Public & "new media" score win over shamed politicians

Gov. Kathleen Blanco took my advice and vetoed the legislatively self-serving HB 1028. (Of course, that was the advice of hundreds, if not thousands, of others so maybe I had a little help.) Its demise tells us interesting things about Blanco, the Legislature, Democrats, the media, and public opinion in Louisiana.

As longtime readers know, I like to start my postings as an extension of a news item, in the form of a news story or press release. These readers also know that during sessions of the Legislature I compile the Louisiana Legislature Log where, among other things, I identify “good” and “bad” bills to track.

I tagged HB 1028 and its even worse companion SB 513 long ago as bad bills to track, hoping as with all in that category that they never saw the light of day. Apparently, I was the only one (that I know of) who bothered to even mention them in a published forum. I was wanting to write about them and kept waiting for a news article about them to show up, and waiting, and waiting …

Meanwhile, the things slowly moved through the legislative process. Contrary to the statements of a large number of red-faced legislators now claiming HB 1028 was a last minute surprise, they knew well in advance of the 6/18 and 6/19 votes what it was all about; lead opponent state Rep. Mike Powell said he discussed the bills with a number of his colleagues days before then, telling them in no uncertain terms what they meant.

However, the media black hole continued – until just a couple of days to go before the session’s end, when something about it finally popped up. But not in the mainstream media; rather, at C.B. Forgotston’s site. (Talk radio, however, was onto it a few days prior.)

Only after the session actually ended did the mainstream media kick in – not with stories about the bill, but in the reactions to it. (Or as one put it, “after ultra-conservative Internet bloggers began attacking the bill ….”). Both legislators and the governor’s office seemed a bit taken aback, then impressed, by the amount of grass-roots opposition to the bill, and Blanco with impressive speed vetoed it.

What have we learned?

Had it not been for nontraditional media, likely Blanco would have quietly signed it into law a few days from now. But blogs and, more importantly, talk radio pounded away at the bill, easily showing its bankruptcy. These channels reached the public and it infuriated many.

Blanco really is nervous, given her microscopic approval ratings, about her reelection chances. To rephrase, does anybody seriously think she would have vetoed this without all the negative public reaction? Bills of these types are cleared through the governor’s office prior to their introduction because they involve new spending; otherwise, they don’t get introduced, or never get a hearing or, if they do get one, are shot down quickly. She never had an objection to it until the very end.

And it’s not only Blanco who’s worried. Almost every Democrat in the Legislature voted for the bill, yet in a matter of 48 hours their statewide leader joined GOP legislators in calling for a veto. They’re liable to break their necks changing directions so suddenly like that.

Most legislators thought they could slip this one by (either that, or we must take them at their word that they aren’t very good at doing their jobs through inattentiveness) the public as “compensation” for being so ungratefully tossed out by the public through term limits. The era of hiding significant benefits to politicians may be drawing to a close.

If it’s the mainstream media’s job to inform the public about significant issues at the statehouse, they surely missed the boat on this one. That media can take no credit for public response; instead, the new media demonstrated themselves to be a powerful force, one that could mobilize the public again.

Yet that leaves one final question: is the effect lasting, or is this just a temporary setback for the good-old-boy attitudes haunting Louisiana? I guess you’ll find out here first – or from some other new media sources.

Montgomery, Bossier City count on spinning the citizenry

In another forum, an article I published similar to a previous posting here about the disappointing, to conservatives, recent voting record of state Rep. Billy Montgomery drew a response from Bossier Parish’s Assessor Bobby Edmiston. Edmiston stated his full support for Montgomery and questioned whether the legislator was as liberal as the column had made him out to be.

But the Republican and elected party leader Edmiston (whose campaign was given $500 by Montgomery’s and whose wife contributed to Montgomery’s last year) offered little coherent defense for the Democrat Montgomery’s non-conservative votes or lack of appearance at other important ones that went against the Republican/conservative agenda. His only assertion that Montgomery votes conservatively used Montgomery’s affirmative vote – like almost all of his House colleagues – on the abortion-restricting SB 33 this session. Using this logic, no doubt Edmiston then would agree that Pres. Ronald Reagan was a flaming liberal, since the 40th president just once pushed for a tax increase while in office.

Even if Edmiston is willing to excuse Montgomery for his missing recent crucial votes that mattered to conservatives where Montgomery could have made the difference (that’s the issue, not the argument Edmiston tries to put into my keyboard that he’s “not fulfilling his duties as a legislator”), it’s also indicative that Edmiston seems starry-eyed at Montgomery, supporting him “because he is ‘Coach.’” If Edmiston calls himself a conservative and actually does some research into what the people he supports do in elective office, he could not miss, as I pointed out in the column in question, that Montgomery had the second-most liberal/populist voting record in the 2005 Legislature. (Readers may investigate these telling votes here.)

It explains why Montgomery, despite being desperately out of touch ideologically with his district, continued to get reelected – voters like Edmiston who care more that Montgomery is one of “them” than whether his votes actually in the aggregate comport to his constituents’ desires or individually to their own ideology – if they even know his record. It’s this lack of insight and reflection, a staple of the good-old-boy, populist politics of the past that Montgomery is counting on in any future political aspirations.

He has every reason to expect success in this regard – many of the current crop of Bossier City elected officials managed to do the same in their 2005 reelection bids. One key issue so-called “conservatives” on the city council and mayor’s office managed to keep from experiencing electoral repercussions about was the $21 million gift parking garage to Louisiana Boardwalk developers who could have built it on their own. Proceeds from Bossier City’s investing this money could have forestalled a recent fee increase suffered by Bossier City property owners, or it might have been spent to speed along road improvements and extensions.

Cognizant of this increasing image problem, Bossier City has embarked on a public relations quest to try to put lipstick on this pig. Around the anniversary of the opening of the Boardwalk, the city trumpeted data that, according to them, showed the parking garage gift was “paying off” itself quickly; in fact, the city has at least one administrator meeting with groups to spin this story.

But to anyone who cares to critically think, that whole argument is revealed as a sham. In trying to understand the actual input the Boardwalk makes to Bossier City recurring finances, we must parse out the one-time and/or unrelated revenues – and this assumes the garage was crucial to the project’s presence which is unlikely. In short, we must find out what contribution the unique visitors – those who spent money at the Boardwalk who otherwise without it would not have spent money in Bossier City (or in the area to create jobs for Bossierites) – made in terms of recurring revenues.

That means none of the one-time reimbursements from private and public sources count. Thus, just sales tax and property tax revenue increases matter. The latter we can dismiss because (something else the city doesn’t publicize) is the extra recurring costs of the property – policing and the like. Let’s say (lowballing) they equal the $200,000 annual property tax gain.

Also note that only 30 percent of visitors are from out of the area (that is, 70 percent probably would have spent their money elsewhere in the area). Probably almost all of the visitors would have spent their money in the area anyway, too; only a small portion likely came to the Boardwalk just because it was there. And we cannot forget that, historical data show, half of revenues are generated by Bass Pro Shops which has its own parking area.

But let’s be absurdly generous and say all 30 percent came just for the Boardwalk. At roughly one-half $1.8 million a year increased sales tax revenues times 30 percent, that means (not including interest) it will take (again, using very generous assumptions) almost 78 years for the Boardwalk to “pay” for the garage. Including interest earned, at current rates it never will: note that the unique revenues are about one-quarter the size of the interest that would have been earned if the money simply had been invested.

Montgomery, himself a veteran taxer-and-spender, probably thinks that if the Bossier City public bought the garage scheme, then at least the half of the Senate 37 district that is Bossier City will buy his candidacy. But we peasants yet might surprise him and the ancient regime that has ruled these parts for so long.

Powell provides legislative heroism in 2006 session

A number of disappointing events routinely occur doing a legislative session (here’s a good list of them), but from this milieu legislative heroes emerge. Perhaps the 2006 session’s most prominent example is state Rep. Mike Powell.

Yesterday, even though a majority of their members voted for the bill, Legislative Republicans now have formally requested that Gov. Kathleen Blanco veto HB 1028. The bill gives legislators of certain length of service, part-timers, a full-time employee group benefit, a minimum of 75 percent of premiums paid for by Louisiana taxpayers.

