Author Archives: Sheila

Power to the People

Back in the wild and woolly Sixties, “Power to the People” was a slogan often shouted at sit-ins and the other disruptive gatherings that characterized those tumultuous times. We hear similar chants today from those attending “tea party” events.

Reporters covering the various factions of so-called tea partiers tell us that there really is no central issue motivating them; rather, these events are expressions of frustration and anger, fueled by feelings of powerlessness. A sour economy certainly doesn’t help.

It’s easy to dismiss Tea Party folks as fringe malcontents who are being given undue attention by the media; there were all of six hundred people in attendance at the recent national “convention” that received so much coverage. Certainly, it is not a coherent movement advocating any particular goal. But outright dismissal would be a mistake; while most Americans do not share the paranoia, racism and hostility to government that characterize Tea Party gatherings, huge numbers of Americans do share participants’ frustration and their belief that our governing institutions are not working.

Whatever one thinks of Evan Bayh and his motives for leaving the Senate, it is hard to argue with his accusation that extreme partisanship and the influence of moneyed special interests have crippled that institution. Game-playing has replaced policymaking, with the result that efforts to solve our most pressing problems—think healthcare, the environment, job creation—go nowhere. Time and time again, scoring political points or keeping the other party from doing so, trumps doing the people’s business. Time and time again, serving the vested interests trumps serving the people’s interests.

It isn’t only the U.S. Senate. The Indiana Legislature seems equally unwilling or unable to address the issues Hoosier voters really care about—improving education, creating jobs, reforming and streamlining our outmoded government and election systems.

What are Indiana lawmakers—of both parties, it should be noted—spending time on? Well, there’s always time to debate another anti-same-sex marriage amendment to the Indiana Constitution. Or to micro-manage local school board decisions about when school should start.

This year, lawmakers spent time on a bill prohibiting employers “from adopting or enforcing” rules against employees bringing guns to work. Perhaps you didn’t realize what a truly important problem that was—surely, every employee has the right to pack heat on his employer’s premises! The bill says employers have no right to prohibit workers from bringing weapons, so long as they are kept in a locked car, trunk, or glove compartment. Virtually every employer in the state is opposed to this bill, which has sailed through the House 76 to 21, and will easily pass the Senate.

I would suggest we return power to the people by voting these incumbents out of office, but unfortunately, voters no longer choose their representatives. Thanks to gerrymandering and the precision of modern computers, lawmakers today choose their voters.

It won’t surprise you to learn that the General Assembly hasn’t spent much time on proposals to eliminate gerrymandering, or to return power to the people.

Outsourcing The Taxing Power

There is a lively debate currently raging over the apparent intent of the Ballard Administration to sell Indianapolis’ water and sewer utilities. Most of the criticism centers on allegations that the decision-making process has been less than transparent—that whatever the merits of an ultimate deal, the public has been largely shut out of the discussions.

In response to such criticisms, the Administration points out that its Request for Expression of Interest and all of the twenty-plus responses have been posted on the Mayor’s website. Fair enough (although that defense reminds me of the scene from A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, where the Vogon spaceship is preparing to destroy Earth to make way for an inter-galactic highway. When the hero protests that Earth has had no opportunity to appeal the decision, the Vogons respond that “The plans have been posted in the appropriate offices on Alpha Centuri for fifty of your Earth years.”). There have also been public hearings, although those have been focused more generally on the subject of Indianapolis’ decaying infrastructure.

Transparent process or not, it is now generally believed that the City is negotiating to sell the water and sewer utilities, probably to Citizens Gas and Coke Utility. Such a sale would consolidate management of the three utilities, and may well make sense, at least from the City’s point of view.

The Water Company is struggling to pay the bonds issued when the Peterson Administration bought it for what critics said then was an inflated price. Furthermore, substantial outlays will be required to bring both systems up to basic environmental and safety standards after decades of deferred maintenance, and the Environmental Protection Agency will insist that those repairs be done. The real question is, why would Citizens—or any other buyer—pay a billion-plus dollars for two utilities that—according to the City’s own reckoning—are somewhere between four and five billion in the hole?  

The simple answer is that a buyer can “monetize the income stream.” In plain English, that means that a buyer isn’t buying a bunch of fixed, decaying capital assets. It is buying the right to charge—and  increase—water and sewer rates.

The city would have to increase rates too, of course, but doing so would incur the wrath of citizens who have made it quite clear that they resent paying for even essential city services. The current Mayor owes his job to the anti-tax fervor that demands more for less, and who can blame him for learning that lesson?

Governor Daniels showed the way with the sale of the toll road. By selling an asset rather than paying to maintain it, a Mayor or Governor achieves two goals: an immediate infusion of cash, and deniability when rates or tolls go up.

There is a copious literature about the pitfalls of privatization. What is curiously lacking in that literature is a recognition that in too many situations, what we are really outsourcing is that quintessentially governmental power—the taxing power.

Comments

No More Susie Sunshine

Anyone who has read my columns over the years knows I am a resolute optimist. My general theme is something along the lines of  “Yes, this bad thing or that has happened, but overall, look at the progress America is making.” And it’s true—over the long haul, we have seen progress in the general culture, at least when it comes to issues like women’s rights, gay rights, same-sex marriage, religious tolerance, etc.

 But to be honest, I’m checking out of the “look on the bright side” brigade. I’ve had it.

 During the Bush Administration, I was hysterical on a daily basis. We had this goofus in the White House who clearly had never read the constitution, had a very tenuous grasp of public policy and political philosophy—not to mention the English language—and was obviously being manipulated by Dick Cheney aka Darth Vader. As he dug the nation into an ever-deeper hole, fiscally and morally, I became more and more morose.

