A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

Pharmacist Fraud in Terre Haute

by 5 Comments

Lisa Trigg, writing for the Terre Haute Tribune Star, has a story reporting on charges against a Terre Haute pharmacist charged with committing fraud to the tune of $3.5 million. Apparently he would initiate a prescription that would be billed to Indiana Medicaid, then void the prescription before the system processed it in a way that would make it evident to other people working at the pharmacy that prescriptions were going unfilled. If the charges are true, it looks like this pharmacy billed Indiana Medicaid for $8 million, only about 56% of which was legitimate.

As part of the investigation, federal authorities seized five Harley Davidson motorcycles, a Corvette sports car, a Mustang sports car, four sport utility vehicles, an all-terrain vehicle and trailer, two pickup trucks, and more than $261,000 in funds from multiple bank accounts.

So, it doesn’t look like the guy was stealing just because he was in over his head on a mortgage or something. He liked his toys.

I think part of the reason I like seeing this kind of crime being prosecuted is that it makes me feel like less of a chump for keeping my nose to the grindstone and my recreational pursuits modest.

Interesting Times

by 25 Comments

With the House Democrats in their second week of self-imposed exile, Secretary of State Charlie White finds himself indicted on seven felony charges; the most serious of which is a Class C felony charge of fraud on a financial institution. The most embarrassing politically, for the man who is our Chief Election Officer, are the charges that he committed voter fraud. These charges were brewing before the election, and, yet, Indiana’s voters elected White by a comfortable margin. Would it be cynical for me to speculate that Indiana’s voters don’t know squat about many of the candidates for whom they vote?

Anyway, we’ve got some interesting times brewing here.

Debt is a Symptom; Not the Disease

by 32 Comments

In response to a David Brooks column, Tom Scocca, writing for Slate, makes an important point. Debt itself isn’t the disease, it’s a symptom.

Casting the debt as an object of moral concern is the work of minds that have come detached from human experience. The debt is an epiphenomenon. It is the side effect created by the specific moral decisions about what the country wishes to see funded, and how it is willing to fund those things.

Talking about the deficit is a way of cutting morality out of the discussion. Waste! Mismanagement! Incompetence! Unaccountable earmarks! These things are noise. The actual questions are: is money to be spent on people who do not have money? And where is that money going to come from?

Emphasis is mine. The point being that the moral problem, if there is one, isn’t the debt itself. It’s that we are spending too much on people we shouldn’t be spending on, not taking enough from people we should be taking from, or a combination thereof. Talking about debt as a problem is a shorthand for that basic point; but I think there is value in making it explicit so we don’t lose sight of what’s happening by abstracting debt as something independent.

I’d elaborate more, but I have a bad habit of getting interested in something just before I have to get ready for work.

Water & Government

by 22 Comments

Last night – and this actually happened, it’s not just a story I’m making up to dramatize a point – I was drinking some water out of the tap, and it occurred to me what a remarkable thing this really is. There it was, immediate and clean. And, I thought to myself, “people who believe they don’t have any use for government really aren’t thinking it through.” I had a similar thought earlier in the day when NPR had a story about the current government in Somalia. I thought sarcastically, “now there’s a place with limited government.”

I’ve made similar comments here in the past but wasn’t going to belabor the point. The inevitable response from self-described champions of limited government is that, of course they’d keep the useful bits. But, then, this morning, I read a (probably offhand) facebook status from Abdul:

Is is my imagination or do the only people who don’t understand the government is broke tend to be people who [work?] for the government?

There it is, just an unblinking, unqualified assertion that “the government is broke.” I’m picking on Abdul here because he’s close to hand (and likes it), but I see this kind of thing all the time. Not some nuanced assertion about some aspect of government that the person doesn’t like, but a blanket assertion that “government is bad.” But, consider how the government assists you with water – from clean water laws, to either running the water company or at least giving it the tools it needs to acquire rights of way and keep the system running, to a fairly elaborate system for drainage that takes the water away pretty effectively when the snows melt or the heavy rains come.

The best parts of government are the parts we notice the least – the parts that work in the background and are taken for granted. Since the “government is bad” rhetoric tends toward the simplistic, we probably need to pipe up from time to time to acknowledge that there are aspects of government that are hugely beneficial.

1,000 Miles Running

by 9 Comments

Today, I passed a milestone – almost literally. Since I started keeping track on April 22, 2007, I have run 1,000 miles. 1001.87 to be precise. That first recorded run was 5.5 miles at a 12:00/Mile pace. Today’s was a 4.66 mile run at an 8:19/M pace.

That’s only about 250 miles per year. Averaging less than 5 miles per week during that period, I certainly haven’t been one of the most active runners. But, I’ve been slogging along and have really come to enjoy the activity more and more over the years. I’ve gone through a few long stretches of inactivity from injury and then some drop offs due to not wanting to bother with cold weather. Either my body is getting more used to the activity or I’ve been lucky, but the last couple of years, injuries haven’t been a huge factor. (Knock on wood.)

