An article by Lesley Stedman Weidenbener in the Louisville Courier Journal reports that the state will be borrowing up to $330 million to pay for unemployment benefits through January. The fund has $21 million in it while the average monthly benefit pay out is $66 million.

“It’s a big problem that has to be dealt with,” said Sen. Dennis Kruse, chairman of the Pensions and Labor Committee, who is part of the group. “It’s one of those harsh realities of our government and business climate today and we’ve got to do something to solve it.”

That could involve changing who’s eligible for unemployment benefits, raising the taxes employers pay into the system or reducing weekly benefits to those who are out of work, said Kruse, R-Auburn. The answer will likely be a combination of the three, he said.
. . .
In 2000, employers paid $277 million in taxes, and interest contributed another $103 million to the fund. The department paid out $259 million in benefits.

But since 2001, the fund has operated at a deficit. Last year, the state paid $172 million more in claims than employers paid in premiums. For the first 10 months of this year, the gap was $242 million.

Not good news.

Back before Amy & I had gotten married, my spending patterns were something of a running joke. I was kind of a tightwad and rarely bought much in the way of stuff, but I blew a lot of money eating out, watching movies, and the like. So, I’d explain that I didn’t mind spending money, “as long as I didn’t have any assets to show for it.” It was a little like Brewsters Millions. While it worked well enough for me, it is no way to run a national economy.

But, it seems like the U.S. is going down that path with Citigroup being the latest business to successfully petition the U.S. government for financial assistance.

The complex plan calls for the government to back about $306 billion in loans and securities and directly invest about $20 billion in the company. The plan, emerging after a harrowing week in the financial markets, is the government’s third effort in three months to contain the deepening economic crisis and may set the precedent for other multibillion-dollar financial rescues.

So, if I have this straight, GM is not worthy of a bailout because they actually make stuff, pay average people about $28 per hour, and their executives arrived in Washington on corporate jets. I have not seen information on the Citigroup contingent’s itinerary or information on how they are compensated.

I don’t pretend to know how to get out of this financial thicket; but pouring money down the rat hole of the financial services industry while withholding money from manufacturers with infrastructure in the U.S. that actually makes stuff seems a little skewed.

Update Former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, has a column on the theme of Why Citigroup and not General Motors.

Nonetheless, Citi is about to be bailed out while GM is allowed to languish. That’s because Wall Street’s self-serving view of the unique role of financial institutions is mirrored in the two agencies that run the American economy — the Treasury and the Fed. Their job, as they see it, is to keep the financial economy “sound,” by which they mean keeping Wall Street’s own investors and creditors reasonably happy.

Rick Callahan, writing for the Associated Press, has an article entitled “State Jobless Rate 6.4%.” Indiana’s jobless rate is up from 6.2% to 6.4%. It’s even tougher in some neighboring states, with Michigan up to 9.3%. These numbers don’t reflect people whose unemployment benefits have run out or who have otherwise stopped looking for work.

Among the Hoosiers feeling the pinch is 60-year-old Skip Surguine, who lost his job as a telemarketer about a year ago and now survives on disability checks for his diabetes-related complications.

I can’t tell you how many times I have heard a variation of that type of story running my collection circuits. Until this past week, I had thought that the economic downturn was more or less “baked in” already for the lower end of the financial spectrum that I typically run across in these cases. They have been having a roug time of it for several years. But, this week’s cases gave me the sense that things are getting more desperate out there — my sample size is about 100 cases for the week, not necessarily representative of anything.

But, as everyone knows, it’s not just the poor feeling the pinch. The stock market, as everyone knows is having a rough time of it. The Dow has lost about 10 years worth of gains. The major indexes are down 30-40% for the year. I’m probably not the only one who feels like a bit of a chump for putting money into my 401(k) all these years. Maybe my money would have been better spent on world travel or something that once seemed much more frivolous than saving.

But, I suppose past is past. I’ll probably keep grinding away as long as I’m fortunate enough to have a job; keep saving in the hopes that it won’t take 20 years to regain this year’s losses; and hope that the carnage in the economy leads to that “creative destruction” the economists like to talk about and, sooner rather than later, creates a stronger economy that leaves our communities better off in the long run. But not too far in the long run, because, as John Meynard Keynes said, “In the long run, we’re all dead. With that cheery thought, I hope everyone is having a good weekend.

I pick on libertarianism because I once considered it my political philosophy. I still think it has plenty to offer, but no longer think it is the end of the discussion. It’s also of interest to me because it’s so important to American political thought; even if the Libertarian Party has not been wildly successful and even if inclinations toward libertarianism are horribly diluted in practice by our politicians. So, last night, I found myself dreaming about having an argument with a friend about libertarianism and epidemiology. Yes, in fact, I do have the lamest dreams ever.

Washington’s visage fades away. Lisa talks in her sleep, “I want to help you, George Washington…”

Bart to Lisa: “I want to help you, George Washington”? Pfft, even your dreams are
square.”

In any case, I have previously indicate my belief that libertarianism is generally inadequate for addressing pollution where the harm is often subtle, indirect, and hard to deal with using the court system. (The second main one often on my mind is to question whether use of the corporate form is permissible to libertarians given that its primary purpose is to insulate individuals from liability.)

