I seem to have lost a post from yesterday. It was just a matter of migrating servers; and not that I was deleting it intentionally for some reason. Pretend that post was a masterpiece of craft and that it will be sorely missed.
OWS & Libertarians: Modify the Corporate Form
I’ve seen a fair amount of commentary about common ground between the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Tea Party. I don’t think it exists, because I find the Tea Party’s grievances largely pretextual. Debt and government spending was only a problem when a Democrat took office. Much like infidelity and lying about infidelity was an impeachable offense only when a Democrat was in the White House. For a certain group of hard core partisans, a Democratic Presidency is more or less by definition, illegitimate. That has seemed to be the beating heart of the Tea Party. The rest is mostly just dressing.
But, with that theme of common ground on my mind, I read Tipsy’s remarks on Mark Cuban’s advice to OWS. Says Tipsy:
A lot of reckless crap went on at least because the risk of loss was so minimal compared to the chance of gain. This is the whole point of Corporations and LLC’s: to limit risk of loss to one’s investment – and not one cent more than one’s investment.
It’s always seemed to me that the corporate form should be anathema to Libertarians. It’s a government construct that exists for the purpose of evading personal responsibility. And, as Tipsy points out, a lot of our recent economic problems were helped along by the actions of people who stood to lose no more than their investment, even if the damage caused by their actions or those of their agents was far greater.
For this reason, it seems like the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the Libertarians should be able to find some common ground in tinkering with the corporate form. (Particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision which expanded the rights of corporate personhood in the world of political campaign finance.)
I don’t know what that corporate tinkering would look like, necessarily. Cuban suggests turning “too big to fail” banks into partnerships:
We should make all investment banks become reporting partnerships (meaning they still have the same reporting requirements they have today ). I would have no problem with our government loaning money to the partners of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and other Too Big To Fail Institutions so that they can buy back all public shares of their stock. Of course all those partners would become personally liable for repaying that money back to the government. It would probably be about 120B dollars in total to take these 2 companies private. That is far, far less than a possible bailout would cost.
Those personal guarantees would change EVERYTHING in the banking industry. It would change the decision making process across the board. There would be a moral hazard to every decision. Today , a wrong decision and they vacation on their yacht. As a partner, the wrong decision and they are protesting right next to the OWS crowd as a 99pct er. It would be the definition of having “skin in the game”
Pal-Item on Richmond At-Large Council Race
A Palladium-Item article with no by-line that I could see reported on an event with the six candidates for the three at-large Richmond Council seats. I was interested to note that I am acquainted with two of the candidates: Chris Hardie and Misty Hollis.
If I still lived in Richmond and had a vote to give, Chris would easily get my vote. He’s the kind of fresh energy that Richmond needs. The city needs something. In the 20 years since I moved away, the city feels like it’s gotten tired. Things have an air of “deferred maintenance” about them. Chris is a small business man with a strong sense of civic involvement. I’ve gotten to know him through his online activity and then in person at a conference or two.
Anyway, enough of the campaign plug. (But, since I mentioned her, my contacts with Misty suggest that she’s diligent, smart, pleasant and would make a dedicated public servant — I just know more about Chris and his ideas.)
The article spends a lot of time talking about the idea of payment in lieu of taxes for some or all non-profits. My knowledge of the issue is cursory – but, generally speaking, when the IRS designates an entity as a non-profit, this not only hurts the federal government’s revenues, it also deprives local government of property tax revenues (assuming, of course, the property would be used productively in the absence of the tax exemption.)
The problem, I think, is that some non-profits are engaged in activities that look fairly lucrative — universities and hospitals come to mind. But, others would simply go under if they had to pay property taxes: a lot of do gooder agencies are pretty much held together by spit and bailing wire. And, even if government officials think maybe they’re losing money by not getting the property taxes; they’d probably lose more if they had to perform the services of those do-gooder agencies directly. (Although there is a political subtext that some lawmakers would be just as happy if some of these services to the poor were not provided at all.)
The article concludes with a couple of “yes/no” questions that don’t serve the reader or potential voter too well. “Will you comply with open records and open meeting laws?” Not surprisingly, everyone said, “yes.” Even if a candidate intended to flout those laws in some fashion, which one is going to be stupid enough to say “no?”
Interesting Medical Billing Case
Today the Indiana Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case of Allen v. Clarian (pdf). The case involved a declaratory action for determination of the reasonableness of medical charges. The plaintiffs were uninsured patients who signed a standard contract agreeing to pay for medical services received. They received the services, then got a whopping bill. Their main complaint was that the charges were “unreasonable” for the services provided. Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief — in essence, asking the court to determine what they actually owed Clarian.
The trial court dismissed the complaint as failing to state a claim. This is a decision that “even if the facts alleged in your complaint is true and you can prove them, you’re not entitled to relief of any kind through the courts.” The Court of Appeals disagreed and knocked down a couple of arguments in the process.
One argument advanced by Clarian was that the patients who disputed the amount of the bill were required to pay what they considered reasonable, then wait to see if Clarian sued them for the balance. Only then could they raise the defense that the charged price was unreasonable. The court said, no, the plaintiffs could seek a declaration of the amount due under the contract.
