Voters sent state politicians conflicting messages Saturday by Baton Rougeans sending a political newcomer to the state Senate over a veteran Louisiana House member, while denizens of the U.S. Second District reelected a legally embattled U.S. House member – but the signal was all clear to Democrats: bad.
Despite being the subject of an ongoing corruption investigation, Rep. William Jefferson was reelected to Congress. No doubt the two major factors of this was the peculiar Orleans-area insistence on thumbing its nose at the rest of the country, in this case manifested by many black voters believing Jefferson was being set up for posing too much of a challenge to “the man” (whoever or whatever that is) and “retaliating” by pressing the button for him, and by others who were supporters of unsuccessful opponents of Jefferson who, frankly, wanted a damaged incumbent in office in case he is indicted and resigns, creating another chance for their favorite to get in that office.
But the gesticulation of defiance also ended up giving the sanctimonious national Democrats a black eye. Jefferson is perhaps the most visible of the many ethical problems congressional Democrats have, reminding an electorate temporarily distracted from this fact long enough to vote in sufficient numbers for enough Democrat candidates last month. Jefferson’s reelection exposes the sham status of the national Democrats, and will embarrass them with a likely indictment and lengthy trial all the way through the 2008 elections.
So, the apparently unethical Democrat gets reelected, but a clean GOP incumbent met with defeat by another Republican. State Rep. William Daniel IV lost heavily to physician Bill Cassidy in the latter’s first run for office, for Senate District 16. On the issues, the candidates didn’t differ much, so the main factor in Daniel’s defeat here had to be his violation in spirit of term limits.
Daniel is preparing to conclude his third term in the state House. But the three-consecutive term limit in the state Constitution applies just to a lawmaker’s present chamber. In anticipation of a future political career, Daniel switched from Democrat to Republican last year, got an early break when past occupant of the seat Jay Dardenne was elected as Secretary of State in this year’s special election, and ran for it.
But so did Cassidy and, again, while it was perfectly legal for Daniel to run for the Senate, apparently a good portion of voters must have held it against his desire to stay in the Legislature more than 12 years. As long as this sentiment is not particular to that portion of Baton Rouge comprising the district, this could be a sign of big trouble to other term-limited legislators who are thinking of a similar switch.
And being that term-limited Democrats outnumber Republicans 40-24, it’s likely that of those others who try to extend their careers they disproportionately will be Democrats so this trend could hurt the state party fortunes as well the damage being done to the national party’s image by Jefferson’s triumph.
7.12.06
Can Jefferson use dynamics, like Nagin, to win reelection?
Voters in Louisiana’s Second District will hit the polls Saturday as one of the two last U.S. House races to be decided this election cycle. It may also be the next House race contested in the country as well, for incumbent Rep. William Jefferson stands a good chance of winning it.
Even as Jefferson led the field in the primary, his underwhelming total of about three-tenths of the electorate reflected poorly on an incumbent, but understandably given his being in the crosshairs of a corruption investigation. While some of his supporters make ridiculous excuses for him, and while he promises to explain all after the election, the fact remains about $90,000 in marked bills related to a sting operation was found in Jefferson’s residence, after a government witness testified Jefferson accepted that marked money as a bribe.
In these political corruption cases, authorities walk a fine line in deciding whether to return an indictment prior to an election involving a targeted official knowing an indictment almost certainly would mean that politician’s defeat. In this case, if it’s coming, they decided the will of the people in determining his fitness for office given the information already released would suffice. Also complicating the fact is the government may be waiting on the resolution of certain constitutional questions before it indicts, so it know what it can do. Lack of indictment to this point does not mean suspicion against Jefferson is spurious and was manufactured.
But it does mean that Jefferson, who almost certainly would have resigned had he been indicted, may continue in office by winning this election. Reviewing the dynamics, it’s not hard to draw parallels between this contest and the New Orleans mayor’s election earlier this year. There, you had a contest between two Democrats, one black, one white, where black voter suspicions about the Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu allowed Mayor Ray Nagin on mostly monoracial voting in a majority black city to win reelection.
Now equate Jefferson with Nagin and Landrieu with Jefferson’s general election runoff opponent (of course, bleaching her and changing some of her parts) state Rep. Karen Carter. Nagin was embattled by his underwhelming performance during the Hurricane Katrina disaster of 2005, with many in the black community feeling that Landrieu (backed in large part by whites and reformists) was trying to take advantage of the chaotic aftermath of the storm to win election to make New Orleans, in terms of policy, more a vanilla than chocolate city.
As Jefferson’s opponent (and keeping in mind the district’s dynamics are somewhat different than the city’s), Carter, like Landrieu from a prominent political family, also is drawing support more from whites who are less likely to believe Jefferson is fit to serve than blacks and government reformers also have lined up behind her (even though she, like Landrieu, has never backed a reform agenda at all). Embattled for different reasons, racial solidarity for many still is a driving factor in supporting Jefferson as Carter’s basis of support among whites makes her seem more “suspicious.”
Yet what well could put Jefferson over the top is the lack of indictment, and the almost sure resignation that would follow if he still occupies the office, that in essence would reopen the seat to challengers if Jefferson wins this time around. Most prominently, the Jefferson Parish West Bank political organization of state Sen. Derrick Shepherd, who finished third in the primary, could provide enough muscle to send Jefferson to victory especially since this election standing alone on the ballot will magnify the mobilization fortitude of political groups (including Jefferson’s Progressive Democrats and Carter’s BOLD). Jefferson Parish could be vital to a Jefferson win, given the bad publicity Carter has received there.
In the end, the contest will hinge on how prevalent perceptions within the black community are that Jefferson is being persecuted for his race, and on the willingness of political opportunists to put that opportunism aside and advise followers to vote their consciences.
Even as Jefferson led the field in the primary, his underwhelming total of about three-tenths of the electorate reflected poorly on an incumbent, but understandably given his being in the crosshairs of a corruption investigation. While some of his supporters make ridiculous excuses for him, and while he promises to explain all after the election, the fact remains about $90,000 in marked bills related to a sting operation was found in Jefferson’s residence, after a government witness testified Jefferson accepted that marked money as a bribe.
In these political corruption cases, authorities walk a fine line in deciding whether to return an indictment prior to an election involving a targeted official knowing an indictment almost certainly would mean that politician’s defeat. In this case, if it’s coming, they decided the will of the people in determining his fitness for office given the information already released would suffice. Also complicating the fact is the government may be waiting on the resolution of certain constitutional questions before it indicts, so it know what it can do. Lack of indictment to this point does not mean suspicion against Jefferson is spurious and was manufactured.
But it does mean that Jefferson, who almost certainly would have resigned had he been indicted, may continue in office by winning this election. Reviewing the dynamics, it’s not hard to draw parallels between this contest and the New Orleans mayor’s election earlier this year. There, you had a contest between two Democrats, one black, one white, where black voter suspicions about the Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu allowed Mayor Ray Nagin on mostly monoracial voting in a majority black city to win reelection.
Now equate Jefferson with Nagin and Landrieu with Jefferson’s general election runoff opponent (of course, bleaching her and changing some of her parts) state Rep. Karen Carter. Nagin was embattled by his underwhelming performance during the Hurricane Katrina disaster of 2005, with many in the black community feeling that Landrieu (backed in large part by whites and reformists) was trying to take advantage of the chaotic aftermath of the storm to win election to make New Orleans, in terms of policy, more a vanilla than chocolate city.
As Jefferson’s opponent (and keeping in mind the district’s dynamics are somewhat different than the city’s), Carter, like Landrieu from a prominent political family, also is drawing support more from whites who are less likely to believe Jefferson is fit to serve than blacks and government reformers also have lined up behind her (even though she, like Landrieu, has never backed a reform agenda at all). Embattled for different reasons, racial solidarity for many still is a driving factor in supporting Jefferson as Carter’s basis of support among whites makes her seem more “suspicious.”
Yet what well could put Jefferson over the top is the lack of indictment, and the almost sure resignation that would follow if he still occupies the office, that in essence would reopen the seat to challengers if Jefferson wins this time around. Most prominently, the Jefferson Parish West Bank political organization of state Sen. Derrick Shepherd, who finished third in the primary, could provide enough muscle to send Jefferson to victory especially since this election standing alone on the ballot will magnify the mobilization fortitude of political groups (including Jefferson’s Progressive Democrats and Carter’s BOLD). Jefferson Parish could be vital to a Jefferson win, given the bad publicity Carter has received there.
In the end, the contest will hinge on how prevalent perceptions within the black community are that Jefferson is being persecuted for his race, and on the willingness of political opportunists to put that opportunism aside and advise followers to vote their consciences.
6.12.06
Blanco possibly forced to choose between royalties, session
The plot thickens as a harmonic convergence of political forces prepares to clash over the looming special session of the Louisiana Legislature, with reverberations all the way from Washington, D.C.
Many politicians and pundits continue to criticize having the session, with varying complaints about its being too broad and/or too little time available, that it rushes on matters that can wait, its matters open for discussion deserve more debate prior to a session, and it is highly uncoordinated. Some actively are trying to get the thing adjourned immediately, while others have done things to make the idea of a session less attractive, but the surest way to stop it is to get Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco to call it off herself.
