tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57373633485607928082024-03-14T04:25:21.780-04:00The Suburban VoluntaryistThese are the ramblings of a lone voice in suburbia, someone who is just trying to learn and figure out how we can develop a society without using force or aggression. Oh, and by the way, I'm determined to do this while having fun.Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.comBlogger202125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-14811054102551534462014-01-11T17:32:00.000-05:002014-01-11T17:35:01.039-05:00Sunday Alcohol Sales Laws In Indiana<br />
<span class="pub_date" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #111111; display: block; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 10px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: Lucida Grande, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 15px;"> <i>It's been a while since I wrote an opinion column but I <a href="http://www.newsandtribune.com/columns/x1186900536/KOHRMAN-Its-the-same-old-argument" target="_blank">read something </a> over the holidays about the Indiana law banning some alcohol sales on Sundays that spurred me to write the following response.</i></span></span></span><span class="pub_date" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #111111; display: block; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 10px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: Lucida Grande, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="line-height: 15px;"><br /></span></span></span><br />
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://www.newsandtribune.com/columns/x1186916237/HARBESON-How-do-you-wish-to-spend-your-Sundays" rel="bookmark" style="border: 0px; color: #6f0b10; font-family: inherit; font-size: 33px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">HARBESON: How do you wish to spend your Sundays?</a><br />
<div class="story_meta" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #111111; font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 1.25em; line-height: 1.25; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span class="author vcard" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="story_credit fn" style="border: 0px; display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">By DEBBIE HARBESON</span></span><span class="source-org vcard story_source" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://www.newsandtribune.com/" style="border: 0px; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Local guest columnist</a></span></div>
<div class="entry-content" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #111111; font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; line-height: 10px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 1.25em; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.25; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
— I really got a buzz reading the recent column in the News and Tribune by Steve Kohrman as he downed the first shot in the repetitive drinking game going on in Indiana concerning retailers selling alcohol on Sundays.<br />
<br />
Mr. Kohrman is chairman of the Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers, a group of people better known to you and me as package liquor store owners. The association is a lobbying group and like all other lobbying groups, it is interested in promoting laws that benefit its members.<br />
<br />
This association has given more than $264,000 to Indiana politicians since 2004. They pour their funds into both parties’ mugs, but the Republicans get their glasses filled a bit more, receiving 56.9 to 43.1 percent for Democrats.<br />
<br />
Now all that said, the fact that Mr. Kohrman represents a lobbying group does not automatically invalidate any points he makes in defense of continuing government restrictions on Sunday alcohol sales in Indiana. So let’s take a look at the points made.<br />
<br />
Mr. Kohrman frames this issue as small local businesses fighting big out-of-state corporations in the form of “massive retailers” and “big box chains.” I am certainly no fan of corporate abuse of power through legislation but they are not asking for special circumstances that apply only to them, the point is to simply open up a trade opportunity, one that would include package liquor stores.<br />
<br />
(Kohrman does mention some differences in state laws concerning package liquor stores and other retailers and if there are unfair regulations in this area, I encourage him to work on complete repeal of those laws.)<br />
<br />
So if this would open up trade for all, then what’s the problem? Well the package liquor stores like the benefits they have been receiving from the current government imposed ban. I suppose they like being off on Sundays and not having to pay employees to work on Sundays. If they want to operate their business in this manner, I fully support them. What I do not support, however, is using the government to tell their competitors what to do.<br />
<br />
Kohrman claims that people want regulations on alcohol and lists results from a recent study to back up his point, implying that the survey’s results prove Indiana residents do not want alcohol to be sold on Sunday.<br />
<br />
He is correct that many people do want regulations on alcohol but I would challenge him to prove that this desire for regulation amounts to no more than setting a legal drinking age in the illusion that this keeps alcohol out of the hands of minors.<br />
<br />
Sunday alcohol sales have nothing to do with the age limits on alcohol sales so there is clearly no need to interfere with voluntary trade between businesses and customers who are willing to accept the arbitrary government-imposed age controls.<br />
<br />
In addition, this survey was nationwide. How can a phone survey of 1,000 people nationwide tell us anything about what Indiana residents think about selling alcohol on Sunday?<br />
<br />
Mr. Kohrman’s worst point is when he attempts to apply the slippery slope argument by claiming that opening alcohol sales on Sunday could mean that Indiana might end up saying we can legally serve our kids alcohol like those apparently backward people of Missouri do already.<br />
<br />
I hate to tell him this but it’s pretty darn easy right now for any parent to give their kid alcohol in the privacy of their own homes with or without any stupid state law. So if he is truly concerned about this issue he would immediately close up his second-generation package store because he cannot know if he has already been contributing to this apparently horrid problem.<br />
<br />
The package liquor store owners need to stop fighting the release of restrictions that are clearly now only serving as protectionist policy and figure out how to make themselves relevant in the modern marketplace.<br />
<br />
<em style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">— Indiana resident Debbie Harbeson can be reached anytime at daharbeson@yahoo.com. Even on Sundays.</em></div>
</div>
Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-87100887979026717542013-01-12T13:19:00.002-05:002013-01-12T13:19:32.767-05:00Why Government Gun Control Debates Never End<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8Qzmm3lH7d-Kf8YP7fGrgxLOcKwU7zB3qbxeKj9wW_pkDKQl5Egdj2CD6mQeO3_NunJkghm3DryK32wg6xJ1QSkc3P75SvJR6hq_xxgzwWHC0-Q7i3y1TUs3J9gudOkehYuWZIR6p15U/s1600/gun.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8Qzmm3lH7d-Kf8YP7fGrgxLOcKwU7zB3qbxeKj9wW_pkDKQl5Egdj2CD6mQeO3_NunJkghm3DryK32wg6xJ1QSkc3P75SvJR6hq_xxgzwWHC0-Q7i3y1TUs3J9gudOkehYuWZIR6p15U/s320/gun.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
In gun control debates, it appears that many gun control advocates are saying that they don't want to ban guns, they just want to use the government to enact specific limits/regulations.<br />
<br />
But this is where we encounter a major problem. When government enacts gun laws, then those people inside government, in order to get others to comply with those gun laws, ultimately have to force this compliance by doing what? Well, by threatening peaceful people with guns.<br />
<br />
Threatening peaceful people with guns is exactly what everyone claims they don't want though, isn't it?<br />
<br />
Whether we like it or not, we must admit that in order to control/regulate guns, ultimately guns must be used.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the main reason why government gun control debates never end is that the debate itself contains an inherent logical contradiction.<br />
<br />
Thoughts?<br />
Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-64669926405088441522012-11-17T09:07:00.000-05:002012-11-17T09:07:00.518-05:00Time to Move Forward<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x1407308936/HARBESON-Thats-all-I-have-to-say-about-that" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: That's all I have to say about that</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
<div class="story_meta">
<span class="author vcard">
<span class="story_credit fn"></span></span><span class="source-org vcard story_source"><a href="http://newsandtribune.com/" style="color: black;"></a>
</span>
</div>
> SOUTHERN INDIANA —
I have important news to share with you this week. It’s either good
news or bad news, depending on your perspective. As of today, I will no
longer be writing a weekly column for this paper.<br /><br />
No, I did not have an affair. I don’t even have a biographer. I’ve simply decided I’m ready to move on.<br /><br />
For some time now, I’ve been writing with a very specific underlying
theme in mind. Ever since I reached the conclusion that following the
non-aggression principle, respecting private property and engaging in
voluntary interactions are preferable to government force, I have been
attempting to analyze local issues and conflicts from this voluntaryist
perspective.<br /><br />
We will never be able to create ideas that will help us lessen
conflicts with each other as long as people continue to accept the
legitimacy of pointing the government gun at each other to get what we
want. That’s simply not going to work in the long run.<br /><br />
So from the standpoint of that philosophy, I have tried my best to
critically analyze and question everything surrounding government,
especially the messages put forth by politicians who have been pushing
this propaganda in an attempt to maintain their power for far too long.<br /><br />
I’m at the point now where I have said all I can say about these ideas.<br /><br />
In addition, I’m just worn out. I don’t know how other writers do it,
but for me, it takes a very long time to produce a column. Perhaps I’m a
perfectionist and tend to over-analyze, but I find I must spend lots of
time, an embarrassing amount of time actually, crafting each column to
my satisfaction. Even after all the time spent, I still think I could
have done better.<br /><br />
I don’t know why but I’m just not a very efficient writer. I need time
to let an idea brew in my mind and a weekly deadline means that I
sometimes find myself not fully present in my actual life. I am getting
to the point where it’s too much of a chore to put the effort to produce
a product I am proud of and respect my readers too much to just “phone
it in.”<br /><br />
Ending my current relationship with this paper does not mean I will
stop writing though, particularly since writing helps me learn and grow.
I will probably be writing for more specific audiences — people who
already understand and share similar underlying philosophies.<br /><br />
This will likely happen in the area of education, mostly because that’s
where I have the personal experience. As a matter of fact, our family’s
experience of really living outside of government control by deciding
to home educate is what started me down the path of understanding the
benefits that can accrue when individuals, even young children, are
given lots of freedom to learn and grow.<br /><br />
I would like to thank News and Tribune Editor Shea Van Hoy for giving
me the opportunity to take up space here every Thursday and for granting
me the freedom to say the things I wanted to say in the way I wanted to
say them. I know he’s caught hell more than once after publishing my
opinions.<br /><br />
I also want to thank the readers. I thoroughly enjoyed hearing all of
your responses, both positive and negative, and I appreciate everyone
who took the time and energy to send comments and reactions to the
opinions I’ve shared on this page.<br /><br />
One final point for those who may be glad to see me go: I wouldn’t
celebrate too hard because who knows, I may return sometime in the
future with a guest column if something happens to rile me up enough.<br /><br />
<em>Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson took an embarrassingly long
time to write this final signature line. You can take an embarrassingly
long time to write her at Debbie@debbieharbeson.com.</em>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-34363498954079528162012-11-11T13:49:00.001-05:002012-11-11T13:49:58.681-05:00Pondering A Serious Family Issue<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x880891134/HARBESON-Play-the-name-game" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: Play the name game</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
<div class="story_meta">
<span class="author vcard">
<span class="story_credit fn"></span></span><span class="source-org vcard story_source"><a href="http://newsandtribune.com/" style="color: black;"></a>
</span>
</div>
> SOUTHERN INDIANA —
Let’s face it. Even if you feel like there is a candidate worth voting
for, the final week leading up to a presidential election is annoying.
