A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

Governor’s Debate #1

by 6 Comments

I have to confess that my attention during the debate was divided between the TV, household chores, and helping my son with his homework.

But, from what I saw, Mike Pence delivered a low energy performance, reminiscent of Obama last week. He’s playing not to lose and focus on his positions and past history won’t help him rise above the support he already enjoys going into the debate.

John Gregg had a strong performance. One thing is for sure; no one is going to out-Hoosier him. Talking about Pence “lightin’ around” in that pick up truck. Gregg even mentioned time zones and class basketball, so he knows what makes me tick. If he’d said something negative about the Old Confederacy, I might have swooned.

Rupert’s positions didn’t strike me as very libertarian; for example, pro-union, anti-Right to work. But he had a strong close — talking about how it was all well and good to talk about Indiana doing better than its neighbors, but that doesn’t at all mean we’re doing as good as we can.

Gratitude and Respect

by 5 Comments

As a younger man, when I considered books like Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead instructive, I recall the concept of gratitude playing a non-trivial role in my assessment of the political and social landscape. In particular, entities that were insufficiently grateful. For some reason, it bothered me that poor people were not grateful for the government assistance they received, black people were not grateful to northern whites for freeing them from slavery, European countries (especially France) that deigned to criticize U.S. foreign policy were not sufficiently grateful to the U.S. for freeing them from the Nazis.

Leaving aside for a second that I was misguided about who owed gratitude to whom and in what measure, it beats me why I thought the gratitude relationship involved me at all. As an adolescent or early adult, I had done bugger all to deserve gratitude from anyone. If anything, I was insufficiently appreciative of all my parents had done to support me. Apparently I fancied myself, in recent political parlance, a maker rather than a taker – despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s also evident that I thought my tribal affiliations entitled me to reflected gratitude. I was an upper middle class white male from the northern half of the United States. And for that, world, YOU’RE WELCOME!

So, I’ve drifted away from this mindset. And thank goodness. But I was hardly unique. A lot of that sort of thinking seems to fester on today. What’s behind it? I can guess. For starters, there is this assumption that there is a default status quo and any deviation from that status quo is a sign of benevolence. If I have acquired money or objects, then it must be mine. I must be entitled to it. It is, without discussion, just that I should retain it. If government removes this money from my possession and transfers it to the possession of someone else who has not managed to acquire as much money; well, that’s akin to robbery, and if I don’t complain too loudly, you better goddamn well appreciate my grudging acquiescence.

Similarly, there is a status quo where the United States is geopolitically ascendant in the world and white men are ascendant in the United States. Any shift away from that status quo demands respect.

An emotional need for respect, I think, underlies the desire for gratitude. One argument for favoring charity over government assistance is that those with money can choose the charities they like. But, I think another aspect of charity is that the recipient is compelled to recognize it as such – they are supplicants, they are not entitled to this money. (Entitlement being closely related to property and, as such, carrying a bunch of questions about who is entitled, why, under what circumstances, and for how long?) Makes me think of that Seinfeld bit about getting hand.

Jerry: I know, you told me you like her, everything is going good.

George: No everything is *not* going good. I’m very uncomfortable. I have no power. I mean, why should she have the upper hand. *Once* in my life I would like the upper hand. I have no hand– no hand at all. She has the hand; I have *no* hand…

George: How do I get the hand?

Jerry: We all want the hand. Hand is tough to get. You gotta get the hand right from the opening.

Why Do You Want My Kids To Live In A Dystopian Hellscape?

by 14 Comments

I walk my kids to school most mornings. It’s a short walk, but I love having a consistent time to chat with them. Today it was frosty out, about 32 degrees. My son thought maybe it had something to do with the hole in the ozone layer. He had read that the ozone layer was the part of the earth that kept our planet from getting too hot or too cold.