Now, I find myself wondering what the libertarian approach to epidemiology might be. Would, for example, eradication of small pox be possible in a libertarian society. What about compulsory innoculation or strong incentives for innoculation? I’ve never heard this addressed, and, frankly, never given it much thought before. But, I suspect the libertarian position would be that government can’t force or coerce an individual into getting an innoculation. The body, of all things, belongs to the individual.

O.k., but then what? The individuals who refuse innoculation have increased the risk of infectious disease for the entire population. What do the individuals owe the rest of the population for increasing their risk in this fashion?

We are a society of individuals; which is why libertarianism is valuable. But, by the same token, we are a society of individuals; which is why it is not the whole answer.

Conservatives hated Roosevelt and the New Deal. Watch out for revisionist myths as we enter an era that seems to rhyme with, if not repeat, some of the Depression-era conditions.

I don’t pretend to have any great knowledge of the Depression, Roosevelt, or the New Deal. But, at least, I’d be very skeptical of historical analyses of Roosevelt’s policies coming from folks who are philosophically inclined toward maintaining the status quo that suggest that the rich should not have been relieved of some of their money and power. That’s not to say such analyses are necessarily wrong; only that the potential for bias to skew the analysis is very strong.

The Big Three Automakers want $25 Billion. Why, with that kind of money, we could have two more months in Iraq. There are legitimate questions about whether it would be wise to direct the nation’s resources toward our manufacturing industries. However, one of them is not the executives’ mode of transportation while going to D.C.

I’ve heard about auto industry representatives arriving in D.C. via private jets 4 or 5 times in the last 12 hours or so — most of which time I was asleep, incidentally. As if this whole thing would have been averted had they flown coach. It’s like blaming the President for the financial crisis by focusing on his use of Air Force One instead of looking at his fetish for deregulation. We can be deeply stupid sometimes. But, to some extent, it’s understandable. When a problem is so big and so complex we can’t readily wrap our mind around it, the tendency is to direct our attention to something simple; even if it’s irrelevant. There’s a principle, the name of which I can’t remember, describing the tendency in corporate meetings for there to be limited discussion of complicated aspects of a project, only to have fierce battles over something stupid, like the color of the packaging.

We should be figuring out the fastest way to get average Americans working, producing, and profiting from their labor. When that happens, they have money to spend on the products of other Americans. Simple!

Lots of God/Government stuff turning up in the news the past couple of days. Perhaps the religious among you can tell me what any of this has to do with leading a spiritually fulfilling life, pleasing to whichever God rules the universe.

First, we have a guy in Southport refusing to act in an orderly fashion at a City Council meeting as a way to protest the lack of prayer to open City Council meetings. By way of protest, he started praying out loud during a moment of silence; he was asked to be quiet; he started talking louder; he was asked to leave; he refused; he was escorted out; he grabbed a chair. He was arrested. Let’s be clear, he was not arrested for praying. Had he prayed silently or been quiet when asked or left when asked, there would have been no arrest. It was his insistence on disrupting the meeting that led to his arrest.

Clergy-led prayer returns to the House of Representatives. After Speaker Bosma’s apparent endorsement of sectarian prayer as official House business, including a nice revival style, singing and clapping rendition of “Just a Little Walk with Jesus;” litigation ensued and the practice of clergy led prayer in the House stopped. Apparently it will make a comeback this session. I’m with Ken Falk and the ACLU of Indiana when he says that there is “no problem in having a minister give a nonsectarian prayer.” It does, however, seem relatively useless to me. If you are a believer, such a public display is: a) unnecessary to satisfy your spiritual needs; and/or b) so bland as to be ineffective at doing so. If you are not a believer, such a display is: a) mildly offensive; and/or b) a waste of time. If you are a narcissistic, jealous God, such a display is presumably grossly insufficient inasmuch as it could be construed as homage to those other gods of whom you are jealous. If you are not a narcissistic, jealous God, you presumably won’t care about the display one way or the other. So, to me, the only purpose I can see for these things is as a way for a certain noxious subset of nominal believers to demonstrate their supremacy over those who believe differently; in other words, mark their territory.

In other news, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles is being sued for refusing to allow a vanity plate that says “BE GODS;” this after it just won a lawsuit on appeal challenging the practice of giving away “In God We Trust Plates” while charging extra for other special interest statement plates.

A BMV policy committee reviewing personalized license plate rules in December 2007 opted to make all religious and deity references off-limits, said Dennis Rosebrough, the agency’s spokesman.

On this, I’m just glad I’m not working for them and being put in the position of defending the “In God We Trust” plates and the denial of the BE GODS” plate.

Maureen Groppe, writing for the Gannett News Service, has an article about Mike Pence’s expected rise to the Republican House Leadership. He’s apparently going to be GOP conference chairman, the number 3 slot in the leadership. This means he’ll have a greater role in developing the Republican message. But, how powerful he is or becomes depends on how well his party does. From that article, I think Pence needs to resolve some contradictions in his message:

Pence, 49, said there’s no question that Republicans face a challenging time.

