A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

SB 89 – Use of DNA Evidence

by 6 Comments

The consequences for having a black sheep in your family could be getting a little higher than just good gossip and awkward silences at family gatherings. SB 89, introduced by Senator Zakas, allows the Superintendent of the State Police to authorize an investigation of a person genetically related to another person whose DNA record is stored in the Indiana DNA data base. Such an investigation is permitted where there is a DNA sample under investigation that’s close but not quite a match to the person already in the database.

I don’t know if “investigation” is a term of art in this situation or if it means the same thing as for any other crime where the police reasonably suspect that a person might have committed a crime. If it means that they can come and get your DNA just because cousin Billy is a screw up, that’s a little creepy.

SB 88 – Conversion of Leased Motor Vehicles

by Leave a Comment

SB 88, introduced by Senator Tallian, increases the crime of conversion when it involves a leased motor vehicle. Conversion, is sort of theft’s younger brother in the realm of criminal offenses. Theft requires some sort of intent to deprive a person of the value of their property. Conversion requires only that a person exercise unauthorized control over the property of another.

Normally, conversion is a Class A misdemeanor. Under SB 88, the penalty would be increased to a Class D felony if it involved a motor vehicle worth more than $5,000 for which the person signed an agreement specifying its return at a certain place and time if the person fails for more than 10 days to return the property (or 5 days after a written demand is served on the renter.)

Current law also has enhancements to conversion of motor vehicles if they are used to commit a crime.

SB 85 – Disclaimer of Property to Avoid Child Support

by 4 Comments

SB 85, introduced by Senator Broden, prohibits an individual from disclaiming an interest in property if the disclaimant is delinquent in the payment of child support.

I wonder how often this comes up. I do as much family law as I care to – which is to say, none – but I hope to get better acquainted with wills and estates which is, I believe, where the disclaimer business generally comes up.

Indiana’s Shifting Tax Policy

by 1 Comment

Meranda Watling, writing for the Lafayette Journal & Courier, has an outstanding summary of the tax situation for local government over the past decade. And, even better, one of her sources was Everybody’s Favorite Economist, Larry Deboer.

To summarize even more briefly, the property tax situation became destabilized back in 1998 when, due to the Town of St. John litigation started back in 1993, the Indiana Supreme Court ordered an overhaul of the way Indiana handled its property taxes. (See Dagney Faulk’s “How We Got Here from There.”) The way Indiana handled its assessments was pretty artificial. There were formulas that ended up undervaluing certain properties. For example, expensive old homes had relatively low assessments. (Hence, I believe, the anger among the Indianapolis Meridian crowd.)

Switching to a market based assessment resulted in an upheaval. Those with undervalued assessments suddenly saw a sharp increase in their property tax burden. The General Assembly scrambled with a variety of approaches, including a significant property tax replacement credit for homeowners and property tax caps. Where we stand now, homeowners have a similar tax burden, landlords are paying more, and businesses are paying somewhat less. And, we are shifting from reliance on a fairly predictable property tax to a more volatile sales tax. The shift was assisted by a 16% increase in the sales tax which accompanied the property tax caps.

I think this quote summarizes the feeling of many local officials:

“I’d like to see the whole system stabilized,” said Kim Fox, Tippecanoe School Corp. chief financial officer. “There’s such a push not to increase taxes. But at least make it so we know what we’re getting and it can come in on time.”

Not only have local officials been subjected to uncertainty about what revenues would be available, but also uncertainty as to when they would be available. The desire of some, mostly state level, officials to blame the problem on overspending by local government is unfortunate. There has been a tectonic shift in how we finance government and, since fecal matter runs down hill, the most local levels of government seem to be left cleaning up the mess.

Hopefully the next decade will be marked by a more predictable tax system. I wish I could remember the quote, but there was a Supreme Court Justice who wrote something along the lines of “it is some times more important that the law be clear than that it be entirely correct.” In the tax field, I think that’s often the case. Even where constant wrangling over tax policy leads to slightly better policy, those gains can be more than offset by the lack of predictability.

The Decade in Libertarianism

by 26 Comments

The title is far more ambitious than anything I can deliver. But, I happened to pick up a book from 1997 I had laying around purporting to provide a “history of the Net.” There was a passage about Pauline Borsook’s 1996 essay (later a book) “Cyberselfish” that appeared in Mother Jones. That essay talked about the dominance (at the time, anyway) of libertarianism in cyberspace and the cyber-libertarian tendency to ignore the statist foundations of the environment in which they operated.

