affordable for people like me. Your efforts have been focused on making healthcare more profitable for the providers and less affordable for the patients.

          While the PPACA – the law known by most as Obamacare – sought to address skyrocketing health care costs and access to care issues, it largely failed, and Americans are now experiencing collapsing health insurance exchanges and soaring premiums.  

It is nice that Sen. Young now concedes, after a mere 8 years, that Obamacare was not some secret socialist plot to destroy America and the "greatest healthcare system on earth" (objective statistics be damned). As to your comments, Senator, on collapsing exchanges and soaring premiums, you now own these problems. You asked the American people to put you in charge; with power comes responsibility. Every penny that my premiums go up, and every benefit that is dropped from my health insurance, now rests with you. IT IS ON YOU.

The law also lacked sufficient regard for the doctor-patient relationship and consumer choice, and levied new taxes, fees, and mandates - many of which hit low and middle-income families and small businesses. 

Interesting that this bill is so bad that you have to lie about it Senator. The taxes contained in Obamacare were not aimed at low and middle-income families or small businesses, but the subsidies were. The taxes are on individuals' investment income in excess of $250,000/year. Raise your hand if you make more than a quarter million in investments a year. That is not low income. That is not middle income.

As to small businesses, that is a slippery term if I ever heard one. I know we all like to think a small business is a used record store, but it also encompasses each and every REIT, hedge fund, and capital investment group. I'm sure Brixmoor Properties is a "small business" in Senator Young's eyes, notwithstanding the fact that it owns an asset (real estate) worth several million dollars and collects hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in rental payments per year.

Further, please explain how Obamacare "lacked sufficient regard for the doctor-patient relationship and consumer choice." I suppose your bill is better in the consumer choice regard if that means "you get to choose everything you can afford." That sounds a bit like "the rich and poor alike are forbidden from begging and sleeping under bridges."

As to the doctor-patient relationship. Sen. Young, pass a law that states that a doctor owes a fiduciary duty to his/her patients, and you will not reek of hypocrisy. Until then, I can smell you from here.

          Obamacare has failed Hoosiers.  

Senator, you have never participated in the exchange. I have. If you are saying that it needs improvement, I agree. However, your purported "fix" to the American health care system makes every single problem with the system worse. As indicated above, you now own every problem with America's terrible health care system. Congratulations. 

Further, I note that the House bill contains a provision allowing states to opt out of consumer protections for me, but not for you and your staff. So, what am I to make of that? Good enough for me but not for thee?

One of my first votes in the Senate was to start the process of repealing and replacing this law that is collapsing under its own weight. 

When you say "collapsing under its own weight," I hear "our Republican sabotage of the law was working." I tell you what, Senator Marine, let's go out into the ocean on a boat; I'll start drilling holes in the boat and that can be evidence that boats don't work and we shouldn't rely on boats. How about that, Senator?

 Now that the House has sent over its bill, I look forward to working with my colleagues on a replacement that works for Indiana.

Why don't you work with your constituents to see how your votes will affect them? Why don't you see how many people will lose their insurance coverage as a result of your actions? Why don't you see what will happen to the cost of healthcare for those who get to keep their coverage? In a nutshell, why don't you please, for the love of God, consider the effect of your actions on the most vulnerable out there?

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

You're not welcome, Senator. I know you don't care about what I think, and you will never deign to explain yourself to "someone like me." Just remember, though, that when all is said and done, we have to answer to the Almighty for our actions. When I stand before St. Peter, I will answer for my actions. So will you, Senator. So will you.

Sincerely,
Todd Young
United States Senator

When we vote for people who profess to believe that the government can't make our lives better, we should be unsurprised when those people pass laws that utterly fail to improve our lives and indeed make our lives more difficult. Similarly, when the best the Indiana democratic party can do is pull Eddie Haskell Lobbyist Governor's Son Evan Bayh off the reclamation heap, then not only has Senator Todd Young failed us, so too has the Indiana Democratic party.

My Letter to Sen. Todd Young

What with the House of Representatives having passed the so-called "American Health Care Act," I reached out to Senator Todd Young who ostensibly represents me in the United States Senate. Here is the text:

Sen. Young,

I am writing to you to refrain from voting for the American Healthcare Act until you find out how it will affect my family. I am the sole provider for a wife and two kids. I work as a lawyer and carry approximately $XXXXXX (a scarily large number) in student loan debt from law school. I am gainfully employed in Indianapolis and earn nearly XXXXXXXX per year. Nonetheless, my firm is small and does not provide health insurance for my wife and two young kids (4-year-old son and 2-year-old daughter). The premiums for my health insurance are nearly what my mortgage costs (as is the monthly payment on my student loans). I am earnestly trying to provide a better future for my family, working no fewer than 60 hours/week. If my health insurance costs go up, or if my family faces a serious illness, I will be facing bankruptcy.

