A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

Lee Hamilton on Constituent Demands

by 5 Comments

Former Congressman, Lee Hamilton, has a good column in the Evansville Courier Press on the subject of contradictory constituent demands. Basically, they want more with less and, if sacrifices are necessary, they should be made by someone else. General lobbying demands are at odds with specific demands.

He singled out the Business Roundtable for using anti-deficit rhetoric while “it consistently lobbies for a higher deficit” in the form of corporate tax breaks and infrastructure spending. But the criticism applies equally to all the groups that lobby to help themselves and their members, usually through specific tax cuts or spending initiatives, while expressing concern over the deficit.

To help things a bit, he suggests:

We can do the basic work asked of us by our democracy: Learn our facts, know what’s fact and what’s opinion, keep a broad perspective, understand the overall problem legislators must resolve, remember that what’s good for us might not be good for our neighbors, and think through the implications of our positions.

Good luck with that.

Debt Ceiling – National Debt – Deficit

by 42 Comments

Everyone and their dog has an opinion on the national debt, debt ceiling, and deficit issue; so I probably don’t have a lot to add. But, my own take on this is that I could live with deep cuts, even to social programs, so long as there were also significant tax increases on the very wealthy. It’s easy for me to say that, I suppose, since I’m not a beneficiary of any of the major social programs. That’s leaving aside, for the moment, that Keynesian economics suggests that cutting off spending like that in a stagnant economy is a stupid thing to do.

The reason I would insist on increased taxes for the very wealthy is because: a) it ends the deficit and starts reducing the debt that much faster; and b) it helps ensure that the national debt isn’t just being used as a pretext (which it is) to end or limit social programs that some conservative factions never liked in the first place.

Without a corresponding increase in taxes on the wealthy, I get the sense that the dynamic is to keep ratcheting down taxes; gut social security, medicaid, and medicare; not do much at all to address deficits; and generally roll back the New Deal and return us to the status quo of the Gilded Age.

Living in a Bubble

by 2 Comments

About ten years ago, Cass Sunstein observed that the Internet would have the effect of providing most of us with a self-selected news diet that would reinforce our biases and polarize us. An early adopter of the Internet and someone who disliked the mainstream media of the time, I bristled at the notion. As I recall, the time was marked by breathless reporting in the mainstream media about pretty much every unfounded or marginally founded calumny Clinton’s political opponents could sling at him; leading to the impeachment. We’d been treated to the O.J. trial and what I considered slanted coverage of the 2000 election, leading to a Presidency of questionable legitimacy. And we were about to be treated to “journalism” of such irresponsibility that it would put us in Iraq for years to come. Judith Miller and the aluminum tubes, anyone?

Be that as it may, Sunstein was correct. We are able to, and many of us do, select media packages that reinforce our biases. This undermines Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s famous maxim, “you are entitled to your own opinion; but you are not entitled to your own facts.” Increasingly, disparate opinions are not based on common facts. Instead, citizens are coming to view the country based on independent sets of facts. It’s as if a jury were empaneled, then half of them listened only to the prosecution and half of them listened only to the defense, then they were thrown into a room and asked to reach a verdict. Compromise and mutual understanding in such a situation would be understandably difficult.

Frequently, the media outlets commanding the most loyalty are ones that treat their readers and viewers to a daily diet of existential threats. One of the most recent horrors to hit the news is the nutjob in Oslo who murdered nearly a hundred people. I will be shocked if we find out that he regularly consumed a balanced media diet. Instead, I am almost certain we’ll find that he pretty much read and watched only those things which reinforced his particular neuroses. But it’s not just him, there are branches upon branches here. Where the shooter is mentioned as Christian, we’ll have more people poisoned by media packages that reinforce the notion that only Christians get singled out as Christians when this kind of bloodshed occurs. And we’ll have other media packages that insist that, when it’s a Christian, the person is always a lone wolf; but if it’s a Muslim, somehow it’s the entire religion that’s responsible. Replace religion with gun rights, and there will be another set of self-reinforcing narratives. (With interesting alignments — the pro-Christian set, I’ll wager, will by and large be coupled with the pro-gun rights set.)

