Actually, in the case of Democrat Edwards,
it was continued confirmation. On this occasion, it came down to a matter of
lack of trust that he would not hit Louisianans with massive tax increases to
fund his never-ending spending promises despite his
claiming he won’t raise taxes. Let’s see, he wants to excise entirely the
portion gasoline tax dollars that goes to the state police, costing $60 million
this year although by law to be reduced in future years (with this representing
0.5 percent of the entire roads backlog, so it really doesn’t solve anything).
He wants to double the Earned Income Tax Credit, meaning about $50 million in
forgone revenue collection. He wants to equalize self-generated revenues of
Louisiana higher education with the taxpayer’s proportion, which this year
would have meant finding another $103
million (and he pledges no more tuition increases, so this figure will go
higher). He wants to expand Medicaid immediately, which for FY 2016 would cost
the state at
least $18 million but by FY 2030 is forecast to cost an additional
$574 million annually.
Just what he promised on these
items during the debate equals at least $231 million more for a state, in order
to balance its budget, that this year raised taxes more than three times that
amount, of which he voted in favor of over $400 million in additional tax
liability that will be experienced directly by or passed on to consumers and by
income-earning individuals. All along, Edwards has held out the paring of tax
exemptions, curiously disregarding that these do often entail tax increases (when
not in the form of rebates), as the uber-solution
to what ails the budget. It’s nothing more than an appeal to Louisiana’s
populist history, promising all sorts of things as if it were a gift to the
people but hiding the fact that they ultimately pay for it. You can’t trust a
guy who doesn’t tell you that upfront and continues to insist he won’t raise
taxes, and that disqualifies him from any serious consideration for the office.
Somewhat the same thing also
removes Republican Dardenne from being an acceptable choice. While Dardenne is
much more honest than Edwards on the matter of tax hikes – Dardenne says he
would investigate those as a last resort – it’s naiveté that cancels him as a gubernatorial choice. When discussing
Medicaid expansion, Dardenne mentioned the financing mechanism the Legislature
concocted this year, where if expansion becomes authorized in the first quarter
of next year most hospitals would pay an “assessment” on their revenues into a
state fund to offset the state’s portion of matching expansion dollars – and proceeded to insist that the providers
would not pass it along to consumers!
For a guy who has been in state
government a quarter of a century, it’s inconceivable that he honestly could
believe that an entity voluntarily would relinquish profits – the Constitutional
amendment that built the gun aimed at consumers nor the resolution that cocks
the trigger does not have any (unenforceable, in any event) provision
prohibiting passing along the cost – for the good of the state. Of course
Louisianans will end up paying for that, and this stunning display of thinking that
money grows on trees renders Dardenne an unserious choice for the state’s top
position.
Then there’s Angelle, who let out
his apparent frustration that the absent major candidate Republican Sen. David Vitter continues to be regarded as
the serious conservative in the contest with Angelle relegated as an
afterthought and over Vitter’s portrayal in advertisements of Angelle as
lacking leadership and behaving more like a liberal Democrat befitting his
three-decade affiliation with the party. He did so during the debate in spectacular
non sequitur fashion by referencing a
discredited
“October surprise” assertion that Vitter was back in action committing “serious
sins.”
It made Angelle look small, bereft
of any skills to argue intellectually for his policy preferences, but, worst of
all, tempermentally unsuited to serve in the state’s highest office.
Name-calling using unconvincing arguments doesn’t win the battle of ideas that
moves legislators and publics, so if Angelle must stoop to these tactics during
a debate, it only validates Vitter’s claim that Angelle is devoid of leadership
ability.
And maybe this is why Vitter found
time and opportunity to attend only two of the seven events televised to large
parts of the state – without him there, it could be made clearer the lack of
suitability each of his opponents demonstrates. Or maybe he feared he might act
in the same manner, but whatever the reason, at least on this occasion the
absenteeism worked in his favor.
When the most impressive guy on the
podium was a Louisiana State University student named Mitch Rabalais, the moderator,
no offense, kid, the presumed stars of the evening were anything but. And
perhaps if you needed reasons to vote for Vitter this weekend, now Angelle,
Dardenne, and Edwards have given you more than enough of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment