As Gov. Kathleen Blanco ponders whether to veto HB 685, the bill that would mandate in a short period of time the production of enough ethanol to comprise two percent of all automotive fuel sales in Louisiana she should consider some things.
While part of the reason why ethanol is much more expensive than gasoline is because of government mandates artificially increasing demand faster than supply increases, there’s still the issue that it takes petroleum to make ethanol – a ratio of one unit gasoline to distill two units of ethanol which promises to keep prices higher simply because of the high price of gas as well as that provides even more competition for gas to drive its price higher.
The same logic applies to how the contracting process may exaggerate actual prices for delivery – production costs create a floor on ethanol higher than that of gasoline and send both higher. Proponents may argue that technological breakthroughs may cause this cost to come down, predicting in two years the price will be sufficiently low (and presumably less demanding of gasoline use) to make a unit of ethanol competitive with a unit of gasoline. But it hasn’t happened yet and when it happens is unpredictable.
8.6.06
Certain vetoes/threats would burnish Blanco reform credentials
Bills inviting a veto by Gov. Kathleen Blanco continue to stack up. Whether she will is another matter, but they would give her a chance to walk the reform walk.
HB 685 certainly deserves it, mandating the use of ethanol in gasoline in as little as a few months which very likely would drive up considerably the price of a gallon of gas and have environmental ramifications while assisting only some agricultural producers; after initially saying she’d sign it, Blanco has wavered and needs to reverse that earlier pledge. Another which may deserve it is HB 909 which has its good points in reforming election law but has one serious error violating the spirit of the Constitution in that it redefines when a term starts and thus could add potentially four more years to the terms of otherwise term-limited, initially-elected mid-term, legislators.
Proponents argue that casting floor votes should define when a term starts, which occurs after taking the oath of office which happens at the beginning of a session, as opposed to when the necessary paperwork is filed under current law. But plenty of new, between-session, members have been active in committee meetings, which can make official recommendations to the entire chamber and meet between sessions, and members get paid for these and their regular salaries the moment they are certified.
Blanco will have to weigh whether the beneficial parts of the bill are worth this violation of the spirit of the Constitution. Or, perhaps she could cast a veto and instruct the Legislature to initiate change concerning the existing standards about when the oath is given and the legal change to start payment only after the oath is administered.
Another pair may end up needing a veto, HB 829 and SB 89. The relatively minor changes they make are more than offset by the unfortunate consequences they would loosen on levee governance reform efforts. Amendments to them doing this slipped by apathetic and/or inattentive lawmakers. Under the guise of fairness and efficiency, they created situations that basically gut the purpose of previous legislation that sought to consolidate, not to balkanize, flood control policy.
Blanco needs to inform the Legislature for these that she intends to veto both with these provisions, giving the chambers a chance on the floor or in conference to strip the provisions, and if they don’t she needs to carry out the threat. Instead, she has wavered on SB 89’s amendment which would create a permanent Jefferson Parish majority on the new West Bank levee district’s board. This is unacceptable: the idea is to unify and govern comprehensively, not to give one constituent part control over others.
Vetoes cast on these measures will bolster Blanco’s shaky assertion that she supports reform policy that looks towards the good of the entire state, not just aiding the interests of a few.
HB 685 certainly deserves it, mandating the use of ethanol in gasoline in as little as a few months which very likely would drive up considerably the price of a gallon of gas and have environmental ramifications while assisting only some agricultural producers; after initially saying she’d sign it, Blanco has wavered and needs to reverse that earlier pledge. Another which may deserve it is HB 909 which has its good points in reforming election law but has one serious error violating the spirit of the Constitution in that it redefines when a term starts and thus could add potentially four more years to the terms of otherwise term-limited, initially-elected mid-term, legislators.
Proponents argue that casting floor votes should define when a term starts, which occurs after taking the oath of office which happens at the beginning of a session, as opposed to when the necessary paperwork is filed under current law. But plenty of new, between-session, members have been active in committee meetings, which can make official recommendations to the entire chamber and meet between sessions, and members get paid for these and their regular salaries the moment they are certified.
Blanco will have to weigh whether the beneficial parts of the bill are worth this violation of the spirit of the Constitution. Or, perhaps she could cast a veto and instruct the Legislature to initiate change concerning the existing standards about when the oath is given and the legal change to start payment only after the oath is administered.
