The Family and The State

This is a very complex subject with strong emotion on both sides of the argument. I'm going to try to keep this post relatively short and open-ended. But, this is a subject worth considerable debate - so, upon introduction, I'll leave it to readers to think and reflect before further discourse.

I read a story this week (which I will introduce in a moment) which cuts straight to the heart of the issue of the family and the state. Perhaps more specifically, I should say the family vs. the state. I have made my feelings well known in this blog that I believe that the family should have governance authority over the state. Indeed the state should have limited authority beyond the protection and guarantee of basic rights to life, liberty and property.

This becomes a more complicated issue when it is perceived that the family is asserting beliefs or practices in a non-violent manner which are deemed to be dangerous or damaging to the rights of a child. I have struggled with where the line should be drawn; I definitely have some opinions, but I'm going to save those for later.

In the meantime, please consider the case of Daniel Hauser. Hauser is a thirteen year-old in Minnesota who has been diagnosed with cancer. He and his parents have decided to refuse chemotherapy treatments in favor of the natural medicinal treatments practiced by the Nemenhah Band. The court has ruled that the Hausers must seek chemotherapy treatment or turn Daniel over to protective custody.

A detailed news story can be found here. The court's ruling can be found here.

Happy reading and reflecting...

CIB Bailout and Gambling

On Monday, I provided the background and some opinion on the CIB shortfall where the taxpayers of Indiana (and, more acutely, the metropolitan Indianapolis area) will be on the hook for the operating shortfall at Lucas Oil Stadium. That article focused on the philosophical question of state investment in a sports stadium. In this article, I'll put that question aside and explore one proposed solution to the problem: a casino in downtown Indianapolis.

I'll cut straight to the chase in this debate. First off, my personal utopian position: if people want to gamble, it is their choice - it should not be illegal to gamble. This is simple and just. People who want to gamble are not deterred by laws. There is a whole lot that could be written on this line of thinking, but that's not what this particular article is all about. The issue is that gambling, generally, is not legal in Indiana.

Several years ago, Indiana granted gaming licenses to a handful of riverboat casinos. Gambling is legal in the United States, but each state is allowed to regulate as they desire. (Wow! A good example of federalism!) This site provides a summary of Indiana gambling laws. Since gambling is generally illegal in Indiana and only permissible with government-issued licences, the issue becomes highly-politicized.

One solution to the CIB budget shortfall is to introduce gambling in downtown Indianapolis at either Union Station or the former Market Square Arena. There are two constituencies who are opposed to such a solution: the conservatives who are fundamentally opposed to the expansion of gambling in the state and the special interests (and their representatives) who hold a government sponsored oligopoly today.

Gambling is profitable. It is even more profitable when a pseudo-monopoly is in place to diminish competition. Recently, the state allowed two horse tracks (who already were permitted to conduct parimutuel gambling) to offer more gaming (no table games). The existing gambling lobby representing the interests of riverboat casinos and the representatives of those districts were (generally) opposed to this measure. It has the potential to limit their profits by introducing more competition. The idea of authorizing gambling in downtown Indianapolis strikes fear in the hearts of the businessmen who bet on their government protected interest. Since it hurts the businessmen, the representatives don't like it either (think jobs and, if you are more cynical, campaign contributions).

I'll cut to the chase. Once government decides provides exemptions for illegal activity, you are going to have problems. Gambling is essentially illegal in Indiana. It is only legal if you receive a special permit to conduct the activity, and we're not talking about a driver's license. A situation has been created where staunch opponents of gambling are joining forces with the interests of the casino industry to block further expansion. Does this seem natural to anyone?!

My personal choice would be to legalize gambling, implement modest regulation, and allow competition to take hold. I think it would probably be better to not allow any gambling at all than to have the existing paradigm of government sponsored crime (not that it is really a crime). The conflicts of interest which are created under this model lead only to corruption.

For more on the option of gambling and other discussion on the CIB read here, here, here, and here.

