To the Louisiana House’s Governmental Affairs Committee: when in doubt, check with your friendly neighborhood political scientist. Just don’t all thank me at once for this free information and advice on a technical election matter.
Last week, this committee convened to come up with some ideas concerning the presidential preference primary’s future in this state. Their main worry came from the fact that the exercise cost the state $2.8 million, or about $1 for every eligible voter, $10 per actual voter, for a contest that really made no difference in the presidential nomination sweepstakes.
Both panel members and those testifying in front of it, from all political stripes, lamented this situation and wondered what to do it about. Well, let me use my Ph.D. in political science and 19 years of teaching in the field at the university level to try to help.
To begin, a correction: it was reported that Louisiana’s efforts to have a primary or caucus before the first caucus state, Iowa, ran afoul of an Iowan state law. This was not the case – the only reason why Iowa gets to have the first caucus and New Hampshire the first primary for the Democrat side is it is written into the party’s rules. A companion rule does not exist for the GOP but traditionally party leaders from all states have deferred to this scheduling, in part due to the Democrats’ insistence on it and the confusion that would occur if different parties had primaries on separate days.
This panel may wish to review with interest the national Democrat Party’s plans here, which in a couple of weeks will convene a commission to study the issue. Voices of reform have articulated that the increased front-loading, or states bunching their contests earlier together in the nomination season, distorts the process. Worse, a free-for-all leapfrogging of states trying to battle for earlier and earlier positions logically could lead to the first contest occurring the weekend after a presidential election.
Louisiana has gone down that road before, where Republicans tried to have caucuses prior to Iowa’s in 1996 and 2000. In the first case, most candidates boycotted the event and in the second it never came off. Better would be a plan pushed by the National Association of Secretaries of State to create a rotating schedule of regional primaries.
Of course, Louisiana simply could save money by opting out entirely of a primary and holding much less expensive caucuses. A half-dozen states did so in 2004, and Secretary of State Fox McKeithen has suggested it here.
Getting the Democrats to remove the rules making Iowa and New Hampshire sacrosanct as first should represent a starting point in this endeavor. On the Democrat side, in 2000 Delaware and in 2004 Michigan challenged the Democrat National Committee on the issue, but it forced both to back down. More backbone by other states, with quiet support by party frontrunners for the 2008 nomination could make this reality.
But unless the Democrats by this time next year have endorsed such a move, Louisiana will have to jockey with other states for relevancy, so now may the time for Democrat House members and Democrats statewide to put pressure on the party to make this move. If it doesn’t happen, a money-saving caucus might also make worry over a date less stressful.
27.1.05
A Tale of Two Weeks
What a difference a week makes – one week Louisiana’s Bond Commission defers to the wishes of a local politician on a local project, but only days later defers the wishes of a powerful statewide politician on a matter of some statewide importance.
Last week, Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower got his wish granted to sell $40 million in bonds to finance the building of a city-owned hotel to accompany the city’s under-construction convention center. This week, Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom had the commission table his request for $85 million in bonds to build a sugar cane syrup mill pending further study.
At this time last week, nary a word was out around the state about Odom’s project, which would be the second he has built leveraged off $12 million a year from slot machine taxes originally intended for, and having successfully financed, boll weevil eradication. But led by a charge from talk radio show host Moon Griffon and later picked up by the mainstream media, the attention given to Odom’s plan, which lacks any real feasibility study with economically questionable premises for use of tax dollars, displayed what a truly bad idea it was.
Odom did himself no favors by publicly questioning the integrity of Gov. Blanco, who came out of this conflict a winner in almost every way. Only she had enough leverage over her appointee and the legislative members of the Commission to stop it, and she did, pleasing taxpayer, good government, and sugar cane grower advocates.
Now it would take a miracle for Odom’s plan to come to fruition, given the economics of the situation that surely will be revealed in the upcoming report. This constitutes a stunning setback for Odom, who, only months earlier, was directing the Democrat Party’s endorsements. Odom, we must understand, is perhaps the truest of the “good old boy network” in state by his longevity in office and stature, and the way in which he tried to pull this off has served more as the rule rather than the exception in his political career – a style which has gotten him into as-yet unresolved legal trouble.
Hightower, in his own way a member of the network, proved more politically adept by getting a study to fit his objectives (even if that study cautioned that the scenario presented was perhaps too optimistic) and did not go challenging anybody in a position of authority. His effort also benefited from very little representation of his opponents at the meeting, and that it was a project the mistakes of which would fall on the shoulders of Shreveporters, not the entire state (although in a per capita sense Shreveporters would pay more, about $200 a head as opposed to one-tenth that to state residents, for its failure).
Hightower’s political future came out much brighter after his win; Odom’s now is a big question mark with his recent actions shining even more light on a career that best operated in the dark. Even though under indictment, Odom easily gained reelection in 2003 but already two notable politicians, Democrat Public Service Commissioner Dale Sittig and Republican state Sen. James David Cain, have all but announced they will vie for the job in 2007.
Perhaps they won’t even get a chance. A pair of Republican lawmakers have said they wish the Legislature would remove the $12 million annually flowing almost unmonitored into Odom’s hands, but perhaps they should go further. The Louisiana Constitution allows the Legislature to make his office appointive, and there is precedent (removing the superintendent of education not long after the constitution’s ratification, and recently the commissioner of elections) for doing this. Only a dozen states have elective Agriculture Commissioners, so why must we continue to be a part of this minority?
Maybe that would be the best way to make sure we have no more Bob Odoms; if too many people are so inattentive to his back-room, who-cares-about-the-people leadership as to let him stay in office, maybe their representatives will be leaders and prevent the likes of him from disgracing the public weal again.
Last week, Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower got his wish granted to sell $40 million in bonds to finance the building of a city-owned hotel to accompany the city’s under-construction convention center. This week, Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom had the commission table his request for $85 million in bonds to build a sugar cane syrup mill pending further study.
At this time last week, nary a word was out around the state about Odom’s project, which would be the second he has built leveraged off $12 million a year from slot machine taxes originally intended for, and having successfully financed, boll weevil eradication. But led by a charge from talk radio show host Moon Griffon and later picked up by the mainstream media, the attention given to Odom’s plan, which lacks any real feasibility study with economically questionable premises for use of tax dollars, displayed what a truly bad idea it was.
Odom did himself no favors by publicly questioning the integrity of Gov. Blanco, who came out of this conflict a winner in almost every way. Only she had enough leverage over her appointee and the legislative members of the Commission to stop it, and she did, pleasing taxpayer, good government, and sugar cane grower advocates.
Now it would take a miracle for Odom’s plan to come to fruition, given the economics of the situation that surely will be revealed in the upcoming report. This constitutes a stunning setback for Odom, who, only months earlier, was directing the Democrat Party’s endorsements. Odom, we must understand, is perhaps the truest of the “good old boy network” in state by his longevity in office and stature, and the way in which he tried to pull this off has served more as the rule rather than the exception in his political career – a style which has gotten him into as-yet unresolved legal trouble.
Hightower, in his own way a member of the network, proved more politically adept by getting a study to fit his objectives (even if that study cautioned that the scenario presented was perhaps too optimistic) and did not go challenging anybody in a position of authority. His effort also benefited from very little representation of his opponents at the meeting, and that it was a project the mistakes of which would fall on the shoulders of Shreveporters, not the entire state (although in a per capita sense Shreveporters would pay more, about $200 a head as opposed to one-tenth that to state residents, for its failure).
Hightower’s political future came out much brighter after his win; Odom’s now is a big question mark with his recent actions shining even more light on a career that best operated in the dark. Even though under indictment, Odom easily gained reelection in 2003 but already two notable politicians, Democrat Public Service Commissioner Dale Sittig and Republican state Sen. James David Cain, have all but announced they will vie for the job in 2007.
Perhaps they won’t even get a chance. A pair of Republican lawmakers have said they wish the Legislature would remove the $12 million annually flowing almost unmonitored into Odom’s hands, but perhaps they should go further. The Louisiana Constitution allows the Legislature to make his office appointive, and there is precedent (removing the superintendent of education not long after the constitution’s ratification, and recently the commissioner of elections) for doing this. Only a dozen states have elective Agriculture Commissioners, so why must we continue to be a part of this minority?
Maybe that would be the best way to make sure we have no more Bob Odoms; if too many people are so inattentive to his back-room, who-cares-about-the-people leadership as to let him stay in office, maybe their representatives will be leaders and prevent the likes of him from disgracing the public weal again.
26.1.05
Bernhard: Onward through the Fog!
By his own admission, Louisiana Democrat Party Chairman Jim Bernhard involved himself little in politics until recently. If we are to take his recent remarks concerning his plans for leading the party, it shows.
Some questions that leap to mind about his comments:
Does he know what a political party does?
Does he know what the Democrat Party is?
Does he know the issue preferences of the Democrat Party relative to the Republicans?
Did he pay attention to the 2004 elections?
Does he plan on keeping this job long?
Let’s review some of the more interesting statements he’s quoted as making. First, he says he switched from independent to Democrat last year because he felt that the party’s policy desired to "give a helping hand, rather than a handout" to people and that he wanted to support policy that would close the gap "between the haves and have-nots."
Some questions that leap to mind about his comments:
Does he know what a political party does?
Does he know what the Democrat Party is?
Does he know the issue preferences of the Democrat Party relative to the Republicans?
Did he pay attention to the 2004 elections?
Does he plan on keeping this job long?
Let’s review some of the more interesting statements he’s quoted as making. First, he says he switched from independent to Democrat last year because he felt that the party’s policy desired to "give a helping hand, rather than a handout" to people and that he wanted to support policy that would close the gap "between the haves and have-nots."
25.1.05
Don't Commit a Turnover on Higher Gas Taxes
Discussion is beginning to pick up on state Rep. Billy Wayne Montgomery’s idea to raise the state gasoline sales tax by one cent a gallon. Today, the Bossier Chamber of Commerce will consider whether to endorse it, and its Shreveport version will take up the matter soon thereafter. The old ball coach is playing the good old boy game of politics here: expand the pie enough for everybody and maybe you can get something passed.
In trying to increase this from 20 to 21 cents a gallon to fund both sections of I-49 construction, not only does Montgomery bid for the support of Shreveport-area legislators, but also those stretching from the coastal parishes from Lafayette to Jefferson Parishes. Were he to secure all of their votes in both chambers, he’d already be better than halfway to getting this passed.
But support of these local delegations is far from certain. In the Shreveport area alone, Senate District 37’s Max Malone is perhaps the most anti-tax, pro-efficiency legislator in the Legislature – unless he gets outdone by House District 6’s Mike Powell who’s only been in a year and is just beginning to build that kind of record. Legislators like these will look pretty suspiciously on any tax increase.
In trying to increase this from 20 to 21 cents a gallon to fund both sections of I-49 construction, not only does Montgomery bid for the support of Shreveport-area legislators, but also those stretching from the coastal parishes from Lafayette to Jefferson Parishes. Were he to secure all of their votes in both chambers, he’d already be better than halfway to getting this passed.
But support of these local delegations is far from certain. In the Shreveport area alone, Senate District 37’s Max Malone is perhaps the most anti-tax, pro-efficiency legislator in the Legislature – unless he gets outdone by House District 6’s Mike Powell who’s only been in a year and is just beginning to build that kind of record. Legislators like these will look pretty suspiciously on any tax increase.
24.1.05
It's easy -- rename the Superdome the Super Bowl
This story has been kicking around for six months, right after the last session closed and the state barely got the New Orleans Saints their contractural payment. In fact, back then on PoliticsLa and more recently on BayouBuzz (although neither seems to have archived it) I ran this column, so I guess to make sure that everybody in the world can possibly see it, I reprint the latter version here (with one sentence added):
BATON ROUGE -- Frustrated at the inability of the state to sell naming rights to the stadium formerly known as the Louisiana Superdome, yesterday Gov. Kathleen Blanca issued an executive order renaming the structure the Super Bowl.
For awhile it had appeared that the state would have to go with some kinds of tax raises to fully fund a deal that during the previous Foster administration had been made between the state and the main tenant of the Super Bowl, the New Orleans Saints, to pay off the team $15 million a year to stay in the city. In 2004, however, the state had to cough up about $13 million of this to prevent going into default which would allow the Saints to leave without penalty. Part of the shortfall came because naming rights estimated at $4 million a year have not been sold.
Blanca’s move was another way of spurring economic development in the state, she asserted. “While we are waiting for some fine corporate citizen to fork over millions of dollars a year for the right to name a building few people hear about, this renaming will prove to attract business to the state like mosquitoes to one of those zapping things we see in a lot of yards but which nobody really knows the name of them so they call them something like ‘bug zappers,’” she said.
“By renaming the building the ‘Super Bowl,’ the National Football League, to avoid brand confusion, will feel compelled to have the game of the same name here each and every year,” she testified. “Economic studies have shown that the Super Bowl game is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to a local economy and should enable a payback to the Saints with ease.”
Asked whether she anticipated that the NFL might sue over a trademark infringement by use of that name, Blanca retorted, “It’s a building we’ve named; it’s not a game we’ve pilfered. Did anybody sue Tulane when they played in the Sugar Bowl? Besides, with the civil law emphasis to our legal code plus judges who run for election who would get pulverized at the ballot box faster than Aaron Brooks hanging in a dissolving pocket, if they ever ruled against something that could help the Saints out, we could tie the NFL up in court until the cows come home so I don’t think they’ll challenge us on this.”
When reminded that trademarks would be a matter for federal court in Washington, Blanca retorted, “If the NFL is that foolish, I’ll issue an executive order preventing Louisianans from participating in such an unfair league. Over 10 percent of starting quarterbacks in the Super Bowl game have been Louisianans; how foolish would it be for them to cut off a prime source of QB’s in their premier game?”
Blanca also pointed out that with the new name the NFL may feel obligated to have the Saints be one of the two teams to play in the game of the same name every year. “It wouldn’t be right to have the home team of the Super Bowl not play in the Super Bowl for the Super Bowl,” she opined. With this advantage, she argued that attendance and television exposure, thus revenues for the team, would go up, making the Saints stay in New Orleans more economically viable, and would reduce the state’s financial exposure.
When told of the governor’s remarks, Saints sportscaster Buddy Hackett said, “I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that the Saints will play in the Super Bowl next year. To be honest with you, it’s probably the only way they’ll ever play in the Super Bowl.” Hackett also added, “But what really impresses me is the governor’s knowledge about football. I think that state law granting state officials preferential access to athletic event tickets, as well as subsidized ticket transportation by the state police, is working wonders.”
Questioned if the state can forgo the $4 million estimated to be received for naming rights now at least temporarily off the table, Blanca pointed out that “I campaigned promising economic development would be a top priority, and since taking office a year ago I already have given away now nearly a hundred million dollars of projected state monies in economic incentives to concerns like getting 10 jobs at tank car manufacturers and a few more at pool companies in order to save Louisiana jobs and even to create some new ones. I would give away billions to keep jobs in this state. So what’s $4 million?”
House Speaker Rep. Joe Pepper echoed Blanca’s sentiments. “Doubting the governor’s wisdom on this issue is so typical, all these busybody critics of our fine, efficient government. Try to give a hardworking committee vice chair a raise and they jump all over you. Give away $25 million annually through the Urban and Rural Development Funds and they pound you. It’s only $4 million, after all – not even ‘real’ money. If they get upset about that, wait until they see how much more we caused the state to owe in future years by stringing out payback on our underfunded pensions.”
When informed of the governor’s comments, former Gov. Mike “Murphy” Foster said, “I’m disappointed. All of this selling of and traveling outside of and fussing about the state and economic development tell me this woman’s been riding one too many motorcycles without a helmet. Out of my way, I’m late to some ducks’ early funerals.”
(Sadly, a week after this last ran, longtime New Orleans sportcaster Buddy Diliberto died.)
BATON ROUGE -- Frustrated at the inability of the state to sell naming rights to the stadium formerly known as the Louisiana Superdome, yesterday Gov. Kathleen Blanca issued an executive order renaming the structure the Super Bowl.
For awhile it had appeared that the state would have to go with some kinds of tax raises to fully fund a deal that during the previous Foster administration had been made between the state and the main tenant of the Super Bowl, the New Orleans Saints, to pay off the team $15 million a year to stay in the city. In 2004, however, the state had to cough up about $13 million of this to prevent going into default which would allow the Saints to leave without penalty. Part of the shortfall came because naming rights estimated at $4 million a year have not been sold.
Blanca’s move was another way of spurring economic development in the state, she asserted. “While we are waiting for some fine corporate citizen to fork over millions of dollars a year for the right to name a building few people hear about, this renaming will prove to attract business to the state like mosquitoes to one of those zapping things we see in a lot of yards but which nobody really knows the name of them so they call them something like ‘bug zappers,’” she said.
“By renaming the building the ‘Super Bowl,’ the National Football League, to avoid brand confusion, will feel compelled to have the game of the same name here each and every year,” she testified. “Economic studies have shown that the Super Bowl game is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to a local economy and should enable a payback to the Saints with ease.”
Asked whether she anticipated that the NFL might sue over a trademark infringement by use of that name, Blanca retorted, “It’s a building we’ve named; it’s not a game we’ve pilfered. Did anybody sue Tulane when they played in the Sugar Bowl? Besides, with the civil law emphasis to our legal code plus judges who run for election who would get pulverized at the ballot box faster than Aaron Brooks hanging in a dissolving pocket, if they ever ruled against something that could help the Saints out, we could tie the NFL up in court until the cows come home so I don’t think they’ll challenge us on this.”
When reminded that trademarks would be a matter for federal court in Washington, Blanca retorted, “If the NFL is that foolish, I’ll issue an executive order preventing Louisianans from participating in such an unfair league. Over 10 percent of starting quarterbacks in the Super Bowl game have been Louisianans; how foolish would it be for them to cut off a prime source of QB’s in their premier game?”
