Tag: public goods

Indiana Redistricting Proposal Adds Value

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

“For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for the want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for the want of a horse the rider was lost, being overtaken and slain by the enemy, all for the want of care about a horseshoe nail.”  —  Benjamin Franklin

 Now, more than ever, society must rely on real economic growth to make the pie larger and allow us to choose how to divide the pie.  In the hot policy areas – global warming, health care, unemployment, alternate energy, retirement security, national security, adequate food – all solutions depend upon our ability to grow the economy.

 The private sector, especially in the last 30 years, has demonstrated its nearly unlimited ability to create value.  The contrast between productivity growth in the competitive sectors (ag, manufacturing, distribution, communications, mining, transportation, media, banking, IT, services) and the others (government, social services, utilities, education, health care) is instructive.  About 60% of the economy delivers 3-5% annual productivity improvements, while the other 40% is stuck at 0-1%.

 The slow growth sectors are all in areas where market failure is the rule – sometimes because services are natural public goods and sometimes due to natural monopolies, externalities, or unequal information.  In each case, there is a key role to be played by the government in shaping these industries to pursue continuous improvement as happens naturally in other sectors.

 Unfortunately, our political system does not produce “philosopher kings” who cooperate to find optimal solutions.  In a two-party democratic system, the best that can be hoped for is that the two parties will define contrasting, yet centrist policies and employ politicians who can seek re-election by solving some problems rather than merely demonizing the other side.

 The gerrymandering of Indiana congressional, senate and representative districts every 10 years encourages a polarized political environment.  The party in power draws districts to maximize their representation by creating as many 55-60% safe districts as possible, while consolidating their opponents into as few 80-90% majority districts as possible.

 This process results in extreme left and extreme right candidates winning nearly all races.  Centrist candidates have no chance in stacked districts.  Centrist voters have no influence in stacked districts.  The political parties attract extremist candidates.  They attract extremist supporters.  Only in a small minority of districts do voters have a choice between two qualified centrist candidates who mainly differ by a modest degree on the political spectrum. 

 The Indiana Senate’s Republican Caucus, Secretary of State Todd Rokita and Carmel representative Mike Delph have floated various proposals to turn redistricting over to some form of non-partisan commission, required to take advantage of the computer software which can define boundaries to maximize the compactness of each district, without considering socio-economic, religious, racial or political factors. 

 A visual example of the current skewed districts versus neutral districts is shown at http://bolson.org/dist/IN/.

 Members of both political parties should be able to see that the skillful use of gerrymandering today is a recipe for failure.  Even California voters are now seeing that structures that lead to polarization can bankrupt a state.  Indiana voters who care about the future should pursue this “good government” initiative.

Civic Investment in Monuments

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

I’ve noted a pattern in our local government investments.

CIB Conseco Fieldhouse, CIB Lucas Oil Stadium, Carmel Clay Parks Monon Center, Indianapolis Airport Authority Midfield Terminal, Carmel Regional Performing Arts Center and the CIB Convention Center Expansion seem to have the same issues.

They were built with public funds to meet public and private needs.  The bondholders are well secured by public revenue sources and commitments.  The operating revenues are less than what is required.  The users do not want to pay more.  Current political forces are criticizing historical decisions and current operations.  The public thinks that the politicians are incompetent and/or captured by special interests.  The public wants a simple solution that does not include more taxes.

The greatest problem is that these facilities inherently serve BOTH private and public purposes.  The CIB facilities serve customers, but also the nearby local businesses and our collective sense of importance in hosting the undefeated Colts.  The airport serves passengers, but also economic development.   The Monon Center offers an alternative health club, but also provides subsidized recreational programs.  The CRPAC offers ticketed cultural events, but also subsidizes local arts groups and stimulates the hospitality and retail arts industry.

In each case, the public is confused because it is not clear what part of the capital and operating costs are due to private and public uses.  It is not clear what part of the costs are being paid by the users and what is being picked up by the public through current and future taxes.

Political and civic leaders would be well served to clarify these “buckets” of costs, benefits and responsibilities in the future.  It is not easy to do and any well-defined fence will be inherently arbitrary and sub-optimal.  However, the political costs of an ostrich approach are now apparent.  I’m sure that many local leaders decided that this “direct” communications style would be impossible, because well-informed Hoosiers would choose to NOT invest in any ventures where each did not personally receive an ROI.   I point to the overwhelming success of the Wishard Hospital campaign as a counterexample.  I point to the recent consensus that requires schools and other local groups to seek voter approval as a situation of “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”.

State leaders should review these investments and outline a state review process that meets the public needs.  There is an inherent bias towards overinvestment by civic and political leaders.  Many constituencies benefit greatly in the short-run from major projects.  The operating deficits are often a decade away.  The positive ego benefits of creating 50-300 year monuments is too attractive.

Future capital projects should be required to clearly explain public and private benefits, costs and funding sources.  The projects should protect taxpayers at a level equal to bondholders.  Contingency funds should be included to handle the typical 5 year business cycles.   Even with these constraints, our local leaders will be able to justify investments in viable projects.