So shrill have local governments become in their opposition to opening up the provision of video services in Louisiana that they have resorted to promoting outright misleading or just plain fake issues to stop its advancement.
HB 699 would permit non-cable television channel providers to enter into franchise agreements with the state, bypassing local government. Earlier, much fuss was made about allowing the bypass as potential providers, mainly telephone companies with broadband capacity, wanted to do away with the artificially-imposed startup costs typically demanded by local governments, as an inducement to enter the market and to guarantee entry (local governments do not have to grant a franchise even if it is an identical or better deal to any one with an existing franchisee).
As previously noted, local governments had allied with cable companies to try to stop the bill. Cable companies, of course, wish to avoid competition but the motive for local governments is that through their agreements, they can impose extra requirements on franchisees and use the rates charged as a backdoor way to raise revenues from their citizens. HB 699 would take away these abilities.
Especially under the amendment added in the Senate Commerce, Consumer Protection, and International Affairs Committee yesterday which is an attempt to break up the local government/cable company alliance. This insertion would allow cable companies to opt out of their existing franchise agreements if they pursued a statewide one, just as in the case of the new entrants.
As a result, local government lobbyists have taken to arguing that there would be a huge loss of revenue to local governments because of the inability to negotiate local franchises. But this simply isn’t true: the bill provides that the fees can be charged by a local government as much as five percent of the gross revenues of the provider from the provision of that service. In fact, revenues may increase as a result: with these new entrants into the market, the share of the one provider which currently is not subject to any fees, satellite, may go down, while payers of fees may increase.
Stymied here, opponents try to get around this by arguing that providers will try to manipulate the “gross revenues” reported (which, given the way they are defined in the bill, would be practically impossible) or that they will claim they are exempt from the fees because they are “information,” not video, providers (a claim being made in other states that so far has been unsuccessful and which easily could be overridden by changes in law or regulation). At wits end, opponents finally threaten the state with a lawsuit about the loss of local rights-of-way jurisdiction from the opt-out provision they must know they cannot win because of the state general police power (except in the case of pre-1974 Constitution-chartered entities which had to be exempted in the bill).
Again, to understand opponents’ motivations behind these objections, follow the money: local governments like being able to force existing providers to provide certain services, for which then they may take credit from voters even as ratepayers subsidize them, and the ability to pass along certain fees. Losing these powers is really why they protest, but their interests are not compelling compared to the better service at lower cost most, if not all, Louisiana consumers would gain under this bill.
31.5.06
Consumers lose; agriculture, government win with ethanol bill
It’s so typical: when governmental elites in Louisiana proclaim the state is or is poised to become a “leader,” almost always that’s not because of people’s free choices in some area of activity, but because of state fiat that usually proves to be counterproductive and leaves the state worse off than before.
That’s the way HB 685 seems to be headed, ready for the signature of Gov. Kathleen Blanco with her expressed intent to provide it. The bill would require that once state refiners produce at least 50 million gallons of ethanol or 10 million gallons of biodiesel, henceforth the amount of ethanol produced would equal at least 2 percent of the fuel sold in the state.
The problem is, this is a sure ticket to artificially higher prices at the pump for consumers. Presently, just the ethanol production component costs roughly $3 a gallon to make. This is why where it’s done, chiefly in the midwest because of federal air pollution requirements that also force the use of expensive additive MBTE to gasoline, the federal government subsidizes the process anywhere from 70 to 90 cents a gallon. Further, it will create chaos in the supply chain and force some providers and middlemen to take heavy losses in creating the infrastructure to deliver the product.
Proponents have attempted to make four facile arguments to justify the bill’s requirements. First, some have said it will be years before the trigger implements, leaving plenty of time to gear up for manufacture and distribution. But as state Sen. Walter Boasso, who tried to amend the bill in its Senate committee hearing to change the implementation after the pulling the trigger from six to 18 months, argued, with such a low threshold (just over 800,000 barrels at current rates), just a few test runs at refiners could hit the threshold. This is why opponents say by this time next year the bill already would be mandating the mixing of ethanol and gas.
Second, supporters claim lower prices will result. That’s hard to square with the realities of production costs, noting that the federal subsidization available in Louisiana is just 51 cents per gallon – due to expire next year in any event. And it’s hard to believe somebody who was a college professor, the bill’s House sponsor Rep. Francis Thompson, would make such a retarded argument to try to defuse this claim – comparing the previous day’s gas prices in the Midwest to around Louisiana.
Thompson’s legislative history shows he has a hard time understanding what a free marketplace is or knows anything about economics in general, and it clearly shows with this remark. A number of factors go into gasoline pricing that makes such a comparison between apples and oranges, not the least of which are the federal air quality mandates in the corridor beginning in Milwaukee, heading south to Chicago, and then branching off. Because of the peculiarities of the special blends of gasoline required, given supply vagaries prices can fluctuate 30 cents or more within a single day (believe me, I lived it).
In fact, much of the most recent increases in gas prices in the restricted air-quality areas have come from increases in ethanol, not petroleum, prices. The simple fact is (like most “environmental” measures like recycling) because the production of ethanol is so energy-intensive (a half gallon of petroleum required to make one gallon of ethanol) at this time under typical market conditions it will be more expensive than gasoline production.