This Blanco would be loath to do. Her fondest wish is to have the session turn into an orgy of gift-giving in various forms (tax cuts, rebates, salary increase, etc.) regardless of the long-term implications to state finances still shaky over the long run because of the hurricane disasters of 2005, in order to boost her reelection chances next year. Acceptable to her would be a session where at least some of this happens. Even having an immediate adjournment would not hurt her politically, it just wouldn’t help. But the only harm that could come to her now politically would be calling it off, an admission that she erred, compounded if the Legislature came back to the regular session in April and proceeded to do all of these things.
5.12.06
Poker with real dollars being played over session limits
Hardball politics went on display at the meeting of Louisiana’s Revenue Estimating Conference, producing results with implications concerning this year’s special session and next year’s elections.
At the meeting, which establishes limits of money to spend by the state, there are two kinds of funds considered. Non-recurring funds are those (in essence) left over from previous years considered a bonus and can be spent on public works projects or debt reduction of various kinds. Recurring funds are predicted to come in future years and may be spent for any purpose. Unless additional funds were recognized in this meeting, the only way the upcoming special session could spend money would be by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. All four members of the panel must agree on the limits.
Consensus was there on $1.6 billion in recurring revenue, meaning these monies are available for things like tax relief, insurance rebates, and operating expenses of state government. But Sen. Pres. Don Hines refused to go along with the others in allowing $827 million from being recognized as nonrecurring expenses, which could reduce a backlog of authorized transportation spending, paying off state pension debt, or projects across the state.
At the meeting, which establishes limits of money to spend by the state, there are two kinds of funds considered. Non-recurring funds are those (in essence) left over from previous years considered a bonus and can be spent on public works projects or debt reduction of various kinds. Recurring funds are predicted to come in future years and may be spent for any purpose. Unless additional funds were recognized in this meeting, the only way the upcoming special session could spend money would be by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. All four members of the panel must agree on the limits.
Consensus was there on $1.6 billion in recurring revenue, meaning these monies are available for things like tax relief, insurance rebates, and operating expenses of state government. But Sen. Pres. Don Hines refused to go along with the others in allowing $827 million from being recognized as nonrecurring expenses, which could reduce a backlog of authorized transportation spending, paying off state pension debt, or projects across the state.
3.12.06
GOP, Hines can damage Blanco session reelection ploy
Gov. Kathleen Blanco raised the stakes in her battle to jumpstart her reelection campaign by calling for a special session of the Legislature Dec. 8-21, putting the ball squarely in the court of legislative Republicans and Senate Pres. Don Hines, whose next moves may seriously damage Blanco’s hopes to serve past 2007.
The short session involves as much material as a regular fiscal session would, including changing laws to restructure homeowner insurance provision by the state, changing laws to ease state tax burdens by allowing again certain exemptions wiped out by the infamous Stelly Plan, accelerating dinosaur-speed tax breaks on business timidly brought into being by Blanco, tax credits galore such as for transportation by sugar farmers, pay raises for multitudes such as public safety personnel and school workers, and infusions to reduce transportation backlogs and unfunded accrued liabilities in state pension plans. In other words, spending huge sums from a presumed large state revenue surplus that may evaporate when rebuilding from the 2005 hurricane disasters abates, much on operating expenses, to give some goodies to a large portion of the Louisiana public.
Parsing through the requests, no real coherence exists to it, or any contemplation of these measures’ long term impacts seems clear, with just one idea holding it all together – trying to get as many votes as possible for Blanco next year. But, she may find, the Legislature may not feel so cooperative in this endeavor.
She had the ill fortune, also in large part governed by reelection calculations, to oppose Hines on the issue of whether to commit state money to guarantee a loan to build a sugar mill at Bunkie. Prevailing, Hines now has come out full against the idea of the session. More importantly, Hines can subvert the entire basis of the session by his vote, scheduled Tuesday morning, against declaring about $1.5 billion in surplus revenue that the Legislature could spend at the Revenue Estimating Conference meeting as available.
If Hines makes that move, then the spending could occur only with a two-thirds concurrence of each house of the Legislature (which explains item #6 in the call). Having just $331 million to blow may not be enough to entice members to do much of anything unless it’s related to spending for their own districts which, if anything, would hurt Blanco’s reelection chances if her nominal opponents point out she called a session that turned into a pork barrel festival. Thus, Blanco is hoping the siren song of much greater revenues out there would be enough to get two-thirds to want to work on the bigger items that could make her look better to voters.
Here, others against Blanco for different reasons could take up the opening Hines can provide to make the whole session a fiasco for Blanco. Republicans in particular have been critical of the session’s transparent reelection boost, rather than its representing any serious (given the time frame involved, therefore limited agenda to it) attempt to address looming state issues. Given that they control over a third of the seats in both chambers, with a few to spare, when House Republicans conference tomorrow, they could issue a statement that they oppose any efforts to raise the expenditure limit.