Another pair may end up needing a veto, HB 829 and SB 89. The relatively minor changes they make are more than offset by the unfortunate consequences they would loosen on levee governance reform efforts. Amendments to them doing this slipped by apathetic and/or inattentive lawmakers. Under the guise of fairness and efficiency, they created situations that basically gut the purpose of previous legislation that sought to consolidate, not to balkanize, flood control policy.
Blanco needs to inform the Legislature for these that she intends to veto both with these provisions, giving the chambers a chance on the floor or in conference to strip the provisions, and if they don’t she needs to carry out the threat. Instead, she has wavered on SB 89’s amendment which would create a permanent Jefferson Parish majority on the new West Bank levee district’s board. This is unacceptable: the idea is to unify and govern comprehensively, not to give one constituent part control over others.
Vetoes cast on these measures will bolster Blanco’s shaky assertion that she supports reform policy that looks towards the good of the entire state, not just aiding the interests of a few.
7.6.06
Census data confirm coming GOP majority in Louisiana
While perhaps less accurate and precise than usual, U.S. Census Bureau data released today confirm educated guesswork concerning the political and social ramifications of the hurricane disasters of 2005 in Louisiana.
While actual electoral conflict has shown that Orleans Parish will remain a Democrat and black stronghold for the foreseeable future, the political map has changed on a statewide basis. As a whole, Louisiana is thought to have lost about 379,000 people by the early part of 2006 (by all anecdotal indications, that figure has drifted somewhat downwards since). However, the corresponding loss figure for the Orleans metropolitan area (Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. John the Baptist, and St. Tammany Parishes) was about 467,000 – basically, the entire 2000 population of New Orleans.
Extrapolating from data from other sources, about 173,000 of that comes from outside Orleans, leaving New Orleans’ population at 159,000. It’s probably crept up over the 200,000 mark since, but these figures confirm that not only will the state lose a congressional seat for the 2012 election cycle, unless the city makes a relatively rapid population recovery, very likely it will be a seat uniquely identified with New Orleans.
The racial breakdown of figures is even more interesting. About 279,000 fewer blacks live in the metro area, comprising about 60 percent of the fled population. In 2000, in the metro area, 66.3 percent of all blacks lived in Orleans, meaning (assuming the post-disaster proportions are the same) New Orleans itself was short nearly 185,000 black citizens. Statewide, 226,000 fewer blacks remained, a reduction of over 17 percent. At typical registration figures, this translates into a loss of 67,000 votes for statewide Democrat candidates.
Assuming potentially that people of other races net out between Democrats and Republicans, it’s clear that the Democrat statewide advantage, eroding slowly but surely for decades, likely now is gone. Subtract this many Democrat votes and the state’s senior senator becomes Suzanne Terrell, its governor becomes Bobby Jindal, Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu barely scrapes into office, and a number of other races become more competitive.
At the level of the Legislature, this suggests that New Orleans will lose half a dozen state House seats and a couple of Senate seats for the 2011 session. With almost all seats in the city now held by Democrats, expect both Senate seats to go Republican and most of the House seats likewise to wherever they get redistricted to. With term limits hitting the chambers in 2007, this makes it probable that Louisiana will join most of its southern brethren by having Republican majorities in its Legislature by then. Combined with the GOP becoming the majority party among executive office holders, these changes should have Democrats very, very worried.
While actual electoral conflict has shown that Orleans Parish will remain a Democrat and black stronghold for the foreseeable future, the political map has changed on a statewide basis. As a whole, Louisiana is thought to have lost about 379,000 people by the early part of 2006 (by all anecdotal indications, that figure has drifted somewhat downwards since). However, the corresponding loss figure for the Orleans metropolitan area (Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. John the Baptist, and St. Tammany Parishes) was about 467,000 – basically, the entire 2000 population of New Orleans.
Extrapolating from data from other sources, about 173,000 of that comes from outside Orleans, leaving New Orleans’ population at 159,000. It’s probably crept up over the 200,000 mark since, but these figures confirm that not only will the state lose a congressional seat for the 2012 election cycle, unless the city makes a relatively rapid population recovery, very likely it will be a seat uniquely identified with New Orleans.
The racial breakdown of figures is even more interesting. About 279,000 fewer blacks live in the metro area, comprising about 60 percent of the fled population. In 2000, in the metro area, 66.3 percent of all blacks lived in Orleans, meaning (assuming the post-disaster proportions are the same) New Orleans itself was short nearly 185,000 black citizens. Statewide, 226,000 fewer blacks remained, a reduction of over 17 percent. At typical registration figures, this translates into a loss of 67,000 votes for statewide Democrat candidates.