As noted yesterday, there’s no logic or rationale to justify this perk. Despite defending it as late as yesterday morning, Republican leaders now claim the bill was “hastily” considered and formally request that Blanco veto the bill (basically admitting they don’t read and/or understand the bills they handle, which is what they get paid for). But Powell was on this during the House debate, sounding the alarm. However, only a minority of his GOP colleagues followed his lead with their votes, while almost all Democrats there supported this self-serving measure.

Self-serving bill could have been worse; will Blanco veto?

As bad as the self-serving legislation passed in the waning moments of the 2006 regular session of the Louisiana Legislature was, it could have been worse, and might still be repaired.

SB 513 would have allowed any legislator (and appointed officials with a number of years of service) serving from 1995 for ten years to have access to state group insurance, even as they are part-time employees of the state, at the preferential rates paid by full-time state employees (75 percent subsidized, and that’s the rate for employees with 20 years or more). But it foundered after the Senate rejected simple House amendments and didn’t even get a conference report.

It would have appeared to be a victory for the citizenry, because it prevents part-timers from getting a benefit that should be reserved for full-time employees and having taxpayers foot the bill. Recall that legislators expressly are designated as part-time because the authors of the 1973 Constitution felt legislators should be drawn from the ranks of the citizenry, that they should have to exist primarily in the real world to gain a better understanding of the typical, unelected citizen’s needs and desires. In doing so, they could self-insure or utilize their or their spouse’s employers’ insurance. The appointees added by the bill are the same. It is excessive to permit a full-time benefit to part-time employees.

There are those that argue improving benefits would improve the quality of lawmakers by attracting higher-quality lawmakers to office. This is a curious form of self-deprecation: legislators who claim this imply they aren’t quite as good as the state deserves and that if this standard was in place those who follow would be better. Simultaneously, it is infused with hubris, disdainfully considering that there are plenty of individuals as capable as they – if not moreso – who would serve without any desire for such benefits because they feel it is their civic duty to forgo personal rewards.

It also reeks of hypocrisy: why should legislators vote to give cheap health care to themselves at taxpayer expense when the state can’t even fully fund waiver slots for the disabled, it refuses to restructure the health care system that would save nearly $100 million a year, and, just this session, with no dissenting votes whatsoever, passed into law SB 613 which would enshrine into law a Medicaid reimbursement formula that inefficiently spends state health care dollars.

So it was a big win for the state? No, the victory was illusory, because they got just as good of a deal for legislators on this account in HB 1028 which did pass (only cutting out the state appointed officials). Notice that legislators were so concerned about this getting through that, up until the final minute when they knew HB 1028 was going through, SB 513 was kept alive as a safety valve (and senators may try to use their vote to reject the SB 513 report as political cover). HB 1028 also was more limited in that it did not include the state appointed officials, and recent very negative publicity about this concept probably made legislators shy away from an even worse bill.

Once again, Gov. Kathleen Blanco has been presented an opportunity to display some reform credentials with the passage of this absurd legislation. Relatively speaking, it’s not a lot of money, but it’s the arrogance displayed (mainly driven by the fact of term limits with too many legislators feeling they need to grab as much out of the system as possible before being forced out). Not having much to hang her hat on this regard, if she wants to burnish these credentials and do the right thing, a veto by her of HB 1028 is in order.

Ethanol bill's final form creates consumer worries

Well, the pendulum swung a bit farther the other way on SB 454 than my previous post had hoped, and Louisiana consumers potentially are the losers for it, if the House of Representatives and Gov. Kathleen Blanco as expected accept conference committee recommendations.

SB 454’s conference fate didn’t get a boost when the House picked another good old boy, state Rep. Jim Fannin who favors agriculture interests, and an advocate of the ridiculous notion that Louisiana needs a law to prevent gasoline retailers from selling below cost, state Rep. William Daniel IV, to the conference committee (in addition to the other mentioned in the previous post). Consumers suffered when these guys and the others assented to a conference report allowing a representative of the Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation on the three-member panel that determines whether consumers would have to fork over more for gasoline sold in the state, replacing the Revenue Secretary.

