Era of big Jindal-led govt transformation over

Ordinarily, this space covers a governor’s state of the state speech at the beginning of an annual legislative regular session. But Gov. Bobby Jindal has shown he’s unwilling to put much into a legislative agenda for this year’s edition, largely mooting the point of this tradition and making for a lot of legislative idle hands in the devil’s workshop that invites putting him into a delicate political position.

By temperament, unlike some past governors, Jindal is not one who lives to tell the Legislature what to do, preferring to lead parsimoniously. But he found out early in his gubernatorial career that deferring on giving these guys and gals directives and thus leaving them to their own devices can cause him political headaches. In his first session, in 2008, Jindal let a tax cut gain momentum that, seeing national fiscal hard times looming and the impending election of a president who would use it to make any recovery from it tepid or worse, he rather would have deferred until the future, resulting in him jumping on its caboose as it roared through state government and into law. Almost simultaneously, he let the insipid idea of paying part-time legislators a full-time salary mutate into putting him in the awkward position of having to drive his veto pen through it, souring relations with legislators who risked looking greedy, entitled, and out-of-touch only because they thought he would let them get away with it.

Since then, Jindal has provided more direction and came up big at the beginning of his second term, fresh off an impressive reelection, with items that have fundamentally challenged and started transforming the state’s political culture. But they came at great cost to his popularity, and, combined with the natural decline of political capital as a governor ineligible for immediate reelection experiences in the last couple of years of his last term, obviously have made him consider his reach goes so far only to as to pursue, along with a couple of pieces of low-hanging fruit, one significant item this time around.

Unless repealed, fuel subsidy time bomb soon to go off

Unless the Louisiana Legislature acts in its session beginning tomorrow, it looks like a ticking time bomb can go off to the detriment of the pocketbooks of the state’s fuel consumers and taxpayers but to the benefit of a special interest.

While a number of projects involving the production of biofuels appear on the horizon in Louisiana, one actually has gotten going. Diamond Green Diesel in Norco by the end of the year will have a capacity of producing 150 million gallons a year. Starting last June, it began operating near present capacity at 7,000 barrels a day with a manufactured market in place: California government mandates already provides a market the company believes will allow it to withstand the recent elimination of a $1.01 per gallon federal government subsidy.

Unfortunately, this incident of government regulation in one state will spawn its own mandate onto Louisiana, courtesy of the former Gov. Kathleen Blanco era – R.S. 3:4674. The law states that if biodiesel production, regardless of its intended final destination, reaches an annualized 10 million gallons, then within six months two percent of the total diesel sold by volume in the state must be biodiesel. At the rate above, the firm would sell over 140 million gallons a year, easily surpassing the mark and starting the clock. The law does allow for the Louisiana Commission of Weights and Measures to suspend the requirement if logistical problems prevent fulfilling the law’s mandate, but also makes the commissioner of agriculture and forestry issue regulations requiring the state to create incentives, paid for out of state dollars, to compensate for costs to achieve this sales standard.

Deferring sweeps appeal to have no practical impact

The Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration and his leadership allies in the Louisiana Legislature took a route of convenience regarding a court ruling about the practice of “funds sweeps,” leaving for the future the task of correcting an errant court ruling with no practical impact for the present.

Louisiana has hundreds of funds to which dedicated revenue streams flow – most relatively small and obscure, a few large and almost as obscure. They hold billions of dollars, but some of them collect revenues far in excess of actual spending needs. Although theoretically appropriations could be made for their dedicated purposes, in many instances there is little to no genuine reason for that spending, and certainly other things are of much higher priority, so rather than spent wastefully it piles up.

Therefore, given the choice between letting this money lie idle or using it for important objects, the state may legislate a “funds sweep,” meaning a law is passed that transfers money from these funds to another fund where it can be used for general purposes. It’s a safety valve for the lack of courage of too many legislators that refuse to unlock so many inefficient dedications that steer money to the wrong places and/or takes it from the citizenry in various forms for lack of a good reason in the first place, because instead of having to make choices and live with their political consequences, for political cover to avoid this these politicians claim they can’t do anything about it because funds are “dedicated” and then must launch into the necessary corrective of funds sweeps.

