Today’s letters page of The Times provides us an acute demonstration of why there’s a long way to go with education in this state.
On the learner side, there appears a letter complaining about price differentials between different areas. The writer wonders why a product costs 35 cents more here than there and seems unable to grasp the simplest principles of economics, complaining, “I just know it doesn't cost 35 cents per bottle to get the syrup from Dallas to here.”
Has this guy never heard of the fluid, dynamic nature of the free market, supply and demand setting prices, and the idea of competition? Casting aside the notion that it may actually cost that much to get a product from its presumed production point to its imagined distribution point, and also assuming he chose exactly the same retailer from which to buy the product, the absolute easy answer is that market conditions at this moment are much tighter for the product (not as much supply to meet demand) that they are here.
The uneducated would imply that there’s some price fixing going on but that so rarely happens in the real world (something about which a majority of our Louisiana Legislators are ignorant), especially in the hypercompetitive world of groceries, that it is incredibly farfetched to accept. If left to itself, the market does a superb job correctly pricing everything, contingent on the characteristics of the markets themselves. Yet this very basic fact of life seems to have eluded this correspondent, which, if he votes, in part explains why we keep getting so many Democrats, liberals, populists, and good-old-boys elected to office.
But it takes complicity to produce this lack of education, and another letter by (presumably) a teacher shows why we allow it to fester. This woman first argues that “Teachers are not opposed to high standards” and then goes on to show why in fact some are:
They are simply aware that requiring all students to reach the same standards, regardless of their abilities, is more harmful than many realize. Indeed, since schools now are being held accountable through a system of standardized testing, the immediate reaction is to provide these students who are in danger of not performing at the required level with a set of tools designed to help them pass the test.
In other words, we are teaching these students to become better test takers at the expense of meaningful educational experiences.
This remarkable misunderstanding of education is tragic coming from somebody seemingly involved in it. Simply, in today’s world of ever-increasing complexity and escalating demands in knowledge and skills, there is a basic level that students must have in order to have any but the slimmest hopes of just getting by in life. The accountability standards now enforced by the state, as acknowledged by experts, do an excellent, although perhaps not perfect, job of elevating students to this level.
This person, however, despairs that such basic knowledge (mind you the current passing grade on the LEAP tests is 40 out of 100) can be learned by all non-developmentally disabled children. Instead, apparently she would get rid of the tests and teach “meaningful educational experiences.” Now what could these be exactly, because whatever they are they sure won’t equip a child to exist in all but the most menial fashion in today’s world. I wouldn’t call that “meaningful.”
Of course, one might expect this illogic if you can’t even come up with an appropriate syllogism in the first place:
Imagine if Major League Baseball players would all be arbitrarily expected to hit 20 homeruns each season to be able to play the following season. This would not make a lot of sense because there is much more to baseball than hitting homeruns.
First of all, this comparison equates “testing” with “homers.” Obviously, in baseball the overall worth of a player is judged on many factors. But, as mentioned above, it is absurd to think that testing does not capture very well knowledge that students should have learned. In other words, no other indicators really are needed to capture the worth of a student’s knowledge.
Not only does she fail conceptually here, but empirically as well. Now, let’s see, at any given time there are 780 major leaguers on rosters, or about .00027 percent of the entire American population (and about a quarter of these players are not even Americans). Last year, one of several recent homer-happy years, 93 managed to get 20 – or about .00003 percent of all Americans.
Accountability standards are not asking that everybody perform in the top 99.99997 percent of their class. The better baseball analogy to be used would be everybody would be expected to participate in T-ball, and be able to hit one off the tee 4 times out of 10.
With attitudes like this among educators, again it is little wonder why we lag so far behind in quality of education.
6.7.05
Hightower ready to turn sludge into lead at our expense
Questions about Shreveport’s foray into the sludge and sod business have increased from just concerns about the connections that Mayor Keith Hightower has to the enterprise to include whether it represents another attempt for the city to get into a business costly both to its private and public sectors.
From the private sector, you have some operators in the business perturbed that the city has tried to enter this business. Government-run enterprises in almost all cases are exactly the opposite of what Hightower and too many politicians on both sides of the Red River believe and try to sell to the public: they are “lose-lose” operations which allow an inefficient, subsidized producer (government) to push out the more efficient producers (business), sapping both the economy and lifting money out of taxpayers wallets that could have gone to more helpful purposes.
But also some officials in government are rightly apprehensive of this project. City Councilman Thomas Carmody has it right when he questioned whether the marketplace for such a huge quantity (12-15 tons a day) exists and its financial impact to the city.
Part of the answer, the Hightower Administration admits, comes from the fact that the city was under the gun from the federal Environmental Protection Agency to stop producing such a volume by treating it differently. Apparently, entering into a 25-year contract at $2 million a year, minus any revenues made from the product (in the form of costs savings to the city in getting its own sod, $600-700,000 per year), was considered more cost effective than paying for waste treatment upgrades at $26 million.
Why is beyond me. Just do the math – at a net value of $1.3 million per year cost (assuming this stays the same), the contractor would have gotten in 20 years the same amount it would have cost to improve the facilities – and there were another five years left on the contract and the problem would not have had a permanent solution after it was ended, unlike with the facilities improvement option. And does anybody seriously think the city could have made anything but a pittance off the rest – just where’s the market for as much as 3,650,000 tons of sludge a year?
In other words, Hightower would rather shell out hundreds of million of dollars to build money-losing convention centers and hotels that probably will have a net harm on both private and public sector finances than pay a fraction of that to accomplish the unglamorous task of building infrastructure to have a cleaner city. It’s just another example that everything (stadium renovations and impacts on contractors, the Red River Entertainment District, the convention center and hotel, community development grants, etc.) the Hightower Administration seems to touch, as far as economic development goes, turns to lead.
