Indiana Political Review

but I read it. Now, I’ve heard the rhetoric, believe me, and I’ve heard the criticisms of Dr. Paul. Most of it rings hollow, frankly. Abe Lincoln, in the context of the political scene of the 1860s in this nation, was a kook, and he came across as such. This is why he won the election with a plurality. If the reports are true that Paul got a head-and-shoulders-above-the-rest call-in vote as the winner, then apparently it would stand to reason that a) there is a large segment of the population who are sick of the same old crap, and b) that the same thing as happened with Abe could happen now. Especially in light of this.

I recently attended a block party/Euchre tournament (in which I got trounced in trying to defend my previous year’s champion status). Much beer was consumed and, as often happens in these situations, the subject of politics was raised between the late-stayers (read: most inebriated). The subject was property taxes and I was pitted against a mid-level Peterson administration functionary.  I suppose I should say at the outset that this conversation was the continuation of an email exchange which occurred on our neighborhood network, whereby I guess I tweaked this person’s ire. After we were introduced, he put two and two together and deduced that I was the guy with which he had disagreed. The argument was on. He was game and, as we might suspect, I was game. The previous email exchange included the charge against me that I didn’t understand the full complexities of the problem that our keepers (my word) faced regarding the tax situation. I agreed that the situation was complex and I have said on this blog that I do not believe that the Peterson administration is solely responsible for the tax situation that has so exercised the populace. Indeed, as I look back over my previous posts (and emails to my interlocutor), I see that I place a majority of the blame on school boards. After much back and forth, incriminations and explanations, my interlocutor and I arrived at an understanding that I truly believed such to be the case.  

I won’t bore you with all the back-and-forth, but suffice to say that the organization that commands more than half of the funds collected through the property tax is the one that we probably ought to focus on for a solution. However, as I told my interlocutor, this is an impossible thing. Imagine this: There is a candidate for school board. She promises to cut spending in every category of education by 20%. Ask yourself this question: Who would possibly vote for her? I don’t even know if I would vote for her if that were her platform. And, I have a fairly clear view of what the problem is. It is impossible to imagine that anyone who even hinted that they might cut funding for education would ever stand a chance to be elected to the school board. And yet, that is the source of most of the tax increase that has been suffered by property owners recently. This is the overriding problem in addressing the property tax dilemma. 

I’m a little peeved that I’ve already used the blog heading, “Why can’t we leave a child behind,” because this leads to one of the ways the education budget could be limited. We spend an inordinate amount of money attempting to educate people who honestly cannot or will not be educated. The first falls under the heading of “special needs” education. There are some people who, no matter how long or sincerely or expensively you work with them, they will never achieve anything better than a rudimentary education. We need to ask ourselves if it’s truly worth the amount of expenditures we commit to this sort of education to continue such a practice. There is such a thing as futility. And, we ought not to spend money on things which are futile. 

Special needs education is not the only sort of spending we persist in which, in the end, is futile. When a person drops out of school or when a person persists in being a chronic troublemaker, schools ought to have the authority to let them go, cut their losses and move on. A person who has no desire to learn and who actively resists any efforts to educate him will never learn until he makes the decision to commit himself to it. No amount of money spent on computers, Bunsen burners or after school programs is going to entice such a person to make the needed commitment. There must be an initial desire that money cannot create. However, promising to provide for these two types of students is how one gets elected to the school board. If someone who held my views ran for school board, they wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance. And, so, school budgets will continue to spiral ever upward with no prospect of ever being checked – let alone reversed.  

The only solution I see is to impose external restraints on the school board regarding the amount of increase they are authorized to impose. This needs to be an issue which is debated apart from any school board election, and even then, the demagoguery will be astounding. Only through putting some sort of ceiling on the school board’s discretion will we ever be able to rein in the property tax crisis. 