Although the technologists I encountered there were the liberals on social issues I would have expected (pro-choice, as far as abortion; pro-diversity, as far as domestic partner benefits; inclined to sanction the occasional use of recreational drugs), they were violently lacking in compassion, ravingly anti-government, and tremendously opposed to regulation.

These are the inheritors of the greatest government subsidy of technology and expansion in technical education the planet has ever seen; and, like the ungrateful adolescent offspring of immigrants who have made it in the new country, they take for granted the richness of the environment in which they have flourished, and resent the hell out of the constraints that bind them. And, like privileged, spoiled teenagers everywhere, they haven’t a clue what their existence would be like without the bounty showered on them. These high-tech libertarians believe the private sector can do everything — but, of course, R&D is something that cannot by any short-term measurement meet the test of the marketplace, the libertarians’ measure of all things. They decry regulation–except without it, there would be no mechanism to ensure profit from intellectual property, without which entrepreneurs would not get their payoffs, nor would there be equitable marketplaces in which to make their sales.

I hadn’t really thought about the Internet’s halcyon days of 1997 in quite some time. But, that was a period in which I really identified with Libertarianism. I’ve mentioned before that I come from loyal, country-club Republican stock. Early in the 90s, I met a libertarian proselytizer at Miami (OH) and thought he made a heck of a lot of sense. Seems like that led to a few years of Ayn Rand appreciation. That trajectory probably peaked in the late 90s when I was really getting online and very much identified with the cyber-libertarians; coupled with the Republicans really pissing me off with that trumped up impeachment abomination Gingrich & Co. ginned up.

So, in the late 90s, at least as I saw it, there was this explosion of creativity online. New people with new ideas were making money and creating things of value through their own effort (never mind ARPANET and other statist precursors to the Internet that made it all possible). In such an environment, I had little sympathy for those who couldn’t make money. “What’s the problem? Get a computer, get an idea, make money.” On non-economic matters, these folks were definitely of the “if it doesn’t break my leg or pick my pocket, I don’t care” school of thought. Gay rights – fine; gun control – hands off; first amendment absolutists; religion – whatever floats your boat, just don’t stick it in the government; international affairs – peace is good for business, our business transcends borders; drugs – yes please!

Things have changed in the 00s. Or, perhaps my perspective has. Now would probably be a good time for a pithy quote about relativity, but I don’t know any. With the economic stagnation of the aughts, libertarianism now looks to me more like a creed of “I got mine Jack; fuck you.” I suppose that some of this has to do with the appearance, to me, that the people making money are, by and large, the people who already had money. The rich getting richer is obviously nothing new, but in the late 90s, it seemed much more likely for a person to get rich with little more than a good (or even bad) idea and some hard work. Now, making money seems to involve having a big pile of cash that you leverage into more money through various financial tricks without creating anything new or particularly valuable. Additionally, the Libertarians strike me as decidedly more conservative socially in the late 00s than I noticed in the late 90s. The focus I’ve seen in Libertarian circles has been largely silent on things like the War on (Some) Drugs and Fourth Amendment search and seizure issues. Instead, there has been more of a push to defund government through an all but singular focus on anti-tax issues with a side order of dismantling the social safety net and making checks on corporate power toothless.

As the saying goes, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.” I freely admit that I have made no attempt to objectively study the progress of the Libertarians or libertarianism. A lot of this could have to do with my position in life in 2009 versus my position in life in 1999. But, to the extent I am correct, I sure would like the Libertarians of 2019 to look more like they did in the 90s.

SB 78 – Disposition of Corpses

by 2 Comments

Sen. Deig has introduced SB 78 which concerns the disposition of a decedent who appears to have died from murder, manslaughter, or other criminal act. The normal rules of who gets to make decisions about the remains are suspended where the decedent had a restraining order against the person who would normally make the decision.

Sounds reasonable to me.

More Dispatches from the War on the War on Christmas

by 17 Comments

I’m getting annoyed by the continued braying from those social conservatives who are in a panic over the “decline” of Christmas. The terrible threat they seek to fight is the menace of people being polite to strangers during the holiday season by saying something along the lines of “Happy Holidays” instead of the correct “Merry CHRISTmas.”

The latest installment (h/t Ed Brayton) comes from Rep. Henry Brown (R-S. Carolina “First in Treason”) and 74 Co-sponsors including Dan Burton, Mike Pence, and Mark Souder (but not, apparently, Steve Buyer), via H.Res 951. The Resolution expresses “strong disapproval” of attempts to ban references to Christmas. It does not describe any of the bans which so threaten Christmas.

However, by way of explanation, Rep. Brown offers this:

In an explanation of his resolution to the Christian Broadcast Network, Brown noted that, “we’re in a troubled world,” so “we can’t lose sight of our deep faith by some how or another diminishing the value of Christmas.”

