Will Bunch has a column about American fear of “The Other.” I agree with a lot of his points, but not that this iteration is somehow uniquely dangerous or unprecedented in American history; but, then, he has a book to sell on the topic, and I don’t.

He suggests, it’s not the “Mosque” or Obama in particular that have people riled up, but a fear of the other. I tend to agree. I think the tendency to divide the world into “in-groups” and “out-groups” is pretty well hard-wired into humans. The ability to define the group characteristics seems to be pretty flexible, however; and the wall between the groups becomes more rigid as the environment becomes more hostile.

I think, this time around, economic distress is probably the key factor in whipping up the frenzy against the “out-groups.” When the economy was booming in the 90s, I don’t recall all that much anti-immigrant sentiment, for example. I do recall more of it in the 80s and early 90s.

In college, I had a history course on British society in World War I and did a paper on attitudes toward people of German ancestry residing in the United Kingdom. As I recall, the attitudes that showed up in newspaper articles were fairly appalling, and there were even some internment camps. But the dynamic was fairly simple, the war created a distressed environment and people of German ancestry, whether loyal Englishmen or not, were part of the “out group.”

People are scared, and they’re lashing out at the unfamiliar.

I see that Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been in the news a couple of times recently. He is apparently under federal investigation for abusive law enforcement practices.

State Treasurer Richard Mourdock is having him around as a guest speaker for a Mourdock campaign fundraiser. I guess Arizona law enforcement and Indiana finances go together like fish and bicycles. I’m not sure what one has to to with the other, and if I were a candidate for something, I’d probably try to avoid guest speakers under federal investigation, but that’s just me. This is on Mourdock’s own dime, so I won’t take him to task like I did for his quixotic campaign against Chrysler.

As for Arpaio, I’m about as pro-Sheriff as a civil libertarian can get, but this guy seems like trouble. (Also see this from Jon Easter.)

The “Ground Zero” “Mosque” is as aptly named as “Joe” the “Plumber.” It’s not a mosque, and it’s not at ground zero. It’s an Islamic community center and it’s at like ground zero minus three blocks. But, it does seem to be shaping up as a pretty representative sample of our stupid political discourse. The narrative bears only a passing resemblance to the facts on the ground, then the cable news shows fill up with people shouting at each other about it, and the serious news people can’t be bothered to talk about right or wrong, or even who is telling the truth, but only the implications for this week’s poll numbers.

That bleeds over into a barely informed populace, too busy trying to keep their heads afloat in a marginal economy to keep informed of even the big things, let alone zoning decisions in Manhattan. They hear a little bit, assume other things, and then it’s off to the races. “EVIL MUSLIMS DEFILING HOLY GROUND!” Emotion and an opinion are a powerful cocktail – strong enough to keep viewers watching through the next commercial; sometimes strong enough to induce a vote or, even better, a candidate contribution.

Briefly, my opinion on the matter: a) not much of my business, it’s a local land use issue; b) it’s not on “hallowed ground” – it’s a couple blocks away, and they have bars, strip clubs, and off track betting in the immediate area; c) it’s not a mosque – it’s a community center that has an area for prayer; and d) trying to tag Muslims as a group for 9/11 is like trying to tag Christians for the acts of a few child molesting Catholic priests. As the Daily Show pointed out, opposing an Islamic Center based on 9/11 is like opposing construction of a church next to a playground based on those Catholic priests.

But, really, it is probably the subject of a lot of national discussion because it’s symbolic and has very little concrete impact on most people’s day-to-day lives. This makes it easy to talk about in the abstract. People seem to be better able to find common ground on issues with more grounding in their own everyday reality. Abstract issues seem more likely to make people belligerent.

Larry DeBoer, long known in these parts as “Everybody’s Favorite Economist” gets a little recognition from Maureen Hayden with CNHI.

He is a professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University, but he also works part time at the Indiana Legislative Services Agency and is a go-to guy for lawmakers and other groups who want to get a handle on the finer points of Indiana state and local government financing. His monthly Capital Comments column is definitely worth a read.

According to an article in the Indy Star by Heather Gillers, Sen. Miller is preparing to introduce legislation that would require criminal background checks as part of the nurse licensing process. Indiana is one of only a few states that do not require criminal background checks for nurses, and the Indy Star did a report on nurses who had been charged or convicted of crimes involving prescription drugs, alcohol and violence.

The Star published its investigation’s into nurse background checks Thursday as time was running out for the state to apply for the federal funding for background checks for workers in nursing homes, assisted living and other types of long-term care facilities.

The federal program included some measures not part of Miller’s proposal so far. For example, the state and employer would be immediately notified by police if any employees — not just nurses — committed a crime.

