Advance Indiana notes an interesting quote from the New York Post: “From 2001 to 2005, Goldsmith was senior vice president of Dallas-based Affiliated Computer Services Inc. Last year, his old firm landed a 50-year contract from Indianapolis to manage all parking meters for that city. Under the contract, Affiliated even gets the money from tickets written by Indianapolis police. The contract barely passed the Indianapolis City Council by a 15-14 vote.”
The Ballard Administration has been quite candid about Goldsmith’s continued influence, with Ballard noting that he regularly “consults” with Goldsmith, and Deputy Mayor Michael Huber–who used to work for Goldsmith’s Deputy Mayor, Skip Stitt–calling the former Mayor his “mentor.”
Despite rumors that have persisted for several years, no one knows whether Goldsmith holds significant stock in ACS. But when Indianapolis makes a deal that so lopsidedly favors a private company for so excessive a term, and a former Mayor with ties to that private company is so influential a player with the current administration, it does raise questions. Especially when the decisive vote was cast by a member of the Council whose law firm represents ACS.
Mayor Ballard has yet to provide satisfactory answers to those questions.
I got up early this morning because I had to drive 75 miles to give the “Good Government Day” speech I posted here a few days ago. Before I left, I tried accessing my email only to discover that my computer no longer recognized me, and wouldn’t allow me to log on. It was pouring down rain and I was out of gas; by the time I’d filled the tank, I looked like a sad, drowned rat. I got lost twice on my way to the small town where the high school was located. And it rained. And rained.
Good Government Day is a big deal at this high school, and everyone evidently attends: the Mayor and Deputy Mayor (a delightful woman I had previously met), members of the City Council, and a variety of elected and appointed officers. I was introduced to the Clerk-Treasurer, who seemed like a very nice woman–until she launched into her description of what was wrong with America and her explanation of why we are losing our “way of life.” I’m not entirely sure who she was alluding to when she referenced “people who are intentionally destroying our system,” but it was hard to miss her distaste for “people from South America” who have evidently had the nerve to invade even her small town. To say that I was taken aback would be an understatement.
I don’t believe this particular officeholder was typical of that small town. I chatted with several others–teachers, candidates for the City Council–who seemed far more representative of the virtues we like to attribute to small-town American life: they were welcoming, thoughtful and gracious. But I couldn’t help wondering, as I drove back through the driving rain, how many people share that woman’s worldview. How many see difference as a threat, rather than an opportunity to experience new perspectives? How many are secretly convinced that “they” are trying to destroy America?
Last week, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders renewed his call for “shared sacrifice” in addressing the budget deficit.
In remarks made after it was reported that some of this nation’s largest and most profitable corporations paid no U.S. taxes despite posting huge profits, Sanders said it is grossly unfair for congressional Republicans to propose major cuts to Head Start, Pell Grants, the Social Security Administration, nutrition grants for pregnant low-income women and the Environmental Protection Agency while ignoring the reality that some of the most profitable corporations pay nothing or almost nothing in federal income taxes.
Sanders has previously advocating tax reform to close corporate tax loopholes and eliminate cushy tax breaks for oil and gas companies. He has also introduced legislation to impose a 5.4 percent surtax on millionaires that is calculated to yield nearly $50 billion a year. The senator has said that spending cuts must be paired with new revenue so the federal budget is not balanced solely on the backs of working families. “We have a deficit problem,” he said, “and it has to be addressed. But it cannot be addressed on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the poor, young people, the most vulnerable in this country. The wealthiest people and largest corporations in this country have got to contribute. We’ve got to talk about shared sacrifice.”
So many people insist that this is a “Christian nation.” Wouldn’t a truly Christian nation follow Sander’s advice?
This morning’s Indianapolis Star had a bit of real reporting amid the multiple sports and “human interest” stories. Apparently, a bill being shepherded through the legislature would give sole authority for establishing new toll roads to the Governor. Well, not to just any governor–the measure would remain in effect for only four years.