Change judicial selection to reduce potential impropriety

There’s a better way to address the stench of pay-to-play concerning Louisiana’s judiciary, so intended legislation to deal with a campaign finance loophole needs to reform far beyond campaign finance parameters.

One big criticism of the questionable lawsuit filed by the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority – East that alleges broken contracts between oil companies and authorities is that the contingency fee arrangement – also questionably granted by Atty. Gen. Buddy Caldwell’s office – could net the lawyers involved billions of dollars and has attached to it a poison pill feature that would create large costs for the SLPA-E if it withdrew. Then it turns out that the lead attorney hired by Caldwell, a political supporter of his, also hosted a fundraiser for the judge at the very time a related matter is coming to trial in front of her. Wade Shows hosted a fundraiser for District Judge Janice Clark at the end of February.

Shows protests that all he did was host the event and did not give any money. He said he agreed to do it well before the case was assigned (randomly, as is the practice) to Clark. But that changes nothing: in a very high profile case that could net Shows an enormous payday, he acted in a way to bring a potential political benefit to the legal authority that can determine whether he sees this payoff.

Caldwell campaigning already superseding AG duties

To the wider world, it seems like it didn’t take long to draw a response to the entry of a major challenger to his spot. But perhaps it just took time for observers to realize that Atty. Gen. Buddy Caldwell entered into full campaign mode weeks ago, understanding then that his job was in jeopardy and now looks to take the state on a ride over the next couple of years that accentuates acrimony and divisiveness in order to try to attain reelection.

Having encountered already a number of setbacks questioning his competence and allegiance to special interests, perhaps the biggest challenge among these is just now getting wound up: the allegation that his office allowed an impermissible contingency fee relationship as part of a questionable lawsuit to go forward letting a state agency (where it’s unclear whether this is considered a constituent part of state government or has sufficient independence, such as with a municipality, parish, or school district, not to be considered as such) sue 97 oil companies over actions allegedly taken or not decades ago. Many observers suspect Caldwell has sympathy for this suit not only for ideological reasons, but also because he has a history of trying to expand state government use of contingency fee arrangements that supports his political allies.

The contingency fee issue, and others, were contested in a lawsuit filed by the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association late last year. This merely turned up the heat, already being applied by state legislators, in arguing the legal impermissibility of Caldwell’s action. Caldwell enlisted a political ally to formulate a response, and were dynamics different, he might have left it at that to let things play out.

Group can help bring principled conservatism to policy

Perhaps the most promising aspect of the nascent Louisiana Legislative Conservative Coalition is that, for the first time, it can articulate a genuine, principled conservatism in the formation of public policy, which until the 21^st century was all but absent among Louisiana policy-makers.

The group (minus the “Legislative” in the name”) early in the year filed paperwork under the Internal Revenue Code section 527 to organize in order to “provide continuity in the adoption of conservative legislation in the State of Louisiana and to promote the economic and cultural advancement of Louisiana through the bipartisan, conservative principles of limited government, free enterprise, individual liberties, and strong traditional families, at all times consistent with the progress of our State and with the well being of the people of Louisiana.” Thirteen Republicans have acknowledged affiliation with the group, with state Rep. Alan Seabaugh being its president.

In remarks about the group, Seabaugh indicated its formation came as a result of ideological confusion among Republicans. A lazy mythology has developed that because majorities in both legislative chambers are from the GOP, that conservative ideas always triumph in legislative action.

LA, enjoy any 2013 "Oscars;" you paid dearly for them

Tonight the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will present its Academy Awards to the filmmaking industry for 2013, giving Louisianans another chance to cogitate on whether the hundreds of millions of dollars the state forgoes annually in motion picture tax credits really is worthwhile.

Two years ago, the state got honored with a product from its own studios – funded in part by these state incentives which in most common form kicks back 30 percent in credits to investors (different kinds of payments for other related activities allow a different percentage to be received) – with an “Oscar,” but this year, even if no homegrown product made any shortlists, the state’s connection in dollar terms will be more substantial. Two nominated films are in line to receive the credits, which could be worth as much as $8 million.

In practical terms, that means that these credits, some of which may be used by the producers but the majority of which typically are sold at a discount to Louisiana persons with relatively high state tax burdens, will vacuum that much out of revenues that could go to the state. This means fewer services get rendered by the state and/or taxes must rise to fund otherwise furloughed services, while subsidizing the making of movies that allows many wealthy interests to profit and gets funneled to jobs that average over $10,000 than the overall average for jobs in the state.