If they did so, followed by Hines scuttling the declaration of extra revenue (because he and his three Conference counterparts unanimously must approve of any increases), Blanco would be left with two bad choices, call the session only to see the GOP block any raising of the limit and watch it degenerate into a pork-fest, or to cancel it to avoid this. Either action makes her look weak and unable to govern, not what she needs heading into an election year. She could save her reputation only if she could twist enough legislative arms to get that two-thirds vote, in each chamber.
Starting tomorrow, some real tests of political will go on display. We’ll see who blinks, and if it’s Blanco, the state will be better off.
The short session involves as much material as a regular fiscal session would, including changing laws to restructure homeowner insurance provision by the state, changing laws to ease state tax burdens by allowing again certain exemptions wiped out by the infamous Stelly Plan, accelerating dinosaur-speed tax breaks on business timidly brought into being by Blanco, tax credits galore such as for transportation by sugar farmers, pay raises for multitudes such as public safety personnel and school workers, and infusions to reduce transportation backlogs and unfunded accrued liabilities in state pension plans. In other words, spending huge sums from a presumed large state revenue surplus that may evaporate when rebuilding from the 2005 hurricane disasters abates, much on operating expenses, to give some goodies to a large portion of the Louisiana public.
Parsing through the requests, no real coherence exists to it, or any contemplation of these measures’ long term impacts seems clear, with just one idea holding it all together – trying to get as many votes as possible for Blanco next year. But, she may find, the Legislature may not feel so cooperative in this endeavor.
She had the ill fortune, also in large part governed by reelection calculations, to oppose Hines on the issue of whether to commit state money to guarantee a loan to build a sugar mill at Bunkie. Prevailing, Hines now has come out full against the idea of the session. More importantly, Hines can subvert the entire basis of the session by his vote, scheduled Tuesday morning, against declaring about $1.5 billion in surplus revenue that the Legislature could spend at the Revenue Estimating Conference meeting as available.
If Hines makes that move, then the spending could occur only with a two-thirds concurrence of each house of the Legislature (which explains item #6 in the call). Having just $331 million to blow may not be enough to entice members to do much of anything unless it’s related to spending for their own districts which, if anything, would hurt Blanco’s reelection chances if her nominal opponents point out she called a session that turned into a pork barrel festival. Thus, Blanco is hoping the siren song of much greater revenues out there would be enough to get two-thirds to want to work on the bigger items that could make her look better to voters.
Here, others against Blanco for different reasons could take up the opening Hines can provide to make the whole session a fiasco for Blanco. Republicans in particular have been critical of the session’s transparent reelection boost, rather than its representing any serious (given the time frame involved, therefore limited agenda to it) attempt to address looming state issues. Given that they control over a third of the seats in both chambers, with a few to spare, when House Republicans conference tomorrow, they could issue a statement that they oppose any efforts to raise the expenditure limit.
If they did so, followed by Hines scuttling the declaration of extra revenue (because he and his three Conference counterparts unanimously must approve of any increases), Blanco would be left with two bad choices, call the session only to see the GOP block any raising of the limit and watch it degenerate into a pork-fest, or to cancel it to avoid this. Either action makes her look weak and unable to govern, not what she needs heading into an election year. She could save her reputation only if she could twist enough legislative arms to get that two-thirds vote, in each chamber.
Starting tomorrow, some real tests of political will go on display. We’ll see who blinks, and if it’s Blanco, the state will be better off.
1.12.06
Hines tantrum shows term limits can get job done
Yesterday, a boondoggle to the state of Louisiana got derailed with the State Bond Commission voting not to put state money behind a money-losing sugar mill, but mostly for the wrong reasons. Today, a proposed special session spinning out of control might get sidetracked and again mainly for the wrong reason. In the process, it demonstrates an interesting and desirable side effect of term limits.
The biggest supporter of the mill, Sen. Pres. Don Hines, today transmitted a letter to Gov. Kathleen Blanco who had planned to call a special session over the weekend starting next Friday (which she must do in order to have it start that soon) which requested for her not to call the session. He mentioned it in that its timing was bad (too close to Christmas with other senators planned to be away) and that he thought the items she contemplated were too broad to be completed adequately.
Both complaints ring true but, if she wanted to, Blanco could ignore them. If she could get the Revenue Estimating Conference together, which she or her representative could call, and have declared roughly $1.6 billion declared ready to spend in different ways, with that much largesse to dole out, probably enough senators wouldn’t mind a midwinter’s gathering. However, one other part of the letter contained Hines’ real threat, when he said the state had only $331 million that it could spend before hitting its Constitutionally-imposed limit, requiring a two-thirds vote to override.
