A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

IN-08: Dave Crooks Gets Democratic Party Endorsement

by 4 Comments

Former state representative and current Congressional candidate, Dave Crooks, got the Democratic Party endorsement to challenge incumbent Representative Larry Buschon for the 8th District Congressional seat. In a procedure I have not seen before (though my history watching such things is pretty limited), the 8th District Democratic party chairs caucused and voted for Crooks to be the party’s nominee this year.

The candidates to be the Democratic nominee were Crooks and Patrick Scates, a former aide to Brad Ellsworth. Warrick County Democratic Chairman Terry White had also been a nominee but dropped out earlier this week. Scates and Crooks agreed to let the nomination be decided through a caucus process. Technically, the primary will still go forward and another candidate could file, but in all likelihood this settles the matter.

The idea is to avoid a bruising, expensive primary battle. Typically, I disagree with that common wisdom. My belief is that primaries leave candidates better organized and better tested. However, watching the current GOP Presidential campaigns, that belief is being challenged. Having no direct experience with campaigns, I also have little sense of the financial concerns. So, whatever the political merits of going through with a traditional primary, it might well be that the Democratic nominee was unlikely to have the financial wherewithal to mount both a serious primary campaign and a general campaign against an incumbent.

Personally, I’m happy with the result. I’ve mentioned before that I have had the opportunity to work with Dave when he was in the legislature and was even lucky enough to be on his radio show a couple of years back. He’s a smart, stand up guy who would serve the 8th District well. This is not, by the way, to take anything away from Scates or White with whom I have no experience.

Hoosiers Beat (Soon To Be Former) #1 Kentucky

by 2 Comments

Christian Watford probably ranks #2 behind Keith Smart in terms of momentous last second three point shots for IU. Watford hit a three as time ran out to put IU over #1 Kentucky, 73 – 72. The resulting full throated roar in Assembly Hall was not just the thrill of a last second win; not just the thrill of a last second win over a ranked team; not just the thrill of a last second win over a #1 ranked team; it was a buzzer beating win over a #1 Kentucky team after years of futility for a once proud program.

Looks like we’ve got a solid team on our hands.

Second Amendment Ueber Alles

by 19 Comments

Responding to Sheila Kennedy’s blog post entitled, “Why Do Gun Rights Trump All Other Rights?” I left a comment that I thought I’d go ahead and re-post here:

I think the reasoning usually advanced, when proponents bother explaining at all, is that the Second Amendment is the right upon which all the rest depend — sort of a revenge fantasy where the government is intent on taking away free speech rights, the right to trial by jury, and all the rest; but then a brave group of citizens throws off the yoke of tyranny with their trusty firearms.

But, given the seeming lack of interest in, say, defending the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures; I have a hard time seeing Second Amendment triumphalists rousing themselves to protect too many of the other rights.

For many, I think it’s an extension of the culture war mixed in with some gender issues. Guns (at least the right kinds of guns) are manlier, more rural, speak of a simpler time – they are John Wayne and NASCAR. (Not sure what Second Amendment enthusiasts have to say about gangsta rappers with their AKs.)

In any case, Amendments like the First, Fourth, and Sixth are dependent on words and lawyers and craftiness you know in your heart are wrong but can’t quite articulate why.

Indiana Chief Judge Randall Shepard Announces Retirement

by 1 Comment

The Indiana Supreme Court has announced that Chief Justice Randall Shepard will retire in March 2012. My impression is that he has done solid work as a Chief Justice over the last 25 years. Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, I have not noticed particular partisanship in the Indiana Supreme Court. I’ve certainly questioned their decisions from time to time, but have not suspected anyone of having an ideological axe to grind. I suspect that the Chief Justice has something to do with that.

Probably the biggest complaint I’ve heard about the Chief Justice does not concern his legal acumen, but concerns that the Supreme Court is overstepping its authority (or perhaps exercising that authority more vigorously than is prudent) when it comes to administering the trial courts. The Supreme Court certainly has the authority to review the orders and decisions of trial court judges, but it’s less clear when and how the Supreme Court should be able to tell trial courts to allocate the administrative resources of those courts. Over the tenure of the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court has been more active in those areas with things like attempts at balancing case loads and trying to develop a centralized computer system for the courts and encouraging them to sign on.

I do not have direct knowledge of those administrative matters; so I can’t say with a great deal of certainty how well grounded the complaints are. Despite (I am told — I was a teenager and not paying attention to such things at the time) initial concerns about Chief Justice Shepard’s youth and relative lack of experience when he was nominated to the position by Governor Orr in the mid-80s, he has done credit to his office, and I can only hope that someone of equal ability will be selected to fill his shoes.

