MARCUS: Indiana says, 'If it's broken, throw it out'

Morton Marcus
January 29, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Morton Marcus

Indiana’s new policy is, “If it is broken, throw it out.” We applied that policy to township assessors and now we are applying it to township government. Soon we may do the same to urban school districts.

When something is not working as it should, what do you do? Kick it or bang it, thinking a good jarring will restore proper functioning? Examine it, diagnose the operation of its parts, seek to fix the faulty mechanism? Rid yourself of the offending thing and get a new one? Or, do without whatever the thing was intended to do?

Not long ago, similar homes in the same Indiana county were assigned very different values. Assessments seemed arbitrary and subjective. Township assessors’ offices were ripe with opportunities for nepotism, excessive spending and sweetheart assessments. The Legislature’s solution: Get rid of township assessors, except in a few instances.

County assessors assumed the responsibilities of township assessors. Most often, the township assessors were hired into the county assessors’ offices. Those township assessors who ran low-cost, efficient and equitable operations were bundled in with the inept and the crooks.

Rather than carefully auditing the activities in each township assessor’s office, Indiana chopped down the institution. We did not expose the crooks or offer up the inept for public scrutiny. Worse, when the scythe cuts through, the healthy plants fall with the diseased. 

Now township trustees and their advisory boards face their turn. Again there are charges of mismanagement and malfeasance. Instead of investigating, exposing and prosecuting, we will eradicate township government.

Yes, too many local governments infest Indiana. We do not, however, establish criteria for consolidating governments or coordinating governmental functions. In the case of townships, we are instructed to abandon their activities to the counties.

Likewise, large inner-city school corporations are under attack. The fact that such schools are the depositories for society’s poorest and most afflicted populations is well-understood, but not forgiven. Instead of seeking to improve these schools, we rush to put them out of business.

A proposal before the Legislature offers vouchers for use in private schools. For students from households with income of less than $42,000, the vouchers would be worth 90 percent of the per-pupil state aid formerly received by the school the student leaves. Statewide, such vouchers would average more than $6,000 per student per year. In Indianapolis Public Schools, the amount would be in excess of $7,800 per student for private tuition.

The amount of the voucher (and the commensurate decrease in state aid to the public school) goes down as the student’s household income rises. For a student from a household with income from $42,000 to $84,000, the voucher is 50 percent of per-student aid, falling to 25 percent when the student comes from a household with income between $84,000 and $105,000. This insidious idea presumes a school with poor students can give up a larger part of its state aid than can a school with a wealthy clientele.

This program destroys the public school economy. If 10 students leave an elementary school, how much less money is needed to run that school and its buses? Will the heating costs decline for the building? Will fewer teachers be required?

We don’t like the performance of urban schools, so we devise a program to destroy them. We don’t approve of the behavior of township officials, so we legislate them out of existence. We don’t feel comfortable with the assessment of our homes, so we dismiss township assessors.

If it doesn’t work, break it. If it is broken, throw it out. Never fix anything. Will that be the next motto on our license plates?•


Marcus taught economics for more than 30 years at Indiana University and is the former director of IU’s Business Research Center. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at mmarcus@ibj.com.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.