A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Sheila Kennedy’s recent blog post about the demise of the Twinkie being primarily a function of changing snack food preferences and increased awareness of health consequences brought to mind a favorite passage from Neal Stephenson’s “Reamde”:

Having now lived for a few decades in parts of the United States and Canada where cooking was treated quite seriously, and having actually employed professional chefs, he was fascinated by the midwestern/middle American phenomenon of recombinant cuisine. Rice Krispie Treats being a prototypical example in that they were made by repurposing other foods that had already been prepared (to wit, breakfast cereal and marshmallows). And of course any recipe that called for a can of cream of mushroom soup fell into the same category. The unifying principle behind all recombinant cuisine seemed to be indifference, if not outright hostility, to the use of anything that a coastal foodie would define as an ingredient.

The food-as-culture-war thing has been popping up in various ways recently. Papa Johns and Chik-Fil-A are rallying points to culture warriors who seek to thwart the menace of liberalism. That they pick these places while fighting against universalizing access to health care is especially notable. It’s as if they are demanding, even relishing, the right to go from fat to sick to bankrupt. This is somewhat reminiscent of the climate change deniers who demand that FEMA be defunded.

As for the Twinkies, if you can’t make money selling Americans tubes of processed cream filling, what hope is there for any venture, really?

In a Facebook discussion, Abdul suggested that the Tea Party was at war with the Libertarians, blaming them the Libertarians for Electoral defeat. Some in the discussion suggested that the Tea Party had forgotten its libertarian roots.

I’m not sure how libertarian the Tea Party ever was. The problem was, even from the beginning, with taking money from “us” and giving it to “them.” Remember Santelli’s Rant?

Why don’t you put up a web site to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages, or would we like to, at least, buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people who might have a chance to actually prosper down the road, and reward people that could carry the water, instead of drink(ing) the water.

In his case, it was the winners versus “the losers.” “Us versus Them” was always, in my mind, the motivating force of the Tea Party. Government regulations that sent money to “Us” was o.k. (That’s why, for example, Medicare always needed defending instead of defunding.) Now, defining the “Us” and defining the “Them” can be an interesting debate, but almost never a pretty one.

Maureen Groppe, writing for Gannett has a good article entitled Income inequality study finds gap widening in Indiana. Incomes for Indiana’s upper and middle classes did not grow over the past 30 years as much as they did for the nation generally. And, during that time, Indiana was one of seven states where the average income of the bottom quintile actually fell.

The average income for the bottom fifth of Hoosier households declined almost 7 percent ($1,378) since the late 1970s. Average income for the top fifth grew 57 percent ($53,906). The average income of the middle fifth grew 22 percent ($10,567).

One source cites the “skills gap” (about which, see) and the decline in manufacturing jobs. The departure of manufacturing jobs no doubt contributes significantly to the drag on Hoosier incomes, particularly at the bottom. It used to be, I gather, that if you had a basic education and followed some basic rules about punctuality and working diligently at your assigned task, you could do o.k. by yourself and your family. Now, I think we have a very difficult time articulating precisely what a person should learn in order to earn a stable, family-sustaining income. So, it’s not terribly surprising if people come up short on their education.

Our tax policy isn’t exactly helping either. We got rid of inventory taxes, capped property taxes and raised sales taxes. We are eliminating the inheritance tax and reduced the corporate income tax. This is particularly awesome if you are heir to a corporation that owns real estate and inventory. Doesn’t do as much for you if you are a wage earning renter that buys stuff.

A post by Mike Kole reminded me of the thoughts of Cass Sunstein in his 2001 book, Republic.com.

I haven’t read it, but reports say that Sunstein’s central thesis is that the Internet will weaken democracy “because it allows different groups to avoid exposure to one another as they gather in increasingly segregated communities, making recognition of other points of view or common ground decreasingly likely.” (From the Splinternet/Cyberbalkanization entry of Wikipedia).

This isn’t new, of course, and it’s not unique to the Internet. As I mentioned recently elsewhere, I know some older political types who recall being shocked by the Nixon landslide because “everyone they knew voted for McGovern.” And, before rapid global communications, information was pretty effectively segregated by geography. But, I suppose the Internet and the customization available allows folks to wrap the cocoon even tighter than before.

Interesting post at BoingBoing (h/t ZW) entitled Rolling Jubilee: Occupy raising money to buy up, and wipe out, debts.

The idea of the Rolling Jubilee is that the Occupy Wall Street types will take contributions and use them to buy up distressed debt at fire sale prices and forgive the debts that were bought. So, they’re stepping into the shoes of the debt buyers — who typically buy distressed debts at low prices and then hound debtors for fun and profit.

It’s a nice gesture and undoubtedly nice for the debtors who are relieved of the debt. But, my guess it will be something like spitting in the ocean.

I propose we revert tax rates back to Clinton era levels, cut military spending 10%, cut farm subsidies 20%, get out of Afghanistan, raise Social Security eligibility by two years for those under 50, and eliminate the income cap on payroll taxes.

How we doing on the deficit? Other ideas?