Newspapers, electronic media, direct mail, phone calls and yard signs
blast political messages constantly. The only way to even come close to
avoiding the bombardment is to leave the country — which is exactly what
I did this year.<br /><br />
It was an excellent plan. I thoroughly enjoyed not having to hear the
politician’s distortions, outright lies and promises that can’t possibly
be kept. Once we were out of the country, the air was clear, crisp and
almost devoid of election pollution. I could finally take deep breaths
without gagging and my sinuses even cleared up.<br /><br />
The trip wasn’t all fun and games though. I did have a particularly
serious family issue to think about while on this trip. Apparently, I am
going to be a grandma, whether I want to or not. Don’t get me wrong, I
want my daughter and son-in-law to have a baby, really I do. I am very
excited and happy about it. I just don’t want to be a grandma.<br /><br />
Well, to be more precise, it’s not that I don’t want to be a grandma. I
do. It’s just that I don’t want to be called by that name. I’m sorry
but no matter how much I think about it, the name just doesn’t give me a
warm and fuzzy feeling. Instead, every time I say the word, another
joint starts aching, cracking and popping.<br /><br />
There are those who say I can’t control this anyway and the kid will
figure out for him or herself what he or she will call me. But I’m
telling you now if the kid tries to call me grandma, I’m just not going
to answer.<br /><br />
Yes, I realize that might backfire because he or she will just assume
I’ve lost my hearing but I don’t care. I’m going to do it anyway. Maybe I
can’t control getting older but by golly, I will have some control over
my name.<br /><br />
Yeah, yeah I know what you’re thinking. I’ve heard it before — you
think that when the little tyke begins to talk, I just won’t care
anymore. But you’re wrong. Despite Shakespeare’s beautiful poetic prose
about the sweetness of that rose, grandma as a name simply stinks as far
as I’m concerned.<br /><br />
Look, I don’t mean to insult those of you who really like to be called grandma. If you love it, that’s great, grandma.<br /><br />
When my daughter, son-in-law and husband realized how strongly I felt
about this, they started throwing out lots of alternative suggestions,
all of which I rejected because they were just more euphemisms which
said to me, “Look old lady, you are a grandma so just shut up and deal
with it.”<br /><br />
So after they finished with their barrage of mi-mi’s, gi-gi’s and lady ga-ga’s, I said, “Can’t the kid just call me Debbie?”<br /><br />
In reply my daughter said, “Well, why don’t you poll the readers of your column and see what they think?”<br /><br />
What a great idea, an actual poll about something important for a change!<br /><br />
So, what do you think? Shall the name Debbie be retained by, well,
Debbie to be used even by her grandchildr ... I mean, her children’s
children?<br /><br />
If you do not think they should call me Debbie then feel free to offer
alternative write-in candidates. Send your vote to the email listed
below.<br /><br />
Oh and maybe it goes without saying but any write-ins for “grandma”
will be thrown out immediately so don’t even try to stuff the ballot
box. However, I will not be checking IDs so go ahead and vote as many
times as you like.<br /><br />
<em>— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson is now accepting all votes
and suggestions for alternatives to the name grandma at
Debbie@debbieharbeson.com</em>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-87330076781583191712012-10-26T13:22:00.001-04:002012-10-26T13:22:47.990-04:00Book Review: John Goodman's "Priceless"<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x699462706/HARBESON-Learning-more-about-health-care" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: Learning more about health care</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
<div class="story_meta">
<span class="author vcard">
<span class="story_credit fn"></span></span><span class="source-org vcard story_source"><a href="http://newsandtribune.com/" style="color: black;"></a>
</span>
</div>
> SOUTHERN INDIANA —
A couple of months ago, a reader contacted me and suggested I review a
book that he thought more people should know about. I had previously
read a few articles from the author which intrigued me so I agreed. The
book’s topic covers what is arguably the most important service/product
everyone purchases at some point — health care.<br /><br />
Everyone has at least one personal story about health care that left
them feeling frustrated. Medical professionals and patients feel trapped
by the current system. Various third parties (government, huge
insurance corporations and employers) are so deeply involved in the
process that normal market forces don’t even come into play. As my
friend noted in his initial email, “What other service or product do we
engage the services of without knowing what the price is?”<br /><br />
This book, titled <i>“Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis,”</i> was
written by John Goodman, an economist who is sometimes referred to as
the “father of Health Savings Accounts.” Goodman has been deeply
involved in the study of the health care system and has spent a lot of
time thinking about how to improve it. After reading this book, which is
loaded with footnotes and references, I can’t say I have a complete
handle on this complex topic but I’m certainly more informed.<br /><br />
One aspect of health care that has always puzzled me is how health
insurance developed in a way that it often isn’t insurance at all, at
least in the traditional sense of being a product offered to protect
against a possible and unpredictable catastrophic event.<br /><br />
Goodman writes: “Most people in health policy view health insurance as
just a way to pay medical bills. This book is one of the very few places
in all of the health policy literature where you will find a defense of
the idea that there is a social need for real health insurance. It is
also one of the few places you will find an argument that we need a real
market for health risks to determine the best way to insure against
them and to determine what is the best way to partition insurance
products between self-insurance and third-party insurance.”<br /><br />
Goodman’s book examines how interference in the health market has
created perverse incentives as patients, doctors, insurers and other
third parties try to make it all work. Professional licensing laws, tax
laws, labor laws and employee benefit laws have created unintended
consequences which have played a large part in creating the health care
system we see today.<br /><br />
These artificial laws create an atmosphere that attempts to defy and
ignore economic laws. No matter how much we may want to, we simply can’t
avoid basic economics. One of the best examples of this is the problem
of pre-existing conditions. Goodman points out that “Most of the time,
the problem of pre-existing conditions arises precisely because health
insurance isn’t portable.”<br /><br />
The reason it’s not portable is because of laws interfering with market forces.<br /><br />
Interference in the market has changed the very idea of insurance in regards to health.<br /><br />
Goodman explains: “The casualty insurance market is a real market in
which real insurance is bought and sold. The health insurance market, by
contrast, is an artificial market in which the product being exchanged
is not real insurance at all. To a large extent, it is prepayment for
the consumption of health care.”<br /><br />
He goes on to explain how this has created many problems leading to the
huge increases we have seen in health care costs. One of the most
interesting statistics Goodman notes is that spending on health care has
much less effect on mortality than we think: “Studies show almost no
relationship between aggregate spending on health and population
mortality. Lifestyle, environment and genes have far more influence on
life expectancy than anything doctors and hospitals are doing.”<br /><br />
He also talks about equality in health care and mentions many studies
done in Britain and Canada that show the poor still do not get the
access and quality of care that everyone hoped. Britain even has a term
for one aspect of the inequality that comes from location: “postcode
lottery.”<br /><br />
My favorite chapter in this book was “Designing Ideal Health
Insurance.” Starting from scratch and taking all the interference out,
he asks the reader to think through the process of how 1,000 people
might set up a health care plan that works. In addition, when discussing
problems to consider he adds this point: “Since all agreements are
voluntary in this imagined scenario, coercion is not an option.”<br /><br />
Although he doesn’t really take this idea through to the end (he
appears to be more focused on reforming the current system) anyone who
tries to help people think about social issues from a voluntary
standpoint is certainly on a better track than most.<br /><br />
So if you are interested in learning more about health care, including
how you will be affected by the Affordable Care Act, you may want to
read this book.<br /><br />
<em>— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson would love to see a health
care plan where coercion is not a pre-existing condition. </em>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-79682234600698951042012-10-20T15:26:00.001-04:002012-10-20T15:27:11.057-04:00Cast of Characters in Clark County Government<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<i><span style="font-weight: normal;">This week's column:</span></i></h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrl-8C9dVPXxMGikkRvEp1HgD_AnhJVo-N-FHkDTTgk1Oa3ZvATqBHkuH0MOdTB_UDaiY-BNHInMjRilvETKlpXJHW_XbXaHQ4ibJ7a1MYPUrXDhp_2XxfGjzFYhI3hrTKsL_xUtglsoE/s1600/Gary_Burghoff_Radar_MASH_1974.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="244" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrl-8C9dVPXxMGikkRvEp1HgD_AnhJVo-N-FHkDTTgk1Oa3ZvATqBHkuH0MOdTB_UDaiY-BNHInMjRilvETKlpXJHW_XbXaHQ4ibJ7a1MYPUrXDhp_2XxfGjzFYhI3hrTKsL_xUtglsoE/s320/Gary_Burghoff_Radar_MASH_1974.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x1200635735/HARBESON-M-A-S-H-Clark-County-style" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: M*A*S*H, Clark County style</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
<div class="story_meta">
<span class="author vcard">
<span class="story_credit fn"></span></span><span class="source-org vcard story_source"><a href="http://newsandtribune.com/" style="color: black;"></a>
</span>
</div>
I have to admit that I’m having trouble following the <a href="http://newsandtribune.com/business/x699422389/Clark-County-sells-property-without-public-vote" target="_blank">latest episode </a>in
the ongoing saga that is Clark County government. Was property
improperly sold to a commissioner’s daughter? Did her father know about
it? Did Erika’s long lost twin-sister’s deceased ex-husband come back
from the dead?<br />
<br />
Oh sorry, I think that one is from another soap opera. Maybe what I
should do for now is see if I can just sort out the cast of characters.<br />
<br />
To help put all of this together, I’m going to match them to characters
in the television show M*A*S*H. The inspiration for this idea came from
Clark County Commissioner Les “Col. Potter” Young. When asked about
details surrounding his signing over deeds to a fellow commissioner’s
daughter, he introduced M*A*S*H into this controversy by claiming that
he may be the victim of the “Radar Treatment.”<br />
<br />
He was apparently referring to County Attorney Greg “Radar” Fifer,
since he was the person who presented the deeds to Young for his
signature. “Radar” Fifer agrees that “Col. Potter” Young may not have
completely understood the “significance of the deeds he was signing.”<br />
<br />
Fifer has an even bigger part to play in this particular episode. The
commissioners say they were following his specific recommendation to
handle the sale of some of the private properties that did not receive
bids during a 2010 tax sale.<br />
<br />
According to the News and Tribune report, there were a total of 182
properties left over and Fifer recommended that the commissioners use a
company called SRI Inc. which specializes in tax sales. However for some
as of yet unknown reason, Fifer recommended they use this option for
130 of the properties. For the other properties, he recommended using a
local law firm, one where he just happens to be a partner.<br />
<br />
In addition, he may have made mistakes in following government
regulations for advertising the properties. In the article, Fifer said,
“I’m not perfect. Maybe I made a mistake, I don’t know.”<br />
<br />
This is not a problem though because if he did make any mistakes that
may end up costing the county money, surely he’ll step up, say he’s
accountable for his actions, and take responsibility. After all, that’s
exactly what he thinks Attorney Jack Vissing should do in regards to
mistakes Fifer says Vissing made concerning the fiasco over property
purchased for the Clark County airport.<br />
<br />
But enough about “Radar,” next up in our cast of Clark County
characters is Commissioner Ed “Maj. Frank Burns” Meyer. On the
television show, Maj. Burns often hurled confusing comments at people
who confronted him with questions about his actions. Similarly, when
Meyer was asked to give his daughter’s contact information during a
commissioner’s meeting, he said, “Don’t mess with my family.”<br />
<br />
Meyer certainly is under no obligation to give out anyone’s contact
information, but what is that comment supposed to mean? How is asking
for contact information messing with someone’s family?<br />
<br />
Meyer says that his daughter has the same right as any other adult
citizen to bid on property. That’s true, and just like any other
individual who wants to try to make a buck by taking advantage of tax
sales on property claimed by government, she moves out into the public
realm. Meyer cannot possibly be surprised that there might be increased
scrutiny when a government entity makes property transactions with a
close relative of a county executive, particularly if regulations on
handling the sale may not have been followed properly.<br />
<br />
To complete the cast, I should mention the third county commissioner,
John Perkins. However I don’t think Perkins can be thought of as a major
character, considering how he got the part of county commissioner.
Since he was chosen by a tiny caucus to fill a vacated seat, he may be
more like one of those characters who only play bit part and then go
away, never to return again.<br />
<br />
In addition, Perkins can’t be a main character in this episode because
he says he has “no specific knowledge” about this deal. I believe him.