And, for those who seek “balance,” often as not, they get pablum that can’t do any more than pick two sides and take an arbitrary middle. See, for example, the recent study of BBC science coverage determining that it gave too much weight to fringe scientific positions, creating the illusion that they had comparable merit to positions much more widely held in the relevant scientific communities. Or, as John Cole put it in more memorable language (albeit in a slightly different, more partisan context):

I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.

I don’t have great solutions except to recommend everyone read a lot and to read things that make them uncomfortable. My reading is varied, but weighted to the left — I have a lot of the neutral and a little of the left and some sprinkling of the right. But, at least for me, I get more or less daily checks from commenters here at the blog who have a decidedly different world view than me. We probably aren’t convincing each other of much; but it’s a little like when the Christians collided with the Muslims during the Crusades. Both learned a lot more about the world, just from having interacted, even if it was in a bloody, destructive kind of way.

Ruminations

by 11 Comments

I think I’m spending too much time paying attention to national politics. Following the day-to-day goings on in Washington is like a psychic toxin. I’m not sure if it’s the same as it ever was, but with the hype machine dialed up to eleven or if our country is having some significant convulsions. (The fact of inconsistent wave elections in 2006, 2008, and 2010 suggest the latter.) Nationally, I have little use for anyone. The Congressional Republicans are nuts, and the Democrats are largely spineless. On the state level, it’s better; though the Republicans are moving quickly in the wrong direction and the Democrats continue to select Pat Bauer as their leader. And, on the local level, I like my politicians (Democrats and Republicans alike); they are focused on making sure the cities and county function fairly well — getting precious little assistance from state and local politicians in the process.

Anyway, contemplating the support the national parties have currently, Digby had a post up that I can only find in my reader now – not on the actual site. But, he she noted how the racial divide had played out in the past few years. The Republicans have increased their support among poor, young whites substantially. Digby offers an explanation:

Suppose you’re a 28-year-old straight white guy who graduated high school as a D student, and now work a blue or pink collar dead-end job private sector job somewhere. You’re vaguely Christian, but not a fervent believer. You’ve got a live-in girlfriend, and maybe a kid on the way. What does the Democratic Party offer you?

Not much. The entire Party is obsessed right now with defending Medicare and Social Security, two programs that you don’t think you’ll ever see anyway, and age 65 seems like it might as well be 300 years from now–not that you figure you’ll be able to retire regardless. The only unions the Party seems to care much about are in the public sector: people who make way more money and have better job security than you do for about equivalent labor. That makes you resentful and wonder why your tax dollars are supporting them. The Democrats keep saying that a college education and universal Pre-K are the golden bullets to solve our economic problems. You don’t believe that and for very good reason, but it doesn’t help you anyway: you have neither the time nor money nor interest to go back to school. And your kid? You’re too worried about keeping her fed to bother about Pre-K. And besides, your school district sucks, and just seems to a huge money sinkhole that never gets better. You have no problem with the Latinos you went to school with, and you know some really nice undocumented families, but you’re also afraid for your job security. The wars overseas seem to keep going no matter who is in power, which makes the military less than attractive as an option. You’ve got nothing in common with the crazy evangelicals you know, and you have no problem with gay people, but your liberal friends who went to college seem pretty condescending and know-it-all to you, which makes you less than thrilled to be associated with them.

Why should you vote for a Democrat? Good question.

He She goes on to explain that, back in the 30s – 60s, the Democrats had a solid economic message for a guy like that. Come with us, and we’ll do something for the workers; don’t support the other guys, they’re heartless corporate toadies. Now, the economic message is more like, come with us and things will still get worse, just more slowly. And, we’re also corporate toadies, but less so.

The national Democrats seem to be back to the Tom Daschle era of the early 2000s, caught in a perpetual cringe, probably having at least something to do with a desire to make out like Evan Bayh after you retire. That’s why I found Howard Dean to be so inspiring back in 2003-2004; not because his policies were especially liberal — they weren’t — but because he was unapologetic and clear when he spoke about those policies.

Court of Appeals Issues Medical Bill Collection Opinion

by 5 Comments

The Indiana Court of Appeals issued the opinion of Jackson v. Trancik (pdf) today, involving proper methods of proof for the amount due to a medical provider for medical services. The background was a doctor who provided medical services, billed the patient’s insurer, got partial payment from the insurer, got a $20 co-pay from the patient, and sued for the balance. The patient apparently did not dispute the balance due until after the lawsuit was filed. The doctor filed for summary judgment, relying on certain presumptions created under Indiana rules of evidence for medical bills (Ind. R. Evid 413) and for bills sent out that are not disputed within a “reasonable time” (the “account stated” doctrine).

The patient attempted to resist the judgment by submitting the affidavit of a person holding herself out as a medical billing expert. Her qualifications were that she makes a living evaluating medical bills (kind of a bootstrap “I’m an expert because I make my living being an expert” rationale) and she ran the bill through a coding system apparently used by insurers and found that the doctor’s bill did not comport with that billing system. The trial court struck the affidavit and, having nothing else to rebut the presumptions, summary judgment was entered in favor of the doctor.

The court of appeals took a look and concluded that the expert affidavit should have been regarded as creating a material question of fact, meaning that summary judgment was not appropriate, but the value of the services should be given to the trier of fact as a question.

If I’m reading the language of the Court of Appeals correctly, I think they’re trying to allow use of such experts when a doctor is trying to collect on a contract but not where a tortfeasor is trying to rebut a personal injury plaintiff’s prima facie case based on medical bills. I’m not sure they succeeded. In both the contract case (where the doctor is trying to collect) and the personal injury claim (where the injured party is trying to recoup the medical costs they’ve incurred because of the other party’s negligence), the standard is the reasonable value of the services. The Court of Appeals tries to thread a needle between “the amounts usually, customarily, and reasonably billed for such services” in the contract case on the one hand and “the reasonable value of the services” on the other.

The use of slightly different language does not, I don’t think, reflect an intent that the plaintiff recover anything other than the reasonable value of the services in either case. So, if the Court of Appeals is trying to create a system where doctors can be expected to wrangle with the potentially sketchy testimony of “medical billing experts” but injured plaintiffs can not; I’m not sure it succeeded, nor do I think such a double standard should stand. The underlying problem is that the lack of transparency in medical pricing is astounding. However the Courts choose to address that problem should apply equally to medical providers and personal injury plaintiffs.

Another issue I would have liked to have seen addressed in the opinion is that the expert apparently based her opinion on common insurance billing practices. She opined that doctors were supposed to bill for successive services during the same visit in a certain way and that, if they didn’t, the insurance company would adjust the bill downward. But there is no indication as to whether this doctor was part of the insurance company’s network; e.g. whether it was reasonable to treat this doctor the same as doctors who had signed on to the insurance company billing practices. From the facts I read, my suspicion is that the doctor wasn’t part of the network. And, it makes a difference, the doctor is presumably signing on to a network – and subjecting himself to the requirements that entails – in exchange for some benefit (e.g. getting more patients because he or she is in the network). Sure, the insurance company paid some money — but for all we know from the opinion, that could have been solely a function of the insurer’s contract with the patient; there may not have been any kind of agreement between the doctor and the insurer. And, if that was the case, I think the trial judge would have been correct to strike an expert’s affidavit if it was based on evaluating the interaction between insurers and doctors who did have a contract with one another.

Purdue Economist Destroys J&C “Debt Crisis” Editorial

by 15 Comments

Kudos to the Journal & Courier editorial staff. They went ahead and printed the opinion column of Purdue economist, David Hummels which pretty well eviscerated the Journal & Courier’s recent, history-challenged editorial on the “debt crisis.”

Hummels notes that the current political wrangling over spending threatens to be a crisis, not because of the debt or deficit itself, but because of the arbitrary threat to default on payments which would, in a stroke, crush the trust of the financial markets in Treasury Bills as “the mattress investors tuck their money into when uncertainty reigns.” Once that confidence is gone, managing the rest of our financial affairs becomes a lot more difficult.

Secondly, he reminds us that, not so long ago, we had surpluses, not deficits. What changed most dramatically was not spending but revenues.

But the single largest reason for the reversal in budgetary fortunes was the Bush tax cuts.

In 2000 the federal government collected 20.6 percent of GDP in revenue, but only 14.9 percent in 2010. Had tax revenues remained at 2000 levels, we would have run surpluses for all of the last decade except the recession years, and closed two-thirds of the current deficit.

This was well-understood at the time these tax cuts were enacted. They were made subject to “sunset” provisions precisely because every estimate showed that they would bust the budget over time.

Indeed, the baseline forecast of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office showed that with tax cuts allowed to sunset, U.S. debt and interest payments stabilize at slightly above current levels.

He gently mocks the Journal & Courier’s invocation of World War II patriotism in buying savings bonds while failing to note the taxes paid by The Greatest Generation.

The J&C editorial also noted the patriotism of the World War II generation in buying savings bonds to finance the war effort. It doesn’t mention that taxes paid by the greatest generation tripled during their war years. Perhaps they too grumbled about excessive government spending and tax rates choking off economic growth.

Or maybe they, like previous and subsequent war generations, stepped up to the plate and paid the taxes necessary for the government to function. In contrast, our generation’s patriotic response to the global war on terror was to take a tax holiday.

The Bush tax cuts were a bad idea then — I recall railing against them at the time — they are a worse idea now. Obama screwed up by making a deal to extend them. Go back to the Clinton tax structure, and the rest of the government financial problems become manageable; particularly if we manage to wind down the existing discretionary wars and somehow manage to avoid jumping into other ones.

The Value of Cursive

by 13 Comments

I wouldn’t keep beating on this cursive thing so much except that I was bad at it and really hated being forced to deal with it as a kid in school. Between typing and printing, I have not missed cursive for an instant since the moment my teachers stopped requiring me to use it.

So, I studied this article in the Journal & Courier with respect to the justifications offered for continuing cursive instruction even if it was no longer in the curriculum. There is less here than meets the eye. The justifications offered, as I read them are:

Cursive writing and handwriting are ways to do hands-on instruction in the writing process and thinking process and small motor skills. There are many benefits that are research-based for cursive handwriting.

Small motor skills I can understand. The rest just looks like word salad to me. “Ways to do hands-on instruction in the writing process” and “many benefits that are research-based.” But, then, my brain has always had difficulty parsing Education jargon.

Cursive proponents contend that cursive is an unfiltered form of self-expression, a much more personal form of language than typing on a computer keyboard. . . . cursive is a method through which students can demonstrate their individuality. Handwriting is still such a unique quality to each and every (student). . . More of the personality comes out rather than with a keyboard, which you can use to say the same thing but with a little bit of a disconnect because it’s going through the keyboard

Really? Seems to me that, particularly with writing, the words chosen for the expression are far better and more important vehicles for expression of individuality than the method of writing the letters to form those words could ever be. In fact, I would argue, that the method of constructing those letters is almost entirely incidental when compared to the words used for expression, in terms of “demonstrating individuality.” Writing out “The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” half a hundred times does very little in terms of allowing one to express one’s personality.

Cursive is an additional way for people to separate themselves and express their thoughts, stylizing the physical appearance of their writing much more than is possible with print or typed characters.

I don’t buy it. Again, the words used are far better vehicles for individualizing expression than the method of constructing those words. And, if you really want to get into flexibility, check out the gazillion fonts and colors and other typographical nuances one can get with computers that aren’t necessarily possible or easy with a pencil and paper. To me, this boils down to, “we used to do it this way; therefore, there must be a reason why it’s a shame we won’t continue to do things this way even if I can’t articulate that reason except in vague generalities.”

Indiana students who do learn cursive may find themselves with a more marketable skill in the future.Those that do still take the time and make the effort, they will stand out even more. If able to master it, it might be a little bit like learning another language in a way.

Permit me to be skeptical that the marketplace is clamoring for cursive.

If you like cursive, super; keep using it. If you think it’s something valuable to teach your child; by all means, teach it. But I don’t see a need to put it alongside math, science, spelling, or grammar as something that a kid needs to know. Golf is difficult, allows for individual style, builds character, and is certainly something that helps someone in the marketplace, but it need not be included in the curriculum. I don’t see a need to elevate cursive either.

Harry Potter

by 2 Comments

This is fairly off topic for my blog, but the end of the Harry Potter series seemed like a big enough cultural event that it seemed worth mentioning; particularly given how much my family has enjoyed it. When my wife read the first books, I wasn’t terribly interested. I thought the first book was just so-so after Amy gave it to me and recall dragging my heels reading the second one. After that, however, Amy & I had a routine. She would get the newest book when it first came out, largely go AWOL for a couple of days, then hand it off to me.