You represent my interests in congress every bit as much as you represent IU Health, Eli Lilly, Anthem, and Stryker (to name a few IN healthcare corporations). There are literally hundreds of thousands of Hoosiers in my position. Please, before you vote for the AHCA, consider its consequences. If you believe, objectively and based on the evidence, that the AHCA will materially improve the lives of your constituents (the human ones, if not the corporate ones), then please vote yes. If you do not so believe and instead would rely on materially dishonest talking points to explain the vote, I beseech you to vote no. 

Sincerely,

NOTE: my modest midwest roots preclude me from publicizing actual figures regarding my income and debt load. I provided such figures to Sen. Young so that he could make an informed decision on the impact of his vote on my life (if he actually cares), but I will not publicize those numbers here.

ALSO: my firm does make insurance available for my wife and children, however I have to pay the full premium, which would be double what a "silver" plan costs on healthcare.gov.

"Tabletop Joe"

Motorsports Investment District/Slush Fund

I read a great piece of reporting in the Speedway Town Press the other day regarding the proposed expansion of the "Motorsports Investment District." Being the curious and nerdy person that I am, I started looking into exactly what this "MID" is.

The first place I looked was in the Indiana Code of state laws. I found a few interesting tidbits:

For starters, this entire thing is a vehicle by which our legislature showers our tax dollars on private enterprise. Please remember this the next time Senator "Small Government" R. Michael Young talks about his "conservative values."

Next, this golden shower of taxpayer coin is available for "Qualified Motorsports Facilities," a term defined by statute to mean a race track that is at least 2 miles in length and holds at least two events per year, the combined attendance at which is at least 200,000. Hmmmm. Can't imagine who that's directed at.

The law creates the Indiana Motorsports Commission, which is empowered, among other things, to receive federal pork and incur debts. It is also authorized to request money from the State, not to exceed $5,000,000 per fiscal year.

The entirety of the statute is available for viewing at Indiana Code 5-1-17.5. Here is a link to the Indiana Code.

My point in this is not to trash IMS, which I believe to be a wonderful partner in our community. Given the largesse showered upon the Pacers and Colts, not to mention seemingly every casino project in the state, I can't blame them for trying to get a piece of the action.

The real blame lies with our state legislature, which has never encountered a piece of corporate welfare that it could resist. Remember, these people sell themselves as fiscal conservatives and then turn around and give your tax money away at every opportunity.

As they used to say at the poker table, "put up or shut up." Mike Young, show your fiscal conservatism or shut up about it. I would say the same thing to the remainder of our state legislature. Until you show some balls and forego the opportunities to shower well-heeled interests with public funds, your "fiscal conservatism" should be regarded as the sick, hypocritical joke that it is.

For more reading on the subject, I suggest reading Paul Ogden's blog or the late great Gary Welsh's Advance Indiana.

Todd Young - Political Prototype

I am at a point where I really can't tell the difference between Evan Bayh and Todd Young, other than the letter next to their respective names. They both have that "too slick to be believed" manner about them; they both appear to have precisely zero principles; and they both have the prototypical politician's resume, by which I mean "lawyer who never practiced law."

Evan Bayh had a daddy who was the governor of IN. He then graduated from law school, joined Barnes & Thornburg and quickly made partner (can't imagine why the biggest law firm in the city, with extensive lobbying business, would want to hire the son of an ex-governor, but I digress). Thereafter, he became IN's governor, then Senator. Then, amazingly, he went to work at McGuire Woods, an even larger law firm than B & T, only located in Washington, D.C. He joined their "government relations" practice group. Huh. Frankly, I think he deserved to lose his last race in IN, as he has been the Eddie Haskel of IN politics long enough.

That crown has now passed to the new Eddie Haskel of IN politics: Todd Young.

Sen. Young has one hauntingly familiar item on his resume: lawyer who never really practiced law. Believe it or not, it is a matter of public record how many cases Todd Young ever appeared in. He earned his law degree in 2006 and appeared in a whopping 11 cases in the ensuing years before going back on the taxpayer's dole.

I will have more thoughts in the future, rest assured.