I demurred because: a) weather is different from climate; and b) I didn’t think that accurately captured the function of the ozone layer. Still, it brought home in a more visceral way the potential effects of climate change denialism. For me, the climate change debate has largely been an abstract debate. I know the vast majority of credible scientists say that climate change is observable, say that it is caused by human activity, and predict grim things to happen on earth because of it in the not too distant future. I also know that there are some that wish to disregard such predictions because it would unduly interfere with short term profits. And, there are still others that want to ignore such predictions as a part of the culture war I don’t fully understand. Near as I can figure, they are willing to endure flooding and unstable weather because hippies suck. Or something.

Still and all, it’s been a pretty abstract debate for me. I generally have the sense that the worst of it won’t take place until I’m pretty old or dead. But, there is a better chance that my kids will have to deal with the fallout. And, why do you want my kids to be collateral damage in your psychotic war against Al Gore?

Bradner: “Inside Mourdock’s Chrysler Battle”

by 5 Comments

Eric Bradner has an excellent article in the Evansville Courier Press about Mourdock and the Chrysler deal. The one piece of new information is that Indiana, through its fund manager, had, shortly prior to Chrysler filing bankruptcy, agreed to a deal that would have given Indiana about $1.6 million more than what it received under the bankruptcy restructuring plan which Mourdock spent $2 million to fight.

Indiana invested in Chrysler when it was a distressed asset. Investing $18.3 million, Indiana bought bonds with a face value of $42.5 million – in other words, paying about $0.43 per nominal dollar of securities. Before the bankruptcy, negotiations were under way. Indiana’s fund manager agreed to a deal that would have gotten Indiana about $0.33 on the dollar or about $14 million. Other funds that were part of the pre-bankruptcy negotiation blew up the deal; holding out for something better. So, Chrysler went into bankruptcy. The offer got a little smaller with Indiana’s return shrinking to about $0.29 on the dollar or about $12.4 million.

Bradner’s article cuts Mourdock a little bit of slack. There was no evidence that the liquidation value of Chrysler was anything better than the $2 billion used by the bankruptcy court. Efforts to shop around Chrysler had been underway for a year or two prior to the bankruptcy, and there is no evidence that anyone wanted to pay anything more than the $2 billion. Saying, in retrospect, it could have been worth more is simply magical thinking.

Bradner has this to say:

The $2 billion offer was based on estimates of what Chrysler would have been worth had the company liquidated, selling off its assets with the money going to bondholders like Indiana. Though estimates at the time said the company could not be worth more than that, there will never be a way to test them.

I think it’s a mistake to, by the way this is phrased, place an additional burden on the $2 billion figure rather than point out more strongly that Mourdock’s estimate that it would be worth more has not met any burden at all, let alone one strong enough to rebut the burden already met by proponents of the settlement in court. But, that’s probably a nitpick.

So, what we have is an Indiana investment that was made for $0.43/dollar, an Indiana agreement to take $0.33/dollar, and a Treasurer spending $2 million trying to wreck an effort to save the domestic auto industry when the deal shrank by $1.6 million to $.29/dollar. Mourdock says that the acceptance of the deal by the fund manager was a mistake, that he never knew about it or sanctioned it. Donnelly’s crowd is quick to pounce on that:

“Mourdock says his fund manager went rogue by agreeing to an earlier, better offer,” Parker said. “That means one of two things is true: that Mourdock keeps such poor watch over Indiana’s money that a $14 million transaction doesn’t get his attention, or that when the manager was acting in the best interest of the retirees, Mourdock overruled him to act in the best interests of his political career.”

I also have to quibble with Bradner’s article when he suggests that Mourdock can credibly claim as a victory the Supreme Court’s order that eliminated the underlying legal opinions as future precedent. This was a Munsingwear order – based on the case having become moot; and cannot at all be regarded as commentary by the Supreme Court on the soundness (or lack thereof) of the underlying legal opinion. In fact, I believe the determination that the case was moot (and, therefore, that a Munsingwear order was appropriate) was another loss for the Indiana petitioners; as they were arguing that the case was not moot and could, therefore, that Indiana could continue to petition for relief. See my discussion here.

