I Told You So

There’s nothing as annoying as someone who tells you “I told you so.” It’s a taunt that’s anything but gracious. So I’ll try to throttle my desire to do just that, but it won’t be easy.

When the Ballard Administration entered into a fifty-year contract to manage the city’s parking meters with a consortium headed by ACS,  a lot of us were highly critical. The length of the contract was excessive. ACS had a horrible reputation nationally. There was really no good reason we couldn’t manage our own parking meters (other cities seem capable of doing so) and keep all the profit, rather than giving the bulk of it to ACS. The terms of the contract favored ACS over Indianapolis taxpayers.

Many City-County Councilors shared those criticisms. Even after the administration engaged in considerable reported arm-twisting, the contract was only approved by one vote–and the deciding vote was cast by then-Council President Ryan Vaughn, a lawyer employed by the law firm that represented ACS.

After the new meters were installed, we were treated to a series of press releases–uncritically accepted by the local media–telling us how well everything was going. Revenues were up! (As a cynical friend noted about one of these glowing reports, of course revenues were up; hours had been extended and rates had been raised. For this you need a contractor??)

This week, the Star (finally) examined the numbers, rather than repeating the Administration’s hype. And guess what?

The first year of Indianapolis’ 50-year parking meter lease brought doubled rates in some areas as a tradeoff for a wholesale upgrade of equipment and the convenience of paying by credit card or smartphone.

Was it worth it?

New financial data provided by the city shows its share of revenue from the vendor in 2011 — nearly $1.4 million, or 30 percent — fell well short of the city’s own projection of $2.1 million.

And the city didn’t end up seeing the full amount: After the vendor subtracted $286,000 in charges to compensate for the city closing metered spaces, often for RebuildIndy road construction work, the city pocketed $1.1 million.

The contractor, by contrast, made 3.5 million.

And we’re stuck with this bit of crony capitalism for the next 49 years. Forty-nine years of foregoing 3.5 million plus–money that could be used to pay for paving streets, improving parks or plugging budget shortfalls at IMPD.

This was a very bad deal. And I did tell you so.

Comments

Tell Me Again How These People Got Elected

In North Carolina, according to Talking Points Memo, you can’t join the Laurens County Republican Party and get on the primary ballot “unless you pledge that you’ve never ever had pre-marital sex — and that you will never ever look at porn again. Evidently, the LCGOP unanimously adopted a resolution requiring all candidates who want to get on the primary ballot to sign a pledge containing 28 “principles.” Those principles, according to the Clinton Chronicle, include the following somewhat difficult to enforce provisions.

“You must favor, and live up to, abstinence before marriage.You must be faithful to your spouse. Your spouse cannot be a person of the same gender, and you are not allowed to favor any government action that would allow for civil unions of people of the same sex.

You cannot now, from the moment you sign this pledge, look at pornography.”

I can almost hear you chuckling. That’s the South for you. Retrograde. Homophobic. Bible belt.

Well, choke back that chuckle, Hoosiers, because we have nothing to feel superior about. Our homophobes are every bit as crazy and obsessed as those in North Carolina’s backwoods. And it is highly unlikely that their legislators could be any more craven than the sorry lot that we’ve elected to the Indiana Statehouse.

I posted before about the recent effort to prevent the Indiana Youth Group from having a specialty license plate. If you are a sane individual, you might wonder why anyone would care that a nonprofit organization applied for a specialty plate to use in its fundraising? To ask that question is to demonstrate conclusively that you are not the sort of good Christian that Eric Miller and Micah Clark believe should live in our fine state. You clearly don’t understand that allowing a GLBT teen counseling center to have an Indiana license plate is the first step to damnation. It might even send a message that gay people are citizens.

That’s the first step down a slippery slope that will turn all of Indiana gay!

After a good deal of lobbying and grass-roots organizing, that mean-spirited effort appeared to have failed.  But you can’t keep good “Christians” down! Micah Clark of the American Family Association of Indiana and Eric Miller of Advance America have evidently regrouped, and persuaded legislators to kill off the specialty plate for IYG when the bill comes to conference committee. I’m told that the proposed conference report that will be offered for consideration on Senate Bill 257 –the Motor vehicle law–will contain some version of the language that was defeated earlier, and will eliminate the IYG license plate. (I’m also told that they’ll have to suspend the rules in order to get this done, since the language to be inserted didn’t appear in either the House or Senate versions–but hey, what’s a little rule suspension among the godly?)

Because, you know, we really can’t have Indiana license plates acknowledging the existence of gay people. Think of the children!

Some of Indiana’s most prominent citizens have lobbied this legislature for such things as a comprehensive smoking ban, public transportation, a more equitable tax code, fairness for working people and similar matters of substance. Our Senators and Representatives have had no problem shrugging off the requests of those civic leaders. But evidently, they just can’t ignore Eric Miller and Micah Clark, with their seductive–albeit whackadoodle–agenda of bigotry and extremism.

It’s like that line from Brokeback Mountain–they just can’t quit them.

And evidently, we can’t quit electing them. The question is, why?

Comments

The Indiana Legislature in Action

When a Facebook friend posted yesterday that the Indiana House had voted 78-2 to declare the Grouseland the state’s official rifle, I was sure he was joking.

Apparently, he wasn’t.

According to news reports, the House vote followed a similar wide approval (48-2) by the Senate.  If Gov. Daniels signs it, Indiana will have the (dubious) distinction of being only the third state with an official gun.

Whoopee for us.