 Then, during the Obama campaign, I saw what I thought was a redemptive wave of political activism. Young people, in particular, came out to work for a candidate who didn’t pander to the haters, who spoke in complete sentences, and who promised a new dedication to the old principles of transparency and accountability in government. And that candidate won! An African-American intellectual actually won. Maybe things weren’t as bad as I thought!

 And then came the backlash.

 Anyone who is minimally fair recognizes that the government Obama inherited last January was a huge mess.  Even those who supported the Bush Administration, those who didn’t give a rat’s ass about civil liberties violations or gay rights or international condemnation, admitted that Bush’s policies created a fiscal nightmare. Not only did this new administration face financial meltdown, two “hot” wars, and a near-depression, it also faced a Republican party whose only goal was to see to it that nothing the new President wanted would get through Congress.

 Am I happy with everything that the administration has done? No, of course not. On civil liberties issues, this Administration has too often retained Bush policies—on State Secrets, detention, executive privilege, etc. On issues that matter to the gay community, Obama may not have been able to get DOMA repeal through a Senate paralyzed by GOP threats of filibusters, but he could have overturned Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell through Executive Order. He hasn’t. But how many of the pundits and wingers and other self-righteous critics could have handled what he walked into?

 I have been absolutely appalled by the immaturity of the loudest voices on both the right and left. The crazy right-wingers and Tea Party wackos—many of whom are clearly animated by racism—insist that Obama is Hitler, or at the very least a socialist trying to destroy The American Way of Life. (How dare he try to give everyone access to healthcare! How unutterably evil!) For their part, the ideological left is hysterically charging Obama with being a sell-out. The healthcare bill doesn’t go far enough, he spent too much to bail out the evil banksters (so what if there was a real risk of world financial system collapse) and not enough to bail out the auto industry. He didn’t put out a contract on Joe Lieberman. (Okay, I’ll give them that one.) And on and on.

 Meanwhile, the general public is just generally mad. Granted, they really aren’t too sure what they are mad about, or who’s to blame for whatever they are mad about. They just know things suck and they want to take it out on someone.

 All in all, it’s ugly. And unutterably dispiriting.

 It’s one thing to have good-faith disagreements about what ought to be done. It’s another to go off the deep end—to engage in fact-free fulmination, to lash out in the fashion of cranky four-year-olds everywhere. This country is facing huge, huge problems. One man—I don’t care how well-meaning or talented—isn’t going to fix all of those problems overnight, or in a year, or even in eight years.

 So Susie Sunshine here is checking out.

 Until the American public shows some sign of growing up, of understanding our own role in digging this hole, of giving some sign of a willingness to assume responsibility and help turn things around, I’ll be locked in my office, without newspapers, blogs, or television—and I’ll be in a very bad mood.

Pesky Evidence

I’ll admit to being one of the multitude of fans who have made shows like NCIS and CSI such hits. It isn’t that I don’t recognize how unrealistic they are—no publicly financed lab could afford such cutting-edge equipment even if someone invented it—but I love watching the search for hard evidence, and the characters’ willingness to abide by what that evidence shows even when the result is to exonerate some really unattractive suspect.

Wouldn’t it be nice if those we elect to make policy were similarly devoted to evidence-based decision-making?

In the real world, unlike the televised version, policymakers routinely disregard research that doesn’t match their ideological preferences. I’m not talking about a couple of studies where the results are ambiguous, or subject to conflicting interpretation. I’m talking about policies where the evidence is copious and expert consensus compelling. Global climate change is one such area; our incredibly expensive “drug war” is another.

Some years ago, I got a call from a teacher in northern Indiana who wanted to arrange a public forum on the pros and cons of our punitive drug policies. In private conversations, the Chief of Police, a local judge and the prosecutor had all told him that prohibition simply doesn’t work. Not one of them, however, would repeat those sentiments in public. My students who are police officers consistently tell me that alcohol—which is regulated but legal—is a much greater problem than marijuana, because people are more aggressive when they are boozed up than when they are zoned out.

The fiscal consequences of our current policies are staggering. In 2005, an economics professor at Harvard reported that replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation similar to that used for alcohol would produce combined savings and tax revenues between $10 and $14 billion per year. Estimates from a variety of sources are that marijuana prohibition costs U.S. taxpayers nearly $42 billion dollars a year in criminal justice costs and lost tax revenues. This is just from marijuana prohibition—not efforts to control harder drugs.

Estimates are that the money spent annually on the drug war would pay for a million additional teachers.

Then there are the opportunity costs. Indiana used to have a robust hemp industry. Hemp is an enormously versatile and useful product that cannot be smoked or used as a recreational drug, but our indiscriminate policies outlaw its growth. They also prohibit use of marijuana to alleviate the side effects of chemotherapy.

Other states have begun to rethink these policies. Fifteen states have legalized medical marijuana. Oakland, California has begun assessing a sales tax on marijuana sold in marijuana dispensaries.

I recently had a call from a group hoping to convince the Indiana legislature to revisit policies on medical marijuana. The caller asked what the evidence showed.

I told him that the evidence conclusively demonstrated two things: that the drug war is both costly and counterproductive, and that in politics—unlike television—evidence is irrelevant and ideology rules.

Comments

Even When They’re Right on Principle…

As readers of this blog know, I’m a firm proponent of nonpartisan redistricting. Gerrymandering “games”–played by both parties–simply allow incumbents to choose their voters, rather than the other way around. So I have been inclined to be supportive of Todd Rokita’s traveling road show, even while somewhat suspicious of his motives. Rokita, after all, was the driving force behind the Voter ID law; a law that was a naked attempt to suppress the votes of elderly and minority voters who vote disproportionately Democratic.

My suspicions were apparently well-founded.