From the private sector, you have some operators in the business perturbed that the city has tried to enter this business. Government-run enterprises in almost all cases are exactly the opposite of what Hightower and too many politicians on both sides of the Red River believe and try to sell to the public: they are “lose-lose” operations which allow an inefficient, subsidized producer (government) to push out the more efficient producers (business), sapping both the economy and lifting money out of taxpayers wallets that could have gone to more helpful purposes.
But also some officials in government are rightly apprehensive of this project. City Councilman Thomas Carmody has it right when he questioned whether the marketplace for such a huge quantity (12-15 tons a day) exists and its financial impact to the city.
Part of the answer, the Hightower Administration admits, comes from the fact that the city was under the gun from the federal Environmental Protection Agency to stop producing such a volume by treating it differently. Apparently, entering into a 25-year contract at $2 million a year, minus any revenues made from the product (in the form of costs savings to the city in getting its own sod, $600-700,000 per year), was considered more cost effective than paying for waste treatment upgrades at $26 million.
Why is beyond me. Just do the math – at a net value of $1.3 million per year cost (assuming this stays the same), the contractor would have gotten in 20 years the same amount it would have cost to improve the facilities – and there were another five years left on the contract and the problem would not have had a permanent solution after it was ended, unlike with the facilities improvement option. And does anybody seriously think the city could have made anything but a pittance off the rest – just where’s the market for as much as 3,650,000 tons of sludge a year?
In other words, Hightower would rather shell out hundreds of million of dollars to build money-losing convention centers and hotels that probably will have a net harm on both private and public sector finances than pay a fraction of that to accomplish the unglamorous task of building infrastructure to have a cleaner city. It’s just another example that everything (stadium renovations and impacts on contractors, the Red River Entertainment District, the convention center and hotel, community development grants, etc.) the Hightower Administration seems to touch, as far as economic development goes, turns to lead.
5.7.05
Reducing public broadcasting subsidies will improve it
The federal government looks poised to cut subsidies to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I’ll believe it when I see it; the then-new Republican Congress in 1995, after saying the same thing, didn’t cut a cent. But a decade later, it’s an issue worth reviewing.
The amount being discussed, $100 million, sounds large but in fact represents only a little over 4 percent of the entire government corporation’s budget. Over 80 percent of its money comes from non-federal government sources. If we use a uniform cut of 4.33 percent, in practical terms for Louisiana that would mean about $138,000; uniformally across the state, for example, Shreveport would lose less than $7,000. In other words, it’s just not that much – one good pledge drive, even one generous gift, could make it all up, locally.
Of course, opponents have trotted out the well-worn playbook saying the cuts would impact the best-received, most popular programs. Right; I’d like to see station mangers cut these and then expect the pledge drives and business commitments (over 40 percent of total funding) to do as well. No, they are sensible folks, and, if any scaling back of programming occurs, it will be with the deadweight.
A good place to start would be opinion shows that consistently display a liberal bias. Finally running Bill Moyers into retirement is a great start, but more work can be done, as evidenced by the CPB’s own objectivity surveys (they are required to produce such reports annually). Over a fifth of consumers of its television (PBS) and radio (NPR) say there is a liberal bias (much smaller proportions chip in they actually think there’s a conservative bias – must be Howard Dean fans).
The CPB’s pollsters try to spin this argument by pointing out major news networks are seen by their respondents as even more liberally biased, so they argue their focus groups show:
There is a core segment of the population that will always contend that all news media is biased no matter what. In other words, many people are simply “jumping on the bandwagon” and saying PBS and/or NPR are biased only because they believe all news media are biased and they do not distinguish between specific news organizations and the news media in general.
Only in an era of grade inflation in education could somebody come up with such a backwards conclusion. If people “do not distinguish between specific news organizations and the news media in general,” then why is it that they do differentiate between the CPB and others by giving different very scores (one-third compared to one-fifth)? Doesn’t it make far more logical sense to say the people who say there is bias do so because it’s really there? What if they polled the public and found a third disliked Coke and while a fifth disliked Pepsi? Would it then be logical to conclude that at least 20 percent of the country dislikes all soft drinks?
Or an even easier solution is to just cut off all subsidies to Pacifica Radio stations. Much of what they broadcast is so horrendously slanted and contrafactual that it’s worthless yet $1.2 million a year has been going to this arm of the kook left (and now that it has Dead-Air America, why should taxpayers’ dollars support this lunacy?).
Don’t be fooled, with so many other greater priorities out there, as Congress has made clear, it’s about time to trim the fat from the CPB represented by its politically-biased content anyway. If the public really supports public broadcasting, no doubt it will step up during pledge time.
The amount being discussed, $100 million, sounds large but in fact represents only a little over 4 percent of the entire government corporation’s budget. Over 80 percent of its money comes from non-federal government sources. If we use a uniform cut of 4.33 percent, in practical terms for Louisiana that would mean about $138,000; uniformally across the state, for example, Shreveport would lose less than $7,000. In other words, it’s just not that much – one good pledge drive, even one generous gift, could make it all up, locally.
Of course, opponents have trotted out the well-worn playbook saying the cuts would impact the best-received, most popular programs. Right; I’d like to see station mangers cut these and then expect the pledge drives and business commitments (over 40 percent of total funding) to do as well. No, they are sensible folks, and, if any scaling back of programming occurs, it will be with the deadweight.
A good place to start would be opinion shows that consistently display a liberal bias. Finally running Bill Moyers into retirement is a great start, but more work can be done, as evidenced by the CPB’s own objectivity surveys (they are required to produce such reports annually). Over a fifth of consumers of its television (PBS) and radio (NPR) say there is a liberal bias (much smaller proportions chip in they actually think there’s a conservative bias – must be Howard Dean fans).