This belies the third claim, that using ethanol will save substantially nonrenewable energy sources. At best, savings of oil use are just half because of the 2:1 production ratio. Technological advancements may change this, but that will be slowed if government mandates and subsidizes an inefficient process. Without these policies, the marketplace would provide greater incentives for invention of more efficient processes.
Finally, others argue introducing ethanol blends will reduce dependence on foreign energy sources. But, again, the marketplace can solve for this in a much more efficient fashion. Given the recent direction of energy prices (and forgetting for the moment that environmental restrictions on refiner expansion and new construction), this is making economical oil extraction from previously prohibitive sources, such as offshore or in the mountain west of the U.S. The major problem there is start-up costs – a tremendous capital investment that will occur only with a period of sustained high prices. Once the revenues from this kind of extraction are adequate to pay off the initial fixed costs, subsequent supply will drive world prices down – and increase the amount of oil from domestic sources.
The real impact of this bill will be to suck needlessly money out of consumers (one estimate being 67 cents a gallon’s worth) and transfer it to a small coterie of agricultural interests and the state itself, because of lower gas mileage per gallon with ethanol blends which will increase the amount of gas sold thus sales and use taxes collected. If a majority of the Legislature really cared about high gas prices and wanted to do something effective, it would reduce or eliminate its tax on gasoline, not run this confidence game on Louisianans.
That’s the way HB 685 seems to be headed, ready for the signature of Gov. Kathleen Blanco with her expressed intent to provide it. The bill would require that once state refiners produce at least 50 million gallons of ethanol or 10 million gallons of biodiesel, henceforth the amount of ethanol produced would equal at least 2 percent of the fuel sold in the state.
The problem is, this is a sure ticket to artificially higher prices at the pump for consumers. Presently, just the ethanol production component costs roughly $3 a gallon to make. This is why where it’s done, chiefly in the midwest because of federal air pollution requirements that also force the use of expensive additive MBTE to gasoline, the federal government subsidizes the process anywhere from 70 to 90 cents a gallon. Further, it will create chaos in the supply chain and force some providers and middlemen to take heavy losses in creating the infrastructure to deliver the product.
Proponents have attempted to make four facile arguments to justify the bill’s requirements. First, some have said it will be years before the trigger implements, leaving plenty of time to gear up for manufacture and distribution. But as state Sen. Walter Boasso, who tried to amend the bill in its Senate committee hearing to change the implementation after the pulling the trigger from six to 18 months, argued, with such a low threshold (just over 800,000 barrels at current rates), just a few test runs at refiners could hit the threshold. This is why opponents say by this time next year the bill already would be mandating the mixing of ethanol and gas.
Second, supporters claim lower prices will result. That’s hard to square with the realities of production costs, noting that the federal subsidization available in Louisiana is just 51 cents per gallon – due to expire next year in any event. And it’s hard to believe somebody who was a college professor, the bill’s House sponsor Rep. Francis Thompson, would make such a retarded argument to try to defuse this claim – comparing the previous day’s gas prices in the Midwest to around Louisiana.
Thompson’s legislative history shows he has a hard time understanding what a free marketplace is or knows anything about economics in general, and it clearly shows with this remark. A number of factors go into gasoline pricing that makes such a comparison between apples and oranges, not the least of which are the federal air quality mandates in the corridor beginning in Milwaukee, heading south to Chicago, and then branching off. Because of the peculiarities of the special blends of gasoline required, given supply vagaries prices can fluctuate 30 cents or more within a single day (believe me, I lived it).
In fact, much of the most recent increases in gas prices in the restricted air-quality areas have come from increases in ethanol, not petroleum, prices. The simple fact is (like most “environmental” measures like recycling) because the production of ethanol is so energy-intensive (a half gallon of petroleum required to make one gallon of ethanol) at this time under typical market conditions it will be more expensive than gasoline production.
This belies the third claim, that using ethanol will save substantially nonrenewable energy sources. At best, savings of oil use are just half because of the 2:1 production ratio. Technological advancements may change this, but that will be slowed if government mandates and subsidizes an inefficient process. Without these policies, the marketplace would provide greater incentives for invention of more efficient processes.
Finally, others argue introducing ethanol blends will reduce dependence on foreign energy sources. But, again, the marketplace can solve for this in a much more efficient fashion. Given the recent direction of energy prices (and forgetting for the moment that environmental restrictions on refiner expansion and new construction), this is making economical oil extraction from previously prohibitive sources, such as offshore or in the mountain west of the U.S. The major problem there is start-up costs – a tremendous capital investment that will occur only with a period of sustained high prices. Once the revenues from this kind of extraction are adequate to pay off the initial fixed costs, subsequent supply will drive world prices down – and increase the amount of oil from domestic sources.
The real impact of this bill will be to suck needlessly money out of consumers (one estimate being 67 cents a gallon’s worth) and transfer it to a small coterie of agricultural interests and the state itself, because of lower gas mileage per gallon with ethanol blends which will increase the amount of gas sold thus sales and use taxes collected. If a majority of the Legislature really cared about high gas prices and wanted to do something effective, it would reduce or eliminate its tax on gasoline, not run this confidence game on Louisianans.
