So a bunch of people got together to try to squeeze some more money out of Shreveport's Strand Theater and instead others got hired at a lower rate. Then some of the gang complain that they were unjustly denied the work. Can you say chutzpah?
Some members of Local 298 of the Stagehands' Union picketed performances this week bleating that the Strand unfairly was trying to "rid itself of its lawful obligations" by replacing Shreveport-based employees with the Athalon Group, a private, New Orleans-based company which was charging 35 to 40 percent less to do the job than the union. This, of course, after the union had demanded a 3 percent increase in wages over the next 3 years which the Strand rejected six months ago at the end of their contract.
What part of the law do these guys not understand? They have no contract with the Strand, and they priced themselves out of the market when the Strand recently was running an annual $150,000 deficit. The Strand isn’t obligated to force itself into bankruptcy just to sate the arrogance of some who think they should have a job for life just because they can gang up on employers.
One reason why this switch by the Strand makes sense is that unionized stagehands and allied workers make a pretty penny, extracting much more from an employer than similarly-skilled workers outside of their clubs. And it highlights the shift in how unions have gone from tolerable organizations that served some useful purposes in a free-market economy to groups driven by greed acting as a drag on the economy.
In a different era, where the economy was based upon investments, capital, and labor pools that were relatively fixed and inelastic, unions proved marginally beneficial to society. But in today’s time where all aspects of the economy are so fluid and competition so fierce, with minimal entry and exit costs to professions and production, there is no case for artificial combines like unions to serve as counterbalances to producers – the markets will take care of that naturally, particularly in this era of economic globalization.
This is why unionization of the American public has fallen to its lowest level in decades, and the majority of it is found now in government. Unlike the private sector, there’s no competition in government, and it can raise money to buy off union demands by raising taxes – a wealth redistribution scheme if there ever was one. A good move made by Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower was to stop this disease from spreading to Shreveport city government.
No doubt the Local 298 individuals can find something else useful and productive to do, and their leaders can stop whining because they can’t have it their way at the expense of the arts and their patrons in Shreveport.
16.2.05
Bossier Governments Deservedly Get Tough on Cox
Finally, if belatedly, Bossier City and Bossier Parish are trying to enforce their franchise agreements with Cox Communications. KTAL, owned by Nexstar Broadcasting Group, ordered Cox to withdraw transmission of the station, because it refused to pay 30 cents per subscriber per month for the right to rebroadcast KTAL’s signal.
Note that for many of the channels it transmits, Cox does pay, often at several times the rate Nexstar is demanding. In large part these costs get passed on to consumers. Also worth noting is that, at the current 33,000 subscribers in the KTAL viewing area, Cox would have to fork out $118,000 a year to keep KTAL on the air.
Even if this amount would only comprise 0.00205 percent of Cox Communication’s revenues for 2003, the fact is it has been hemorrhaging money lately (details and more recent figures are hard to come by because this is a privately-owned company by Cox Enterprises). The communications unit lost $137.8 million in 2003, which was almost half of the 2002 loss. (It’s harder to judge the overall impact on the parent since they publicly report only revenues, which have increased 40 percent in the past four years.) Even if it knuckled under and then attempted to pass on the charges, it would lose subscribers because of the higher costs, increasing losses.
Worse, its real fear is that this fever will spread to other over-the-air broadcast station owners, creating a monumental competitive problem. This is why it is resisting so strenuously carrying the station for anything but free, trying to conduct a public relations campaign to make it seem like it’s not the villain, and as well to prevent defection of subscribers to satellite transmitters.
Cox asserts that it cannot be forced to carry KTAL despite federal law, even though the applicable U.S. statutes seem pretty unambiguous. United States Code 47 Section 534 makes it clear that local stations must be carried by a cable operator under franchise agreement, unless the originator refuses to allow the operator to have access to the signal under 47USC Sec. 325b. In effect, Nexstar is invoking this right.
Cox has every right to refuse under law – except it signed an agreement with the city and parish that it would have to broadcast the three local original network stations. A Cox spokesman said in The Times “a 1992 FCC ruling prohibits cable operators from retransmitting the signal of a commercial broadcast station without permission from the station's owner,” implying it can break the agreement. But I can find no record of this rule from the Federal Communications Commission – it sounds like he’s quoting the law.
However, Nexstar is not denying any signal at all to Cox, it’s just attaching conditions to its rebroadcast. That is, it is not a legal impossibility for Cox to transmit the signal – it becomes legally possible if Cox pays the fee (although the FCC does have the right to regulate such a fee to insure that it is not “excessive” and it’s hard to argue, relative to other fees by broadcasters, that 30 cents per subscriber per month is “excessive”).
And it’s another fact that Cox legally bound itself to transmit KTAL. Simply put, it has the means to fulfill its contract but is refusing to do so. So the city and parish (also backed by what they say is a federal court ruling affirming their position) not only are doing the correct legal thing, they are morally correct in preventing Cox, in essence, from cheating their citizens who wish to have cable from getting the complete package that Cox promised.
In fact, the city and parish should go further, by whatever means available in the contract, to institute proceedings to remove Cox as the franchisee and replace it with somebody else. In this competitive environment, no doubt an operator gladly would step forward and follow all parts of a franchise agreement like the present version. (This also would solve a headache for Bossier City concerning the relocation of the Cox building to make way for the Benton Road overpass – force Cox to sell it after selling its equipment to the new operator, the new operator removes the equipment, and then bulldoze the building.)
Don’t let the Cox campaign fool you – they are in the wrong here and the city and parish need to press this matter as forcefully as possible
Note that for many of the channels it transmits, Cox does pay, often at several times the rate Nexstar is demanding. In large part these costs get passed on to consumers. Also worth noting is that, at the current 33,000 subscribers in the KTAL viewing area, Cox would have to fork out $118,000 a year to keep KTAL on the air.
Even if this amount would only comprise 0.00205 percent of Cox Communication’s revenues for 2003, the fact is it has been hemorrhaging money lately (details and more recent figures are hard to come by because this is a privately-owned company by Cox Enterprises). The communications unit lost $137.8 million in 2003, which was almost half of the 2002 loss. (It’s harder to judge the overall impact on the parent since they publicly report only revenues, which have increased 40 percent in the past four years.) Even if it knuckled under and then attempted to pass on the charges, it would lose subscribers because of the higher costs, increasing losses.
Worse, its real fear is that this fever will spread to other over-the-air broadcast station owners, creating a monumental competitive problem. This is why it is resisting so strenuously carrying the station for anything but free, trying to conduct a public relations campaign to make it seem like it’s not the villain, and as well to prevent defection of subscribers to satellite transmitters.
Cox asserts that it cannot be forced to carry KTAL despite federal law, even though the applicable U.S. statutes seem pretty unambiguous. United States Code 47 Section 534 makes it clear that local stations must be carried by a cable operator under franchise agreement, unless the originator refuses to allow the operator to have access to the signal under 47USC Sec. 325b. In effect, Nexstar is invoking this right.