[The Indiana petitioners] seem to be hanging their hat on the thin reed of a Munsingwear order from the United States Supreme Court. Generally speaking, a Munsingwear order is issued when a case becomes moot before it can be subjected to appellate review. The idea is that the case is over, so the appellate courts aren’t allowed to review it, but you don’t want to have potentially bad law remain on the books simply because an appellate court doesn’t have a chance to offer correction to the lower court.

Bottom line is that Mourdock lost, and lost expensively in pursuit of a foolish, possibly destructive, cause. His argument that he was sticking up for secured creditors (you, know, “the little guys”) because the secured creditors got screwed. This argument fails right out of the gate because there is no credible evidence that there was any other available deal, including liquidation, where the secured creditors could have gotten more money. The only way secured creditors would have gotten more is if the federal government revised its own offer and spent more money bailing out secured creditors. Of course, even this bit of wishful thinking collapses as a possibility the minute Mourdock starts bellyaching about the federal government picking winners and losers.

I am always skeptical of potential clients who want to pursue a case “for the principle” of the thing. Civil litigation is a poor tool for vindicating principles. It’s about obtaining money to compensate an injured party for its losses. Assuming he’s rational, if Mourdock had been playing with his own money, he never would have pursued this litigation. Given the amounts involved, it was a lose-lose proposition. But, playing with taxpayer money for purposes of political grandstanding, I guess the move makes a certain, cynical amount of sense.

I spoke too soon on I-69

by 6 Comments

Last week, I linked to an article about I-69 moving along with an award of a contract for a stretch around Bloomington. Today Ryan Sabalow has an article“There is no money to finish anything of consequence, much beyond routine maintenance and a few minor projects,” said Rep. Jeff Espich, chairman of the House’s tax-writing and finance committee.

So the choice for the next governor, although far from easy in practice, is fairly simple in principle: either come up with a new source of funds or stop the project — at least for the time being — in Bloomington.

They need $1.1 billion. Pence, Gregg (and Boneham) all support completing the project. None of them has any idea how to get the money. I predict even more dangerous and annoying stop-and-go traffic along SR 37. Ugh.

The Vocabulary of Property

by 12 Comments

On a Saturday morning, when my brain should be occupied by strategy for my kid’s soccer game or by the prospect of college football, I find myself wrestling with the idea that our notions of property are so deeply embedded in our culture, we don’t have a good vocabulary for discussing the underlying assumptions of property; particularly in the context of a policy debate. That can’t be normal.

I don’t have any good answers at the moment, and I’ve almost certainly covered this ground before. But, advocates of the property status quo can just say, “I think people ought to be able to keep what’s theirs.” It’s simple and sounds utterly reasonable; almost unassailable.

To contest this, someone who thinks that more equity is necessary to preserve the health of our political and economic systems has to spend a great deal of time and a great number of words deconstructing the word “theirs”; making arguments about when property rights vest in a person such that the thing can be said to be “theirs,” that property rights do not exist in any enforceable sense absent the cooperation of the government, and suggesting that the point at which rights vest is, itself, a policy choice and mostly arbitrary.

If you have to spend that much effort and verbiage countering a simple sentence, chances are, you’re going to lose the debate unless the listener is uncommonly patient and open minded.

Anyway, that’s what I woke up thinking about. Maybe I need a hobby.

House Science Committee Member: Big Bang is A Lie Straight From the Pit of Hell

by 11 Comments

Sweet Jumpin’ Jehosephat. Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA): Evolution, Big Bang ‘Lies Straight From The Pit Of Hell’. Rep. Broun serves in the House of Representatives on the House Science Committee. Quoth Rep. Broun:

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,” Broun said.

It’d be like putting me on the House Committee for Confederate Heritage or Class Basketball Advocacy or Legible Penmanship.