30.5.06
Hypocrisy behind reaction to Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase
Ever since it happened, it’s been reasonable to believe that government managing of the aftermath of Louisiana’s 2005 hurricane disasters would be the biggest contribution the state made to the issues resolving the 2006 federal midterm elections. Instead, it could be the actions taken over the issue of Jefferson’s second Louisiana Purchase.
Obviously, this incident refers not to the third president of the U.S. but to the state’s Second Congressional District member William Jefferson, a Democrat the evidence against steadily mounts indicating an extended pattern of his corruption while in office. This has thrown a wrench into the lurid, contrafactual plans of Democrats to try to paint Republicans as institutionally corrupt for use as a campaign issue.
This has lead the Democrat House leadership, in a fit of simulated outrage, to demand his resignation from his one committee assignment, from perhaps the most important committee in the chamber, Ways and Means. But he has declined, and its attitude in response has been. “All right, we tried but it didn’t work, so let’s move along now, nothing more to be seen here.”
But this represents an unserious attempt to enforce standards: all the House Democrat leadership would have to do is to convene the party’s Policy and Steering Committee (controlled by the leadership), then its Caucus (comprised of all elected Democrats in the House), and to have the former strip Jefferson of his seat with the latter confirming that decision. If Democrats really meant what they requested of Jefferson, this easily could be done. Of course, they don’t do it because they don’t really mean it.
However, House Republicans are making it easy for Democrats to slouch away from the spotlight of the negative publicity of the incident not only by having their leader Speaker Denny Hastert complain about the recent federal government fact-finding search of Jefferson’s Washington office, but then to have the poor sense to launch not one, not two, but three planned hearings by their majority party on the entire enterprise. They base these hearings on some derivation of a constitutional question (the search having separation of powers implications), but then conveniently seem to forget other passages of the Constitution much more direct and relevant to the incident.
First, does Congress not remember that it has an almost total (except for executive privilege) power to compel information from the executive branch? Article I Section 7, in giving Congress the power to legislate, infers the power to investigate. In other words, in holding these hearings Congress is suggesting it has a much broader right to investigate the executive branch or anything else than the executive branch has in performing the duties Congress laid out for it when members of Congress themselves are involved – a self-exemption of the crassest kind.
Second, this does not square with the contents of the previous Section 6, which outlines Congressional immunity only (except in cases of “Felony, Treason, of Breach of the Peace”) “from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” This says nothing about investigations, so there is no direct Constitutional protection involved – only a legal one that the House seems to think it could put in there to shield its own members.
So when House Republicans are saying they would rather spend their time and resources on investigating an open-and-shut Constitutional question than on pressing national problems, they open themselves up to charges that they are almost as concerned with trying to preserve power for power’s sake as the Democrats are in trying to avoid being labeled the party of congressional corruption by their meaningless actions concerning Jefferson. Both tactics give off the scent of hypocrisy.
Which party gets hurt worse at the ballot box as a result of this at this time is unknown, but none of this is in the interest of the public from which that electorate comes.
Obviously, this incident refers not to the third president of the U.S. but to the state’s Second Congressional District member William Jefferson, a Democrat the evidence against steadily mounts indicating an extended pattern of his corruption while in office. This has thrown a wrench into the lurid, contrafactual plans of Democrats to try to paint Republicans as institutionally corrupt for use as a campaign issue.
This has lead the Democrat House leadership, in a fit of simulated outrage, to demand his resignation from his one committee assignment, from perhaps the most important committee in the chamber, Ways and Means. But he has declined, and its attitude in response has been. “All right, we tried but it didn’t work, so let’s move along now, nothing more to be seen here.”
But this represents an unserious attempt to enforce standards: all the House Democrat leadership would have to do is to convene the party’s Policy and Steering Committee (controlled by the leadership), then its Caucus (comprised of all elected Democrats in the House), and to have the former strip Jefferson of his seat with the latter confirming that decision. If Democrats really meant what they requested of Jefferson, this easily could be done. Of course, they don’t do it because they don’t really mean it.
However, House Republicans are making it easy for Democrats to slouch away from the spotlight of the negative publicity of the incident not only by having their leader Speaker Denny Hastert complain about the recent federal government fact-finding search of Jefferson’s Washington office, but then to have the poor sense to launch not one, not two, but three planned hearings by their majority party on the entire enterprise. They base these hearings on some derivation of a constitutional question (the search having separation of powers implications), but then conveniently seem to forget other passages of the Constitution much more direct and relevant to the incident.
First, does Congress not remember that it has an almost total (except for executive privilege) power to compel information from the executive branch? Article I Section 7, in giving Congress the power to legislate, infers the power to investigate. In other words, in holding these hearings Congress is suggesting it has a much broader right to investigate the executive branch or anything else than the executive branch has in performing the duties Congress laid out for it when members of Congress themselves are involved – a self-exemption of the crassest kind.