Cox has every right to refuse under law – except it signed an agreement with the city and parish that it would have to broadcast the three local original network stations. A Cox spokesman said in The Times “a 1992 FCC ruling prohibits cable operators from retransmitting the signal of a commercial broadcast station without permission from the station's owner,” implying it can break the agreement. But I can find no record of this rule from the Federal Communications Commission – it sounds like he’s quoting the law.
However, Nexstar is not denying any signal at all to Cox, it’s just attaching conditions to its rebroadcast. That is, it is not a legal impossibility for Cox to transmit the signal – it becomes legally possible if Cox pays the fee (although the FCC does have the right to regulate such a fee to insure that it is not “excessive” and it’s hard to argue, relative to other fees by broadcasters, that 30 cents per subscriber per month is “excessive”).
And it’s another fact that Cox legally bound itself to transmit KTAL. Simply put, it has the means to fulfill its contract but is refusing to do so. So the city and parish (also backed by what they say is a federal court ruling affirming their position) not only are doing the correct legal thing, they are morally correct in preventing Cox, in essence, from cheating their citizens who wish to have cable from getting the complete package that Cox promised.
In fact, the city and parish should go further, by whatever means available in the contract, to institute proceedings to remove Cox as the franchisee and replace it with somebody else. In this competitive environment, no doubt an operator gladly would step forward and follow all parts of a franchise agreement like the present version. (This also would solve a headache for Bossier City concerning the relocation of the Cox building to make way for the Benton Road overpass – force Cox to sell it after selling its equipment to the new operator, the new operator removes the equipment, and then bulldoze the building.)
Don’t let the Cox campaign fool you – they are in the wrong here and the city and parish need to press this matter as forcefully as possible
15.2.05
There's Landrieu's View -- and then There's Reality
Sen. Mary Landrieu has taken the offensive regarding her budget priorities relative to Pres. Bush’s. In her “The President’s Budget: Path to a Debt Society,” she tries to lay out the case that the president’s budget will lead to continued deficits and harms vital policies, and that the main culprit for this is tax cuts. But for observers who really understand this issue, the part of the report which deals with the overall budget situation is nonsense.
In the first page alone, the report makes a pair of breathtakingly inaccurate and/or misleading assertions. First, it argues that “[i]n each of the last four decades, the average size of the federal budget deficit relative to Gross National Product (GNP) has doubled.” Surely the Landrieu staffers had access to the same data that the Heritage Foundation had which is summed up in this chart. Either these people are stupid or they are deliberately trying to mislead the public. The data show that the total deficit to GNP ratio has hardly changed in the last 20 years and, in fact, at 38 percent is below the historic 43 percent level post-War World II.
While this is an error of fact, following closely is an error in logic. The report asserts that “[d]espite what has been said, deficits are not a function of government spending gone amok,” and then lamely tries to support this point by noting that “that government spending today is lower than under previous presidents. From 1980 to 2003, federal spending averaged 21.3 percent. Under Presidents Reagan and George Bush, Sr., it averaged 22 percent and under President Clinton it was 20 percent. President Bush’s budget calls for federal spending of 20 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).”
Note the bait-and-switch tactic here. The report tries to equate a relative level of spending with the absolute criterion of whether government spends too much. Let’s use an individual-level example: suppose a family were running up credit card debt because they insist upon eating out all the time, and a lot, rather than preparing more moderate portions at home. A debt counselor might tell them to do the latter and they would save enough not to run a deficit every month. That’s what known as trying to spend efficiently and to set priorities based upon available resources.
(Then, of course, they’ll have health problems because of obesity – but, if they’re poor enough, Medicaid will pay for almost everything. One of the greatest myths in American politics is that there is not universal health care provided. There is, and for those defined as the “poor” it costs next to nothing through Medicaid. Meanwhile, middle-class and above Americans have to pay more for their health care and the taxes to support poorer Americans’ use of Medicaid. Take it from someone who’s had to deal with complex health issues and Medicaid for years. But this is a subject for another column.)
But, in Landrieu’s world, it’s not the inefficiency and poor choices of what to fund that define whether government spends too much or too little, it’s some mythical level relative to a GNP figure (21.3 percent?). With this logic, what would she do if we fell below the magic level? Increase government spending on programs with no proven public policy benefits or need just to say we were spending at the “appropriate” level? Her ideology apparently is just to spend (and that’s your money, not hers, that she wants to spend).
The same flawed logic is in effect with the statement, “[f]rom 1980 to 2003, revenue averaged 18.5 percent of GDP [Gross Domestic Product]. In 2004, it will be 15.8 percent of GDP” – again asserting that we have too few revenues coming into government, rather than focusing on the kinds of programs run by the government, the prioritization of these programs, the costs and benefits of these programs, and genuine need, if any, of them. That’s what revenue levels should be based on.
(Immediately after that phrase comes this patently false statement: “the lowest level since 1950, before Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were ever enacted.” Two out of three on a player’s field goal percentage will make the NBA All-Star Game but we need 100 percent accuracy in public policy – Social Security was signed into law in 1935, and the first benefits were paid out in 1940.)
It is also through the revenue-GDP comparison that the report attempts to blame tax cuts for the lower revenue levels. But the reason why revenue as a percentage of GDP is lower temporarily is because this reflects a short-term phenomenon resulting from the recent Clinton recession and the temporary stock market-driven collapse of tax revenues from capital gains. The very same Congressional Budget Office data, used selectively and out of context in the report to try to make this point, estimates that tax revenues will soon be back at historical norms, averaging 18.1 percent of GDP over the 2007-2009 period. And anybody knowledgeable about the historical effects of tax cuts on economies and government revenues know that in the long run their benefits far outweigh their costs.
The remainder of the report goes into presumed effects that the president’s budget will cause that ignore the relative merits and demerits of the programs involved. When understood in the context of Landrieu’s policy preferences – decidedly out of step with Louisianans’ – it’s all the same recitation that the budget is bad because it decreases the power of the special interests and failed liberal philosophy of governance that Landrieu supports. Again, it’s hard to take any of this seriously when knowing the misleading way in which the criticisms of the budget are presented in the first place.
We must recognize this document for what it is, an attempt by Landrieu to deflect criticism that she, like most Democrats, are sticking their heads in the sand about the looming financial crisis of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. Their approach of ignoring these problems until they are massive in dollar size and then to demand tax increases, or to have the tax increases now, are designed so that they can hold and collect more of the people's money. Democrats propose to cause a genuine deficit problem, not the president's budget.
While she may try to pass this off as valid, meaningful analysis, Landrieu needs to understand that there are thinking people out there that are not going to swallow this pap. And judging by recent election results, there’s a few too many out there for her liking.
In the first page alone, the report makes a pair of breathtakingly inaccurate and/or misleading assertions. First, it argues that “[i]n each of the last four decades, the average size of the federal budget deficit relative to Gross National Product (GNP) has doubled.” Surely the Landrieu staffers had access to the same data that the Heritage Foundation had which is summed up in this chart. Either these people are stupid or they are deliberately trying to mislead the public. The data show that the total deficit to GNP ratio has hardly changed in the last 20 years and, in fact, at 38 percent is below the historic 43 percent level post-War World II.
