A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

Chicago Tribune on IN-02, IN-08, IN-09

by 1 Comment

Jeff Zeleny, writing for the Chicago Tribune, has an article on Indiana’s 3 closest Congressional races: IN-02, IN-08, and IN-09. He focuses on the fact that Indiana Democrats are more conservative than Democrats nationally and that Ellsworth, Hill, and Donnelly are trying to persuade voters who may have voted for President Bush in 2004 that they share similar policy preferences. Meanwhile, their opponents are desperate to paint them as “San Francisco liberals.”

Voters aren’t as concerned with the labels as they are with basic questions about government:

People have questions about the price of energy–why is it so high and what are we doing about it? The war in Iraq–what’s the plan? The rising cost of health care–what have we done? And they have questions about immigration–are we going to get a bill?

It looks like the national campaign committees, Republican and Democratic, will be pouring money into Indiana. Control of Congress may be determined by Hoosiers.

IN-09: Sodrel & Hill Agree to Aug. 31 debate

by Leave a Comment

David Mann reports that Baron Hill and Mike Sodrel, the Democratic and Republican candidates to represent the 9th Congressional District, have verbally agreed to an August 31, 2006 debate; format details are still being negotiated. WTIU will broadcast the debate.

Phil Meyer, WTIU station manager, says that he would prefer that Libertarian candidate Eric Schansberg be included in the debate, but that Schansberg’s participation would require the agreement of Hill and Sodrel. Apparently the Green Party candidate was included in the 2004 debate.

The 2004 debate had questions coming from a panel of journalists. The Sodrel campaign has said that it would prefer questions that also came from the audience, not solely from media organizations.

Schansberg for Congress – 2006

by 7 Comments

Eric Schansberg, Libertarian Candidate for Indiana’s 9th District, has his website up. It will be interesting to see what role Mr. Schansberg has to play in what looks to be one of the most hotly contested districts in the country. Former Democratic Congressman Baron Hill is challenging incumbent Republican Congressman Mike Sodrel. Enormous amounts of money are flowing to the Republican and Democratic candidates. Mr. Schansberg claims, not without some justification, to be the only fiscal conservative in the campaign:

Given their voting records, my opponents can only offer empty promises of fiscal restraint or a more credible promise to increase taxes or to continue to finance their spending with increasing government debt (and thus, future taxes).

He claims to be the strongest defender of the poor and the middle class, stating that the Republicans exhibit little interest in the poor while the Democratic interest amounts to little more than lip-service since, he contends, their policies work against the interests of the poor.

He is pro-life and pro-adoption, an economics professor and public policy analyst for the past 15 years.

I’ve been told that the website, while operational, will undergo some tweaking. So it’s probably worth keeping an eye on.

Howey on Iraq

by 4 Comments

Brian Howey wrote a column that was published in the June 24, 2006 News and Tribune that follows upon a previous column he had written and also discusses how the issue is playing in the 9th District.

I did not see the initial column, but apparently it drew the ire of Rose-Hulman chemistry professor, Dan Jelski.

“Sorry, but I think you’ve got the Iraq thing all wrong. From your column you’d think absolutely nothing had changed in Iraq at all. But you’re wrong, wrong, wrong.” He sees a prospering Baghdad exploding with satellite dishes instead of bombs.

Jelski suggests that Howey is proud of the insurgency or at least has great faith in its powers. Howey responds by citing a number of statistics that show things are not as rosy in Iraq as Jelski seems to think: Oil production is down, electricity production is stagnant and well below demand, unemployment is rampant. Doctors are leaving the country when they’re not being murdered, fewer kids are in school, 2,500 members of the U.S. military are dead, 30 to 40 people are kidnapped daily, 788 bombings have killed 6,800 people, and 100,000 familes have been displaced.

Jelski responds with what he doubtless thinks is the coup de grace:

Jelski observed: “The problems with the Brookings data is that you’d have to believe that life under Saddam was better than life in Iraq today. There is NO evidence to support that contention at all.”

Howey says the demons have been traded. I am reminded of Hobbes Leviathan. Hobbes suggested that Man in the State of Nature — i.e. without government — would be the war of all against all and, in such a state, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, and short.”

