A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

“Only the truly powerless can be truly innocent,” is one of the many things I picked up from the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. In that sense, the Libertarians are probably innocent when it comes to fall out from the BP spill. When pressed, I think I have to concede that the problems in the Gulf are not the result of libertarian policy and certainly not of Libertarian politicians. However, there may be some second hand blame to pass around because of the frequency with which non-libertarian policies are dressed up with a fig leaf of libertarianism. Crony capitalism and lax oversight are often justified with vague mutterings about the invisible hand and letting the free market work.

But, among other things, as Mike Kole pointed out (in a Facebook posting), the cap on oil company liability which enjoyed bipartisan support wasn’t a libertarian move. That prompted a response from me that I thought I’d re-hash here instead of providing any original content. But first, I ought to note that Libertarians get more criticism for me because, fairly or not, I hold them to a higher standard. I don’t really expect any consistency out of Republicans or Democrats. They exist primarily for the purpose of getting elected; such principles as they have are mostly incidental to that larger goal. With Libertarians, the principles are primary and getting elected is secondary.

Anyway from my response to Mike’s Facebook thread:

I think this situation [the BP oil spill] does implicate what I regard as some weaker spots in libertarian thought. I don’t think libertarian philosophy deals well with pollution. Generally, there is a proposition that folks should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn’t injure the property or persons of others. That’s fine as far as it goes, but too often the injury from pollution is subtle, difficult to trace, and difficult to quantify; allowing its cost to be externalized onto others.

Another problem is that people frequently have the ability to cause more damage than they can pay for. I’m not sure there is any real help in this situation from libertarian thought — the victim just has to bear the loss when the culprit is tapped out. This problem can be particularly bad when the culprit is a corporation which shields individuals from personal responsibility and which have a disturbing habit of dissolving when times are tough. I understand that there is a division among libertarians as to the propriety of the corporate form. As a practical concession, I can see why Libertarians would accept corporations as a reality they have to live with. But, in terms of pure philosophy, I don’t think the corporate form has any legitimate function in a libertarian world-view, existing as it does to shield individuals from the consequences of their actions.

The invisible hand can’t and won’t clean up this mess. We need to look at why the free market might break down at this level and recognize those potential weaknesses when designing policy in the future.

Amanda Hamon, writing for the Journal & Courier, has an article about the ceremonial completion of one of those projects that a city needs to undertake even though it’s probably not going to get voters fired up. It’s an underground sewer tunnel in downtown Lafayette, and if it’s working right, nobody is going to notice it’s there.

The 2,300-foot-long tunnel, which runs along Second Street, has been accepting flow since April 10, said Brad Talley, the city’s wastewater superintendent.

“It’s working well,” he said. “With the rains we’ve had so far, it’s reduced the amount of overflows going into the river by 38 million gallons already, in two months or so.”

. . .

The $18.9 million project is part of the city’s 20-year, long-term control plan to eliminate sewage overflows caused by the city’s antiquated combined sewer system that mixes stormwater with raw sewage.

Talley said the tunnel will eliminate 30 percent of the city’s annual volume of sewage overflows into the Wabash River. The tunnel has the capacity to store up to 1.5 million gallons of water, he said.

This kind of thing is at the heart of why we need government. Cities have a ton of people all packed together. That comes with consequences. We aren’t islands unto ourselves. So, for example, you have to build sewage tunnels that help deal with our waste without dumping it into the river for those downstream to enjoy. It requires a fair number of tax dollars and, when folks are complaining about taxes, it would rarely occur to them to chalk a sewage tunnel up on the “benefits” side of the ledger.

Dana Hasinger and Tom Spalding, writing for the Indy Star, are reporting that Hat World is expanding its Indianapolis headquarters and will add 571 jobs.

I mention this primarily as an excuse to quote the epic movie Fear of a Black Hat:

Nina Blackburn: So, what’s the deal with the hats?

Ice Cold: Shit, the hats’re what NWH is all about. See, back in the day when there were slaves and stuff, we was forced to work in the hot sun all day, hatless. I mean, not even a babushka.

Tone Def: Word. Heads totally exposed to the sun.

Ice Cold: So when the slaves got back from the fields, they was too tired to revolt against they masters. So what we’re sayin’ now is: Yo, we got some hats now, muh-fuckas.

