The Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (better known as CAFTA) has now passed both houses of Congress. Divisions within the state mirrored the close (Senate) and closer (House) vote on the measure.
There is little question that CAFTA will benefit the country as a whole, but the fact is it does remove protections from, in particular, sugar farmers. This was the main impetus behind the nays of three state Republicans when it came to the vote.
It’s no accident that the two Republicans (Reps. Bobby Jindal and Charles Boustany) who voted against it have somewhat sizable sugar interests in their districts. Nor is it unexpected that Sen. David Vitter would cast a vote against it, given the narrow margin with which he won (even if in the primary) his seat – sugar interest votes do count.
At the same time, it is unfortunate that these Republicans had to abandon their principles concerning minimal intervention of government into the economy in order to vote on behalf of the individual interests of a portion of their constituencies. In reality, little in the way of sugar production will be lost and, frankly, if some Louisiana sugar producers go out of business as a result of this agreement, then this means their talents and resources would be better served by going into other lines of business.
Nonetheless, from a political standpoint, the interests of all sitting federal legislators were served by their actions on these votes. Jindal and Boustany will lose hardly any votes for their vote – even if on the losing side, their free trade impulses won – and Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon, the most vulnerable Democrat in the entire House next year (because Pres. Bush outdistanced him by 8 percent within the district, more than any other successful House Democrat, in 2004) only solidified his credentials to a good portion of his constituents.
Vitter’s vote against it last month (joining Sen. Mary Landrieu) statewide will win him more votes than it loses him, but one must question his zeal in complaining about the defeat. More behavior like that would lead objective observers to question whether he really is as reliably conservative economically as he always has seemed to be, keeping in mind that protectionism, championed by some who call themselves conservative, is not really a conservative position.
27.7.05
Now it's Hightower allies distressed at him over hotel
Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower has enough problems with conservative critics of building a publicly-owned convention center hotel. Critics from the left now are going to make his political life – and future – more miserable.
With two Republican council members (Thomas Carmody, Mike Gibson) often joined by a third (Jeff Hogan) consistently voting on measures to defeat, or at least reduce the taxpayers’ exposure to the venture which shows every sign of costing the city more than the benefits it brings, Hightower needs all of the support he can get from the four Democrats on the council. But two of them, Calvin Lester and Theron Jackson, now publicly question the project over the “Fair Share” issue.
With his efforts to keep unionized employees from taking excess taxpayer dollars, another commendable set of actions by Hightower during his mayoral reign has been his resistance to instituting a quota system for city contract bid-winning. Legally, this cannot be mandated by law but another method by which this may be put into place is on a contract-by-contract basis, where general contractors get asked to put in such quotas in their subcontracting each time the city negotiates such a contract. Then they must uphold the provisions or face civil penalties.
Hightower well could do this, although surely he realizes that to do so would cause contractors to increase bid prices because the contract would mandate that less-efficient producers be involved (as the typical reason why minority-owned firms are underrepresented in contracts awarded is their quality is not as high as the wining sub-contractor’s – obviously true among all kinds of losing firms – but especially because they are disproportionately smaller which means they are less able to bring economies of scale to bear that would lower their prices). It would also admit that there is some institutional bias against minority-owned firms in Shreveport’s contracting process which no doubt Hightower, and, frankly, any objective observer familiar with the process, does not see present.
Part of these objections proceeds from future mayoral politics. Both Lester and Jackson have an eye of the mayor’s office in 2006 and 2005 second quarter statistics show Shreveport now has a black population comprising 47.14 percent of the electorate while the white portion of the electorate has dipped below 50 percent (49.48). These black politicians, with the hotel going up around them throughout the campaign season, can use this as a campaign issue to mobilize the black vote.
At the same time, publicizing this issue as a shortcoming about Hightower’s tenure can only hurt him if he does run for the state Senate District 37 seat in 2007. He must win the lion’s share of the black vote, 22 percent of the district, in order to have a chance to win the office.
One aphorism of politics states that if you make people on both sides of an issue mad, then you must be doing some right. But given the bridges Hightower has burned with area conservatives and the desire of black liberals to take care of their own political futures, not enough people are going to see Hightower as doing “right,” at this rate, for him to have much of a political future.
With two Republican council members (Thomas Carmody, Mike Gibson) often joined by a third (Jeff Hogan) consistently voting on measures to defeat, or at least reduce the taxpayers’ exposure to the venture which shows every sign of costing the city more than the benefits it brings, Hightower needs all of the support he can get from the four Democrats on the council. But two of them, Calvin Lester and Theron Jackson, now publicly question the project over the “Fair Share” issue.
With his efforts to keep unionized employees from taking excess taxpayer dollars, another commendable set of actions by Hightower during his mayoral reign has been his resistance to instituting a quota system for city contract bid-winning. Legally, this cannot be mandated by law but another method by which this may be put into place is on a contract-by-contract basis, where general contractors get asked to put in such quotas in their subcontracting each time the city negotiates such a contract. Then they must uphold the provisions or face civil penalties.
Hightower well could do this, although surely he realizes that to do so would cause contractors to increase bid prices because the contract would mandate that less-efficient producers be involved (as the typical reason why minority-owned firms are underrepresented in contracts awarded is their quality is not as high as the wining sub-contractor’s – obviously true among all kinds of losing firms – but especially because they are disproportionately smaller which means they are less able to bring economies of scale to bear that would lower their prices). It would also admit that there is some institutional bias against minority-owned firms in Shreveport’s contracting process which no doubt Hightower, and, frankly, any objective observer familiar with the process, does not see present.
Part of these objections proceeds from future mayoral politics. Both Lester and Jackson have an eye of the mayor’s office in 2006 and 2005 second quarter statistics show Shreveport now has a black population comprising 47.14 percent of the electorate while the white portion of the electorate has dipped below 50 percent (49.48). These black politicians, with the hotel going up around them throughout the campaign season, can use this as a campaign issue to mobilize the black vote.
At the same time, publicizing this issue as a shortcoming about Hightower’s tenure can only hurt him if he does run for the state Senate District 37 seat in 2007. He must win the lion’s share of the black vote, 22 percent of the district, in order to have a chance to win the office.
One aphorism of politics states that if you make people on both sides of an issue mad, then you must be doing some right. But given the bridges Hightower has burned with area conservatives and the desire of black liberals to take care of their own political futures, not enough people are going to see Hightower as doing “right,” at this rate, for him to have much of a political future.