After all, he’s been pretty busy handing out his own special benefits by
ordering the county highway department to do work on his neighbor’s
private property.<br />
<br />
I don’t know, maybe Perkins should get higher billing because the more I
think about it, he’s right there with the rest of them playing out the
consistent underlying theme of any government show: Taking advantage of
the power that comes with the monopoly on force.<br />
<br />
<i>— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson has noticed that even when
the cast of characters change, the government show is still predictable
re-runs.</i>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-84200390748218156842012-10-13T12:57:00.001-04:002012-10-13T12:57:25.111-04:00Telling Big Bird the Truth<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<i><span style="font-weight: normal;">This week's column... </span></i></h4>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x688413333/HARBESON-What-would-Big-Bird-do" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: What would Big Bird do?</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
<div class="story_meta">
<span class="author vcard">
<span class="story_credit fn"></span></span><span class="source-org vcard story_source"><a href="http://newsandtribune.com/" style="color: black;"></a>
</span>
</div>
CLARK COUNTY —
This column is being brought to you by the letter “V.” V is the first
letter of many wonderful words, but my favorite is voluntary. It’s not
used much during political election seasons and is certainly not likely
to be a word you’ll hear vociferously proclaimed during a presidential
candidate debate — mostly because presidential debates are for
discussing eight-foot tall yellow bird puppets.<br /><br />
Big Bird is a perfect symbol for politicians to exploit as they try to
manipulate people in their quest to gain government power. Both parties
benefit from the current hyper focus on their disagreement about funding
this fowl because it keeps attention away from issues they heartily
agree on, like the continued use and funding of other big birds, ones
that are currently terrorizing, and sometimes killing, children.<br /><br />
Since they both endorse drones, the parties don’t want you to think
about funding those big birds. They want you to focus on fighting with
your American neighbor over funding the benign Big Bird.<br /><br />
But even that makes no sense. Why should the politicians be the ones to
make any decisions about Big Bird? We should be asking Big Bird what he
thinks.<br /><br />
I’m sure if someone on Sesame Street actually told Big Bird the truth
and took the time to explain how the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
[another example of the many bipartisan efforts from the 1960s] is
funded, he would be shocked. From what I’ve seen, Big Bird is a peaceful
fellow so once he learned the truth he surely would not want to accept
any funds that were gained through threats of force.<br /><br />
Big Bird would want people to fund his work voluntarily, because they
saw value. He wouldn’t be too worried about whether or not people would
donate because he can see that many do so already. In addition, Big Bird
and his buddies know how to sell lots and lots of branded products to
children.<br /><br />
Big Bird would understand that not everyone will want to fund his work
for a variety of reasons. He’d accept that some people prefer not to
fund television shows like Sesame Street because they don’t care for
passive learning and would prefer not to encourage parents to sit their
young children in front of a blaring, flashing screen. He’d leave those
people alone.<br /><br />
Big Bird would be annoyed that the Democrats want him to remain at
least partially dependent on government funds and don’t want him to
prove he can pay his own way. He’d be mad when he realized that they
only want to use him to manipulate the voters so they can have control
of government.<br /><br />
If some people tried to convince Big Bird that he should continue
accepting the coerced funds because it’s a relatively small amount that
he gets, he would hang his head in disappointment. He’d tell them the
specific amount is not the point. To someone like Big Bird, principles
matter.<br /><br />
Big Bird would behave like this because he cares about how others are
treated. So of course he would think that each person should decide for
themselves whether or not to fund a television show.<br /><br />
Once he learned the truth, once his eyes were opened, Big Bird couldn’t
go back. He could never feel good accepting money that was taken
without consent from people on Sunflower Street so it could be
redistributed to Sesame Street.<br /><br />
Although Big Bird would be irritated at people who are trying to keep
him down, he would still understand their anxiety because his success
could really change the way things are done. If Big Bird really can fly
on his own, everyone would have to consider how many other full or
partially tax-funded operations could also do just fine without
government involvement.<br /><br />
<em>— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson is still wondering how to
get to Sesame Street. </em>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-65922067267418873812012-10-06T18:49:00.001-04:002012-10-06T18:49:14.036-04:00Prominent and Notable?<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<i><span style="font-weight: normal;">This week's column... </span></i></h4>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x325759953/HARBESON-What-the-Internet-thinks" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: What the Internet thinks</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
<div class="story_meta">
<span class="author vcard">
<span class="story_credit fn"></span></span><span class="source-org vcard story_source"><a href="http://newsandtribune.com/" style="color: black;"></a>
</span>
</div>
> SOUTHERN INDIANA —
Over the years, people have slapped a wide variety of labels on me. I
thought I was used to it, but over the last month, I received two
letters that put me into a category so horrendous I’m having trouble
sleeping at night. Although I don’t see how this label could be even
close to accurate, it’s truly shaken me to my core.<br /><br />
I know what you’re thinking. “Oh, how bad can it be? She’s probably
already been called every name in the book and deserved most of them so
what’s one more?”<br /><br />
Well, you won’t say that when you learn what these letters said. We’re talking one scary label, people.<br /><br />
According to one of these letters, I am apparently “one of America’s
most notable Republicans.” As if that’s not bad enough, two weeks later,
a second letter arrived, saying I am also one of the Republican Party’s
“most prominent members.”<br /><br />
How can that be? What did I do to deserve such an accusation? I can’t
think of anything that could equal that. Well, except being called a
prominent Democrat.<br /><br />
I’ve been working at least 47 percent of my brain trying to figure out
how I became a notable and prominent Republican. Yes, it’s true that
I’ve done things in my past I’m not proud of, but that was way back in
the 1980s when I listened to Rush Limbaugh. You must understand — it was
that, or ’80s music. I simply chose the lesser of two evils.<br /><br />
As usual, when something happens to me that I don’t like, the first
person I blame is my husband. I desperately wanted to put this all on
him. I checked his Internet history and saw a link titled “Conservative
Boobs,” and thought we probably got on a list after he did that.
However, when I confronted him, he claimed that was just an article
describing the latest slate of candidates so that couldn’t have led to
the letters.<br /><br />
The truth is though, that even before I talked to him, I knew he didn’t
have anything to do with it. I knew the letters couldn’t be his fault
because they are addressed to me only. They don’t even say “Mrs.” on
them. Plus, he didn’t receive a copy of these letters.<br /><br />
I suppose they could have just made a mistake. Republicans are known to
do that. Yes that must be it. I mean really, look at the photo next to
this column, does anyone really think that’s what one of America’s most
notable Republicans would look like?<br /><br />
<strong>What the Internet thinks</strong><br /><br />
I’ll probably never know for sure if those letters give any real
indication of what Republicans think but thanks to a new website, I can
finally learn what the Internet thinks. WhattheInternetthinks.net is a
site that will tell you what the Internet thinks about anything. Type in
any word and it uses an algorithm to give you a result of, well, what
the Internet thinks.<br /><br />
When you enter a search term, the site calculates and returns a
percentage for three categories: negative, positive and indifferent.
After calculating it also states a conclusion.<br /><br />
When I first encountered the site, those letters were still weighing
heavily on my mind, so the first term I entered was “Republicans.” This
term came out as 93.9 percent negative and the site’s conclusion was
“The Internet is very negative about Republicans.” After that, I didn’t
dare search for “prominent” or “notable” Republicans because I was
afraid my laptop might explode.<br /><br />
I did decide to risk it and enter “Democrats” though. The site
calculated that term to be 73.9 percent negative with the conclusion
saying, “The Internet is negative about Democrats.”<br /><br />
I then typed in “government” which calculated to be 42.1 percent
negative, the conclusion being “The Internet is negative about
government, but only just.”<br /><br />
Next I decided to see how consistent this site is so I searched for a
similar term, “Mafia.” That one came out as 59.5 percent negative,
concluding “The Internet is negative about the Mafia.”<br /><br />
OK, so the site appears to be somewhat consistent, at least in how it views organizations that collect revenue through force.<br /><br />
What does the Internet think about “politicians?” After I asked, the
site lit up again, saying 94.2 percent negative. Then I decided to
search for “lawyer” and it was nearly a dead heat with 49.6 percent
positive and 49.6 percent negative and .8 percent indifferent. So the
conclusion for lawyers was, “It seems the Internet cannot decide what to
make of lawyers.”<br /><br />
Neither can I, Internet, neither can I.<br /><br />
Finally I tried one last search, “voluntaryism.” That term came out as
100 percent positive, with the site concluding, “The Internet is
absolutely positive about voluntaryism.”<br /><br />
Me too, Internet, me too.<br /><br />
<em>— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson is very glad to learn that “the Internet is absolutely positive about big butts.”</em>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-12050571116523954502012-09-29T13:46:00.000-04:002012-09-29T13:46:37.953-04:00Proof that anarchy is more peaceful than government<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x1241971390/HARBESON-Great-debate-Bumper-stickers-or-license-plates" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: Great debate: Bumper stickers or license plates?</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
<div class="story_meta">
<span class="author vcard">
<span class="story_credit fn">By DEBBIE HARBESON</span>
</span>
<span class="source-org vcard story_source">
<a href="http://newsandtribune.com/" style="color: black;">Indiana columnist</a></span></div>
<div class="story_meta">
<span class="source-org vcard story_source">
</span>
</div>
> SOUTHERN INDIANA —
People love to share messages and make personal statements by slapping
bumper stickers on the backs of their cars. As we drive around and read
bumper stickers we can learn a lot about a person, assuming the bumper
sticker was placed there by the current owner.<br /><br />
We can discover important distinctions, such as whether someone is a
cat person or a dog person. Name the subject or issue and you can find a
bumper sticker about it. There’s probably even a bumper sticker out
there somewhere that says “down with bumper stickers.”<br /><br />
The messages displayed on one’s car can sometimes be quite
controversial and yet rarely do we hear about them being the direct
cause of a conflict with others. Since everyone enjoys the same freedom
to control the privately owned areas on their cars, people can and do
tolerate differences and co-exist peacefully.<br /><br />
However, there’s one space on your car that is not so peaceful.
Although it’s a relatively tiny space, measuring a mere 12 inches by 6
inches, it’s been the cause of huge conflicts. I’m talking of course
about your government-issued license plate.<br /><br />
This tiny space, this piece of metal the government requires that you
screw into the rear end of your car, became a source of conflict shortly
after the government started issuing specialty plates intended to help
raise funds for nonprofit organizations. The problem was easily
predicted because anytime the government controls any boundaries,
although they claim that their existence in the area brings peace, in
reality it often only brings conflict. <br /><br />
Last year, people who didn’t agree with the messages being promoted by
some groups began to moan and complain because those groups were being
allowed to raise funds and spread their message on government property.
These people were never concerned about the government handing out this
special benefit as long as they had no problem with the organization’s
message.<br /><br />
As a result of this controversy, arguments arose about who should be
allowed to use the government property to raise funds and promote their
cause and who shouldn’t. After the BMV found a way to remove one
particularly controversial nonprofit from the program, it caused even
more controversy.<br /><br />
So now specialty plates are suddenly a “big problem” which means
politicians now “need” to work on “fixing” the situation. Indiana’s
government has already spent time and money on a legislative interim
study committee created specifically for this issue and they met early
this month.<br /><br />
The politicians are spitting out their usual controlling language,
saying specialty plates are a good idea but there just needs to be
“tighter regulations” and “more oversight.”<br /><br />
This type of language almost always translates directly into more money
being spent as the government defines, creates and administers current
and new regulations. This will not only add to the bureaucracy but it
will very likely also lead to costly lawsuits. [There have already been
lawsuits over specialty plates before last year’s brouhaha began.]<br /><br />
Many people don’t have much problem with specialty plates particularly
because the folks who get them pay $40 extra and the money goes to the
nonprofit. Well, not all of it — $15 goes to the government for, you
know, “administrative fees.”<br /><br />
To me, it makes much more sense to simply buy a $2 bumper sticker and
donate $38 to the organization, removing the government completely from
the transaction.<br /><br />
It’s very likely though, that plenty of time will be spent during this
winter’s legislative session fussing about specialty license plates.
