Michael Hicks – Sheila Kennedy

The Unserious Party–Indiana Version

During her acceptance speech, Kamala Harris noted that Donald Trump is a deeply unserious man whose election would have very serious consequences. She might have broadened that observation by characterizing the GOP as an unserious political party.

I exited the Republican Party back in 2000, when the GOP’s transformation then underway was usually described as “rightward.” To the extent that “rightward” meant “toward fascism,” that description was accurate–but insufficient. It is equally accurate to note that the GOP has become increasingly unserious about governing.

Democrats do continue to focus on real governing issues–what should our foreign policy look like? What changes should be made to tax policy? What is government’s obligation to provide a social and physical infrastructure? The GOP, in contrast, is focused on areas that are mostly off-limits to government under our Constitution: books they disapprove of should be removed from public libraries! Private companies should be forbidden from undertaking DEI activities! Women should be forced to give birth!

GOP priorities aren’t those that have traditionally been considered governmental.

Indiana’s state tickets provide a picture-perfect example. The Republicans are all MAGA culture warriors, while the Democrats are focused on traditional governance issues: public education, taxation, the proper limits of government control over individuals.

The difference between the parties on issues of actual governance was recently explored by conservative economist Michael Hicks, who analyzed the seriousness of recent tax proposals. The headline was instructive: “Property taxes dominate the race for Indiana governor. Only 1 side has a real plan.”

Indiana voters have now seen three separate property tax plans from candidates running for governor and lieutenant governor. All three offer insights into some of the fiscal philosophies of the candidates, the quality of their policy development process and the respect they have for Hoosier taxpayers.

Hicks began by discarding the plan offered by the Libertarian candidate for governor.

Their proposal is to eliminate all residential property taxes, and instead tack on 7% sales tax to your home. I view their proposal as political posturing against the promiscuous use of tax abatements and tax-increment financing.

If you are tired of huge tax breaks for large companies, Indiana’s Libertarian Party is focused on your concerns. But their plan fails to consider things like the need to fund police protection, fire departments or provide heat to school buildings in winter.

In other words, it’s a very “unserious” plan.

Then Hicks took on MAGA Mike Braun’s plan.

The Republican — Mike Braun/Micah Beckwith — plan seems to have done two things. I say “seems” because it went through five major changes in three days after it was first announced. So, nailing down facts is not a trivial task.

The first thing this plan offers is the addition of a much larger exemption to homeowners. While this sounds alluring, it really has little or no effect on individual tax liability. Property taxes in Indiana are based on local government budgets, with caps placed on the value of the property, not the exemptions. So, for most Hoosiers, the first version of the Braun/Beckwith plan (or Beckwith/Braun plan according to the lieutenant governor candidate’s social media) had little or no effect on tax liabilities for most homeowners.

In response to major criticisms, the plan changed, but as Hicks noted, in its current iteration, it would either cut local government tax revenues or shift taxes to other taxpayers — primarily farmers and businesses.

Within farming communities, the property tax shift was enormous. Some farmers would see 70% tax increases…rural communities would see huge increases in farm taxes. Urban places would see big cuts in public services because of property tax caps, and suburban communities would need to pass school referendums to maintain bus service.

Hicks then turned to the Democrats’ plan, which would cut property taxes by roughly the same amount as the Braun/Beckwith plan, but in a way that doesn’t shift tax liability to farmers, renters or businesses. That plan

also ensured that local governments — schools, libraries, police and fire departments, and parks — would not face deep revenue losses.

Their plan had two distinguishing features. The first was that almost every element was analyzed by the Legislative Services Agency, with much of it taken from existing property tax proposals the legislature has been working on for the past 18 months. This means we know how much savings are to taxpayers, and how much and to whom the lost tax revenue flows.

The second key feature of the McCormick/Goodin plan was that most of the revenue losses were borne by state, not local government… Notably, the Democratic plan actually caps property tax growth for individual taxpayers at a reasonable level.