26.7.05
Hightower takes correct stand against greedy labor interests
One issue in which Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower has performed well is labor relations with city employees. His veto of an ordinance to recognize an employee union was perhaps his finest act as mayor.
On the whole, unions in the private sector hurt society because they are able to expropriate wealth from consumers through collective action that skews the labor marketplace. However, at least there is a countervailing force – market competition itself. When labor greed inflates too much, this makes the good or service they produce uncompetitive and, in the end, they price themselves out of a job because other producers with properly-priced labor costs can do the same job or better for cheaper. In essence, unions are parasitic whose supporter have enough audacity to advertise just how much wealth they expropriate from society and, in particular, non-unionized workers.
But in the public sector, where no competition exists in the provision of most government services, unionization is a disaster to the polity. Without market forces to intervene, it becomes a contest of sheer power where government disarms itself considerably by giving away bargaining power (by recognizing unions’ right to strike, for example), allowing more ability to unions to raid taxpayers’ pockets.
When one reads comments such as workers want “[t]o be treated fairly … [l]ike a human being,” the proper response to this situation is not to give them more power over taxpayers’ purses, but instead to remind them that if this is their perception, they have procedures by which to lodge complaints and, if that proves unsatisfactory, they are perfectly free to seek employment where in their minds they are “treated fairly” like a “human being.” A government job to hold in perpetuity is not a right.
The dirty secret, of course, is that a great many of these workers know they could never get paid as much and/or receive benefits as extensive for the amount of work they put in with their present city jobs. Knowing that, instead of calling upon their talents to explore other opportunities, they’d rather reach into somebody else’s pocket to better themselves.
Hightower needs to continue to hold the line here, and his past looking out for taxpayers on this issue, in sharp contrast to his penchant for building expensive things that drain taxpayer resources, is to be commended.
On the whole, unions in the private sector hurt society because they are able to expropriate wealth from consumers through collective action that skews the labor marketplace. However, at least there is a countervailing force – market competition itself. When labor greed inflates too much, this makes the good or service they produce uncompetitive and, in the end, they price themselves out of a job because other producers with properly-priced labor costs can do the same job or better for cheaper. In essence, unions are parasitic whose supporter have enough audacity to advertise just how much wealth they expropriate from society and, in particular, non-unionized workers.
But in the public sector, where no competition exists in the provision of most government services, unionization is a disaster to the polity. Without market forces to intervene, it becomes a contest of sheer power where government disarms itself considerably by giving away bargaining power (by recognizing unions’ right to strike, for example), allowing more ability to unions to raid taxpayers’ pockets.
When one reads comments such as workers want “[t]o be treated fairly … [l]ike a human being,” the proper response to this situation is not to give them more power over taxpayers’ purses, but instead to remind them that if this is their perception, they have procedures by which to lodge complaints and, if that proves unsatisfactory, they are perfectly free to seek employment where in their minds they are “treated fairly” like a “human being.” A government job to hold in perpetuity is not a right.
The dirty secret, of course, is that a great many of these workers know they could never get paid as much and/or receive benefits as extensive for the amount of work they put in with their present city jobs. Knowing that, instead of calling upon their talents to explore other opportunities, they’d rather reach into somebody else’s pocket to better themselves.
Hightower needs to continue to hold the line here, and his past looking out for taxpayers on this issue, in sharp contrast to his penchant for building expensive things that drain taxpayer resources, is to be commended.
25.7.05
Independence Bowl perhaps a luxury not longer in reach
Slowly and, unless something happens soon, steadily it looks like the life is ebbing out of Shreveport’s Independence Bowl.
That would be a shame because some pretty good matchups have occurred. Several schools with national championships have played in it (Alabama, Army, Auburn, LSU, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M), with perhaps the most prominent having been OU’s 1999 appearance. Not only does OU possess the most national championships in the modern era (since 1949), but the next year after dropping the game to Ole Miss 27-25 they won the national championship where the I-Bowl served as one end defining a 20-game win streak.
It also has some history on its side. It’s preparing to celebrate its 30th year, making it the tenth-oldest contest running among the holiday bowl games.
But the I-Bowl has some unenviable intractable realities to face. It is in the third-smallest metropolitan area to host a game. Worse, it is one of the few bowl games whose city of location does not have a NCAA Division I-A football-playing university in its metropolitan area which boosts local attendance and support. Only three others do not, and two of those (San Antonio and Jacksonville) are large metropolises. In fact, only the other such city, Mobile, is farther from a Division I-A program than is Shreveport (Ruston’s Louisiana Tech). But no host city is farther from a school in a major conference (there are considered to be the “BCS” six) than is Shreveport (Baton Rouge’s LSU).
Combine these with the fact that, of the 2005-06 bowl list, it is hard to argue that the only city considered to be less “resort-like” in terms of winter weather and attractions is Boise (where you can guarantee a big home crowd because, well, there’s not a whole lot else to do in Boise in the winter). This factor is crucial to get fans from the schools competing in the game to travel to it.
This has become reflected in the I-Bowl’s difficulties in finding a title sponsor and with getting two conferences to have tie-ins to send teams to the game (crucial especially if they are BCS conferences such as what the I-Bowl has now because fans of these schools are more likely to travel) and, if so, giving the I-Bowl their least worthy teams. A relatively unattractive winter resort area without much of a natural college football atmosphere means not much travel incentive or hometown turnout.
This impacts the most important aspect of the equation, the payout. Bowls are required to pay a certain amount of money to the competing teams (which then gets divvied up within their conferences). Lower attendance means fewer dollars, making the payout harder to meet, much less going above the minimum. Mediocre teams playing also reduce television ratings, discouraging sponsors and networks for paying more for rights to broadcast. It becomes a vicious cycle into which the I-Bowl regrettably has been sliding.
It has caused the I-Bowl to dip into its reserves to the point that they almost will be exhausted after this year unless a sponsor steps up at this late date (despite Shreveport taxpayers contributing $100,000 and Louisiana taxpayers forking over nearly $360,000 in tax dollars to fund the game – almost $1.4 million of state money goes to the two New Orleans-based bowl games). It may not matter now, with the Big 12 Conference becoming very hesitant to extend its contract past this 2005 game.
As a college football fan and sometimes I-Bowl attendee I consider this unfortunate, but understandable. Way too often we try to have non-essential things we can’t afford in this state, things perhaps affordable if attitudes changed to make the state one where greater economic wealth could be generated. I just hope a sponsor, which could pump in millions over the term of a contract, will step in. But don’t hold your breath – we’re still waiting on somebody, anybody, to buy the Superdome naming rights.