Second, this does not square with the contents of the previous Section 6, which outlines Congressional immunity only (except in cases of “Felony, Treason, of Breach of the Peace”) “from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” This says nothing about investigations, so there is no direct Constitutional protection involved – only a legal one that the House seems to think it could put in there to shield its own members.
So when House Republicans are saying they would rather spend their time and resources on investigating an open-and-shut Constitutional question than on pressing national problems, they open themselves up to charges that they are almost as concerned with trying to preserve power for power’s sake as the Democrats are in trying to avoid being labeled the party of congressional corruption by their meaningless actions concerning Jefferson. Both tactics give off the scent of hypocrisy.
Which party gets hurt worse at the ballot box as a result of this at this time is unknown, but none of this is in the interest of the public from which that electorate comes.
29.5.06
Interesting contests crowd fall election calendar
Except for the unsettled situation regarding the Second Congressional District, things are starting to heat up for the contests regarded as competitive in state and national positions in Louisiana this fall.
The only such race out there at the national level (again, not considering the Second District for the moment) is the Third Congressional District which sets to be a partial replay of two years ago. In that, current U.S. Rep. Democrat Charlie Melancon barely made it into a runoff with Republican Billy Tauzin III, just outpacing Republican state Sen. Craig Romero. Melancon narrowly defeated Tauzin in part because Romero waged a scorched earth campaign of non-support of his fellow Republican.
All seems forgiven, now. Romero has widespread GOP backing and Melancon faces a stiff challenge for the seat. Still, bitter feelings Romero created may now boomerang against him and allow Melancon to retain the seat despite this being the most partisan-deviant seat in the entire Congress.
The dynamic of this contest two years ago possibly could come into play concerning one of the statewide executive branch offices up for grabs, secretary of state. A Republican would be favored, but that could change despite the fact two strong GOP adherents have emerged – former state Republican Party Chairman Mike Francis and state Sen. Jay Dardenne. Opposing them appears to be state Democrat Rep. Carla Dartez.
Francis is perceived as an outside reformer, while Dardenne is seen as an experienced insider. Consequentially, more ideological conservatives see Dardenne as suspect. Fueling this speculation is Dardenne’s confused behavior over his vote for and then against exceptions to abortion in SB 33 presently moving through the Legislature (even as the abortion issue has no direct relationship to the job of Secretary of State). If this contest turns particularly contentious, the loser may be so embittered just as was Romero and act accordingly that it could allow Dartez to slip in for the general election runoff.
Perhaps as interesting but in a different way is the other statewide executive branch tilt, for the insurance commissionership. There, state Sen. James David Cain, formerly a Democrat but now a Republican, looks to square off against the acting Commissioner James Donelon, formerly a Republican but now a Democrat. Newcomer Republican Deanne Henke also has said she will run. At this point, it’s anybody guess as to how all this party switching will translate into support between the two major candidates.
The only such race out there at the national level (again, not considering the Second District for the moment) is the Third Congressional District which sets to be a partial replay of two years ago. In that, current U.S. Rep. Democrat Charlie Melancon barely made it into a runoff with Republican Billy Tauzin III, just outpacing Republican state Sen. Craig Romero. Melancon narrowly defeated Tauzin in part because Romero waged a scorched earth campaign of non-support of his fellow Republican.
All seems forgiven, now. Romero has widespread GOP backing and Melancon faces a stiff challenge for the seat. Still, bitter feelings Romero created may now boomerang against him and allow Melancon to retain the seat despite this being the most partisan-deviant seat in the entire Congress.
The dynamic of this contest two years ago possibly could come into play concerning one of the statewide executive branch offices up for grabs, secretary of state. A Republican would be favored, but that could change despite the fact two strong GOP adherents have emerged – former state Republican Party Chairman Mike Francis and state Sen. Jay Dardenne. Opposing them appears to be state Democrat Rep. Carla Dartez.
Francis is perceived as an outside reformer, while Dardenne is seen as an experienced insider. Consequentially, more ideological conservatives see Dardenne as suspect. Fueling this speculation is Dardenne’s confused behavior over his vote for and then against exceptions to abortion in SB 33 presently moving through the Legislature (even as the abortion issue has no direct relationship to the job of Secretary of State). If this contest turns particularly contentious, the loser may be so embittered just as was Romero and act accordingly that it could allow Dartez to slip in for the general election runoff.
Perhaps as interesting but in a different way is the other statewide executive branch tilt, for the insurance commissionership. There, state Sen. James David Cain, formerly a Democrat but now a Republican, looks to square off against the acting Commissioner James Donelon, formerly a Republican but now a Democrat. Newcomer Republican Deanne Henke also has said she will run. At this point, it’s anybody guess as to how all this party switching will translate into support between the two major candidates.
28.5.06
The meaning of Memorial Day
This column publishes every Sunday through Thursday after noon U.S. Central Time (maybe even after sundown on busy days, or mayve before noon if things work out) 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, Christmas, or New Year's Day when it is the day on which the holiday is observed by the U.S. government). In my opinion, there are six of these: Memorial Day, Independence Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas, and New Year's Day.
With Monday, May 29 being Memorial Day, I invite you to explore the link above.
With Monday, May 29 being Memorial Day, I invite you to explore the link above.
25.5.06
Blanco ready to aid reelection chances at state's expense
Like a foolish poker player, Gov. Kathleen Blanco has continued through on her weak bluff to squeeze more money out of the federal government. It will be called and Louisiana will be the poorer for it.
Blanco appears to be committing the state to filing suit against the federal government to block its annual August sale of oil leases off Louisiana’s coastline in an effort to get the federal government to fork over more royalties to the state. Through a tragicomic series of historical events, the state gave away access to an estimated $5 billion a year from them.
The law setting up those sales permits a governor to object to them, but then the Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service can override that. Blanco did exactly that, saying the sale of leases threatened Louisiana’s coast by its being inconsistent with the state’s coastal management plan, so MMS naturally came back and rejected the reasoning, and quite properly so. It’s not the sales that could cause environmental degradation, but rather the activity that occurs after the sales.
Any court will recognize this distinction, so Blanco has no hope to win that way. Instead, she’s trying to tie up the process to frustrate the federal government’s collection of these revenues in a timely fashion, attempting to goad Congress into approving legislation (such as Rep. Bobby Jindal’s H.R. 4761) that would shovel more of the royalties Louisiana’s way.
As is its wont, the Blanco Administration and its lackeys are disseminating plenty of disinformation the public’s way about the matter. The legal counsel hired for the proposed suit, Robert Szabo, claims the federal government is depending on revenues from the sale. Her Executive Assistant on Coastal Activities Sidney Coffee claims they could be between $300 million and $1 billion.
Neither assertion likely is to come true. Last year’s sale was one of the highest ever, at $285.2 million. At current rates, that’s an amount of money the federal government runs through in 54 minutes. In short, Blanco is embarking on a course that will not lead her to legal victory over stakes that the federal government would consider trivial if not insignificant. It’s a bluff with no leverage that will only antagonize Congress, which must approve of any additional monies going to the state.
So why has Blanco gone to lengths to create such publicity about the issue? Because she continues to flounder as governor with low opinion poll ratings heading into an election year (fourth lowest in the nation comparing approval to disapproval), and publicizing this may make her look better to the uninformed. She would rather spend in the neighborhood of a million dollars in state money on legal fees on a tactic whose only productive outcome is to assist in her own re-election campaign than to use it for the good of Louisiana.
When will Blanco learn that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and that it’s wasteful to use the people’s money to buy the vinegar?
Blanco appears to be committing the state to filing suit against the federal government to block its annual August sale of oil leases off Louisiana’s coastline in an effort to get the federal government to fork over more royalties to the state. Through a tragicomic series of historical events, the state gave away access to an estimated $5 billion a year from them.
The law setting up those sales permits a governor to object to them, but then the Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service can override that. Blanco did exactly that, saying the sale of leases threatened Louisiana’s coast by its being inconsistent with the state’s coastal management plan, so MMS naturally came back and rejected the reasoning, and quite properly so. It’s not the sales that could cause environmental degradation, but rather the activity that occurs after the sales.
Any court will recognize this distinction, so Blanco has no hope to win that way. Instead, she’s trying to tie up the process to frustrate the federal government’s collection of these revenues in a timely fashion, attempting to goad Congress into approving legislation (such as Rep. Bobby Jindal’s H.R. 4761) that would shovel more of the royalties Louisiana’s way.
As is its wont, the Blanco Administration and its lackeys are disseminating plenty of disinformation the public’s way about the matter. The legal counsel hired for the proposed suit, Robert Szabo, claims the federal government is depending on revenues from the sale. Her Executive Assistant on Coastal Activities Sidney Coffee claims they could be between $300 million and $1 billion.
Neither assertion likely is to come true. Last year’s sale was one of the highest ever, at $285.2 million. At current rates, that’s an amount of money the federal government runs through in 54 minutes. In short, Blanco is embarking on a course that will not lead her to legal victory over stakes that the federal government would consider trivial if not insignificant. It’s a bluff with no leverage that will only antagonize Congress, which must approve of any additional monies going to the state.
So why has Blanco gone to lengths to create such publicity about the issue? Because she continues to flounder as governor with low opinion poll ratings heading into an election year (fourth lowest in the nation comparing approval to disapproval), and publicizing this may make her look better to the uninformed. She would rather spend in the neighborhood of a million dollars in state money on legal fees on a tactic whose only productive outcome is to assist in her own re-election campaign than to use it for the good of Louisiana.
When will Blanco learn that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and that it’s wasteful to use the people’s money to buy the vinegar?
24.5.06
Mayor's race results tell something about Jefferson successor
With most of New Orleans focused on election returns last Saturday, many miles away the federal government conducted a raid on Rep. William Jefferson’s office, discovering very condemnatory evidence on top of the hot cash he had put in a cool refrigerator in his house found right before Hurricane Katrina. This event may prove more significant than Mayor Ray Nagin’s successful reelection.
As a result, national Democrats have thrown Jefferson overboard, calling for resignations of various kinds. The national party is eager to put out of mind perhaps the most prominent of its trangressors, having no popular positions of their own on which to campaign in the fall elections, in order to try to fool the American public into thinking it is uncorrupt compared to the Republicans and to manufacture that as a campaign issue.
Thus, it has become open season in the Second Congressional District. Historically, chances to nab this spot come far and few between. Jefferson won it 16 years ago and is just one of four, and the only one not married to, or who defeated, or who was Hale Boggs, who has served in the district representing the majority of Orleans since the 1930s. With a very weakened Jefferson pledging he will not resign anything and regardless that he has not indicated that he will not run, ambitious politicians will not let him run unopposed if he does choose to attempt reelection.
However, the results of the mayor’s election tell us much about what kind of candidate can become the next U.S. representative from the city – in part a product of the electoral geography. The district is about 80 percent contiguous with Orleans Parish, except that towards the east about 25,000, almost all white residents are in the First District of Rep. Bobby Jindal, while to the west the Second District encompasses about 115,000, majority black, Jefferson Parish residents. In other words, it is even more heavily comprised of Democrat and black residents.
Therefore, as the recent contest highlighted, Republicans and white candidates need not apply. Further, only black Democrats who had some area-wide political muscle will have a chance (Jefferson, for example, had been at-large city councilman before having lost a bid for mayor). Making matters even more interesting, politicians in this category mostly stood for election this spring, straining their resources for another, almost immediate campaign – although some less so than others.
While it’s early to be discussing who specifically might fill the bill, it would have to be somebody in the mold of Oliver Thomas, at-large city councilman who cruised to reelection a month ago. Officials in his position, the way things are going, stand a better chance of securing the seat than Jefferson does of retaining it.
As a result, national Democrats have thrown Jefferson overboard, calling for resignations of various kinds. The national party is eager to put out of mind perhaps the most prominent of its trangressors, having no popular positions of their own on which to campaign in the fall elections, in order to try to fool the American public into thinking it is uncorrupt compared to the Republicans and to manufacture that as a campaign issue.
Thus, it has become open season in the Second Congressional District. Historically, chances to nab this spot come far and few between. Jefferson won it 16 years ago and is just one of four, and the only one not married to, or who defeated, or who was Hale Boggs, who has served in the district representing the majority of Orleans since the 1930s. With a very weakened Jefferson pledging he will not resign anything and regardless that he has not indicated that he will not run, ambitious politicians will not let him run unopposed if he does choose to attempt reelection.
However, the results of the mayor’s election tell us much about what kind of candidate can become the next U.S. representative from the city – in part a product of the electoral geography. The district is about 80 percent contiguous with Orleans Parish, except that towards the east about 25,000, almost all white residents are in the First District of Rep. Bobby Jindal, while to the west the Second District encompasses about 115,000, majority black, Jefferson Parish residents. In other words, it is even more heavily comprised of Democrat and black residents.
Therefore, as the recent contest highlighted, Republicans and white candidates need not apply. Further, only black Democrats who had some area-wide political muscle will have a chance (Jefferson, for example, had been at-large city councilman before having lost a bid for mayor). Making matters even more interesting, politicians in this category mostly stood for election this spring, straining their resources for another, almost immediate campaign – although some less so than others.
While it’s early to be discussing who specifically might fill the bill, it would have to be somebody in the mold of Oliver Thomas, at-large city councilman who cruised to reelection a month ago. Officials in his position, the way things are going, stand a better chance of securing the seat than Jefferson does of retaining it.
23.5.06
Winners and losers from New Orleans elections
So who are the winners and losers in the aftermath of New Orleans’ elections?
Winner: Mayor Ray Nagin. Starting with the obvious, Nagin completed an improbable reelection, reinventing himself from a political outsider that endorses Republicans who happened to be a black Democrat to a black Democrat who touted his insider qualifications to oversee the city’s recovery. Since he did and said what many consider to be outrageous things (at least to those around the rest of the country) and still won, coupled with his term-limited status he has carte blanche to do pretty much what he pleases. Never forget, there’s the right way, the wrong way, and the New Orleans way, and a majority of Orleans voters proved that to the rest of the country with their votes for him.
Loser: Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu. Mary’s little brother now is 0-for-2 in his New Orleans mayor’s bids. Recall that his 1994 loss was followed next year by sister Mary’s failed gubernatorial bid, so only recently has any aura of invincibility been formed around their political family. That’s been dusted again by someone the rest of the country thinks is a political gadfly. This has damaged any aspirations of his beyond his current office for the next few years, maybe forever.
Winner: Pres. George W. Bush. As scorn got heaped upon Nagin for his handling of affairs directly after Hurricane Katrina’s swipe, he eventually sensed that rehabilitation lay in getting things done, and that meant cultivating a good relationship with the man with the most power to grant his wishes, the President. As time went on, he essentially got into a competition with state officials for direction in rebuilding New Orleans, and it’s fair to say he emerged with the upper hand, for Bush as endorsed actions more like Nagin’s and less like those coming from the state.