$300 million mistake

by 5 Comments

I was traveling, so I did not get a chance to comment on this one yet. Gov. Daniels yesterday announced that his administration had screwed up the state’s book keeping to the tune of $320 million. He spun it as a good thing, a “bank error in your favor.”

A Department of Revenue auditor last month discovered some corporate income tax payments submitted via electronic check were not being sent to Indiana’s General Fund, which pays for schools, roads and nearly all state services, but were sitting unused in the state’s Collections Fund.

It will be interesting to learn whether the blame for the mistake should be attributed to the Department of Revenue, Richard Mourdock’s office of the Treasurer, or somewhere else. (Charlie White probably gets a pass on this one.) When I heard about the announcement, a scene from Brewster’s Millions came to mind. The premise in that movie is that if Brewster spends $30 million in 30 days without any tangible assets to show for it, he inherits his uncle’s $300 million. Otherwise, the law firm handling the estate gets it. So, one of the firm’s associates, is told to sabotage Brewster’s efforts. To do so, the associate sandbags $20,000 which he “discovers” at the last minute.

The analogy isn’t all that strong; but, if this were not merely incompetence, there would be parallels in the sense that the General Assembly made policy decisions based on incorrect financial information provided to it by the executive branch; and those policy decisions, for the most part, went in the direction the Governor wanted – diminished funds available for infrastructure, education, and other public goods enjoyed by rich and poor alike; not to mention safety net programs mostly used by the poor alone.

Now, instead of using the money to defray the $2 billion we owe the feds for unemployment insurance or shore up the underfunded employee pension system; he is talking about giving a tax rebate to individual taxpayers? I guess I’d have to see the details before passing final judgment; but my suspicion is that, rather than giving $50 to each Indiana citizen or whatever, this money is better used to pay our debts.

Las Vegas

by 16 Comments

I just flew in from Las Vegas, and boy are my arms tired. We left on Saturday morning and stayed out there until Tuesday. Amy & I ran in the Las Vegas half marathon. Caught up with a few friends, as well.

The race was novel, and I’m glad to have done it, but I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it to anyone, and I don’t think I’d be eager to run it again. It was too crowded, and the organization was somewhat lacking. Part of it has to do with what I think is an intentional lack of transportation infrastructure. I don’t know Las Vegas politics or anything else, so maybe I’m completely off base. But, that city has a huge number of people moving to and from a limited set of destination points — primarily from the airport to casinos along the strip. A train from the airport to a few stops along the strip would alleviate all kinds of congestion. But, cabs are huge money; so if I had to guess, the cab interests are probably standing in the way of this.

Anyway, the lack of transportation infrastructure factored into a lot of problems with people getting to and from the start and finish lines. Indianapolis seems to manage this with their comparably sized mini-marathon (probably having to do with more participants having their own cars and lots of parking garages in downtown Indy); but this event was deficient on both ends. The Mandalay Bay was closest to the finish line. I heard the lobby described as looking like a refugee camp after the race; people looking for shuttles which weren’t, apparently, clearly marked or sufficient in capacity.

In addition, the corrals weren’t well managed – a lot of slower people ended up starting in front of a lot of faster people. The plan was to start the corrals in 2 minute waves, but for whatever reason, they started all of the back half of the corrals all it once, leading to a lot of congestion. I guess they started running out of water, medals, the post-race “space blankets” (or whatever they’re called.)

That said, the trip was not all unrelenting misery. Running under the lights was fun. A band in the downtown area was playing a countrified version of Gin N’ Juice when I ran by. And, I got to hear Cheap Trick playing “Dream Police” before the race. (We walked 2 miles to get to the starting line, so I missed most of Cheap Trick’s performance.) More importantly, we got to spend some time with friends out in Las Vegas before and after the race. It’s nice to get away from time to time, but I have to say, it’s awfully nice to be back home and with the kids.

Drug Test for Welfare Benefits

by 30 Comments

Tom LoBianco, writing for the Associated Press, is reporting that Sen. Jean Leising of Oldenburg and Rep. Heath VanNatter of Kokomo intend to introduce legislation requiring welfare recipients to submit to drug tests and pass them as a condition of receiving benefits.

I might be able to get behind this if it’s accompanied by an amendment requiring legislators to pass a breathalyzer test before casting votes. A lot of the evening votes would fail for a lack of a quorum, and a handful of legislators would never be able to cast a vote.

According to Leising and VanNater:

They say Hoosiers scrapping for paychecks shouldn’t have to pay welfare costs of drug abusers.

Their rationale, however, is negated by the experience of Florida with such a law where 96% of applicants pass the test, 2% fail, and 2% refuse to take the test.

So, you invade the privacy of people with the bad sense to be poor only to catch the 2% of that population who are abusing drugs and drive away another 2% who may or may not be for savings that are minimal, at best; most likely a wash; and which might end up being a loss once you get the drug users out of the system.