While this is an error of fact, following closely is an error in logic. The report asserts that “[d]espite what has been said, deficits are not a function of government spending gone amok,” and then lamely tries to support this point by noting that “that government spending today is lower than under previous presidents. From 1980 to 2003, federal spending averaged 21.3 percent. Under Presidents Reagan and George Bush, Sr., it averaged 22 percent and under President Clinton it was 20 percent. President Bush’s budget calls for federal spending of 20 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).”
Note the bait-and-switch tactic here. The report tries to equate a relative level of spending with the absolute criterion of whether government spends too much. Let’s use an individual-level example: suppose a family were running up credit card debt because they insist upon eating out all the time, and a lot, rather than preparing more moderate portions at home. A debt counselor might tell them to do the latter and they would save enough not to run a deficit every month. That’s what known as trying to spend efficiently and to set priorities based upon available resources.
(Then, of course, they’ll have health problems because of obesity – but, if they’re poor enough, Medicaid will pay for almost everything. One of the greatest myths in American politics is that there is not universal health care provided. There is, and for those defined as the “poor” it costs next to nothing through Medicaid. Meanwhile, middle-class and above Americans have to pay more for their health care and the taxes to support poorer Americans’ use of Medicaid. Take it from someone who’s had to deal with complex health issues and Medicaid for years. But this is a subject for another column.)
But, in Landrieu’s world, it’s not the inefficiency and poor choices of what to fund that define whether government spends too much or too little, it’s some mythical level relative to a GNP figure (21.3 percent?). With this logic, what would she do if we fell below the magic level? Increase government spending on programs with no proven public policy benefits or need just to say we were spending at the “appropriate” level? Her ideology apparently is just to spend (and that’s your money, not hers, that she wants to spend).
The same flawed logic is in effect with the statement, “[f]rom 1980 to 2003, revenue averaged 18.5 percent of GDP [Gross Domestic Product]. In 2004, it will be 15.8 percent of GDP” – again asserting that we have too few revenues coming into government, rather than focusing on the kinds of programs run by the government, the prioritization of these programs, the costs and benefits of these programs, and genuine need, if any, of them. That’s what revenue levels should be based on.
(Immediately after that phrase comes this patently false statement: “the lowest level since 1950, before Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were ever enacted.” Two out of three on a player’s field goal percentage will make the NBA All-Star Game but we need 100 percent accuracy in public policy – Social Security was signed into law in 1935, and the first benefits were paid out in 1940.)
It is also through the revenue-GDP comparison that the report attempts to blame tax cuts for the lower revenue levels. But the reason why revenue as a percentage of GDP is lower temporarily is because this reflects a short-term phenomenon resulting from the recent Clinton recession and the temporary stock market-driven collapse of tax revenues from capital gains. The very same Congressional Budget Office data, used selectively and out of context in the report to try to make this point, estimates that tax revenues will soon be back at historical norms, averaging 18.1 percent of GDP over the 2007-2009 period. And anybody knowledgeable about the historical effects of tax cuts on economies and government revenues know that in the long run their benefits far outweigh their costs.
The remainder of the report goes into presumed effects that the president’s budget will cause that ignore the relative merits and demerits of the programs involved. When understood in the context of Landrieu’s policy preferences – decidedly out of step with Louisianans’ – it’s all the same recitation that the budget is bad because it decreases the power of the special interests and failed liberal philosophy of governance that Landrieu supports. Again, it’s hard to take any of this seriously when knowing the misleading way in which the criticisms of the budget are presented in the first place.
We must recognize this document for what it is, an attempt by Landrieu to deflect criticism that she, like most Democrats, are sticking their heads in the sand about the looming financial crisis of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. Their approach of ignoring these problems until they are massive in dollar size and then to demand tax increases, or to have the tax increases now, are designed so that they can hold and collect more of the people's money. Democrats propose to cause a genuine deficit problem, not the president's budget.
While she may try to pass this off as valid, meaningful analysis, Landrieu needs to understand that there are thinking people out there that are not going to swallow this pap. And judging by recent election results, there’s a few too many out there for her liking.
14.2.05
Choose Your Symbols Carefully
It always fascinates me to see how the defenders of the Confederate battle flag fall all over themselves, performing incredible contortions of logic and history to convince the world they have really have a silk purse instead of a sow’s ear. Such gymnastics has been on display recently on The Times’ editorial pages, as a result of a column by its managing editor Alan English on Jan. 16 condemning the display of the flag.
Let’s investigate the common arguments made by the flag’s apologists:
The flag doesn’t stand for racism, it stands for honorable intentions against tyranny.
It’s true that a common canard about the Civil War was it primarily concerned slavery. No, the primary locus of conflict came over the question of whether the Southern states had a right to withdraw from the Union. Defenders of this move have argued that federal government tyranny left the Southern states in a position akin to those of the thirteen colonies with Britain, where they had to rebel.
But such an interpretation flies in the face of history and logic. First, in the pre-Revolutionary war era, the American colonists politically were treated very differently than their English counterparts (not that the typical Englishman enjoyed a great deal of rights in those days). Second, the English government, while the least authoritarian in the world at that time, still was an authoritarian government.
By contrast, Southerners were treated no differently than anybody else in the run-up to the Civil War. They exercised equal political rights, and considerably more of them than their colonial ancestors. And it cannot be stressed too much that this revolution occurred against not a tyrannical government, but a representative democracy where they enjoyed many rights, including that to enslave other human beings.
Note that the reason for rebellion was mostly because of a fear of the federal government ridding the land of slavery after Abraham Lincoln’s election, not from any identifiable act prejudicial against the South. The best argument one can come up with justifying the rebellion was the federal government could have interfered with a state’s rights to enslave others. In short, there was no massive disenfranchising of liberty of Southerners by the federal government, which could have justified a revolution to restore lost rights. There was no tyranny, and the only things backing secessionist sympathy were the powerful classes of the region wishing to hold onto their power and privilege, and their needing to incite the vast majority who did not own slaves that their sovereignty was being impugned to follow them.
Most who fought under the flag were not slaveholders, some were even black, and they did not care about perpetuating slavery.
All true, but not exculpating the meaning behind the flag. Since most Germans in the 1930s and 1940s did not persecute Jews personally, does that rehabilitate the Nazi flag as supporters of the laudatory view of the Confederate flag argue for their strip of cloth? After all, the Nazi government in Germany brought about law and order, prosperity, and pride back to a Germany defeated by war and battered by the Depression. Ultimately, when picking a symbol to represent something, you do not have the luxury of choosing which meaning you want to convey; if society has assigned accurately a certain meaning to it and expresses displeasure when you seem to champion that undesirable meaning to it, do not pout about its discomfort.
But that’s the problem, the flag has been “hijacked” away from its “real” meaning, and backers of the flag are just trying to remind everybody of this “true” meaning.
First, the myth of tyranny against the South has been dispensed with. Second, recall that the “freedom” being fought for by the South was the freedom to enslave those who looked different from the dominant group. It is not virtuous to fight for one good thing if it is used as a means to support an immoral act. You simply cannot wish away that part of what the rebellion was all about and read it out of the symbol (with that logic, why is the swastika seen as an offensive symbol considering its benign origins were “hijacked” by the Nazis?). You have to accept things as they are, and a love of slavery of black people was what part of the Confederacy was all about.
Slavery meant little to the South and/or it was as bad as others states in this regard so their flags ought to be held in contempt, too – look at the Emancipation Proclamation, which allowed slavery to continue in the Union even as it outlawed it in the rebelling states!
Obviously, slavery was everything to the South. Can anybody seriously argue (other than crackpots who spin a conspiracy theory, with little historical support, that Northern industry was trying to choke the agrarian South, inviting the uprising) that there would have been a Civil War had the South not had slavery?
While no country is perfect, it mystifies me why battle flag supporters feel they have to tear down their own country to when they make the argument that “there were warts with the Confederacy, but there were/are also with the U.S.” This isn’t a comparison game between countries, this is the evaluation of a people against an ideal – perhaps an unattainable one but one to which we should make maximal efforts to reach. I would argue that, to demonstrate fealty to the ideas of liberty, equality, individualism, duty to country, and others, why not fly Old Glory instead of its shady cousin the Stars and Bars? Why purposely promote a symbol that you know is divisive when, if you claim you support a certain set of outstanding values, you can display this support through another symbol relevant to you that has none of the undesirable baggage of the other?
That’s my advice to the supporters of flying the Confederate battle flag: if you want to promote something standing for freedom, hope, goodness, and other such salutary values, the Stars and Stripes is your ticket (as many do). The Confederacy is long dead, its meritorious values subsumed back into America, its tawdry ones ground into dust at great cost. But if you do choose to continue to display it, know that you choose an inferior symbol to convey your beliefs, one which, like it or not, has acquired meaning that offends, with good reason, a nontrivial portion of the population. Fly it as much as you like (and with me resist those who would call for its outright banning because we cannot afford to erase our history, good or bad) but then do not act surprised or even offended that you have offended others.
Let’s investigate the common arguments made by the flag’s apologists:
The flag doesn’t stand for racism, it stands for honorable intentions against tyranny.
It’s true that a common canard about the Civil War was it primarily concerned slavery. No, the primary locus of conflict came over the question of whether the Southern states had a right to withdraw from the Union. Defenders of this move have argued that federal government tyranny left the Southern states in a position akin to those of the thirteen colonies with Britain, where they had to rebel.
But such an interpretation flies in the face of history and logic. First, in the pre-Revolutionary war era, the American colonists politically were treated very differently than their English counterparts (not that the typical Englishman enjoyed a great deal of rights in those days). Second, the English government, while the least authoritarian in the world at that time, still was an authoritarian government.
By contrast, Southerners were treated no differently than anybody else in the run-up to the Civil War. They exercised equal political rights, and considerably more of them than their colonial ancestors. And it cannot be stressed too much that this revolution occurred against not a tyrannical government, but a representative democracy where they enjoyed many rights, including that to enslave other human beings.
Note that the reason for rebellion was mostly because of a fear of the federal government ridding the land of slavery after Abraham Lincoln’s election, not from any identifiable act prejudicial against the South. The best argument one can come up with justifying the rebellion was the federal government could have interfered with a state’s rights to enslave others. In short, there was no massive disenfranchising of liberty of Southerners by the federal government, which could have justified a revolution to restore lost rights. There was no tyranny, and the only things backing secessionist sympathy were the powerful classes of the region wishing to hold onto their power and privilege, and their needing to incite the vast majority who did not own slaves that their sovereignty was being impugned to follow them.
Most who fought under the flag were not slaveholders, some were even black, and they did not care about perpetuating slavery.
All true, but not exculpating the meaning behind the flag. Since most Germans in the 1930s and 1940s did not persecute Jews personally, does that rehabilitate the Nazi flag as supporters of the laudatory view of the Confederate flag argue for their strip of cloth? After all, the Nazi government in Germany brought about law and order, prosperity, and pride back to a Germany defeated by war and battered by the Depression. Ultimately, when picking a symbol to represent something, you do not have the luxury of choosing which meaning you want to convey; if society has assigned accurately a certain meaning to it and expresses displeasure when you seem to champion that undesirable meaning to it, do not pout about its discomfort.
But that’s the problem, the flag has been “hijacked” away from its “real” meaning, and backers of the flag are just trying to remind everybody of this “true” meaning.
First, the myth of tyranny against the South has been dispensed with. Second, recall that the “freedom” being fought for by the South was the freedom to enslave those who looked different from the dominant group. It is not virtuous to fight for one good thing if it is used as a means to support an immoral act. You simply cannot wish away that part of what the rebellion was all about and read it out of the symbol (with that logic, why is the swastika seen as an offensive symbol considering its benign origins were “hijacked” by the Nazis?). You have to accept things as they are, and a love of slavery of black people was what part of the Confederacy was all about.
Slavery meant little to the South and/or it was as bad as others states in this regard so their flags ought to be held in contempt, too – look at the Emancipation Proclamation, which allowed slavery to continue in the Union even as it outlawed it in the rebelling states!
Obviously, slavery was everything to the South. Can anybody seriously argue (other than crackpots who spin a conspiracy theory, with little historical support, that Northern industry was trying to choke the agrarian South, inviting the uprising) that there would have been a Civil War had the South not had slavery?
While no country is perfect, it mystifies me why battle flag supporters feel they have to tear down their own country to when they make the argument that “there were warts with the Confederacy, but there were/are also with the U.S.” This isn’t a comparison game between countries, this is the evaluation of a people against an ideal – perhaps an unattainable one but one to which we should make maximal efforts to reach. I would argue that, to demonstrate fealty to the ideas of liberty, equality, individualism, duty to country, and others, why not fly Old Glory instead of its shady cousin the Stars and Bars? Why purposely promote a symbol that you know is divisive when, if you claim you support a certain set of outstanding values, you can display this support through another symbol relevant to you that has none of the undesirable baggage of the other?
That’s my advice to the supporters of flying the Confederate battle flag: if you want to promote something standing for freedom, hope, goodness, and other such salutary values, the Stars and Stripes is your ticket (as many do). The Confederacy is long dead, its meritorious values subsumed back into America, its tawdry ones ground into dust at great cost. But if you do choose to continue to display it, know that you choose an inferior symbol to convey your beliefs, one which, like it or not, has acquired meaning that offends, with good reason, a nontrivial portion of the population. Fly it as much as you like (and with me resist those who would call for its outright banning because we cannot afford to erase our history, good or bad) but then do not act surprised or even offended that you have offended others.
13.2.05
Gloves are off now in relation to Hightower
As if Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower didn’t have enough problems with a lawsuit given a good chance of stopping the convention center hotel project and state Sen. Max Malone putting pressure on the state Bond Commission to reverse their approval of the sale of bonds to finance the project, now he’s got Caddo Parish Sheriff Steve Prator and The Times after him.
Sheriffs typically are a powerful political force in a parish, the most except where the job is divided (Orleans) or consolidated or other local government arrangements creates other parish-wide executives with significant powers (Jefferson, East Baton Rouge, Lafayette, and Terrebone). While I’m sure the fact that Prator is a Republican has nothing to do with the faithful discharge of duties, that Hightower is a Democrat seeking to expand his political influence probably didn’t discourage Prator from investigating the complaints concerning city agencies and individuals who are rather enthusiastic Hightower supporters.
Somewhat more surprising is The Times’ increasing enthusiasm in criticizing Hightower. It has turned negative on the hotel and now there’s this. In the past, The Times was rather reluctant to delve deeply or even at all into some controversial issues concerning the Hightower administration that outlets such as Fax-Net Update and The Inquisitor did report upon.
No specific allegations are made in this story. However, there is a lot of association going on. For example, it seems that Hightower political allies are the recipients of favorable treatment, and that loans of a certain amount of money on one day later that day in an identical dollar amount suddenly buy property. Association doesn’t connote causation; that’s for the appropriate investigatory authorities to discover.
Still, the knock that many have against Hightower is that he prefers to use his power in government to reward his supporters and punish his enemies rather than in a way to benefit the commonweal, when there is conflict between the two. This is why part of the criticism against the convention center and hotel is not only is it a misguided approach to economic development and bespeaks a vanity rather than pursuit of a common good, but that the contracts that go out to build them, the positions of power to build and oversee them, etc., will, subject to the law, be thrown toward his loyalists. In short, the main reason the things are getting built is to help line some pockets, and only secondarily to achieve purposes that truly will bring the greatest benefits to the community as a whole.
None of this is new in the world of politics, especially in this state and around these parts, but new is the number of media outlets that can get access to government and disseminate more widely to the public (this blog included). It makes it harder than ever for the behind-closed-doors, limited-access-to-government-information environment in which a politician like Hightower has to operate. In particular, the newer media forces the older media to become more investigatory.
It’s a healthy trend to bring more accountability into government, along with invigorated two-party competition that would put a guy like Prator in a position of not sweeping the whole thing under the rug. Which is, from the perspective of those who now have sunshine on their previously-darkened activities, to their mode of power-wielding, unhealthy.
Sheriffs typically are a powerful political force in a parish, the most except where the job is divided (Orleans) or consolidated or other local government arrangements creates other parish-wide executives with significant powers (Jefferson, East Baton Rouge, Lafayette, and Terrebone). While I’m sure the fact that Prator is a Republican has nothing to do with the faithful discharge of duties, that Hightower is a Democrat seeking to expand his political influence probably didn’t discourage Prator from investigating the complaints concerning city agencies and individuals who are rather enthusiastic Hightower supporters.
Somewhat more surprising is The Times’ increasing enthusiasm in criticizing Hightower. It has turned negative on the hotel and now there’s this. In the past, The Times was rather reluctant to delve deeply or even at all into some controversial issues concerning the Hightower administration that outlets such as Fax-Net Update and The Inquisitor did report upon.
No specific allegations are made in this story. However, there is a lot of association going on. For example, it seems that Hightower political allies are the recipients of favorable treatment, and that loans of a certain amount of money on one day later that day in an identical dollar amount suddenly buy property. Association doesn’t connote causation; that’s for the appropriate investigatory authorities to discover.
Still, the knock that many have against Hightower is that he prefers to use his power in government to reward his supporters and punish his enemies rather than in a way to benefit the commonweal, when there is conflict between the two. This is why part of the criticism against the convention center and hotel is not only is it a misguided approach to economic development and bespeaks a vanity rather than pursuit of a common good, but that the contracts that go out to build them, the positions of power to build and oversee them, etc., will, subject to the law, be thrown toward his loyalists. In short, the main reason the things are getting built is to help line some pockets, and only secondarily to achieve purposes that truly will bring the greatest benefits to the community as a whole.
None of this is new in the world of politics, especially in this state and around these parts, but new is the number of media outlets that can get access to government and disseminate more widely to the public (this blog included). It makes it harder than ever for the behind-closed-doors, limited-access-to-government-information environment in which a politician like Hightower has to operate. In particular, the newer media forces the older media to become more investigatory.
It’s a healthy trend to bring more accountability into government, along with invigorated two-party competition that would put a guy like Prator in a position of not sweeping the whole thing under the rug. Which is, from the perspective of those who now have sunshine on their previously-darkened activities, to their mode of power-wielding, unhealthy.
10.2.05
Something tells me we're not in Louisiana anymore
So now it’s come to this? People so eager to leave this state that they do it for free land in Kansas? And it’s only poor schools and high crime that sent this family fleeing; the husband even had a job here ($90,000 for being a deputy sheriff -- what are they paying them in East Baton Rouge?) and they have to build their own house there.
From the tone of this article, it sounds like the Midwest is pursuing exactly the opposite of the strategy so many in this state, including the governor, are implementing. Is it working? (Note: oddly, or perhaps not so, this story was not in The Times).
In a related matter, C.B. Forgotston pokes fun at the use of multipliers to guesstimate how many jobs get created by relocating some business entity. Actually, I remembered from the dim days of my undergraduate degree (B.A. in public administration) something about this, so my curiosity got the best of me and through the magic of the Internet I found a thorough explanation of this subject.
Anybody who takes the time to go through the paces of the examples in the RIMS II booklet would see that the most multiplied jobs coming from a new concern would be perhaps twice as many (it all depends what new business is coming where and what it does). I’d like to do an analysis myself for Union Tank Car’s new Alexandria plant, but it costs $275 a pop for the tables to do this so I think I’ll pass. Nevertheless, with the 850 jobs guaranteed by the company, that means it will have to hire at least 300 full-time employees for even the most optimistic multiplier to supply the 850 total full-time jobs.
C.B writes we should steal what we want from his site, but I’ll give him due credit for the final words on this topic: “If we want to keep and grow our EXISTING businesses we must reduce business taxes, government red tape and political corruption. It is not possible to bring in enough new businesses to offset the losses of jobs at EXISTING businesses.”
From the tone of this article, it sounds like the Midwest is pursuing exactly the opposite of the strategy so many in this state, including the governor, are implementing. Is it working? (Note: oddly, or perhaps not so, this story was not in The Times).
In a related matter, C.B. Forgotston pokes fun at the use of multipliers to guesstimate how many jobs get created by relocating some business entity. Actually, I remembered from the dim days of my undergraduate degree (B.A. in public administration) something about this, so my curiosity got the best of me and through the magic of the Internet I found a thorough explanation of this subject.
Anybody who takes the time to go through the paces of the examples in the RIMS II booklet would see that the most multiplied jobs coming from a new concern would be perhaps twice as many (it all depends what new business is coming where and what it does). I’d like to do an analysis myself for Union Tank Car’s new Alexandria plant, but it costs $275 a pop for the tables to do this so I think I’ll pass. Nevertheless, with the 850 jobs guaranteed by the company, that means it will have to hire at least 300 full-time employees for even the most optimistic multiplier to supply the 850 total full-time jobs.