Blanca also pointed out that with the new name the NFL may feel obligated to have the Saints be one of the two teams to play in the game of the same name every year. “It wouldn’t be right to have the home team of the Super Bowl not play in the Super Bowl for the Super Bowl,” she opined. With this advantage, she argued that attendance and television exposure, thus revenues for the team, would go up, making the Saints stay in New Orleans more economically viable, and would reduce the state’s financial exposure.
When told of the governor’s remarks, Saints sportscaster Buddy Hackett said, “I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that the Saints will play in the Super Bowl next year. To be honest with you, it’s probably the only way they’ll ever play in the Super Bowl.” Hackett also added, “But what really impresses me is the governor’s knowledge about football. I think that state law granting state officials preferential access to athletic event tickets, as well as subsidized ticket transportation by the state police, is working wonders.”
Questioned if the state can forgo the $4 million estimated to be received for naming rights now at least temporarily off the table, Blanca pointed out that “I campaigned promising economic development would be a top priority, and since taking office a year ago I already have given away now nearly a hundred million dollars of projected state monies in economic incentives to concerns like getting 10 jobs at tank car manufacturers and a few more at pool companies in order to save Louisiana jobs and even to create some new ones. I would give away billions to keep jobs in this state. So what’s $4 million?”
House Speaker Rep. Joe Pepper echoed Blanca’s sentiments. “Doubting the governor’s wisdom on this issue is so typical, all these busybody critics of our fine, efficient government. Try to give a hardworking committee vice chair a raise and they jump all over you. Give away $25 million annually through the Urban and Rural Development Funds and they pound you. It’s only $4 million, after all – not even ‘real’ money. If they get upset about that, wait until they see how much more we caused the state to owe in future years by stringing out payback on our underfunded pensions.”
When informed of the governor’s comments, former Gov. Mike “Murphy” Foster said, “I’m disappointed. All of this selling of and traveling outside of and fussing about the state and economic development tell me this woman’s been riding one too many motorcycles without a helmet. Out of my way, I’m late to some ducks’ early funerals.”
(Sadly, a week after this last ran, longtime New Orleans sportcaster Buddy Diliberto died.)
20.1.05
Hightower Hotel Ready to Wreak Havoc?
Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower triumphed when the state Bond Commission approved 11-2 to allow the sale of $40 million to finance the city’s convention hotel. But a larger question remained about the viability study which may have made a difference in the final vote.
At first, the two Louisiana Tech researchers who compiled the report had serious misgivings about the profitability of the hotel. Panicked at this conclusion, the Hightower administration relayed further information to the pair who then revised their results.
The additional information was that the city was going to dedicate sales taxes from the hotel toward debt service, as well as reminding the analysts that the city would not have to pay property taxes on this city-owned property. That turned a projected roughly $355,000 deficit into a $512,000 profit, annually.
Yet let’s think about this for a moment. First, while the city wouldn’t be paying taxes on the land, that also means that the city is beggaring other local jurisdictions out of property taxes such as the Caddo Parish School District and Caddo Parish. You might argue that this may be all come out right for these other bodies because the extra business generated by the hotel from conventions will help out some in the additional sales tax assessments (even if it is unlikely so much could be generated to make up for that lost property tax revenue).
But note the guiding assumption here that the hotel, courtesy of the convention center, will enable additional revenues to be generated above and beyond existing lodging revenues. This is by no means guaranteed, particularly in light of the fact that, as a recent Brookings Institution report made clear, convention business continues to stagnate and as more pressure builds in Texas to legalize some more forms of gambling (oops, “gaming;” gambling is prohibited by the Louisiana Constitution) whose citizens provide 60 percent of Shreveport-Bossier’s casino business, by the time the hotel would open in 2006 the market may be considerably smaller than it is now.
More likely the new hotel would simply steal business from the private sector, in essence taking the sales tax revenues derived from private-sector hotels that would have gone into the city’s coffers to fund other services. In short, this project likely is going to rob Peter to pay Paul, and in its wake shrink the private sector in lodging. This cannot be good in the long run, a city running hotels and driving private interests out of business and not generating any additional revenue for its citizens compared to if it was not a hotelier.
It’s almost certain that the hotel now will be built. And any projected losses to the city probably won’t be detected until, or can be obscured by, Hightower when he leaves office at the end of 2006, itching for a run for the state Senate in 2007 or possibly Congress in 2008. Hightower’s political career may prosper as a result of this, but the odds are a lot longer that Shreveport’s citizens will also as a result of this.
At first, the two Louisiana Tech researchers who compiled the report had serious misgivings about the profitability of the hotel. Panicked at this conclusion, the Hightower administration relayed further information to the pair who then revised their results.
The additional information was that the city was going to dedicate sales taxes from the hotel toward debt service, as well as reminding the analysts that the city would not have to pay property taxes on this city-owned property. That turned a projected roughly $355,000 deficit into a $512,000 profit, annually.
Yet let’s think about this for a moment. First, while the city wouldn’t be paying taxes on the land, that also means that the city is beggaring other local jurisdictions out of property taxes such as the Caddo Parish School District and Caddo Parish. You might argue that this may be all come out right for these other bodies because the extra business generated by the hotel from conventions will help out some in the additional sales tax assessments (even if it is unlikely so much could be generated to make up for that lost property tax revenue).
But note the guiding assumption here that the hotel, courtesy of the convention center, will enable additional revenues to be generated above and beyond existing lodging revenues. This is by no means guaranteed, particularly in light of the fact that, as a recent Brookings Institution report made clear, convention business continues to stagnate and as more pressure builds in Texas to legalize some more forms of gambling (oops, “gaming;” gambling is prohibited by the Louisiana Constitution) whose citizens provide 60 percent of Shreveport-Bossier’s casino business, by the time the hotel would open in 2006 the market may be considerably smaller than it is now.
More likely the new hotel would simply steal business from the private sector, in essence taking the sales tax revenues derived from private-sector hotels that would have gone into the city’s coffers to fund other services. In short, this project likely is going to rob Peter to pay Paul, and in its wake shrink the private sector in lodging. This cannot be good in the long run, a city running hotels and driving private interests out of business and not generating any additional revenue for its citizens compared to if it was not a hotelier.