Many nonprofits have become dependent on this form of government
assistance and will fight to keep it. To remain relevant, politicians
will fan the fires and push opposing groups against each other.<br /><br />
This issue is a great example to use to critically examine whether or
not what you’ve been told all your life about governments is really
true. The next time you are sitting in a traffic jam looking at bumper
stickers and license plates, ask yourself this question — which area is
more peaceful, the boundary that exists in a state of market anarchy, or
the boundary that is controlled by government?<br /><br />
<em>Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson has no bumper stickers on her car because she likes to keep her opinions to herself.</em>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-57591616832514285142012-09-22T14:53:00.000-04:002012-09-22T14:53:05.522-04:00Evaluating Government School Teachers<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x2056654459/HARBESON-There-s-a-lesson-to-be-taught-here" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: There’s a lesson to be taught here</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
> SOUTHERN INDIANA —
Why are so many government school teachers upset at the idea of being
at least partly evaluated according to the test scores of the students
they are supposed to be teaching? Isn’t that their job — to cram
government-mandated curriculum into each child’s brain so they can pass a
government-approved test?<br /><br />
Evaluating teachers by the test scores of their students makes perfect
sense considering the factory-style setup of the school system. Each
widget, I mean student, moves along the assembly line and is molded
according to strict specifications set by the administrators and
politicians who control these government school factories.<br /><br />
So it’s certainly logical to verify whether or not the student-widgets
match the specs before they move farther along the conveyor belt to the
next laborer who performs the next step in the process.<br /><br />
How can government school teachers complain about this? After all, by
accepting these jobs, they are actively supporting the factory model of
education and if a one-size-fits-all evaluation is valid for the
students then why shouldn’t the teachers also be judged on the
one-size-fits-all evaluation method?<br /><br />
If the kids have to endure year after year of standardized testing,
shouldn’t the teachers, who dutifully play their part in this
compulsorily funded scheme (happily collecting the pay and benefits),
also have to endure being evaluated according to how well the students
do on these things?<br /><br />
Teachers do not think it’s fair to be evaluated on how the student
performs on the test because there could be lots of reasons why a child
might not do well. They don’t want to be judged based on the performance
of another individual.<br /><br />
Yet teachers themselves push a common “real life” lesson on the
students — group projects. I’ve heard many people complain about group
projects they were forced to do in school. Everyone seems to have a
story about a member of a group who did not do well with his or her part
of the project and brought the final score down for everyone in the
group. If this is valid “real life” experience for the students, then
why isn’t it for the teachers? They’re all in this together, right?<br /><br />
The most common defense I’ve heard lately about kids who don’t do well
is that it’s the parents’ fault. They are uninvolved, don’t care and
don’t cooperate. This may indeed be a valid concern. But if it is, then
the teachers can’t have it both ways. If they want to place the blame
for low scores on the parents then they must also place the credit for
good scores on the parents.<br /><br />
It’s one thing for teachers to say they don’t want to be evaluated in
this manner and another for them to use unions and attempt to create
barriers to prevent experimenting with this option. The whole idea of
government unions is contradictory anyway. These unions are not fighting
against “the man” — some capitalist pig of a business owner — they are
merely making further demands on taxpayers who are already being coerced
to pay their salaries in the first place.<br /><br />
However, there does not have to be a one-size-fits-all answer to the
task of teacher evaluation. If we separated education from government
and opened it up to the voluntary market, people who think standardized
testing works well and would like to see teachers directly evaluated on
those test results could set up and fund an organization built on that
foundation. Those who don’t think standardized testing promotes learning
could create and fund their own alternatives.<br /><br />
True education is unique to each individual and there are many
different needs and desires within families. The most respectful way to
help each family meet those needs is to set education free from
government control so a wide variety of educational philosophies can
flourish and compete. This would create unlimited benefits to society as
education in general grows much stronger, healthier and more dynamic.<br /><br />
<em>— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson is tired of smelling the
stagnant, stale air of government run factories called schools. </em>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-32905425236463625582012-09-16T21:30:00.000-04:002012-09-16T21:30:02.174-04:00Does Government Enhance Quality of Life?<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x1059018474/HARBESON-Quality-is-job-one" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: Quality is job one</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
<div class="story_meta">
<span class="author vcard">
<span class="story_credit fn"></span></span><span class="source-org vcard story_source"><a href="http://newsandtribune.com/" style="color: black;"></a>
</span>
</div>
> SOUTHERN INDIANA —
New Albany City Council member Dan Coffey recently introduced a
resolution to move city council discretionary funds to the Board of
Public Works and Safety. When questioned by other council members for
specifics as to how the money will be spent, Coffey said the money is
intended for “quality of life” purposes.<br /><br />
This really confused several members and no wonder. “Quality of life”
is one of those fluffy, fuzzy phrases politicians love to utter when
they don’t want to answer a question. When pushed further though, Coffey
did offer up an example — a recent “Beach Day” where the fire
department turned on its hoses so kids in public housing facilities
could splash in the water.<br /><br />
So I guess quality of life has something to do with being wet. That
does make some sense and not just for kids. I know many men who would
say their quality of life definitely goes up when women in T-shirts get
wet.<br /><br />
Seriously though, if asked, we know the examples people would offer up
as quality of life issues would be virtually unlimited. When it comes
right down to it, quality of life is one of those vague terms that can
vary widely between individuals. Your determination of quality of life
may agree with mine and it may not.<br /><br />
For example I like to get up early and go on bike rides. But I know
others who would rather go out dancing, stay up all night and sleep in.
Still others don’t care if they have to get up early or stay up late, as
long as they can see wet women in T-shirts.<br /><br />
Isn’t it contradictory for government entities to take your money
through threats of force and then tell you they are going to spend it to
improve your quality of life? Wouldn’t your quality of life go up if
they just got out of the way so you can determine for yourself how to
give your life quality? Isn’t quality of life built on a foundation of
mutually respectful voluntary relationships with others — relationships
without coercion and threats of violence?<br /><br />
Even with projects that we have been told are “necessary and proper”
functions of government, it’s impossible to definitively determine
quality of life to everyone’s satisfaction. For example, just last week a
recent letter to the editor in this paper was from a New Albany
resident who claims that the quality of life in the city will go up if
all of the city government roads were two-way instead of one-way.<br /><br />
When the questioning members of the city council continued to push
Coffey for specifics, he finally said, “You know what, figure it out.”<br /><br />
What does that mean? It can’t mean he really wants them to determine
quality of life purposes because at a subsequent meeting the issue came
up again when discussing the city’s portion of costs for a new air
conditioner for the City-County Building.<br /><br />
Coffey said that would not be a quality of life issue and in response a
council person said it is for the people who work in the building.
That’s probably true, particularly if they also get the fire department
in there to spray any woman wearing T-shirts.<br /><br />
Of course, we must remember that both sides are really just concerned
about who gets control of other people’s money. After all, those
skeptical, questioning council members who voted against the funds being
moved do not appear to object to the concept of a discretionary fund.
Yet a “discretionary” fund is as equally confusing, fluffy and fuzzy for
a city council when it comes to determining “proper” spending.<br /><br />
At some point during the discussions about this money, it was mentioned
that spending it on the upcoming city bicentennial celebration would be
a nice quality of life expenditure. What do you think? Does government
spending on items like bicentennial celebrations really improve anyone’s
quality of life or is it just a local example of bread and circuses
meant to appease and deflect from the reality that these people are
bickering over spending money that no one gave them voluntarily?<br /><br />
<em>— Southern Indiana resident Debbie Harbeson knows that if her
T-shirt ever gets wet, it would probably not enhance anyone’s quality of
life.</em>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-91741154160069497002012-09-08T20:28:00.000-04:002012-09-08T20:28:20.649-04:00The Smell of Wealth Redistribution<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x1636938534/HARBESON-In-federal-money-we-trust" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: In federal money we trust</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
> SOUTHERN INDIANA —
People who are concerned about government spending usually point out
problems such as cost overruns and waste in a given government project.
However, it’s also important to pay attention to the “add-ons,” which
are what I call side projects that increase spending and go beyond the
scope of the original government plan.<br /><br />
The city of Jeffersonville just gave an excellent example of how these
“add-ons” work. Mayor Mike Moore proudly announced that the city will be
receiving a $250,000 Main Street Revitalization Grant which will be
used to pay for costs associated with redeveloping a block of roadway
next to the proposed Big Four Station, which in itself is an “add-on” to
the original Big Four pedestrian bridge plan.<br /><br />
Big Four Station, the park Jeffersonville wants to build at the end of
the bridge ramp, is supposed to be funded with TIF funding, which would
come from city taxpayers. However, the second “add-on” to redevelop the
roadway will be using money coerced from people all across the nation.<br /><br />
Many people don’t realize that Main Street Revitalization Grants
actually come from the federal government because there is another layer
of government at the state level that is in charge of redistributing
the funding. In Indiana, this layer of government bureaucracy is called
the <a href="http://www.in.gov/ocra/2583.htm" target="_blank">Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs</a> (which I always
thought had something to do with marital infidelity).<br /><br />
This state bureaucracy distributes Community Development Block Grant
money, which is a part of the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a
program that was passed under a Republican administration in the
supposedly great bipartisan days gone by.<br /><br />
If you read up on the Main Street Revitalization Program, you will see
that the eligible national objective of this federal government welfare
program is the “prevention and elimination of slums and blight.”<br /><br />
I don’t know how these government redistribution schemes work, but
Jeffersonville tried to get at this money before and was turned down.<br /><br />
I also don’t know how bureaucrats make decisions in how they will dole
out money to the supposedly needy communities but if eliminating blight
is a primary objective I guess it couldn’t have hurt the second time
around that several homes in the area which had been purchased by the
city have been left sitting there, boarded up and unoccupied, which of
course led to various problems that could certainly cause the area to be
defined as blighted.<br /><br />
The main reason city officials want to develop this block is so they
can push pedestrians and pedal pumpers to their downtown shopping
district. I’m not sure why a sign or two purchased by the businesses who
would like to market to those people couldn’t suffice to direct
potential shoppers a block or two away from where they roll down the
ramp.<br /><br />
Will there really be the influx of consumers just panting and sweating
in anticipation of what they can purchase in Jeffersonville? Most people
who cross are likely just interested in finding their way to the river,
where they can continue to walk or bike along the water. The
river-crossers won’t even necessarily be needing any refreshments
because the Waterfront Development Corp. plans to sell licenses to
vendors, giving them special “permission” to sell stuff very close or
perhaps even right on the bridge itself.<br /><br />
One other point that is often lost when communities celebrate being
“awarded” these types of grants is the part they play in increasing the
ongoing costs of maintenance and security of more and more government
property.<br /><br />
Oh but maybe that doesn’t matter — if the costs get to be too much and
the community gets run down and blighted, the federal government will
probably just give them even more money to revitalize the area.<br /><br />
<em>— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson wonders if there is a
federal program that pays for revitalization cream to eliminate the
blight of aging skin. </em>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-26349020893763055712012-09-01T12:06:00.000-04:002012-09-01T12:06:42.185-04:00Indiana State Police Marijuana Eradication Team<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x1494190987/HARBESON-Weed-it-and-weep" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: Weed it and weep</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
<div class="story_meta">
<span class="author vcard">
<span class="story_credit fn"></span></span><span class="source-org vcard story_source">
</span>
</div>
JEFFERSONVILLE —
The Indiana State Police has a very special team of people performing
very special work this time of year. Dressed in camouflage, these
government employees get paid to traipse around Southern Indiana
counties and pull weeds out of the ground.<br />
<br />
The ISP’s <a href="http://newsandtribune.com/business/x1685973251/Reefer-roundup-ISP-collects-marijuana-plants-from-farm-land-wild-areas-More-than-100-illegal-plants-were-seized-by-troopers-Tuesday" target="_blank">Marijuana Eradication Team wants you to believe this is important work</a>. Somehow every pot plant they manage to successfully
creep up on and wrestle to the ground makes your community safer. See,
it’s these green leafy stalks that put communities in danger of
violence, not the black market created by the government’s prohibition
on voluntary trade of this particular agricultural product.<br />
<br />
The weeds these guys get paid to hunt down are usually hidden inside
corn fields, which is so ironic considering how important corn was as an
ingredient in illegal products distilled during alcohol prohibition.
Yet now it’s perfectly fine if these fellows, thirsty from a hard day’s
work among the vegetation, decide to go out after work, probably around
4:20 or so, and throw down a few shots of corn-based whiskey, toasting
themselves for eradicating a couple of marijuana plants.<br />
<br />
There is a double irony to the prohibited pot plant being hidden inside
corn fields. Corn has grown tall in the market due in part to lots of
government favor over the years and the subsidized plant has been used
to make a product known as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). HFCS is used
in loads of processed foods, which has enabled sugar addicts to obtain a
cheap high, which has helped cause an increase in obesity, which can
lead to many assorted health problems and even early death.<br />
<br />
But hey, marijuana, that’s the bad stuff.<br />
<br />
Oh and meanwhile, as this group of government employees is running
around ripping roots, we find out that inmates inside several of
Indiana’s prisons have been <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g5HnV02Op_XPpqnKadFplvJMH_FQ?docId=da9c565cb94d4d43a19a12ef69e205a6" target="_blank">successfully operating a flourishing drug business</a> while sitting in the government cages.<br />
<br />
So while you are constantly being fed the baloney by one group of
government agents that the government’s drug war is actually a positive
action, other government agents are failing to control the drug trade
even when they catch people, lock them up and force you to pay to house,
clothe and feed them.<br />
<br />
The only validity to pulling weeds that even comes close to actually
looking like it could involve defending against aggression is the
illegitimate use of a farmer’s land without his permission, which means
the land owner’s property rights are being violated.<br />
<br />
That thought doesn’t really take one very far though because the main
reason the marijuana plant growers invade the farmers’ property in the
first place is because of the government prohibition. So we’re back
where we started — just like the Marijuana Eradication Team is back
where it started when a new growing season rolls around.<br />
<br />
Growing plants on other people’s property without their permission is
not a big problem otherwise as far as I know. I don’t really hear
stories about people clearing out parts of someone else’s corn field to
grow a stash of tomatoes. We might if the government suddenly decided to
prohibit tomatoes though wouldn’t we?<br />
<br />
I don’t know what’s worse, paying these guys to weed someone’s garden
or hearing them pontificate about their work in terms of the supposed
street value (a distorted price created by prohibition) of the plants
they confiscate and pretending that slicing a few stalks is doing much
of anything to stop the marijuana drug trade.<br />
<br />
There is good news though. Despite the fact that the people who make
money off of prohibition keep trying, fewer and fewer people are willing
to inhale the government propaganda that groups like the Marijuana
Eradication Team use to justify their jobs.<br />
<br />
<i>— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson is thinking about forming a
Government Eradication Team. </i>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-57646145596971787262012-08-28T08:32:00.001-04:002012-08-28T08:32:28.852-04:00A Few Thoughtful Responses<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x257415347/Harbeson-Tales-from-the-mailbag" rel="bookmark">Harbeson: Tales from the mailbag</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
<div class="story_meta">
<span class="author vcard">
</span>
<span class="source-org vcard story_source">
</span>
</div>
> SOUTHERN INDIANA —
Today, I would like to share and respond to a few thoughtful responses
I’ve received in the past few months. The following is from Tammy,
responding to a column I wrote in May about vouchers where I pointed out
that true educational freedom cannot occur as long as government is
involved:<br /><br />
“What you wrote makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, you might as
well hear from someone who has a child using a school voucher. My
daughter went to a local school in New Albany. The principal was distant
and not very communicative whenever we came to the school to talk with
her about our daughter. Our daughter has no learning disability. She’s
shy, though, and tends to be overlooked. She’s one who falls through the
cracks. And the principal would not listen to us and help out.<br /><br />
“We decided to get her out of the situation and applied for a voucher.
Now our daughter is going to a Catholic school in New Albany. There, she
is getting all kinds of attention and she finally thinks that school is
enjoyable. She’s begun to improve her reading skills by leaps and
bounds and she wasn’t afraid to take her ISTEP this year (unlike last
year when she wanted to play hooky).”<br /><br />
“Vouchers really do help the kids. They help families help their own
kids. They’re actually a good idea and I applaud Tony Bennett and any
and every legislator and the governor who has supported them. In fact, I
cannot thank them enough.”<br /><br />
• Tammy’s story shows us that some families’ lives can be dramatically
changed and I personally know other families who have benefited from
various school reforms. It’s only fair to acknowledge these heartwarming
stories. However, any benefits that accrue to some people do not
justify the continued use of threats and force against other people.<br /><br />
<strong>TAX TALK</strong><br /><br />
The next item is a response from Joyce reacting to my claim that property taxes are rent.<br /><br />
“Debbie, by framing property tax as another government encroachment,
you are creating a problem where there is none. Property tax, or
whatever you call it, spreads the cost of important local public
services: police, fire, schools, libraries, water, sewers, animal
control, parks maintenance, road repair and trash pickup to name just a
few.<br /><br />
“From this perspective, aren’t those of us who are lucky enough to own
property doing our part to take care of our communities? Would you have
every person pay a separate ‘user fee’ for each public service? And how
would that play out each time you receive the service, for example
response to a fire or break-in?”<br /><br />
• I was glad to see Joyce asking important questions about how to
provide services without government. For a long time now, many people
have been working to answer such questions and if you want to
investigate those ideas for yourself, one of the best places to start is <a href="http://mises.org/">mises.org</a>, an online site full of free books, articles, audio and
video.<br />
<br />
<strong>MY DOMAIN</strong><br /><br />
Next, I want to thank Kurt Fetz for responding to my request and
actually reading the court opinion for himself concerning the Linden
Meadows property ownership controversy. Here’s Kurt’s response:<br /><br />
“Debbie, after reading the opinion it is clear, at least to me, that
your interpretation is the correct one regarding the disposition of the
Linden Meadows case regarding eminent domain.<br /><br />
“Where I would disagree is that this case will not serve as precedent
so much as it relies upon it. Eminent domain is firmly established in
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and is an essential, if
unfortunate (especially when it’s your property that gets condemned),
power for the proper functioning of the states. At least the takings
clause and just compensation provide for recourse …<br /><br />
“It looks like eminent domain goes back farther than the constitution
actually and derives from common law. However, prior to the Fifth
Amendment it could be exercised without compensation. The Fifth
acknowledges its crucial function, while guaranteeing just compensation.
Anyhow, the point is that there is a long history for this power and it
would be difficult to argue that it does not serve an important
function. How would you suggest interstates, railroads, sidewalks, etc.
get built without it?”<br /><br />
• Kurt also asks an important question and once again I’ll recommend
<a href="http://mises.org/">mises.org</a> for anyone interested in learning more about peaceful
voluntary alternatives to the coercive state.<br /><br />
<strong>MORE PROBLEMS</strong><br /><br />
Finally, I have been meaning to respond to those who complain about my
consistent focus on the problems of government, but then I saw this
concise response by Jim Wetzel that said it all for me:<br /><br />
“I’m sure, that I can’t say with certainty what Debbie H. might do
under any hypothetical set of circumstances. I’ll venture to guess,
though, that she’ll write about things other than government when
government gets out of the robbery-and-tyranny business.<br /><br />
“I’m not holding my breath while waiting for that to happen, though. Blue’s just not my color.”<br /><br /> <i>— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson happens to like the color blue
but, like Jim, she’s not holding her breath either. </i>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-89060757379495477832012-08-18T17:23:00.000-04:002012-08-18T17:23:01.629-04:00Indiana IOLTA Funds Boosted By New Law<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x257406805/HARBESON-Public-money-for-free-work" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: Public money for ‘free’ work</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
CLARK COUNTY —
Republican State Sen. Ron Grooms is getting so good at writing laws to
force his neighbors to hand over money to others that <a href="http://www.inbf.org/_2012_fellows_dinner__annual_meeting" target="_blank">he’s now collecting awards</a> from the groups who benefit.<br /><br />
Grooms received the President’s Award from the Indiana Bar Foundation
for his help in authoring a bill which led to the new pro bono legal
services fee that now must be paid by those filing civil cases in
Indiana. The fee will go directly to this private foundation and is
supposed to be used to help pay for legal services for the needy.<br /><br />
Helping people gain access to legal services can certainly be
considered a good cause to support but is it any more important than the
hundreds of other causes and needs that exist? Why should Grooms and
his buddies single out one charitable fund over all the others who are
also struggling in the current economy?<br /><br />
One reason may be that the bill’s other author, Republican Sen. Brent
Steele, just happens to be a lawyer and just happens to think the work
of this particular charity is important. Steele wanted to do something
to help the struggling pro bono fund and said, <a href="http://www.theindianalawyer.com/bill-would-increase-funds-for-pro-bono-districts/PARAMS/article/27940" target="_blank">“This is the only thing I could think of.”</a><br /><br />
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that the only idea a politician might
have is to create a new law to force people to fund his pet cause in
the amount of $450,000 per year instead of going out and seeking
voluntary donations.<br /><br />
Perhaps the reason his brain blanked out has something to do with the
history of funding Indiana’s pro bono districts. The districts are
primarily funded by the <a href="http://www.inbf.org/iolta_program" target="_blank">Interest on Lawyer’s Trust Account program (IOLTA)</a>, which comes from pooling trust accounts held by lawyers on
behalf of clients which are either too small or too short term to be set
up to earn interest for the client.<br /><br />
The interest earned from the pooled accounts is paid to the Indiana Bar
Foundation and is supposed to be used “primarily” to support pro bono
civil legal services. This idea of pooling trust accounts and giving the
interest to groups who provide legal aid was controversial nationally
from the start because these trust funds are private property of the
clients.<br /><br />
When objections were raised about the setup, the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1325.ZO.html" target="_blank">U.S. Supreme Court</a>
agreed that these programs do amount to the taking of private property,
but hey, it’s OK because the interest is used in a manner that they
considered to be the “common good.”<br /><br />
Yet many other charities and foundations do work that is in the “common
good.” There is only one reason I can see that explains how this
particular charity is deemed more worthy than others — it involves the
lawyers and the courts. In other words, lawyers and courts told other
lawyers and courts that what they were doing was OK because there are
direct benefits to lawyers and courts.<br /><br />
The court also said no compensation was due to those whose property is
taken since the accounts, held individually, would not earn interest
anyway. (Of course if compensation was due, then that would defeat the
entire purpose of what the lawyers and government courts wanted to
achieve by taking other people’s property.)<br /><br />
This scheme of skimming interest off the pooled private property
accounts of other people worked well for awhile — until the economy
tanked and decreased earnings of the IOLTA fund, which is what led to
the <a href="http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/HE/HE1049.1.html" target="_blank">new legislation</a> instituting the pro-bono filing fee.<br /><br />
This is not just about instituting yet another government fee either.
Like all government actions do, this legislation also costs taxpayers in
general. The state has already incurred the costs of pushing this bill
through the legislative process and now there will be the continual
costs of collecting and processing the fee.<br /><br />
In addition, the funds spent are supposed to be audited by the State
Board of Accounts. Yes, that’s the same entity that has been so busy
here in Southern Indiana finding mistake after mistake in almost every
single local government’s spending.<br /><br />
Now the award-winning Grooms just gave the SBA more spending to audit,
all because he decided this specific cause demanded the use of
government force. Thank Ron for increasing government bureaucracy and
costs the next time you see him.<br /><br />
By the way, all of the local legislators in Floyd and Clark counties
voted in support of this new fee. State Rep. Steve Stemler even
sponsored the bill for the House. I don’t know if he received an award
though. If not, he should probably ask Grooms for advice.<br /><br />
One of the worst aspects about this type of legislation is that the
politicians and people who run the private entities present themselves
as the charitable ones. They send out press releases and grab all the
glory as if they did something really virtuous. But all they did was
collaborate to use the force of government to get what they want, rather
than respectfully asking people to voluntarily donate to their cause.<br /><br />
If people were asked to pitch in a dollar to the fund, many would do
so. If the property owners of the trust accounts were asked to consent
to the pooling of their money to help pro bono districts, many of them
would have given consent as well. No one asked though.<br /><br />
Politicians just went straight to the force and now here we are, with
yet another new law and all the associated new burdens that are always
attached.<br /><br />
<em>— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson would be happy to preside
over any award ceremony for a politician, provided the token is a pin of
some sort. </em>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-48041612663089276202012-08-11T14:40:00.000-04:002012-08-11T14:40:12.568-04:00Government School Clothing Control<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x328574258/HARBESON-School-clothing-choices-should-be-optional" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: School clothing choices should be optional</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
<div class="story_meta">
<span class="author vcard">
<span class="story_credit fn"></span></span><span class="source-org vcard story_source"><a href="http://newsandtribune.com/" style="color: black;"></a>
</span>
</div>
> SOUTHERN INDIANA —
Clothing is a good example of a topic where there is a wide variety of
opinions on what’s “proper” in certain situations and what’s not.
Individuals can and will draw the line at very different levels.<br /><br />
Clothing choices are not normally a huge issue though, and even in
public areas most of us are willing to leave each other alone even when
we may not agree with another person’s choice of clothing.<br /><br />
However there is one place where this is not necessarily true: government schools.<br /><br />
At first glance the conflicts over clothing and calls for dress codes
or uniforms make little sense. The students are not wearing anything
that they can’t wear in society at large so where is the justification
for the government to have any involvement in the clothing a family
chooses to buy for school?<br /><br />
From an individual standpoint, we all know that clothing choices are
quite irrelevant when it comes to learning. After all, uniforms or dress
codes are not needed for a toddler to learn to walk, people can read
just fine in their pajamas and this column is proof that writing can be
done wearing only underwear.<br /><br />
So when students’ clothing is deemed “improper” by some, the reason
most often used to justify interfering in their clothing choices is
because it can be a distraction to other students. In other words —
unless the school simply has administrators who merely want to
demonstrate their power — controlling clothing in schools is not so much
about the person wearing the clothes as it is about the other students
who may be distracted.<br /><br />
I can understand this concern. It’s very easy to become distracted in
these institutions that do not allow for individual interests.