“But I still believe that the governing majority of the United States embraces a strong defense, limited government and traditional moral values,” he said. “If our party can turn to both practice and articulation of those ideals, I think we will not only serve the interests of the nation, but also see the political fortunes of Republicans at every level enhanced as a result.”

So, which is it: strong defense, limited government, or traditional moral values? In particular, I don’t think “limited government” fits well with the other two. How does limited government interact with a government role in “traditional moral values” (whatever those might be, precisely)? Will there be a return to anti-sodomy laws? Or will government be limited and, therefore, allow consenting adults to do what they will so long as it doesn’t harm others?

Are we going to have limited government and low taxes? Or are we going to raise taxes to pay for a strong defense? (And, if the answer is ‘cut spending,’ what, exactly are you going to cut, and are you going to be able to sell those specific cuts as part of the GOP’s return to power?)

I’ve said before, and I still believe it, that there is an inherent tension in the GOP coalition between the social conservatives, the business conservatives, and the neo-conservatives. In this statement, Pence is trying to appeal to all three. But, if the GOP wants to retool, I think they’ll have to revise their coalition. If I was a Republican and had to pick, I’d boot the neocons first — they cost a lot, and I don’t think they bring a lot to the table. But that’s just me.

Update It occurs to me that, to the electorate, what will be more important than the internal contradictions is simply the track record of the GOP on these things. They’ve been sounding these themes for a long time now, but when they get in power, they have not put these things into practice. The social conservatives have seemingly been useful idiots to the Republicans in power. By and large, there hasn’t been a hard push for social conservative legislation while the Republicans were in power (though, I suppose they’re willing enough to make some noise while they’re in the minority.) During the Bush administration, I don’t believe we’ve seen a hard push for federal bans on gay marriage; a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion; prayer in school; or whatever else the federal government is supposed to be doing in terms of legislating morality.

As for limited government, might I just say: BWAHAHAHA. Government has grown in almost every respect except usefulness during the Bush years.

About the only folks who have gotten a lot of what they want are the neo-cons. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and the rest of the PNAC crowd got their war of aggression and occupation in Iraq in the name of “defense.” It cost a lot and did us much more harm than good. I suppose that’s why I think it would be easiest for the GOP to kick these jokers to the curb. They have baggage, they don’t contribute as much money as the business conservatives, and they don’t provide the foot soldiers like the social conservatives.

It still boggles my mind how a person can surrender their will entirely to a leader, religious or otherwise. It seems like such an abdication of personal responsibility and not a little cowardly — I guess I view it as akin to suicide. The two things, of course, merged at Jonestown 30 years ago. Robert King, writing for the Indianapolis Star, has an article on the anniversary of Jonestown.

King spoke with Gene and June Cordell who followed Jim Jones when he was a pastor in Indianapolis at a church on the south side, now occupied by I-65 near Keystone.

June Cordell said there was nothing spectacular that first Sunday at South Keystone — just a church of 25 people in a chapel with cracked windows. “You would have never known any reason to have thought there was anything out of the way,” June said.

The Cordells soon came to appreciate Jones’ devotion to the Bible, his food ministries for the poor, the music of his church choirs, congregations that became racially diverse and miracle healings that appeared genuine.

“The power of God was in those meetings,” Gene Cordell, now 79, remembers. “We thought he was preaching the truth at that time as we knew the truth.”

Soon they began to see something else.

In a People’s Temple bathroom, June discovered a box of chicken livers that looked amazingly like the “cancers” that Jones would pull from the mouths of sick people cured at healing services.

“I kept saying to myself to keep quiet,” she recalls. “I didn’t want to be a doubting Thomas.”

Eventually he became too demanding and eccentric for the Cordells causing them to break with Jones and his ministry. They did not follow him to northern California which ended up being a way stop for Guyana and mass suicide/murder. However, some of their extended family and 100s of others did follow him. So, apparently not that great an aberration for a person to abdicate their sense of self to another; particularly if he’s peddling salvation. Jonestown is a good reminder that ultimately, we have to think for ourselves and that others, even self-proclaimed religious leaders, don’t always have our best interests in mind.

I’ve had a lot of respect for Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) since I started following him during the days of the Communication Decency Act and CALEA and the Internet liberties stuff that was big news in the mid-90s when I hit the Internet.

As it happens, I agree with him again when it comes to what the Democrats ought to do about their Lieberman problem. Lieberman stood around while the McCain campaign was talking about how Obama “palled around with terrorists” and generally said all manner of scuzzy things about Obama. I know politics ain’t beanbag, but by the same token, politics ain’t beanbag; so Lieberman should, at a minimum lose his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Leahy said:

“I’m one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did.”

“I felt some of the attacks that he was involved in against Senator Obama…went way beyond the pale,” Leahy continued. “I thought they were not fair, I thought they were not legitimate, I thought they perpetuated some of these horrible myths that were being run about Senator Obama.”

“I would feel that had I done something similar,” Leahy concluded, “that I would not be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the next Congress.”

I find Lieberman to be generally insufferable. In fact, I have a whole lot more respect for McCain than I do Lieberman. Hopefully the Democratic Senators extract some sort of price for Lieberman’s antics.