Like any other exercise, it can be a bit of an effort to get going, but in the middle and after I’m finished, it’s a good feeling. I remember trying to run a couple times over the years before 2007, but I always ended up feeling miserable and basically hating it. Pacing made all the difference. I’d just had no idea what speed I had to go if I was going to sustain the runs for any distance. Knowing people who ran a lot made all the difference – my wife and her sister, most notably. In the past several years, I’ve run 4 half-marathons and a variety of 5ks and 10ks.

Hopefully, I can keep it going. I’m not a speed demon by any stretch, but I like the fact that I can run a lot faster and further now than I’m pushing 40 than I ever could as a younger man.

Showboating

by 12 Comments

What to think of the current standoff in the state House of Representatives now that House Democrats have exiled themselves, bringing business in the House to a standstill for lack of a quorum?

The House G.O.P. reminds me of one of those receivers that catches a deep pass in the open field, then starts showboating short of the end zone before being stripped by a second-stringer too dumb or stubborn to know the game is supposed to be over. It’s all the more maddening because the guy who stripped the ball is a short dude with bad hair.

For years, it’s been a field position game with the Democrats and Republicans going back and forth across the 50 yard line. The Democrats would have the Governor’s mansion, the G.O.P. would have the Senate and the Congressional delegation, and they’d ebb back and forth with control of the House. Then, the G.O.P. took the Governor’s mansion, but ended up losing the House and Congressional delegation. This year, however, the Republicans connected long – keeping the Governor’s mansion (however gently that house actually gets used), increasing their perpetual majority in the Senate, taking a monstrous 60-40 lead in the House, capturing Bayh’s Senate seat, and taking a 6-3 majority in the Congress.

Publicly, anyway, Gov. Daniels sounded like the seasoned quarterback – when you get to the end zone, act like you’ve been there before. Tone down the social issues, focus on conservative economic priorities, and leave right-to-work alone. Sadly, no. House Republicans seemed to have started their victory dance at about the 20 yard line – a Constitutional Amendment discriminating against gays; lots of abortion stuff; and then, the bridge too far – right to work. That provided the opening for the uninspiring, but undeniably gritty, Pat Bauer to come and strip the ball by staging a walkout. Now, instead of walking into the end zone, the Republicans find themselves facing a goal line stand from about the 2 yard line. They may well punch the ball in anyway, but now they’re going to have to work for it.

Sentence Enhancement for Burglary of Churches

by 2 Comments

Earlier in the week, the Court of Appeals published its opinion in the case of Burke v. State. The case involved a challenge to IC 35-43-2-1(1)(B)(ii). It’s a sentence enhancement for breaking and entering when the structure is a structure used for religious worship.

The convict challenged this enhancement as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Art. 1, Sec. 4 of the Indiana Constitution. The gist of the argument is “why is the State giving a preference to churches? The crime should get the same penalty as breaking into any other place.” The Court of Appeals reasoned, speciously in the opinion of Ed Brayton, that the purpose is not to give added protection to structures used for religious worship. Rather the purpose of the statute, according to the Court of Appeals, is to ensure the appropriate sentence for the offender. It reflects a legislative recognition that: (1) structures used for religious worship have a “traditional absence of security measures” and are thus easy targets of crime; (2) crimes against structures used for religious worship are “more repugnant to the community;” and (3) it takes more time to reform and rehabilitate those offenders who commit acts society deems more repulsive.

Personally, I think a better statute would be one that enhances the penalty for burglary of a property of any non-profit 501(c)(3) institution. That would capture the intent divined by the Court of Appeals in a more neutral fashion – reflecting the notion that a person willing to commit a crime against a do-gooder organization deserves greater punishment. (I imagine some legislators would get their hackles up over a sentence enhancement that increased the punishment for someone burgling Planned Parenthood.) But, of course, this statute was designed to reflect a greater concern by the General Assembly for religious institutions than for the average non-residential property. Is it a religious purpose? Sure it is. Does it go too far? I don’t know. For me, it seems like a “no skin off my nose” kind of statute. But, if we take the language of the case law at face value, there’s probably no terribly compelling, non-religious state purpose that justifies singling out religious institutions for special treatment.

So, I think you get the Court of Appeals doing contortions in a case like that. There isn’t a big appetite to stir up the shitstorm that would inevitably come if they reduced this guy’s sentence by striking down the law. But, to get a non-religious purpose, the Court of Appeals has to offer rationales that can be pretty well deconstructed by guys like Brayton.

Senate Action

by 15 Comments

While the Indiana House was at a stand still due to the House Democrats’ labor supporting exile, the Indiana Senate moved a lot of paper. A couple of the more contested issues:

SB 575 – eroding teacher collective bargaining options. Passed the Senate, 30-19. It was a losing effort, but I was pleased to see my Senator was one of the few Republicans voting “nay.”