Lucas Oil Stadium And Indiana Bailouts

One topic that I've been wanting to write about lately is the Indianapolis Capital Improvement Board (CIB). The CIB manages various assets in Marion County/Indianapolis - in particular, the new home of the Indianapolis Colts. Lucas Oil Stadium was opened for this past football season. (It should be noted that my Chicago Bears defeated the Colts in the regular season opener!)

The latest news on this subject is the operating budget shortfall of the CIB. The CIB is a government-chartered and funded corporation. As such, it is essentially funded by taxpayers. I was wishing that I could do a ton of research on this whole issue, but, alas, time is the enemy. So, I'll do my best to summarize.

The Colts got a sweet deal on a new stadium. The estimated cost of the stadium was $720M and the Colts paid $100M. The rest was funded by state and local government. The CIB is also responsible for most of the operating costs of the stadium. There are various expense and revenue sharing arrangements (visit the CIB website linked above and you can review all the legal contracts and budget documents if you wish) in place; however, the CIB (thus the taxpayer) is on the hook for most of the expense.

It has come to past that the operating expenses will exceed early expectations. This leaves the CIB in a precarious positions - they need more money. Now, to me, the obvious source of additional revenue to cover expenses would be to raise ticket prices. But, in all the discussions I've heard or read on this topic, I have not heard this discussed. This leads me to believe that it is probably a non-starter due to something in the legal agreement.

This subject has been central to the debate in this session of the Indiana General Assembly. They are not required to come up with a solution and may pass the buck back to the CIB and Mayor Greg Ballard. Incidentally, the General Assembly is also trying to pass a budget. They have failed to do so while in session, so a special session will have to be called. (Apparently they were too busy with other legislation to pass a budget.)

So... I'm not trying to solve the CIB issue here. For more information, you can read here, here and here. I do want to discuss this from a philosophical perspective. As I've stated before, I am not opposed to all government spending. I have also outlined my basic philosophy of governance. How do sports stadiums fit into the puzzle?

I'm a sports fan. No doubt. I do like the fact that I live in a city with pro sports teams. I don't own season tickets and I haven't been to either a Colts or Pacers game in a few years. It is also clear that the presence of a pro sports team can provide benefits to local businesses and indirectly provide additional tax revenues. If we look at the stadium as an investment for the state/city, then is it a wise investment? Does it provide a positive return?

The problem with such analysis is that politics always gets involved when assessing such problems. Further, the Rule of Law is often subverted or perverted to give the government exceptional powers. I'm not an expert in the history of the development of Conseco Fieldhouse (home of the Indiana Pacers) or Lucas Oil Stadium, but I would bet a large sum of money that the political risk of losing a professional sports franchise weighed heavily in the negotiations.

There is a myriad of data which could be analyzed to determine if, in fact, Lucas Oil Stadium (or other public investments) was an objectively wise financial investment for the state/city. The problem with this line of thinking is twofold.

First, such analysis implicitly assumes that government has a right to tax and spend on any investment it chooses. I disagree with this premise prima facie. To illustrate, would you be willing to let the government put at risk your entire wealth (or future wealth... use your imagination) on an even money bet that I'm thinking of number greater than 50 between 1 and 100? It is clearly immoral to place other people's money at risk, or take their money by force, to invest or spend on projects which are not universally/mutually agreed upon.

Second, let's assume that such an investment is undeniably positive without relying on additional taxpayer funding of any sort. In this case, private business would be making incremental revenue to a point where the additional tax revenues (only a fraction of the incremental profits) exceed the investment cost. This circumstance would describe a great investment which would attract private capital which would out-perform government management and investment. As an example, if the local hotel industry recognized the value of investing in a new stadium, then a consortium could be created to invest in the stadium as bond or equity holders in the stadium.

I will follow this article up with a discussion on one potential solution to the CIB issue: a casino in downtown Indianapolis.

Loose Ends... Vol. XLII

Nicole and I were both slacking this week. Travel and some other activities. We'll kick it back up this week.

Happy Mother's Day!