That politician still has some input, selecting the third member of the panel, the other being a representative of gasoline retailers, from agriculture economists available from major state university systems. But as we know the retailer representative will be (properly) biased in favor of consumers, surely the agriculture representative will be biased in favor of the special interests he represents. The tie will be broken by the choice of the Revenue Secretary’s, an official appointed by the governor.

This official does have incentive to favor the consumer and pick an economist accordingly, because higher prices at the pump caused by higher ethanol prices would result in fewer gallons sold, and thus fewer tax revenues collected. However, the choice of who is this official that appoints the economist lies in the hand of the governor, and she may wish to put a person friendly to agricultural and environmental interests in that position.

It’s hard to say in which direction the current occupant, Cynthia Bridges, would go. But one can envision scenarios in 2007 that could put a governor in office who clearly would be hostile to consumer interests on this matter, and would appoint somebody of like mind. The conference report gives only broad guidelines in terms of determining when ethanol’s price becomes equivalent to that of pure gasoline, so this selection could be crucial.

While the final form of SB 454 does not unambiguously harm consumer interests, neither does it solidly protect them. Government always behaves more mischievously than less, and so Louisianans will have to maximize their protection on this account by electing governors who understand that the government that governs least governs best, and wishes to minimize intrusion into the peoples’ economic affairs.

Blanco bests Odom, but will consumers also win?

Finally, it seems the balance of “who pays and who benefits” is swinging into the favor of Louisiana consumers, when it comes to the aftermath of Act 313 of this legislative session. The act would commit the state’s gas distributors to make sure that at least two percent of their product is in ethanol when its production rises above 50 million gallons a year, no later than six months after.

As previously noted, existing Legislative attempts left considerable doubt whether measures could be taken that would prevent higher prices at the pump because the cost of making the ethanol vastly exceeds now and for the foreseeable future will exceed that of gasoline processing, as well as it would potentially cause environmental hazards. Even legalities that on the surface would prevent the price spike upon implementation of Act 313 were uncertain because of the large role Agriculture Secretary Bob Odom would have played in it all.

Odom fought moves to put into place a legal mechanism that would diminish his authority to declare Act 313’s provisions to be triggered, no doubt with an eye on transferring wealth from consumers to a few agriculture interests as soon as he legally could. However, a surprise consumer hero emerged to cut out Odom, state Sen. Noble Ellington whose past record tends to favor big government and special interests. He got the Department of Agriculture’s influence entirely removed, and even that of farm lobbies.

Legislature takes credit but does nothing for consumers

A half a loaf usually is better than none at all, but whether Louisiana consumers got half a loaf is debatable in the Legislature’s machination regarding SB 474 to ameliorate the negative effects of HB 685.

HB 685, now Act 313 of the 2006 Regular Session, would commit the state’s gas distributors to make sure that at least two percent of their product is in ethanol when its production rises above 50 million gallons a year, no later than six months after. The problem is the cost of making the ethanol vastly exceeds now and for the foreseeable future will exceed that of gasoline processing, as well potentially cause environmental hazards.

A sweetheart deal between Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Agriculture Sec. Bob Odom said Odom, in charge of most aspects of the new law, would not implement it unless the price of ethanol production roughly was equivalent to that of pure gasoline. But this gave Odom so much discretion in an unenforceable way that it did little to assuage consumers’ fears.

So, in an amendment attached to HB 454, the Legislature attempted to put into statute a requirement that the new law would go into effect only after the price of ethanol was no more than 10 cents a gallon more expensive over pure gasoline over a 90-day average, even if after the 50 million gallon standard had been reached. The state Senate still must agree to the change, rather strayed from the bill’s original intent, but no doubt Blanco would sign it.

As previously noted, the arrangement between Blanco and Odom could work out well politically for both. Blanco appears to have done something meaningful to please consumers, even if it isn’t, and threw a bone to agricultural and environmental interests, while Odom gets more regulatory power than ever, helps out his friends, and no doubt will find a way to declare ethanol prices meet the proposed standards as quickly as possible, even if they do not. The Legislature now joins this credit-taking parade by arguing it gave force to a measure to save consumers money.

However, its effort hardly carries more substance than the handshake agreement. It doesn’t restrict Odom’s discretion in the matter; a serious attempt to protect consumers would have specified legally in great detail how the determination of the price band would occur.

If the Legislature really had meant business, if it really wanted to do something substantive rather than symbolic, it would have repealed Act 313. But I guess that’s too much to ask if you want to please a few special interests and fool the rest of the public. Once again, it’s Louisianans that suffer at the hands of the state’s government.

Montgomery alienates conservatives with recent vote record

Current state Rep. Billy Montgomery has all but shouted from the rooftops that he wants to run for state Senate District 37 in 2007, given his term-limited status of his current position (as is the current Sen. Max Malone). Speculation is that Montgomery would switch registration to the Republican Party in pursuit of the position.

Yet if that’s Montgomery’s intent, or even if he doesn’t do that but wants to appear more conservative to voters in that, perhaps in the entire state, most conservative district, he is picking a questionable strategy in regards to his committee votes. In the last seven months, on pieces of legislation both symbolic and substantive, he has cast votes that either will anger conservatives, or has avoided them altogether that allowed legislation objectionable to conservatives to go forward. Some examples:

In the 2005 First Extraordinary Session, with Montgomery’s help HB 59, which allowed some people without positive identification to vote in upcoming elections, squeaked out of the House and Governmental Affairs Committee 5-4.

Later, during floor debate Montgomery argued a vote for the bill in committee did not mean being in favor of fraud, he opposed an amendment that passed that further tightened ballot security, but then helped the defeat the bill.

A short while later, his was the decisive vote in House and Governmental Affairs for HB 14 which would have set up the wasteful satellite voting centers.

A couple of days later on the floor, Montgomery wobbled back, offering an amendment to HB 14 which effectively did what he had opposed three months earlier, which passed even as the bill foundered.

A day later, its companion SB 22 hit the committee and got out on a party-line vote of Democrats 5-4 – except for the absent Montgomery. That was the one that made it into law; Montgomery could have stopped it there by being present with a “no” vote.

This session, HB 641 extended and expanded satellite voting provisions. It passed the committee 5-4, with Montgomery absent; again, Montgomery could have stopped it by being present with a “no” vote.
HB 428 would have amended to constitution to provide term-limits to all state executive elected officials. Montgomery sided with opponents 5-5 to stop it.

He also cast the crucial committee vote for HB 927 which would have Louisiana potentially commit to supporting in the Electoral College the national popular vote winner rather than the selection of the people of Louisiana.

Even when Montgomery got it right he managed to fudge. On HB 562 this session, which would give the people a veto power of legislators’ salary increases, he moved in committee for its adoption, but expressed reservations about whether it would be better as a statute rather than in its proposed form of a constitutional amendment (and he voted for it obviously, even as it failed). However, that would gut the entire purpose of the bill; legislators already increase their salaries by majorities, so it would be no trouble for them at all first to repeal the law and then vote the increase which could still bypass the people.

In most of these instances he joined a majority of, if not achieving unanimous support of, all Democrats in his vote (which is reflected in his being tied for second-most liberal/populist member of the House in 2005 according to the Louisiana Legislature Log). That partisanship also will not endear conservative voters in that district, and would make it seem any party conversion more one of convenience that a genuine expression of his issue preferences and political philosophy.

Blanco and/or Odom win on ethanol bill, Louisiana loses

When understanding why Gov. Kathleen Blanco does what she does in office, never forget that the need to accumulate power tops her list of motivations. She needs it to help her favored constituencies, and if she’s got some extra she might actually use it to benefit the state as a whole, but it all starts with power acquisition.

This helps to explain why she signed HB 685 and the way in which she did it. This bill mandates that state gasoline retailers, after a certain point, have two percent of their sales comprised on ethanol. Presently, this guarantees a price increase to Louisiana consumers.

Benefits from this bill politically for her could be less reliance on imported oil, maybe better environmental conditions through fewer hydrocarbon emissions, a bounty to agriculture producers and, just maybe in time for the 2007 elections, lower gas prices. This increases her standing among environmentalists, agricultural interests, and maybe even consumers.

But, as we know the lower prices are unlikely to occur within the next year, if ever, a price tag to the bill that would overwhelm any benefits in the minds of most voters. So, Blanco had to find a make it appear that she would be responsible for any benefits that come from the bill, but not for the costs.

The perfect opportunity presented itself with “making” Agriculture Secretary Bob Odom sign an unenforceable pledge that will have no effect on the law’s working that the law will not go into effect unless the price of gasoline with ethanol falls below that of pure gasoline. This gives Odom free reign to issue regulations governing a wide range of aspects concerning implementation of the law. But it also gives Blanco a chance, if as probable the ethanol-blend price remains above that of pure gasoline for the foreseeable future, to wash her hands of the consequences and shift any blame publicly to Odom.

Like Blanco, Odom also thinks primarily in power acquisition. This regime gives him more power but with the risk that he could be perceived as the one to blame if prices go up. They will, but Odom also is smart enough of a politician to be able to find a way to finesse the situation to his advantage, which is to subsidize agricultural interests that maintain him in office while not becoming enough of a lightning rod for consumer anger. In the way he’ll get the regulations written, he’ll find a way to implement the law by claiming prices are lower yet the objective, valid situation will be they are actually higher.

Blanco may end up making her political opponent Odom look bad, one reason why she made this deal. However, Odom may avoid that and could turn the tables on her by succeeding with it and increasing his power relative to hers, a reason for him to accept the deal. Most likely both could win, with Blanco taking all sorts of credit while Odom fools enough people on the pricing issue to aid his favored constituency, even as their power struggle continues without either gaining significant advantage on this issue over the other.

If that ends up the case, there’s another thing we can’t forget about politics in general – there are winners and losers in political conflict. If Blanco and Odom win that means, as so often has happened under the tutelage of these political hacks, Louisianans lose.

State rosy budget picture masks long-term problems

As the progress of both the state’s operating and capital budgets shows, the good news about financial bonuses coming through this spring is a fiscal crisis from the hurricane disasters of 2005 has been averted, for now. The bad news is this merely papers over the structural problems inherent to Louisiana’s spending habits.

The conditions have allowed a lot of goodies to be tossed into the operating budget. But as state Rep. Jim Tucker astutely observes, these take all the impetus out of breaking the state of its inefficient spending habits often geared more towards satisfying special interests rather than fulfilling the needs of the entire state, in terms of the widest range of individuals specifically benefiting and that is gets done at lowest cost to the taxpayer.

A case in point is the state’s incredible over-reliance on long-term care in institutions rather than in the community. A restructuring of the system towards the opposite a couple of years ago was calculated to save nearly $100 million, and would provide better targeted, more appropriate care.

Instead, last year Gov. Kathleen Blanco briefly broached the matter then abandoned it, and nary a peep has come out this year about it. In fact, the state continues to move in the direction of inefficiency; SB 613 by state Sen. Sherri Smith Cheek which essentially would take the wasteful existing reimbursement formula for nursing homes for long-term care and institutionalize it into law inexorably is making its way into law without drawing a single vote in opposition to this point.

Nursing home operators claim doing so would bring more financial predictability to their operations, making it easier to obtain private sector financing. But I’m sure any business sector (especially one which gets 85 percent of its revenues from the state to the tune of about $800 million) would love such guarantees rather than have to compete in the marketplace against more efficient alternatives, yet the state doesn’t oblige them. This bill serves only as a shield to better protect this industry, at the expense of the taxpayer.

Situations like this riddle the budget, and bring back memories of a decade ago when the Republican Congress set about slashing taxes and the rate of growth of government spending through welfare reform and other measures (over vetoes of Pres. Bill Clinton) that produced an economic boom in Louisiana and elsewhere. But instead of taking advantage of the situation to slim down without pain, then-Republican Gov. Mike Foster and a compliant Democrat Legislature changed things little so a few years later budget problems returned and the structural problem of inefficient spending and misplaced priorities, which if solved would prevent these reoccurrences, continued.

Blanco and her Democrat leaders in the Legislature are following the same path; the same mistakes being repeated again. Will it take Republicans residing in the Governor’s Mansion and controlling the Legislature after 2007 to change this?