Loser: Gov. Kathleen Blanco. Increasingly, she was the one Nagin competed against with the federal government, and no doubt harbored resentment towards him even before the hurricane disaster for his Bobby Jindal endorsement during the 2003 governor’s race. A Landrieu win would have put a Democrat regular like herself in the office rather than the unpredictable Nagin – and would definitively eliminated Landrieu as a potential competitor for the governor’s mansion in what is sure to be a free-for-all against Blanco next year. Even if Landrieu’s luster has worn off, at the very least he would make it difficult for Blanco to make the general election runoff.
Winner: black/liberal interest groups. They were the ones that launched massive get-out-the-vote operations, running buses and the like. They didn’t care if Nagin was cozying up to Bush and endorsing Republicans, as long as he looked black enough they were going to get likely voters going his way.
Loser: the Republican Party. As winter approached some in the GOP were getting quite giddy that the tremendous demographic dislocations of the hurricanes could do the unthinkable and make New Orleans a Republican city. A quick look at even the sketchy statistics available as early as November should have put to rest that notion. Even with a higher proportion of Republicans on the ground for both elections than had been in the city for years, if anything the election revealed a step backwards, with its best mayoral candidate finishing fourth and losing its only representation on the City Council. Maybe its statewide fortunes are better off, but the situation for it is as hopeless as ever in Orleans Parish.
Winners: the citizens of New Orleans. With Nagin continuing as mayor, recovery can continue apace without stopping to adjust to a new administration. Nagin’s business background also cannot hurt in getting recovery going.
Losers: the citizens of New Orleans. But, Nagin’s also erratic. With him, chocolate is relevant not just in terms of describing the city, but in revelation of the box that is him – like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re going to get with him. This characteristic might retard recovery.
There you have it. Now with these elections resolved, can everybody get back to business as usual – not Louisiana usual, but the business-like attitude needed to get the state fully rebounded?
Winner: Mayor Ray Nagin. Starting with the obvious, Nagin completed an improbable reelection, reinventing himself from a political outsider that endorses Republicans who happened to be a black Democrat to a black Democrat who touted his insider qualifications to oversee the city’s recovery. Since he did and said what many consider to be outrageous things (at least to those around the rest of the country) and still won, coupled with his term-limited status he has carte blanche to do pretty much what he pleases. Never forget, there’s the right way, the wrong way, and the New Orleans way, and a majority of Orleans voters proved that to the rest of the country with their votes for him.
Loser: Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu. Mary’s little brother now is 0-for-2 in his New Orleans mayor’s bids. Recall that his 1994 loss was followed next year by sister Mary’s failed gubernatorial bid, so only recently has any aura of invincibility been formed around their political family. That’s been dusted again by someone the rest of the country thinks is a political gadfly. This has damaged any aspirations of his beyond his current office for the next few years, maybe forever.
Winner: Pres. George W. Bush. As scorn got heaped upon Nagin for his handling of affairs directly after Hurricane Katrina’s swipe, he eventually sensed that rehabilitation lay in getting things done, and that meant cultivating a good relationship with the man with the most power to grant his wishes, the President. As time went on, he essentially got into a competition with state officials for direction in rebuilding New Orleans, and it’s fair to say he emerged with the upper hand, for Bush as endorsed actions more like Nagin’s and less like those coming from the state.
Loser: Gov. Kathleen Blanco. Increasingly, she was the one Nagin competed against with the federal government, and no doubt harbored resentment towards him even before the hurricane disaster for his Bobby Jindal endorsement during the 2003 governor’s race. A Landrieu win would have put a Democrat regular like herself in the office rather than the unpredictable Nagin – and would definitively eliminated Landrieu as a potential competitor for the governor’s mansion in what is sure to be a free-for-all against Blanco next year. Even if Landrieu’s luster has worn off, at the very least he would make it difficult for Blanco to make the general election runoff.
Winner: black/liberal interest groups. They were the ones that launched massive get-out-the-vote operations, running buses and the like. They didn’t care if Nagin was cozying up to Bush and endorsing Republicans, as long as he looked black enough they were going to get likely voters going his way.
Loser: the Republican Party. As winter approached some in the GOP were getting quite giddy that the tremendous demographic dislocations of the hurricanes could do the unthinkable and make New Orleans a Republican city. A quick look at even the sketchy statistics available as early as November should have put to rest that notion. Even with a higher proportion of Republicans on the ground for both elections than had been in the city for years, if anything the election revealed a step backwards, with its best mayoral candidate finishing fourth and losing its only representation on the City Council. Maybe its statewide fortunes are better off, but the situation for it is as hopeless as ever in Orleans Parish.
Winners: the citizens of New Orleans. With Nagin continuing as mayor, recovery can continue apace without stopping to adjust to a new administration. Nagin’s business background also cannot hurt in getting recovery going.
Losers: the citizens of New Orleans. But, Nagin’s also erratic. With him, chocolate is relevant not just in terms of describing the city, but in revelation of the box that is him – like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re going to get with him. This characteristic might retard recovery.
There you have it. Now with these elections resolved, can everybody get back to business as usual – not Louisiana usual, but the business-like attitude needed to get the state fully rebounded?
22.5.06
Myths dispelled about Orleans mayor vote: it was all about race
After having done this for two decades, it should not surprise me but it always does how myths about the causes and determinants of election results get propagated so quickly. The general election runoff of the 2006 mayor’s race appears to be no exception.