Assuming potentially that people of other races net out between Democrats and Republicans, it’s clear that the Democrat statewide advantage, eroding slowly but surely for decades, likely now is gone. Subtract this many Democrat votes and the state’s senior senator becomes Suzanne Terrell, its governor becomes Bobby Jindal, Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu barely scrapes into office, and a number of other races become more competitive.
At the level of the Legislature, this suggests that New Orleans will lose half a dozen state House seats and a couple of Senate seats for the 2011 session. With almost all seats in the city now held by Democrats, expect both Senate seats to go Republican and most of the House seats likewise to wherever they get redistricted to. With term limits hitting the chambers in 2007, this makes it probable that Louisiana will join most of its southern brethren by having Republican majorities in its Legislature by then. Combined with the GOP becoming the majority party among executive office holders, these changes should have Democrats very, very worried.
6.6.06
Flood of GOP Shreveport mayor hopefuls may doom race tactic
The floodgates have released with candidates coming out of the woodwork for Shreveport’s mayor’s job – and so has controversy in the form of race-baiting politics that tells us something about the people applying to the voters for the position.
As Shreveport, a city with a history of minimal cross-racial voting in elections, looks citywide to have white and black voter registration just about even come election day in the fall, a disturbing strategy has emerged in the mayor’s contest. Some activists, at least one identified with connections to television executive Democrat Ed Bradley’s campaign, have passed out materials condemning blacks who would even think of supporting a white candidate in the contest, and attack those who work with white politicians.
As sad as that might be, worse yet is that Bradley so far publicly has refused to condemn the specific act, although he has issued a general statement renouncing the concept of race-based electoral appeals. This not only raises the issue of hypocrisy with Bradley, as an implicit theme of his campaign is he supposedly strives for cross-racial appeal, but also that the tactic of urging a vote primarily on the basis of race will become legitimized if not a decisive factor in this contest.
Some in the community we may identify as “angry blacks” have this as their primary goal. They feel that the vast majority of the problems in the black community are attributable to whites (particularly Republicans and/or conservatives) having political power. Any black who thinks for himself and thereby chooses to support a white and/or Republican and/or conservative candidate to them is a race traitor deserving of the highest scorn.
They wish to create such an attitude as a way to exert pressure on blacks not to “break ranks” so to speak and not to support a “genuine” black candidate, because the electoral math they believe for the first time ever is on their side. That would be true – if they have such a simplistic, unrealistic worldview which imagines a world where whitey votes into office white conservatives to visit more plagues on blacks, and so blacks must defend themselves against these devils by voting as a solid bloc for black liberals who have minimal connections to white officials (while they consider black conservatives as turncoats selling out their own race).
Shamefully, Bradley seems to have given unspoken permission to go after this angry black vote – probably by way of political opportunism since his major competitor, Democrat state Rep. Cedric Glover, historically has avoided such divisive politics and last week condemned them in no uncertain terms. Rather than taking the opportunity to act as a uniter, Bradley chooses to be a divider by this tactic of convenience. However, whether this will work to bring Bradley victory is another matter.
Glover himself has been slammed publicly by the angry black cadre as being too “accommodationist” to the white devils. Understand this group’s agenda: by using racial appeals to fuse a black solidarity, they hope to push Bradley into a runoff with a white candidate, and then these same appeals so with superior numbers this will propel Bradley to victory.
However, Republicans may be doing a good job of sabotaging that strategy through their own enthusiasm over placing candidates into the contest. Already in the contest are former City Attorney Jerry Jones and city Economic Development Coordinator Arlena Acree, along with longer-shot Vernon Adams who drew 25 percent of the vote in the 2002 contest. State Sen. Max Malone may join them in about a month, on the evidence that he will hold a fundraiser soon and cannot commit that money to a Senate run given his term-limit status. There are other offices he may be contemplating, but the most logical would be that of mayor.
And now, the imminent entrance of Shreveport city spokeswoman Liz Swaine to the contest will divide the white vote even further. With three other serious candidates in the contest plus a fourth Republican, it’s possible that the conservative vote will become so fragmented that both black candidates will make the general election runoff. And Bradley can count on diminishing white support as long as he and his campaign refuse to denounce the racist materials being distributed, giving Glover a clear win in this scenario.