Indiana Democrats want to govern. Unserious Republicans want the power to win the culture war.

Comments

It’s Not Safe To Fool Mother Nature..

Those of us of a “certain age” may recall an old commercial for a margarine brand in which “Mother Nature” was deceived into thinking the margarine was butter; when she realized she’d been tricked, she responded with a thunderbolt while declaring that it “Isn’t nice to fool Mother Nature!”

Evidently, the ad sold a lot of margarine.

It appears, however, that more recent efforts to deny reality have met with a different–and far more lethal–consequence. In a recent commentary, Michael Hicks has reported on a study conducted by three Yale researchers into the effects of politically-motivated disinformation on COVID death rates

Last week three Yale professors published a study of COVID-related deaths in the United States. The data they used matched COVID deaths, voter registration by party and age in two states—Florida and Ohio. One goal of the study was to test whether anti-vaccine or anti-mask campaigns contributed to differences in death rates by political affiliation. Here’s what they found.

Before the pandemic, as one might have expected, death rates between Republicans and Democrats of the same age and condition but different political affiliation were statistically identical. In other words, political affiliation had no effect on death rates.

But then, denial–first, of COVID’s reality and then of the efficacy of vaccination–became a political marker, a way for MAGA Republicans to claim membership in the tribe and to “own the libs.”

Slowly, the Republican death rate began to edge higher than the Democrat death rate, again controlling for age differences. In the weeks before the COVID vaccine was made available, a gap emerged, with Republicans of the same age dying at a 22 percent higher rate than Democrats in these two states. That is large, accounting for hundreds of extra dead Republicans. This might have been due to Republicans having been exposed to more anti-mask messaging, leading them to forego more public health recommendations.

However, once the COVID vaccine was introduced, the death rate difference between Republicans and Democrats of the same age ballooned to 153 percent.

Hicks notes that there are several other underlying risks associated with political affiliation, such as gun ownership or lifestyle choices. But as he points out,

those risks didn’t cause death rate differences until COVID came along. It was partisan differences in the consumption of anti-vaccine messaging that killed many, many more Republicans than Democrats….

Nationwide, at least 250,000 Americans died of COVID because they chose not to be vaccinated. More will continue to succumb to the disease. Every last one of these deaths resulted from the rejection of modernity and reason. These were voluntary and senseless deaths attributable to petulant ignorance. The people second-guessing a study about which they have no technical understanding, exhibit the same flawed reasoning as those who rejected the COVID vaccines.

The GOP’s constant attacks on “elites” and higher education have led to a widespread, very partisan rejection of science, expertise and reality. It isn’t limited to suspicion of vaccines–it’s everything from unwillingness to accept the medical complexities implicated in the abortion debates to denial of the reality of climate change. It’s fear of modernity, of a world without bright lines–a world where individuals have to trust that scientists and medical professionals know what they’re doing and are offering sound advice.

As Hicks puts it,

This acceptance of expertise, trust and accumulated knowledge is necessary to sustain our modern world. Yet, we live in a time when social media allows more-skilled charlatans to deceive us. I think those of us who came of age before the dissolution of national media are especially vulnerable to purposeful distortions. That vulnerability killed a quarter million Americans, and it endangers us all in the years ahead.

It isn’t just a pandemic. Today’s GOP stands for nothing more than the intentional embrace of conspiracies, the willingness–even eagerness– to label and blame “the Other” for any and all uncongenial realities, and the substitution of vengefulness for policy. Insane as it seems, the cited study confirms that MAGA Republicans are willing to die in order to “own the libs.”

“Petulant ignorance” might just as well be the MAGA motto.

Comments

The World’s Worst Legislature

During his too-brief life, former NUVO editor Harrison Ullmann was best known for his repeated assertion that Indiana had the “world’s worst legislature.” Participants in the current session are once again demonstrating the accuracy of that label–and given the number of other legislative bodies that could plausibly win that title–especially, after yesterday, the United States Senate– awarding it to the Hoosiers in the Indiana Statehouse is really saying something.