The CPB’s pollsters try to spin this argument by pointing out major news networks are seen by their respondents as even more liberally biased, so they argue their focus groups show:
There is a core segment of the population that will always contend that all news media is biased no matter what. In other words, many people are simply “jumping on the bandwagon” and saying PBS and/or NPR are biased only because they believe all news media are biased and they do not distinguish between specific news organizations and the news media in general.
Only in an era of grade inflation in education could somebody come up with such a backwards conclusion. If people “do not distinguish between specific news organizations and the news media in general,” then why is it that they do differentiate between the CPB and others by giving different very scores (one-third compared to one-fifth)? Doesn’t it make far more logical sense to say the people who say there is bias do so because it’s really there? What if they polled the public and found a third disliked Coke and while a fifth disliked Pepsi? Would it then be logical to conclude that at least 20 percent of the country dislikes all soft drinks?
Or an even easier solution is to just cut off all subsidies to Pacifica Radio stations. Much of what they broadcast is so horrendously slanted and contrafactual that it’s worthless yet $1.2 million a year has been going to this arm of the kook left (and now that it has Dead-Air America, why should taxpayers’ dollars support this lunacy?).
Don’t be fooled, with so many other greater priorities out there, as Congress has made clear, it’s about time to trim the fat from the CPB represented by its politically-biased content anyway. If the public really supports public broadcasting, no doubt it will step up during pledge time.
4.7.05
Confirming Blanco hypocrisy about teacher pay raises
Let me get this straight – a couple of months ago when Louisiana’s revenues got revised upwards, Gov. Kathleen Blanco argued that this one-time money should not be plowed into teachers’ pay raises and instead we needed to hike taxes on cigarettes to cover such an increase (later revised to we need to hike taxes on cigarettes to pay for health care but then some health care bucks would be shifted over to the raises)?
Now, speaking of another anticipated bonus coming down the line later in the year, Blanco is saying this extra money can be used for these raises. Help me out here, the reasons are the same potentially for the future as they were in May why there’s this “windfall” – higher-than-expected sales tax receipts but mostly oil revenues. So why then was this considered not applicable to recurring spending, but in a few months it will be?
Answer: because then there was a bloated budget out there to be passed, and Blanco did not want to give the impression that certain priorities needed to be shelved, some efficiencies could be wrung out of state government, or that the state did not need to reach deeper into the people’s pockets. Now that this budget awaits her signature, suddenly we hear no cautions about the Blanco Administration about spending this money on a recurring commitment; indeed, we get pledges that it will be.
What makes this hypocrisy almost comical is the intended beneficiaries, teachers who have yet to prove they’re worth what we pay them at current levels, are not enthused with this raise. “We’re concerned somewhat as to the specifics” says one union thug; another says they’ll be disappointed if it’s not meaningful as defined “at the beginning of the legislation [sic] session.”
Once again, the Blanco Administration demonstrates while it is not that serious about pay raises for teachers, it is serious about using teachers as political pawns to swipe more money from the people.
Now, speaking of another anticipated bonus coming down the line later in the year, Blanco is saying this extra money can be used for these raises. Help me out here, the reasons are the same potentially for the future as they were in May why there’s this “windfall” – higher-than-expected sales tax receipts but mostly oil revenues. So why then was this considered not applicable to recurring spending, but in a few months it will be?
Answer: because then there was a bloated budget out there to be passed, and Blanco did not want to give the impression that certain priorities needed to be shelved, some efficiencies could be wrung out of state government, or that the state did not need to reach deeper into the people’s pockets. Now that this budget awaits her signature, suddenly we hear no cautions about the Blanco Administration about spending this money on a recurring commitment; indeed, we get pledges that it will be.
What makes this hypocrisy almost comical is the intended beneficiaries, teachers who have yet to prove they’re worth what we pay them at current levels, are not enthused with this raise. “We’re concerned somewhat as to the specifics” says one union thug; another says they’ll be disappointed if it’s not meaningful as defined “at the beginning of the legislation [sic] session.”
Once again, the Blanco Administration demonstrates while it is not that serious about pay raises for teachers, it is serious about using teachers as political pawns to swipe more money from the people.
2.7.05
Independence Day, 2005
This column publishes every Sunday through Thursday after noon (sometimes even before; maybe even after sundown on busy days) U.S. Central Time except whenever a significant national holiday falls on the Monday through Friday associated with the otherwise-usual publication on the previous day (unless it is Independence Day or Christmas when it is the day on which the holiday is observed bu the U.S. government). In my opinion, there are five of these: Memorial Day, Independence Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas.
With Monday, July4 being Independence Day, I invite you to explore the link above.
With Monday, July4 being Independence Day, I invite you to explore the link above.
30.6.05
Court decision threatens private property in Louisiana
What mischief could the U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared a political subdivision could expropriate private property for any “public use” create in Louisiana? As it turns out, plenty.
There exist two kinds of expropriation in Louisiana, a “regular” process that first requires a court process to establish need, then value of the land to be expropriated, before action can take place, and an expedited process known as “quick take.” The latter allows work to begin as soon as need is established, while negotiations continue for the appropriate price to be paid.
Art. 1 Sec. 4 of the Louisiana Constitution outlines the general parameters for expropriation in its discussion of the right to property ownership by Louisiana citizens. Title 19 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes defines the process of regular expropriation. Governments are allowed to employ the regular means unless they are granted “quick take” ability in the statutes.
The general statute for quick take expropriation comes from RS 48:441 and subsequent sections. These refer to the state’s Department of Transportation and Development’s ability to expropriate for state purposes, but what generally happens through the statutes is when a local government wishes to have such powers, the statutes connect the specific subgovernment to this part of the statutes, noting any exceptions. For example, the specific statute pertaining to quick take expropriation for Shreveport and Bossier City starts at RS 19:121 and through subsequent sections.
