Indy Tax Dollars

Localizing terminology

Since the wording is so currently popular, we'll apply it ourselves.  Actually, Congress is pretty far behind us in Indy.  We've been using "bailouts" for years - except that we give them in advance rather than after a business gets in trouble.  We call them tax abatements and TIF districts.

A column in yesterday's daily suggested a number of reasons why Colts fans should be thankful.  The author failed to mention a very important one, the "bailout" on costs to those fans, involuntarily provided by the taxpayers.

This morning's paper comes up with a similar idea.  It is suggested that all citizens who own a car, regardless of purpose, volume or location of usage, should "bail out" the folks who want a traffic-free jaunt downtown from suburbia with a $10 per car tax to subsidize "mass transit."  That's not likely to benefit the individual who needs some adequate cross-town bus service to get to work without a car.  But we're going to call it a "green" tax and the poor slob having to walk to work - or who can't get there at all - may breathe purer air.  That'll make it OK.

Next to the "green tax" story is one in which the paper invites all comers to "bail out" politicians, developers, city planners and business folks generally by "designing" a use for the Market Square Arena site.  In seven years, these "leaders" have been unable to figure out how to get that land back into the economic flow of the city because they want to dictate to any buyer what use may be made of the land.  Well, who knows?  Maybe some bright sixth or seventh grader can get the folks back on track.  And, just maybe, get that very valuable property back on the assessment rolls.

Then we still have the "mystery bailout."  Where, how and why did the city - or Capital Improvement Board - use the 25 years worth of revenues from the Food and Beverage Tax enacted to pay for the construction of the RCA Dome?  What would our readers do with a broker who said he was buying you Lilly stock but actually put the money into something else with no apparent return and refused to say what?  Immediate dismissal?  Jail time?   Why is the taxpayer the one who is supposed to be satisfied with an investment portfolio with no growth over a period of 25 years?   Frankly, we find it quite amazing that the new "investigative team" established by the paper has not jumped all over that one.

 Why not try a "bailout" of local taxpayers?  Let's make public the details of every downtown deal which in any way affects municipal revenues.  Let's find out who's paying their share and who's not.  Let's find out why a multi-billion dollar "investment" over a period of years downtown has left the city with a flat tax base and inadequate revenues. 

We think a "bailout" for the local taxpayer should be the very highest priority!

Giving thanks...

...to whom, and for what?

We had been toying with the idea of a Thanksgiving post here, with some thoughts about the many things for which we have to be thankful, maybe even with a specific reference to the source of those blessings.  (Not meaning to offend anyone, of course.)

Then we got that slap in the face in Thursday's morning's paper - a Kathleen Parker column headlined "G-O-D spells trouble for conservatives."

In case our readers missed it, here are some of the phrases Parker used in her outrageous diatribe:  "gorilla in the pulpit -- Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D -- right-wing oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP -- (the GOP) has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners."  As an aside, we've always understood that a guy named Saint Paul did a fair amount of that "street corner" preaching!

We're not quite sure what "oogedy-boogedy" means, but we're pretty sure it is meant to be something closer to scary rather than flattering.

In an apparent effort to smooth over some of this vicious disparagement of a huge number of our citizens, Parker includes the following wording in her next-to-last paragraph:  "Meanwhile it isn't necessary to evict the Creator from the public square....  Belief in something greater than oneself has much to recommend it, including most of the world's architectural treasures, our universities and even our founding documents."

Really??  We thought eviction from the public square had already taken place.  It is nice to know she thinks a prayer-less Senate Committee, for instance, might not have done a better design job on the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris.  And we already know what government can do with, and has done to, public education facilities.

Perhaps we should be satisfied with her acknowledgment that the founding fathers just might have had some guidance from "something greater" than themselves in coming up with a pretty fair idea for their time, although she obviously thinks we have out-grown our Constitution and its timeliness.  After all, the president-elect now tells us that document was flawed from the very beginning.

We'll stick with our original idea.  Despite the fact that we are rapidly moving away from those principles, we can be thankful that we have lived, to date, in a country governed by the rule of law and moral concepts allowing us to become the envy of the rest of the world.  We can still differ with our government, and its minions, and stay free.  And we can still worship our God and pray to Him.  (Just not too publicly or too loudly!)