But the federal program would have governed only nursing home and other long-term-care nurses. Miller’s plan would require background checks and monitoring for all licensed nurses, no matter where they work.

The Daniels’ administration declined to pursue $3 million in federal funds because the State match of $1 million was too steep. Sen. Miller shares those concerns. The costs of her legislation would be designed to shift costs of implementation away from the State; and presumably on to nurses.

Just a brief note about the issue of grant money. This process where a unit of government is granted money from the feds or some other governmental or quasi-governmental organization in exchange for a match of some sort and being required to meet a set of guidelines is very, very common. I know it varies depending on units of government, but I wonder in general what percentage of various government spending is from grant money and what percentage of grant money is consumed by costs of administering the grant. It seems like a very inefficient process.

The Indiana Law Blog has flagged an opinion column on how public pensions are in trouble. It notes that Indiana is one of the places where public pensions are in trouble.

I haven’t seen numbers lately, but Indiana’s pension trouble is not a new problem. This train has been rolling for a long time. I remember about 12 years ago, when Indiana was running a surplus, some of the folks I worked with thought it was high time to devote a lot of that surplus to stabilizing the underfunded public pensions. (They were not exactly unbiased on the subject because they were folks who were devoting their careers to working for the State, in part, because of the promised pension.)

Ezra Klein has an interesting column (h/t Paul Roales) looking at where the Laffer Curve bends. The basic explanation of the Laffer Curve – and I am capable of no other – is that, on one end, taxes can be so high (e.g. 100%) that no one will bother working and tax revenues will be down and that, on the other end, taxes can be so low (e.g. 0%) that the government will capture very little tax money. Government wants to find the top of that curve – capture a lot of tax money without discouraging it’s citizens from being industrious. This is of some interest with the Bush-era tax cuts expiring and the Clinton-era tax structure reviving.

Klein interviewed a bunch of people and tried to get a sense of where the top of the curve might be. The tax experts and lefties he spoke to seemed to offer up a top marginal rate of 70% as the peak of the curve. The folks on the right he spoke with seemed more reluctant to offer a number but, where they did, seemed to fall in the 20-30% range. They also cautioned that, while short-term revenues might increase at higher levels, there was also a risk of limiting growth and, therefore, long term gains.

I can’t articulate it well and, may just be wrong, but my guess is that low rates are associated with an incentive to just move money around instead of doing different kinds of work that contribute more to productivity in the long term. About the best I can offer is that, if you can gamble, hit a jackpot, then walk away with enough money to quit the game, you might not bother with the harder work of creating a system that generates lesser, but steadier, gains year after year after year.

This has to be tough for everyone involved. The Hancock County Sheriff has been arrested on charges that he had been diverting public funds to personal use. It does provide a minor civics lesson, however. The County Coroner is charged with arresting the Sheriff in these situations, since the Sheriff isn’t, obviously, available for the purpose.

IC 36-2-14-5 charges the Coroner with serving an arrest warrant on the Sheriff and entrusts the Coroner with the jail and its prisoners while the Sheriff is in custody.

The Urbanophile has an interesting post on the demographics of property tax revolts.

He offers the speculation, without concluding, that resistance to property taxes versus other kinds of taxes might have something to do with the aging population.

People who are coming up on retirement are going to see drops in income and consumption, but they own lots of taxable property. In fact, they probably have more wealth, much of it in the form of taxable property, than the younger families who are out buying clothes for their kids, furniture for their growing families, etc. Younger people are also those who are more likely to see their incomes go up, not down over time. Older households are also less likely to consume services, such as schools, typically funded by property taxes.

This would make property tax caps a sort of tax shelter tending to benefit older people. This goes to the point that, here in Indiana, we’ve been engaged in a tax shift, not so much “tax reform” or “tax relief.” I don’t think it’s an accident that the sorts of taxes that have gotten the most attention – estate taxes and property taxes – are those which disproportionately affect those of means. There hasn’t been nearly the push for payroll tax relief or income tax relief or sales tax relief. In fact, those taxes have tended to increase as the other sorts are limited or eliminated.

(I’m paraphrasing). According to an AP story, Everybody’s Favorite Economist ™, Larry DeBoer, says that 2011 is going to be the year that the recession hits local governments, with an 18-20% drop in income tax revenue for counties statewide.

Professor Larry DeBoer told a meeting of Allen County officials on Tuesday that 2011 will be the year the recession hits local governments in Indiana. DeBoer warned that with less money from property tax, local governments will have to rely more on unstable revenue such as income taxes and fees.

(It’s worth noting how we got to where we are.)