It’s almost certain that the hotel now will be built. And any projected losses to the city probably won’t be detected until, or can be obscured by, Hightower when he leaves office at the end of 2006, itching for a run for the state Senate in 2007 or possibly Congress in 2008. Hightower’s political career may prosper as a result of this, but the odds are a lot longer that Shreveport’s citizens will also as a result of this.
It's High Noon for Hightower
It’s Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower versus his (numerous) critics today, as he and the city go in front of the state Bond Commission to gets its stamp of approval on $40 million of bonding, without restriction, to allow the city to finance the building of a hotel next to its burgeoning convention center.
His problem is the project’s critics include almost all of the Shreveport legislative delegation. What might give them a little extra weight is that the estimated cost of the Hightower Hotel is actually $52 million, and Hightower is counting on $12 from the state free and clear. Actually, there’s still some ambiguity about this amount, as it is subject to the state attorney general’s review that state capital outlay monies can be used for this purpose – something requested by some of these legislators.
In addition, most of these legislators have expressed publicly that they believed a public vote ought to be taken on the matter. This echoed sentiments of three of the seven city councilors (all Republicans, while the four Democrats voted to give Democrat Hightower the authority to petition the Commission without such a detour).
There also exists the matter of a study of the matter requested by the Commission, in a highly unusual move, assigned to researchers at Louisiana Tech. To this date, no definitive study of the viability of the hotel has been performed as Hightower has based his case on two marketing studies.
Add into the mix the financing authority of the bonds, the Louisiana Community Development Authority, is under legal investigation, the law firm hired by Hightower to advise on the project also may fall under a legal microscope, ambiguity over the role of whether the city or a Hightower-stacked Hotel Authority would really have responsibility over the hotel, and a lawsuit filed by, among others, local private hoteliers arguing this use of funds demonstrates the city falsely represented to the public that a hotel would be developed and constructed by a private developer, as part of a bond election in 1999, in which voters approved funding for the city's $100 million convention center that did not include any amount for development and construction of a hotel.
In short, legislative opponents of the move could argue to Commissioners (the majority of whom are legislators themselves) that the state ought to have some security for its $12 million commitment and that a public vote would ease concerns over the shadowy way Hightower has operated in this matter. Of course, Hightower can argue that the city’s legislature, representing the people, even if by a narrow margin, consented to this.
Perhaps the most important variable to this will be whether and how much weight state Democrat Sen. Lydia Jackson will throw around in opposition. She and Hightower are engaged in a battle for political control of Shreveport, or at least for the Democrat Party’s influence in it. In the most recent rounds of local elections, Jackson’s political machine emerged victorious over Hightower’s or most any other’s preferred candidates for safe Democrat seats.
Jackson also was instrumental in scuttling Hightower’s plans to fund the hotel through a Tax Increment Financing district which would have eased the process for him. Both how much more control over the political environment she can consolidate in doing this and the degree of her own personal misgivings about the project will determine how much of an effort she will put into lobbying the Commission.
Most likely, the Commission will grant the bonding request – it seldom does not when a mayor with statutory backing asks. It is highly unlikely to turn down the request, period. But there’s a chance that it could turn it down but indicate that it would be much more receptive to a future request that included an affirmative public vote. Given the result of The Times (Shreveport) October survey which showed 76 percent of city residents in opposition to a city-financed hotel, in essence that probably would scuttle the idea.
That means that not only is a huge financial decision for Shreveport in the balance today, but also Hightower’s political credibility and influence.
His problem is the project’s critics include almost all of the Shreveport legislative delegation. What might give them a little extra weight is that the estimated cost of the Hightower Hotel is actually $52 million, and Hightower is counting on $12 from the state free and clear. Actually, there’s still some ambiguity about this amount, as it is subject to the state attorney general’s review that state capital outlay monies can be used for this purpose – something requested by some of these legislators.
In addition, most of these legislators have expressed publicly that they believed a public vote ought to be taken on the matter. This echoed sentiments of three of the seven city councilors (all Republicans, while the four Democrats voted to give Democrat Hightower the authority to petition the Commission without such a detour).
There also exists the matter of a study of the matter requested by the Commission, in a highly unusual move, assigned to researchers at Louisiana Tech. To this date, no definitive study of the viability of the hotel has been performed as Hightower has based his case on two marketing studies.
Add into the mix the financing authority of the bonds, the Louisiana Community Development Authority, is under legal investigation, the law firm hired by Hightower to advise on the project also may fall under a legal microscope, ambiguity over the role of whether the city or a Hightower-stacked Hotel Authority would really have responsibility over the hotel, and a lawsuit filed by, among others, local private hoteliers arguing this use of funds demonstrates the city falsely represented to the public that a hotel would be developed and constructed by a private developer, as part of a bond election in 1999, in which voters approved funding for the city's $100 million convention center that did not include any amount for development and construction of a hotel.
In short, legislative opponents of the move could argue to Commissioners (the majority of whom are legislators themselves) that the state ought to have some security for its $12 million commitment and that a public vote would ease concerns over the shadowy way Hightower has operated in this matter. Of course, Hightower can argue that the city’s legislature, representing the people, even if by a narrow margin, consented to this.
Perhaps the most important variable to this will be whether and how much weight state Democrat Sen. Lydia Jackson will throw around in opposition. She and Hightower are engaged in a battle for political control of Shreveport, or at least for the Democrat Party’s influence in it. In the most recent rounds of local elections, Jackson’s political machine emerged victorious over Hightower’s or most any other’s preferred candidates for safe Democrat seats.
Jackson also was instrumental in scuttling Hightower’s plans to fund the hotel through a Tax Increment Financing district which would have eased the process for him. Both how much more control over the political environment she can consolidate in doing this and the degree of her own personal misgivings about the project will determine how much of an effort she will put into lobbying the Commission.