Tasty Taste: And we ain’t too tired to bust a cap in yo’ ass.

Howey politics has a message posted by Mark Souder that makes him look like even more of a tool. It’s part political strategy guide, part gossipy high school blow-by-blow about who said what to whom and when, and with just a little dash of “I would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for those meddling kids and their dog.”

He talks about who he thinks should win the Republican nomination to replace him (Marlin Stutzman.) He talks about how the story got out. And, he talks about how he was trying to resign without disclosing specifics to minimize political damage, but gosh darn it, someone was leaking specifics to Fox News.

Most importantly, he does not sound contrite. My advice – unsolicited, admittedly – is to let the Third District take care of itself, shut up for a good while, and focus on how you betrayed your family. But that’s just me, and I’m not a stalwart champion of family values, so what do I know?

Inchoate: being only partly in existence or operation, especially imperfectly formed or formulated.

From the Simpsons:

Homer: Here it is everybody! The world’s greatest web site! [a highly annoying newbie web page, complete with several clashing sounds, is seen] You’d think all the noises would be annoying, but they’re not.

Bart: I got suspended from school today.

Homer: No kidding [obviously ignoring and then continuing to ignore Bart] What do you think of my page, Lisa? Be honest, it’s great, isn’t it? Go ahead, say it’s great if you want to.

Bart: They found a switchblade in my locker.

Lisa: Well, a web page is supposed to be a personal thing. You’ve just stolen copyrighted material from everyone else. They could sue you for that.

Bart: I took a swing at a cop.

Homer:They can’t sue me if they don’t know who I am. I’ll just call myself Mr. “X”.

Bart: I’m just mad all the time.

Homer:Yep, you just can’t go wrong with Mr. “X”.

The Wild One:

What are you rebelling against?

What do you got?

Ron Fournier, writing for the Associated Press, has a column trying to find political themes shaping this year’s political cycle: Antipathy toward elected officials and the establishment. The power of special interests. Tests of party purity. The tea party. The quixotic fight against hyper-partisanship.

For my part, I think people are mad, and the things they’re mad about are just too big and complicated for them to handle in any focused kind of way, so they’re just lashing out. They hate partisanship but punish party members who cooperate with the opposing party. They hate big government but want the government to shove aside the invisible hand of the marketplace that’s not cleaning up the Gulf. They want lower taxes and deficit reduction but can’t seem to identify government expenditures from which they benefit which they’d be willing to do without. My guess is that these issues are just lightning rods for general dissatisfaction. The dissatisfaction comes from a sense of economic insecurity. Job security is nil, and there is no real confidence that the U.S. is going to get its act together and get going in a direction where an individual willing to work hard is generally assured of becoming economically comfortable, surpassing the standard of living of his or her parents, and reasonably expecting that their kids will be able to do the same.

As Fournier points out:

The unemployment rate is nearly 10 percent. Oil sullies the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. troops die in Afghanistan and Iraq. Government bailouts and Obama’s health care initiative stir fears about the national debt. And, nine years after 9/11, doubts linger about the country’s defenses.

Oh, and in other happy news, I’ve heard that Afghanistan has surpassed Vietnam as the longest war in U.S. history. (I disagree with that method of counting; but it’s still a sobering milestone.)

Eric Bradner, writing for the Evansville Courier Press, has an article about how the Chrysler Bankruptcy is playing into the Indiana Treasurer’s race between incumbent Richard Mourdock and challenger Pete Buttigieg.

At issue is Mourdock’s decision to go glory-hound with a legal challenge to the decision of the Chrysler bankruptcy court, costing Hoosiers a pile of money. What I have never seen described – and I have been paying some attention to the issue – is any reasonable scenario in which Mourdock’s legal challenges would have resulted in a net financial gain to Hoosiers.

See here for detailed analysis, but this is the gist:

The nut of Indiana’s objection is that, under the plan, lesser priority claims will receive value while Indiana’s (and other) first-priority claims will not be made whole. Under a liquidation scenario, typically you sell everything off and then, from that pool of money you pay the first class of creditors (e.g. first priority lien holders). Once they are paid in full, you move on to the second class of creditors (e.g. unsecured lenders). When you reach a class of creditors whose claims exceed the remaining pool of money, you pay those creditors a pro rata share of what’s left. Any remaining classes of creditors get nothing. The important point is that you don’t pay the second class creditors anything until the first class creditors have been paid in full.