That would be a shame because some pretty good matchups have occurred. Several schools with national championships have played in it (Alabama, Army, Auburn, LSU, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M), with perhaps the most prominent having been OU’s 1999 appearance. Not only does OU possess the most national championships in the modern era (since 1949), but the next year after dropping the game to Ole Miss 27-25 they won the national championship where the I-Bowl served as one end defining a 20-game win streak.
It also has some history on its side. It’s preparing to celebrate its 30th year, making it the tenth-oldest contest running among the holiday bowl games.
But the I-Bowl has some unenviable intractable realities to face. It is in the third-smallest metropolitan area to host a game. Worse, it is one of the few bowl games whose city of location does not have a NCAA Division I-A football-playing university in its metropolitan area which boosts local attendance and support. Only three others do not, and two of those (San Antonio and Jacksonville) are large metropolises. In fact, only the other such city, Mobile, is farther from a Division I-A program than is Shreveport (Ruston’s Louisiana Tech). But no host city is farther from a school in a major conference (there are considered to be the “BCS” six) than is Shreveport (Baton Rouge’s LSU).
Combine these with the fact that, of the 2005-06 bowl list, it is hard to argue that the only city considered to be less “resort-like” in terms of winter weather and attractions is Boise (where you can guarantee a big home crowd because, well, there’s not a whole lot else to do in Boise in the winter). This factor is crucial to get fans from the schools competing in the game to travel to it.
This has become reflected in the I-Bowl’s difficulties in finding a title sponsor and with getting two conferences to have tie-ins to send teams to the game (crucial especially if they are BCS conferences such as what the I-Bowl has now because fans of these schools are more likely to travel) and, if so, giving the I-Bowl their least worthy teams. A relatively unattractive winter resort area without much of a natural college football atmosphere means not much travel incentive or hometown turnout.
This impacts the most important aspect of the equation, the payout. Bowls are required to pay a certain amount of money to the competing teams (which then gets divvied up within their conferences). Lower attendance means fewer dollars, making the payout harder to meet, much less going above the minimum. Mediocre teams playing also reduce television ratings, discouraging sponsors and networks for paying more for rights to broadcast. It becomes a vicious cycle into which the I-Bowl regrettably has been sliding.
It has caused the I-Bowl to dip into its reserves to the point that they almost will be exhausted after this year unless a sponsor steps up at this late date (despite Shreveport taxpayers contributing $100,000 and Louisiana taxpayers forking over nearly $360,000 in tax dollars to fund the game – almost $1.4 million of state money goes to the two New Orleans-based bowl games). It may not matter now, with the Big 12 Conference becoming very hesitant to extend its contract past this 2005 game.
As a college football fan and sometimes I-Bowl attendee I consider this unfortunate, but understandable. Way too often we try to have non-essential things we can’t afford in this state, things perhaps affordable if attitudes changed to make the state one where greater economic wealth could be generated. I just hope a sponsor, which could pump in millions over the term of a contract, will step in. But don’t hold your breath – we’re still waiting on somebody, anybody, to buy the Superdome naming rights.
24.7.05
Recognizing "courage" where it exists
It’s not really the content of the column, nor the story in it, but rather the tone of John Hill’s piece that leaves one a little unnerved.
I don’t know what Fox McKeithen’s religious affiliation was, but from the Catholic perspective his situation fell into an area of ambivalence, where, depending upon several factors, either the decision to continue to live or to bring upon death are moral. This is, one the one hand, opposed to murder/suicide, the kind of death visited upon the protagonist in the film Million Dollar Baby, where she merely objected to having to live paralyzed and her death was engineered through lethal injection.
On the other hand, in either the movie protagonist’s or McKeithen’s case, neither were in a persistent vegetative state. Had they been in persistent vegetative states with bodies that would cease to stay alive without some care beyond nutrition and hydration, Catholic doctrine would suggest they should be kept alive. However, if it were a matter of them requiring any life support beyond nutrition and hydration, it would constitute a clear case where those entrusted with this person’s life could reasonably anticipate that they should allow the person’s soul to take its next step according to God’s plan: maintaining life or declining to death on their own.
With McKeithen’s case, a lot of contingencies existed. One could go into minutiae here, but to draw a very general, broad distinction, McKeithen chose to die where there are many who contribute less to society than he did and he potentially could have, and who have far fewer resources to draw upon to sustain their lives, who chose and continue to choose to this day to live.
So when one reads that McKeithen wanted to “die with dignity,” and that his “final legacy is to show us all how to face our own deaths”, quite unintentionally it comes across as a kind of endorsement of his action in all cases, that perhaps anybody who is paralyzed and on mechanical ventilation ought to opt for the same, in order to be “dignified” and courageously “face our own deaths.” Obviously, some do not choose death, a few famous, most not. As I have argued elsewhere, it would be unfortunate if a global attitude emerged to discourage people in this condition from wanting to live or, more perniciously, made others feel excused from an obligation to provide the extra assistance these people would need to stay alive in a dignified fashion.
Hopefully, the one thing that people do not get out of John Hill’s column is that the horrible incident showed “courage.” Facing one’s limitations and mortality in and of itself does not connote courage; it’s the response to recognizing those conditions that demonstrate it. When I think of the decision made by McKeithen and his family, “understandable,” “difficult,” “hard,” and “painful” all come to mind precisely because I see courage in these kinds of lives. And it’s important to be a purist when it comes to defining such a word this way in this situation because otherwise it can become debased very quickly. That is what is so insidious about Million Dollar Baby, where somehow the act of killing the protagonist becomes accepted by many as “courageous” (even “loving”) when in fact they erroneously make it a synonym of “convenient.”
In a world where too many deny there is right and wrong, where some wage a constant campaign to make gray the division between black and white, we must be vigilant to pay heed to and to recognize the true meaning of things in order to properly understand the moral implications that proceed from them.
I don’t know what Fox McKeithen’s religious affiliation was, but from the Catholic perspective his situation fell into an area of ambivalence, where, depending upon several factors, either the decision to continue to live or to bring upon death are moral. This is, one the one hand, opposed to murder/suicide, the kind of death visited upon the protagonist in the film Million Dollar Baby, where she merely objected to having to live paralyzed and her death was engineered through lethal injection.