The Supreme Court decision becomes problematic because Louisiana generally allows regular expropriation for any “property” and the Constitution states “Property shall not be taken or damaged by the state or its political subdivisions except for public purposes” (emphasis mine). In essence, the decision now makes anything a government wants a “public purpose.” (I’m not a lawyer much less one that specializes in this area; if anybody out there with expertise in the area would like to comment here, please do.)
The timing was nice for this since it happened right at the end of the legislative session. Absent a special session, the door remains wide open for Louisiana governments to abuse this power for another year. Even longer would take a constitutional amendment, a surer way of protecting the people’s rights than by statute.
Of course, this presumes that state lawmakers are of a mind to try to strengthen property rights as a result of this decision. That presumption may not be a winning bet. Bills expanding local quick take legislation, for example, have passed in each of the past three regular sessions, and many more were introduced. Many local lawmakers who have the attitude that government, instead of creating the conditions for economic development by the private sector, should actually drive economic development, will put pressure on legislators and the governor not to limit this newly and vastly expanded power.
Worst of all, the quick take legislation already on the books can allow considerable damage to occur in a year. Potentially, property rights could be run roughshod over in a widespread fashion very quickly with lasting damage. What if the city loses the lawsuit over strip clubs, bond money, and public parks? Will it decide to open a publicly-owned strip club wherever it pleases?
Not in Louisiana, you may say? For doubters that the strong pro-property feelings of Louisiana citizens may not get translated into policy, the following note I received in response to the Sep. 16, 2003 column I wrote for FAX-Net Update, in which I wrote state Sen. Max Malone, then running for reelection, rightly looked askance at some uses of quick take. The writer (son of a former mayor) then and now, today being sworn in again, sits on the Bossier City Council and refers to the city’s attempt to use quick take legislation to build a new overpass:
How is the denial of quick take "choosing the people's interest over the elite"? The people are concerned about traffic woes first and foremost and several greedy individuals are denying the "people" the infrastructure improvements that they badly need.
(He then goes on to level what he intended to be insults about me, classy, temperate guy that he is, but that’s potentially a subject for a future posting unrelated to this one’s topic.)
In other words, if people try to use the regular process to protect themselves from the unlimited, coercive power of government concerning their property, they are “greedy” in the mind of this lover of big government power. His attitude proves why we do need to worry about this decision.
There exist two kinds of expropriation in Louisiana, a “regular” process that first requires a court process to establish need, then value of the land to be expropriated, before action can take place, and an expedited process known as “quick take.” The latter allows work to begin as soon as need is established, while negotiations continue for the appropriate price to be paid.
Art. 1 Sec. 4 of the Louisiana Constitution outlines the general parameters for expropriation in its discussion of the right to property ownership by Louisiana citizens. Title 19 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes defines the process of regular expropriation. Governments are allowed to employ the regular means unless they are granted “quick take” ability in the statutes.
The general statute for quick take expropriation comes from RS 48:441 and subsequent sections. These refer to the state’s Department of Transportation and Development’s ability to expropriate for state purposes, but what generally happens through the statutes is when a local government wishes to have such powers, the statutes connect the specific subgovernment to this part of the statutes, noting any exceptions. For example, the specific statute pertaining to quick take expropriation for Shreveport and Bossier City starts at RS 19:121 and through subsequent sections.
The Supreme Court decision becomes problematic because Louisiana generally allows regular expropriation for any “property” and the Constitution states “Property shall not be taken or damaged by the state or its political subdivisions except for public purposes” (emphasis mine). In essence, the decision now makes anything a government wants a “public purpose.” (I’m not a lawyer much less one that specializes in this area; if anybody out there with expertise in the area would like to comment here, please do.)
The timing was nice for this since it happened right at the end of the legislative session. Absent a special session, the door remains wide open for Louisiana governments to abuse this power for another year. Even longer would take a constitutional amendment, a surer way of protecting the people’s rights than by statute.
Of course, this presumes that state lawmakers are of a mind to try to strengthen property rights as a result of this decision. That presumption may not be a winning bet. Bills expanding local quick take legislation, for example, have passed in each of the past three regular sessions, and many more were introduced. Many local lawmakers who have the attitude that government, instead of creating the conditions for economic development by the private sector, should actually drive economic development, will put pressure on legislators and the governor not to limit this newly and vastly expanded power.
Worst of all, the quick take legislation already on the books can allow considerable damage to occur in a year. Potentially, property rights could be run roughshod over in a widespread fashion very quickly with lasting damage. What if the city loses the lawsuit over strip clubs, bond money, and public parks? Will it decide to open a publicly-owned strip club wherever it pleases?
Not in Louisiana, you may say? For doubters that the strong pro-property feelings of Louisiana citizens may not get translated into policy, the following note I received in response to the Sep. 16, 2003 column I wrote for FAX-Net Update, in which I wrote state Sen. Max Malone, then running for reelection, rightly looked askance at some uses of quick take. The writer (son of a former mayor) then and now, today being sworn in again, sits on the Bossier City Council and refers to the city’s attempt to use quick take legislation to build a new overpass:
How is the denial of quick take "choosing the people's interest over the elite"? The people are concerned about traffic woes first and foremost and several greedy individuals are denying the "people" the infrastructure improvements that they badly need.
(He then goes on to level what he intended to be insults about me, classy, temperate guy that he is, but that’s potentially a subject for a future posting unrelated to this one’s topic.)
In other words, if people try to use the regular process to protect themselves from the unlimited, coercive power of government concerning their property, they are “greedy” in the mind of this lover of big government power. His attitude proves why we do need to worry about this decision.
29.6.05
Hightower flunky fails to persuade
Attempts to distort facts don’t merely come from the top of Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower’s Administration, they come from his underlings, too. City lobbyist Michael Wainwright affords us just such a glimpse (again) in his comments about state Sen. Max Malone’s actions regarding appointments to various state boards.
This past legislative session Malone sponsored an amended bill to bring more state control over a state body that had become a breeding ground for Hightower patronage, the Caddo-Bossier Parishes Port Commission. Wishing to reduce the weight of Shreveport control over the body (united, the city’s appointees can compel the board to do things), Malone, who has constituents equally in Caddo and Bossier Parishes, wanted to allow area legislators to nominate people to serve on the boards which then local officials could pick and also to even out the geographical representation on the board. Assisted with amendments by state Rep. Mike Powell, the bill would have.
However, Hightower loyalist Rep. Cedric Glover led the charge to stop it. Traditionally, members of the Legislature defer to others when bills deal with local matters. While area senators and Bossier House members agreed with the amended bill (as did all local government authorities except Shreveport), Glover rallied Caddo Democrats in the House to oppose it and it was defeated because of this show of area delegation disunity.
Thus, Malone prevented reappointment of two Hightower lieutenants to various boards and Lindy Broderick, lobbyist for and officer of the Shreveport Chamber of Commerce, to the Red River Waterway Commission. (Broderick's denial was because the Chamber did not lobby hard ennough for his bill, Malone said.) Generally nominees are approved in the Senate unless a senator from the area concerning the appointment objects, which Malone did.
This use of power by Malone irked Wainwright, who has been serving on the Port Commission about two years past his term expiration because Hightower was afraid to reappoint him (there is no senatorial check on this one; Hightower was scheduled to have the renomination vetted during yesterday's City Council meeting). Wainwright, whose thin skin has driven him to write facile parodies of leading Hightower critic Lou Gehrig Burnett’s FAX-Net Update, tries to excoriate both the Shreveport Times which supported Malone’s bill and Malone himself.
First, he presents to us a straw man argument concerning the goal of Malone’s legislation: “Any notion that transferring the authority to name commissioners to area legislators would make the board less political should now be put to rest.” Wrong: the process of selection is an entirely different matter from the operation of the board and that was not the purpose of the bill; it only intended to broaden and make more representative the political process of appointment. The selection process always will be political; that’s why a governor appoints and the Senate confirms, in the Red River Waterway Commission case for three members.
Thus, his syllogistic error moots entirely his next comment that Malone himself is being inconsistent by his using political power to block Broderick’s appointment. Again, the position taken by Malone and The Times is not what Wainwright asserts that it is, and in fact may be best summarized by words from a Times editorial: “Broadening the appointing process with legislative nominations … allows greater public scrutiny over the selection of commissioners, allowing taxpayers to consider qualifications and potential conflicts of interest.”
In short, the argument that Wainwright misses and does not address is, as The Times wrote, that the present system “opens the process to potential criticism about cronyism.” But Wainwright has even greater rhetorical folly to commit:
Apparently the senator believes only those who embrace his legislative philosophy of obstruction and negativism are entitled to lobby the legislator. Under SB 333, as proposed by Malone, two of his nominees would have been on the nine-member Port Commission. What kind of independent judgment do you think they would have been able to exercise?
Of course, what Wainwright sees as “obstruction and negativism,” which probably refers to Malone’s efforts put a brake on the building of the taxpayer-injurious publicly-owned convention center hotel, sensible citizens see protecting themselves against a city administration that disregards their best interests. And this statement shows us that if any inconsistency exists around this issue, it comes from Wainwright himself. According to him, Malone would have had some (but not sole) input into the nomination process of two of nine members corrupts the independence of the commission; but then how are we to view the fact that Hightower now has sole appointive power over five (a majority) members? On the Port Commission, what kind of independent judgment do you think Michael Wainwright can exercise?
By the tone and content of this letter, the answer is pretty clear: none. And its arguments and logic once again prove that attack dogs may make a lot of noise, but that’s all they can do.
This past legislative session Malone sponsored an amended bill to bring more state control over a state body that had become a breeding ground for Hightower patronage, the Caddo-Bossier Parishes Port Commission. Wishing to reduce the weight of Shreveport control over the body (united, the city’s appointees can compel the board to do things), Malone, who has constituents equally in Caddo and Bossier Parishes, wanted to allow area legislators to nominate people to serve on the boards which then local officials could pick and also to even out the geographical representation on the board. Assisted with amendments by state Rep. Mike Powell, the bill would have.
However, Hightower loyalist Rep. Cedric Glover led the charge to stop it. Traditionally, members of the Legislature defer to others when bills deal with local matters. While area senators and Bossier House members agreed with the amended bill (as did all local government authorities except Shreveport), Glover rallied Caddo Democrats in the House to oppose it and it was defeated because of this show of area delegation disunity.
Thus, Malone prevented reappointment of two Hightower lieutenants to various boards and Lindy Broderick, lobbyist for and officer of the Shreveport Chamber of Commerce, to the Red River Waterway Commission. (Broderick's denial was because the Chamber did not lobby hard ennough for his bill, Malone said.) Generally nominees are approved in the Senate unless a senator from the area concerning the appointment objects, which Malone did.
This use of power by Malone irked Wainwright, who has been serving on the Port Commission about two years past his term expiration because Hightower was afraid to reappoint him (there is no senatorial check on this one; Hightower was scheduled to have the renomination vetted during yesterday's City Council meeting). Wainwright, whose thin skin has driven him to write facile parodies of leading Hightower critic Lou Gehrig Burnett’s FAX-Net Update, tries to excoriate both the Shreveport Times which supported Malone’s bill and Malone himself.
First, he presents to us a straw man argument concerning the goal of Malone’s legislation: “Any notion that transferring the authority to name commissioners to area legislators would make the board less political should now be put to rest.” Wrong: the process of selection is an entirely different matter from the operation of the board and that was not the purpose of the bill; it only intended to broaden and make more representative the political process of appointment. The selection process always will be political; that’s why a governor appoints and the Senate confirms, in the Red River Waterway Commission case for three members.