Which leads me to another issue… 

While I was having this discussion with my interlocutor, another late-staying Euchre player who’d had plenty of spiritous encouragement kept interjecting into the conversation that the only way to solve the problem is to enact a consumption tax. I will be frank. I am sick of these idiots who believe that a consumption tax will solve any problem. It will not. And, indeed, it will exacerbate most problems. As much as I despise the property tax and think that it is morally reprehensible, I can find no alternative which is preferable. The key, to me, is to find ways to limit our exposure to property tax increases.  

A consumption tax will cause goods to arrive in the Indiana market at a price significantly higher than those in neighboring states. To illustrate this, imagine that you live in Terre Haute and the sales tax in Indiana is increased to 12%. It might just be worth it to you to drive the 20 or so miles to Illinois (where the sales tax is only 6%) to buy all of your goods. Many people will say that Terre Haute is close to Illinois, and of course people there may opt to do what you propose. But, that wouldn’t happen in Indianapolis, at the very center of the state. It’s just too far to drive for such a small benefit. I respond by pointing out that, to an extent, this is correct, but it is only a question of the percentage. Raise the percentage high enough and even people from the remotest (most interior) portions of the state will make a run for the border to buy consumer goods. What’s worse is that the more people who live in border communities who opt to shop in other states, the higher the sales tax must be to overcome their defection, which in turn will encourage people further in to defect, which in turn will prompt a higher sales tax, which in turn…you see the problem. 

I believe a consumption tax would destroy the Indiana economy unless our neighbors went with us too. It’s sort of the old détente theory of national security:  

“I’d love to reduce the number of missiles I have aimed at you, but you seem to have a lot aimed at me so I can’t, in good conscience, do that until after you do.”          

“Well, I too would love to decommission most of my missiles, but the threat that your missiles present prevent me from doing so. So, unless you first drop your defenses, I am bound to keep mine up.”  

…is transformed into…

“I’d love to raise my consumption tax, but if I do, a lot of the people who live in my state will simply cross the border and buy goods in your state.” 

“Well, of course the same would happen if I did. And, if I don’t follow your state and raise my sales tax, I would derive the benefit of your state raising a large consumption tax since your citizens would buy more goods here.” 

“But, if we both did it together, then maybe it might work.” 

“True, but the other possibility is that we would only redirect the flow of outgoing traffic to other states that border our two states and we would both lose. No. Unless all the states that border mine agree, I can’t, in good conscience, raise my taxes first. You should probably call Michigan. They already have confiscatory tax rates and no business investment. Plus, Jennifer Granholm is clueless about fiscal policy. She might go for it. I encourage the two of you to try it. If it works in your states, I promise we’ll do it here too afterwards.”

Willard won the Illinois straw poll, fresh on the heels of his Iowa victory. The guy has raised more money than Giuliani, and he is putting together some impressive organizational structures. Primary victories seem almost inevitable.

What I think is also interesting is Ron Paul’s third place position. This was, statistically speaking, basically a tie for second. Also interesting is the wide divergence among the other candidates from Iowa. McKenna made a good point that Illinois is a fairly decent microcosm of the country. A better picture, then? We’ll see. 

 UPDATE: go here for the latest on the unscientific but very interesting recent straw poll results.

I must admit that I am giddy with anticipation for the prospect of the days ahead.

Things are now right with the world and we can expect all things to improve. Our taxes will now come down. Our freedom will be more secure. We will be safer from terrorists. Our children will be happier, smarter, healthier, and bunch of other good things that we wish for our children. Gasoline will be nearly free. People will be nicer to one another. Our troops will be coming home. There will be peace in the Middle East. There will be peace in East L.A. Bart Peterson will have a clue.

How do I know all this? Well, our friends on the Left have blamed everything bad on Karl Rove.

And, now, he’s gone! Or, at least he will be at the end of the month.

Here’s an excerpt from a story on Indystar.com regarding a proposal to require school bus drivers to wear unifroms. 

The total cost of the proposal is unclear, but a high estimate for laundering and uniform delivery service is $440 per week, Wardwell said.Some drivers don’t like the idea of wearing uniforms. They prepared a petition they hope to give to the school board after school starts.