And then there is the small point that children of drug users should probably be allowed to eat and get health care even though they showed poor judgment when choosing their parents. At some point, lawmakers are going to have to come to terms with the fact morality plays shouldn’t be confused for sound legislation.

IU v. Butler

by 6 Comments

It’s probably not quite time to declare that the Indiana men’s basketball program is back; but it’s hard not to feel like they’re working their way back into the conversation. Tonight’s game against Butler was a big deal for the Hoosiers. Sure, they were 5-0 coming into the game, but they played teams that weren’t very good. Time was, you wouldn’t say Butler was a test, but the Bulldogs made the National Championship game the past two years.

So, tonight’s 16 point victory is reason for Hoosier fans to hope that was left unbalanced by Mike Davis’ tenure and destroyed by the Kelvin Sampson debacle. Tom Crean might be a guy we can stick with for a little while. Of course, hope will make it hurt more on those occasions when they don’t live up to their potential. But, that’s part of the fun.

Farm Subsidies

by 4 Comments

Good article from Philip Brasher, writing for the Gannett News Service, on the issue of federal farm subsidies. Apparently the farm bill – or at least key parts of it — were going to get stuffed into the “supercommittee” process and hidden from the light of day.

The most vocal critics of government spending in Congress are often right on board with the farm bill. It has money flowing to the right kinds of people – big agribusiness and rural voters who tend to vote for Republicans. The farm bill is a good way to determine who is actually against big government and government spending; and whose opposition to government spending is merely pretext for opposing government money going to the wrong sorts of people.

As to the supercommittee process, the article reports:

Committee leaders and many farm groups had embraced the idea of enacting the bill as part of the supercommittee process because that would have protected the agricultural programs from attack by urban lawmakers, who think farm bills unfairly promote industrial-scale agriculture, and tea party conservatives, who don’t like farm subsidies in general. Under rules for the supercommittee process, the House and Senate would have had to vote on any plan the committee recommended without being able to make any changes, including in the farm provisions.
. . .
Leaders of the National Farmers Union and the American Farm Bureau Federation, groups that often diverge on farm policy, say it will be a good idea for lawmakers to rethink key portions of the bill that the committee leaders were writing. Farm Bureau, the more market-oriented of the two organizations, doesn’t like a proposed revenue-protection program that corn, wheat and soybean farmers wanted. The program removes so much risk from planting decisions that it will discourage growers from responding to market signals, the Farm Bureau says. Under the way that program was designed, growers could get a government check anytime their revenue falls more than 13 percent below their average, shielding producers from drops in commodity prices and crop yields.

The National Farmers Union, meanwhile, is unhappy with the way an optional price-guarantee program was designed. The price guarantees are skewed in favor of rice growers and other farmers who backed the program. Rice growers would get payments when the price of their crop is under $13.98 per hundred pounds, a level that exceeds forecast market prices for the next several years. For many other commodities, the guarantees were set well under market prices. The imbalance was intentional; rice growers don’t believe they would benefit from the revenue-based subsidies.

Doghouse on Black Friday

by 1 Comment

Somehow I rarely link here to Doghouse Riley’s posts because I just assume everyone else is reading his stuff on a daily basis. Perhaps that is not the case. Say what you will about the content — I know plenty will disagree — but the man can write.

Anyway, yesterday’s offering was on Black Friday, an event for “folks in search of the illusive Unbelievable Deal on Some Consumer Crap Guaranteed To Make Their Miserable Lives Less Miserable.” The relentless hype of the day from local TV “news” comes in for particular criticism.

The day started as a relatively obscure statistic, got turned into a marketing opportunity, started getting reinforced by local news and now turns box stores across the country into Pamplona.

For my part, I’m somewhere between laughing and fighting in Gandhi’s stages of non-violent victory. (“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”) Aside from the fact that I don’t like spending money; I’m not knee-jerk anti-consumerism. I like gadgets as much or more than the next guy. But this Black Friday stuff boggles my mind. Burning a day off work to go jostle against crowds for the privilege of opening up my wallet and acquiring stuff that I could easily do without is not an appealing prospect.

Annually, we’re treated to Spirit of Christmas shopping tales involving violence, injury and, embracing this year’s theme, pepper spray. (Incidentally, I don’t think the violence is endemic; I think this is another case where violence and unruliness fits a certain news narrative and is, therefore, highlighted.) Commentators this year have noted that mobs and unsafe conditions seem just fine when the mobs are agitating to spend their money; but militarized police tactics are called for when the mobs are protesting the politics of money.

No real point to this other than to say I don’t like Black Friday, and you should go read what Doghouse has to say.