One myth appears to come from political convenience. From his concession speech on, Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu has asserted that, from his perspective, the best things about his defeat was that it demonstrated the building of multiracial coalitions with crossover appeal.
In an absolute sense, that’s ridiculous. A number of politicians have shown far greater crossover appeal (like this guy’s wins). But even if we start to put qualifiers in play, Landrieu makes quite a reach for us to buy that.
Let’s narrow the scope of the claim, to say that for a race where you had a white and black candidate in the deep South this showed relatively high cross-racial voting. All right, best we can tell (no surveys yet having been done) from surrogate voting results data and weekly registration reports, the division was in the neighborhood of 80/20 – 80 percent of whites voted for the white Landrieu, 80 percent of racial minorities voted for the black reelected Ray Nagin. That’s still around 4:1, and considering both ran as Democrats, not really remarkable.
20.5.06
Does Nagin read my posts? Or do we think alike strategically?
Something I seldom do is have to eat my words, when I pronounced six months ago that Ray Nagin could not win the New Orleans mayor’s race. At least I knew enough to figure out how Nagin did it before he did.
It’s a bit early to tell just how one part of the strategy, attract Republican voters, fared. (That will come, when I can get the post-election statistics available in the next few days.) Certainly anecdotal evidence would suggest that was happening when former Republican candidate Rob Couhig provided a lodestar to these individuals with his endorsement of Nagin. You heard at best veiled references from Nagin and his supporters about the “Landrieu dynasty” with a Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu win that would encourage these voters either to back Nagin, or to sit this one out – either worked to Nagin’s advantage.
But that could only neutralize potential Landrieu votes; Nagin also needed to create new votes to win. And that’s exactly what it appears he did, since it would have to be from two sources, the black-majority areas of town repopulating faster than the others because they have been depopulated the most but, most importantly, from displaced voters.
Consider that in the primary that 21,351 absentee/early votes were cast. If we put together Nagin’s and Couhig’s, they were about 9,000 of those, but Landrieu’s and those of the one major candidate that endorsed him, Ron Forman, were in the neighborhood of 11,000. For Nagin to have a chance, he would have to create at 2,000 more votes.
As it turned out, almost 25,000 did vote this way in the general election runoff, and of these “new” votes, it appears that Nagin grabbed almost all of these 3,500 as his total went over 12,500 (Landrieu’s plus other candidates inched up a little). Do not be surprised it if turns out that the black percentage of these votes comes closer to 70 percent this time out.
No doubt it was the assistance of some interest groups who wanted to see a black face as New Orleans mayor come Bobby Jindal endorsements or not helped Nagin to his win. And many other intriguing stories abound as a result of this – how does this affect Landrieu’s career, even his entire family’s, or state-level politics, or the recovery, or what about the parallel storylines that only one elected official in the majoritarian branches in New Orleans (5th District Assessor Tom Arnold, no less!) is a Republican, or how six of those assessors managed reelection, or even how just days ago it appeared the displaced vote was not going to come in at the level he needed to win?
But, for now, I’ll just say, a lot of people underestimated Nagin.
It’s a bit early to tell just how one part of the strategy, attract Republican voters, fared. (That will come, when I can get the post-election statistics available in the next few days.) Certainly anecdotal evidence would suggest that was happening when former Republican candidate Rob Couhig provided a lodestar to these individuals with his endorsement of Nagin. You heard at best veiled references from Nagin and his supporters about the “Landrieu dynasty” with a Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu win that would encourage these voters either to back Nagin, or to sit this one out – either worked to Nagin’s advantage.
But that could only neutralize potential Landrieu votes; Nagin also needed to create new votes to win. And that’s exactly what it appears he did, since it would have to be from two sources, the black-majority areas of town repopulating faster than the others because they have been depopulated the most but, most importantly, from displaced voters.
Consider that in the primary that 21,351 absentee/early votes were cast. If we put together Nagin’s and Couhig’s, they were about 9,000 of those, but Landrieu’s and those of the one major candidate that endorsed him, Ron Forman, were in the neighborhood of 11,000. For Nagin to have a chance, he would have to create at 2,000 more votes.
As it turned out, almost 25,000 did vote this way in the general election runoff, and of these “new” votes, it appears that Nagin grabbed almost all of these 3,500 as his total went over 12,500 (Landrieu’s plus other candidates inched up a little). Do not be surprised it if turns out that the black percentage of these votes comes closer to 70 percent this time out.
No doubt it was the assistance of some interest groups who wanted to see a black face as New Orleans mayor come Bobby Jindal endorsements or not helped Nagin to his win. And many other intriguing stories abound as a result of this – how does this affect Landrieu’s career, even his entire family’s, or state-level politics, or the recovery, or what about the parallel storylines that only one elected official in the majoritarian branches in New Orleans (5th District Assessor Tom Arnold, no less!) is a Republican, or how six of those assessors managed reelection, or even how just days ago it appeared the displaced vote was not going to come in at the level he needed to win?
But, for now, I’ll just say, a lot of people underestimated Nagin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)