Most likely, the Commission will grant the bonding request – it seldom does not when a mayor with statutory backing asks. It is highly unlikely to turn down the request, period. But there’s a chance that it could turn it down but indicate that it would be much more receptive to a future request that included an affirmative public vote. Given the result of The Times (Shreveport) October survey which showed 76 percent of city residents in opposition to a city-financed hotel, in essence that probably would scuttle the idea.
That means that not only is a huge financial decision for Shreveport in the balance today, but also Hightower’s political credibility and influence.
19.1.05
We're not missing you yet, Big Mike
Mike Foster as governor did some good things for the state, but since his retirement he has the annoying habit of whenever opening his mouth of reminding people why we’re probably better off without him fussing around the Governor’s Mansion.
Gov. Kathleen Blanco quite properly is trying to end the state’s subsidization of the New Orleans Saints – the only major-league professional franchise in the country that receives, at this time, a direct cash subsidy from government (the state in this case). That deal, naturally, had been worked out by Foster.
The Saints, who receive $80 million a year in shared revenue from the NFL, have already received $52.5 million from the state under the Foster-era arrangement which is to last several more years. Blanco's plan would be through the year 2025 and require a new tax source of approximately $10 to $12 million a year to be worked into a refinancing and update of the current Superdome lease, a tax deal most likely paid by the real, direct beneficiaries of the Saints' presence, the greater New Orleans area.
But Foster can’t quite understand why everybody is so upset about this:
"When will people ever look at the Saints as just another business?" he asked. "The truth is, there was an economic study done that I personally checked on. The Saints make the state money. The Saints are an economic engine. Do we want to run off a business that makes the state money? Should we help them to the point that we lose money? No, but we're making money. If you listen to the debate, you would think the state has put oodles of money into this. We haven't."
Actually, as the above article points out, some have criticized the now-UNO Chancellor Tim Ryan's study, for a number of reasons. In fact, sports franchises increasingly have become vanity projects, given the escalation in player’s salaries. A number lose money with just an owner’s deep pockets keeping them afloat.
Most disturbing about Foster’s statement is the incredible assertion that he doesn’t think the state “has put oodles of money into this …. We haven’t.” Now, I realize that to multi-millionaire Mike that $52.5 million is chump change, but to me and virtually everybody else it’s real money. Can you say $157.5 million more for Medicaid? Or $472.5 million to finish up I-49 (that would pay for extending it right through Shreveport to the Arkansas border)? That how much we could have leveraged from the federal government out of that sum.
The fact is, as the governor has said, the Saints may have become a luxury the state can’t afford. New Orleans is one of the smallest television markets in the NFL but let’s let economics rule here. If we consider the state the Saints’ market (and a number of Dallas Cowboy fans in northwest Louisiana would beg to differ), it might not be big enough to sustain them. Let them go to greener pastures if they feel they can; I won’t root against them and I’d rather see the dollars spent on something like long-term health care.
As for our ex-governor, we hope the door didn’t hit you on the way out.
Gov. Kathleen Blanco quite properly is trying to end the state’s subsidization of the New Orleans Saints – the only major-league professional franchise in the country that receives, at this time, a direct cash subsidy from government (the state in this case). That deal, naturally, had been worked out by Foster.
The Saints, who receive $80 million a year in shared revenue from the NFL, have already received $52.5 million from the state under the Foster-era arrangement which is to last several more years. Blanco's plan would be through the year 2025 and require a new tax source of approximately $10 to $12 million a year to be worked into a refinancing and update of the current Superdome lease, a tax deal most likely paid by the real, direct beneficiaries of the Saints' presence, the greater New Orleans area.
But Foster can’t quite understand why everybody is so upset about this:
"When will people ever look at the Saints as just another business?" he asked. "The truth is, there was an economic study done that I personally checked on. The Saints make the state money. The Saints are an economic engine. Do we want to run off a business that makes the state money? Should we help them to the point that we lose money? No, but we're making money. If you listen to the debate, you would think the state has put oodles of money into this. We haven't."
Actually, as the above article points out, some have criticized the now-UNO Chancellor Tim Ryan's study, for a number of reasons. In fact, sports franchises increasingly have become vanity projects, given the escalation in player’s salaries. A number lose money with just an owner’s deep pockets keeping them afloat.
Most disturbing about Foster’s statement is the incredible assertion that he doesn’t think the state “has put oodles of money into this …. We haven’t.” Now, I realize that to multi-millionaire Mike that $52.5 million is chump change, but to me and virtually everybody else it’s real money. Can you say $157.5 million more for Medicaid? Or $472.5 million to finish up I-49 (that would pay for extending it right through Shreveport to the Arkansas border)? That how much we could have leveraged from the federal government out of that sum.
The fact is, as the governor has said, the Saints may have become a luxury the state can’t afford. New Orleans is one of the smallest television markets in the NFL but let’s let economics rule here. If we consider the state the Saints’ market (and a number of Dallas Cowboy fans in northwest Louisiana would beg to differ), it might not be big enough to sustain them. Let them go to greener pastures if they feel they can; I won’t root against them and I’d rather see the dollars spent on something like long-term health care.
As for our ex-governor, we hope the door didn’t hit you on the way out.
18.1.05
The Fifth Isn't the Third
Wiley Hilburn, Jr., is the head of the Journalism Department at Louisiana Tech University and has taught there for many years, credentialing a number of journalists some of whom now populate the largest newspaper in northwest Louisiana, The Times of Shreveport, Bossier City and the Ark-La-Tex (more colloquially known as “The Times”). He writes a weekly column for The Times, in which this gem, about the political success of U.S. Fifth Congressional District (northeast and part of central Louisiana) Republican Rep. Rodney Alexander, appears, here describing many of the parishes in the district:
The Ouachita River parishes are desperately poor, beyond third-world standards. Ingrained, generational poverty has bred a Faulkneresque grind of illiteracy, violence, corruption, drugs and even arson.
