I’m not really in favor of most gun control laws. And I think the 2nd Amendment is not there for hunters and target practice, but with the (perhaps quaint) idea that an armed populace can resist a tyrannical government. But, if nothing else, stories like this make me careful about where I let my kids go to play:

Crawfordsville police Detective David Long tells WRTV of Indianapolis that witnesses reported 27-year-old Steven Bixler was acting carelessly with a gun in a bedroom where four children were playing when it went off, striking the 10-year-old in the torso.

I wonder how the number of burglars fended off or criminals deterred by gun owners compares to the number of kids and other innocent bystanders who are killed or injured by improper use of firearms.

It’s Labor Day which I will celebrate by not working. I think it’s the disparity of wealth in this country that’s killing us at the moment. You can be poor but happy, but that’s tougher when there is a wealth class appropriating a significantly disproportionate part of the value of the nation’s production. I’m not an economist and won’t pretend to be one, but I don’t think it’s “envy” (a major bugaboo in these conversations) that makes such happiness tougher. I think perhaps it erodes the sense that if you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll get a fair shake. I know I look around and see that folks made piles of money moving around paper associated with real estate and walked away from the bust without losing their shirts. It’s hard to escape the notion that working is for chumps.

From my simple high school economics education, I have come to the conclusion that risk, innovation, and labor are the things that our economy should be rewarding. If you aren’t adding value through one of those things, you probably shouldn’t have any money. That probably doesn’t help us find the leak in our economy though; find places where value is being diverted inefficiently. Anyone can probably point to some level of risk, innovation, and/or labor they put forth in almost any given business undertaking. The question becomes whether those levels are being compensated adequately. My sense is that minor levels of risk are being over-compensated and major levels of labor are being under-compensated. Innovation is a crapshoot.

I am willing to be convinced that my notions of how labor should be compensated are skewed. I have come to the conclusion that some of our social conventions are skewed by a tendency to view the post-war 50s as a yardstick instead of an aberration. It occurs to me that I have to consider the possibility that the same is true of economics. The postwar boom where unions were strong and workers were well compensated for manufacturing had a lot to do with the fact that the rest of the world was a smoking ruin while our factories were up and running. The rise of production elsewhere means that an equilibrium is settling in among the workers of the world. (Idle thought: I wonder if this means equilibrium will settle in among the world’s capital?)

But, at the same time the equilibrium has been settling in among the working classes, our national tax structure has shifted in a way that is decidedly beneficial to the very wealthy. Over the past 30 years, productivity has been increasing; wages have been largely stagnant; and taxes on the wealthy have decreased sharply. The rich have gotten a lot richer over this time period. It’s hard for me to escape the conclusion that our economy has a bit of a leak where the very rich are concerned. I think they could be convinced to put forth similar levels of risk, innovation, and labor for less compensation. The excess is probably an inefficiency in our economy.

I’ve noticed an interesting thing when it comes to discussions about compensation of ordinary workers versus compensation of the wealth class. The focus seems to be more often on the proper workings of an efficient economy when it’s worker compensation being discussed. When it’s the compensation of the very wealthy, it seems like individual rights are more likely to come up . . . along the lines of: “Who cares if we could structure the economy to extract the same value from these individuals for less; it would be morally wrong to do so.”

Anyway, here’s hoping for a pleasant labor day for all. And, the best pro-labor song I know, from the Dropkick Murphys:

Amanda Iacone, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, has an article (featuring Everybody’s Favorite Economist(tm), Larry Deboer) on the anticipated expiration of state funded homestead credits. This will cause pretty much everyone’s property taxes to go up unless they are already up against the tax cap.

The homestead credits, if memory serves, were funded by selling slot machine licenses to the horse tracks, (and got us through the 2008 elections with lower property taxes.) According to the Journal Gazette article, rural property owners benefited most from the homestead credits (as compared with tax caps) because those areas typically do not pay as many taxes as more urban areas – and therefore don’t hit the caps.

Frank Rich has a column inspired by the New Yorker article by Jane Mayer on the Koch Brothers who bankroll such things as the “grass root” Tea Party movement.