We plan to spend Thanksgiving Day with our family at a daughter's home, although some living at a distance will not be there.  (The Lord will be there.)  We are looking forward to it.  We very sincerely hope all our readers will be able to find many things in their lives for which to thank Him who provides them, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Have a wonderful day!

Two cents worth

We thought we'd put ours in, since foreclosed and abandoned housing will eventually affect local property taxes.  And while we admit to knowing very, very little about the specifics of the current economic "calamity," we do have a distinct impression that a lot of folks in Washington really are not too far ahead of us!  Anyway, here's what occurred to us as a possible solution to at least part of the problem.

Presumably those who have financial records making them eligible for any mortgage also have a social security number.  This would serve to identify individuals and also to connect them with appropriate IRS records.

We suggest using whatever part of the $700 billion bailout is necessary to pay off, directly to the lender, every one of the mortgages now in trouble.  Theoretically at least, as of that moment the lender would be made whole and ready to resume business. 

The lender would be required to furnish the IRS all pertinent information so that the borrower's original mortgage could be converted to a contract payable to the IRS.  The payments would be monthly installments extended to a maximum of 30 years from the date of change, with interest payable at today's Prime Rate.  (Around 1%?)

Hopefully, this would substantially increase the number of people who would be able to make those payments.  There might even be a possibility that these payments, including interest, would allow the government to break even, taking into account that there would still be a number of borrowers who never should have been given a loan to begin with.  We might also suggest changing the current practice/law, and make a specfic Congressional Stupidity Fund "eat" defaults where the borrower's food stamps and/or unemployment payments were counted as legitimate income to validate ability to pay.  It would still cost the taxpayers, but at least we'd know the reason for the expenditure.

We are opposed to bailouts in principle, but political and business leaders (?) have set this thing in motion, and apparently something must be done.  For those other than the truly unsophisticated who were misled, intentionally or otherwise, we have no sympathy.  Manipulators in the middle of this disaster ought to sink or swim on their own.  We can think of names of some of the above "leaders" who ought to be behind bars right now.

Business bailouts are a no-no.  Government intrusion via regulations, laws, and taxes enacted for social purposes, combined with business mis-management, have already contributed to the current condition of these companies.  Further government intervention we believe is unlikely to give any true, long-term assistance.  Nor is there any realistic "stopping point" on this slippery slope.

We would repeat a point made recently on this website.  There appears to us little difference between the "bailout in advance" - the locally ever-popular tax breaks and subsidies without which a business would not be started - and a bailout after a business has shown that it cannot operate without government welfare.  We oppose both. 

There are most likely many reasons why our suggestion might not work.  But it did seem to us to be a reasonable approach to the "main street" part of the problem.  Hopefully it would also spur the general economy to the point of saving our own small investment portfolio upon which our future depends to a significant degree.

P.S.  The photo in this morning's paper of the wrecking of the RCA Dome moves us to ask once again, "Whatever became of 25 years worth of revenue from the Food and Beverage Tax which was supposed to have paid for the building we are now knocking down?"  Mayor Ballard?  Councilman McQuillen?  CIB Chairman Grand?  The paper's new "investigative team?"  Anyone???? 

We're going to keep on asking.

When one awakens...

...too early to arise but too late to go back to sleep, some strange trains of thought may rush through the mind.  It happened to us this morning.  Consideration of "fairness" in using taxation as a method of wealth distribution, and "empathy" for the disadvantaged in the matter of judicial appointments and decisions, wound up as an exercise in applying these concepts to another area.

How about changes in the rules of football to even up the competition?

Is it fair when one team is able to amass bigger and stronger players than another?  Should height, weight and speed be standardized? Is it not unfair to have a quarterback obviously more talented in throwing the ball than his competitors?  Do the rules themselves sometimes seem to favor one team over another in their application?  We have at hand an answer to these problems, all having to do with unfair scoring advantages, and we suggest the following rules modifications.

When Team "A" (Ahead) scores first, Team "B" (Behind) will receive the kickoff from a spot 15 yards back of the usual spot.  In ensuing play, all penalties of 5 yards against "A" will be doubled.

If, under these conditions, "A" scores again, "B" will be allowed 6 tries for a first down while "A" will be reduced to 3 tries.

If the score difference reaches 3 touchdowns (or any specified number of points), any gain by "B" of less than 10 yards will be doubled.  In the interest of fairness, the referee may reduce the number of necessary tries for a first down back to 4.