On the other hand, in either the movie protagonist’s or McKeithen’s case, neither were in a persistent vegetative state. Had they been in persistent vegetative states with bodies that would cease to stay alive without some care beyond nutrition and hydration, Catholic doctrine would suggest they should be kept alive. However, if it were a matter of them requiring any life support beyond nutrition and hydration, it would constitute a clear case where those entrusted with this person’s life could reasonably anticipate that they should allow the person’s soul to take its next step according to God’s plan: maintaining life or declining to death on their own.
With McKeithen’s case, a lot of contingencies existed. One could go into minutiae here, but to draw a very general, broad distinction, McKeithen chose to die where there are many who contribute less to society than he did and he potentially could have, and who have far fewer resources to draw upon to sustain their lives, who chose and continue to choose to this day to live.
So when one reads that McKeithen wanted to “die with dignity,” and that his “final legacy is to show us all how to face our own deaths”, quite unintentionally it comes across as a kind of endorsement of his action in all cases, that perhaps anybody who is paralyzed and on mechanical ventilation ought to opt for the same, in order to be “dignified” and courageously “face our own deaths.” Obviously, some do not choose death, a few famous, most not. As I have argued elsewhere, it would be unfortunate if a global attitude emerged to discourage people in this condition from wanting to live or, more perniciously, made others feel excused from an obligation to provide the extra assistance these people would need to stay alive in a dignified fashion.
Hopefully, the one thing that people do not get out of John Hill’s column is that the horrible incident showed “courage.” Facing one’s limitations and mortality in and of itself does not connote courage; it’s the response to recognizing those conditions that demonstrate it. When I think of the decision made by McKeithen and his family, “understandable,” “difficult,” “hard,” and “painful” all come to mind precisely because I see courage in these kinds of lives. And it’s important to be a purist when it comes to defining such a word this way in this situation because otherwise it can become debased very quickly. That is what is so insidious about Million Dollar Baby, where somehow the act of killing the protagonist becomes accepted by many as “courageous” (even “loving”) when in fact they erroneously make it a synonym of “convenient.”
In a world where too many deny there is right and wrong, where some wage a constant campaign to make gray the division between black and white, we must be vigilant to pay heed to and to recognize the true meaning of things in order to properly understand the moral implications that proceed from them.
21.7.05
To the Caddo Sheriff and Commission: get on with it
Regarding the series of legal maneuverings that even the Louisiana judiciary declares is complicated, now another chapter opens in the long-running dispute between Caddo Parish government and Caddo Parish Sheriff Steve Prator over who pays what at the Caddo Correctional Center.
I’m not a lawyer and, worse, I only have three college degrees, so I will try to make this almost-incomprehensible legal mess as least partly understandable. The parish owns the CCC. However, they contract to the sheriff to operate it, which is mandated by statute. Legally, they must pay the sheriff at least $3.50 a day per parish prisoner to do so, for which the sheriff is responsible for clothing and feeding such prisoners. However, it must pay additionally for medical and medical transportation expenses.
Obviously, at this statutory rate (which the parish cares not to pay any more) the sheriff could not operate the facility on only the daily funding rate. One way which generates more funds to do so is to take on state prisoners (there are other kinds too, such as federal prisoners and prisoners from other parishes, but to keep it simple let’s just assume that the two sources are parish and state prisoners). Here, the state must pay the sheriff at least $22.39 a day for the provision of the same kinds of services.
However, Caddo Parish argued that since non-Caddo parish prisoners are housed there, that the sheriff was bound to reimburse it for such expenses related to the general existence of the CCC in relation to the proportion of state prisoners there (roughly 25 percent at any given time). In May, the state’s Second Court of Appeals rejected that, allowing Prator to bill the parish for the additional expenses without himself being billed for what the Court called “fixed” expenses of the CCC.
But the bill Prator sent over apparently also includes expenses of the state prisoners, and the parish wants that portion excised out, which may lead to more legal maneuvering which already has cost parish taxpayers plenty (at least the Second Court’s bill only added about $200; it’s the lawyers’ fees that really add up). The irony of course is that, to this point, it is all about bookkeeping: parish taxpayers pay regardless, the dispute is just which parish entity gets what funds and who gets charged what.
Which is why, instead of continuing bickering, both entities need to discuss alternative ways of meeting their financial objectives. The Court suggested two ways immediately available in its decision. One would be for the parish to get the state to send reimbursement to it rather than the sheriff (which it then, of course, would have to turn right back around and hand it over to the sheriff any statutorily-required expenses). It also suggested that the sheriff could bill the state for the other expenses for state prisoners.
And then there always are legislative solutions. I’m sure Prator would find a lot of sheriffs ready to line up behind a bill that would increase the $3.50 level and/or the $22.39 level (it’s been tried before). And the parish could try to get state prisoners to pay additionally to it for certain things (again, it’s been tried before).
Both the parish commission and sheriff have expressed their desire to get this over with. So why don’t they start pursuing these other solutions as well? It’s only been two years now of this wrangling.
I’m not a lawyer and, worse, I only have three college degrees, so I will try to make this almost-incomprehensible legal mess as least partly understandable. The parish owns the CCC. However, they contract to the sheriff to operate it, which is mandated by statute. Legally, they must pay the sheriff at least $3.50 a day per parish prisoner to do so, for which the sheriff is responsible for clothing and feeding such prisoners. However, it must pay additionally for medical and medical transportation expenses.
Obviously, at this statutory rate (which the parish cares not to pay any more) the sheriff could not operate the facility on only the daily funding rate. One way which generates more funds to do so is to take on state prisoners (there are other kinds too, such as federal prisoners and prisoners from other parishes, but to keep it simple let’s just assume that the two sources are parish and state prisoners). Here, the state must pay the sheriff at least $22.39 a day for the provision of the same kinds of services.
However, Caddo Parish argued that since non-Caddo parish prisoners are housed there, that the sheriff was bound to reimburse it for such expenses related to the general existence of the CCC in relation to the proportion of state prisoners there (roughly 25 percent at any given time). In May, the state’s Second Court of Appeals rejected that, allowing Prator to bill the parish for the additional expenses without himself being billed for what the Court called “fixed” expenses of the CCC.
But the bill Prator sent over apparently also includes expenses of the state prisoners, and the parish wants that portion excised out, which may lead to more legal maneuvering which already has cost parish taxpayers plenty (at least the Second Court’s bill only added about $200; it’s the lawyers’ fees that really add up). The irony of course is that, to this point, it is all about bookkeeping: parish taxpayers pay regardless, the dispute is just which parish entity gets what funds and who gets charged what.
