IBJNews

Statehouse fight continues over bank-insurance fund

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana lawmakers likely will avoid tapping an obscure bank-insurance fund to help bolster state coffers, but bankers may not survive the battle completely unscathed.

The budget approved by a Senate committee on Monday did not include a measure to use the $250 million public deposit insurance fund, or PDIF.

The fund has been built up over decades through payments from banks and interest earnings to replenish public deposits in the event of a bank failure. Gov. Mitch Daniels’ budget introduced earlier this year proposed transferring most of that money to the state’s general fund.

The Senate’s budget would, however, allow the state to avoid paying back $50 million it borrowed from the fund in 2003. That loan comes due in 2013.

In exchange, banks, like other companies, would benefit from a proposed decrease in the state’s corporate-income tax rate from 8.5 percent to 6.5 percent over four years. Banks previously had been excluded from that break, which is offered in a separate Senate bill.

Sen. Luke Kenley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said he thinks the compromise “would be a good deal for the banks.”

It arose out of negotiations with Daniels, who said late last year that the PDIF has outlived its use in light of new collateralization requirements for banks, and Rep. Jeff Espich, R-Uniondale. As chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, Espich also avoided tapping the PDIF in the House’s proposed budget.

Kenley, of Noblesville, said including banks among the recipients of the corporate-income tax break would save them $20 million per year, which would help compensate for not paying back the $50 million loan.

Bankers aren’t convinced. On Monday, the board of the Indiana Bankers Association voted to reject the proposal. The group’s lobbyists now are fighting to persuade lawmakers to do the same thing.

They’re committed to getting the loan back, even if it means, for now, forgoing the tax break that would go into effect starting in 2013.

“We feel like it’s our responsibility to protect the PDIF,” said Amber Van Til, vice president of government relations for the Indiana Bankers Association. “To take money from the private sector against their will—particularly for folks who are in the business of lending—it’s a difficult pill to swallow.”

It also would be setting a precedent for lawmakers to continue taking from the fund, she said.

And there’s another practical consideration. The $50 million is now considered an asset of the PDIF, which is taken into consideration in actuarial studies of the fund to determine its sufficiency. In the absence of that money, there’s a chance that banks could have to put up additional collateral, Van Til said.

Some lawmakers share those concerns. Sen. Travis Holdman, R-Markle, plans to introduce an amendment when the bill is read in the full Senate on Tuesday or Wednesday. It would take out the provision to forgive the state’s loan, as well as the tax cut for banks.

“Unless there’s agreement from everyone at the table that we forgive that debt, we shouldn’t forgive that debt,” Holdman said.

The bankers could reinvigorate their battle over the income-tax reduction next year.

They might not have to, though. Sen. Brent Waltz, R-Greenwood, plans to introduce an amendment to another bill dealing with economic-development incentives that would reinstate the break for banks.

Even if the banks can’t declare victory yet on the PDIF, they are celebrating an amendment to another bill that would allow local government units to seek help from the state and, if necessary, file for bankruptcy.

That bill had raised concerns among municipal bondholders about whether they would get repaid when distressed government units sought assistance.

An amendment approved Monday would obligate the state—soon after the unit seeks help—to collect enough money from the local units to ensure debt obligations are met and bondholders are paid.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT