A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

Indiana and the Chrysler Bankruptcy

by 7 Comments

Some of my fellow Hoosier bloggers (h/t Abdul and Josh Claybourn) have been following the Chrysler bankruptcy, particularly with respect to Indiana’s unexpectedly prominent role in the matter. Josh, in particular, has strong feelings on the issue, calling the proposed reorganization (presumably with some degree of hyperbole “The End of Capitalism as We Know It.”)

For those who haven’t been following the matter, Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock has been spearheading objections to the reorganization plan because of its affect on approximately $42 million nominally owed to the Indiana State Teachers Retirement Fund, the Indiana State Pension Trust and the Indiana Major Moves Construction Fund for investments these funds made in Chrysler. This represents about 0.6% of the $6.9 billion in first priority liens against Chrysler’s assets. However, despite Indiana’s very minor position among this class of creditors, it is the one raising the biggest stink and trying the hardest to derail the process. Chrysler smells politics. So do I. Under the proposed plan, Indiana will receive a return of about 29%.

This is an issue that journalists and Indiana politicians should probably be familiar with going forward. Maybe I’m wrong, but this has the smell of Mourdock and, potentially, Gov. Daniels trying to set themselves up politically as champions of the marketplace and defenders against Obama’s nefarious economic plots. If the bankruptcy court’s description (pdf) of the evidence presented bears any resemblance to what was actually presented, Indiana’s pursuit of these claims looks like a waste of taxpayer money – first there is no apparent alternative that would yield more money to the Indiana funds than the one being approved by the court; and second Indiana invested in Chrysler subject to an agreement that requires the Indiana funds to go along with the decisions of fellow investors that control a vastly greater share of the funds invested. Those creditors have consented to the deal with Fiat for a New Chrysler.

Much more after the jump.

[Read more…]

Journal Gazette endorses Wood for Superintendent

by Leave a Comment

Following up on my post earlier today concerning the race for Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has a strong endorsement for Richard Wood. It points out that, on experience, there is no contest. Wood has a solid record of 19 years as a superintendent of the Tippecanoe School Corp. (As I mentioned before, this is a school district with a good record of educating our kids.) By contrast, Tony Bennett is in only his second year as superintendent of Greater Clark County Schools in Jeffersonville.

In addition, the Journal Gazette cites concerns about Bennett’s likely approach to vouchers and privatization.

Indiana voters should also look closely at Bennett’s priorities, specifically his goal of directing more dollars to the classroom. That’s the tag line for the “65 percent solution,” a campaign promoted by Patrick Byrne, the CEO of Overstock.com, whose intentions appear to be about directing more dollars to private schools. The Park City, Utah, resident, who recently gave $10,000 to Bennett’s campaign, bankrolled a multimillion-dollar voucher drive in Utah last year. He said voters there “failed the statewide IQ test” when they rejected the referendum by a large margin.

Bennett, 48, said vouchers are “not on my legislative radar now,” but the role that vouchers and other privatization schemes might play in Indiana schools in the next four years shouldn’t be overlooked. Gov. Mitch Daniels, who said education will be his top priority in a second term, announced his support for Bennett before state Superintendent Suellen Reed announced she wouldn’t seek another term, and the governor has also identified classroom spending as an issue. Daniels’ position on privatization in the public sector is clear.

Higher Interstate Speeds != More Deaths

by 18 Comments

A Purdue University study suggests that higher Interstate speeds has not lead to more Interstate deaths.

Before the move was approved in 2005, legislators heard concerns that allowing speed limits on rural portions of interstates to rise from 65 mph would increase the danger for motorists.

Fatalities on those highways, however, did not increase because drivers were already going faster than the speed limit, and the differences in drivers’ speeds were lowered, said Fred Mannering, a civil engineering professor at Purdue who was the study’s co-author.

The 70 mph speed limit was enacted by Senator Server’s SEA 217-2005.

My personal experience is, as Professor Mannering suggests, that the difference in speed is more significant than the speed itself. It’s always startling to see a car in front of you and find that you’re closing on it much more rapidly than you expected. I don’t know about others, but I find that I always feel like I’m more comfortable driving when I’m moving slightly faster than the average vehicle. If I’m doing that, it seems like most of my hazards are in front of me since fewer cars are closing on me from behind. Also, it feels like I spend lest time hemmed in by other traffic. And, with this approach, I emphatically am not recommending the practice of living in the left hand lane, moving 1 mile per hour faster than the guy in the right hand lane. That drives me nuts. When you catch up to the guy in front of you, get left, pass quickly, then get the heck over to the right again.

Just some friendly driving tips from a guy who has no particular business giving them.