A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

Coffee of the Candidates

by 21 Comments

Leo over at Opening Arguments rightly flags this AP story as a crucial snapshot into the minds of the Presidential candidates. It’s a report on the coffee preferences of the candidates.

Unfortunately, Leo is just wrong, wrong, WRONG, when he asserts that cream AND sugar is the right answer. My personal preference is for cream only. But, I consider this a moral failing on my part. Everybody knows that manly men drink manly things and, therefore, the true choice is black: black as my soul.

Edwards has taken a major hit in my estimation, not drinking the stuff at all. Is he one of those Diet Coke & Tab freaks? When we come to Romney, we realize this fluff piece by the AP is little more than a thinly veiled attack on his religion — he doesn’t drink the stuff (Mormons and caffeine go together like fish and bicycles.) Huckabee (f**k me!) puts Splenda in his. I don’t even wanna talk about that.

The reason for the season

by 7 Comments

For some reason, Christmas history is fascinating to me. The timing of the celebration is not believed to have anything to do with Jesus’ birthday, particularly. Rather, back in the Roman Empire, Christians were vying with, among others, the cults of Mithra and Ishtar for believers. Mithra and Ishtar had birthdays around the winter solstice (late December). That time of the year had significance for humans because it meant winter was on the run and the length of the days would grow longer. Sun gods tended to have celebrations in their honor. By placing a significant holiday at this time, it made it easier for Christians to gain converts in the Roman Empire in that they could switch their God without having to disrupt their festival celebrations too much. This apparently worked out pretty well for co-opting the Scandinavian Yule celebration, apparently a raucous winter celebration devoted to Thor.

By happy accident of the period of human gestation, having Christ born around the winter solstice allows him to have been conceived and crucified around the same time — the vernal equinox, also an important time of the year for competing religions of the era, fertility cults and the like.

During the Reformation, some Protestants condemned Christmas as popery — my understanding is that most Christmas traditions have little to no support in the text of the Bible. When Cromwell’s Puritans took over England, they banned Christmas in 1647. The Protestants’ anti-Christmas sentiment encouraged the Catholic Church to promote Christmas all the more. New England Puritans also banned Christmas for a period of time.

In post-colonial America, Christmas fell out of favor since it was considered to be too English. Christmas in America eventually rebounded through the 1800s due in large part to various works of literature, popularizing the holiday. In 1870, it became a national holiday.

Santa Claus came on the scene, largely through the efforts of popular cartoonist, Thomas Nast in the late 1800s. Father Christmas had been a holiday character from the 1400s, associated with merry-making and drunkenness. The Christmas tree seems to have caught on beginning in the 1700s and is often explained as a Christianization of a pagan, solstice tradition of tree worship.

I’ve mentioned on many occasions that I’m not a religious guy. Nevertheless, I’m grateful for Christmas. Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, I still think it is useful to have a period of time devoted to congregating with one’s family, resting from labor, showing affection through the exchange of cards and gifts, and generally reminding one another that peace and love are valuable things. As a parent of young children, I have to say that it’s also pretty fun to observe their sense of magic and wonder at things I’ve long since taken for granted — looking at the kids mesmerized by the Christmas tree is a beautiful thing. That, my friends, is the reason for the season.

Well this is ridiculous

by 10 Comments

State lawmakers are pandering pondering amending the Constitution for no good reason:

State lawmakers learned Wednesday there isn’t really a problem with churches being taxed illegally.

But they considered amending the constitution to prohibit the practice anyway.

“We do not have a crisis today of taxing religious property,” said Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, the author of Senate Joint Resolution 2. “My concern is for the future.”

$24 billion of assessed value, or 6.3% of the state’s total is exempted. Of this, religious property is a subset. The property tax burden is, of course, shifted from that property to the rest of our property. I don’t have a problem exempting non-profits that provide a benefit to the community — personally, I don’t think the religiosity of the organization should count for or against the exemption.

Sen. Ford asked why the amendment was being considered if there was no problem. I know! Pandering to the religious base of legislators like Sen. Miller. This has been simple answers to simple questions. If my law firm decides to buy its offices, I think we’ll have to set up the First Church of Providing Legal Services at a Profit. “Of course we engage in for-profit activities. It’s dogma!”

Indiana Health Insurance

by Leave a Comment

Shari Rudavsky, writing for the Indianapolis Star, has an article on the implementation of the health insurance expansion adopted by the General Assembly last year.

The state’s new Healthy Indiana Plan is health insurance for low-income adults like Mayes who don’t have other insurance and don’t qualify for Medicaid. Participants can choose between two major health insurance providers.

Basically, it works like this:

Participants have a health savings account of $1,100. Their contribution to that is based on the size of the participant’s family and the percentage of the income in relation to the federal poverty level. The contribution is something like 4% or $20 per week if your income is around 200% of the poverty level, and it goes down from there. The State funds the remainder.