The current session has seen a steady stream of bills by sponsors who haven’t even tried to obscure outrageous conflicts of interest: efforts by real estate developers to eliminate environmental protections like wetlands, a bill from a homebuilder/legislator that would disallow local design oversights. (Respecting the environment and following minimum design standards costs money, you know…)

An obscene number of measures take aim at Indianapolis.

I have previously pointed out that municipalities in Indiana have no genuine home rule–that the same lawmakers who bemoan “unfunded mandates” from Washington are perfectly happy to impose ridiculous constraints on Indiana’s cities and towns. It certainly won’t surprise anyone living in Indianapolis that our legislature– dominated by rural interests– has once again aimed its animus at the state’s largest city. But this year, the effort to spit in the face of the state’s economic driver–to punish Indianapolis for being “blue”–has gone into overdrive.

One bill would remove the police department from the control of the mayor and city council. Another would remove the city’s legal authority to provide bus rapid transit. Yet another would prevent the city from regulating the placement of 5G wireless devices.

A truly despicable bill that seems likely to pass is a legislative smackdown of a city ordinance that provided (minimal) extra protections for tenants. That measure, which passed previously, was vetoed by Governor Holcomb; legislators now propose to override that veto. Indiana law has historically and unfairly favored landlords; the Indianapolis City-County Council had begun to redress that imbalance.

As Michael Hicks recently wrote in a column for the Howey Report,

These are unusual issues for a state legislature to become involved in, but there’s more. One bill would prevent Indianapolis, or any other city, from changing its name. To be fair, that bill might be targeted at Russiaville, Toad Hop or Slab Town, not Indianapolis. Another would limit the powers of Indianapolis to undertake land-use authority within its city limits…

This flurry of legislation aimed at the heart of Indiana’s largest municipal government seems to signal that something unseemly is happening in Indianapolis.

What is “unseemly,” of course, is that Indianapolis is now a reliably Democratic city in a reliably Republican state.

The proposed punitive legislation wouldn’t just affect Marion County. (For those readers who don’t live in Indiana, the city limits have been essentially coterminous with the county’s since the early 1970s.) This is, as Hicks noted, different from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Statistical Area, which includes the surrounding counties. Much of the proposed legislation would affect both the City of Indianapolis and the surrounding metropolitan area that depends upon the success of the city.

Hicks also notes that–far from demonstrating “unseemly” governance, the metrics show that Indianapolis has been far more successful than the rest of the state.

Indianapolis has been responsible for the lion’s share of state population growth.

Since 2000, the Indy metro area has grown by 35%, the City of Indianapolis by 12%, and the whole rest of the state by 2.1%. The City of Indianapolis saw more population growth this century than the 80 non-Indy metro counties combined. So, whatever concern about crime, zoning or building design residents have about Indy, they are worse everywhere else.

What about jobs?

Since 2000, the Indianapolis metro region has added some 154,000 jobs. Of those jobs, the City of Indianapolis can account for 18,000 new jobs over the same time period. Here’s the rub; over the same time period, all the rest of Indiana lost a whopping 151,000 jobs.

Speaking of economic impact, Hicks tells us that, annually, residents of Marion County send a net of more than $500 per person in tax revenues to residents of the rest of the state.

All told, 20 Hoosier counties pay more taxes to the state than they receive in tax revenues from the state. Five of those are in the Indianapolis metro area. So, just to summarize it clearly, Indianapolis, and the Indianapolis region as a whole, are growing leaps and bounds faster than the rest of the state. At the same time, they bear a greater state tax burden, of which a significant share is sent to other counties. They get far less back in tax dollars than they spend.

In the World’s Worst Legislature–coming to citizens courtesy of extreme gerrymandering–resentful representatives of dwindling rural areas are intent upon killing the goose that sends them the golden eggs.

Comments