Driver Sue White suggested another way to spend the money that would be used to pay for uniforms.

“I’d rather have a raise,” she said.

I have a better idea. Why don’t we skip any idea that would raise property taxes. Maybe things are different in Marion, Indiana, but somehow I doubt it. It seems like all the furor over taxes would have taught the school boards at least that much. Let’s hope this sort of thinking doesn’t migrate to Indianapolis.

This story in Indiana Lawyer raises the question of where parental discipline gives way to child abuse. According to the story, Sophia Willis was convicted of child abuse after spanking her child seven times with an extension cord or belt. The story is sort of fuzzy as to which exactly.

“We sympathize with Willis’s argument that she is a single parent who is doing the best that she can, but we cannot condone her choice to whip her child with an extension cord to the point of causing him pain,” the court said. When I was a child, I always thought the point of the corporal punishments I endured were to cause pain. What other reason is there for getting the belt (or, in our case, the black wiffleball bat)?

I don’t think that being beaten by an extension cord is kosher. It probably amounts to abuse. But, the standard should not be the infliction of pain. Indiana statute states that a person can be convicted of battery of a child if  he knowingly or intentionally touches a person who is less than 14 years of age in a rude, insolent, or angry manner and causes bodily injury. (IC Sec. 35-42-2-1). A parent is authorized to discipline his child in a manner that would otherwise be a violation of the above statute as long as the corporal punishment is “reasonable.” Folks, that is awfully squishy. And, if the infliction of pain vitiates the reasonableness of the punishment, then parents all over Indiana are in grave trouble.

A recent story in Indiana Lawyer asked the question of whether Indiana needs another law school. The argument against is that Indiana already has four law schools (Indiana, Indiana-Indianapolis, Notre Dame and Valparaiso) and, based on the number of people who take the LSAT (law school admissions test) as a percentage of the national population, Indiana is right in line with other states who have a similar number of test takers. The implication is that Indiana has plenty of schools now and doesn’t need any more.

But, the question is not whether we need more lawyers, but rather what sort of lawyers will these new law schools produce and do we need those sorts of lawyers.

I am a recent graduate of Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor, Michigan (for now). Arguably, Ann Arbor was already well served by the single law school in that town (University of Michigan, a top-tier law school by most ranking systems). Ann Arbor has a population of around 114,000 people. Each year, the two law schools in that city graduate about 500 new lawyers each year. There is no way all these new lawyers could be employed in the Ann Arbor area. In Indiana each year, the total number of bar exam takers for the July bar exam is around 600 students. These two Michigan schools are cranking out almost that many students alone. Now, granted, Ann Arbor is located very near Detroit, a large city, but nonetheless, it is not likely that Detroit absorbs roughly as many law students as the entire state of Indiana. No, the difference is that each of the Ann Arbor law schools is focused nationally. Only a fraction of the graduates from these schools take the bar exam in Michigan. Likewise, most students at Notre Dame take the bar exam outside of Indiana (more Notre Dame students take the Illinois bar than any other state even though Notre Dame is located in Indiana).

The article mentions two law schools that are investigating the possibility of locating in Indiana. If these law schools have a national focus, with the ability to attract students from all over the nation (who will then return to their states to practice law), then the viability of another law school or schools is high. For instance, the board of directors of the Ave Maria School of Law where I graduated, has opted to move the school to Florida. There is much resistance to this from many of the students and faculty. I have heard rumors that some of the professors at Ave have spoken to the folks at St. Francis in Fort Wayne about teaming up with them to start a law school there. (I can’t say how accurate this rumor is, but I sincerely hope there is some merit to it). If they were able to replicate what the school had in Ann Arbor - i.e., a Catholic, conservative, nationally focused law school that lived up to the ideals of the papal encyclical Fides et Ratio, then the enterprise in Ft. Wayne may well have a chance.

Indiana has excellent law schools. But, there is something to be said for producing students who have, along with technical proficiency in the law, a strong sense of tradition and moral values. Please don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying that students at other law schools do not possess these qualities, but I am saying that (with the possible exception of Notre Dame), the other law schools do not infuse the teaching of law with the depth of traditional teaching and moral foundations that is characteristic of the education that we received at Ave Maria. At every opportunity, the law was presented as part of a 2000 year-old (or at least 800 year-old) tradition at Ave.

One develops an inherently conservative view of things when he sees himself as participating in the continuation of a jurisprudence which stretches back 800 or more years. On the other hand, most law schools today view the more Holmsian approach of attaching significance to decisions that boast only a forty or fifty year ascendancy. It is the former type of lawyer that this country needs now, and which, if one were to locate in Indiana, would be a boon to the state.

OK. This is way off-topic as far as this blog goes. It has nothing to do with Indiana politics or culture, but I just had to comment on this.

Breaking story on Fox News: Apparently, Fox is reporting that on at least two occasions, astronauts flew while intoxicated. I guess the question is: Are they afraid they’re going to cross over into the lanes of other space travelers? Where exactly is the centerline in space? Do we need to set up sobriety checkpoints in orbit? And, if we did, wouldn’t that effectively shut down the Russian space program?

Conservatives are not much for protesting. Indeed, I attended the first political protest of my life at the “Black Sunday” property tax protest. In all candor, it seemed to me to be a lot of idle time. I understand now why so many hippie-types are prone to protesting. However, it seems that the Black Sunday protest has had some effect, so perhaps all that idle speechifying served a purpose.

What strikes me however is the nagging feeling that for all the angst that is being poured out over the property tax issue, in the end, we will not have gained a thing. Why do I say that? If one looks at his property tax bill, there is a summary of where the money goes on the bottom. While the exact breakdowns will differ depending where you live, most of the property tax (around 50%) goes to local schools. And, herein lies the problem.

For the life of me, I cannot imagine anyone come next November voting for the guy (or gal) who promises to slash spending on the schools. For that matter, I cannot even imagine there being such a candidate. But, if the largest line item on our property tax bills is virtually guaranteed to continue to increase, how do we ever think property taxes will ever be reined in? I just don’t see it happening.

Now some people, and a lot of the speechifying at the rally, centered on instituting the Fair Tax in place of property taxes (which would be eliminated altogether). Don’t get me wrong. I am not a Fair Tax hater, but I don’t think the form of taxation addresses the real problem. Axe the property tax, replace it with the Fair Tax (or pick your favorite alternative), and the problem still remains that education spending is going to continue to go up. Putting in place some sort of consumption tax will only result in politicians increasing the rate each year.

What this city really needs is a crop of candidates who actually pledge to reduce spending - even (and maybe especially) in the schools. This should be the number one priority no matter what form of taxation we settle on. And, why not cut spending on education? It is simply amazing to me that parochial schools consistently, uniformly and convincingly outperform IPS with a fraction of the money per student. How could this even be possible? Well, the simple answer is that money has nothing to do with student performance. A variety of factors contribute to a student’s performance - family involvement; teacher competence; accountability of students, teachers, administrators, and school systems - to name a few.

The Indianapolis Star ran a story Thursday that mentioned that at Marshall Middle School on the east side of Indianapolis, only 283 of the 620 students expected to be in the classrooms were in attendance on Wednesday, the third day of school. The school’s principal has been driving to students’ houses to find out where they are. Apparently some parents cited “inconvenience” as the reason they did not send their child.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I know my mother was ticking off the days until my brother and I were due back at school. She was keenly aware of the date and perhaps even a little giddy when the day finally rolled around. If parents and children today, however, cannot be bothered to even send their children to class (or to even know when they’re due back), why should I be bothered to pay for their educations? Indeed, if only half the butts are going to be in the seats on any given day, it seems to me that we could safely slash half the budget for IPS.

Please enjoy this tidbit from Andrew Cusack.

I thought Karl might enjoy the comments, and might have some mathematical/statistical insight.