Insult or Injury - Part 2

Tabletop Joe is no friend of Senator Mike Young's politics. This much is clear. And like most people, Tabletop Joe doesn't care to be lied to.

Mike Young likes to lie to me or, at the very least, communicate with me in bad faith. My lone reader will recall my recent rant about Mike Young and his track record on education. Well, this morning, Mr. Career Politician who got his law school paid for by the public and has spent his life currying favors for his donors Young sent me another message, this time touting the new policy that will allow for the use of public money to put metal detectors in schools. Nevermind the reason why the metal detectors are necessary, right?

Well, that inspired me to look up some advocacy groups' "scoring" of Senator Worthless Young. My research found:

• A grade of D from the Indiana Coalition for Public Education in 2016; and
• An award for Excellence from the American Conservative Union in 2016 (which scored positively, among other things, Sen. Young's votes to allow guns in the capital and school corporations to hire unlicensed teachers).

There is plenty more, but I note that Sen. Young brags about "protecting schools" while doing nothing whatsoever to curtail the epidemic of gun violence and undercutting the quality of the teachers in the classroom. 

I voted for Phil Webster in 2016 and would do so again in a heartbeat. I know Coach Webster personally, worked with him at Decatur Central, and have the utmost respect for him. Mike Young? Not so much.

Hearing Mike Young tout his record on education is like listening to Tipper Gore express her affection for the first amendment. 

Philosophical Question

This:

Is the Constitution a charter of self-government that allows the people’s elected representatives to try to find reasonable institutional solutions for the varied problems of the world? Or is it a charter for property owners that allows them to craft a state that’s well-armed and capable enough to defend their rights but incapacitated to govern the economy in any way?

Never Forget

It is no secret that I am a lawyer. Insert joke here.

That said, I have an enormous affection and respect for  the judiciary. It hurts me to my soul what is invariably going to happen to the Supreme Court.  

It was bad when they refused to so much as consider Merrick Garland.

It was bad when they eliminated the filibuster so that 51 senators, making it possible for senators representing less than 19% of the American population to put someone on the highest court in the land, for life, regardless of what the other 81% of Americans think. (And this doesn't even take into account the fact that most of those senators were likely elected with approximately 55-60% of the popular vote in the state, rendering the 19% more like a well-connected 10-11%, but I digress).

Now, we live in a world where it is highly doubtful whether the U.S. Senate will, in my lifetime, ever confirm a Supreme Court nominee from the other party. Thanks Mitch McConnell.

We also live in a world where, whether it is Kavanaugh or someone else nominated, 4 out of 9 Supreme Court seats are occupied by justices who were appointed by presidents entering office after having received fewer votes than their opponents.

We also live in a world where the Senate Majority/President is desperately trying to look like they give a damn about the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh without allowing these allegations to even slightly influence their votes. Can you say, "Gleichschritt?"

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me, after all. After all, this:

That's all bad enough. Now, consider this:

Over the weekend, Dr. Ford reached a tentative deal to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Most of her other requests were denied, as apparently Senate Republicans feel no particular need to respect the wishes of a mere woman. Republicans are going to make her testify first, when she’d asked to testify second. Republicans refused to call other witnesses who Ford claims have first-hand knowledge of the attack (more on that collection of heroes later). And Republicans are currently on the hunt for a woman, any woman, to do the attack job on Ford for them, so they don’t have to face the “optics” of attacking a potential survivor of sexual assault.

And Republicans are already indicating that nothing Ford says will matter to them in the least. Lindsey Graham, for instance, said: “What am I supposed to do, go ahead and ruin this guy’s life based on an accusation?”

I highly suggest you read either the linked article or one of the numerous articles available not only detailing the allegations against Kavanaugh, but also addressing the way the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Republican leadership (ahem, a bunch of old white men, ahem) has decided to handle this. It is shameful, and everytime I think we've reached rock bottom, we just keep on digging.

My Annual Rant

As N. Carolina cleans up from Hurricane Florence, I suppose it is time for my annual rant about flood insurance.

Can someone explain to me why it is that tax money is used to subsidize flood insurance:
1. On pieces of real estate that the natural ecosystem requires to dampen the impact of hurricanes, erosion, etc.
2. On pieces of real estate that the vast majority of tax payers can't afford to ever buy.