My interest in the movies followed a similar pattern; I wasn’t terribly excited about the first one, then they got better and better for me. For awhile there, they were competing with The Lord of the Rings franchise, and, as I am a huge LotR geek, Harry Potter was necessarily going to play second fiddle. This last movie, Deathly Hallows Part 2, came out on July 15 — which, as it happens, was Amy & my anniversary. There was, therefore, no question what we were doing for our anniversary this year.

As literature, I’m no judge; but to me, it’s a fine story. Not much more, and certainly no less. I’ve seen folks on both ends – those who turn up their noses and take a too-cool-for-school view, either because they find the writing deficient in some fashion, don’t want to read kids’ books, or have an aversion to swords and sorcery. And, there are those who are simply fanatics. (My favorite sideshow was a religious subculture that sought to ban the Harry Potter series as demonic because the kids used magic.) As a cultural phenomenon, the series is undeniable. It has left its mark in the Western psyche and will likely be a reference point for quite some time.

Now that my kids are getting a little older (7 and 5 years old respectively), the Harry Potter books have taken their place at the story couch before bed time. Harper zones in and out, but Cole’s attention is rapt. We’re on Book 4. I’m a bit concerned we’re moving fast enough that the later books might be too dark for him before he’s ready. But, then, it occurs to me that the Brothers Grimm were aptly named. Many fairy tales have horrific elements to them that kids seem to deal with very well. And the lessons in the books are generally sound. Good fights evil. Evil seems to have its way for a time. But, Good, through perseverance and the love of friends and family, prevails; even if it requires sacrifice.

Now, my favorite story line is that of Neville Longbottom. (Caution: mild spoilers here for those who haven’t read the books or seen the movies). Through much of the early series, he’s little more than a bumbling, scared punching bag. But, as he matures, his spine stiffens, until, at the end – in my mind – he’s probably the bravest of them all. Harry has always been the Chosen One, of whom great things are expected. He roams the world, largely hidden from evil forces, moving forward on a task to kill The Dark Lord. Meanwhile, Neville, stays in the belly of the beast — at Hogwarts after the bad guys have taken over — and leads a student resistance; taking all manner of abuse, but holding strong. Then, even when everyone thought Harry dead and all was lost, Neville was standing up, defiant. What can I say? I’m a sucker for nerd-makes-good story lines.

We use stories to convey all manner of virtues to our society. For example, way back in the day, the Odyssey was a way of showing young Greeks that strength and courage was not the whole story — cleverness was often worth as much as a strong sword. As stories go, the Harry Potter series a lot to offer in that respect. (Though, I was fairly pleased one evening as Cole expressed a great deal of concern over the fact that Harry was breaking one rule or another — Cole was trying to reconcile the notion of a Good Guy who, nevertheless, Broke the Rules.) It’s a little sad to see it end.

Howey on Mourdock v. Lugar

by 17 Comments

Brian Howey has a good column on the Mourdock v. Lugar Republican Senate primary race. He noted a number of ways in which Mourdock is stumbling in his race. My favorite, however, is that the pro-Mourdock “Club for Growth” led by former Representative Chris Chocola went on the attack against Lugar for his supposed lack of fortitude budget balancing matters.

As Marshall MacLuhan said, “The medium is the message.” In this case, Mourdock has chosen in Chris Chocola perhaps the worst possible medium for a balanced budget message.

With the Mourdock campaign flagging on all these fronts, he is hoping for national intervention. Former Hoosier Congressman Chris Chocola entered the picture when his Club for Growth began an 800 gross ratings point TV ad campaign assailing Lugar for being in Congress while U.S. debt exploded.

The ironic facts are that Chocola served in Congress from 2003 through 2007 when the U.S. deficit veered into the trillions and debt rose to epic proportions.

As a candidate, Chocola backed the unpaid for Bush tax cuts, supported the unpaid for Bush-era Iraq and Afghan wars. As a member of Congress, Chocola backed the unpaid for Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, the most massive entitlement expansion since LBJ’s Great Society. In 2004, he voted to increase the debt limit.

Whoops.