The social compact was an agreement whereby individuals traded a world of innumerable predators of various stature for one super-predator, the King. If the King came after you, you were screwed, and it wasn’t fair, especially, but in return most of the people got overlooked by the King and lived lives free of the petty predators they would face absent a King.

What we’re seeing in Iraq, essentially, is the aftermath of the local super-predator, Saddam Hussein. So, the people face a world filled with lesser monsters instead of a world with just the one. Neither state is particularly “good,” but depending how beneath the notice of Saddam you were under his reign, I can see where life could be worse today than it was under Hussein.

But, you may say, “why should the poor people of Iraq face either situation. Shouldn’t we give them a democracy that keeps them free of monsters both big and small?” To which I respond, “How much does it cost? and What’s in it for us?” I’m relatively selfish about how our government spends its money and am not a big fan of expensive humanitarian missions. This one has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. I think we could get more bang for our blood and treasure here at home than trying to make the world nice for Iraqis.

As for the 9th District, apparently Hill is trying to get to the right of Sodrel, apparently calling for an indefinite U.S. presence in Iraq:

“He doesn’t believe a politically set withdrawal date is good public policy,” said Mike O’Connor, a lead consultant to Democrat Baron Hill, who is challenging U.S. Rep. Mike Sodrel. “We’re committed to a path in Iraq that we have to pursue until it is resolved. There would be consequences that would come out of our withdrawal from Iraq right now that would be negative in his eyes.”

Meanwhile, last week we were treated to the spectacle of the do-nothing Republican Congress engaging in a bit of wankery by debating a non-binding resolution that gave members of Congress the opportunity to make tough noises about how resolute we were in remaining stuck in the Iraqi quagmire.

Days after that resolution, we learn that:

The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.

According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.

The question appears to be not whether we will withdraw troops in the next year or two, but how this can be done without Bush looking weak or the Republicans looking like they were pushed into doing something the Democrats wanted to do.

Meanwhile, Senator Lugar, is skeptical that the conditions are right for a draw down of troops.

“Given current events in Baghdad, in particular, reported on every day quite apart from Anbar province, the violence is horrific,” he said on “Face the Nation.” “So getting to the plans either of General Casey or [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-] Maliki are a broad sweep. But it is good news to know that there are contingency plans.”

This post has strayed a bit from its original focus. But now I’m left to ponder who to trust on the current state of Iraq: Senator Lugar or Professor Jelski.

DST: Has problems after all

by 3 Comments

WSBT found a problem that seems to be associated with Daylight Saving Time that the Indianapolis Star seemed to miss in its glowing report on the issue.

Police say Daylight Saving Time is making it harder to enforce the city’s curfew, and more kids are getting into mischief. Property crimes, like car break-ins and petty thefts are the kinds of things they’re seeing.

Officers say it may be harder for kids to keep track of the time now that it stays light for so long.

Even though it’s light — the time of day is late — a lot of people have to work the next morning,” said Capt. Phil Trent of the South Bend Police Department. “So a lot of parents are going to sleep and the kids are still up and out, and we’d like make parents aware of the fact that they need to keep their kids inside.”

Daylight Saving Time: Virtually Unmitigated Success!

by 23 Comments

So sayeth the Indianapolis Star. The story does, however, note that the later daylight is detrimental to ability to sleep well. But how important could that be?

This probably should have been another “some like it, some don’t” story. Instead, it comes off as most people like it, “pockets of resistance remain.” If there were data to support the former, that would be a fine angle. As it is, there appears to be only anectdotal evidence in the article.

Today is the earliest the sun will rise, with sunrise being at 6:17 a.m. (In Tippecanoe County). It won’t be dark until about 9:55 p.m.

J&C: Make health care available to all Hoosiers

by 8 Comments

The Journal & Courier has an editorial entitled “Make health care available to all Hoosiers.” The editorial recognizes that about the only thing everybody can agree on is this: “Something must be done to make health care accessible to more Hoosiers.”

Beyond that, there are too many competing interests. It mentions that at any given time, there are ” 600,000 to 800,000 people — 9 percent to 14 percent of the state’s population — [who] are uninsured at any given time.” It does not go into the difficulties and thin coverage experienced even by those who are insured.

Uninsured or marginally insured are likely to avoid preventative treatment to see if the problem goes away and the cost can be avoided altogether. If the problem persists and gets worse, treatment will likely be sought in an emergency room where it’s more expensive and more difficult to treat.