Government regulations are already standardizing the most important part
of an individual — his mind — so they might as well standardize
clothing too, right?<br /><br />
I believe that the answer to this problem is the same as most other
conflicts that result from compulsion in education. All that needs to be
done is to make both attendance and funding voluntary.<br /><br />
However, I know not enough people are ready to accept that answer,
which means this problem will continue as long as the compulsory
institution exists. So I’ve decided to search for an idea that might at
least help lessen the conflict over government school clothing control.<br /><br />
Though nothing can be perfect, I would like to offer what I consider to
be the best way to handle the problem — all government schools should
adopt the burqa as the official school uniform, for both male and female
students.<br /><br />
Now, hold on. Don’t get your sexy, revealing panties in a wad until you
hear me out. Here’s just a partial list of reasons why burqas are the
perfect clothing for government school uniforms.<br /><br />
• First of all, students can continue to wear whatever they want to
school. They only need to pull on the burqas while on the government
property.<br /><br />
• Burqas are as close as you can get to removing all the distractions
of the human body, as well as distractions of slogans and images on
unapproved clothing.<br /><br />
• Burqas not only hide distracting breasts, butts and beautiful faces,
they also reduce teasing by hiding less desired differences like weight
or acne.<br /><br />
• Since burqas can be worn over clothing, they don’t need to be washed
very often and schools can easily keep a few extras on hand to use for
students who show up without the approved uniform.<br /><br />
• Income, gender and racial disparities disappear under a burqa. In a burqa, everyone is equal.<br /><br />
Since the forced association that occurs in the government schools can
easily create a clash of values among those compelled to attend, it’s
clear that burqas are the best solution to the inevitable conflicts that
arise concerning “proper” clothing.<br /><br />
<em>— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson learns best when wearing only underwear. </em>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-39705322236323155922012-08-07T10:05:00.002-04:002012-08-07T10:06:50.156-04:00Updates on Three Items<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x328560953/HARBESON-These-things-come-in-threes" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: These things come in threes</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
> SOUTHERN INDIANA —
I have three items to discuss today. The first two are follow-ups to
recent columns and the third item is about the Greater Clark County
Schools hoping that lots of people in the area will take their eyes off
the road while driving.<br />
<br />
<b>Linden Meadows</b><br />
<br />
In response to last week’s column <a href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x1236707090/HARBESON-The-sad-tale-of-Linden-Meadows" target="_blank">“The sad tale of Linden Meadows,”</a> a
reader who calls him or herself “M” sent in two replies to the
newspaper’s comment section on their website. You can go to
newsandtribune.com to <a href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x1236707090/HARBESON-The-sad-tale-of-Linden-Meadows" target="_blank">read the full text of M’s comments</a>, but there is
one specific point I’d like to address here concerning the lawsuit over
ownership of the land used for the project. M said, “The court’s 3-0
majority did not base its decision on anything having to do with eminent
domain.”<br />
<br />
After I saw M’s reply, I felt like I should read the opinion again. I
didn’t want to though. I had already read the darn thing several times
before writing the column. I was sick of reading it. But I grabbed a
bucket and read it again anyway. I still stand by my contention that
eminent domain played a part in the court’s decision.<br />
<br />
But don’t take my word for it. Don’t take M’s word for it either. Read
the opinion yourself at this link: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/linden-opinion">http://tinyurl.com/linden-opinion</a><br />
<br />
If you do, I would be very interested in hearing whether or not you
think the court “did not base its decision on anything having to do with
eminent domain,” as M claims.<br />
<br />
<b>Mayor Moore and Competition with Private Business</b><br />
<br />
My column, <a href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x1447691197/HARBESON-Fit-to-be-tied" target="_blank">“Fit to be tied,” </a>about Jeffersonville Mayor Mike Moore
introducing a new government funded program (Anchors A-Weigh) through
his newly created Fitness Council sure caused some people to burn a lot
of calories pounding on their computer keyboards.<br />
<br />
Several commented on the newspaper’s website, but there was also <a href="http://clarkcountychatter.com/index.php?/topic/4470-nt-opinion-harbeson-fit-to-be-tied/" target="_blank">a rather lengthy discussion</a> on one of the local online community forums,
ClarkCountyChatter.com. A few forum participants did not understand that
the column was not specifically about Anchors A-Weigh. It was merely an
example I used to discuss the actions of a local politician.<br />
<br />
The reason I chose Anchor’s A-weigh was because Moore had publicly
stated his concern about government competing with private business and
then spent government money to fund a brand new program that does the
exact opposite of the principle he claims to hold.<br />
<br />
The direction is clear for any politician who truly does stand for the
principle that government should not compete with private businesses: Do
not spend government funds to create new programs that contain services
already being offered by existing private businesses.<br />
<br />
<b>Greater Clark County Schools Billboard Advertisement</b><br />
<br />
The final issue for today is about the Greater Clark County School
board’s decision to spend $2,000 for a billboard promoting their
government school system.<br />
<br />
Lots of thoughts popped into my head after reading this, some I can
even talk about in public. Here’s my first thought (and it came up when I
saw New Albany-Floyd County’s billboard as well): “Are there really
people out there, people capable of driving down the local interstates
while reading billboards, who really might not know — until they see a
large shiny advertisement — that these government-funded and
government-operated school systems exist?”<br />
<br />
Greater Clark’s board and school officials sounded like they were
unsure whether this was a good move or not and this tentative attitude
is certainly understandable. After all, they’ve held a monopoly on
government funding for so long, I’m sure it’s a real chore to figure out
what to do now that some rules of the education game in Indiana have
changed to allow more schools to grab money that’s been coerced from
taxpayers for education.<br />
<br />
<i>— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson keeps a bucket handy
because she never knows when she may have to read a government document.
Write her at Debbie@debbieharbeson.com.</i>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-46925872969682609442012-07-31T19:48:00.001-04:002012-07-31T19:48:46.934-04:00Housing Disaster in New Albany Indiana<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x1236707090/HARBESON-The-sad-tale-of-Linden-Meadows" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: The sad tale of Linden Meadows</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
> SOUTHERN INDIANA —
Linden Meadows. Just the mention of this failed attempt to provide
low-to-moderate-income housing in New Albany is enough to make people
scream and pull at their hair.<br /><br />
The project is now a complicated, tangled mess of private and
government entities, and what may be most troubling is the part the
federal government has played in the fiasco.<br /><br />
Let’s begin with the soon-to-be-defunct New Albany-Floyd County
Community Housing Development Organization. Although set up as private
nonprofits, Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) exist to
take advantage of special federal funds (HOME Investment Partnership
Program) offered through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. The government, perhaps learning from past mismanagement,
did create various restrictions on HOME funds such as requiring a 25
cent nonfederal donation for every federal dollar received.<br /><br />
It’s clear that this setup is part of the reason people in New Albany
thought it would be a good idea to donate an entire neighborhood of old
homes that were displaced due to hospital expansion to CHDO. We don’t
know what decisions may have been made concerning these houses
otherwise, but we do know now that — although this setup was meant to
provide more taxpayer fund accountability — what this federal program
did for New Albany was provide an incentive that created a perfect storm
which has been nothing but disaster for the city.<br /><br />
Once CHDO had the houses, they needed somewhere new to locate them. The
land they ended up acquiring from the city for $1, a park area, set the
scene for more trouble.<br /><br />
After CHDO bulldozed the area, a suit was filed because this property
was originally donated to the city in 1935, specifically to be used as a
park. (Not sure what government tax policy was at that time, but could
this decision also have been guided by government incentives?) The
owner, Catherine Fawcett added a clause that said the title would revert
to her heirs if the land use changed.<br /><br />
If the situation remained as it was in 1935, a settlement of the issue
would have likely been fairly easy, but that’s not what happened. Ms.
Fawcett correctly suspected government mischief might occur, but I bet
she had no idea that it would be the federal government who would
literally drive right over her deed by way of the interstate highway
system.<br /><br />
When the state came to build Interstate 64, they decided they needed to
take the park land and one of Fawcett’s heirs was paid $1,600,
apparently as compensation for her reversionary interest in the land. I
think. More on that in a minute.<br /><br />
To complicate the matter even further, the highway didn’t use much of
this land at all. The unused portion remained in the state’s hands and
continued to serve as a park, even to the point of spending additional
money to add a ball diamond.<br /><br />
The neighbors and heirs who filed suit against CHDO based their
objection on the reversionary clause that the property be used as a park
but the local court ruled that the heirs had no interest in the
property because of the compensation accepted at the time the land was
taken. This did not satisfy the plaintiffs, particularly since the 1960
deed included the same reversionary clause. No one can figure that out.
Even the appeals court says that’s confusing!<br /><br />
However, in the end, the <a href="http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06150702nhv.pdf" target="_blank">appeals court decided </a>the deed details were
not relevant: “We base our decision on Dible (Dible v. City of
Lafayette) and the principle that a reversionary clause cannot be
enforced against an entity with the power of eminent domain.” They added
that doing so would defeat the purpose of eminent domain. One can
expect to be compensated as any other person with interest in a
property, but that’s it.<br /><br />
They were very worried about maintaining eminent domain power: “If the
reversionary clause would have been enforced against the state, it would
have been unable to build I-64 as planned.” The court was much more
concerned about the 1960 action than Linden Meadows not only because
they needed to back up all the eminent domain actions that have taken
place since then, but also to maintain the power for the future.<br /><br />
In other words, the court, and I’m paraphrasing here, said “Holy Cow
Batman! We can’t allow this to go through! If we did then that means
individuals can avoid having their property taken by government! People
would start putting restrictions on land so they could actually own it!