Which is why, instead of continuing bickering, both entities need to discuss alternative ways of meeting their financial objectives. The Court suggested two ways immediately available in its decision. One would be for the parish to get the state to send reimbursement to it rather than the sheriff (which it then, of course, would have to turn right back around and hand it over to the sheriff any statutorily-required expenses). It also suggested that the sheriff could bill the state for the other expenses for state prisoners.
And then there always are legislative solutions. I’m sure Prator would find a lot of sheriffs ready to line up behind a bill that would increase the $3.50 level and/or the $22.39 level (it’s been tried before). And the parish could try to get state prisoners to pay additionally to it for certain things (again, it’s been tried before).
Both the parish commission and sheriff have expressed their desire to get this over with. So why don’t they start pursuing these other solutions as well? It’s only been two years now of this wrangling.
20.7.05
McKeithen's death raises provocative questions
I was sorry last year to find out that Louisiana’s late Secretary of State Fox McKeithen got injured and became quadriplegic. I had met him just once, not long after the infamous 1991 election when he explored the possibility of running for governor. In all likelihood, he correctly gauged that the times had passed by a politician of his demeanor for the state’s highest office, and instead ran and won three more terms as secretary of state.
I am not sure how to evaluate whether he correctly gauged the decision to take his own life, but that’s what he did when last week he asked to be taken off mechanical ventilation after putting his affairs in order, indicating that he could not live on a vent full-time. Since he had pneumonia, if he is like most quadriplegics and couldn’t go for more than a short time off the vent, he died quickly, perhaps unpleasantly, by suffocation.
If I had met him now, 11 years later after his accident, if the subject came up I might have counseled him to take a different course. Existing as a quadriplegic is no fun and one of the worst aspects of it is ventilation. I can see if one led a vigorous life that to be felled without warning in the way he was might cause more damage to his psyche than to his physical body.
But, as I have had visibly pointed out to me over the past 14 years, a body that refuses to work in almost any, even basic, way, need not connote that it is the time or appropriate to, literally, pull the plug on your life. Ventilation is a tremendously difficult thing to live with for somebody on it, and almost as severe for loved ones who take care of that person. Yet, regardless, ventilation is not a sentence stripping a person of any ability to contribute to society. So much still may be accomplished; to see such an example, click here.
I do salute McKeithen because in his few months of disability I think he did raise some awareness across the state about how the state can more efficiently utilize its resources to assist those who have major physical disabilities, which at this time are way too heavily skewed towards institutionalization and away from solutions that do not limit a persons potential, solutions in fact that often cost the taxpayer less than institutionalization.
I am demoralized to think that McKeithen, who had resources far beyond what the typical vent-dependent person has to assist him in living a quality life, nonetheless felt that he could not live such a life, and hope that the state’s insurance and long-term health care infrastructure did not discourage him from living. If nothing else, I hope Louisiana policy-makers as a result scrutinize more closely this infrastructure, without regard to personal interests, in order to improve the quality of life for people who usually through no fault of their own find themselves in situations akin to McKeithen’s.
I am not sure how to evaluate whether he correctly gauged the decision to take his own life, but that’s what he did when last week he asked to be taken off mechanical ventilation after putting his affairs in order, indicating that he could not live on a vent full-time. Since he had pneumonia, if he is like most quadriplegics and couldn’t go for more than a short time off the vent, he died quickly, perhaps unpleasantly, by suffocation.
If I had met him now, 11 years later after his accident, if the subject came up I might have counseled him to take a different course. Existing as a quadriplegic is no fun and one of the worst aspects of it is ventilation. I can see if one led a vigorous life that to be felled without warning in the way he was might cause more damage to his psyche than to his physical body.
But, as I have had visibly pointed out to me over the past 14 years, a body that refuses to work in almost any, even basic, way, need not connote that it is the time or appropriate to, literally, pull the plug on your life. Ventilation is a tremendously difficult thing to live with for somebody on it, and almost as severe for loved ones who take care of that person. Yet, regardless, ventilation is not a sentence stripping a person of any ability to contribute to society. So much still may be accomplished; to see such an example, click here.
I do salute McKeithen because in his few months of disability I think he did raise some awareness across the state about how the state can more efficiently utilize its resources to assist those who have major physical disabilities, which at this time are way too heavily skewed towards institutionalization and away from solutions that do not limit a persons potential, solutions in fact that often cost the taxpayer less than institutionalization.
I am demoralized to think that McKeithen, who had resources far beyond what the typical vent-dependent person has to assist him in living a quality life, nonetheless felt that he could not live such a life, and hope that the state’s insurance and long-term health care infrastructure did not discourage him from living. If nothing else, I hope Louisiana policy-makers as a result scrutinize more closely this infrastructure, without regard to personal interests, in order to improve the quality of life for people who usually through no fault of their own find themselves in situations akin to McKeithen’s.
19.7.05
Fool me twice ...
State Rep. Jack Smith seems to have gotten caught in a lie, and now he asks us to believe he didn’t know it. It happened in regard to HB 755 which originally was a proposal to establish a telephone helpline for families of alcoholic youth. It turned into a vehicle that would allow convenience stores to sell frozen, alcoholic drinks without a standard liquor license.
On the last day of the session, when dozens of bills are in conference and await floor action, the conference committee in charge of this one slapped on amendments longer in text that the original bill (which means a member or two on the six-member committee briefly told the others what should be done to the bill, and they agreed). Smith, a co-author with Rep. Carla Dartez of the bill, then carried it to the House floor where he insisted the conference committee additions did not add to the list of vendors allowed to sell daiquiris.
Smith, an insurance agent, claims he got counsel from a liquor lobbyist and Rep. Taylor Townsend, a lawyer, to back up this assertion. Regardless, others lawmakers such as Rep. Mike Powell, a lawyer, and Sen. Jay Dardenne, another lawyer, saw a very different and obvious meaning to the bill. So many did that the House forced essentially a retraction of a prior affirmative vote on the bill, and it died. Ever since, Smith has conducted damage control to remove the perception that he deliberately tried to mislead legislators.
His story: as a way to get funding for the hotline, he took without really reading the language the amendments written by the liquor industry lobby. After the impartial lobbyist and the learned Townsend reassured him, still without really knowing what it was all about, he got the conference committee to approve the language (yes, believe it or not, he and Dartez were both on the conference committee). Still an innocent, he then insisted to the House that, trusting these others, the bill didn’t do what it really did.