Here is the problem with Indiana’s analysis: the restructuring plan under which the government and the UAW and other lesser creditors receive value also provides more money to the first lien creditors than they would get from a liquidation.

Under the scenario that happened, the United States Government was willing to fund payments to Chrysler’s creditors and fund the start up of a new, post-bankruptcy Chrysler, including money that went to unions. That second part pissed off ideologues who don’t like money going to anyone before a privileged group of creditors get paid in full and particularly not to unions. But – and here is the catch – a) the United States Government wasn’t willing to fund the bankruptcy transition under other terms; and b) there were no other buyers willing to pay more for the liquidated assets or otherwise in a manner that would net more to secured creditors than the scenario offered by the government.

To my knowledge, Mourdock has never told us something to the effect of “Hoosiers would have gotten more out of the bankruptcy if the U.S. Government had stayed out, because _______. They would have gotten $0.___ per dollar which is more than the $0.29 per dollar received under the existing decision. This justifies the expenditure of $x million in legal fees.”

The challenger, Pete Buttigieg makes no claim to legal expertise for analyzing the particulars of bankruptcy law, but he notes something that doesn’t often get mentioned – this was junk paper that the State was buying for $0.43 on the dollar:

“One of the facts that he rarely mentions is that when he originally bought Chrysler debt, Chrysler bonds were rated junk bonds,” Buttigieg said. “If we had a safer investment policy to begin with, none of this would have happened.”

Jeff Wiehe, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, has a pretty good article about the struggles taking care of the mentally ill at the Allen County Jail. One of the basic problems is that when you do not treat the mentally ill up front, there is a strong likelihood that they won’t comply with society’s norms and will, consequently, end up in jail. Jails become the mental treatment centers of last resort.

The article doesn’t specify costs, but my strong suspicion is that it costs more to treat mental illness in jail than it would elsewhere. But, lawmakers get beaten around politically for spending money on “do gooder” crap like mental illness. We don’t even much care for government spending our money to help people with real diseases, let alone mental illness which – I suspect – a lot of us see as more a sign of weakness than as a valid illness. It’s not true, of course, that mental illnesses aren’t real. It’s just that, when we see a broken leg, we know what we’re dealing with. A sick brain is a lot more subtle.

But jails, we’ll let our politicians spend at least some money on jails. Punishment, as opposed to treatment, is something we can get behind. I’m not sure why we’re generally happier with tax dollars spent on retribution, but there it is. Unfortunately, that means that the treatment provided ends up being a lot more slapdash. The mentally ill are mixed in with people who are actually bad. And, once the confinement ends, the treatment usually does to. The person, still unable to conform to societal norms, re-offends in some way or another. Rinse. Repeat.

I don’t know what the right answer is. I don’t think we’re spending our money wisely by using jail as a proxy for mental institutions. But, on the other side of things, it’s hard for me to escape the notion that segments of our population can present a huge, sucking vortex of need into which we could throw every available resource without seriously diminishing the demand. Guess I’m a little cynical.

Once again, I’m out of my depth, but after reading Tipsy Teatotaler’s thoughts on the mystery of confession in the Orthodox Church, I got to thinking about the notion of shame. (Note: one isn’t necessarily closely related to the other – the synapses in my brain just fire pretty freely on occasion.)

My thought was to question whether shame is a valuable emotion for the individual. I can definitely see the value in such things as guilt, regret, sorrow, and other emotions which are similar, but a little different. Shame, it seems to me, not only has a component dealing with unhappiness about something one has done wrong; it also has to do with perceiving one’s self as having low self-worth in the eyes of the community or some outside source. In other words, it’s not just (or even primarily?) about judging one’s actions as deficient and feeling bad for that; it’s about believing that the Other judges one’s actions as deficient, attributing weight to the judgment of the Other, and feeling bad accordingly.

So, in a sense, shame is a diminishment of self in favor of others. (Not a libertarian emotion, I guess!) I can see how, as a society, it would be a useful emotion to cultivate in members. But, is it beneficial on a personal level?

Random thoughts for a Wednesday morning.