A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Not having selected the North White Schools for a convention site, the state’s Republican convention will be held at venues that prohibit firearms on the premises. Niki Kelly, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, reports that the Fort Wayne venues at issue are the Grand Wayne Center, Parkview Field, and Embassy Theater.

So far there isn’t much hue and cry over the issue. State Republicans have generally been content to let private property owners make their own decisions about whether to allow firearms on the premises. The legislation requiring employers to allow employees to have firearms in the parking lot is a notable exception. And, of course, it has been deemed unacceptable to allow units of local government to make their own decisions about firearms on government-owned property. Firearms aren’t generally permitted in the State House.

With respect to the Fort Wayne venues:

Allen County Republican Party Chairman Steve Shine said all three venues have policies against firearms and he doesn’t expect them to change for the convention.

“That’s the normal policy,” he said, noting he hasn’t heard much about the topic.

Update (h/t Freedom): “Guns a go for Indiana GOP convention”

Sheila Kennedy has an blog entry entitled “Drawing the Wrong Conclusion” wherein she relates the self-congratulatory statements of Micah Clark and Curt Smith (both leaders of nominally “pro-family” and substantively anti-gay Indiana pressure groups) with respect to Tuesday’s primaries.

Smith and Clark are expanding on the narrative included in the Berggoetz/Cook article (and noted by me earlier) about the primary and how incumbent House representatives Kubacki and Heuer were unseated. For his part, Clark said this represented, “Yesterday’s primary election was as close to an across the board sweep as you will ever see in politics.”

That would seem to make him the Cotton McKnight of Indiana politics:

Cotton McKnight: Do you believe in unlikelihoods? Average Joe’s shocking the dodgeball world and upsetting Globo Gym in the championship match!

Pepper Brooks: Unbelievable!

Cotton McKnight: Ladies and gentlemen, I have been to the Great Wall of China, I have seen the Pyramids of Egypt, I’ve even witnessed a grown man satisfy a camel. But never in all my years as a sportscaster have I witnessed something as improbable, as impossible, as what we’ve witnessed here today!

In any event, Sheila says that Clark & Smith are wrong to draw the conclusion that these primary results represent a vindication of their views by Hoosier voters. Turnout was low and those who did turn out were more ideologically motivated. Beyond that, I’d add that this is hardly a wave – a whole lot of incumbents are heading into the November election and will likely return to the State House. Sheila says, however, that this is evidence that “the results do unequivocally tell us is that the Republican party is moving farther and farther to the right.”

I’m not sure I agree. Sheila might be right (usually the smart money is on that being the case), but I’d call the evidence equivocal. Is this the party of Smith, Clark, and Mourdock? Or is it the party of Torr, Truitt, and Kenley – conservative, but not unduly beholden to the social conservatives?

What is clear is that the power of pressure groups, in this case the Indiana Family Institute and the American Family Association of Indiana, depends on people – and lawmakers in particular – believing that they are in control. Perception is, in large part, reality. If they can convince lawmakers of the narrative that they can unseat disobedient lawmakers, their purpose is accomplished, regardless of whether they can truly unseat such lawmakers. And, so, at times like these, you have them turning their molehills into mountains. So long as that narrative remains unchallenged, they will be emperors with a splendid new outfit. And woe to the child who dares claim they are naked.

Let’s say that you hate the national Republican party, you have mixed feelings about the state party, and you enthusiastically support the local party candidates. Can you vote in the Republican primary? The answer depends on how you voted last general election and/or how many of the party’s nominees you intend to vote for in this election.

IC 3-10-1-6 sets forth the requirements for voter eligibility to vote in the primary and take a party’s ballot:

A voter may vote at a primary election:
(1) if the voter, at the last general election, voted for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election; or
(2) if the voter did not vote at the last general election, but intends to vote at the next general election for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election;
as long as the voter was registered as a voter at the last general election or has registered since then.

So, first step – you have to be registered. Next, you potentially have a choice – you can take a primary ticket for the party who you voted for a majority of the nominees or, if you intend to vote at the next general election for a majority of the nominees of a different party, you can take that ticket instead.

The primary is this Tuesday, May 6. Go vote.

I call this a guide to Indiana and I very rarely mention corn. Shame on me. WLFI reports that the corn planting is a little late this year due to the cold and wet start to spring. Planting is usually done between the last week of April and the first two weeks of May. Only about 8% of the state’s crop is in so far. But, we’re only about a week behind schedule, and the weather is supposed to be decent next week.

I frequently grouse and complain about our state because I love it, and I’m a native. But I have no complaints about our sweet corn. It’s one thing we do better than anyone else. Every year on my birthday, I request a menu of steak, tomatoes, and corn. My corn consumption has become a matter of public comment. I was given a little grief because I only managed to take down six ears of corn last year as compared to the eight the year before. So, I’m hoping the crop comes in by the first week in August so I can redeem myself.

Raise your hand if you have the richest middle class in the world. Not so fast, United States!

David Leonhardt and Kevin Quealy, writing for the New York Times, report that the U.S. no longer has the wealthiest middle class in the world. But, rest easy dear reader, the wealthiest Americans are still the richest rich people in the world. So we have that going for us.

So, what happened? Did our middle class stop being as productive, in relative terms, than our wealthiest citizens? Or did the upper class gain more leverage over the years with which to appropriate the wealth produced for themselves?

The report begins:

The American middle class, long the most affluent in the world, has lost that distinction.

While the wealthiest Americans are outpacing many of their global peers, a New York Times analysis shows that across the lower- and middle-income tiers, citizens of other advanced countries have received considerably larger raises over the last three decades.

After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada — substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States. The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans.

The economic growth in the U.S. continues to be as strong as in many other countries; our middle class just isn’t benefiting terribly much. The poor have it worse. The usual response from those who don’t regard increasing income and wealth gaps as a problem is some variant of our middle class – and especially our poor – of being lazy and stupid. The economy is a morality play and the only way you fail or succeed is if you deserve to. Market don’t lie.

The report attributes the loss of ground by our middle class to three factors: 1) Our educational attainment – literacy, numeracy, and technical skill – is less than other countries; 2) Our top execs and management take a bigger piece of the productivity pie for themselves, minimum wage is lower, and unions are weaker; and 3) our government isn’t nearly as aggressive in redistributing income to raise the take home pay of lower and middle income households.

But socialism kills productivity, right? Not necessarily:

Even with a large welfare state in Sweden, per capita G.D.P. there has grown more quickly than in the United States over almost any extended recent period — a decade, 20 years, 30 years. Sharp increases in the number of college graduates in Sweden, allowing for the growth of high-skill jobs, has played an important role.

And of course, the poor in the U.S. have been doing worse for longer. But, we don’t care about them because they deserve what they get — on account of their laziness, lack of mental acuity, and poor life choices. But, those in the 95th percentile are doing much better than their counterparts in Canada, Britain, and the Netherlands. Which is as it should be on account of their pluck and ingenuity.