Thus, his syllogistic error moots entirely his next comment that Malone himself is being inconsistent by his using political power to block Broderick’s appointment. Again, the position taken by Malone and The Times is not what Wainwright asserts that it is, and in fact may be best summarized by words from a Times editorial: “Broadening the appointing process with legislative nominations … allows greater public scrutiny over the selection of commissioners, allowing taxpayers to consider qualifications and potential conflicts of interest.”
In short, the argument that Wainwright misses and does not address is, as The Times wrote, that the present system “opens the process to potential criticism about cronyism.” But Wainwright has even greater rhetorical folly to commit:
Apparently the senator believes only those who embrace his legislative philosophy of obstruction and negativism are entitled to lobby the legislator. Under SB 333, as proposed by Malone, two of his nominees would have been on the nine-member Port Commission. What kind of independent judgment do you think they would have been able to exercise?
Of course, what Wainwright sees as “obstruction and negativism,” which probably refers to Malone’s efforts put a brake on the building of the taxpayer-injurious publicly-owned convention center hotel, sensible citizens see protecting themselves against a city administration that disregards their best interests. And this statement shows us that if any inconsistency exists around this issue, it comes from Wainwright himself. According to him, Malone would have had some (but not sole) input into the nomination process of two of nine members corrupts the independence of the commission; but then how are we to view the fact that Hightower now has sole appointive power over five (a majority) members? On the Port Commission, what kind of independent judgment do you think Michael Wainwright can exercise?
By the tone and content of this letter, the answer is pretty clear: none. And its arguments and logic once again prove that attack dogs may make a lot of noise, but that’s all they can do.
28.6.05
Last days of Legislature = wackiness
Lots of confusing yet interesting legislation gets passed in a session of the Louisiana Legislature, especially towards the very end, and 2005 was no exception. In fact, it might have been made even more interesting in that this was the first “hybrid” session that focused on money matters but also allowed some (5 per legislator) general-interest bills and unlimited local bills.
This recipe for unintended consequences coughed up a couple of good examples from northwest Louisiana. State Rep. Mike Powell’s HB 338 started out as an attempt to simplify standards regarding the assessment of distances from alcohol sellers to proscribed areas such as churches and schools. State law says 300 feet as a person travels; Powell wanted to amend it to allow municipalities to use as an alternative the simpler 300 feet as the crow flies.
The problem came when in the last month of the session the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in-state and out-of-state wineries could not be treated differentially by state law in their abilities to ship wine. This meant that anybody in Louisiana could get wine shipped directly to them from anywhere. This spooked liquor wholesalers in Louisiana which fought for an amendment to get any sales to restaurants or stores to go through a wholesaler. In essence, direct sales coming from anywhere could have bypassed wholesalers for these large-volume buyers (individuals’ ability to order and have wine shipped were unaffected). Sen. Edwin Murray complied, and the Senate bought it, and the House on concurring with the Senate’s changes.
However, Louisiana’s smaller wineries have trouble getting wholesalers to carry their product, and now within the state they would lose the ability to ship directly to stores and restaurants, so their cost of business has gone up dramatically and may put them out of business. Powell and practically everybody else were unable to guess the effects of the bill, amended and passed in the last week of the session. If Gov. Kathleen Blanco signs it, she better send a message out to wholesalers that in exchange for the protection from competition they think they’re going to get they had better be awfully accommodating in stocking Louisiana wines; 2006 is a whole different chance to change the law.
It’s one thing to slip up on unintended consequences in a quick session where information can be hard to come by, but it’s another to consciously sow the seeds of sabotage in your own bill. Sen. Robert Adley brought that problem on himself and his presumed beneficiary, the Bossier Parish Levee Board, with his handling of SB 6.
The bill made the composition of the Board more manageable and inclusive by expanding it to an at-large, additional appointment to represent the whole parish. But, as a favor to Sen. Francis Heitmeier who served with Adley on the conference committee empanelled to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, he assented to Heitmeier’s inclusion of an amendment that, in effect, quintupled the salary of the Orleans Levee Board President, and pal of Heitmeier’s, Jim Huey. This looked really good after the Board just lost a suit for $45,000, the winning plaintiff against blaming Huey for the incident.
Adley failed to mention the potential salary boost in getting unanimous approval in the Senate a day before the session’s end. But Rep. Warren Triche, among others, smoked it out in the House, and perhaps the lawsuit lay behind the House’s eventual rejection of the conference report, killing the bill for the year.
There, acting in the stead of Adley to get the bill passed was Rep. Billy Montgomery, who argued that the money to pay for the increased salary would be borne by Orleans taxpayers alone. But that was a rather puerile line of persuasion; lawmakers should turn the other way while bad policy is being made because it’s not in their district?
Adley eventually succeeded in his own hijacking of a bill to get the change enacted, but Adley, a veteran of many years in the Legislature, showed questionable political skills on his original bill. Either he was oblivious to the controversy behind the Orleans Levee Board or he knew and maybe thought he could slip it through which, given the suit’s publicity, was a poor judgment. Why he went so far out on a limb for Heitmeier is another interesting question; it seems that such a big risk would require a big reward, something Heitmeier was in position to give as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee which handles the budget matters.
This recipe for unintended consequences coughed up a couple of good examples from northwest Louisiana. State Rep. Mike Powell’s HB 338 started out as an attempt to simplify standards regarding the assessment of distances from alcohol sellers to proscribed areas such as churches and schools. State law says 300 feet as a person travels; Powell wanted to amend it to allow municipalities to use as an alternative the simpler 300 feet as the crow flies.