Certain kinds of preventative care are covered up to $500 for no cost; after that the care comes out of the savings account.

Finally, the State buys a basic insurance policy from a commercial provider.

AI on the GOP candidates

by 1 Comment

Advance Indiana gives a run down on the Presidential candidates. For those of you who don’t read Advance Indiana regularly, first: you should; second: it’s written by Gary Welsh, a devoted Republican who is gay. He runs down the list of GOP candidates and discusses why, for the first time in his life, he can’t see himself voting for the Republican presidential candidate. Huckabee’s benighted views on HIV are appalling (think quarantine); Romney is running hard from himself; Giuliani is scandal plagued; and Thompson and McCain have been limping through their campaigns.

Drive-by: Romney

by 11 Comments

Just a little drive-by attack by your local blog host on a comment made by Mitt Romney this morning. “Attacking someone’s faith is unAmerican.” Oh, I beg to differ, Mr. Romney. I’m not sure there is anything quite as American as attacking Mormonism. The history of the Church of Latter Day Saints is practically one attack by Americans after another. I’m pretty sure that President Buchanan went so far as to send troops to Utah to deal with Brigham Young.

Voter ID

by 13 Comments

stAllio! has a good post on the subject of the Voter ID law and its impact on voting. The provisional vote process gives us something of a record as to whether otherwise eligible voters were deprived of their right to vote. The Marion County provisional ballots show 34 provisional ballots. Only two followed up by returning to the Clerk’s office to show their ID, thereby allowing their votes to count — meaning 32 of them were apparently disenfranchised. Of those 32, 26 appear to have been long-time voters at their particular precinct.

As stAllio! puts it:

of the 32, 26 were regular, long-term voters who had been voting in that location for years, but this year their votes were taken away from them. and that’s just in marion county, in one election that had low turnout in many areas. how many more were disenfranchised statewide? and how many more will be disenfranchised if the law isn’t overturned?

Report of the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform

by 17 Comments

I have had a chance to read over the report of the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform (pdf). Following is a summary and, in parentheses, a few of my initial observations.

  • Indiana government is too complicated and should be simplified.
  • Too many local government decisions are delegated to appointed boards and commissions (p. 8) BUT too many local government officials are elected into their positions, making it difficult for them to work as a team. (p. 8)
  • A single individual as county executive would be more efficient than the three county commissioner model. (p. 8) (but possibly less transparent and responsive)
  • A model based on the realities of travel and communication by horse and hand-delivery is outdated. (reporting to Indianapolis also?)
  • Local government should be more transparent with respect to decisions and spending. (For example, if the legislature mandates a duty, it should probably have to pay for that duty).
  • City v. county isn’t sufficient to define the complex geographic realities these days. Recommends thinking of regions as urban, suburban, exurban, and rural. (p. 10).
  • More equitable distribution of services and funding them. “Some pay for services they don’t receive; others receive services for which they do not pay. Indiana can do better at matching services received and dollars paid.” (p. 11) (Possible translation: If you can’t pay for government services, you probably shouldn’t get them. See also, Anatole France, “The law in all its majesty forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges and stealing bread.” — See? Equitable!)
  • Reduce the number of local government officials.
  • Only elected officials can approve debt or taxes. (p. 11).
  • Elected officials should be administrators, officials such as sheriff, assessor, and coroner should be appointed rather than elected and should have professional qualification requirements.  (p. 11) (I’ve got to say,  appointment rather than election of the guy responsible for the Department of people with the guns makes me a little nervous.)
  • (So, we should reduce the bureaucracy and reduce the number of elected officials in favor of appointed professionals except that we should have increased bureaucracy and numbers of elected officials (without any particular expertise) when it comes to funding the actions decided upon by others.)
  • “It is imperative that the state develop a system of technical assistance and monitoring to ensure sustained implementation of local government reform, and that the state provide incentives and rewards for local governments that continually collaborate, innovate and improve efficiency and effectiveness.” (p. 12) (In other words, your newly efficient, stream-lined, responsive local government will have to report to an Indianapolis bureaucracy.)
  • State services should be supported by state funding “wherever possible”. (When
    would it be impossible for the State to provide funding for its demands
    where it would not be impossible for local government to fund the State
    demands?)

County recommendations (p. 13) – (Looks a lot like turning a county system of government into a city system of government – Unigov for the whole state):

Vastly more powerful county executive – Reduce the 3-person board of commissioners to a single person executive; give that individual the powers of the auditor, treasurer, recorder, assessor, surveyor, sheriff, and corner. (That person would then appoint underlings to perform these duties). Transfer the duties of the Clerk to “the courts” (in a county with multiple courts, does this mean the judges have to operate by committee?), to the election board, and to the county executive. Create a county-wide body for all public safety services (presumably this means a merger of city & county police forces, fire departments, and ambulance services). Transfer responsibility to the State for funding of the trial court system, including public defenders and probation, and the child welfare system.