Lesser of Evils: Baby Murders or Unsanctioned Sex? Not an Easy Choice, Apparently.

by 8 Comments

I’ve seen a couple of references online to a recent study showing “US abortion rates plummet with free birth control.”

But that’s really beside the point. While a lot of the focus is on the horrors of killing babies, when presented with an effective way of reducing that number, a lot of abortion rights opponents are strangely unmoved. Or, it’s strange if one takes at face value the rhetoric about holocausts of murdered babies and whatnot. Less openly discussed is a desire that people, particularly women, stop engaging in unsanctioned sexual activity.

Having both of those goals is fine. There are reasons – not ones I agree with necessarily – for both policy desires. But, birth control and studies such as these serve to highlight priorities. It presents a choice. Which is worse? Unsanctioned sex or murdered babies? Seems like a no-brainer; baby-murdering seems like the worst thing ever if that’s honestly what you think is happening at an abortion clinic. Turning a blind eye to the painted Jezebels in your midst seems like a small price to pay.

And yet. A very small number of abortion rights opponents are willing to get on board with policies that make birth control more widely available.

Providing free birth control to women and teens in Missouri at high risk of unplanned pregnancies led to a drastic drop in abortion rates and teenage mothers, a study published Thursday found.

If the same results were replicated across the United States, free birth control could prevent 1,060,370 unplanned pregnancies and 873,250 abortions a year.

Teens and unmarried women might have sex – they might even get the idea that their behavior is acceptable; but you’ll have 873,250 fewer baby murders each year. Hopefully I’m not being disrespectful by saying that I simply don’t grasp your worldview if this is a close choice.

Steele Proposes Decriminalizing Marijuana

by 9 Comments

Sophia Voravong, writing for the Lafayette Journal and Courier, has an article about a proposal to decriminalize marijuana possession expected to be considered by the upcoming Indiana General Assembly.

[Sen. Brent] Steele, chairman of the Senate committee on corrections, criminal and civil matters, wants to make possession of 10 grams or less of marijuana an infraction — similar to a traffic violation— instead of a misdemeanor, he told the Indianapolis Business Journal last month.

I don’t particularly think marijuana itself is inherently more troublesome than alcohol or cigarettes. And I don’t think those things are terribly likely to be gateways to harder, more damaging drugs like heroin or meth. But I do have a problem with decriminalization. I figure either they should leave it alone or legalize it. The problem I have with merely imposing a lighter penalty is that you’re still buying it from criminals.

In a sense, by decriminalizing marijuana but not legalizing it, you are encouraging more interactions between mostly law abiding citizens and folks more likely to rob them or use violence to protect their market share or enforce contracts.

I don’t know much about the drug economy, but my sense is that Anheuser Busch plays hardball, but they do it through the courts, police, and exercise of economic leverage. They have options, so direct violence probably isn’t in their tool kit. Joe Drug Dealer who has a marijuana line he would like you to purchase can’t go to the courts to enforce his contracts and the opinion of the FTC is probably low on his list of concerns. And, if John Drug Dealer tries to introduce competition into the market place, they probably won’t work out their differences in court.

So, anyway, it seems likely that by increasing the number of marijuana transactions and expanding the population engaging in such transactions, you increase the opportunities for violence. That, more than any real concerns about the nature of the drug itself, makes me think that decriminalization isn’t such a great idea.

I-69 coming along

by 8 Comments

The construction of I-69 through the southern part of Indiana is still plugging along. Eric Bradner has an article in the Evansville Courier Press about the award of a $57.5 million contract to build a piece of it in Monroe County. Apparently that is for a 4 mile stretch of the total project which is 142 miles long.

I’m all for infrastructure and transportation and am a little excited to see how this one affects driving in Indiana. But, it is a reminder that we subsidize automobile traffic too; and we should keep that in mind when folks periodically complain about rail transportation not paying for itself.