The composition of my family dictates that I watch too many kids’ movies. But, when I read this column by Michael Gerson (h/t Tipsy), I started thinking of the seagulls in the Disney movie, “Nemo;” the ones who form a mob, mindlessly chattering “mine, mine, mine.”

Gerson’s column uses Christine O’Donnell, darling of the Tea Party and Republican Senate candidate in Delaware, and her statements about the First Amendment as a jumping off point. O’Donnell has boldly declared that the First Amendment does not speak to the separation of church and state. This was even bolder inasmuch as it was done in a crowd of lawyers and law students; akin to going to a medical school and declaring that the heart has nothing to do with circulation.

Gerson’s column discusses the widespread belief among Tea Partyists that the United States is, and always has been, a Christian Nation. Knowing the history of the 16th – 18th centuries, and the ideas motivating the Founders, makes this a losing proposition. But O’Donnell seems to be one of those folks with such a beautiful mind she is unwilling to waste it on tedious details like Thomas Jefferson’s Deism and the racking religious wars that were recent history when the Constitution was written.

But, Gerson says that this isn’t really about true history or racism or bigotry. Rather, this religious angle to the Tea Party movement is “nostalgia for an idealized past in which government was smaller, social ties were stronger, and America was a Christian country.”

I realize that the Tea Party is something of a Rorschach test where you project your own views onto it. Proponents see the movement as championing their own views about government and minimize the less attractive aspects. Detractors see only the whack jobs playing dress up and carrying misspelled, racist signs. But, it’s fairly clear that these folks are against. Against “what” is somewhat open. (I’m reminded of the Overkill album entitled simply, “I Hate.”) Whatever they’re against, they want to “take this country back.” From whom is left conveniently undefined. And that’s where I find the resemblance to the seagulls. The opposition I see with my version of the Rorschach test has an “It’s Ours and They can’t have it” flavor to it. “Mine, mine, mine.”

In Indiana’s Third Congressional District, Marlin Stuzman is campaigning against big government. So, it’s a little inconvenient for him that he and his family has been taking a lot of government money for their farming operations over the years. His explanation is something along the lines of, “they made me take their wretched money.” He just had to take that $100,000 (near $1 million if you look to the whole family operation), damn the luck.

When Sylvia Smith asked the Farm Service Agency, their response was (and I paraphrase), “Uh, not so much.”

Although Stutzman says the direct payments should be eliminated, until they are, “we can’t say no.” He has described the payments as “federal mandates.”

The Agriculture Department says Stutzman could decline the checks.

“It’s a voluntary program,” said Carl Schweikhardt, program specialist for the Farm Service Agency, the USDA operation in Indiana. “You can refuse payment on the farm.”

But, those farm subsidies are something that frequently seem to get overlooked when the usual suspects are railing against Big Government. The most recent version of the Farm Bill is a five-year $288 billion bill. Once again, I think it “doesn’t count” because those subsidies aren’t going to “Them.” It’s like Medicare and Social Security – going to “Us.”

Boon: [Niedermyer is abusing Flounder in ROTC] Vicious mother, isn’t he?

Otter: He can’t do that to our pledges!

Boon: Only we can do that to our pledges.

Indiana can suspend its motorist’s licenses because the BMV has a dysfunctional system, but it’s really beyond the pale for Indiana motorists to suffer abuse at the hands of the State of Illinois.

Justin Mack, writing for the Lafayette Journal & Courier, reports on the Illinois Tollway Authority wrongfully sending out bills for back tolls and fines for travel on Illinois toll roads. To complicate matters, the Illinois Tollway Authority is not set up to efficiently correct its mistakes, just to take payments or set court dates. The problem seems to be a system that was taken off line for a period of time coupled with a system that is not equipped to deal with Indiana’s plating system which can issue the same number for different kinds of plates. So, Indiana truck plate “123” might get a bill really meant for Indiana “In God We Trust” plate “123.”

Could be time for a little border war.

Our nanny-state government is at it again. Rather than let the free market work its magic, it insists on coddling the looters by using tax dollars to impose a one-size-fits-all solution to the “problem” of “bridge safety” where U.S. 52 crosses the Wabash. The structural soundness of the bridge is in question according to “scientists” and “engineers.” Build a man a bridge and he’ll cross the river for half a century. Teach a man to swim, and he’ll enjoy the unregulated run-off of the Wabash. The Constitution doesn’t mention bridges even once!

Sorry about that – I’ve been reading too many right wing liberty & patriot sites. (But not so many that I feel compelled to break out the all-caps & exclamation points just yet.)

Amanda Harmon has an article in the Lafayette Journal & Courier about the deteriorating condition of the east-bound bridge of U.S. 52 over the Wabash between Lafayette and West Lafayette. It’s old, wearing down, and apparently the same design as the one that fell in Minnesota a few years back. INDOT is studying its options.

In fairness to the right-wingers and liberty types; in my experience, when you present them with specific projects, as often as not, they’ll tell you that they aren’t talking about *that* project as problem with government spending. It’s usually unspecified waste, but in any case, not the stuff they enjoy from day-to-day. It’s money spent on Them.