No matter how you look at it, Bradley’s refusal to distance himself from the material seems more and more a losing gambit. Not only does it demonstrate poor judgment on his part as a potential governor of a large urban city, but it seems to show inferior political tactics as well. Which really begs the question, is Bradley so hypocritical and naïve to believe in this strategy? And is that the kind of person Shreveport wants as mayor?
As Shreveport, a city with a history of minimal cross-racial voting in elections, looks citywide to have white and black voter registration just about even come election day in the fall, a disturbing strategy has emerged in the mayor’s contest. Some activists, at least one identified with connections to television executive Democrat Ed Bradley’s campaign, have passed out materials condemning blacks who would even think of supporting a white candidate in the contest, and attack those who work with white politicians.
As sad as that might be, worse yet is that Bradley so far publicly has refused to condemn the specific act, although he has issued a general statement renouncing the concept of race-based electoral appeals. This not only raises the issue of hypocrisy with Bradley, as an implicit theme of his campaign is he supposedly strives for cross-racial appeal, but also that the tactic of urging a vote primarily on the basis of race will become legitimized if not a decisive factor in this contest.
Some in the community we may identify as “angry blacks” have this as their primary goal. They feel that the vast majority of the problems in the black community are attributable to whites (particularly Republicans and/or conservatives) having political power. Any black who thinks for himself and thereby chooses to support a white and/or Republican and/or conservative candidate to them is a race traitor deserving of the highest scorn.
They wish to create such an attitude as a way to exert pressure on blacks not to “break ranks” so to speak and not to support a “genuine” black candidate, because the electoral math they believe for the first time ever is on their side. That would be true – if they have such a simplistic, unrealistic worldview which imagines a world where whitey votes into office white conservatives to visit more plagues on blacks, and so blacks must defend themselves against these devils by voting as a solid bloc for black liberals who have minimal connections to white officials (while they consider black conservatives as turncoats selling out their own race).
Shamefully, Bradley seems to have given unspoken permission to go after this angry black vote – probably by way of political opportunism since his major competitor, Democrat state Rep. Cedric Glover, historically has avoided such divisive politics and last week condemned them in no uncertain terms. Rather than taking the opportunity to act as a uniter, Bradley chooses to be a divider by this tactic of convenience. However, whether this will work to bring Bradley victory is another matter.
Glover himself has been slammed publicly by the angry black cadre as being too “accommodationist” to the white devils. Understand this group’s agenda: by using racial appeals to fuse a black solidarity, they hope to push Bradley into a runoff with a white candidate, and then these same appeals so with superior numbers this will propel Bradley to victory.
However, Republicans may be doing a good job of sabotaging that strategy through their own enthusiasm over placing candidates into the contest. Already in the contest are former City Attorney Jerry Jones and city Economic Development Coordinator Arlena Acree, along with longer-shot Vernon Adams who drew 25 percent of the vote in the 2002 contest. State Sen. Max Malone may join them in about a month, on the evidence that he will hold a fundraiser soon and cannot commit that money to a Senate run given his term-limit status. There are other offices he may be contemplating, but the most logical would be that of mayor.
And now, the imminent entrance of Shreveport city spokeswoman Liz Swaine to the contest will divide the white vote even further. With three other serious candidates in the contest plus a fourth Republican, it’s possible that the conservative vote will become so fragmented that both black candidates will make the general election runoff. And Bradley can count on diminishing white support as long as he and his campaign refuse to denounce the racist materials being distributed, giving Glover a clear win in this scenario.
No matter how you look at it, Bradley’s refusal to distance himself from the material seems more and more a losing gambit. Not only does it demonstrate poor judgment on his part as a potential governor of a large urban city, but it seems to show inferior political tactics as well. Which really begs the question, is Bradley so hypocritical and naïve to believe in this strategy? And is that the kind of person Shreveport wants as mayor?
5.6.06
Blanco takes tiny step toward fiscal reform; big ones needed
All right, Gov. Kathleen Blanco won the first round when she got bills passed to consolidate Orleans Parish assessors from seven into one this morning. The matter is not quite home free yet because, given past behavior and rhetoric given the number of Democrat House members from Orleans as well as the number of other Legislative Black Caucus members, if they contest it about 20 votes already are against it in the House and 35 will stop it since it is a constitutional amendment. But its odds for passage now are pretty good as there’s not a tremendous amount of sympathy for this arrangement outside of Orleans.