Loose Ends... Vol. XLI

Nothing tonight. I have an early flight to New Jersey in the morning. We finally had a decent number of posts this week!

The City of Vernon

For your reading pleasure... I stumbled upon this while reading some other blogs. This article from Mish gives a list of the highest paid pension recipients of the state of California. Number one on the list is Bruce Malkenhorst of the City of Vernon.

Check out this article from Forbes, the Wikipedia entry, and the city's website.

Staying On Message

The Obama administration made it clear this week on Thursday that staying on message is far more important than embracing diversity and individual choice. Vice President Joe Biden appeared on the Today show and played the role of concerned father and husband by saying,

I would tell members of my family — and I have — I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now. It’s not that it’s going to Mexico. It’s [that] you’re in a confined aircraft. When one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft. That’s me. I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation, suggesting they ride the subway. So, from my perspective, what it relates to is mitigation. If you’re out in the middle of a field when someone sneezes, that’s one thing. If you’re in a closed aircraft or closed container or closed car or closed classroom, it’s a different thing.

So, Joe was being honest. Too bad it wasn't on message. Within hours, the Vice President's spokesperson released this statement:

On the Today Show this morning the Vice President was asked what he would tell a family member who was considering air travel to Mexico this week. The advice he is giving family members is the same advice the Administration is giving to all Americans: that they should avoid unnecessary air travel to and from Mexico. If they are sick, they should avoid airplanes and other confined public spaces, such as subways. This is the advice the Vice President has given family members who are traveling by commercial airline this week. As the President said just last night, every American should take the same steps you would take to prevent any other flu: keep your hands washed; cover your mouth when you cough; stay home from work if you're sick; and keep your children home from school if they're sick.

The problem with this is that it is not accurate. Matt Lauer specifically asked what advice Biden would give his family if they were traveling to Mexico. He did not ask him what he would tell if family if they were sick. In fact, Biden clearly suggested that he'd prefer his family not be in confined places at all - not just going to Mexico or if they were sick. While I don't completely agree with him (I'm flying tomorrow morning), he has the right to his opinion.

But, it doesn't stop there. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs further addressed Biden's statement.

Q And my other question has to do with remarks that Vice President Biden made this morning on television. Representatives of the travel industry have accused the Vice President of coming close to fear-mongering because of his comments, and I'm wondering if you wanted to clarify or correct or apologize for the remarks that he made.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the -- what the Vice President meant to say was the same thing that, again, many members have said in the last few days, and that is, if you feel sick, if you are exhibiting symptoms, flu-like symptoms -- coughing, sneezing, runny nose -- that you should take precautions, that you should limit your travel. And I think he just -- what he said and what he meant to say.

Q With all due respect, and I sympathize with you trying to explain the Vice President's comments, but that's not even remotely close to what he said. He was asked about --

MR. GIBBS: I understand --

Q -- if a member of his family were going to --

MR. GIBBS: Jake, I understand what he said and I'm telling you what he meant to say -- (laughter) -- which was that if somebody is experiencing symptoms -- and you heard the President say this last night -- if somebody is feeling sick, if somebody is exhibiting symptoms of being sick, then they should take all necessary precaution. Obviously if anybody was unduly alarmed for whatever reason, we would apologize for that and I hope that my remarks and remarks of the people of the CDC and Secretary Napolitano have appropriately cleared up what he meant to say.

Apparently Joe Biden doesn't know what Joe Biden is saying.

If that wasn't enough... Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, newly appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, and acting Director of the CDC Richard Besser all appeared on all four major network Sunday shows: ABC's This Week, CBS's Face the Nation, NBC's Meet the Press and FOX News Sunday. I've been following these shows for over a year and a half and don't ever recall the same guest (let alone trio of guests) appearing on all four shows in one week.

Do you think the White House is trying to get out their message? My main observation on this whole swine flu situation (do I need to call it H1N1?) has been the government's relentless approach to control the message and reiterate that we should avoid panic and fear. My hunch is that the government is so used to controlling the day-to-day message by using fear that they are overcompensating in this situation.