About a year ago, I wrote a post that used George Bailey as a metaphor for the community. I suggested that the citizens of Muncie could all pull together, make relatively small changes and investments in their community, and our city would be a better place.

Well, it turns out that I haven’t been the only one thinking along those lines. Lots of people have been working to come up with effective and sustainable ways to improve their communities, and do so with minimal impact  to the already-strained finances of its members.

As it happens, though, the simpler the idea, the better it is; and a group has come up with one of the simplest of all: Move your money.

National banks have had a record year. Despite needing taxpayer money to prop themselves up, they ended making record profits, and paying exorbitant bonuses and salaries.

At the same time, many have returned to the same risky, highly-leveraged activities that created the disaster in the first place; are paying reduced dividends to shareholders; and putting the screws to their customers in the process.

But there’s something you can do: Move your money.

Rob Johnson writes:

“The idea is simple: If enough people who have money in one of the big four banks move it into smaller, more local, more traditional community banks, then collectively we, the people, will have taken a big step toward re-rigging the financial system so it becomes again the productive, stable engine for growth it’s meant to be. It’s neither Left nor Right — it’s populism at its best. Consider it a withdrawal tax on the big banks for the negative service they provide by consistently ignoring the public interest. It’s time for Americans to move their money out of these reckless behemoths. And you don’t have to worry, there is zero risk: deposit insurance is just as good at small banks — and unlike the big banks they don’t provide the toxic dividend of derivatives trading in a heads-they-win, tails-we-lose fashion.”

Small banks are lending as well. You can refinance loans and credit card debt carried by the big four banks locally; and by doing so, you help build the economy of your community, while getting a better deal with better customer service.

And the best part about it for me, personally, is that the hero of the story is George Bailey:

Find out more here.

That’s the only way to really describe the December 7th City Council meeting, as the Mayor and City Council butted heads and locked horns over one issue after another. Council members Marshall, Barton and Murphy trotted and strutted before the audience, still smug about their recent veto override victory and ready to dish out more punishment for the Mayor.

Early in the meeting was some relatively minor business – clerk copy fees, pawn shop registration and fund transfers – and then came the $6.00 surcharge Police Chief Deborah Davis wants to add to moving violations in order to meet the funding requirement for a federal stimulus grant.

What should have been a no-brainer became the first horn-lock of the evening. Citing rather irrelevant reasons, Councilman Murphy moved to table the vote, followed by Barton’s eager second. At first, it seemed like an attempt to deny the Mayor something she wanted; despite her protestations that delay might hurt our chances at winning the grant. It became apparent later that there was more to it than that.

The night wore on, and after a lengthy and surreal alley vacancy discussion, came another potshot at City Hall. This time, it was a lob at the Controller. The Board of Works normally pays all of the City’s bills, but in case an expense comes up between their weekly meetings – or is overlooked and not submitted in time – the Controller can simply pay it, thus avoiding any late fees or charges; and then submit a receipt at the next Works meeting. Mary Jo Barton wanted to take that authority away.

MaryAnn Kratochvil took it rather personally. She said she has never abused that authority; and with the staffing cuts to her department, it was more likely than ever that something may get overlooked. In light of that, she asked why the Council wanted to suddenly take away her ability to pay bills as needed. Mary Jo made some haughty comments about “doing our jobs,” and then made an obscure reference to Hiatt Printing (which has an open bid contract with the City).

Not only was there no reason to believe that there was anything improper about the Controller’s behavior or the City’s contract with Hiatt, the ordinance didn’t give the Council any real authority or oversight. It was just one of those loud throaty calls reindeer make to boast their prowess.

The final butt came shortly afterward, in a heated discussion over Animal Control. Because of the cuts imposed by the Council earlier in the month – combined with a stipulation in the union contract – the department was left with two people to run it, which was impossible. After some exchanges between Sam Marshall, the Mayor and Linda Bir-Conn, came the clincher: The Mayor asked why the Council didn’t consult with her before making these cuts, to which Marshall responded that she hadn’t consulted with them before laying off firefighters last summer.

There it was. For the past two years, the Mayor didn’t want to work with the City Council, and the Council didn’t want to work with the Mayor; and it all came to a head during the last regular meeting of the year.

Marshall and Murphy, giddy with testosterone at this point, defended their behavior with absurdity. Marshall asked me why I didn’t care that the police surcharge would result in more people being pulled over and arrested for DUI, me being a bartender and all.