Maintenance is one of those things that’s politically easier to kick down the road, particularly in the face of reflexive opposition to taxes of any kind. But, the consequences are often disastrous for somebody. Hopefully, to Them instead of to Us.

I feel like I’ve hit hard on the “Is there a God” type questions recently, so that’s not where I’m going with this. However, I got to thinking about different denominations and churches after reading a post by Tipsy on the swanky digs of the Second Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis. Tipsy is Eastern Orthodox, previously – if memory serves – evangelical of some sort and before that – if memory still serves – something other than evangelical. So there has obviously been some deliberation in that particular journey.

My sense is that, for most people, they end up as whatever their parents were, maybe shifting a bit (or sometimes a lot) to match a spouse. For myself, on my way to not believing in anything much, I was able to see a few denominations/religions up close and personal. Over at Tipsy’s blog, I had some less than kind things to say about Presbyterianism. Because I’m lazy, I’ll just cut & paste at this point:

You know my position on religion generally; but I have personal experience with Presbyterianism. That’s how I was raised. Maybe Richmond Presbyterianism isn’t a representative sample of the denomination as a whole, but my sense of it was as a bland, dry, flavorless thing. Soft Calvinism really captures it, I think.

My memory was of a bunch of old, white people in nice clothes, gathering in the sanctuary, mostly sitting, either listening politely or reciting things in rote, mechanical voices before gathering for coffee after the service.

I was much more taken by the Jewish services I went to – some, but less formality, very much a warm feeling that the group was a family; the Pentecostal services – lots of energy and deep feeling; or the Catholic services – you could feel the deep tradition.

So, for those of you who have made a conscious decision about a denomination or religion, I’m wondering what it was that made the sale.

The Incidental Economist has an interesting series of posts on health care spending in the U.S. (h/t Buzzcut). From country-to-country, pretty much without regard to the structure of the health care system, health expenditures rise consistently as a function of GDP. Except for the U.S. Even accounting for our greater GDP, we still spend substantially more on health care. (And our results aren’t notably better.) Apparently there is no single bad guy against whom we can deploy the torches and pitchforks.

The Associated Press has an article on Indiana’s obligation to pay penalties and interest on the loans for the State’s unemployment insurance shortfall.

The state will begin paying millions of dollars in penalties and interest to the federal government next year because it has borrowed nearly $2 billion to pay for jobless benefits, an Indiana unemployment official says.
. . .
[T]he state will have to pay $80 million to $100 million in interest in 2011. The first payment of about $60 million will be due Sept. 30.

The Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne and The Times of Munster reported that Indiana businesses in January also will begin paying a penalty of $21 per worker because Indiana has not yet repaid the loans. The business penalty increases by $21 per worker per year until the loan is nearly paid off.

We’re hardly the only state having economic trouble, but if you hear folks saying that our state budget is balanced, it’s only because their squinting and turning their head just right when they look at it.

The Lafayette Journal & Courier makes the point that social security recipients shouldn’t grump about a second year with no cost of living adjustment (COLA). The COLA is designed to help social security recipients maintain their standard of living in the face of inflation. In years with essentially zero inflation, no COLA should be forthcoming. That’s true, but it ignores the fact that a good number of Americans are basically innumerate. It’s the whole Nigel Tufnel, “but ours go to eleven” thing:

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and…

Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?

Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.

Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it’s louder? Is it any louder?

Nigel Tufnel: Well, it’s one louder, isn’t it? It’s not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You’re on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you’re on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?

Marty DiBergi: I don’t know.

Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?

Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.

Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.

Marty DiBergi: Why don’t you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?

Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

These social security recipients just want their check to go to eleven, not thinking much about whether that higher number actually buys them any more stuff.

Having suggested that people are dumb with numbers, I’ll have to confess that I’m no genius about this stuff. I can’t figure out who, exactly, wins and who loses when inflation is minimal. For example, I know that my home loan is locked in with nominal dollars and a fixed interest rate. If, down the road, I got paid more dollars because of inflation for the same work; that would make my home loan a smaller percentage of my income and, in that sense, I would benefit. (Though the other consequences to me from inflation might offset that benefit.) Speaking very generally, it seems to me that inflation benefits long term debtors and hurts long term creditors.

And, if I were really smart, I’d digress into a discussion about quantitative easing which I’ve recently heard a lot about but which, to me, sounds an awful lot like just printing money dressed up with a fancy name.

John Russell has a good story in the Indy Star about the cozy relationship between Duke Energy and the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s general counsel who recently took a job with Duke. What is more interesting to me are the raw e-mails posted by the Star. (h/t Indiana Law Blog).

Option #1, clearly, is not to get so cozy with the people you’re supposed to be regulating. Be friendly – you have to work with the people; there’s no shame in polite chit chat here and there, but these e-mails seem to reflect a camaraderie that goes beyond the pale.

Option #2, don’t put this yukking it up between government entity and regulatory agency in e-mails going to the government e-mail account. At that point, you’re not even trying.

And both of these things don’t even address the horrible conflicts presented by having a job offer on the table from what is (or should be), in effect, a party adverse to your client.