We can’t have that! Let’s enforce this stuff for private battles but by
golly we need to give the government a special exemption!”<br /><br />
As you can see, we have at least two nasty results of this project —
the Linden Meadows deal created another legal precedent which further
bolsters the powers of eminent domain and, after seven years of various
entities spending money on the project, the homes are apparently going
to be razed anyway.<br /><br />
What is the best outcome to hope for concerning Linden Meadows now? I don’t know — maybe create a nice little park?<br /><br />
<em>— Southern Indiana resident Debbie Harbeson has been pulling at her
hair ever since she started really looking into government actions. </em>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-1837199707832664882012-07-22T20:29:00.000-04:002012-07-22T20:29:13.551-04:00Jeffersonville Government Competing with Private Business?<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x1447691197/HARBESON-Fit-to-be-tied" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: Fit to be tied</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
<div class="story_meta">
<span class="author vcard">
<span class="story_credit fn"></span></span><span class="source-org vcard story_source">
</span>
</div>
> SOUTHERN INDIANA —
Shortly after taking office, Jeffersonville Mayor Mike Moore announced
that he would not pursue renovations on the big blue barge, which was
purchased under the previous administration and intended to replace the
current RiverStage entertainment barge. Since this new barge included a
banquet/reception hall, one reason Moore gave for drowning the idea was
that he doesn’t want the city competing with private businesses.<br /><br />
That’s a great principle to hold and although there are many ways the
city of Jeffersonville currently competes with private businesses, Moore
at least took a first step by not adding another one. Upholding this
principle didn’t last long though. Moore has already directly
contradicted himself and created a brand new government program that has
the city competing with private businesses — coincidentally using the
RiverStage barge.<br /><br />
Here’s how it happened. One of the personal causes Moore wants to push
as mayor is health and fitness so he created a Mayor’s Fitness Council
and appointed people to work on ideas to promote fitness in the
community. (Let’s hope these are walking meetings and members are not
sitting on their butts in a conference room.)<br /><br />
One result of these meetings is the <a href="http://www.anchorsaweighfitness.com/index.html" target="_blank">Anchors A-Weigh program</a>. This
program, which has cost $19,000 — appropriated by the city council — so
far and even has its own dedicated website, uses the RiverStage to hold
“free” fitness classes, two of which are Jazzercise and Zumba. Guess who
gets paid to teach the classes. That’s right, members of the same
government council that created the government program — who just happen
to be Zumba and Jazzercise instructors.<br /><br />
There are several questionable aspects here, but let’s focus on Moore’s
previously stated principle that he doesn’t want the city competing
with private businesses. Teaching various fitness classes is actually
one of the few areas left that does not have huge barriers to entry due
to government regulation. It’s a good choice for those who have a
passion for fitness and want to be more independent and start their own
business.<br /><br />
Many people work very hard in this field trying to build and grow a
customer base that will enable them to make a profit. They stay busy
trying to find prospective clients who are seeking effective methods to
help them keep healthy and fit. So when Jeffersonville offers “free”
fitness classes nearly every day of the week, the city is directly
competing with those hard-working small business owners.<br /><br />
In addition, getting one’s name out there and developing a reputation
as an expert is important in the fitness business, which means the
members on the Mayor’s Fitness Council who are now employed by the
government to teach these classes are getting an additional marketing
benefit. While they are being paid, not only to teach but to market
themselves, their competitors are out there marketing themselves on
their own dimes.<br /><br />
Owners of fitness businesses understand that they need to find ways to
attract clients and persuade them to use their services and they use
various techniques to accomplish this goal such as giving free or
introductory priced sessions to new students. Moore’s government program
interferes with this process and creates competition with private
fitness-based businesses, in direct contradiction to his stated
principles.<br /><br />
If the mayor and his friends are so passionate and interested in
promoting fitness to others, there are loads of ways they can do so
without creating city programs that compete with private businesses. The
instructors on the council can volunteer their time and host truly free
sessions to introduce people to various forms of exercise. Mayor Moore
could set up group sessions outside his government office focusing on
squat exercises and call it “Quads on the Quadrangle.”<br /><br />
If they worked to promote their cause using purely voluntary means,
then no government spending is necessary and private businesses will not
be forced to compete with city government. Which is what the mayor
wants, right?<br /><br />
<em>— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson exercises hard in the
summer sweating over lots of push-ups — the orange kind that is. </em>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-56591580451989598492012-07-14T16:56:00.001-04:002012-07-14T16:56:22.355-04:00Handling Racism in Government Police Departments<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x333934320/HARBESON-What-s-the-problem" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: What’s the problem?</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
> SOUTHERN INDIANA —
Now that the Indiana Supreme Court has denied a request for appeal, the
City of New Albany may finally have closure on the controversy
surrounding the allegedly racist comments made by police officer Jack
Messer. So like Barney Fife did when Andy took his single bullet away, I
guess Messer will have to accept his 30-day suspension.<br /><br />
I don’t blame Messer at all for trying to get his suspension reversed
based on his constitutional right to free speech. As a government
employee, he has the ability to file such a suit. (<a href="http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03161201msm.pdf" target="_blank">Click here </a>for a pdf of the Indiana Court of Appeals Opinion.) However, this would be
a completely different story if he worked in the private voluntary
market. As a matter of fact, it may not have even been a “story” at all.<br /><br />
If Messer was an employee of a private security firm, a situation like
this would likely have been handled much differently. For example, if,
after a “roll call” meeting of security officers, several employees
gathered together and Messer made statements that seemed to be racist,
it’s doubtful that a co-worker would run off to outside groups or the
media.<br /><br />
If he was concerned enough to act, he would likely approach his
employer. There’s no guarantee the private employer would do exactly
what the complaining co-worker wants but an employer certainly has an
incentive to do his best to handle the situation in a manner that will
protect the business’ reputation.<br /><br />
Messer does not work for a private firm though. He works for an
organization which claims monopoly control over a geographical area. In
addition, Messer and his co-workers enforce not just the laws that
follow natural logic and have real victims — they also enforce illogical
and inconsistent laws that are determined by political whim and
personal preference.<br /><br />
This creates an imbalance of power in relationship to other individuals
who don’t have the shiny badges and since the “customers” do not
voluntarily pay for the government enforcement, the potential for abuse
and corruption exists.<br /><br />
Certainly everyone wants to believe that all police officers are
consistently virtuous men and women, yet intellectually we know that’s
impossible. We have to admit that this imbalance of power is just as
likely, if not more so, to draw in people who are the exact opposite. So
it makes sense to have policies that hold police officers to an
extremely high standard of behavior and whether deserved or not, Messer
got caught up in it.<br /><br />
It’s entirely possible that “getting caught up in it” is exactly what
happened. Messer has claimed from the start that he was misunderstood
and that his point, even if horribly verbalized as Messer himself
admits, was really supposed to be about how government policies may have
harmed black people more than they helped.<br /><br />
Who really knows if he’s just desperately backtracking, but there is no
reason to think he meant otherwise. After all, during the entire time
this issue has been in the news, no evidence has been brought forth to
show that, in his 27 years of being an officer, he has ever mistreated a
person of color while performing his job.<br /><br />
If Messer’s comments were questionable, the reaction by the local NAACP
was questionable as well because back when this all started,
representatives of this organization <a href="http://newsandtribune.com/floydcounty/x563628581/NAACP-wants-Messer-suspended-without-pay" target="_blank">behaved as if they knew this man’s exact intent as well as his beliefs</a> and, without even being present to
hear the conversation in context, were somehow still able to judge him
guilty of racist attitudes.<br /><br />
That’s just wrong. The NAACP representatives were doing the same thing —
assuming ill intent without clear evidence — that they accuse police of
doing when they pull people over for “driving while black.”<br /><br />
Messer says he would apologize to the person at the roll call who was
apparently offended by his comments if he knew who it was. I do find it
odd that this individual did not confront Messer directly at the time
this all occurred. After all, the police are supposedly trained in
conflict resolution so shouldn’t we expect that they would be capable of
using their training to actually resolve their own personal conflicts?<br /><br />
<em>Southern Indiana resident Debbie Harbeson never has a problem
resolving conflicts with her husband. If you want to know how she does
it, you can write to her at Debbie@debbieharbeson.com</em>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-83853382782531380352012-07-08T17:08:00.001-04:002012-07-08T17:08:49.129-04:00All You Need to Know about the Constitution<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x546497970/HARBESON-Two-issues-put-simply" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: Two issues, put simply</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
> SOUTHERN INDIANA —
Today I want to comment on two major news items from last week. Let’s start with the one that caused the most fireworks.<br />
<br />
You can probably guess which story I’m talking about. For months,
people have been discussing, speculating and making predictions about
it. When the papers were finally filed, social media sizzled. The story
was so hot you could literally feel the heat here in Southern Indiana.<br />
<br />
Some people were celebrating the decision. Some were angry and
disappointed. Still others, myself included, were just plain apathetic.
I’m talking of course about the breakup of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes.<br />
<br />
Holmes filed for the divorce and though I don’t really know for sure
what the problems are between the couple, I heard from my secret media
sources that at least one issue centered on an annoying habit of
Cruise’s.<br />
<br />
No, it’s not his propensity to jump around on couches. Yes, I’m sure
that could be a potential issue causing irreconcilable differences since
it could prematurely wear out the living room furniture, but from what
my sources tell me, the problem is not about what Cruise is doing. The
problem is focused on what he’s not doing, which is to say he’s not
putting the toilet seat down.<br />
<br />
Apparently, Holmes tried to settle this by giving Tom a mandate. She
even reportedly pasted a note on the bathroom wall reminding him that it
was “necessary and proper” to put the seat down and if he failed to do
so, he would be charged a “shared responsibility payment” because she
had to hire someone to take care of it.<br />
<br />
Wait, I think I may be getting my stories confused. Those points are
relevant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care
Act, the second story I wanted to discuss.<br />
<br />
Sorry about that. My mind’s a bit rattled after reading just a part of
the Court’s opinion. I’m still trying to process the similarities and
legal implications of using the words “shall” versus “may” in federal
government legislation.<br />
<br />
Speaking of similarities, the more I dive into these political
controversies, the more the Constitution seems to be like any other old
text that groups of people decide to worship — if you work hard enough,
you can search through these documents and find plenty of vague phrases
that will allow you to interpret them in any way that fits your needs.<br />
<br />
The proclamations and interpretations made about the Constitution may
be more dangerous than those other texts, though, because these
judgments and decisions can end up legitimizing aggression — the
initiation of force — upon others.<br />
<br />
Once the aggression begins, everyone is stuck trying to deal with the
damage. Previous government interventions have created a lot of damage
to the health care market and this is one reason why all three branches
of our so-called limited government have been spending so much time on
this particular issue.<br />
<br />
We know there’s a problem because all the concern is focused on
insurance rather than health care. Due to the effects and consequences
of long-term government involvement that have increased regulations and
costs, we now have a system so messed up that no one can imagine being
able to provide and access health care without piling on even more
government involvement.<br />
<br />
Even those who support this law should be able to see that something is
very wrong when you find yourself gleefully cheering the fact that
people may now be forced to hand over money to either big corporations
or big government.<br />
<br />
In hindsight, I realize I could have prevented myself from getting so
confused if I had just stopped reading the Supreme Court opinion at page
five, where Justice Roberts said: “Put simply, Congress may tax and
spend.”<br />
<br />
To understand our current situation, that’s really all anyone needs to know about the Constitution.<br />
<br />
<i>— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson is slowly coming out of her
Constitution-induced confusion. </i>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-71543917266959167202012-07-01T17:56:00.001-04:002012-07-01T17:57:25.446-04:00Consequences do not disappear when governments interfere<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x1395102202/HARBESON-Laws-create-a-smoking-gun" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: Laws create a smoking gun</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
> SOUTHERN INDIANA —
Up until last week when I learned that Indiana is one of several states
that passed what’s known as “smoker’s bill of rights” legislation, I
thought it was only the nonsmokers who were willing to use government
force to get what they want. I had no idea that 20 years ago smokers did
the same thing.<br />
<br />
In 1991, Indiana <a href="http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title22/ar5/ch4.html" target="_blank">politicians passed legislation </a>that prohibits
employers from making hiring decisions based on whether or not the
prospective employee smokes and also prohibits employers from making
smokers pay for the higher costs it takes to provide health insurance
benefits.<br />
<br />
That law, as well as the statewide smoking ban that comes into play
next week, should have never been passed. Neither law would have either,
if everyone respected two very basic concepts: property ownership and
accepting responsibility for the consequences of one’s choices.<br />
<br />
I’ve always maintained that government-mandated smoking bans ignore the
concept of property ownership and the decision on whether or not to
allow smoking in a given business belongs to each individual business
owner. Patrons and other interested parties can certainly work to
persuade a business owner to take a specific action, but the ultimate
decision belongs to the owner.<br />
<br />
Like the smoking ban, the “smoker’s bill of rights” legislation also
ignores the concept of property ownership. The jobs that an individual
business owner has available are his property and he should be free to
make decisions about the requirements of a given job however he sees
fit, which would include requirements regarding smoking.<br />
<br />
The owner needs the ability to set whatever parameters he chooses for a
given job and it doesn’t matter if you, I, or politicians disagree with
his choices. None of us are the owners of the business; we are not
taking the risks involved when creating a job and hiring an individual
to perform the job.<br />
<br />
There are many factors to consider when making any business decision
and those factors can be quite different for each individual business.