It remains to be seen whether Mayer will be the Koch Brothers’ version of Ida Tarbell whose expose of Standard Oil mobilized public sentiment against it and John D. Rockefeller. But, Rich points out that the Kochs & the Tea Party is nothing new in American history.

All three tycoons are the latest incarnation of what the historian Kim Phillips-Fein labeled “Invisible Hands” in her prescient 2009 book of that title: those corporate players who have financed the far right ever since the du Pont brothers spawned the American Liberty League in 1934 to bring down F.D.R. You can draw a straight line from the Liberty League’s crusade against the New Deal “socialism” of Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission and child labor laws to the John Birch Society-Barry Goldwater assault on J.F.K. and Medicare to the Koch-Murdoch-backed juggernaut against our “socialist” president.

Here’s to hoping the immune system of our body politic is up to fighting off this kind of thing again.

Eric Bradner, a really top-notch reporter for the Evansville Courier Press, has an article looking at Unigov in Marion County which is relevant for the Evansville area in that they appear to be considering the concept.

The upshot is that the Democrats lost a mayoral election to Dick Lugar in 1967, lost big at the state level in 1968, and found themselves legislated out of power in Marion County for the next 30 years. African-Americans were the big losers in this deal. They went from being about 50% of the majority party in the city to being a minority of a minority party in the city-county government. From the article, it seems that the big “tell” that this was more of a power grab and not so much directed at more efficient government is that the schools were left out of the consolidation. The wealthier suburbanites were willing to share city-county resources to some extent if they got to call the shots, but they weren’t going to send their kids to a unified school system.

The article did note that Indianapolis has fared better than places like Cleveland and Detroit where consolidation with the suburbs did not happen and black politicians maintained control. Their control of the city often reflected the fact of white flight to the suburbs and the resulting lack of resources for use in addressing their cities’ problems.

I’m a reasonably affluent white-guy so I probably don’t have the basis to comment a whole lot about this, but reading the article I found myself thinking we’ll all be in a lot better place if/when we reach a place where race isn’t a primary determinant of one’s political affiliation. Note: this is not by default a critique of how blacks choose to cast their votes. Whether one considers race or socioeconomic factors, Republicans, by and large, have not given blacks much of a reason to vote for them. And, with the latest round of nativist hysteria, “conservatives” (loosely defined) seem determined to alienate other racial groups as well.

Curt Slyder has an article in the Lafayette Journal & Courier about a workshop to discuss the social and economic future of Warren and Fountain Counties. I was struck in particular by the fact that Warren County has a population of about 8,600 people. That seems like way too few to support an entire county infrastructure, including a judge, prosecutor, sheriff, county council, recorder, auditor, clerk, assessor, and county commissioners (just off the top of my head). Adjacent Fountain County apparently has 17,030. I wonder how feasible a merger of counties would be. (Probably not very, politically, anyway.)

Education and Internet access were cited as areas for improvement. Anecdotally, I’ll just mention that I have heard Warren County is regarded as anti-creditor, at least in the collections community. Not really the reputation you want if you are trying to induce people to do business in the community.

Judging from the articles and columns popping up in my feed reader, it looks like the class war may be heating up a bit. I think it’s been going on for quite some time, just that most of us haven’t been particularly aware.

Probably the most significant article I’ve seen in the past few days is the New Yorker article on the billionaire Koch brothers and their war against progressivism.

But, this morning I was struck by the juxtaposition of two articles: one by Cal Thomas saying we should just lower our expectations, suck it up, and be happy being poor. Meanwhile, Les Leopold suggests that the super-rich are just getting richer in our billionaire bailout economy while we peons struggle and that we shouldn’t be afraid to soak them.

I’m going to guess that none of the Koch money is making its way to Leopold. Cal Thomas is probably another issue.

Matt Tully has a column wherein he expresses confusion about why Democrats embrace the status quo over proposed changes advanced by Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Bennett. I don’t think it’s so complicated, I think it comes down to a lack of trust.

Tully suggests that the status quo is broken, so why should Democrats object to change just because teacher’s unions might suffer? The answer, I believe, is because busting the teacher’s union is not just an incidental side-effect of attempts to improve the system; it looks to be the point of the exercise. If proposed changes came from someone who was supportive of teacher’s unions generally but saw certain union practices as detrimental to education, there would probably be room to compromise. But Bennett isn’t that guy.