C.B writes we should steal what we want from his site, but I’ll give him due credit for the final words on this topic: “If we want to keep and grow our EXISTING businesses we must reduce business taxes, government red tape and political corruption. It is not possible to bring in enough new businesses to offset the losses of jobs at EXISTING businesses.”
9.2.05
It's 1984 in Shreveport's Mayor's Office
Will the arrogance never cease? With yet another legal question raised about the construction of the city-owned hotel to accompany its under-construction convention center, Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower resorted to a familiar tactic of blaming the legitimate questioners of the project.
This time, it’s about the city’s application for $12 million in capital outlay funds from the state to help construct the $52 million hotel (yes, state taxpayers, you’re on the hook, too). A lawsuit filed today impugns the legality of the city’s use of it to build the hotel, noting that according to the proposal, the money is needed to build two additional levels on a convention center parking garage, to relocate the Greyhound bus terminal, for landscaping and to "prepare the site for ancillary uses."
One obvious question is the building of two more levels and terminal relocation is going to take a lot of that $12 million. And also, is placement of a full-blown hotel really preparing the convention site for “ancillary” uses?
Actually, the choice of this phrase and word is consistent with Hightower’s style of governance: appearance becoming more important than substance. Policy is proclaimed to create a certain impression and image, while its execution is done in a way to favor special interests. Review the synonym “subsidiary” of “ancillary” et voila, there’s Hightower’s hidden agenda for the money, as a subsidy to his unwritten plans.
I’m no legal expert but on face the plaintiffs seem to have a pretty good case. At the very least, this will give state Sen. Max Malone more ammunition to use to attempt to have the state Bond Commission reverse it previous approval to allow the sale of $40 million to fund the project, a request Malone asked the Commission to consider at its Feb. 17 meeting.
Hightower’s reaction, naturally, is yet again to shoot the messenger (which he’s done so often now if this metaphoric person were to drink something he’d need to mop it up right afterwards):
We've been down this road before .... We need to be spending our time building a hotel and protecting the taxpayers' interest, not fighting desperate attempts to destroy the project …. We're tired of spending untold dollars defending frivolous attempts to stop this project.
If nothing else, this struggle has improved Hightower’s ability to use “newspeak” and “doublethink.” In his lexicon, FLEECING is PROTECTING, and LEGITIMATE is FRIVOLOUS. Thus speaks Big Brother Keith Hightower.
This time, it’s about the city’s application for $12 million in capital outlay funds from the state to help construct the $52 million hotel (yes, state taxpayers, you’re on the hook, too). A lawsuit filed today impugns the legality of the city’s use of it to build the hotel, noting that according to the proposal, the money is needed to build two additional levels on a convention center parking garage, to relocate the Greyhound bus terminal, for landscaping and to "prepare the site for ancillary uses."
One obvious question is the building of two more levels and terminal relocation is going to take a lot of that $12 million. And also, is placement of a full-blown hotel really preparing the convention site for “ancillary” uses?
Actually, the choice of this phrase and word is consistent with Hightower’s style of governance: appearance becoming more important than substance. Policy is proclaimed to create a certain impression and image, while its execution is done in a way to favor special interests. Review the synonym “subsidiary” of “ancillary” et voila, there’s Hightower’s hidden agenda for the money, as a subsidy to his unwritten plans.
I’m no legal expert but on face the plaintiffs seem to have a pretty good case. At the very least, this will give state Sen. Max Malone more ammunition to use to attempt to have the state Bond Commission reverse it previous approval to allow the sale of $40 million to fund the project, a request Malone asked the Commission to consider at its Feb. 17 meeting.
Hightower’s reaction, naturally, is yet again to shoot the messenger (which he’s done so often now if this metaphoric person were to drink something he’d need to mop it up right afterwards):
We've been down this road before .... We need to be spending our time building a hotel and protecting the taxpayers' interest, not fighting desperate attempts to destroy the project …. We're tired of spending untold dollars defending frivolous attempts to stop this project.
If nothing else, this struggle has improved Hightower’s ability to use “newspeak” and “doublethink.” In his lexicon, FLEECING is PROTECTING, and LEGITIMATE is FRIVOLOUS. Thus speaks Big Brother Keith Hightower.
8.2.05
Louisiana Delegation Needs to Face Budget Reality on Subsidies
Usually every single member of Congress, regardless of affiliation, finds at least one part of a presidential budget at which to be displeased. President Bush’s fiscal 2006 proposal is no exception with Louisianans in Congress agreeing somewhat on what is the least liked, backed by a powerful constituency.
Parroting their party leadership’s talking points, the urban-based Sen. Mary Landrieu and Rep. Bill Jefferson complained that it had misplaced priorities and hid its true costs. But coming from a pair of legislators who never met government spending they didn’t like (with the exception of national defense) and have consistently voted to disempower the citizenry, these objections rang rather hollow.
But their compatriots with districts of a more rural nature were more specific and united in the major shortcoming they saw, a reduction of almost 10 percent in agricultural subsidies. Naturally, the state’s other federal Democrat official found fault here: Rep. Charlie Melancon, took exception to Bush's cuts to the agriculture industry. But his GOP colleagues also chimed in.
"I anticipated some ratcheting down, but this outlines a pretty good fight for those districts, like the Fifth, that rely so much on agriculture as an economic base," said Rep. Rodney Alexander. "It's necessary to get the deficit under control, but I'm not for doing it at the expense of our farmers. Our farmers are already going to be impacted this year by low commodity prices and high fuel and fertilizer prices. They're just getting by as it is."
Even the urban-based Sen. David Vitter expressed dismay: "I think this hits ag way too hard, and I can't support it as it is," Vitter said. "There will have to be some major discussions, and I know there are other senators who feel the same way."
No doubt he’s correct, which is why agriculture subsidies have been the most difficult vampire to kill in federal spending except for, well, reforming Social Security. The Senate gives overrepresentation to rural states, and some states that aren’t as rural but which are poorer like Louisiana or who have made a killing off subsidies such as Illinois will have senators sharing Vitter’s view.
Of course, it’s a view totally at odds with economic good sense and fiscal discipline. Not only does it deliberately distort the marketplace, but it’s a form of corporate welfare that benefits only a few with two-thirds of all subsidies paid to just 10 percent of all farms and agribusinesses. A Heritage Foundation report displays unambiguously that these subsidies prop up the incomes of earners wealthier than the typical American and, ultimately, distort production away from the “family farmer.”
But it’s the “family farmer” that special interests claim would be hurt by these subsidy reductions. "We'll fight it if it's just on us," said Morgan Smith, president of the North Louisiana Agri-Business Council. "There's not a crop you can plan to plant this year and show a profit. Without subsidies, we'll be in a negative situation."
The first thing to say in response to this statement is this guy doesn’t seem to know economics. The reason why one couldn’t, as he claims, make a profit growing anything is that too much of that thing is being grown. Get a few producers out of business and then everybody left is going to be making money without such a glut of that good. Subsidies only keep marginal producers in business to flood the market.
After noting this, throw in a “so what?” Get the marginal producers in a negative situation and we can be rid of them. Nobody has a right to be a farmer, especially when making others pay for the privilege, so it’s probably a good thing to let a few farms go out of business and allow that capital to be spent and its associated labor deployed for more productive purposes.