Murphy was concerned that police would target his district for citations, pointing to the amount of time already being spent in the low-income (and high-crime) neighborhoods as evidence.

Murphy and Polk argued with each other; Barton vacillated between smirking and shaking her head; Gregory seemed genuinely mortified; King fiddled with his gavel; and  Conatser and Dishman just sat there, waiting to go home.

There were times that I countered their claims; and others when I just stared dumbfounded, trying to make some sense of what was just said. In the end, though, there was no winner. The ordinance remained tabled, the animal shelter remained closed, and you could see the reindeer working out how they were going to get back at their opponents next time around.

Online discussion forums will no doubt be busy with people pointing fingers and laying blame for all of this; but in reality, it’s our fault. We have allowed, and even encouraged, this behavior on the part of our elected officials. These people – these petty, juvenile people – represent the people that elected them. They represent us.

Like us, they are often more concerned with which buck wins than they are with what is being trampled beneath their hooves during the struggle.

The young white men neoconservatives at Conservapedia have determined that various translations of the Christian Bible have been progressively progressive, and have also made attempts to “dumb down” the text.

Oddly enough, at the same time, they complain that liberals are inherently “wordy,” and as such, have imbued the Bible with too many lengthy words. How they plan to address the “dumbing down” and “too many big words” issues simultaneously should prove to be a neat trick.

Other changes include modernizing the text. Explaining the various tax structures, for example, and specifying income versus property versus value-added taxes. At the same time, the project complains repeatedly about the emasculation of Christianity. Therefore, anytime a gender-neutral phrase such as “one of the multitude” or “people” is used, it is replaced with “man” or “men.”

They also try to tone down Jesus’ taste for wine, calling it “fruit of the vine” or something equally ambiguous )which also explains why the book of John remains on the incomplete list).

It’s no skin off my nose if Phyllis Schlafly’s brood thinks the good book isn’t good enough; but I’m a little surprised that Christian conservatives aren’t bent out of shape over this. After all, if they believe that the Bible is God’s word, and God’s word is infallible; how can they tolerate anyone wanting to change it, even if those changes do make it more politically compatible?

Check it for yourself.

“The health insurance industry shouldn’t exist at all, because unlike a pharmaceutical company that is producing…at least they have someone doing research trying to make someone healthy. A health insurance company is just making money on the transaction, and really not contributing anything to the end product.”

So, basically the entire health insurance industry is just a big middle man. I guess I always knew that, but I never really thought about it in those terms. That being said, it makes me wonder why the right is so obsessed with preserving it.

Their big argument against bringing government into anything is that it contributes no value, increases costs and adds layers of beaurocracy. What’s the difference?

The system doesn’t work for anyone. It cheats patients and leaves them to die, denies insurance to 47 million Americans, forces hospitals to spend billions haggling over claims, and systematically bleeds and harasses doctors with the specter of catastrophic litigation. Even as a mechanism for delivering bonuses to insurance-company fat cats, it’s a miserable failure: Greedy insurance bosses who spent a generation denying preventive care to patients now see their profits sapped by millions of customers who enter the system only when they’re sick with incurably expensive illnesses.

The cost of all of this to society, in illness and death and lost productivity and a soaring federal deficit and plain old anxiety and anger, is incalculable — and that’s the good news. The bad news is our failed health care system won’t get fixed, because it exists entirely within the confines of yet another failed system: the political entity known as the United States of America.

Why doesn’t he have a Pulitzer, yet?

Read the rest of the story here.

Chiat said that one of the secrets to his success was this little card he carried with him, and broke out whenever he found himself at an impasse with someone. It said “Maybe he’s right.”

I’ve thought about that recently, as the debates over local politics have become increasingly heated. Property tax caps, LOIT, public safety cuts, etc. have all brought concerned citizens of our city into conflict with one another over what the status quo is, what needs to change, and how to change it. The only thing we can seem to agree on is that the conflicts and infighting have done nothing to move us forward; and now, I have come to believe that the wrangling, and the impasse that results, is actually the status quo that needs to change.

As a result, I’ve come around to Chiat’s way of thinking: Maybe the people I disagree with are right. That being said, I’m going to propose the idea that we as a community go along with the Mayor and the tax repeal advocates that support her.

I’m sure such a suggestion will come as a surprise to many people that know me, but I’ll ask them to ride this train with me for a bit. We have some very real challenges facing us, and we need to pull together if we are going to overcome them. It’s become apparent that new taxes are not only never going to have broad support, but will cause further division within the community, as opponents insist that cutting both taxes and expenses is the best way to prime our city for future growth.

It would be a hard pill for many, myself included, to swallow. I place high value on things like professional fire and police departments, publicly supported libraries and community centers, and general aesthetic maintenance. I believe that they make the city more attractive for investment, and it does; but it’s only effective if we can actually manage it – and we can’t, not without raising taxes to do so.

The alternative is the idea that we appeal to business through low cost of operation. Low taxes, small government and ample and eager labor. Over time, less will become more, as business owners have more money with which to invest and employ; and outside companies will find Muncie to be a more attractive investment.

If that can work, why not get behind it?

Personally, I would have three very reasonable expectations:

1. Supporters take responsibility for it. The claim all along has been that if is business owners paid less to the government, they’d be able to lower rents , employ more people, and invest more. They will have to put their money where their mouths are

2. Be straightforward about what they want. For example, if the strategy involves replacing our professional fire department with volunteers, then say so and make a case for it; and do it without bashing the firefighters, or their union. Just show us it works.

3. Honestly evaluate the results before the tax caps become eligible for constitutional permanence. If their strategy turns out to be the right one, then great; but if not, then we try something else. Plus, whatever the outcome, Muncie can be held up as an example of the legislation’s effectiveness.

It’s an idea that many people have fought against, and many more fervently than I have. Honestly ask yourself this, though:  If the solution to our prosperity is the other guy’s idea, how much does it really matter to you that it’s the other guy’s idea?

We can pass tax increases anytime; but repealing them is historically far more difficult. Let’s try something completely different. Let’s all get behind one idea and really try to make it work, even if it isn’t ours.

Why the Mayor’s — and her tax repeal advocate supporter’s — ideas and not another? Because that what it means when I pull out my card, and it reads “Maybe he’s right.” Let’s all come together and give it a chance to work.

Almost.

A few months ago, he started in on this idea that what’s really wrong with this country is that we don’t treat each other very well, and that we’re obsessed with money. The two feed into each other until we get to the point where we are, well, here.

The first time he really brought it forward publicly was in an interview with Elizabeth Warren, Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP. He talked about the recent return to usury in our society, and how we’re having to work too hard to convince lawmakers that it’s not okay for credit card companies to use dirty tricks to bury fellow Americans under mountains of debt.

In a later episode, he goes further to illustrate examples of how we’ll do just about anything to anyone for money: Soldiers in Iraq being electrocuted in the shower because of shoddy electrical work.

“How can one American kill another American to save a little money on wire?” he asks, and it’s a good question. Greed exists in every society; but only ours touts it as a virtue.

Lately, he seems to be developing it into something of a philosophy:

“It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn’t do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn’t used to define us. But now it’s becoming all that we are.”

and:

“Prisons used to be a non-profit business, too. And for good reason —  who the hell wants to own a prison? By definition you’re going to have trouble with the tenants. But now prisons are big business. A company called the Corrections Corporation of America is on the New York Stock Exchange, which is convenient since that’s where all the real crime is happening anyway. The CCA and similar corporations actually lobby Congress for stiffer sentencing laws so they can lock more people up and make more money. That’s why America has the world;s largest prison population — because actually rehabilitating people would have a negative impact on the bottom line.”

But the real travesty in this transition of capitalism as an economic model to becoming a social framework is, of course, health care:

It wasn’t that long ago that when a kid broke his leg playing stickball, his parents took him to the local Catholic hospital, the nun put a thermometer in his mouth, the doctor slapped some plaster on his ankle and you were done. The bill was $1.50, plus you got to keep the thermometer.

But like everything else that’s good and noble in life, some Wall Street wizard decided that hospitals could be big business, so now they’re run by some bean counters in a corporate plaza in Charlotte. In the U.S. today, three giant for-profit conglomerates own close to 600 hospitals and other health care facilities. They’re not hospitals anymore; they’re Jiffy Lubes with bedpans. America’s largest hospital chain, HCA, was founded by the family of Bill Frist, who perfectly represents the Republican attitude toward health care: it’s not a right, it’s a racket. The more people who get sick and need medicine, the higher their profit margins. Which is why they’re always pushing the Jell-O.”

Read the rest of his article here.

You can also watch his presentation on Real Time here (it starts in at 2:04, and I don’t really know what the URL in the top is all about):