Tully says:

The only missing piece in Bennett’s agenda is a call for more spending on early childhood education. The problems that cripple so many schools would be eased if at-risk students were better equipped to learn before they walk into a kindergarten classroom.

How would more spending on early childhood education hurt the unions? I doubt you’ll see any serious push for early mitigation coming out of Bennett’s office. Of course, I’d be happy to be wrong.

Jon Murray, writing for the Indianapolis Star, has an article on debt collection in the courts. I’m not sure if journalists are instructed to go for objectivity these days, but the article opens with fairly charged language:

Creditors dump on the courts, they clog the court system, leaving people desperate on a conveyor belt system where their money and valuables go to collectors. Obviously I have a bias since I work for creditors. I would suggest that they see it differently. They struck a deal with individuals to provide goods and services; they held up their end of the deal but the individuals they are suing have not. And where there are money and valuables available, the unpaid creditors regard it as unfair for them to go unpaid while the individual pays other creditors or uses the money to obtain new goods and services before the old ones have been paid for. Sometimes the existing money is going to necessities like food and shelter, and I think most creditors understand that this is going to take priority; but they lose patience when the money is going to cable bills or cigarettes. And, without “dumping” on the courts and “clogging them up” with their apparently silly insistence that contracts be honored, frequently a letter or other request that the bill be paid has no persuasive effect on the manner in which the debtor chooses to allocate his or her limited resources.

On the second page of the online version of the article, we get a quote from Steven Lerch mentioning something that is (and I credit Mr. Murray for including it) often left out of these stories altogether:

“[The FTC report on consumer debt collection] overlooks the fact that, unfortunately, most of these debts are owed,” said Lerch, a partner in Wright & Lerch and president of the Indiana Collectors Bar Association. “The FTC approach doesn’t comport with reality.”

Yes, I agree that debtors are often at a disadvantage in these proceedings. But an enormous part of that disadvantage is often that they don’t have anything like a meritorious defense to the claims. I can’t speak for everybody’s clients, but I get the sense that, in a perfect world, mine would prefer not to have to pay me. They make an effort to collect these debts without using me and without using the court system. And that works with a lot of unpaid accounts. I get the ones where that route was not successful.

There are basically two steps in debt collection (and, really, any civil) litigation: 1) is the debt owed; and 2) are there assets or income available to satisfy the debt. The courts really aren’t supposed to address #2 until #1 has been resolved. Fortunately for me, most of the claims I handle have been relatively straight forward as to #1. I’ve seen credit card claims where the rules of late fee and interest calculation are byzantine, and that’s probably an area where debtors could use some protection. I have also heard of debt buyers who don’t have any real information on the account. That’s a problem as well. But, mostly, the system is a conveyor belt because the cases are pretty simple: “Did you receive the goods or services? Yes. Have you paid for them? No.” Then, it’s a matter of discovering income and assets. The rules for what can or cannot be attached and used to satisfy the debt against the will of the debtor are fairly cut & dry as well. So, it’s frequently a matter of having the court apply fairly straight forward law to a relatively simple set of facts.

It’s not often that people advocate for more cumbersome legal proceedings, but somehow when it comes to creditors attempting to enforce contracts, more time consuming legal proceedings are usually one of the recommendations.

Here is what debt collection looks like when the courts are unavailable (caution: swear words):

Leslie Kaufman has an article for the New York Times about how technology gives folks an unwarranted sense of security causing them to take risks in the National Parks. To some extent, the article has more than a whiff of the “kids these days are stupider and lazier” genre about it. But, there is some truth in it as well.

Folks go hiking with a cell phone but no water; or they call in emergency rescue when there really isn’t an emergency. I wonder how much of this has to do with technology making us stupider, and how much is simply related to the fact that our society has transformed to a state where we don’t have as much contact with nature as we did in the past.

In any case, I am reminded of and thankful for my Dad’s stern little speech one day before my friend Tom and I were headed into the mountains for maybe the first time on our own. My Dad is normally joking and not given to a lot of somber discussion. But he got dead serious and said something to the effect of, “you take those mountains seriously or they’ll kill you.” The National Parks are great resources, but I think we forget that they aren’t altogether tame and they aren’t amusement parks.