A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

I have read only about five of the ninety-three pages of the opinion, but the Court of Appeals has partially reversed the trial court (pdf) in the State v. IBM litigation over FSSA “modernization.” The Court of Appeals said that IBM is still entitled to about $50 million in assignment and equipment fees. But, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that IBM did breach its contract to the FSSA, with the matter being remanded to the trial court to figure out the damages from the breach. The damages will be offset against that $50 million in favor of IBM.

Per the Court of Appeals:

While IBM’s software, computers, and employee training aided in delivering welfare services, the primary focus of the contract was to provide food and medical care to our poorest citizens in a timely, efficient, and reliable manner within federal guidelines, to discourage fraud, and to increase work-participation rates. In the most basic aspect of this contract — providing timely services to the poor — IBM failed. We therefore reverse the trial court’s finding that there was no material breach.

In the State’s defense, it’s not like anyone else saw anything bad coming down the line.

My skeptical sense of the matter was that reducing payouts by inhibiting the delivery of timely services to the poor was more of a feature than a bug to those who were not excited about being obliged to provide those services in the first place.

Today is the 205th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln. I recall reading that he carried around a cheerful little poem by William Knox that had some resonance for me when I read it in my younger days. I never took to the goth scene, but I suppose it’s not unusual for the young to be occupied with the big questions — the smaller ones seeming to occupy an inordinate amount of our time as we get older. Anyway, “Why Should the Spirit of Mortal be Proud” by William Knox:

Oh! why should the spirit of mortal be proud?
Like a swift-fleeting meteor, a fast-flying cloud,
A flash of the lightning, a break of the wave,
Man passeth from life to his rest in the grave.

The leaves of the oak and the willow shall fade,
Be scattered around, and together be laid;
And the young and the old, and the low and the high
Shall molder to dust and together shall lie.

The infant a mother attended and loved;
The mother that infant’s affection who proved;
The husband that mother and infant who blessed,–
Each, all, are away to their dwellings of rest.

The maid on whose cheek, on whose brow, in whose eye,
Shone beauty and pleasure,–her triumphs are by;
And the memory of those who loved her and praised
Are alike from the minds of the living erased.

The hand of the king that the sceptre hath borne;
The brow of the priest that the mitre hath worn;
The eye of the sage, and the heart of the brave,
Are hidden and lost in the depth of the grave.

The peasant whose lot was to sow and to reap;
The herdsman who climbed with his goats up the steep;
The beggar who wandered in search of his bread,
Have faded away like the grass that we tread.

The saint who enjoyed the communion of heaven;
The sinner who dared to remain unforgiven;
The wise and the foolish, the guilty and just,
Have quietly mingled their bones in the dust.

So the multitude goes, like the flowers or the weed
That withers away to let others succeed;
So the multitude comes, even those we behold,
To repeat every tale that has often been told.

For we are the same our fathers have been;
We see the same sights our fathers have seen;
We drink the same stream, and view the same sun,
And run the same course our fathers have run.

The thoughts we are thinking our fathers would think;
From the death we are shrinking our fathers would shrink;
To the life we are clinging they also would cling;
But it speeds for us all, like a bird on the wing.

They loved, but the story we cannot unfold;
The scorned, but the heart of the haughty is cold;
They grieved, but no wail from their slumbers will come;
They joyed, but the tongue of their gladness is dumb.

They died, aye! they died; and we things that are now,
Who walk on the turf that lies over their brow,
Who make in their dwelling a transient abode,
Meet the things that they met on their pilgrimage road.

Yea! hope and despondency, pleasure and pain,
We mingle together in sunshine and rain;
And the smiles and the tears, the song and the dirge,
Still follow each other, like surge upon surge.

‘Tis the wink of an eye, ’tis the draught of a breath,
From the blossom of health to the paleness of death,
From the gilded saloon to the bier and the shroud,–
Oh! why should the spirit of mortal be proud?

I don’t have much time to comment but wanted to flag a good post by Austin Frakt at the Incidental Economist about the CBO report on the removal and addition of distortionary forces by Obamacare on the labor market.

One of the ways Obamacare tends to remove a distortion is to allow people to move more freely in the labor market and not remain in a job simply to hold onto health care. Though, as heirs to the Puritans, allowing people to do more of what they really want is probably regarded more as a bug than a feature in some circles.

A week or so ago, I wrote about Sen. Smith’s SJR 3 concerning an attempt to rescind Indiana’s ratification of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the one that allows direct election of U.S. Senators instead of their selection by the various state legislatures.)

Yesterday, Alan Greenblatt, writing for NPR had an article entitled “Rethinking the 17th Amendment: An Old Idea Gets Fresh Opposition” (h/t Sacha). It appears to be one of those ALEC things, popular among some conservatives. Ted Cruz says that direct election of U.S. Senators instead of having them selected by state legislatures is a reason federal power expanded.

On the other hand:

The 17th Amendment was one of several innovations during the so-called Progressive Era meant to promote direct democracy, such as ballot initiatives, recall elections and party primaries.

The idea was to circumvent the stranglehold that various monopolies and oligarchies had on state officials of the day.

“The state legislatures were just a mess, especially with regard to this issue,” says John Hibbing, a political scientist at the University of Nebraska who has studied the amendment. “People were just buying their way in. It was a real cesspool.”

But, the ALEC thinking goes — or at least the rhetoric — that this change removed the voice of the states themselves in the federal government (as opposed to, I suppose, citizens from that state who are, at the same time, citizens of the country as a whole.) As a practical matter, the article points out that Republicans effectively control 26 states versus Democratic control of 18 with the other 6 split. (Having only 6 split states is a telling statistic about the partisan split of the country.)

“I just don’t see how it could possibly be a winner for anyone running,” says University of Illinois political scientist William Bernhard. “To say we’re going to become less democratic and have fewer votes, that doesn’t resonate.”

Pretty much.