The high premiums and Indiana’s high health care costs ripple through the economy. Employers spend more on health insurance, which diverts money from raises and investments and makes contract negotiations with unions difficult. It discourages entrepreneurs from starting a business. Companies looking to locate in Indiana might pass up the Hoosier state.

Huge bureaucracies are in place to manage the intricacies and vast oceans of paperwork associated with our healthcare system. Governor Daniels has suggested that part of the problem with our school systems is that too few of the dollars spent are spent on actually educating children. So too are too few of our healthcare dollars spent on treating the sick and maintaining the healthy.

The average American spends more and gets less for his or her healthcare dollar than citizens of other industrialized nations. If you’re loaded or have blue chip insurance and need bleeding edge medical procedures immediately, our system works perfectly. Otherwise, it leaves a lot to be desired. And it’s squeezing the middle class. The poor have some protection through Medicaid. The rich have a decent healthcare system. The middle class is potentially one illness away from ruin — judgments leading to a choice between bankruptcy on the one hand or decimation of savings, garnished wages, and home foreclosure on the other.

IN-09: Bill Clinton v. Laura Bush?

by 16 Comments

Lesley Stedman Weidenbener has an article in the Louisville Courier Journal on some heavy hitting fundraisers being conducted in Indiana’s 9th Congressional District. Bill Clinton will be conducting a fundraiser for Once & Future Democrat Baron Hill while Laura Bush will be conducting one for incumbent trucking magnate Mike Sodrel. Weidenbener notes the attention this race is getting from the national media.

Meanwhile, Political Junkie Matt Tully asks the important question, “Laura Bush or Bill Clinton. Who would you rather dine with?”

I posted my comment to his blog post:

Bill is tremendously intelligent and has a freakish amount of charisma.

Laura is probably a very nice lady.

I’ll go with the charismatic braniac.

Meanwhile, I note that the comment of Benjamin H. strikes me as indicative of Bush supporters everywhere:

I don’t even have to think…Mrs. Bush

Bush: the choice of non-thinkers everywhere.

IN-08: GOP politicizes tragedy in support of Hostettler

by 11 Comments

The Courier Press has an article on a attack ad against Brad Ellsworth the National GOP put out for the benefit of John Hostettler.

The ad tries to lay responsibility at the feet of Sheriff Ellsworth for the triple murder/suicide committed by Travis John Moore on April 22, 2005 while he was on work release. I’m not sure what the GOP thinks Ellsworth should have done. Typically the sentence and terms of incarceration are not matters in which a Sheriff’s Department are particularly involved. The prosecutor’s office, in conjunction with the court and the Defendant, makes the decisions on plea agreements and the like. The GOP suggests that Ellsworth “endorsed” the deal, even after the murders, when in reality, they are apparently referring to a report wherein Ellsworth’s office determined that the judge was within his authority to order the work release, which is almost certainly accurate.

The first few paragraphs of the article:

National Republicans accused Vanderburgh County Sheriff Brad Ellsworth on Thursday of endorsing a judge’s decision not to incarcerate a work release participant who would go on to commit a triple-murder/suicide.

Ellsworth responded with a written statement saying Indiana 8th District Rep. John Hostettler’s “callous decision to politicize this tragedy shows he knows nothing about protecting this community and even less about what it means to be a leader.”

Proposed Federal Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

by 6 Comments

A number of Indiana’s Representatives are co-sponsors of H.J. Res. 88 proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Indiana co-sponsors are Chris Chocola (IN-02), Mark Souder (IN-03),  Dan Burton (IN-05), Mike Pence (IN-06), John Hostettler (IN-08), and Mike Sodrel (IN-09).

The substantive portions of the proposed amendment would add the following language to the United States Constitution:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

So much for states rights. This proposed amendment would not only prevent recognition of gay marriage under federal law, it woudl prohibit the people of a state from constituting their respective governments so as not to discriminate against gays.

The broadest provisions of this proposed amendment reads as follows: “The Constitution of a State shall [not] be construed to require the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

Potentially, that could be read to mandate that if something is a legal incident of marriage, a state cannot required it to be conferred on a non-heterosexual union.

The Constitution is too important to be trifled with in this fasion.