The problem came when in the last month of the session the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in-state and out-of-state wineries could not be treated differentially by state law in their abilities to ship wine. This meant that anybody in Louisiana could get wine shipped directly to them from anywhere. This spooked liquor wholesalers in Louisiana which fought for an amendment to get any sales to restaurants or stores to go through a wholesaler. In essence, direct sales coming from anywhere could have bypassed wholesalers for these large-volume buyers (individuals’ ability to order and have wine shipped were unaffected). Sen. Edwin Murray complied, and the Senate bought it, and the House on concurring with the Senate’s changes.
However, Louisiana’s smaller wineries have trouble getting wholesalers to carry their product, and now within the state they would lose the ability to ship directly to stores and restaurants, so their cost of business has gone up dramatically and may put them out of business. Powell and practically everybody else were unable to guess the effects of the bill, amended and passed in the last week of the session. If Gov. Kathleen Blanco signs it, she better send a message out to wholesalers that in exchange for the protection from competition they think they’re going to get they had better be awfully accommodating in stocking Louisiana wines; 2006 is a whole different chance to change the law.
It’s one thing to slip up on unintended consequences in a quick session where information can be hard to come by, but it’s another to consciously sow the seeds of sabotage in your own bill. Sen. Robert Adley brought that problem on himself and his presumed beneficiary, the Bossier Parish Levee Board, with his handling of SB 6.
The bill made the composition of the Board more manageable and inclusive by expanding it to an at-large, additional appointment to represent the whole parish. But, as a favor to Sen. Francis Heitmeier who served with Adley on the conference committee empanelled to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, he assented to Heitmeier’s inclusion of an amendment that, in effect, quintupled the salary of the Orleans Levee Board President, and pal of Heitmeier’s, Jim Huey. This looked really good after the Board just lost a suit for $45,000, the winning plaintiff against blaming Huey for the incident.
Adley failed to mention the potential salary boost in getting unanimous approval in the Senate a day before the session’s end. But Rep. Warren Triche, among others, smoked it out in the House, and perhaps the lawsuit lay behind the House’s eventual rejection of the conference report, killing the bill for the year.
There, acting in the stead of Adley to get the bill passed was Rep. Billy Montgomery, who argued that the money to pay for the increased salary would be borne by Orleans taxpayers alone. But that was a rather puerile line of persuasion; lawmakers should turn the other way while bad policy is being made because it’s not in their district?
Adley eventually succeeded in his own hijacking of a bill to get the change enacted, but Adley, a veteran of many years in the Legislature, showed questionable political skills on his original bill. Either he was oblivious to the controversy behind the Orleans Levee Board or he knew and maybe thought he could slip it through which, given the suit’s publicity, was a poor judgment. Why he went so far out on a limb for Heitmeier is another interesting question; it seems that such a big risk would require a big reward, something Heitmeier was in position to give as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee which handles the budget matters.
27.6.05
Implementation details may yet provide health care hope
In terms of financial overhaul of state health care costs in Louisiana, Gov. Kathleen Blanco has done little to achieve this. What then of her efforts to tackle the regulatory and administrative side of things?
One new law reorganized the provision of services, particularly in the intake of clients, to promote efficiency. However, the law also had a more ominous impact, to define into law the idea that the state should force people close to bankruptcy before they are allowed access to taxpayer-funded health care. In other words, somebody defined as “poor” gets all kinds of free care that only the rich could afford on their own, while everybody else gets much less assistance, if any, from the state, putting a huge burden on their resources. Generally, this means that before the state pays much to a family struck by catastrophic health costs that no private insurance in the world can cover costs adequately it mandates the wiping out of any but the most rudimentary amounts that can be set aside for living and retirement purposes.
The proposed law that encourages nursing homes to get into reimbursed residential care does not in any way shift the balance from institutional to home care, heavily tilted in Louisiana in favor of nursing homes (82 percent of long-term care dollars going to them as opposed to the national average of 67 percent). The only substantive favorable change here came with the funding of 100 additional home-based care slots (which represents about 1 percent of the total backlog of eligible people waiting for those slots – many of whom will die or be forced into much more expensive nursing home care paid by taxpayers long before their names come up to actually get these much less expensive services).
Another proposed law at least will help those with less-complicated health needs. However, an opportunity exists to enable this law to provide much greater services to clients and much greater savings for depending upon the rules developed by the Department of Health and Hospitals that address what "non-complex" medical tasks in-home workers can do and set up training parameters and a registry for in-home workers.
For example, the tasks associated with caring for a mobile (either by self or by electric wheelchair) ventilator-dependent person are not tremendously demanding except in extreme emergency situations. Indeed, such skills are taught to the patients and family members as a matter of course. Currently, the state allows payment (and insurance companies follow) only for licensed practical nurses or even more-qualified personnel to care for these individuals. But if personal care assistants trained in this area were allowed to be reimbursed, savings to families, insurance companies, and taxpayers could be substantial, and more skilled nursing personnel could be deployed to cases where their particular skills are more in demand.
Naturally, the state would have to set rigorous requirements, perhaps create a menu of different competencies that it can test and certify people in. As long as there is creative thinking and no relaxation of standards, it is this aspect of Blanco’s health care reform plans that holds the greatest, even if it is in an absolute sense small, potential for genuine improvement of the system for all concerned.
One new law reorganized the provision of services, particularly in the intake of clients, to promote efficiency. However, the law also had a more ominous impact, to define into law the idea that the state should force people close to bankruptcy before they are allowed access to taxpayer-funded health care. In other words, somebody defined as “poor” gets all kinds of free care that only the rich could afford on their own, while everybody else gets much less assistance, if any, from the state, putting a huge burden on their resources. Generally, this means that before the state pays much to a family struck by catastrophic health costs that no private insurance in the world can cover costs adequately it mandates the wiping out of any but the most rudimentary amounts that can be set aside for living and retirement purposes.