SJR 10 – More mucking about with the constitution and union busting. In this case, a constitutional amendment requiring a secret ballot vote for organizing a union at a place of employment to the extent allowed by federal law. Passed by a vote of 32 – 16.

SB 328 – A whole bunch of anti-abortion provisions – the doctor has to tell the patient a lot of stuff to make the woman feel bad about what an awful thing she’s doing; there is increased bureaucracy for a medical provider, and the state department of health has to have abortion information on its website. Passed 39 – 9.

SB 192 – Directing the criminal sentencing study committee to study issues related to marijuana, such as whether it should be illegal and, if so, at what amounts and whether medical use of marijuana should be permitted. Passed 28-21. Passage of this one really surprised me.

Out of time for now.

Robert Enders on Right to Work

by 31 Comments

Robert Enders, an Allen County Libertarian, I believe, has some interesting thoughts on “right to work” legislation. I recommend the whole post, but here is the gist:

Employers have a right to require an employee to join a union, just as they have a right to insist that a worker receive training or attend certain classes. Admittedly, many now wish to give up this right and have lobbied the state legislature to that end. . . . The government has been used as a weapon by both labor and management against each other in disputes. It’s wrong when either side does it.

The right to work legislation is intended to limited the freedom of an employer and a union to contract. In particular, it prohibits union shop provisions in labor contracts. I suspect employers want this limitation. It’s easier to point at the law, and say, “nope, we can’t put this into a contract” than it is to stand firm on negotiations.

Proponents of this law say it’s all about the rights of potential employees who might not want to be part of a union shop. But, since when has there been overwhelming concern about potential employees objecting to a condition of employment? Almost universally, the response in Indiana anyway is along the lines of “tough shit. You don’t like the terms, go work somewhere else.” But, suddenly, when the condition is paying union dues or their equivalent as opposed to, say, cutting your hair or dressing professionally or having reliable transportation or whatever; suddenly, it’s a moral imperative that potential employees be able to disregard an employer’s condition of employment.

House Democrats have apparently left the state in an effort to deny the House a quorum to vote on the “right to work” legislation. Today is the deadline for the House to adopt committee reports one of which is HB 1468 – a right to work bill voted out of the Labor Committee. Under the House Rules, February 25 is the deadline for bills to pass third reading.

In response to the House Democrats procedural move to prevent a quorum, I’ve seen some online discussion about how they are cowards and need to come back to do their jobs. Regardless of what you might think of their policy preferences, I’d argue that it takes more effort and courage for them to do what they’re doing. It would have been dead easy and required no courage for them to go meekly like lambs to the slaughter and warm some seats for a few hours while the House majority passed its agenda.

Their job is to negotiate for the best policies they can (as they see it.) Maybe they won’t have any luck negotiating anything better. Maybe they’ll get punished at the polls. But, the 2010 election results suggests that obstruction can be rewarded. I wasn’t a huge fan of the unprecedented filibustering in the U.S. Senate. But, those were the rules of that particular game, and that filibustering engendered no apparent backlash. The House Democrats are using the last arrow in their quiver. Time will tell if it hits its mark, flies wide, or wounds some of their own. And, if future general assemblies don’t want to deal with this kind of thing, they’ll need to re-write the quorum rules.

HB 1003 – Vouchers

by 35 Comments

The superintendent of my school district has written a letter urging that parents, teachers, and taxpayers contact their representatives (in our case, that would be Rep. Truitt) to express opposition to HB 1003 concerning school vouchers.

According to our Superintendent:

If House Bill 1003 passes, it will decrease funding to traditional public schools for over 1.1 million public school students and divert those public tax dollars to help pay for about 20,000 students’ private or parochial school tuition. This type of education reform does not help all students, but rather undermines the quality of public education available for all children.

It does not take many students using vouchers to have a significant impact on one school district. For example, using the statewide funding average, if just 150 students use vouchers, that results in more than $1 million less funding for one single public school district alone. Vouchers will reduce funding available for public education.

Our legislature needs to hear from you that you believe private school tuition should not be paid for 20,000 students at the expense of one million public school students.

More generally, I’m not in favor of these “money follows the student,” per capita school funding philosophies. These are not student entitlements. The money is not for the student’s exclusive benefit. Everyone in the community – with or without children – pay to support the schools. The schools are for the benefit of the community. An educated population is a public good. Typically vouchers propose to give individual students or families authority to re-allocate funds well in excess of money they’ve actually contributed to the school funds.

The per capita funding mechanisms also ignore the fact that some students are more difficult to educate than others – some have learning disabilities, others lack interested parents, and probably a million other variables. Pretending that each student is entitled to or requires exactly the same amount of money to educate throws the system out of whack. So long as we are committed to public education for everyone, our funding mechanisms have to recognize the fact that some students require more effort than others.