Her next battle came this afternoon on the Senate floor concerning court consolidation in Orelans. This bill, SB 645, is the lite version of the efforts to consolidate all judicial operations in Orleans as represented by HB 514. It passed the House but remains hung up in the Senate, so the strategy has been to go for the less comprehensive solution.
Blanco put in a personal appearance in front of the House Ways and Means Committee to stump for the bill and it paid off. Some supporters bothered not to appear or fled the room when the vote happened. She couldn’t do that in the Senate (she did do it for HB 514 when it was in committee) but it was imperative that the bill get dealt with in very short order. Since it still is in the Senate, unless there’s a reach and it’s declared a duplicate of HB 514 with the latter then getting amended to match SB 645, it pretty much had to move and has to keep moving for it to beat the Jun. 19 session close.
In addition, complicating the task was an amendment tacked onto the bill in committee which would entail Orleanians approving the measure which may weaken the chances of the bill to be enacted; no other precedent exists for such a vote legislatively. (Judges for the courts insist this is necessary to adhere to the Constitution, but whether consolidation should be interpreted as a “merge” is another matter.)
As it was, it passed 29-7, no doubt through a lot of arm-twisting behind the scenes by Blanco, given the amount of and intensity of the floor debate. So, Blanco finally seems to be serious about these efficiency measures. That’s great, but savings from these pale in comparison to what could be done elsewhere in HB 1, the operating budget for which she has shown little enthusiasm. We keep hearing about how, backing out recovery funds from the federal government, it represents hardly a change over the past year. But what doesn’t get mentioned is the state’s population is down probably 8 percent (the best estimates at this point are here) so on a per capita basis spending may be up by as much as 10 percent.
Everybody’s got to start somewhere so maybe we can hope Blanco finally is starting to get it. Maybe taming Orleans Parish spending inefficiencies will lead to doing it statewide in 2007, goaded by it being an election year.
Her next battle came this afternoon on the Senate floor concerning court consolidation in Orelans. This bill, SB 645, is the lite version of the efforts to consolidate all judicial operations in Orleans as represented by HB 514. It passed the House but remains hung up in the Senate, so the strategy has been to go for the less comprehensive solution.
Blanco put in a personal appearance in front of the House Ways and Means Committee to stump for the bill and it paid off. Some supporters bothered not to appear or fled the room when the vote happened. She couldn’t do that in the Senate (she did do it for HB 514 when it was in committee) but it was imperative that the bill get dealt with in very short order. Since it still is in the Senate, unless there’s a reach and it’s declared a duplicate of HB 514 with the latter then getting amended to match SB 645, it pretty much had to move and has to keep moving for it to beat the Jun. 19 session close.
In addition, complicating the task was an amendment tacked onto the bill in committee which would entail Orleanians approving the measure which may weaken the chances of the bill to be enacted; no other precedent exists for such a vote legislatively. (Judges for the courts insist this is necessary to adhere to the Constitution, but whether consolidation should be interpreted as a “merge” is another matter.)
As it was, it passed 29-7, no doubt through a lot of arm-twisting behind the scenes by Blanco, given the amount of and intensity of the floor debate. So, Blanco finally seems to be serious about these efficiency measures. That’s great, but savings from these pale in comparison to what could be done elsewhere in HB 1, the operating budget for which she has shown little enthusiasm. We keep hearing about how, backing out recovery funds from the federal government, it represents hardly a change over the past year. But what doesn’t get mentioned is the state’s population is down probably 8 percent (the best estimates at this point are here) so on a per capita basis spending may be up by as much as 10 percent.
Everybody’s got to start somewhere so maybe we can hope Blanco finally is starting to get it. Maybe taming Orleans Parish spending inefficiencies will lead to doing it statewide in 2007, goaded by it being an election year.
4.6.06
Will Blanco's finally campaigning for consolidation work?
It’s about time that Gov. Kathleen Blanco started supporting common sense measures that save the state money rather than costing it, she is signaling with apparent efforts to help consolidate Orleans Parish assessors from seven into one.
Until now she’s done practically nothing to streamline the inefficient, if not duplicative, separate judicial and assessment systems in New Orleans, preferring in the past, for example, to throw her weight behind measures such as those that unnecessarily went way beyond the law or Constitution regarding electoral participation in the city elections the previous two months. Aided and abetted by Secretary of State Al Ater and with Legislative approval, they got the state to waste $6 million extra on these contests and only attracted about 20,000 extra voters above and beyond what normally would have occurred (about 8,000 in the primary, 12,000 in the general election) – that’s $300 per voter as opposed to the normal $10 a ballot.