That’s because Hines as president is one of the four members of the Conference, and all members must agree that a surplus exists before it can be spent. This was Hines’ way of saying he was going to veto any such declaration, knowing that having just $331 million lying around may not jazz enough senators to want to stick around Baton Rouge to have a full session – the Constitution only allows a governor to call a special session with a specified agenda; it does not force the chamber to do anything and it could adjourn almost immediately. (This is even if he allows it to meet; as the current Conference chairman, he makes that decision.)
In a news conference concerning the letter Hines made obvious the genesis of the threat. “I’m not mad about the syrup mill; I’m just going to get even, that’s all,” he said. Yes, that’s absolutely petty and immature, making it about par for the course for the good-old-boy populist politics in Louisiana.
Still, the fact remains that Blanco’s idea of a special session and the right way of doing exist far apart from each other. Blanco sees it as an early Christmas, giving away all sorts of presents to the electorate to take the wind out of the sails of potential opponents to her reelection next year, especially Democrats who may challenge her, making it logistically difficult and philosophically problematic because the issues of tax cuts, credits, spending priorities, and the like deserve much more of a hearing than less than a couple of weeks can provide. Doing it right would mean a longer session, which would turn off legislators, or a much more limited agenda, which does not serve Blanco’s political agenda.
So Hines may end up doing the right thing, scuttling the unrealistic, political session, for the wrong reason, a temper tantrum because his son-in-law and other cronies didn’t get what they wanted. Even more fascinating, this assertion of legislative power relative to the governor may have happened because of something most legislators lament, term limits coming due with next year’s elections.
Hines is term limited, as is over a third of the Senate. It doesn’t matter so much to them to disperse the goodies because it serves them no real political gain without voters to impress. That incentive devalued to them, the governor loses leverage over the body. And it provides a piece of validation for term limits if that ends up causing a realistic special session to occur or prevents an unrealistic one from doing more damage to the state.
The biggest supporter of the mill, Sen. Pres. Don Hines, today transmitted a letter to Gov. Kathleen Blanco who had planned to call a special session over the weekend starting next Friday (which she must do in order to have it start that soon) which requested for her not to call the session. He mentioned it in that its timing was bad (too close to Christmas with other senators planned to be away) and that he thought the items she contemplated were too broad to be completed adequately.
Both complaints ring true but, if she wanted to, Blanco could ignore them. If she could get the Revenue Estimating Conference together, which she or her representative could call, and have declared roughly $1.6 billion declared ready to spend in different ways, with that much largesse to dole out, probably enough senators wouldn’t mind a midwinter’s gathering. However, one other part of the letter contained Hines’ real threat, when he said the state had only $331 million that it could spend before hitting its Constitutionally-imposed limit, requiring a two-thirds vote to override.
That’s because Hines as president is one of the four members of the Conference, and all members must agree that a surplus exists before it can be spent. This was Hines’ way of saying he was going to veto any such declaration, knowing that having just $331 million lying around may not jazz enough senators to want to stick around Baton Rouge to have a full session – the Constitution only allows a governor to call a special session with a specified agenda; it does not force the chamber to do anything and it could adjourn almost immediately. (This is even if he allows it to meet; as the current Conference chairman, he makes that decision.)
In a news conference concerning the letter Hines made obvious the genesis of the threat. “I’m not mad about the syrup mill; I’m just going to get even, that’s all,” he said. Yes, that’s absolutely petty and immature, making it about par for the course for the good-old-boy populist politics in Louisiana.
Still, the fact remains that Blanco’s idea of a special session and the right way of doing exist far apart from each other. Blanco sees it as an early Christmas, giving away all sorts of presents to the electorate to take the wind out of the sails of potential opponents to her reelection next year, especially Democrats who may challenge her, making it logistically difficult and philosophically problematic because the issues of tax cuts, credits, spending priorities, and the like deserve much more of a hearing than less than a couple of weeks can provide. Doing it right would mean a longer session, which would turn off legislators, or a much more limited agenda, which does not serve Blanco’s political agenda.
So Hines may end up doing the right thing, scuttling the unrealistic, political session, for the wrong reason, a temper tantrum because his son-in-law and other cronies didn’t get what they wanted. Even more fascinating, this assertion of legislative power relative to the governor may have happened because of something most legislators lament, term limits coming due with next year’s elections.
Hines is term limited, as is over a third of the Senate. It doesn’t matter so much to them to disperse the goodies because it serves them no real political gain without voters to impress. That incentive devalued to them, the governor loses leverage over the body. And it provides a piece of validation for term limits if that ends up causing a realistic special session to occur or prevents an unrealistic one from doing more damage to the state.
30.11.06
Mill rejection lacked political courage, but got job done
Not entirely for the right reasons, and in a convincing display of a lack of political courage, a request to throw away likely $67.5 million of Louisiana’s money was scuttled by the State Bond Commission.