As many of us recall, a couple of years ago Governor Daniels unveiled a plan to build a toll road around Indianapolis–outside I465. The public response was, shall we say, less than enthusiastic. City planners pointed out that “ring roads” of this sort suck traffic away from city centers, and that such a project would likely deal a blow to the resurgence of Indianapolis’ downtown. Environmentalists argued that the billions expended on such a project would be better spent on rail and mass-transit. The general public opposed it for a variety of other reasons.
Our Governor may be small, but he’s determined. And he’s serenely confident that he knows better than the public what the public needs. Hence, a bill that will let him do things his way, without the distractions of that pesky “democracy” thing.
What lessons might we take away from this morning’s article?
Jefferson was right: eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. People in power may give lip service to democracy and the “will of the people,” but given half a chance, they’ll dump democratic processes for unrestrained power in a heartbeat.
Citizens need journalism. We need to know what our public officials are doing, what they are proposing, how they are conducting themselves in office. Increasingly, in our internet age, we need to know who is telling the truth, and who is lying to us. That need is particularly acute at the state and local level. But real reporting costs money, so our local newspapers are thinner and thinner, and more and more of what’s left is fluff: recipes, fashion, weight-loss advice and, of course, sports.
This morning’s story reminded us why “the press” has constitutional status. It is supposed to be the eyes and ears of the public–our watchdog. When it does its job–like this morning–we the people have at least a fighting chance.
When I was doing research for my book God and Country, I began to really appreciate the impact of Calvinism on American culture. Calvin taught that people were either “saved” or not, and that personal success (wealth, acclaim) could be a sign that one was one of the elect. (Before religious historians post blistering responses, I know this is a very superficial description of the theology.) What intrigued me was the way in which this particular belief continues to influence our very American perspective on merit and personal responsibility.
I thought about that Calvinist influence when talking last week to a student who was disdainful of his classmates who had yet to find employment. “They should have done what I did,” he told me, explaining the extra efforts he had put into his own search. And those efforts were laudable, no question about it. But he is also blessed with a high intellect, lots of energy, the means to dress well for interviews and other advantages he takes for granted.
A contemporary of mine who runs a political think-tank is an exemplar of this attitude. He is a white, straight, Anglo-Saxon Protestant male, over six feet tall, and athletic. His parents both graduated from one of the nation’s best universities, and while they were not wealthy, he had a comfortable, intellectually enriched childhood and adolescence. He has enjoyed good health. He was born with a quick mind. And he has withering contempt for people who need public assistance of any kind. After all, he “stood on his own two feet.” Why can’t they?
I think this attitude is common among bright people who have worked and achieved. It takes some thought–not to mention humility and compassion–to recognize the role privilege plays in our lives.
My friend grew up white, straight and male in a society that privileged such things. He had good health, a good mind, and he didn’t encounter social or economic barriers to the tools he needed to succeed. I know that he–and my student, and others–also displayed admirable personal characteristics and diligence, but what they and so many others fail to appreciate is the extent to which privilege made it easier for them to “make it.”
The noted philosopher John Rawls asked an important question: What sort of system might we devise that would be fair to everyone if we operated behind “a veil of ignorance”–if we didn’t know beforehand what place we would have in that system? If we didn’t know whether we would be born rich or poor, black or brown or white, disabled or healthy, mentally impaired or brilliant…If we had no way of knowing whether we would be born to privilege or mass despair. What sort of system could we create that would reward effort and achievement while still recognizing and ameliorating “luck of the draw” disadvantages?
I don’t think a fair system would deny health-care to poor people or those with pre-existing conditions. I don’t think it would “save” money by cutting back preschool programs, or insisting that women bear children they are unprepared to raise. I don’t think it would deny laborers the opportunity to unite to bargain for safer workplaces.
I don’t think that insisting that people exercise personal responsibility requires us to ignore the role luck plays in our achievements.
We can insist on personal responsibility without being mean-spirited or willfully obtuse.