Graves' CD 6 entry as favorite alters race significantly

The entrance of Garrett Graves likely rounds out the field of competitive GOP candidates for the Sixth Congressional District contest, probably does the same for Democrats, alters the campaign tactics of some other candidates, and may introduce politics into the state’s process of grappling with coastal restoration

Graves, who will run as a Republican and who until recently was the head of the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, brings a skill set to the campaign unmatched by any other candidate. As part of that previous gig, he was based in Baton Rouge but had plenty of opportunity to interact with the coastal areas of the district (it doesn’t stretch all the way to the water, but it gets close). With most of the district within 25 miles of the Mississippi, coast, or other major waterway, given the relationship that flooding has with coastal issues, he knows a number of area officials. Plus, his work many years ago for former Republican Rep. Billy Tauzin in what was then that district can’t hurt. In a geographical sense, no other candidate can match his contacts.

The same goes for potential volunteers, endorsers, and donors. His appointment by Gov. Bobby Jindal and good working relationship with him for six years ensures that Jindal supporters will review his candidacy favorably. Yet his work on Capitol Hill for Tauzin and Democrat former Sen. John Breaux not only will bring him some support from out of state as well as in it, but it also means he can make inroads among non-Republicans. As a bonus, reactions about his tenure at the CPRA from the environmentalist community on the whole were good, even from some of the most extremist organizations involved.

Poorly reasoned suit seeks to privilege special interest

Once again, special interests are seeking privilege through litigation, using the courts to compensate for inability to persuade and for the lack of fact and logic in their losing arguments to trump the democratic process, in this instance to benefit those who practice homosexuality.

The suit wishes to force the state to recognize legal same-sex marriages by way of conferring other kinds of preferential treatment onto such pairs, such as in child custody, medical decision-making, and tax benefits, by challenging propriety of parental names on birth certificates and tax filing status recognition. In a replay of a failed case brought by two men declared married in another state who insisted the state put both their names on the birth certificate of a child from Louisiana they adopted in that other state – and who they used as a cat’s paw for their political agenda – it uses the same specious argumentation.

And, as it turns out, also includes a contorting of the U.S. v. Windsor decision from last summer to try to avoid that error. In the federal case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, the winning side got the Court to void the federal Defense of Marriage Act insofar as that law overrode state jurisprudence in the area of whether states could confer federal benefits onto same-sex individuals with a marriage license for that union. It said if a state acted in its constitutional authority to define marriage, then federal law could not override that decision because in doing so it sent a signal that it “imposes a disability” on that status, an imposition announced from “federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity” (emphasis mine).

Landry entrance creates unpredictable AG contest

It was inevitable, as Atty. Gen. Buddy Caldwell exhibited more and more electoral vulnerability, that he would draw a serious challenger. Whether former Rep. Jeff Landry, who announced his entrance into the contest nearly two years away, can knock him off is another matter.

Caldwell is the most recent convert of the entire statewide elected executive officers to the Republican Party who didn’t start their elective careers with that label, but throughout his career in office continues to act in ways that make GOP voters and conservatives suspicious. He favored, contrary to state law, contingency contracts for outside counsel (unless they reduce the power he has over a case), refused to defend the state against federal overreach, ducked on enforcing state law regarding subsidiary governments committing themselves to expensive contracts, and chose poorly in pursuing jackpot justice that lost the state the opportunity to gain a realistic settlement. Landry criticized him on some of these matters and his political profile certainly suggests he might find fault with all of these Caldwell actions and the general perception that Caldwell is too eager to go after deep-pocketed entities in order to enrich allies and trial lawyers, which serves to discourage economic activity and to encourage activist government.

While Landry certainly has the conservative credentials, burnished with his one term in Congress, to assure voters that as attorney general he would intervene in civil matters judiciously (little of the office’s purview concerns criminal law) and in a balanced way that does not favor litigators nor acts punitively, it’s the non-ideological aspects of his candidacy that make his chances for victory less certain. It’s been many decades since an attorney (one with experience is a required qualification) without some connection to criminal prosecution held the office, although likely only a small number of voters would find this reason enough not to vote for Landry.