The Commission turned down a deal that would have had the state back half of the $135 million cost to build a sugar mill in Bunkie. Most economic studies showed it had little chance of making any kind of profit, meaning the state would be liable for the bonds’ cost, and the one study that did so that was riddled with a number of problems. The facility well may not be built as a result of the vote.
The key figure in the vote was Gov. Kathleen Blanco, who by formal powers as governor such as line time vetoes, and informal powers such as arranging for the heads of Legislative committees, could pressure legislators, who comprise a majority of the Commission, to vote the way she liked. Representatives from her office comprise another two votes, while the other four come from other state elected executives.
The dynamics of the vote broke into three camps. First, apparently from previous comments, only one of the negative voters – the only Republican on the panel new Secretary of State Jay Dardenne – had the courage to vote against it because of what the deal truly was, bad for the state. (At the meeting, Treasurer John Kennedy began to imply this as well when he wondered whether other alternatives could assist farmers.) The supporting votes came from state senators led by its President, Don Hines – whose district is where the proposed mill and whose son-in-law would stand to profit directly from being able to use the mill. Hines, usually a Blanco loyalist, has as much input into the Senate careers of these senators as does Blanco.
All the other opposing votes seemed to be based upon the theme of there not being enough “information” about the mill, that a number of sugar farmers were against the deal, and/or that there were other ways such a tax credit (suggested by Blanco’s representatives) to help farmers. These were politically safe things to say – for example, allowing Blanco make herself appear as a fiscal reformer yet seeming concerned about sugar farmers – but disguise that those like Blanco who fell back on these explanations, if they believe them, do not understand the larger issue.
And that is, the state must reject inefficient spending designed to aid only a few and commit it to much more serious, higher priority projects such as (in the case of capital projects like this one) working down the transportation backlog (that $135 million could knock out over 1 percent of the estimated $12 billion needed for this). Public aid to sugar farmers ultimately is a wasteful exercise because there is too much sugar already being produced – hence the quota system imposed by federal law. Rather, the market should be allowed to work freely and permitted the shed the least efficient producers in the state, before any kind of aid would make sense; nobody has the right to impose a cost on others just because they want to pursue a certain occupation.
Interestingly, the supporters of the mill inadvertently latched onto this logical shortcoming most of the opponents expressed in their reasons for their negative votes – that it is not a question of the manner of aid, but rather whether aid should be given at all given other priorities. They argued the tax credit regime might end up being more costly and less effective to solve the presumed problem, transportation costs of cane and unrefined sugar. They implied that if Blanco really did care about the costs in committing the state’s money, her crew would not have suggested this. (Bad publicity – maybe even from bloggers – they blamed as the true reason for the negative votes; if only, they must lament, there was no freedom of speech and press things like this wouldn’t happen!)
The Commission made the right call, but mostly for the wrong reasons. And while the decision gives Blanco more room to try to get off the hook concerning accusations that she does not really diverge from the good-old-boy populist model of Louisiana politics where decisions are made more to satisfy certain constituencies than the public as a whole, no doubt she will try to present this action in her reelection campaign as evidence to demonstrate she is a reformer.
The Commission turned down a deal that would have had the state back half of the $135 million cost to build a sugar mill in Bunkie. Most economic studies showed it had little chance of making any kind of profit, meaning the state would be liable for the bonds’ cost, and the one study that did so that was riddled with a number of problems. The facility well may not be built as a result of the vote.
The key figure in the vote was Gov. Kathleen Blanco, who by formal powers as governor such as line time vetoes, and informal powers such as arranging for the heads of Legislative committees, could pressure legislators, who comprise a majority of the Commission, to vote the way she liked. Representatives from her office comprise another two votes, while the other four come from other state elected executives.
The dynamics of the vote broke into three camps. First, apparently from previous comments, only one of the negative voters – the only Republican on the panel new Secretary of State Jay Dardenne – had the courage to vote against it because of what the deal truly was, bad for the state. (At the meeting, Treasurer John Kennedy began to imply this as well when he wondered whether other alternatives could assist farmers.) The supporting votes came from state senators led by its President, Don Hines – whose district is where the proposed mill and whose son-in-law would stand to profit directly from being able to use the mill. Hines, usually a Blanco loyalist, has as much input into the Senate careers of these senators as does Blanco.
All the other opposing votes seemed to be based upon the theme of there not being enough “information” about the mill, that a number of sugar farmers were against the deal, and/or that there were other ways such a tax credit (suggested by Blanco’s representatives) to help farmers. These were politically safe things to say – for example, allowing Blanco make herself appear as a fiscal reformer yet seeming concerned about sugar farmers – but disguise that those like Blanco who fell back on these explanations, if they believe them, do not understand the larger issue.