So, for this version of events to be credible; first, Smith had to approach the liquor industry with an idea for funding of the helpline; second, they said to him, “sure, no problem, and by the way, here are some amendments to the bill which look a lot like another bill previously rejected by the House but don’t worry they don’t allow for daiquiri sales in convenience stores;” third, even though it was his bill and he was on the conference committee, he decided not to read through the amendments and pushed them on trust from the highly-impartial (on this matter) liquor lobby (heavy sarcasm, thank you); fourth, when Powell to pick his brain on the matter, even though he really hadn’t analyzed the amendments, he still insisted he knows what it says and dismisses Powell’s questioning; and, fifth, when he joked about the matter later with colleagues, afterwards he said he wasn’t referring to this bill (although he apparently did not reveal which one he was being dishonest about?).
Believing this improbable train of events means two things, that you also believe the Louisiana Legislature isn’t really chock full of good old boys and girls who can’t pass the simplest ethics reforms, and that Smith is so incapacitated by the legislative process that he can’t even pay attention to what his own bills say, including when he gets a second chance by being on their conference committees, and then has the audacity to dismiss opposition and to joke about the subject.
If his constituents don’t move to recall Smith for incompetence and/or mendacity, the least they can do is get him to co-sponsor any of several pieces of legislation designed along the lines of last session’s HCR 31 which would have required a day’s layover of conference committee reports before floor action. Of course, it failed to pass the House by one vote – and Smith voted against it.
On the last day of the session, when dozens of bills are in conference and await floor action, the conference committee in charge of this one slapped on amendments longer in text that the original bill (which means a member or two on the six-member committee briefly told the others what should be done to the bill, and they agreed). Smith, a co-author with Rep. Carla Dartez of the bill, then carried it to the House floor where he insisted the conference committee additions did not add to the list of vendors allowed to sell daiquiris.
Smith, an insurance agent, claims he got counsel from a liquor lobbyist and Rep. Taylor Townsend, a lawyer, to back up this assertion. Regardless, others lawmakers such as Rep. Mike Powell, a lawyer, and Sen. Jay Dardenne, another lawyer, saw a very different and obvious meaning to the bill. So many did that the House forced essentially a retraction of a prior affirmative vote on the bill, and it died. Ever since, Smith has conducted damage control to remove the perception that he deliberately tried to mislead legislators.
His story: as a way to get funding for the hotline, he took without really reading the language the amendments written by the liquor industry lobby. After the impartial lobbyist and the learned Townsend reassured him, still without really knowing what it was all about, he got the conference committee to approve the language (yes, believe it or not, he and Dartez were both on the conference committee). Still an innocent, he then insisted to the House that, trusting these others, the bill didn’t do what it really did.
So, for this version of events to be credible; first, Smith had to approach the liquor industry with an idea for funding of the helpline; second, they said to him, “sure, no problem, and by the way, here are some amendments to the bill which look a lot like another bill previously rejected by the House but don’t worry they don’t allow for daiquiri sales in convenience stores;” third, even though it was his bill and he was on the conference committee, he decided not to read through the amendments and pushed them on trust from the highly-impartial (on this matter) liquor lobby (heavy sarcasm, thank you); fourth, when Powell to pick his brain on the matter, even though he really hadn’t analyzed the amendments, he still insisted he knows what it says and dismisses Powell’s questioning; and, fifth, when he joked about the matter later with colleagues, afterwards he said he wasn’t referring to this bill (although he apparently did not reveal which one he was being dishonest about?).
Believing this improbable train of events means two things, that you also believe the Louisiana Legislature isn’t really chock full of good old boys and girls who can’t pass the simplest ethics reforms, and that Smith is so incapacitated by the legislative process that he can’t even pay attention to what his own bills say, including when he gets a second chance by being on their conference committees, and then has the audacity to dismiss opposition and to joke about the subject.
If his constituents don’t move to recall Smith for incompetence and/or mendacity, the least they can do is get him to co-sponsor any of several pieces of legislation designed along the lines of last session’s HCR 31 which would have required a day’s layover of conference committee reports before floor action. Of course, it failed to pass the House by one vote – and Smith voted against it.
18.7.05
More Blanco partisanship present in HB 415 veto
While several of Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s line-item vetoes smack of partisan politics, it seems one of her regular vetoes does as well. That explanation aside, state Rep. Mike Powell’s HB 415 should not have drawn her ire.
This bill would have removed the January option for local (bond and tax) and state (to fill legislative vacancies) elections, leaving now only March/April, July, October, and November (and February if you live in Orleans Parish) to get a vote in. It would have saved the state at least $500,000 a year (and millions across local governments in the aggregate) and eliminated a low-turnout election whose figures double, triple, and multiply even higher when in conjunction with regular elections with candidates on the ballot.
Three reasons may explain her actions here. First was pure pandering to the courthouse crowds of local governments. The January date often is chosen by these governments because they are low-turnout elections where taxes may be raised. In this environment, whichever constituency gets favored by the raised taxes (usually government workers of some stripe such as teachers, public safety personnel, etc.) can turn out disproportionately highly its members to pass the proposition. Of the candidates on the last governor’s election, Blanco was most favored by local officeholders and this veto will help these allies and perhaps attract new ones as she tries to build a political machine through the state Democrats. (Their allies in the state Senate almost derailed this bill before it got to Blanco. First it was defeated then resurrected two days later, with many senators switching sides both ways in between.)
Second, particularly among Democrat local officials, it is, as it is with Blanco, their nature to want to transfer more resources from the people to government. Again, this January election takes advantage of human psychology to increase the chances of this happening, so it’s no accident that she would want to keep this date.
Third, the bill’s lead author Powell has been a persistent critic of big government and its spendthrift ways, counter to Blanco’s philosophy. Perhaps his most outspoken episodes this past legislative session involved questioning on the House floor whether it really made sense to build lakes in the name of economic development. Powell also is the favorite, should he choose to run, for Senate District 37 being vacated after this term by the most conservative member of the Senate and another critic of Blanco’s philosophy, Max Malone. One of Blanco’s allies, Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower, like Malone term-limited, is chomping at the bit to take this seat and at this time Powell is the only person who clearly could beat him. Defeating one of his bills would be a way for Blanco to deny Powell a legislative accomplishment on which he could campaign.