Each sentence is breathtakingly ignorant. Regarding the first, I do not know this man but I can tell you now from this sentence that there is no way he has spent any meaningful time in the Third World outside of hotels, restaurants, and other attractions that cater to foreigners, if he’s ever been outside of a developed country before. If he had spent any time interacting among ordinary people in their domestic environments going about their business in a Third World country (LDC or “less developed country” is what us comparative politics teachers call them), he would never have made such a contrafactual statement. Take it from somebody who has accumulated weeks of time trooping around the big cities and the back roads of 15 LDCs on four continents, 99.44% of their populations live in worse conditions than the typical person in poverty in the U.S., Fifth District or elsewhere in America. It would be these peoples’ dream to have pure, running water in their houses, 2,200 calories a day, or access to our health care system for just one day – things virtually every American or LA-5 resident has.
But don’t take just my anecdotal impressions as evidence. Check out some U.S. Census data concerning the Fifth District. Let’s concentrate on just a few indicators there, and compare them to just a few countries (this data courtesy of the World Bank):
Actually, that last category overstates the LDCs relative to the Fifth District because the U.S. figures include only land lines, while the World Bank data includes mobile as well (which inflates the figures by at least 50 percent). And the five states I picked have two things in common, (1) I’ve been to them and (2) they are all among the more “advanced” LDCs economically. Consider places like Mali, the Central Africa Republic, even oil rich Nigeria (all of whom at least 60 percent of the citizenry live on less than $2 per day) and you’ll see that Hilburn’s assertion that conditions in the parishes along the Ouachita are “beyond third-world [sic] standards” is beyond stupid.
In the next sentence, Hilburn manages to show he comes up short on theory as well as on facts, repeating the old canard that poverty, not individual human agency, is the source of “illiteracy, violence, corruption, drugs, and even arson.” Maybe he hasn’t heard that the U.S. has sunk around $7 trillion into anti-poverty spending the past four decades, and our poverty rate hasn’t budged. Maybe he doesn’t understand that if you don’t subsidize poverty through generous welfare programs, curtailed by a Republican Congress pointing an electoral gun at Democrat Pres. Bill Clinton in 1996, more people get off welfare rolls and on to employment rolls, the surest way to reduce poverty.
“Poverty,” when defined as “lack of financial resources,” does not cause the social pathologies he describes. It is a certain set of attitudes which cause poverty that also cause these deviant behaviors; both are associated with each other by their relationship to poverty but are not related to each other (see here for a summary of the academician most associated with this formulation). In short, poverty is not something primarily caused by lack of monetary resources; it comes from having a set of attitudes that are suboptimal to the earning of money – attitudes which also lead to “illiteracy, violence,” etc.
Until enough policymakers with the attitudes demonstrated by Hilburn in his column accept this, their prescriptions will do nothing to solve poverty in the Fifth District or anywhere else. And it certainly doesn’t help when journalists who think as does Hilburn on this subject perpetuate their myths.
The Ouachita River parishes are desperately poor, beyond third-world standards. Ingrained, generational poverty has bred a Faulkneresque grind of illiteracy, violence, corruption, drugs and even arson.
Each sentence is breathtakingly ignorant. Regarding the first, I do not know this man but I can tell you now from this sentence that there is no way he has spent any meaningful time in the Third World outside of hotels, restaurants, and other attractions that cater to foreigners, if he’s ever been outside of a developed country before. If he had spent any time interacting among ordinary people in their domestic environments going about their business in a Third World country (LDC or “less developed country” is what us comparative politics teachers call them), he would never have made such a contrafactual statement. Take it from somebody who has accumulated weeks of time trooping around the big cities and the back roads of 15 LDCs on four continents, 99.44% of their populations live in worse conditions than the typical person in poverty in the U.S., Fifth District or elsewhere in America. It would be these peoples’ dream to have pure, running water in their houses, 2,200 calories a day, or access to our health care system for just one day – things virtually every American or LA-5 resident has.
But don’t take just my anecdotal impressions as evidence. Check out some U.S. Census data concerning the Fifth District. Let’s concentrate on just a few indicators there, and compare them to just a few countries (this data courtesy of the World Bank):
| Indicator | Fifth | Guatemala | Morocco | Jordan | Mexico | Turkey |
| % living on under$2/day | 0.0 | 37.4 | 14.3 | 7.4 | 26.3 | 10.3 |
| % in secondary ed | 97.1 | 23.0 | 31.2 | NA | 56.1 | NA |
| % w/telephones | 94.3 | 20.2 | 24.7 | 35.5 | 40.1 | 62.7 |
Actually, that last category overstates the LDCs relative to the Fifth District because the U.S. figures include only land lines, while the World Bank data includes mobile as well (which inflates the figures by at least 50 percent). And the five states I picked have two things in common, (1) I’ve been to them and (2) they are all among the more “advanced” LDCs economically. Consider places like Mali, the Central Africa Republic, even oil rich Nigeria (all of whom at least 60 percent of the citizenry live on less than $2 per day) and you’ll see that Hilburn’s assertion that conditions in the parishes along the Ouachita are “beyond third-world [sic] standards” is beyond stupid.
In the next sentence, Hilburn manages to show he comes up short on theory as well as on facts, repeating the old canard that poverty, not individual human agency, is the source of “illiteracy, violence, corruption, drugs, and even arson.” Maybe he hasn’t heard that the U.S. has sunk around $7 trillion into anti-poverty spending the past four decades, and our poverty rate hasn’t budged. Maybe he doesn’t understand that if you don’t subsidize poverty through generous welfare programs, curtailed by a Republican Congress pointing an electoral gun at Democrat Pres. Bill Clinton in 1996, more people get off welfare rolls and on to employment rolls, the surest way to reduce poverty.
“Poverty,” when defined as “lack of financial resources,” does not cause the social pathologies he describes. It is a certain set of attitudes which cause poverty that also cause these deviant behaviors; both are associated with each other by their relationship to poverty but are not related to each other (see here for a summary of the academician most associated with this formulation). In short, poverty is not something primarily caused by lack of monetary resources; it comes from having a set of attitudes that are suboptimal to the earning of money – attitudes which also lead to “illiteracy, violence,” etc.
Until enough policymakers with the attitudes demonstrated by Hilburn in his column accept this, their prescriptions will do nothing to solve poverty in the Fifth District or anywhere else. And it certainly doesn’t help when journalists who think as does Hilburn on this subject perpetuate their myths.