And that is, the state must reject inefficient spending designed to aid only a few and commit it to much more serious, higher priority projects such as (in the case of capital projects like this one) working down the transportation backlog (that $135 million could knock out over 1 percent of the estimated $12 billion needed for this). Public aid to sugar farmers ultimately is a wasteful exercise because there is too much sugar already being produced – hence the quota system imposed by federal law. Rather, the market should be allowed to work freely and permitted the shed the least efficient producers in the state, before any kind of aid would make sense; nobody has the right to impose a cost on others just because they want to pursue a certain occupation.
Interestingly, the supporters of the mill inadvertently latched onto this logical shortcoming most of the opponents expressed in their reasons for their negative votes – that it is not a question of the manner of aid, but rather whether aid should be given at all given other priorities. They argued the tax credit regime might end up being more costly and less effective to solve the presumed problem, transportation costs of cane and unrefined sugar. They implied that if Blanco really did care about the costs in committing the state’s money, her crew would not have suggested this. (Bad publicity – maybe even from bloggers – they blamed as the true reason for the negative votes; if only, they must lament, there was no freedom of speech and press things like this wouldn’t happen!)
The Commission made the right call, but mostly for the wrong reasons. And while the decision gives Blanco more room to try to get off the hook concerning accusations that she does not really diverge from the good-old-boy populist model of Louisiana politics where decisions are made more to satisfy certain constituencies than the public as a whole, no doubt she will try to present this action in her reelection campaign as evidence to demonstrate she is a reformer.
29.11.06
Blanco opposing mill deal right and politically beneficial
Even if Agriculture Secretary Bob Odom is the most powerful man in Louisiana, tomorrow’s State Bond Commission meeting may give Gov. Kathleen Blanco the opportunity to show she is the most powerful person in the state.
At the meeting, Odom will ask for the state to issue bonds to support the boondoggle Bunkie sugar mill sale which seems unlikely to earn enough and, as a result, under Odom’s deal would cost the state up to $67.5 million with nothing in return. Because of his heft with the state Democrat Party and with a majority of the Commission’s members being Democrats from the Legislature (who share Odom’s love of big government for which bonds sales can pay for), in case any of them for some reason go against their instincts and vote against an Odom-backed proposal, he can threaten to withdraw his electoral support of them.
However, because Blanco as governor can do even worse things to them (such as delete spending for their districts from the budget), if Blanco chooses to exert herself, she can muster a majority on the Commission to deny Odom’s request. If they oppose each other, Odom’s recourse is the same as with any Democrat elected to state office who dares stand up to him, deny support of Democrat Party money, operatives, and endorsements (the last being perhaps his most important source of power).
At the meeting, Odom will ask for the state to issue bonds to support the boondoggle Bunkie sugar mill sale which seems unlikely to earn enough and, as a result, under Odom’s deal would cost the state up to $67.5 million with nothing in return. Because of his heft with the state Democrat Party and with a majority of the Commission’s members being Democrats from the Legislature (who share Odom’s love of big government for which bonds sales can pay for), in case any of them for some reason go against their instincts and vote against an Odom-backed proposal, he can threaten to withdraw his electoral support of them.
However, because Blanco as governor can do even worse things to them (such as delete spending for their districts from the budget), if Blanco chooses to exert herself, she can muster a majority on the Commission to deny Odom’s request. If they oppose each other, Odom’s recourse is the same as with any Democrat elected to state office who dares stand up to him, deny support of Democrat Party money, operatives, and endorsements (the last being perhaps his most important source of power).
28.11.06
Daniel should address own record before doubting others'
Perhaps as a coming attraction that a number of members of the Louisiana Legislature will try to duplicate next year during their elections, state Rep. William Daniel IV is trying to run, but cannot hide, from his voting record.
The House term-limited Daniel is trying to succeed new Secretary of State Jay Dardenne against physician Bill Cassidy, both Republicans – although Daniel is a recent convert to the party in the past year. Yet, he is trying to paint Cassidy as “soft” Republican by publicizing Cassidy’s $1,000 contribution to Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s campaign in 2003. Cassidy says he has moved on from that and now supports Rep. Bobby Jindal should he run for governor.
But Daniel is one to talk, according to his voting record courtesy of the Louisiana Legislature Log. Graded on a scale where 0 was the most extreme liberal/populist score and 100 was the most extreme conservative/reform score, in 2005 Daniel graded at a 57 – behind 27 Republicans although higher than all but 4 non-Republicans, where the House average was a 46 but the overall Republican average was a 64. In 2004, then a Democrat, Daniel scored a 60, behind 26 Republicans whose average as a whole was also a 64 while the House average was a 52.
What really drove his scores down these years was he missed a number of votes on key legislation without any excuses, which served as votes against good legislation such as failing to support lower cable prices in 2005 or in 2004 on an amendment to fund teacher pay raises without additional taxes, because absences are counted as negative votes, but this also calls into question his fidelity as a legislator. The record shows Daniel – when he shows up – votes pretty well for conservative and reform measures as most Republicans would, but that he somehow managed to miss unexcused a number controversial votes, even if he did vote on other measures the very same day.