I went to the Florida pan handle on vacation a few years ago; not exactly a luxury vacation spot, I might add, but it was very nice for my middle-class tastes. I noticed that there were some houses in Seaside, FL that look as though they would fit in in many newer neighborhoods in Indianapolis. Of course, a 1,300 sq. ft. condo on the beach sells for $300,000+ down there; the cheapest single-family house I could find for sale down there on Zillow was $819,000. Based on the old adage that you shouldn't carry debt more than 3X your annual income, we can safely assume that whoever buys this house makes nearly $300,000 a year, presuming this is a primary residence. If it's a second, vacation, home, we can probably assume that our buyer makes not less than $600,000/year. In the alternative, our buyer has this amount in cash sitting around, and we can only speculate as to where s/he got it.

My point is that for all the talk about "socialism" when it comes to stuff that, you know, regular people need . . . stuff like healthcare and education, the government never seems to have the money and people pitch a fit about it.

On the other hand, when it comes to socializing the risk to which the wealthy are exposed, socialism is never even considered.

It reminds me of the old saying about "Rugged individualism for thee (poor, worker); socialism for me (wealthy investment banker)."

By all means, let's subsidize insurance for the priciest homes in America, while more than a half million of our fellow citizens, and more than 100,000 children, sit homeless.

Makes you want to scream.

Insult or Injury?

I was a public school teacher for the better part of a decade.

I left teaching to become a lawyer. People often ask me why, and I've settled on a fairly simple answer: a profession should be rewarding, either personally or financially. Teaching wasn't.

It wasn't personally rewarding for me. I could enumerate specific reasons, but this is not long-form writing . . . it would take too long. Simply put, teaching ceased to be personally rewarding because seemingly everyone, from the President to the Governor to my students' parents to my students themselves, expected me to care more about my students than any of them, including their own parents and indeed themselves. The old meme about "Welcome to teaching, where the pay sucks and everything is your fault" rings very true.

As to the finances, I'm fairly certain plenty has been written about that already. I tend to hear people who've never taught talk about how easy teachers have it; that's a crock of $hit. Anyone making such a claim is hereby challenged to (1) get licensed; (2) teach every day for a year; (3) live on a teaching salary for a year; and (4) continue talking about how easy teaching is.

As I've noted before, I am a civil litigator. I have tried cases that could result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in judgments against my clients, bankrupting their businesses and ruining their lives. Particularly when weighed against the annual income, the total stress of litigating doesn't outweigh the total stress of teaching by much.

Anyway, this is all a lead-up to the "insult to injury" email I got from Sen. Do-Nothing Government-Funded-Lawyer/Lobbyist Michael Young. Sen. Young, having voted to hamstring teachers' ability to collectively bargain for better wages, having voted to make school funding a statewide issue (so that it can be underfunded), having voted to wrench local control away from schools, now has the brass to send an email to me about Scholarships for Future Educators.

How about this Sen. Young? Maybe, instead of throwing paltry scholarships at prospective educators, you treat current educators with the same respect you would treat opposing counsel? Maybe you acknowledge that their jobs are difficult and valuable? Perhaps you acknowledge that teaching is not a hobby but a profession, and that requires actually paying people. Maybe you can acknowledge that for decades, society has been getting teachers at a cut rate because their labor is undervalued as "womens' work" as opposed to the "manly" work of construction or factory work (both of which pay better, I might add, and construction allows its seasonally laid off employees to collect unemployment; teaching? not so much).

Simply put Sen. Young, perhaps you could acknowledge that there is a large swath of society that actually makes money by working instead of trading off connections to do stuff like be a lobbyist, get elected to the state legislature, or get your law school tuition paid.l

Best quote in a long time

This:

 if you take on the job of steering the American economy, your performance will be judged based on whether or not you steered it to prosperity — not whether you steered it better than your least informed critics would have.

Interesting Tit-for-tat Hypothetical

It seems rather clear to me that GOP lawmakers have made a bargain with President Trump:

• On the one hand, they will look the other way with respect to his considerable personal corruption and that of his administration and campaign (see: Trump Hotel D.C., Emoluments Clause, Pornstar Payoffs, Profiteering from the Presidency as demonstrated by the financial information we know about Ivanka/Jared, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, et al)
• On the other hand, he give the GOP establishment the policy that it wants: tax cuts, conservative judges . . . the rest of the stuff can be forgiven so long as its not too egregious or costs them elections

Given the probable, though by no means certain, takeover of the House of Representatives later this year, I wonder if they too are willing to accept this kind of Faustian bargain. Allow Trump to continue to marinate in his swam in exchange for more money to social programs and cuts to the military?

Something to think about.

The Tragedy of Student Loans

Part the millionth about how college students are essentially being screwed out of an opportunity to make a better life for themselves (and spare me the anecdotal evidence about film studies majors and rock climbing walls).

Well, the top student lender watchdog of the federal government (the guy whose job it is to make sure that student debtors' rights aren't violated by powerful financial institutions) just resigned from his job.

Why, you ask?

Well, he makes three major points about the leadership at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the agency for which he worked, now led by Mick Mulvaney):

• Leadership of the agency has undercut enforcement of the law
• Leadership of the agency has undermined the agency's independence
• Leadership of the agency actively shields bad actors from scrutiny

Now, I have a selfish interest in how the student debt industry operates, as I am a student debtor. I certainly hope that my parents (who paid for their entire respective educations with less than $10,000) care. I hope that my neighbors care, and I hope that the owner of Dawson's and the Union Jack care. After all, every dime that I send to an out-of-state student lender is a dime that I can't spend locally, and that hurts the local economy.

Anyway, if you're interested, here is the letter.

Never Overlook Progress

Speedway has come a long way in recent years. While it is very easy to point out shortcomings and lament imperfections, I was reading through some old case archives and came across this:

A man was sentenced Wednesday to 85 years in prison for killing and robbing a guest at a motel where he worked.

Joseph Pryor had been convicted of murder and robbery in the October 2005 death of James Santelli in the Super 8 Motel in Speedway.

Police said Pryor, a maintenance worker at the motel, used a wooden coat hanger to stab Santelli, 45, of Palatine, Ill. A wooden coat hanger was found sticking out of Santelli's neck, authorities said.

Pryor admitted to stealing cash and tools from Santelli, a construction worker, police said. Pryor tried to cover the crime by pouring Listerine over evidence and sold the tools to a pawnshop, police said.

I note this particular matter because the civil suit that followed this crime wound up setting a rather important precedent in Indiana law.

May Mr. Santelli rest in peace, and may Mr. Prior find forgiveness some day. However, may Speedway work diligently to ensure that it never again becomes a home to dodgy "hooker hotels" that wind up having these kinds of violent crimes therein.

Worth Acknowledging

I hear the "Manafort and Cohen's crimes had nothing to do with Trump or Russia" defense already. Let's just acknowledge the following (hat tip to Matt Yglesias):

Mueller has a broad but still finite mandate to investigate matters related to Russia’s intervention in the 2016 campaign, Trumpworld figures’ possible involvement in the meddling, and the circumstances surrounding former FBI Director James Comey’s firing.

Mueller used that mandate to successfully prosecute Paul Manafort for crimes that, though related to work for Russia, do not appear to directly relate to the 2016 campaign. The strategy, evidently, is to try to create pressure on Manafort to cooperate with the investigation and implicate others — potentially including Trump.

But unlike former independent counsel Ken Starr (or his former lieutenant and current Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh), Mueller is not operating as an all-purpose roving anti-Trump ombudsman who just looks under random rocks and tries to find dirt on Trump. Consequently, when he uncovered evidence that looked bad for Cohen but had nothing to do with Russia, he passed it off to ordinary prosecutors. 

 This is an excellent point. Let's not forget that Ken Starr started off investigating a shady land deal in Arkansas and wound up investigating Bill/Monica hanky panky.

As a final note, let's not forget this (in light of the upcoming election):

The key thing to remember about the Russia investigation is it exists not because it’s the only aspect of Trump’s conduct worth investigating, but because it’s the only worthwhile investigation that congressional Republicans were willing to pursue.

Republicans run the House and Senate. The only way that any investigation will ever go anywhere is if congress authorizes it. The reason there is no investigation into Trump's campaign finance, previous business dealings, alleged sexual harassment, etc., is because those controlling congress won't authorize the investigation. 

