Maureen Groppe, writing for Gannett has a good article entitled Income inequality study finds gap widening in Indiana. Incomes for Indiana’s upper and middle classes did not grow over the past 30 years as much as they did for the nation generally. And, during that time, Indiana was one of seven states where the average income of the bottom quintile actually fell.

The average income for the bottom fifth of Hoosier households declined almost 7 percent ($1,378) since the late 1970s. Average income for the top fifth grew 57 percent ($53,906). The average income of the middle fifth grew 22 percent ($10,567).

One source cites the “skills gap” (about which, see) and the decline in manufacturing jobs. The departure of manufacturing jobs no doubt contributes significantly to the drag on Hoosier incomes, particularly at the bottom. It used to be, I gather, that if you had a basic education and followed some basic rules about punctuality and working diligently at your assigned task, you could do o.k. by yourself and your family. Now, I think we have a very difficult time articulating precisely what a person should learn in order to earn a stable, family-sustaining income. So, it’s not terribly surprising if people come up short on their education.

Our tax policy isn’t exactly helping either. We got rid of inventory taxes, capped property taxes and raised sales taxes. We are eliminating the inheritance tax and reduced the corporate income tax. This is particularly awesome if you are heir to a corporation that owns real estate and inventory. Doesn’t do as much for you if you are a wage earning renter that buys stuff.

A post by Mike Kole reminded me of the thoughts of Cass Sunstein in his 2001 book, Republic.com.

I haven’t read it, but reports say that Sunstein’s central thesis is that the Internet will weaken democracy “because it allows different groups to avoid exposure to one another as they gather in increasingly segregated communities, making recognition of other points of view or common ground decreasingly likely.” (From the Splinternet/Cyberbalkanization entry of Wikipedia).

This isn’t new, of course, and it’s not unique to the Internet. As I mentioned recently elsewhere, I know some older political types who recall being shocked by the Nixon landslide because “everyone they knew voted for McGovern.” And, before rapid global communications, information was pretty effectively segregated by geography. But, I suppose the Internet and the customization available allows folks to wrap the cocoon even tighter than before.

Interesting post at BoingBoing (h/t ZW) entitled Rolling Jubilee: Occupy raising money to buy up, and wipe out, debts.

The idea of the Rolling Jubilee is that the Occupy Wall Street types will take contributions and use them to buy up distressed debt at fire sale prices and forgive the debts that were bought. So, they’re stepping into the shoes of the debt buyers — who typically buy distressed debts at low prices and then hound debtors for fun and profit.

It’s a nice gesture and undoubtedly nice for the debtors who are relieved of the debt. But, my guess it will be something like spitting in the ocean.

I propose we revert tax rates back to Clinton era levels, cut military spending 10%, cut farm subsidies 20%, get out of Afghanistan, raise Social Security eligibility by two years for those under 50, and eliminate the income cap on payroll taxes.

How we doing on the deficit? Other ideas?

I’ve long supported the Second Amendment. But, as the years pass and the body counts rise, it is fading. Like my support for marriage equality and gay rights, only in reverse.

So, the latest is in Milwaukee. The particulars hardly matter. If they did, they likely would not have an impact on my view of the Second Amendment. If they did, I could brush this off as an isolated case.

The Second Amendment was enacted as a means by which the populace could resist a government that had become too tyrannical. These days, I see our government as too disorganized to pull off tyranny and our populace as too complacent to resist if it did. That’s on one side of the scale. On the other, we just have story after story after story where a guy (and it’s almost always a guy) goes and shoots (and it’s almost always shooting and not mass stabbings or whatever) a bunch of people, and now they’re dead. Real people. Everything they ever had or might have had has been taken from them at the end of a gun.

I know folks have their Red Dawn fantasies that are precious to them And I’m willing to be talked back into supporting the Second Amendment. But, at this particular moment, its utility looks awfully questionable to me. And it will probably continue to look questionable to me until: a) mass murders stop happening; b) mass murders start happening with weapons other than guns; c) guns are used to forcibly resist prominent bits of tyranny; or d) some combination of the above.

Incidentally, I say this even as I recognize that gun control is dead as a political issue. If there were any questions, they were put to rest when, in the last political debate, President Obama could barely bring himself to suggest mildly that we should limit access to firearms by criminals and the mentally ill.

Tipsy has a post about some lady who is ostentatiously living by the precepts for women set forth in the Bible: things like “growing out her hair, making her own clothes, covering her head, obeying her husband, rising before dawn, abstaining from gossip, remaining silent in church, and even camping out in the front yard during her period.”

There is apparently some debate about whether she is intentionally mocking the Bible or not, but, in any case, she’s being criticized as at least misguided because the New Testament trumps the Old Testament from whence most (all?) of these anachronistic practices spring.