Constituents in Senate District 16 probably want their senator to earn his salary by being there and who’s willing to cast the tough votes to show that he’s in step with their proclivities – Republican in this instance. Recent Democrat Daniel needs to concentrate on convincing voters that’s what he can do as a legislator, rather than criticizing an opponent on how he donated his money four years ago.
The House term-limited Daniel is trying to succeed new Secretary of State Jay Dardenne against physician Bill Cassidy, both Republicans – although Daniel is a recent convert to the party in the past year. Yet, he is trying to paint Cassidy as “soft” Republican by publicizing Cassidy’s $1,000 contribution to Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s campaign in 2003. Cassidy says he has moved on from that and now supports Rep. Bobby Jindal should he run for governor.
But Daniel is one to talk, according to his voting record courtesy of the Louisiana Legislature Log. Graded on a scale where 0 was the most extreme liberal/populist score and 100 was the most extreme conservative/reform score, in 2005 Daniel graded at a 57 – behind 27 Republicans although higher than all but 4 non-Republicans, where the House average was a 46 but the overall Republican average was a 64. In 2004, then a Democrat, Daniel scored a 60, behind 26 Republicans whose average as a whole was also a 64 while the House average was a 52.
What really drove his scores down these years was he missed a number of votes on key legislation without any excuses, which served as votes against good legislation such as failing to support lower cable prices in 2005 or in 2004 on an amendment to fund teacher pay raises without additional taxes, because absences are counted as negative votes, but this also calls into question his fidelity as a legislator. The record shows Daniel – when he shows up – votes pretty well for conservative and reform measures as most Republicans would, but that he somehow managed to miss unexcused a number controversial votes, even if he did vote on other measures the very same day.
Constituents in Senate District 16 probably want their senator to earn his salary by being there and who’s willing to cast the tough votes to show that he’s in step with their proclivities – Republican in this instance. Recent Democrat Daniel needs to concentrate on convincing voters that’s what he can do as a legislator, rather than criticizing an opponent on how he donated his money four years ago.
27.11.06
Change law to prevent fund hijacking for boondoggles
The madness must stop: since Louisiana Agriculture and Forestry Commissioner Bob Odom continues to use taxpayer dollars on dubious deals, it’s time to cut off the mother’s milk around which Odom bases his political career, money.
In addition to the questionable prospects for the existing sugar cane mill at Lacassine, threatening that the state will have to pay loans backed by it in the event of its failure, it turns out that the deal meant to prevent state exposure, a promissory note to own it from a Colombian former cement maker, is financially poor as well. Consider that the note is for $60 million, payable out over 44 years at 3 percent interest, but with payments of only $100,000 for the first four years. Yet expenses so far to the state seem to be over $58 million so they may well exceed the note’s value. In addition, the 44-year length and 3 percent interest rate are (well) beyond and below, respectively, marketplace-based loans, meaning the state is locked into an inferior rate of return for a longer period. (For example, a more realistic 5 percent rate would get the state a whopping $276 million additional, over double the future value of the actual deal). Finally, the initial four year grace period costs the state a total of $12 million in forgone interest payments.
Why is the state allowing Odom to structure deals that cost taxpayers much more than any benefits brought? Because it’s the law: Odom gets use of $12 million a year coming from next taxable slot machine proceeds which may be used by the Louisiana Agricultural Finance Authority for “economic development” programs. Politically, Odom, who sits on the Authority, controls enough votes on it.
In addition to the questionable prospects for the existing sugar cane mill at Lacassine, threatening that the state will have to pay loans backed by it in the event of its failure, it turns out that the deal meant to prevent state exposure, a promissory note to own it from a Colombian former cement maker, is financially poor as well. Consider that the note is for $60 million, payable out over 44 years at 3 percent interest, but with payments of only $100,000 for the first four years. Yet expenses so far to the state seem to be over $58 million so they may well exceed the note’s value. In addition, the 44-year length and 3 percent interest rate are (well) beyond and below, respectively, marketplace-based loans, meaning the state is locked into an inferior rate of return for a longer period. (For example, a more realistic 5 percent rate would get the state a whopping $276 million additional, over double the future value of the actual deal). Finally, the initial four year grace period costs the state a total of $12 million in forgone interest payments.
Why is the state allowing Odom to structure deals that cost taxpayers much more than any benefits brought? Because it’s the law: Odom gets use of $12 million a year coming from next taxable slot machine proceeds which may be used by the Louisiana Agricultural Finance Authority for “economic development” programs. Politically, Odom, who sits on the Authority, controls enough votes on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)