This is why the decision needs to be left to each individual owner. It
may be a good choice or it may be a mistake but it’s the owner’s
decision to make, not anyone else’s. Prospective employees can either
agree to the job requirements or they can move on.<br />
<br />
Government need not be involved.<br />
<br />
It goes both ways though. The business owner should not get special
government favors or protection from any consequences or costs of
implementing their policies. The freedom to control the business and
make decisions in how to run the business includes accepting all the
risks, costs and consequences associated with those choices.<br />
<br />
Much of the problem in regards to smoking, and most other issues where
government gets involved I suppose, is a result of everyone trying to
avoid the consequences of their choices by creating laws that force
others to take on the responsibility they are unwilling to accept.<br />
<br />
The smokers who supported the “smoker’s bill of rights” wanted to avoid
any negative consequences resulting from their choice to smoke. They
wanted other people to hire them even if those business owners did not
want to hire smokers, and the smokers also wanted other people to bear
the extra costs of insuring their health.<br />
<br />
The nonsmokers who support government bans are no different in this
regard though. They also wanted to push the consequences of their
choices on to others. Instead of accepting that it was their
responsibility to stay away from establishments that allowed smoking if
they did not want to be near smoke, and/or actively working to persuade
business owners to change their policies voluntarily, they were willing
to use government to force business owners to comply with their wishes.<br />
<br />
Using government to avoid consequences does not lead to a better
society. The consequences do not disappear when politicians interfere —
all that happens is that the responsibility for the consequences is
transferred to others.<br />
<br />
So, as special interest groups battle to transfer consequences back and
forth, piling law upon law over decades, the consequence we now all
must bear is a bigger, more intrusive government — one that is not going
to suddenly stop with smoking.<br />
<br />
<i>— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson wishes she could transfer
the consequences of standing underneath that bird the other day. </i>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-43946173927056693202012-06-24T18:11:00.000-04:002012-06-24T18:11:31.759-04:00<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x1767474565/HARBESON-It-s-all-a-matter-of-opinion" rel="bookmark">HARBESON; It’s all a matter of opinion</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
The Indiana Democratic Congressional Victory Committee is running a <a href="http://youtu.be/t0Svy9ll0pI" target="_blank">TV ad</a> which includes this quote from Republican U.S. Senate candidate
Richard Mourdock: “To me, the highlight of politics, frankly, is to
inflict my opinion on someone else.”<br />
<br />
The ad’s intent is to shock you, as if what Mourdock said is extreme
and unusual. It’s not — Mourdock merely happened to state the truth out
loud, that’s all. Inflicting opinions on other people is the entire
purpose of gaining control of the government gun.<br />
<br />
Do the Democrats really not understand this?<br />
<br />
Of course Mourdock wants to inflict his opinions on others — that’s why
he wants this government job. It’s also why Democrat Joe Donnelly,
Libertarian Andrew Horning and Independent Jack Rooney would like the
job. They all agree that government force is valid, but have differing
opinions on the best way to use that force.<br />
<br />
As soon as one of these candidates gets elected, he will begin to work
hard to do what every other politician that ever existed has done:
inflict his opinions on other people. You probably don’t mind and may
even be happy, as long as you agree with the winner’s opinions.<br />
<br />
But if you disagree — if you have a different opinion, then you do mind
and this is why political groups are willing to spend a quarter of a
million dollars for a 30 second advertisement.<br />
<br />
The opinions of others don’t matter as much in our private lives. It’s
true that we can be in situations where we may have to deal with another
person’s opinion which differs from our own. For example, we might have
a different opinion than our boss in how to perform an aspect of our
job, but the difference in our daily voluntary interactions is that we
are free to end any relationship if a difference of opinion becomes a
problem.<br />
<br />
We can also look at what I do here every week. I can’t inflict my
opinion on you. I can only share it. I COULD WRITE IN ALL CAPS but this
print version of yelling still wouldn’t mean I could inflict my opinion
on you like politicians with power and control can.<br />
<br />
When someone like me shares an opinion with you outside of government,
you are in control. You get to consider the opinion and decide for
yourself if you think it has any value and if you want to take any
action regarding that opinion.<br />
<br />
This even includes political ads. Candidates and their campaign staffs
cannot inflict their opinions (unless they engage in voter fraud) — they
can only share them like everyone else does while in the private realm.
It’s only when one of the candidates wins that he gains the power and
control to potentially inflict opinions.<br />
<br />
We see this happening all around us, at every level of government.
Here’s a list of examples where opinions are inflicted on you through
politics: war and methods of fighting terrorism; entitlement programs;
where you can smoke; who you can marry; various permit and licensing
requirements; designating and protecting historic property; how many
bridges to build across a river; whether you should pay tolls and how
much the tolls should be and — what’s that?<br />
<br />
Oh you’re right, that probably was like scratching my nails on a
chalkboard. I’m sorry for inflicting so many examples on you at once. AT
LEAST I DIDN’T WRITE THE LIST IN ALL CAPS.<br />
<br />
Considering all of this evidence, the people who created this ad sure
must have a low opinion of you and me if they think we’d actually
believe that one candidate is any different than another when it comes
to the desire to inflict opinions on others.<br />
<br />
<i>— CLARK COUNTY RESIDENT DEBBIE HARBESON LIKES TO WRITE IN ALL CAPS
SO SHE CAN HEAR WHAT SHE’S THINKING. </i>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-34009232658952533682012-06-17T14:10:00.002-04:002012-06-17T14:10:40.200-04:00"Moore" Sewer Problems in Jeffersonville<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x1291706587/HARBESON-Sewer-debate-has-turned-into-a-mess" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: Sewer debate has turned into a mess</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
CLARK COUNTY —
It’s clear that Jeffersonville Mayor Mike Moore regrets signing the
ordinance that included the controversial change in how summer sewer
usage is determined. <i>(NOTE: See <a href="http://newsandtribune.com/business/x1968176545/Moore-asks-Jeffersonville-City-Council-to-keep-summer-sewer-relief-program" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://newsandtribune.com/business/x1570619858/Hostilities-boil-over-Board-rejects-Jeffersonville-mayor-s-proposal-for-sewer-relief-heated-exchange-ensues" target="_blank">here</a> for more background information.) </i>He knows he made a mistake by not vetoing an
ordinance that contained a provision he was strongly against. Now he’s
trying to find a way out but he’s working inside government, which is
like being trapped inside a well-used Port-a-Potty that’s been tipped
over with the door against the ground.<br /><br />
Moore told me that the requirement to purchase a meter for outdoor
water faucets is the only thing he objected to in the ordinance and none
of this would have happened if he could use a line-item veto. I guess
he’s learned the hard way that once an ordinance is on his desk, a veto
is the only action to take if there is a provision he disagrees with.<br /><br />
The main reason this situation caught my interest is that there are
very interesting principles being articulated as both sides debate the
issue. Moore has been clear that he believes the residents of
Jeffersonville should not pay for something they are not using.<br /><br />
I agree completely.<br /><br />
He’s not the only government official making this case. The officials
who believe that mandating a meter is the best way to determine usage
are really saying the same thing — it’s just the other side of the coin.
They want to make sure that people who are paying less during the
summer are doing so because their higher water use is indeed not going
into the sewer system.<br /><br />
So if both sides really do believe in the principle that people should
pay for what they use, why don’t they apply that concept universally and
consistently? After all, there are many things the city of
Jeffersonville forces people to pay for that they don’t use and we don’t
hear the mayor or the council trying to figure out how to fairly charge
users of those programs.<br /><br />
The real problem for many residents is that the government is telling
people they now have to purchase a product so they can make sure they
only pay for sewer service they actually used. I can understand why
people don’t want to do that. But I can also understand why it could be
helpful to use meters. If the point is to pay for usage, then meters
could certainly help by getting an actual accounting of outdoor water
usage.<br /><br />
It’s always hard to accept something like this because it means that
someone is making money off of a government mandate — one of the major
problems when governments monopolize a service.<br /><br />
This is probably why I see huge signs in Floyds Knobs that say “NO
SEWERS.” Someone up there understands that once you are on the grid, you
are stuck with government involvement and the increased control in
other areas that comes after the collectivization of poo disposal.<br /><br />
There is another reason this issue caught my interest. Now that Moore
has been unable to use the political process to keep the old sewer
relief plan in place, he said he plans to ignore the ordinance and
continue to give summer relief to people even if they don’t purchase a
meter.<br /><br />
This means Moore plans to ignore a law he believes is unjust. That’s
civil disobedience — at least when a private individual does it. I’m not
real sure what to call it when a mayor ignores a law he thinks is
unjust, particularly one that he signed in the first place.<br /><br />
Is this really civil disobedience? Or is it just another government
official who thinks he is above the law and would never support a
private individual who decided to do the same thing and ignore a law the
mayor endorsed? I can’t answer those questions, but I still like it
when anyone refuses to obey a law he believes is unjust.<br /><br />
<em>— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson has been told she should
pay higher sewer bills because she’s so full of it. </em>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5737363348560792808.post-38027616106948540542012-06-12T14:10:00.000-04:002012-06-12T14:11:20.804-04:00The Gambling Game in Indiana is Rigged<h3>
</h3>
<h4>
<a class="url entry-title" href="http://newsandtribune.com/opinion/x1318677764/HARBESON-More-than-a-simple-game" rel="bookmark">HARBESON: More than a simple game</a></h4>
<h3>
</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH45nvJCPNTntIW2CrFwv8AePGbybrk9PwToAYAB3iaCX4rvjaIO5CgIWqqdrOZVaO9M3guEEcfdWLnD3ApnTKsjQt8Vijy8NygCBpnUgcJrgGqHwPe0RLkiUcFxXHmjP-XpN-m2bae_g/s1600/dice.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH45nvJCPNTntIW2CrFwv8AePGbybrk9PwToAYAB3iaCX4rvjaIO5CgIWqqdrOZVaO9M3guEEcfdWLnD3ApnTKsjQt8Vijy8NygCBpnUgcJrgGqHwPe0RLkiUcFxXHmjP-XpN-m2bae_g/s1600/dice.png" /></a></div>
<span class="author vcard">
<span class="story_credit fn"></span></span><span class="source-org vcard story_source"></span>> SOUTHERN INDIANA —
Last week’s news about the high-profile raid on an alleged illegal
gambling ring in Jeffersonville was a jackpot of examples showing the
hypocrisy and confusion caused when government gets involved in vices.<br />
<br />
When <a href="http://newsandtribune.com/x915994385/8-indicted-in-alleged-illegal-gambling-ring" target="_blank">U.S. Attorney Joseph Hogsett said</a> the eight people charged were
allegedly “handling thousands and thousands of dollars a day in wagers,”
the message was clear — these guys were in trouble because lots of
money was moving around without the government skimming off a portion of
the profits.<br />
<br />
The government doesn’t care much about gambling as long as they get
their cut. We know this because “thousands and thousands of dollars a
day in wagers” are also handled just a few dice throws down the river
and Hogsett has absolutely nothing to say about the people running that
gambling operation.<br />
<br />
It’s confusing at first to realize that you can sit on a boat in
Harrison County and make bets with a guy rolling a marble and both of
you can still be considered to be fine upstanding citizens. But if you
go sit on a car in a certain Jeffersonville auto shop and make bets with
a guy about the Andretti curse, it can be a criminal act.<br />
<br />
The wagers that happen on the boat are not crimes because those
transactions are government-approved. The people who run that gambling
business dutifully hand over some of the profits they make from creating
a venue filled with crisp cards and shiny, clanging machines that
attract people who want to engage in this vice.<br />
<br />
It’s a great deal for the government when corporations do most of the
work and concentrate gambling activities in one convenient easy-to-tax
gambling shop. The corporation is of course happy to pay off the
government in return for the protection from competition.<br />
<br />
Considering what a grand deal it is for government to legalize and tax
gambling you might wonder why they haven’t legalized and taxed all forms
of gambling. Well, besides the fact that they are helping the current
legal gambling venues maintain their little monopolies, perhaps it’s
because there is money to be made on both sides of the vice game.<br />
<br />
Let’s go back to the press conference about the Jeffersonville gambling
operation for illustration. Larry Rollins, the director of the Gaming
Control Division for the Indiana Gaming Commission, said his group
started investigating the guys involved in the Jeffersonville operation
two years ago.<br />
<br />
Then when it was discovered that the gambling operation crossed state
lines, this meant even more crimes were committed as a result of
government prohibitions on gambling, and the FBI was brought into the
investigation. For 18 months, employees from all layers of government
worked on this investigation. Finally, when it came time to raid the
Jeffersonville properties, local, state and federal law enforcement all
participated.<br />
<br />
That’s a lot of people being paid to work as a direct result of the government prohibition on certain types of gambling.<br />
<br />
Now that indictments have been made, those employed by the government
court system will also get into the game. And if any of the accused men
are found guilty and sentenced to prison for breaking laws prohibiting
gambling, you will pay even more people to keep them in a cage so that
“society” can punish them.<br />
<br />
You can see how the entire cost of enforcement and punishment means
that a lot of people can profit simply because the government has the
ability to write words down on paper and declare that people who are
handling wagers about Peyton Manning’s next game are criminals.<br />
<br />
Of course the government officials who get paid to enforce these
prohibitions are quick to explain that it’s not all that innocent. They
work hard to ante up the fear by telling the public that illegal
gambling connects to other crimes and attracts dangerous people. They
imply strong odds that innocent law-abiding citizens could be harmed.<br />
<br />
No one who profits from government prohibition mentions that the game
is rigged from the start because it’s the prohibition itself that helps
create those problems. And odds are, they never will.<br />
<br />
<i>— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson never counts her money
while she’s sitting at the table. Mostly because she never has any left. </i>Debbie H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02209691050549648880noreply@blogger.com0