17.1.05
I'm now an "Internet kook."
So says C.B. Forgotston, a perceptive critic of the spending habits and “good old boy network” ways of Louisiana politics, when I told him of my decision to publish this blog.
He and a few others – commentators, state officials both elected and bureaucratic, even journalists – surface from time to time with their trenchant observations about the things that need to happen to raise this state from its bottom-dwelling status in so many ways. Or they may be like Lou Gehrig Burnett’s FaxNet Update, which casts a similar critical eye (among its news reporting) on politics in northwest Louisiana. The problem is, they are few, and the attitudes they want to change are widespread. That’s why when a guy like C.B. persists in disseminating his opinions on the web, those of a different persuasion call him an “Internet kook.”
I’ve been one of those people for over a decade now that gradually has thrust himself out onto these ramparts. Us college professors are used to weighing forth on things (we’re supposed to do this by sticking to teaching fact and theory, not giving opinion, in the classroom; some of my colleagues in higher education actually do) and having been a journalist in my distant past, it’s become second nature to me to write columns frequently, so perhaps this is the next evolutionary step.
Actually, I’m not a big fan of blogs. Not to insult anybody, but I can’t see why anybody would be interested in somebody prattling on about their lives as if the world was dying to know about their individual soap operas, which from what I’ve observed the vast majority of blogs are. Rest assured you will rarely if ever see anything about my personal life in here, the privacy of which I intensely guard in any event.
At this stage of my authorial life, however, blogging appeals to me because, while for other publications I continue to follow the traditional “deadline” model of writing columns, with blogging I have the freedom to submit pieces when I want when perhaps they are the most timely, in most any size or format I choose. Obviously, if I admit this, I have a kind of compulsion to voice an opinion when I feel it would be worth something; the question then is, what compels me?
The answer is simple: given my training, interest, and breadth of knowledge, I think I can contribute to the debate, a public policy free-for-all that is going to determine the future of northwest Louisiana, the state, America, and the world. Two of my three university degrees were funded in part by taxpayers, so this is one way to continue to pay back their investment in me. I aim to take that education and learning I have experienced to articulate ideas and to help readers understand the political issues and what’s at stake in the world of politics.
In fact, that’s where the name of this blog comes from. For several years I hosted a talk radio show which was called “Between the Lines,” and my FaxNet Update column is called the same. In both endeavors I have striven to bring out hidden aspects lying beneath news or opinion, in order for readers/listeners to have a better idea of the context of these events and ideas, to give them more ammunition by which to critically appraise the issues presented, so that they may be better able to draw their own conclusions about from where the public policy debate must proceed. Which, come to think about it, is what I do as a university professor.
I don’t know what’s going to happen here. I suspect I’ll post something most every day, at varying times given my teaching schedule. My guess is I will primarily discuss Louisiana politics, with some attention paid to northwest Louisiana’s, and some national and international commentary sprinkled in here and there. A state journalist I know remarked to me that he thought a high-quality blog during the Louisiana Legislature’s session might actually perform a service to readers. If I can pull that off (that fun begins in late April), then I’ll rest easily that I haven’t been wasting time and electrons in committing myself to this.
He and a few others – commentators, state officials both elected and bureaucratic, even journalists – surface from time to time with their trenchant observations about the things that need to happen to raise this state from its bottom-dwelling status in so many ways. Or they may be like Lou Gehrig Burnett’s FaxNet Update, which casts a similar critical eye (among its news reporting) on politics in northwest Louisiana. The problem is, they are few, and the attitudes they want to change are widespread. That’s why when a guy like C.B. persists in disseminating his opinions on the web, those of a different persuasion call him an “Internet kook.”
I’ve been one of those people for over a decade now that gradually has thrust himself out onto these ramparts. Us college professors are used to weighing forth on things (we’re supposed to do this by sticking to teaching fact and theory, not giving opinion, in the classroom; some of my colleagues in higher education actually do) and having been a journalist in my distant past, it’s become second nature to me to write columns frequently, so perhaps this is the next evolutionary step.
Actually, I’m not a big fan of blogs. Not to insult anybody, but I can’t see why anybody would be interested in somebody prattling on about their lives as if the world was dying to know about their individual soap operas, which from what I’ve observed the vast majority of blogs are. Rest assured you will rarely if ever see anything about my personal life in here, the privacy of which I intensely guard in any event.
At this stage of my authorial life, however, blogging appeals to me because, while for other publications I continue to follow the traditional “deadline” model of writing columns, with blogging I have the freedom to submit pieces when I want when perhaps they are the most timely, in most any size or format I choose. Obviously, if I admit this, I have a kind of compulsion to voice an opinion when I feel it would be worth something; the question then is, what compels me?
The answer is simple: given my training, interest, and breadth of knowledge, I think I can contribute to the debate, a public policy free-for-all that is going to determine the future of northwest Louisiana, the state, America, and the world. Two of my three university degrees were funded in part by taxpayers, so this is one way to continue to pay back their investment in me. I aim to take that education and learning I have experienced to articulate ideas and to help readers understand the political issues and what’s at stake in the world of politics.
In fact, that’s where the name of this blog comes from. For several years I hosted a talk radio show which was called “Between the Lines,” and my FaxNet Update column is called the same. In both endeavors I have striven to bring out hidden aspects lying beneath news or opinion, in order for readers/listeners to have a better idea of the context of these events and ideas, to give them more ammunition by which to critically appraise the issues presented, so that they may be better able to draw their own conclusions about from where the public policy debate must proceed. Which, come to think about it, is what I do as a university professor.
I don’t know what’s going to happen here. I suspect I’ll post something most every day, at varying times given my teaching schedule. My guess is I will primarily discuss Louisiana politics, with some attention paid to northwest Louisiana’s, and some national and international commentary sprinkled in here and there. A state journalist I know remarked to me that he thought a high-quality blog during the Louisiana Legislature’s session might actually perform a service to readers. If I can pull that off (that fun begins in late April), then I’ll rest easily that I haven’t been wasting time and electrons in committing myself to this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)