Another argument was that the patients did not contract to pay some ambiguous “reasonable” fee but, rather, whatever was on the hospital’s chargemaster for the services ultimately rendered to the patient. (The “chargemaster” is the comprehensive schedule of the hospital’s prices.) One problem with this is that hospitals are notoriously secretive about their chargemaster schedules. This led to a humorous observation by the Court of Appeals:
As we have already noted, Clarian contends that the chargemaster rates are “unambiguous” and “express[,] binding obligation[s]” on Allen and Moore. Appellee?s Br. at 5. But at oral argument counsel for Clarian stated that Clarian considers its chargemaster rates confidential and proprietary. Left unanswered by Clarian is how a patient and a provider can mutually agree to an “unambiguous” and “express” chargemaster fee schedule that is not available to the patient.
Essentially, this is an argument that patients have bought a pig in a poke. You owe whatever we say you owe. This isn’t quite as ridiculous as it sounds because it’s true that a lot of the time, nobody is certain about exactly what medical services will be necessary in advance of the patient receiving treatment. But, without some more or less explicit mechanism of determining what the price is going to be, the courts are going to impute an agreement to pay a “reasonable” price for the services provided.
Clarian apparently also advanced an argument that, given the nature of medical financing, requiring patients to only pay a “reasonable” fee would collapse the system. The Court of Appeals was unmoved.
That’s only a first step, getting it into court. The plaintiffs will have to enter murky water of proving what is “reasonable” and what isn’t. They also allege a putative class – so the trial court will have to rule on whether a class action can be certified. (This was not addressed at all in the Court of Appeals decision.) So, it will be interesting to see how this shakes out and if it has anything like a broader impact.
But Everyone Else Was Doing It!
As a parent, I expect to deal with the “but everyone else was doing it” defense. As a citizen of Indiana, I’m not sure that’s what I expect out of my Secretary of State.
Charlie White’s accusations against Evan Bayh remind me a little bit of the old joke where the motorist gets pulled over and protests to the officer, “I wasn’t speeding. But, I passed a few guys who were.” If I’m reading the news reports correctly, White is essentially saying, “these charges against me are bullshit, but Evan Bayh should be prosecuted for the same thing.”
This is probably one of those deals where you need to pick one strategy or another. Either say that the charges are frivolous or that everyone similarly situated should go down with you. Saying that frivolous charges should be made against everyone just doesn’t work so well.
Silly Editorial Characterizes Election Law As Silly
The Louisville Evansville Courier Press has a sloppy editorial up which is critical of the election law that requires “no election may be held” for those races where a municipal candidate is unchallenged.
The editorial says the law is “the height of nonsense and makes no sense.” It further states that the law is “silliness” and “ridiculous.”
In terms of saving money, it’s true, that the savings aren’t huge; but they aren’t non-existent either. There are some savings in labor as well. The better justification for the law, in my mind, is that it highlights the lack of a choice in the election. It underscores that a vote in such a “race” is mostly illusory. There is probably some blame to go around in why there isn’t a lot of choice in a good number of races.
Let’s start with the obvious: sometimes the office holder is doing a good job, and no one is too excited to replace him or her. Then there are politically stacked localities, where the political affiliation is so skewed that the primary is effectively the election. And, we shouldn’t forget ballot access restrictions which make it tougher for third parties and independents to get on the ballot.
But, putting an uncontested candidate on the ballot doesn’t really change this lack of choice. In some ways, it’s lipstick on a pig. The uncontested “election” benefits from its association with real elections between more than one candidate where the voter is actually choosing something — this is the bedrock of democracy. So, we feel good about putting a mark next to the uncontested candidate of our choice (or not putting a mark there). But it’s a stretch to say that you’re actually accomplishing much of anything by doing so.
By taking the uncontested candidate off the ballot, the General Assembly also isn’t fixing the underlying problems associated with lack of effective choice between candidates. And, it’s not saving much money. So, for my part, I can’t say the policy choice is compelling either way. But, the Courier Press’s hand waving declaration that the law is “silly” “nonsense” (and “makes no sense”) reminds me a little of the Meat Council film in the Simpsons:
Jimmy: Uhh, Mr. McClure? I have a crazy friend who says its wrong to eat meat. Is he crazy?
Troy: Nooo, just ignorant.
Columbus Day
(Rehashing a post I wrote in 2009):
517 519 years ago, Christopher Columbus washed up on the shores of the New World. This was bad news for the indigenous people, no doubt. But, I still don’t mind commemorating the day — as a white male of European descent, I’m a direct beneficiary, so I guess I don’t have a lot of credibility here.
The event was important. Not entirely good, of course; but not unmitigated evil, either. Columbus was a product of his time and place, with all of the arrogance and cruelty that entails. But, he also did something pretty bold. He sailed off the map, and the world hasn’t been the same since. Sure, Leif Erikson did it before Columbus. But, the fact is, his society was not ready to do anything about Erikson’s discovery. The Europe from which Columbus set sail was ready to start moving.