The main threat to Christmas, Brown contents, is the use of the term “happy holidays” rather than an emphasis on “Christ and Christmas.” In an interview with Fox Business last week, Brown lashed out at the use of “happy holidays.”

Once again, this is a small but vocal subset of Christians who feel absolutely compelled to mark the public sector as their territory. It’s of a piece with the folks who demand Christian prayers to open legislative meetings, want the Ten Commandments and Nativity scenes on government property, and generally want to entwine their religion with public events. It’s not about their own individual relationship with God. Rather, it’s about trying to force a particular relationship between our society and God or at least ostentatiously display the primacy of their version of religion.

Adding to the annoyance is the apparent ignorance of the history of Christmas, drawing as it does upon the traditions of Saturnalia, Yule, and other solstice celebrations.

I know it gets them votes, but I’d sure be happier if politicians stayed out of the culture war nonsense. (Pigs flying will probably happen sooner.)

SB 57 – Planning for Unincorporated County Areas

by Leave a Comment

SB 57, introduced by Senator Steele, creates a public question process to determine whether a county should adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance. A county legislative body is permitted to put a public question on the ballot or it can be compelled to put one on the ballot if 10% of the voters in the unincorporated portions of the county sign a petition. The public question would ask whether the county should “exercise planning and zoning.” The question can be binding or non-binding, but that has to be specified in advance.

An affirmative vote on a binding question would require the county to adopt a planning ordinance within two years. A negative vote would prohibit adoption of an ordinance for two years. A new public question could not be held for another four years.

Colts Boldly Volunteer to Test “Quitters Never Win” Hypothesis

by 41 Comments

Marcellus: Night of the fight, you might feel a slight sting. That’s pride fuckin’ with you. Fuck pride! Pride only hurts, it never helps. You fight through that shit. ‘Cause a year from now, when you kicking it in the Caribbean, you gonna say to yourself, “Marcellus Wallace was right.”

Marcellus Wallace, Pulp Fiction, telling Butch to take a dive in round 5 of the fight.

The Colts played the Jets for most of 3 quarters, then took a dive. And, Marcellus was right, even as a spectator, my pride was stung. I can only imagine what it felt like for the players. Jim Caldwell and Bill Polian have voluntarily put a giant monkey on their backs and on that of the Colts. It will be chittering loudly in their ear throughout the playoffs, and if they don’t win the Super Bowl this year, they will have broken Curtis Painter’s psyche for nothing.

I don’t know that the extra quarter of rest that Manning and the rest of the starters will add to the next 3 weeks of rest were worth the trade. (Shake-n-Bake over at Stampede Blue would say that the rest is beneficial.) Presumably Polian and Caldwell (and Shake-n-Bake) know better than me, and I hope they do, but last night’s game was horribly disappointing. The Colts were playing solidly and had a small lead through most of three quarters when coach Caldwell benched Manning and most of the rest of the starters. Backup quarterback Curtis Painter was placed in a horrible situation where the pressure of 23 consecutive regular season wins and a 14-0 season was abruptly placed on his shoulders in front of a very unhappy crowd. He crumbled. He went 3 and out. He fumbled a ball into the end zone for a Jets touchdown. He threw an interception. And then I turned off the game.

Maybe taking the next 3 weeks off will leave the Colts fresh as daisies and sharp as knives cutting through the playoffs like warm butter. I sure hope so. But, the decision to quit on the regular season just added more pressure to those playoff games. Quitters never win, I’ve been told. Hopefully the Colts can prove that old adage wrong.

SB 62 – Removal of FSSA Expiration Dates

by 1 Comment

SB 62, introduced by Senator Miller, removes the expiration dates for the office of the secretary of family and social services, the office of Medicaid policy and planning, the statutes concerning directors of divisions within family and social services (FSSA), and certain advisory committees under the FSSA statutes.

I’m working from a vague memory here, so don’t rely too heavily on it, but my recollection is that the Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA) was created to rationalize the operations of some independent social service agencies dealing with aging, Medicaid, family services, and the like. Legislators wary of the expansion of government voted for it, or maybe even responding to lobbying from the independent agencies, were persuaded to vote for the creation of FSSA only with the inclusion of sunset dates. Those dates have been extended from time to time – since at least 1992, judging from the history of the statutes being repealed (but possibly longer if Title 12 has been recodified). Pretending FSSA is just a temporary creation is kind of silly at this point, so the legislature might as well get rid of those sunset dates. In the future, if they want to get rid of the administration, they should probably just do it directly.