The proposed law that encourages nursing homes to get into reimbursed residential care does not in any way shift the balance from institutional to home care, heavily tilted in Louisiana in favor of nursing homes (82 percent of long-term care dollars going to them as opposed to the national average of 67 percent). The only substantive favorable change here came with the funding of 100 additional home-based care slots (which represents about 1 percent of the total backlog of eligible people waiting for those slots – many of whom will die or be forced into much more expensive nursing home care paid by taxpayers long before their names come up to actually get these much less expensive services).
Another proposed law at least will help those with less-complicated health needs. However, an opportunity exists to enable this law to provide much greater services to clients and much greater savings for depending upon the rules developed by the Department of Health and Hospitals that address what "non-complex" medical tasks in-home workers can do and set up training parameters and a registry for in-home workers.
For example, the tasks associated with caring for a mobile (either by self or by electric wheelchair) ventilator-dependent person are not tremendously demanding except in extreme emergency situations. Indeed, such skills are taught to the patients and family members as a matter of course. Currently, the state allows payment (and insurance companies follow) only for licensed practical nurses or even more-qualified personnel to care for these individuals. But if personal care assistants trained in this area were allowed to be reimbursed, savings to families, insurance companies, and taxpayers could be substantial, and more skilled nursing personnel could be deployed to cases where their particular skills are more in demand.
Naturally, the state would have to set rigorous requirements, perhaps create a menu of different competencies that it can test and certify people in. As long as there is creative thinking and no relaxation of standards, it is this aspect of Blanco’s health care reform plans that holds the greatest, even if it is in an absolute sense small, potential for genuine improvement of the system for all concerned.
26.6.05
Partisan Legislature bodes ill for Blanco
With the regular legislative session for 2005 now over, some observers have noted that it may qualify has the first truly “partisan” session in a long time. One very obvious reason explains this – Republicans in the Legislature have reached a critical mass.
Over 25 years ago, Louisiana had the smallest proportion of Republicans in its legislature than any other state. A past political culture that allowed some conservative tendencies to flourish in the Democrats and a relatively large black (historically non-Republican) population account for some of this, but the main reason came from the nonpartisan blanket primary system installed over three decades ago. Without being forced to do the impossible by winning a Republican primary against true conservatives, pseudo-conservatives could continue to get elected without shedding the Democrat label.
But national trends favoring Republicans have proven unstoppable even against these defenses and, for the first time in over a century, as a result of the 2003 elections the minority party in Louisiana had better than one-third representation in each chamber. (In fact, today Louisiana’s minority is only the 17th proportionally smallest of all the states in the lower chamber, and 26th for the upper chamber). This became important especially in 2005 because of the fiscal nature of the session (currently, during even-numbered years the Legislature cannot initiate new taxes) allowing for new taxes which requires a two-third’s approval.
In other words, referring to a partisan identity when legislating makes sense only when something may be gained by operating through that lens. If acting as a partisan brought no gains (because there were insufficient numbers to make the promotion of the identity something that could bring benefits), legislators had little incentive to do so.
And research concerning political parties shows that, in an environment of general lacking of party cohesiveness, once one party begins to organize, the other soon follows. Thus, last month, after years of having a Republican Delegation in the Legislature, Democrats have followed suit. Legislative doings will take on an increased partisan tone as a result.
Of course, this constitutes bad news for one person in particular, Gov. Kathleen Blanco. She tries to fob herself off as more conservative than liberal to win votes, but her tax-and-spend ideology belies that image. A vocal Republican minority that, if it sticks together (of which there is no guarantee) stays true to its principles will highlight the fact that Blanco is not what she tries to convey. Such is the lesson her uninformed press secretary Bob Mann needs to learn; Republicans will continue to try to thwart Blanco not because they are partisan and she supposedly is not, but because she is wrong on the issues.
Over 25 years ago, Louisiana had the smallest proportion of Republicans in its legislature than any other state. A past political culture that allowed some conservative tendencies to flourish in the Democrats and a relatively large black (historically non-Republican) population account for some of this, but the main reason came from the nonpartisan blanket primary system installed over three decades ago. Without being forced to do the impossible by winning a Republican primary against true conservatives, pseudo-conservatives could continue to get elected without shedding the Democrat label.
But national trends favoring Republicans have proven unstoppable even against these defenses and, for the first time in over a century, as a result of the 2003 elections the minority party in Louisiana had better than one-third representation in each chamber. (In fact, today Louisiana’s minority is only the 17th proportionally smallest of all the states in the lower chamber, and 26th for the upper chamber). This became important especially in 2005 because of the fiscal nature of the session (currently, during even-numbered years the Legislature cannot initiate new taxes) allowing for new taxes which requires a two-third’s approval.
In other words, referring to a partisan identity when legislating makes sense only when something may be gained by operating through that lens. If acting as a partisan brought no gains (because there were insufficient numbers to make the promotion of the identity something that could bring benefits), legislators had little incentive to do so.
And research concerning political parties shows that, in an environment of general lacking of party cohesiveness, once one party begins to organize, the other soon follows. Thus, last month, after years of having a Republican Delegation in the Legislature, Democrats have followed suit. Legislative doings will take on an increased partisan tone as a result.
Of course, this constitutes bad news for one person in particular, Gov. Kathleen Blanco. She tries to fob herself off as more conservative than liberal to win votes, but her tax-and-spend ideology belies that image. A vocal Republican minority that, if it sticks together (of which there is no guarantee) stays true to its principles will highlight the fact that Blanco is not what she tries to convey. Such is the lesson her uninformed press secretary Bob Mann needs to learn; Republicans will continue to try to thwart Blanco not because they are partisan and she supposedly is not, but because she is wrong on the issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)