Any further unmatched scoring by "A" will mean eliminating use of the forward pass by "A" and the number of tries for first down will be reduced to 2. 

All rules applications will be at the discretion of the officials, depending upon their empathy with "B".

It seems to us that these, and other possible rules modifications including the elimination of overtime play, could very well put within reach the presumably desirable conclusion of having every game end in a tie.  With no winners and no losers, what could be more equitable?

We hasten to admit that there might be, as they say in the TV drug ads, some possible (minimal) side effects.  Knowing that every game would end in a tie could deter some of the more lukewarm fans from attending, thus reducing the gate receipts.  If the quarterback is not going to be allowed to throw the ball, he may get a little lackadaisical in his work ethic.  And interior linemen in the trenches - on both sides of the ball - might intentionally avoid some of the heavy contact knowing that the results of the game actually are in the hands of a non-participant. 

 But every team in last place will also be in first place.  And, vice versa!

One problem we haven't worked out for the NFL could lie in a season of ties winding up (pretty much like the NBA) with every team eligible for a playoff spot.  But with every team in, skill and effort denied recognition, and ties all around assured, who cares?  The whole league will collapse anyway!  (Those side effects do accumulate!)

Words...and their usage

We've wondered about the real difference in meaning between the words "subsidy" - "investment" - and "bail-out."  These mental meanderings brought us to the point of considering how the media have used these words in differing ways with regard to the situation in Washington and that in Indianapolis.

Much of the conversation about local problems refers to the "out-of-date" governmental structure and policies inherent in township and county forms set up more than a century ago.  Frankly, it seems to us Indianapolis has been well ahead of the curve in some ways.

34 years ago, when the then-owners of the NBA franchise threatened to leave for greener pastures, local businessmen bought them out.  The city promptly "bailed out" the new owners by building Market Square Arena and giving the basketball team a sweetheart lease requiring a minimal payment until the team would turn a profit.  The few annual reports made - or at least reported - indicated that the team never made a profit.

8 years later, in an effort to bail out downtown property owners, a grand strategy was unveiled.  We had to attract an NFL franchise if we were ever to be known as "world class."  The RCA Dome was constructed, with a special tax levied to pay for it.  (We're now demolishing that building, having been told that nothing has been paid on the principal of that debt.  Nor are told where those tax revenues were spent.)

While some downtown businesses have benefited  from the presence of the football franchise, there is no indication that such presence has appropriately supported the municipality by a direct increase in tax revenues.  In contrast, municipal budgets are facing increasingly dire constraints on needed finances.  And whatever else one may have been led to believe, these fiscal woes are not entirely due to inept  township assessors.

Another 15 years passed, and again we were bailing out the NBA team with the construction of Conseco Fieldhouse.  Market Square Arena could not provide the revenues demanded by the basketball franchise.  The new lease was even better for the team.  They pay $1 per year and keep the revenues from all activities therein.

Now we have embarked on the king of all bail-outs with the construction of a new football stadium because the RCA Dome does not provide sufficient revenues to the millionaire owners of this NFL franchise.

It seems to us that media treatment of Washington and Indianapolis situations is completely different, resulting in opposite outcomes.  The Washington deal has been treated from day one as a fiscal disaster, with world-wide repercussion, based on greed plus political chicanery and stupidity.  (Most of the latter charges having been intentionally mis-directed  toward the executive rather than the legislative branch of government.) 

The local deal, on the other hand, has been presented by the media - aided and abetted by political and business interests - as "investment" intended as the be-all and end-all of economic development which will continue our rush toward "world class" recognition.  (One similarity might be noted that in both cases, any opposition by the taxpayers bearing the financial burden of the bail-out/investment has been completely ignored.)

So we believe, locally, we are way ahead of Washington in knowing how to make acceptable the use of public funds in ways which constitute a dangerous step onto a very, very slippery slope.

Other than the numbers of dollars, what is the difference between here and there?  Is there really a difference between subsidies and tax breaks on the front end of a project - which we are told will not be a "go" without them - and propping up another private business which is about to fail? 

At least in the case of local sports subsidies, it seems to us we're doing both!   How long before we again "need" a bigger and better stadium?  Before this one has been paid for??

Yes?? - No??