Now, the world agricultural marketplace is not free by any means (witness the European Union’s, driven by France, huge subsidies which comprise over 40 percent of its budget, more than anything else) but it’s not like Bush is proposing to end agriculture subsidies entirely. It’s too much to expect the Democrats to slow down nondefense discretionary spending by government, but at least Vitter, Alexander, and others on the Republican side can acknowledge reality and not to let 1.65 percent of the U.S. population (2.5 percent of Louisiana’s) make the rest of us subsidize their lifestyle choices.
Parroting their party leadership’s talking points, the urban-based Sen. Mary Landrieu and Rep. Bill Jefferson complained that it had misplaced priorities and hid its true costs. But coming from a pair of legislators who never met government spending they didn’t like (with the exception of national defense) and have consistently voted to disempower the citizenry, these objections rang rather hollow.
But their compatriots with districts of a more rural nature were more specific and united in the major shortcoming they saw, a reduction of almost 10 percent in agricultural subsidies. Naturally, the state’s other federal Democrat official found fault here: Rep. Charlie Melancon, took exception to Bush's cuts to the agriculture industry. But his GOP colleagues also chimed in.
"I anticipated some ratcheting down, but this outlines a pretty good fight for those districts, like the Fifth, that rely so much on agriculture as an economic base," said Rep. Rodney Alexander. "It's necessary to get the deficit under control, but I'm not for doing it at the expense of our farmers. Our farmers are already going to be impacted this year by low commodity prices and high fuel and fertilizer prices. They're just getting by as it is."
Even the urban-based Sen. David Vitter expressed dismay: "I think this hits ag way too hard, and I can't support it as it is," Vitter said. "There will have to be some major discussions, and I know there are other senators who feel the same way."
No doubt he’s correct, which is why agriculture subsidies have been the most difficult vampire to kill in federal spending except for, well, reforming Social Security. The Senate gives overrepresentation to rural states, and some states that aren’t as rural but which are poorer like Louisiana or who have made a killing off subsidies such as Illinois will have senators sharing Vitter’s view.
Of course, it’s a view totally at odds with economic good sense and fiscal discipline. Not only does it deliberately distort the marketplace, but it’s a form of corporate welfare that benefits only a few with two-thirds of all subsidies paid to just 10 percent of all farms and agribusinesses. A Heritage Foundation report displays unambiguously that these subsidies prop up the incomes of earners wealthier than the typical American and, ultimately, distort production away from the “family farmer.”
But it’s the “family farmer” that special interests claim would be hurt by these subsidy reductions. "We'll fight it if it's just on us," said Morgan Smith, president of the North Louisiana Agri-Business Council. "There's not a crop you can plan to plant this year and show a profit. Without subsidies, we'll be in a negative situation."
The first thing to say in response to this statement is this guy doesn’t seem to know economics. The reason why one couldn’t, as he claims, make a profit growing anything is that too much of that thing is being grown. Get a few producers out of business and then everybody left is going to be making money without such a glut of that good. Subsidies only keep marginal producers in business to flood the market.
After noting this, throw in a “so what?” Get the marginal producers in a negative situation and we can be rid of them. Nobody has a right to be a farmer, especially when making others pay for the privilege, so it’s probably a good thing to let a few farms go out of business and allow that capital to be spent and its associated labor deployed for more productive purposes.
Now, the world agricultural marketplace is not free by any means (witness the European Union’s, driven by France, huge subsidies which comprise over 40 percent of its budget, more than anything else) but it’s not like Bush is proposing to end agriculture subsidies entirely. It’s too much to expect the Democrats to slow down nondefense discretionary spending by government, but at least Vitter, Alexander, and others on the Republican side can acknowledge reality and not to let 1.65 percent of the U.S. population (2.5 percent of Louisiana’s) make the rest of us subsidize their lifestyle choices.
7.2.05
Some Shreveporters Want to Throw Back Carnival
In Shreveport, Le Bon Temps Rouler may be coming to an end, or perhaps be substantially modified, maybe only in the short term, by a combination of residents’ concerns and city infrastructure needs regarding its Carnival parades.
Fax-Net Update reports that Shreveport’s Broadmoor Neighborhood Association may be joined by the Captain Shreve Neighborhood Association in asking very nicely that the two krewes (Centaur and Gemini) that parade around their neighborhoods relocate themselves. Each parade departs from downtown Shreveport on a Saturday at 4:00 PM and (assuming no dilatory events occur) reach the ramparts of the northern end of the Captain Shreve neighborhood around 6:30, makes a southern turn to bisect the neighborhoods at about 7:00, and finishes up in the middle edge of Broadmoor around 8:00.
The first two-thirds of the parade go along open roadways and through commercial zones, but the last third is almost exclusively residential. An increasing proportion of residents are beginning to feel that the tremendous traffic hassles lasting for hours on those Saturdays and the unsightliness of portable toilets left around for a two-week period detracts from their quality of life (Shreveport can’t win for losing on this issue – in other cities with Carnival parades such amenities generally are lacking leading to widespread outdoor irrigation by members of both sexes).
Also of concern is that starting next year public works projects in and around parade routes with cause further congestion. Some neighborhood activists are calling for future routes to head straight down the broad Clyde Fant Parkway than runs along the river, which has plenty of open space – but little in the way of room to park cars containing a couple of hundred thousand people and necessitating long walks to any food or drink, whether in the form of commercial establishments or private house parties.
A little comparative perspective is in order here. Such concerns would be greeted with silence, if not outright laughter, by the vast majority of Garden District, Uptown and Midcity residents in New Orleans, Lakeview residents in Metairie, and other denizens along routes in St. Bernard Parish and on the West Bank in Orleans. Many bought their properties precisely because of close access to historic parade routes. The East Kings Highway route in Shreveport that is of most concern is a little different because it is all residential which generally only short stretches of parade routes down south are.
Still, only one side of the route (west side or Broadmoor) is really residential. The other side is taken up by a bayou which does tend to cut down on people flowing into the area. The Captain Shreve neighborhood does suffer in that two sides of it gets wrapped by the parade but there is some insulation (businesses to the north, the bayou to its west).
It’s also worth noting that the Shreveport area is an odd place for there to have developed a Carnival tradition. Like it or not, Carnival has become associated with (for most, at least a restrained kind of) excess which doesn’t fit well with North Louisiana’s more prim and proper demeanor in contrast to its wilder relatives in the southern part of the state. Only in Shreveport is there a going out of the way to promote Carnival parades as “family” events (indeed, the city even creates a “family zone” along the route where boozing is prohibited). In some ways, this controversy harkens back to this fundamental disjointedness of attitude and purpose.
In the final analysis, it’s up to the city to decide where to grant a parade route. And while a growing number of residents indeed may be growing disenchanted, the area is represented by only one of seven city council members and the political lobbying by the commercial interests who do incredible business along the Shreveport-Barksdale Highway corridor during the two parades are factors auguring strongly against any change being forced upon the two krewes.