Verizon & Wildfires - A Cautionary Tale re. Net Neutrality

I can't help but wryly recall those times when I was told that industry would self regulate better than the government could, and attempts to interfere with the "free market" would invariably backfire. "That which governs least governs best."

Fast forward to today, where I read this story about Verizon purposely "throttling" or "slowing down" the firefighters' data plans because they had "gone over their limit."

OK.

It seems to me that Verizon just "self regulated." No doubt Verizon profits from each GB of data it sells; why else would it be in business? That said, am I naive in thinking that, to the degree that functional (or actual) monopolies are granted and/or tolerated, is it too much to ask that the monopolists provide their services, in a very limited set of circumstances, at either a reduced rate of profit or free from profits? Wouldn't a wildfire that is literally consuming one's state fall within such limited set of circumstances?

Frankly, while I am inclined to make a specific policy point about regulations and their relation to business, I think that this simply illustrates a much larger point.

I know that Verizon could (and did) do this with or without the repeal of net neutrality rules. This is not  a post about the specifics of net neutrality. Rather, I write to repeat the obvious but glorious point, made on NPR on Wednesday, that when push comes to shove, corporate America is going to act in its own interests. If doing so at the public expense is what it takes, then so be it, I guess.

One final note: since the "shareholder revolution" of the 1980s, corporate America's singular interest is profit.

Facts, Pesky Little Things

"Truth isn't truth!"

In light of this weekend's utterly amazing disregard for actual facts, I thought I'd do a bit of research on what "facts" are being debated in the current race for a seat from IN in the federal Senate.

Note, this is simply me regurgitating what I've read, but I will source the conclusions:

• Joe Donnelly says that Mike Braun has supported two proposals and a lawsuit to end health insurance coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. MOSTLY TRUE
• Joe Donnelly states that 43 of his legislative proposals have become law, including 21 since Donald Trump took office. MOSTLY TRUE
• Senate Leadership Fund (a Republican Super PAC) says, "Sen. Donnelly's family got caught outsourcing jobs to Mexico, and 'Mexico Joe' profited $80,000. MOSTLY FALSE

The remainder of the quotes I saw "adjudicated" as above were from the primary. I have less than zero interest in discussing Todd Rokita.

Additionally, PolitiFact did a primer on Mike Braun's business practices. Note, this is not a partisan hit job on him but rather an analysis as to the claims being made by the Donnelly people. You can read the whole thing here. A few notable quotes:

Braun is the CEO and owner of Meyer Distributing, an auto parts distribution company, and Meyer Logistics, a trucking company, based in Jasper, Ind.

The U.S. Labor Department found Meyer Distributing violated the Fair Labor Standards Act 26 times. The violations were related to unpaid overtime work for 25 employees between December 2008 and December 2010. Meyer Distributing had to pay $39,402 in back wages. The company settled one lawsuit with a fired employee in 2009 related to the same issue.

I would point out that these back wages settlements amounted to a bit more than $1,500/worker. While this may not be much money to a multi-state trucking tycoon who can dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into his own political campaign, $1,500 may have been the difference between making bills for a quarter and losing the home for some of Mr. Braun's employees. I know no more than the allegation and the settlement, so I won't discuss the merits of the case. I do know that lawsuits like these often settle for one reason or another, and the settlement does not make Mr. Braun or his company guilty. 

Nonetheless, when you brand yourself the "champion of the little guy," it's a bad look to be stiffing your employees to the tune of 2-3 weeks' pay (maybe more, given their low wages).

Another point hit on in the piece was Donnelly's accusations about distributing parts made in China. I guess my point is: who cares? Most everything that gets sold has component parts made elsewhere. It's a modern economy.

What I do care about more than the original location of Mr. Braun's company's products is his legislative voting record. I found this to be interesting:

As a state legislator, Braun voted against an amendment that allowed local governments to take back property tax incentives from companies that relocate outside Indiana.

So, I may be thinking about this wrong, but my impression of this bill is that if, say, the Town of Speedway gives Allison Transmission tax incentives to stay where it is, and the incentives last 10 years, then Allison should at least be obligated not to relocate to Illinois or Ecuador for 10 years. Apparently Mr. Braun, as indicated by his own voting record, feels otherwise. Campaign rhetoric can spin one way or the other; the funny thing about votes is they speak for themselves. As I've argued during depositions (with a slight variation for the present circumstances), "We will stipulate that Mr. Braun's vote means what Mr. Braun's vote means."

There's also this about Joe Donnelly:

Braun rebutted with Donnelly’s own record. Donnelly profited from a family arts and crafts business that relied on cheap Mexican labor to produce dye for ink pads. Import Genius recorded 35 import shipments from China for the company between 2008 and 2018. Panjiva, a similar import tracking company, found 31 shipment imports since 2011.

Domila McFarlane, a manager at Panjiva, noted the company had likely received further shipments by air, but U.S. data only looks at maritime shipments.

Donnelly sold his stocks in the company following the AP report on ties to Mexico in July 2017. 

Apparently inscrutable behavior in search of politics is the new norm; either that, or utilizing a modern import/export system as designed is just what business people do. Perhaps the takeaway here is not that business actions in self interest are inherently good or evil but rather that the system we design to influence and/or regulate those decisions needs to be improved.

We could certainly go on, but then again, can't we always?

Healthcare - A Personal Frustration

My reader knows that I lament the state of American healthcare on this blog often. I recently had an episode that neatly encapsulates so many of the problems. Don't mind if I share . . .

Let me preface this by saying that I have a 3-year-old daughter, and I am still trying to clear my debt owed for her birth in January 2015.

Anyway, a few months ago, my wife received a phone call from a collections agency insisting that we owed $120 for a doctor's visit. My wife insisted otherwise and explained the basis for her opinion, to no avail. Collectors continued calling, and we eventually sent the check for $120, only to have it promptly sent back to us because we didn't owe it.

Just think about this for a moment: my family was threatened with financial detriment, repeatedly, over a bill that we didn't owe. How many "man hours" went into making this determination? How much labor was spent by the doctor and health insurance company to figure this out? Is it any wonder that American healthcare is monumentally inefficient?

How much of my wife's time was spent (without compensation) trying to explain to these people how their own books were supposed to work? Is it any wonder that people have lost faith in American healthcare? Not because of the actual healthcare workers, mind you, but because of the business practices of the organizations that employ them.

It is episodes such as this that frustrate me to no end. Generally, when I purchase a good or service, I know what I'm purchasing and how much it will cost. Contrarily, with healthcare, I just get a bill and am expected to pay it, no questions asked.

To anyone who defends this current system, I say to you: "You owe me $120; pay up or else!"

One (of many) Problems with Vouchers

A beloved commenter recently suggested that perhaps those who send their children to Catholic schools should get a property tax break, since they are paying for their own private school tuition and not utilizing the public schools. This, of course, presupposes that the parents of private school children are not being subsidized by the public, which we know not to be the case. See: Indiana Voucher Program.

While I can nit-pick about whether the public currently subsidizes religious schools (by vouchers, not to mention tax abatements, etc.), I think my bigger problem is the fundamental misunderstanding of the term "public."

If I don't use the public park, do I get a tax break?

If I don't drive on the public streets very much, do I get a tax break?

If I don't ever call the police, do I get a tax break?

If I don't have children, period, do I get a tax break?

The answer to all four of those questions is a resounding NO. Why should I get a tax break if I don't use the park. It's still there for me, and the choice not to use it is mine. I would say the same thing as to the public streets. Just because I don't drive on them (and no, they're not funded entirely by gasoline taxes, and even if they were, I still buy gasoline for my lawnmower) doesn't mean that I'm not on the hook to pay for them.

Why do people continually view education so differently from public safety? 

For the record, I've never, in my entire life, required the services (to take a few random examples) of the Indiana Civil Rights Commission, the Indiana Horse Racing Commission, the IN Office of Tourism Development, or the IN Dept. of Veterans Affairs, yet I still get to pay taxes to support their budgets, don't I? Why do people rail on and on about public schools yet utterly forget about essentially everything else that our government does?

If I want to protect my own home with a .45 magnum, can I just buy one, show my proof of purchase to the state and federal governments, and get my tax money refunded that would otherwise support the military and the police? For some reason, I doubt it.

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.