But presently she indicates she actually may fight for HB 642 which would put a constitutional amendment before voters (because the seven assessor-structure is in the Constitution) to make Orleans like every other parish in the state in having just one assessor – just like in the parishes of East Baton Rouge and Jefferson with higher current populations than Orleans. This is in stark contrast to the special session in 2006 where she did nothing to back an identical bill – and it died in committee 8-6.
However, in that action Feb. 10, several members of the House Ways and Means Committee (all but one are Democrats) were absent. The eight voting in favor of deferring the bill were all the six members from New Orleans, another black legislator, and Bossier City-area legislator Billy Montgomery. Further, the two other black members of the committee would be expected to lean against the bill, since the issue is seen by legislative blacks (although not admitted in public) as one of taking away patronage powers.
This means Blanco must peel away at least one member of this putative majority – likely Montgomery – and make sure all the other white members of the committee show up and vote to pass the bill through. Holding some capital outlay request items hostage isn’t a bad idea to do that – a stroll through the capital outlay bill HB 2 shows, for example, several items, generally non-critical, directly benefiting Montgomery’s district that could get a line item veto without too much trouble for her but a lot for him especially if he plans on running next year for the state Senate.
There’s absolutely no justification for the separate set-up in Orleans regarding assessment. With a system like every other parish’s, money will be saved and probably more accurate assessments made, among other advantages. Best of all, it will give the voters the chance to make this decision – both statewide and in Orleans Parish (because five or fewer parishes are directly affected by the amendment, it must get both a majority both statewide and among Orleans voters). Why should any elected official fear putting this kind of decision about government structure into the hands of the people?
Hopefully, Blanco’s new-found enthusiasm for smaller government, even if (and likely) temporary, will spill over into successful efforts for committee approval and subsequent passage of HB 642 (and its legislative enacting companion HB 656).
Until now she’s done practically nothing to streamline the inefficient, if not duplicative, separate judicial and assessment systems in New Orleans, preferring in the past, for example, to throw her weight behind measures such as those that unnecessarily went way beyond the law or Constitution regarding electoral participation in the city elections the previous two months. Aided and abetted by Secretary of State Al Ater and with Legislative approval, they got the state to waste $6 million extra on these contests and only attracted about 20,000 extra voters above and beyond what normally would have occurred (about 8,000 in the primary, 12,000 in the general election) – that’s $300 per voter as opposed to the normal $10 a ballot.
But presently she indicates she actually may fight for HB 642 which would put a constitutional amendment before voters (because the seven assessor-structure is in the Constitution) to make Orleans like every other parish in the state in having just one assessor – just like in the parishes of East Baton Rouge and Jefferson with higher current populations than Orleans. This is in stark contrast to the special session in 2006 where she did nothing to back an identical bill – and it died in committee 8-6.
However, in that action Feb. 10, several members of the House Ways and Means Committee (all but one are Democrats) were absent. The eight voting in favor of deferring the bill were all the six members from New Orleans, another black legislator, and Bossier City-area legislator Billy Montgomery. Further, the two other black members of the committee would be expected to lean against the bill, since the issue is seen by legislative blacks (although not admitted in public) as one of taking away patronage powers.
This means Blanco must peel away at least one member of this putative majority – likely Montgomery – and make sure all the other white members of the committee show up and vote to pass the bill through. Holding some capital outlay request items hostage isn’t a bad idea to do that – a stroll through the capital outlay bill HB 2 shows, for example, several items, generally non-critical, directly benefiting Montgomery’s district that could get a line item veto without too much trouble for her but a lot for him especially if he plans on running next year for the state Senate.
There’s absolutely no justification for the separate set-up in Orleans regarding assessment. With a system like every other parish’s, money will be saved and probably more accurate assessments made, among other advantages. Best of all, it will give the voters the chance to make this decision – both statewide and in Orleans Parish (because five or fewer parishes are directly affected by the amendment, it must get both a majority both statewide and among Orleans voters). Why should any elected official fear putting this kind of decision about government structure into the hands of the people?
Hopefully, Blanco’s new-found enthusiasm for smaller government, even if (and likely) temporary, will spill over into successful efforts for committee approval and subsequent passage of HB 642 (and its legislative enacting companion HB 656).
1.6.06
Fair bill for cable providers, consumers irks local government
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)