In case one or two readers out there are wondering about our vote on the Marion county assessment situation...its still up in the air!

We don't know any of the assessors personally, nor do we have any direct knowledge of their work, except for what we see in the local media.  But we would hasten to point out  - AGAIN - that the property tax problem in Marion County/Indianapolis has many sources outside the assessors' offices.

It is reported that more than $4 billion have been invested downtown in recent years.  Over that same period of time the tax base remained flat.  Property tax policies like TIF districts and abatements have been solidly endorsed  by the very same politicians and business leaders who now are clamoring for the township assessors' heads.

A series of mayors, with their Redevelopment Commissions, eagerly aided and abetted by major business organizations, have decimated the property tax base of the city.  We've said it before.  The work of the assessor is pretty much irrelevant when real estate is simply taken off the rolls to "encourage" favored developers with the gimmicks which have been used here for decades.

Properly prioritized use of tax revenues from all sources would surely alleviate the city's fiscal woes.  We've asked questions time after time.  For instance -  What happened to the missing millions which were supposed to have paid for the RCA Dome?  Why have seven long years gone by without putting the Market Square site back on the tax rolls? 

Township assessors didn't get us in this fix.  County assessors, professional or not, won't get us out of it.  Not until someone downtown decides to take a realistic look at the business/political cabal making the deals and reaping the benefits from the giveaways.  (Are you listening, Mayor Ballard?)

In the long run, we certainly would vote for the elimination ot the property tax itself.  Sure would make the assessing problem disappear in a hurry.

My apologies...

...to those of you who might have appreciated my efforts in the past to keep this website as non-partisan as possible.  But once again our local daily has presented an article which calls for comment.  And in this case, it will have to seem partisan.

I refer to this morning's paper (11/02/08 - Sec. A, p. 18) giving the views of the presidential candidates on ten major issues.  One issue not even mentioned, and in fact little discussed at any length throughout the campaign, is one I believe to be possibly the most important.  The issue is judicial appointments.

Sen. McCain has said he would appoint individuals who would support the Constitution as it stands and the rule of law it represents.  Sen. Obama has said he would appoint individuals with"empathy" for the poor, minorities, etc. - that is, with "good feelings" toward certain specific groups of citizens.

While we have moved well away from the idea in past years, it always has been my thought that the proper role of the courts with regard to legislation is pretty much limited to two areas.  Is a law written clearly enough for the executive branch to apply it with equity?  And, does the law fit within the limitations of the written Constitution?

If the purpose or clarity of a law is in question, change in the application should be made by a legislative body, not by the courts.  And there is a prescribed method to change even the Constitution should that necessity arise.

Sen. Obama says the Constitution is a "flawed document" because the founding fathers included only "negative liberties."  By that he refers to the limitations upon government actions against the people.  He says the (Earl) Warren court was not radical enough because it did not delve into the positive concept of "distributive" policies, something he feels to be desirable.  I have heard no request from him for a constitutional convention.

Even if he serves only one term, Sen. Obama will very likely have the opportunity to appoint some justices to the Supreme Court, and to fill innumerable vacancies on various federal appeals courts.  These appointees will be in a position to introduce the senator's "empathetic" concepts for decades after he leaves office.

Courts have traditionally leaned on precedent over the years.  It is difficult to see how there could be much guidance from precedent where decisions are based on the "feelings" of any particular judge.  Would the feelings of a judge in Florida supersede the feelings of one in Wisconsin?  Presumably, Supreme Court feelings would have to override district court feelings.  Who knows?

Several years ago I was asked to judge a speech contest of seventh and eighth grade pupils.  The assigned topic for each student was to discuss what he or she wanted to be as an adult.  After all the speeches had been given, I specifically asked those in charge whether the content of the speech was to be a factor in the judging.  (The answer was "no.")

There was a reason for the question.  For one of the girls, by my standards, her rating for delivery would have been an A, but for content, an F.  This young lady proclaimed that she wanted to be a judge so she could "help people." 

For a seventh grader, her approach was admirable - but mis-guided.  For a former law professor who wants to be President of the United States and appoint federal judges for life, the approach is far more than just mis-guided.  I believe it is intentional leading of the nation toward weakening the rule of law by having judges introduce content into law which has not been approved by any legislative body. 

We neither need nor want judges telling legislative bodies what they should have said or what they really meant when they acted.