So let’s see if I can put this important piece of legislation into perspective. Lawmakers didn’t “have time” to consider legislation that would have allowed Indianapolis citizens to hold a referendum on public transportation–a critical element of economic development. But they did have time to debate the proper singing of the  national anthem, consider whether Girl Scouts are secret lesbian members of Planned Parenthood, and argue about who should be able to buy specialty license plates. They couldn’t manage to agree on the terms of a smoking ban that would actually protect the public health, but they were able to be virtually unanimous in designating a state gun.

Well, that will certainly make life better for those of us who live in Indiana.

Use that gun. Kill me now.

Comments

Rabbinic Wisdom

Rabbi Sandy Sasso has an important column in this morning’s Star.

There has been a lot of heat–and considerably less light–generated by the requirement that health insurance companies make contraception available free of charge to employees of Catholic universities and hospitals. Much of that heat has been deliberately stoked–a politically cynical  ploy intended to rile up faithful folks by accusing the administration of religious hostility.

As the good Rabbi reminds us, the conflict between laws of general application and the beliefs of religious groups is not new. Employers who are Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists, among others, must offer their employees coverage for procedures their own beliefs prohibit. As she further reminds us, there is a critical difference between telling the faithful they must do something that violates their conscience–use or pay for contraception, in this case–and telling them they may not impose their beliefs on employees who do not share them.

These questions of conscience are inevitable in a country that is constitutionally obliged to respect diversity while acting to advance the common good. At some point, individuals must obey that “inner voice” that tells them not to participate in evil. No one celebrates the obedient German who was “just following orders.” On the other hand, even fewer of us celebrate the zealot who insists that the law must reflect his particular beliefs to the detriment of others who disagree.

If my religion teaches that I must sacrifice my first-born, the government is not required to respect that belief. On the other hand, if I am a competent adult member of a sect that rejects transfusions, the government should respect my right to refuse that procedure, no matter how grave the consequences.

In between, there is plenty of opportunity for good faith dispute.

Last night, at dinner with friends, our host told us a story about his relative who lives in a very small town in Southern Indiana. Her teenage daughter had horrific menstrual cramps, and the doctor prescribed birth control pills to control the pain. When my friend’s cousin went to the only drugstore in town, the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. Even though the woman explained that the purpose was medical, not sexual, the pharmacist was adamant that filling a prescription for contraception for a sixteen-year-old violated her conscience.

Should pro-life police officers be excused from protecting abortion clinics? What about anti-gay firefighters who are called to extinguish a blaze at a gay bar? Where do we draw the line? Some people will view the “conscience exemption” for pharmacists as an appropriate accommodation. Others will argue that if an individual is unwilling to provide the services the profession exists to provide , she should find a different profession.

There are legitimate, unavoidable conflicts between conscience and the common good in a free society. Playing cynical political games does not advance our ability to deal with those challenges.

Comments

Running Against a Tsunami

I know it’s easy to critique a campaign from the sidelines, but it’s really difficult to understand what Dick Lugar is thinking. I catch his television commercials from time to time, and as a past supporter and contributor, I get email blasts from his campaign daily.

It is increasingly painful and off-putting to watch.

The Dick Lugar I used to know and admire was a statesman. I didn’t always agree with him–even when I was still a Republican, he was sometimes too conservative for me–but I always respected him; he was reasoned and thoughtful, gracious to his opponents and informed in his positions. It’s true that, as the party moved right, Lugar moved with it, but never to the fringe. He never stooped to the sort of hateful rhetoric and flat-earth know-nothingness that has so diminished the Grand Old Party. He was never an ideologue.

Until now.

Lugar is being challenged by the worst elements of an increasingly irrational base. Mourdock, his primary opponent, is a bad joke. But as Jim Shella wrote in an earlier column on this race, Mourdock isn’t the point.  While there are certainly legitimate criticisms that can be leveled at him (or any other long-serving elected official), Lugar’s opposition is largely fueled by a veritable tsunami of anger and resentment and fear that has focused on him as a part of the hated status quo. 

And therein lies the challenge.

Shella was right: the Tea Party fanatics who want Dick Lugar gone don’t care who replaces him. They detest Lugar for the very characteristics that have generated consistent voter support over the years. That very obvious reality puts his campaign squarely between the proverbial rock and hard place–if he remains true to himself and his record, if he campaigns on that record with his head held high, he won’t win the votes of the ideologues most likely to vote in the primary. But if he tries to reinvent himself as a rabid True Believer, he betrays his own principles, diminishes an otherwise admirable legacy–and still may not get their votes.

Despite the risks, the campaign has chosen the latter strategy.

So we are treated to grainy commercials featuring the Senator using “good old boy” terminology he’s never previously employed. We get emails from his campaign demonizing the President of the United States, stooping to a level of disrespect that would have been inconceivable coming from the “real” Dick Lugar. We are assured that the Senator no longer supports measures, like the Dream Act, that he had previously–and admirably–championed. We get messages that are absolutely devoid of the nuance and civility characteristic of the statesman he used to be.

It is so pathetic, so inauthentic, it’s painful.

I don’t know whether this all-out pandering will allow Lugar to eke out one last term. He has a lot of money, and a deep reservoir of good will, and it may be enough–although if I were a wagering woman, I wouldn’t bet on it.

I know a number of Democrats who had earlier considered “crossing over” to vote for Lugar in the GOP primary. I was one of them. Had the campaign chosen a different course–had it mounted a full-throated defense of an impressive record–I think many of those crossover votes would materialize, although probably not enough to change the outcome. Fewer such votes will be cast for a man running away from his own most admirable traits.

The longer this primary contest goes on, the more I want to ask the Senator two questions: is winning another term, at age 80, so important that it is worth this unseemly (and unpersuasive) groveling? And if you win, if you return to Washington after this dispiriting display, which Dick Lugar will you be?

Comments