I’m biased by more than being of white, European descent. I’m a history buff, and the Age of Exploration is probably my favorite era. The idea of being able to hop on a boat and find places and civilizations you had not expected really captures my imagination. For me, it’s not just Columbus.
It’s Prince Henry the Navigator pouring resources into Portuguese expeditions south along the western African shore until Dias rounded the Cape of Good Hope. It’s Da Gama reaching India. Columbus and the New World. Magellan sailing around the world. James Cook sailing everywhere. They were motivated by greed, religion, dreams of power, and a thirst for knowledge. (One of my favorite themes for this period was the Quest for Prester John, a mythical Christian ruler with great riches — this quest combined a number of the motivating forces.) Regardless of motivations and even brutal consequences, they went into the unknown as few others had been willing or able to do before them and, more importantly, they reported back in such a way as to firmly link the world together.
For me, Columbus Day isn’t the celebration of a virtuous man who brought light to a benighted world. I don’t think Columbus was that or did that. Rather, it’s commemoration of the linking together of the planet, for all the good and bad that has done.
Unions: More Dangerous than Cancer!
Seems to me there is a lot of overlap between proponents of “right to work” and opponents of smoking bans. I’m not exactly sure how you reconcile those two positions. Both, are impairments of an employer’s right to contract and right to impose conditions of employment on prospective employees.
“Right to work” isn’t a law that allows an employer to have a union free workplace. That’s already legal. It also isn’t a law that allows an employer to have union workers at a business that also has non-union workers. That’s legal as well. What it does is make it illegal for an employer to contract with a union to impose union membership as a condition of employment on other employees.
Smoking bans, obviously, prohibit a business owner from allowing patrons to smoke in their establishment. But, they are often sold as an employee safety issue — you can’t make employees work in a smoke-filled environment as a condition of employment. “Go work somewhere else,” is often the response of smoking ban opponents.
So, it’s interesting to see folks who would say “go work somewhere else” when it’s a smoke filled environment somehow don’t say “go work somewhere else” when it’s a union filled environment.
Unions: more dangerous than cancer!
Municipal Election Pushback Suggests Townships Are Here To Stay
I’ve had some personal involvement with a provision passed by the legislature this most recent session concerning uncontested races for municipal office. The new law says that, where only one candidate for the office qualifies for the municipal ballot, “an election may not be held.” (See here and here for my involvement — short version: my side lost.)
I’m not going to make a big case for the wisdom of the General Assembly’s approach. If the ballot laws are stringent enough to exclude all but one from the ballot or interest for the position is so low that only one person is stepping up for the job, the General Assembly apparently decided that having an “election” is a bit of a waste of time. Your vote may make you feel good, but in terms of functionality, it’s not accomplishing much.
What was notable to me was the strength of the push back from municipal office holders and their supporters. That’s with respect to a relatively minor issue — after all, they still get to keep their jobs. But, it offered a window into why getting rid of township offices is so unlikely. These people are politically active and fiercely protective. The people who might favor getting rid of local offices in theory are mostly not as politically active and don’t have a fire in their belly for the task. It’s asymmetric warfare.
Civic Education and Media Failure
This AP article appearing in the Christian Science Monitor is an example of a missed opportunity for civic education.
While on Fox and Friends for some reason, Hank Williams Jr. made a comparison related to President Obama involving Hitler. The details of the comparison itself aren’t really that important. Pro tip for anyone near a microphone of some kind: unless your comparison involves a war of aggression, genocide, or other extremely literal comparison of Hitler, just look elsewhere for your metaphors. What if maybe your comparison is apt in some way? Doesn’t matter. Pick someone else in human history for your comparison. (Someone on the Internet suggested, “comparing Obama to Hitler is as ridiculous as comparing Hank Williams Jr. to his much, much more talented father.”)
But, that’s not what this post is about. As a consequence of his choice to use Hitler metaphors on television, ESPN decided to end its business relationship with Hank Jr. They no longer want to use him or his singing to introduce the Monday Night Football broadcast. Hank Jr. responded by saying that ESPN is violating his free speech rights.
“After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made MY decision,” Williams said in a statement to The Associated Press. “By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You (ESPN) stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. It’s been a great run.”
This, in and of itself, isn’t a huge deal. Lots of people who wrap themselves in the flag don’t actually know much about the country’s founding document. (See, e.g., The Onion: “Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be”)
The problem is that the First Amendment precludes government regulation of speech. It does not, contrary to what Hank Jr. seems to assert, guarantee the right to be lucratively compensated by a private entity for appearing on the entity’s television show regardless of what one says in other places.
The second problem is that it would have taken the AP very little space to point out that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution has no bearing on this situation. It would have been a factual observation, requiring no independent opinion, that the AP could have included without using a lot of space. It would have made Hank Jr. look foolish, of course. But that ought not be he AP’s concern. Another option for the AP would have been to not report on Hank Jr.’s mutterings about the Constitution at all.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- …
- 689
- Next Page »