But here’s the rub as I see it: I don’t think any Christian groups have gotten rid of the Old Testament entirely. And there is some sort of human editorial process in making decisions about which provisions are deemed eternal commandments of God and which are deemed passing preferences of the tribesmen who wrote them down. Because unlike certain legislation, the passing preferences are unfortunately lacking in expiration clauses.

The process of picking and choosing which Old Testament instructions are still required is a human effort. And I think the lady’s efforts to follow Biblical law and the discussion surrounding it underscores the human element in making these distinctions. For me, a nonbeliever, this has value if believers are more likely to consider justifications for their own choices. “God told me so” is an abdication of responsibility for the moral choices one makes. Hopefully this sort of exercise leads to further discussion, “God told me so, and God is right because . . .”

Because of the current events of today, the Christian attitude toward gays is a concern of mine. It’s hardly uniform, but for those who have decided that homosexuality is anathema, it’s not enough to say that it’s true because “the Bible tells me so.” Or, at least if they do, there should be an explanation about why those provisions of the Old Testament are operative when so many others are not. Otherwise, as Jefferson put it, “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them” to make these judgments.

As a younger man, when I considered books like Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead instructive, I recall the concept of gratitude playing a non-trivial role in my assessment of the political and social landscape. In particular, entities that were insufficiently grateful. For some reason, it bothered me that poor people were not grateful for the government assistance they received, black people were not grateful to northern whites for freeing them from slavery, European countries (especially France) that deigned to criticize U.S. foreign policy were not sufficiently grateful to the U.S. for freeing them from the Nazis.

Leaving aside for a second that I was misguided about who owed gratitude to whom and in what measure, it beats me why I thought the gratitude relationship involved me at all. As an adolescent or early adult, I had done bugger all to deserve gratitude from anyone. If anything, I was insufficiently appreciative of all my parents had done to support me. Apparently I fancied myself, in recent political parlance, a maker rather than a taker – despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s also evident that I thought my tribal affiliations entitled me to reflected gratitude. I was an upper middle class white male from the northern half of the United States. And for that, world, YOU’RE WELCOME!

So, I’ve drifted away from this mindset. And thank goodness. But I was hardly unique. A lot of that sort of thinking seems to fester on today. What’s behind it? I can guess. For starters, there is this assumption that there is a default status quo and any deviation from that status quo is a sign of benevolence. If I have acquired money or objects, then it must be mine. I must be entitled to it. It is, without discussion, just that I should retain it. If government removes this money from my possession and transfers it to the possession of someone else who has not managed to acquire as much money; well, that’s akin to robbery, and if I don’t complain too loudly, you better goddamn well appreciate my grudging acquiescence.

Similarly, there is a status quo where the United States is geopolitically ascendant in the world and white men are ascendant in the United States. Any shift away from that status quo demands respect.

An emotional need for respect, I think, underlies the desire for gratitude. One argument for favoring charity over government assistance is that those with money can choose the charities they like. But, I think another aspect of charity is that the recipient is compelled to recognize it as such – they are supplicants, they are not entitled to this money. (Entitlement being closely related to property and, as such, carrying a bunch of questions about who is entitled, why, under what circumstances, and for how long?) Makes me think of that Seinfeld bit about getting hand.

Jerry: I know, you told me you like her, everything is going good.

George: No everything is *not* going good. I’m very uncomfortable. I have no power. I mean, why should she have the upper hand. *Once* in my life I would like the upper hand. I have no hand– no hand at all. She has the hand; I have *no* hand…

George: How do I get the hand?

Jerry: We all want the hand. Hand is tough to get. You gotta get the hand right from the opening.

I walk my kids to school most mornings. It’s a short walk, but I love having a consistent time to chat with them. Today it was frosty out, about 32 degrees. My son thought maybe it had something to do with the hole in the ozone layer. He had read that the ozone layer was the part of the earth that kept our planet from getting too hot or too cold.

I demurred because: a) weather is different from climate; and b) I didn’t think that accurately captured the function of the ozone layer. Still, it brought home in a more visceral way the potential effects of climate change denialism. For me, the climate change debate has largely been an abstract debate. I know the vast majority of credible scientists say that climate change is observable, say that it is caused by human activity, and predict grim things to happen on earth because of it in the not too distant future. I also know that there are some that wish to disregard such predictions because it would unduly interfere with short term profits. And, there are still others that want to ignore such predictions as a part of the culture war I don’t fully understand. Near as I can figure, they are willing to endure flooding and unstable weather because hippies suck. Or something.

Still and all, it’s been a pretty abstract debate for me. I generally have the sense that the worst of it won’t take place until I’m pretty old or dead. But, there is a better chance that my kids will have to deal with the fallout. And, why do you want my kids to be collateral damage in your psychotic war against Al Gore?

Last week, I linked to an article about I-69 moving along with an award of a contract for a stretch around Bloomington. Today Ryan Sabalow has an article“There is no money to finish anything of consequence, much beyond routine maintenance and a few minor projects,” said Rep. Jeff Espich, chairman of the House’s tax-writing and finance committee.