However, this does not mean that the city can’t do a better job of things. Perhaps improved traffic control, or speedier removal of waste and the containers of it, or even slight route and time changes, will placate residents’ concerns. And greater tolerance, both of residents of a few disruptive hours once a year and of visitors to their neighborhoods to respect the privacy and property of residents, will have without dissension the good times rolling again.
Fax-Net Update reports that Shreveport’s Broadmoor Neighborhood Association may be joined by the Captain Shreve Neighborhood Association in asking very nicely that the two krewes (Centaur and Gemini) that parade around their neighborhoods relocate themselves. Each parade departs from downtown Shreveport on a Saturday at 4:00 PM and (assuming no dilatory events occur) reach the ramparts of the northern end of the Captain Shreve neighborhood around 6:30, makes a southern turn to bisect the neighborhoods at about 7:00, and finishes up in the middle edge of Broadmoor around 8:00.
The first two-thirds of the parade go along open roadways and through commercial zones, but the last third is almost exclusively residential. An increasing proportion of residents are beginning to feel that the tremendous traffic hassles lasting for hours on those Saturdays and the unsightliness of portable toilets left around for a two-week period detracts from their quality of life (Shreveport can’t win for losing on this issue – in other cities with Carnival parades such amenities generally are lacking leading to widespread outdoor irrigation by members of both sexes).
Also of concern is that starting next year public works projects in and around parade routes with cause further congestion. Some neighborhood activists are calling for future routes to head straight down the broad Clyde Fant Parkway than runs along the river, which has plenty of open space – but little in the way of room to park cars containing a couple of hundred thousand people and necessitating long walks to any food or drink, whether in the form of commercial establishments or private house parties.
A little comparative perspective is in order here. Such concerns would be greeted with silence, if not outright laughter, by the vast majority of Garden District, Uptown and Midcity residents in New Orleans, Lakeview residents in Metairie, and other denizens along routes in St. Bernard Parish and on the West Bank in Orleans. Many bought their properties precisely because of close access to historic parade routes. The East Kings Highway route in Shreveport that is of most concern is a little different because it is all residential which generally only short stretches of parade routes down south are.
Still, only one side of the route (west side or Broadmoor) is really residential. The other side is taken up by a bayou which does tend to cut down on people flowing into the area. The Captain Shreve neighborhood does suffer in that two sides of it gets wrapped by the parade but there is some insulation (businesses to the north, the bayou to its west).
It’s also worth noting that the Shreveport area is an odd place for there to have developed a Carnival tradition. Like it or not, Carnival has become associated with (for most, at least a restrained kind of) excess which doesn’t fit well with North Louisiana’s more prim and proper demeanor in contrast to its wilder relatives in the southern part of the state. Only in Shreveport is there a going out of the way to promote Carnival parades as “family” events (indeed, the city even creates a “family zone” along the route where boozing is prohibited). In some ways, this controversy harkens back to this fundamental disjointedness of attitude and purpose.
In the final analysis, it’s up to the city to decide where to grant a parade route. And while a growing number of residents indeed may be growing disenchanted, the area is represented by only one of seven city council members and the political lobbying by the commercial interests who do incredible business along the Shreveport-Barksdale Highway corridor during the two parades are factors auguring strongly against any change being forced upon the two krewes.
However, this does not mean that the city can’t do a better job of things. Perhaps improved traffic control, or speedier removal of waste and the containers of it, or even slight route and time changes, will placate residents’ concerns. And greater tolerance, both of residents of a few disruptive hours once a year and of visitors to their neighborhoods to respect the privacy and property of residents, will have without dissension the good times rolling again.
6.2.05
I Could Get a Pay Raise if I Could Get Elected to the Legislature
Legally, a review of compensation of state employees including elected officials must occur soon. Each of the past two years, the board responsible for this report, the Compensation Review Commission, has recommended a raise for Louisiana officials.
Last year, the Commission called for an increase to a flat $41,000 a year salary plus per diem for legislators who are not among the top leaders of each chamber. Currently, including only the base annual salary of $16,800, the per diem of $113 a day (for 2005) and 145 days in session per two years, and the $6,000 a year in unvouchered office expenses, a legislator will make $30,992.50 a year.
Note that this does not include any extra per diem for committee meetings outside the regular sessions, nor any special session renumeration, nor any mileage expenses (40.5 cents a mile). Throw in those things and a typical Shreveport-area legislator can expect to make $35,000 a year.
However, this level is not out of line with what is being done in other states. The National Conference of State Legislatures classifies Louisiana in the middle category of state legislatures in terms of demands made upon them. It reports a Louisiana legislator’s job as 70 percent equivalent of a full-time job, so at the basic case that is the equivalent to $44,275. That’s not bad pay. While many of our legislators do have other, real occupations to supplement this, others do live off their legislative salaries (although some of these also are enjoying retirement benefits simultaneously from other careers).
The Commission’s latest proposal would create a basic package worth, at a full-time equivalent, $70,275 a year (its actual number being $49,192.50). The NCSL average for states in Louisiana’s category is only $35,326 (in 2003). In short, the Commission wishes to pay Louisiana legislators about 40 percent higher than the average for like legislators.
Gov. Kathleen Blanco threatened to veto any pay increases last year but as left the door open this year for them by saying she’d want to see teacher salary increases before one for state elected officials. Considering that Louisiana ranks so poorly in so many indicators and faces a deficit next year in the $500 million range, neither the money is there, nor has the Legislature earned, any increase in compensation whatsoever.
Last year, the Commission called for an increase to a flat $41,000 a year salary plus per diem for legislators who are not among the top leaders of each chamber. Currently, including only the base annual salary of $16,800, the per diem of $113 a day (for 2005) and 145 days in session per two years, and the $6,000 a year in unvouchered office expenses, a legislator will make $30,992.50 a year.
Note that this does not include any extra per diem for committee meetings outside the regular sessions, nor any special session renumeration, nor any mileage expenses (40.5 cents a mile). Throw in those things and a typical Shreveport-area legislator can expect to make $35,000 a year.
However, this level is not out of line with what is being done in other states. The National Conference of State Legislatures classifies Louisiana in the middle category of state legislatures in terms of demands made upon them. It reports a Louisiana legislator’s job as 70 percent equivalent of a full-time job, so at the basic case that is the equivalent to $44,275. That’s not bad pay. While many of our legislators do have other, real occupations to supplement this, others do live off their legislative salaries (although some of these also are enjoying retirement benefits simultaneously from other careers).
The Commission’s latest proposal would create a basic package worth, at a full-time equivalent, $70,275 a year (its actual number being $49,192.50). The NCSL average for states in Louisiana’s category is only $35,326 (in 2003). In short, the Commission wishes to pay Louisiana legislators about 40 percent higher than the average for like legislators.
Gov. Kathleen Blanco threatened to veto any pay increases last year but as left the door open this year for them by saying she’d want to see teacher salary increases before one for state elected officials. Considering that Louisiana ranks so poorly in so many indicators and faces a deficit next year in the $500 million range, neither the money is there, nor has the Legislature earned, any increase in compensation whatsoever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)