In her veto letter, Blanco states there’s not much of a case to do away with an election day, writing that people need maximal opportunities to express themselves electorally. If so, then why did she not veto SB 53, which gets rid of a special December election date for congressional elections? Further, the election code already provides for additional election dates in RS 18:402(F)(7), so if the citizenry really wants it and/or the local government really needs it, they can have as many elections as they want (with two-thirds concurrence of the State Bond Commission.
If not hypocritical, this veto of Blanco’s certainly seems partisan, if not directed against Powell, then against Republicans and their philosophy favoring smaller government that does less in the way of absconding with the people’s resources, both in terms of raising taxes and extra money spent on elections.
This bill would have removed the January option for local (bond and tax) and state (to fill legislative vacancies) elections, leaving now only March/April, July, October, and November (and February if you live in Orleans Parish) to get a vote in. It would have saved the state at least $500,000 a year (and millions across local governments in the aggregate) and eliminated a low-turnout election whose figures double, triple, and multiply even higher when in conjunction with regular elections with candidates on the ballot.
Three reasons may explain her actions here. First was pure pandering to the courthouse crowds of local governments. The January date often is chosen by these governments because they are low-turnout elections where taxes may be raised. In this environment, whichever constituency gets favored by the raised taxes (usually government workers of some stripe such as teachers, public safety personnel, etc.) can turn out disproportionately highly its members to pass the proposition. Of the candidates on the last governor’s election, Blanco was most favored by local officeholders and this veto will help these allies and perhaps attract new ones as she tries to build a political machine through the state Democrats. (Their allies in the state Senate almost derailed this bill before it got to Blanco. First it was defeated then resurrected two days later, with many senators switching sides both ways in between.)
Second, particularly among Democrat local officials, it is, as it is with Blanco, their nature to want to transfer more resources from the people to government. Again, this January election takes advantage of human psychology to increase the chances of this happening, so it’s no accident that she would want to keep this date.
Third, the bill’s lead author Powell has been a persistent critic of big government and its spendthrift ways, counter to Blanco’s philosophy. Perhaps his most outspoken episodes this past legislative session involved questioning on the House floor whether it really made sense to build lakes in the name of economic development. Powell also is the favorite, should he choose to run, for Senate District 37 being vacated after this term by the most conservative member of the Senate and another critic of Blanco’s philosophy, Max Malone. One of Blanco’s allies, Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower, like Malone term-limited, is chomping at the bit to take this seat and at this time Powell is the only person who clearly could beat him. Defeating one of his bills would be a way for Blanco to deny Powell a legislative accomplishment on which he could campaign.
In her veto letter, Blanco states there’s not much of a case to do away with an election day, writing that people need maximal opportunities to express themselves electorally. If so, then why did she not veto SB 53, which gets rid of a special December election date for congressional elections? Further, the election code already provides for additional election dates in RS 18:402(F)(7), so if the citizenry really wants it and/or the local government really needs it, they can have as many elections as they want (with two-thirds concurrence of the State Bond Commission.
If not hypocritical, this veto of Blanco’s certainly seems partisan, if not directed against Powell, then against Republicans and their philosophy favoring smaller government that does less in the way of absconding with the people’s resources, both in terms of raising taxes and extra money spent on elections.
17.7.05
Vengeance and hypocrisy are mine, says Blanco
With the line-item veto power, occasionally Louisiana governors will use it to get rid of some spending that truly needs to be excised. But more often than not, governors will use the power to punish legislators for presumed crimes against her. Local projects loaded into either of the operating budget, HB 1, or the capital outlay budget, HB 2, are at risk. We know it, they know, even if one reads their veto messages and that reason never is given.
Therefore, if a governor is going to use the power to bludgeon legislative opponents, she might as well not be hypocritical about it. It seems, however, that Gov. Kathleen Blanco got caught out in a number of her line item vetoes. Reading her veto letters and referring back to the two bills, many examples abound. The following are first excerpts from her messages, paired with similar projects that escaped a veto.
This amendment provides $150,000 payable out of state general fund to the town of Jennings for drainage improvements. This project has potential of being funded through the federal government's Community Development Block Grant program or through the state's existing rural development program.
But in HB 2 p. 56, lines 26-32:
Drainage Improvements Mimosa Gardens Subdivision, Planning and Construction
(Bossier)
Payable from General Obligation Bonds
Priority 2 $ 100,000
Priority 5 $ 95,000
Total $ 195,000
Doesn’t this project also have “the potential of being funded through the federal government's Community Development Block Grant program or through the state's existing rural development program?” Sure, but the state senator representing Jennings, unlike his Bossier counterpart, Republican Gerald Theunnissen, loudly supported Blanco’s gubernatorial opponent and opposed her sick tax idea?
This amendment provides $25,000 payable out of state general fund to South Beauregard High School for athletic facilities. As South Beauregard High School is a public school, the local school board should bear this cost if they determine this project has merit.
But in HB ,1 p. 34, lines 25-28:
Payable out of the State General Fund (Direct) to the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury for the Ward One Senior Citizen Group for renovation and improvements of Moss Bluff Middle School
$15,000
Isn’t this a school, too, one not that far away from the other? Why give the money to the police jury to pass on to a nonprofit group to do the work? Why doesn’t the Calcasieu Parish School Board have to bear this cost? Is it because South Beauregard High’s area is represented by Republicans Rep. Brett Geymann or Sen. James David Cain?
This amendment provides $89,000 payable out of state general fund to the St. Tammany Arts Association for safety purposes. As this association is local in nature and serves an area of the state with a solid local tax base, the citizens of the area should shoulder the cost of this project if those citizens deem this project has merit. Items such as this are eligible for funding from the Arts Grant Program in the Office of Cultural Development, within the Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism.
But in HB 1 p. 264, lines 1-3:
Payable out the State General Fund (Direct) to the city of Westwego for the Westwego
Performing Arts Theater and Community Center $120,000
Why does Westwego not have to go through all of these hoops? Maybe Westwego isn’t as affluent as some areas of St. Tammany Parish, but it’s not a slum, either. Could it be because perhaps Blanco’s biggest critic about her unwillingness to find money for an educators’ pay raise and her great willingness to raise taxes was one of the state senators representing the parish, Republican Tom Schedler? And Blanco wasn’t through with the state’s most politically conservative area:
West St. Tammany YMCA, Building, Planning and Construction (St. Tammany): This is the only YMCA project in the bill that would receive a general fund appropriation. The project has $200,000 in Priority 2 and $2,800,000 in Priority 3 for a total remaining appropriation of $3,000,000 after the veto of the $150,000 in general fund dollars. The capital outlay request submitted for the project indicated a total request of $3,000,000. Consequently, the $3,000,000 appropriation would be a sufficient amount to fund this project along with the $3,700,000 in matching funds identified in the bill should the Bond Commission give its approval.