Township recommendations (p. 13). Get rid of all of the township responsibilities and give them to the individual county executive. This includes, township assessment, poor relief, volunteer fire services, and cemeteries.

School recommendations (p. 14). School districts should have a minimum of 2,000 students and school bonds should be approved by the local government with the largest portion of assessed value in the district. (As long as we’re consolidating, why not just make the individual county executive the Superintendent of schools and eliminate the school board? If this super-mayor can be the chief law enforcement officer, why not the chief educator as well?)

Cities and towns (p. 14). City-clerk to be appointed by the city council in second class cities; move municipal elections to even years; transfer municipal health department responsibilities to the county health department.

Libraries and special districts (p. 14). Reorganize library systems by county. Have budgets and bonds approved by the fiscal body of the municipal or county government with the largest portion of assessed value in the unit seeking approval. (Why not just have the county fiscal body do the budget, if we’re reorganizing by county? With this assessed value business, we’re moving away from ‘one person, one vote’ toward ‘one dollar, one vote.’)

Local governments generally (p. 14). Encourage coordination and consolidation. Allow creation of “service districts with differentiated levels of service and corresponding tax rates.” (Seems like this would encourage the return to a balkanized, incomprehensible muddle of taxes and services.) Encourage collective purchasing. Prohibit local government employees from holding elected office in the local unit.

State monitoring (p. 15). Require the “Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations” to monitor progress, conduct additional research, and provide a report through 2011. Establish a statewide benchmarking system. Designate a state office to provide “technical assistance” to local government. (When I hear of “technical assistance” coming from the State, why am I reminded of the lyrics from a fun song I heard recently: “Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime; Where we’re working in a mine; For our robot overlords; Did I say “overlords”? I meant “protectors””)

The rest of the report provides a narrative explanation for the recommendations. Perhaps I will have more thoughts later.

Too much local government

by 5 Comments

The Shepard-Kernan report on government reform will be released today. The Evansville Courier Press has an editorial on the subject. Governor Daniels commissioned former Governor Kernan and current Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard to take a look at local government and propose reforms.

Part of the problem with local government in Indiana is that there’s just too much of it, Daniels has said. Indiana has 2,730 local units of government that can levy property taxes — including counties, townships, cities, towns and school corporations — plus an estimated 10,746 elected officials, according to the Daniels administration.
. . .
It may have made sense to have very local government in the 1850s, when contacting or visiting the county seat or state capital was far more difficult than it is now, said James Madison, a history professor at Indiana University. But that government model created under the 1851 state constitution was outdated by the 1930s, Madison said.

The commission’s charge is here.

The Commission on Local Government Reform is charged with recommending ways to restructure local government to increase efficiency and reduce the financial burden on Indiana taxpayers.

By the end of 2007 it will deliver a set of proposals for changing the structure, organization, and number of units of local government (and local officials).

In conducting its work, the Commission will seek to answer the following questions about the future of local government in Indiana:

1. What local government offices might be eliminated to achieve efficiencies and cost savings for Hoosier taxpayers? In specific, should township/county property tax assessors be abolished in favor of a uniform process managed by the state?
2. What local units of government (including schools and libraries) might be successfully consolidated to reduce overhead and administrative expenses?
3. What services or functions of local government might be reduced, eliminated, or provided in new ways to achieve savings for Hoosier taxpayers?
4. What constitutional, statutory, administrative, or other changes are necessary to achieve significant reforms in the structure and organization of Indiana state government?

Note that the commission started with the assumption that local government needed to be consolidated, reduced, and eliminated. The charge did not call for the commission to look at any benefits local government might provide. It did not call for a look at how, for example, state government power might be distributed to local units to make them more useful.

The editorial suggests that, back when Indiana’s government was formed, local government was more necessary because it was harder to travel to and communicate with Indianapolis. The editorial points out that this suggestion was made as far back as the 1930s. But, a funny thing has happened since the 1930s. Information technology has changed such that a top-down, pyramid command structure is no longer necessarily the most efficient management model. Often times, distributed decision making is more flexible, efficient, and responsive.

Legislators should take a look at the commission’s recommendations. But they should recognize the possibility that the recommendations were already built into the initial assumptions. Perhaps they could take this opportunity to empower local government so that it does not have to waste valuable time and resources going through Indianapolis before decisions can be made.

Update The Indianapolis Star has article on the subject here. One rumored proposal mentioned in that article is to go from three county commissioner to one. That would be in line with Daniels’ apparent preference for the pharaonic model of government — one supreme leader receiving information from the masses and then issuing mandates. Multiple decision makers living down in the trenches with those they govern isn’t really in the finest Daniels tradition.

Update II The Kernan-Shepard Report is available here (pdf).