But what about in HB 2 p. 127, lines 18-27:
CANARY ISLAND DESCENDANT ASSOCIATION
Multi-Purpose Building, Planning and Construction
(Plaquemines)
Payable from State General Fund (Direct) $ 100,000
Payable from General Obligation Bonds
Priority 2 $ 100,000
Priority 5 $ 100,000
Total $ 300,000
Why does this nonprofit get to tap into the general fund and not the one represented by Schedler? Perhaps because its Republican senator, Walter Boasso, did not offer a perfectly acceptable pay raise plan that didn’t raise taxes while Schedler did?
Perhaps the most blatant of these cases came with her veto of Republican Sen. Max Malone’s item that would have shifted $12 million from building the Shreveport convention center hotel to helping to improve the Jimmie Davis Bridge between the city and its easterly neighbor across the Red River, Bossier City. The shift would have occurred only if a court found the legally the hotel could not be built using the money within the next year.
Blanco’s veto message rambles something to the effect that if the project were held off starting it might produce revenues more slowly and cost additional funds. But doesn’t Blanco even care about the legality of the project? In her thinking, it seems that it’s better to flout the law (if the courts find the money is not be used in accordance with its stated purpose) than to risk extra taxpayer subsidization of the project. Is that the attitude about the law a governor should have?
If Blanco is going to use her powers to exact vengeance, the least she can do is come up with better excuses. Otherwise, her partisanship and hypocrisy show right through.
Therefore, if a governor is going to use the power to bludgeon legislative opponents, she might as well not be hypocritical about it. It seems, however, that Gov. Kathleen Blanco got caught out in a number of her line item vetoes. Reading her veto letters and referring back to the two bills, many examples abound. The following are first excerpts from her messages, paired with similar projects that escaped a veto.
This amendment provides $150,000 payable out of state general fund to the town of Jennings for drainage improvements. This project has potential of being funded through the federal government's Community Development Block Grant program or through the state's existing rural development program.
But in HB 2 p. 56, lines 26-32:
Drainage Improvements Mimosa Gardens Subdivision, Planning and Construction
(Bossier)
Payable from General Obligation Bonds
Priority 2 $ 100,000
Priority 5 $ 95,000
Total $ 195,000
Doesn’t this project also have “the potential of being funded through the federal government's Community Development Block Grant program or through the state's existing rural development program?” Sure, but the state senator representing Jennings, unlike his Bossier counterpart, Republican Gerald Theunnissen, loudly supported Blanco’s gubernatorial opponent and opposed her sick tax idea?
This amendment provides $25,000 payable out of state general fund to South Beauregard High School for athletic facilities. As South Beauregard High School is a public school, the local school board should bear this cost if they determine this project has merit.
But in HB ,1 p. 34, lines 25-28:
Payable out of the State General Fund (Direct) to the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury for the Ward One Senior Citizen Group for renovation and improvements of Moss Bluff Middle School
$15,000
Isn’t this a school, too, one not that far away from the other? Why give the money to the police jury to pass on to a nonprofit group to do the work? Why doesn’t the Calcasieu Parish School Board have to bear this cost? Is it because South Beauregard High’s area is represented by Republicans Rep. Brett Geymann or Sen. James David Cain?
This amendment provides $89,000 payable out of state general fund to the St. Tammany Arts Association for safety purposes. As this association is local in nature and serves an area of the state with a solid local tax base, the citizens of the area should shoulder the cost of this project if those citizens deem this project has merit. Items such as this are eligible for funding from the Arts Grant Program in the Office of Cultural Development, within the Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism.
But in HB 1 p. 264, lines 1-3:
Payable out the State General Fund (Direct) to the city of Westwego for the Westwego
Performing Arts Theater and Community Center $120,000
Why does Westwego not have to go through all of these hoops? Maybe Westwego isn’t as affluent as some areas of St. Tammany Parish, but it’s not a slum, either. Could it be because perhaps Blanco’s biggest critic about her unwillingness to find money for an educators’ pay raise and her great willingness to raise taxes was one of the state senators representing the parish, Republican Tom Schedler? And Blanco wasn’t through with the state’s most politically conservative area:
West St. Tammany YMCA, Building, Planning and Construction (St. Tammany): This is the only YMCA project in the bill that would receive a general fund appropriation. The project has $200,000 in Priority 2 and $2,800,000 in Priority 3 for a total remaining appropriation of $3,000,000 after the veto of the $150,000 in general fund dollars. The capital outlay request submitted for the project indicated a total request of $3,000,000. Consequently, the $3,000,000 appropriation would be a sufficient amount to fund this project along with the $3,700,000 in matching funds identified in the bill should the Bond Commission give its approval.
But what about in HB 2 p. 127, lines 18-27:
CANARY ISLAND DESCENDANT ASSOCIATION
Multi-Purpose Building, Planning and Construction
(Plaquemines)
Payable from State General Fund (Direct) $ 100,000
Payable from General Obligation Bonds
Priority 2 $ 100,000
Priority 5 $ 100,000
Total $ 300,000
Why does this nonprofit get to tap into the general fund and not the one represented by Schedler? Perhaps because its Republican senator, Walter Boasso, did not offer a perfectly acceptable pay raise plan that didn’t raise taxes while Schedler did?
Perhaps the most blatant of these cases came with her veto of Republican Sen. Max Malone’s item that would have shifted $12 million from building the Shreveport convention center hotel to helping to improve the Jimmie Davis Bridge between the city and its easterly neighbor across the Red River, Bossier City. The shift would have occurred only if a court found the legally the hotel could not be built using the money within the next year.
Blanco’s veto message rambles something to the effect that if the project were held off starting it might produce revenues more slowly and cost additional funds. But doesn’t Blanco even care about the legality of the project? In her thinking, it seems that it’s better to flout the law (if the courts find the money is not be used in accordance with its stated purpose) than to risk extra taxpayer subsidization of the project. Is that the attitude about the law a governor should have?
If Blanco is going to use her powers to exact vengeance, the least she can do is come up with better excuses. Otherwise, her partisanship and hypocrisy show right through.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)