Politics and principle collided when a Louisiana Legislature committee decided to change the funding decision of the Louisiana Recovery Authority in reference to building a new Louisiana State University hospital in New Orleans. Ostensibly, in tandem with an adjoining U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospital, it would replace “Big Charity.”
The political part comes in that the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget decided to release $300 million rather than the $74 million recommended by the LRA. The lower amount would only have provided enough for planning the facility while the full amount can start in its building. There is some concern that the Legislature may wish to commit these funds to a hospital based upon its use as an indigent care facility, as its damaged predecessor structure has been in the past, as opposed to primarily a medical education facility.
The importance in distinction lies in that, with much federal government encouragement on the positive side, the state is deciding whether to scrap its outdated charity model, which herds uninsured people into a few locations run by the state, instead of the more efficient money-follows-the-person indigent health care model followed by the rest of the nation which allows for non-public sector providers primarily to provide care, giving clients more choice and producing better outcomes.
The more money the more quickly the state gets, the more likely the state will build the larger facility to keep it wedded to the old, inferior model because the releasing of the other $226 million was dependent upon production of a plan by LSU (who would run it) on how it would operate in the post-disaster environment. Presumably, the LRA would release the funds if the plan gravitated in the direction of the new paradigm, as some members of it indicate they favor. Or not, but LSU has shown a distinct aversion to a smaller facility, no doubt as larger means more power and money.
However, even if it will not impact the quality of health care in Louisiana, the principle part may be the more interesting issue here. The statute creating the LRA gives the panel only the ability to “review and approve” (after the governor does the same, and before the rest of the Legislature if the expense is over $10 million) decisions made by the LRA – in other words, the legal interpretation indicates that the governor, committee, and Legislature has only a veto power, not a power to amend, LRA decisions.
While some members of the body argue that is not what they thought the law they passed to set it all up meant, that is the way it reads. Among its options, the LRA could sue, and this should be done regardless of how the polling for the measure among the entire Legislature goes (legally it must conduct a mail ballot when not in session). If the Legislature truly meant it could adjust LRA plans as it pleases, during the next session it needs to amend the law to state this explicitly and not just take matters extralegally into its own hands as it has in this case.
18.1.07
Past decisions catching up to Bossier City traffic problem
Questions about access to and over the Jimmie Davis Bridge remind Bossier City residents about the questionable past choices made by Bossier City’s current elected officials.
It seems that a push is being made for the state to pay for, at the very least, ramps onto the bridge on the Bossier Parish side to accompany the existing ones on the Caddo side, to cut down on traffic tie-ups caused by the lighted intersection of CenturyTel Center Boulevard and Jimmie Davis Highway. Of course, two more additional lanes courtesy of another span would be better.
But this is not going to happen any time soon, perhaps ever. With four four-lane spans already over the Red River (note that Baton Rouge only has two four-lane-plus spans over the Mississippi) and a fifth set coming with I-69’s building south of the Jimmie Davis Bridge in about a decade, and a price tag of $40 million almost a decade ago to add a second span, and the incredible backlog of highway projects funded by the state, it’s just not going to happen. However, the ramps, which would cost less than a million bucks, remain a possibility.
Yet Bossier City seems to be putting all its eggs into the legislative basket, publicly giving no regard to alternative means of getting this project started, and soon. This, unfortunately, reflects the odd myopia city officials consistently have shown that afflicts their vision regarding roads that stray too far south of I-20.
Typically, despite the abundance of money pouring into the city’s coffers as a result of its excises on gambling (the 2006 budget anticipated over $33 million), the city would rather go out and soak residents, one way or the other. Last year, it was jacking up fees which were unnecessary had the city been much wiser in the use of that money. This year, it was cooperating with Bossier Parish politicians to try to foist a road tax (payable to the parish, but the city aided the cause by allowing supportive electioneering signs to be placed on its property) on the public which would have paid for an extension of the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway and relieved some bridge-area congestion.
Instead of looking to offload the costs onto the citizenry, the city just needs to cut a check and get the ramps built. It could do so off the interest alone on unencumbered funds from the gambling revenue. Let’s see, to get a million dollars in a year, you’d need to invest about $21 million … oops, Bossier City’s spendthrift politicians already gave that away to a private developer who would have built and paid for it regardless, no questions asked, so I guess it won’t come from that.
(Speaking of the parking garage gift to the Louisiana Boardwalk, the public has been treated with more lame defenses of the giveaway. One angle is to point out tax revenue figures – neglecting, of course, to include increased costs such as increased police presence or cannibalization of existing businesses which have been dealt with thoroughly in this space previously. Regardless, that misses the point – these revenues could have been achieved without the city giving $21 million away. More humorously, the donated structure as an investment has been compared with city parks as an “investment” by the city, seeming to forget it was given to private developers on private land and is not serving as public property for recreation. Or, as my wife said, shaking her head when she heard that argument, “What are we supposed to do, have a picnic in the parking garage?” And, I would be surprised if Bossier City has spent $21 million total ever in creating its entire public park system, another indication of its recent priorities.)
The city may have frittered away the garage money, but with plenty on its way, there’s no reason by the summer this ramp project should not start. With a huge state surplus projected, the city should give its local legislators a shot with the 2006-07 capital outlay budget to get the money, but, if they come up short (and if can’t get this funding, with the bonanza of money state officials insist is coming in for the next several years, they never will), then it needs to fund the project itself.
If it’s looking for money, sell the CenturyTel Center (at a loss, naturally; the private sector would not built it because it wasn’t economically feasible but if the city shaved about $20 million off the building costs as its price, that probably would make it cost-effective for a buyer and relieve the city of a chronic money-loser) and use the interest from that to fund this and many other capital projects.
The sooner the ramps get built the better for the public as well for Bossier City elected officials, because the festering issue only reminds the public of these politicians’ strange priorities and desires to squeeze money out of the citizenry first to pay for them.
It seems that a push is being made for the state to pay for, at the very least, ramps onto the bridge on the Bossier Parish side to accompany the existing ones on the Caddo side, to cut down on traffic tie-ups caused by the lighted intersection of CenturyTel Center Boulevard and Jimmie Davis Highway. Of course, two more additional lanes courtesy of another span would be better.
But this is not going to happen any time soon, perhaps ever. With four four-lane spans already over the Red River (note that Baton Rouge only has two four-lane-plus spans over the Mississippi) and a fifth set coming with I-69’s building south of the Jimmie Davis Bridge in about a decade, and a price tag of $40 million almost a decade ago to add a second span, and the incredible backlog of highway projects funded by the state, it’s just not going to happen. However, the ramps, which would cost less than a million bucks, remain a possibility.
Yet Bossier City seems to be putting all its eggs into the legislative basket, publicly giving no regard to alternative means of getting this project started, and soon. This, unfortunately, reflects the odd myopia city officials consistently have shown that afflicts their vision regarding roads that stray too far south of I-20.
Typically, despite the abundance of money pouring into the city’s coffers as a result of its excises on gambling (the 2006 budget anticipated over $33 million), the city would rather go out and soak residents, one way or the other. Last year, it was jacking up fees which were unnecessary had the city been much wiser in the use of that money. This year, it was cooperating with Bossier Parish politicians to try to foist a road tax (payable to the parish, but the city aided the cause by allowing supportive electioneering signs to be placed on its property) on the public which would have paid for an extension of the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway and relieved some bridge-area congestion.
Instead of looking to offload the costs onto the citizenry, the city just needs to cut a check and get the ramps built. It could do so off the interest alone on unencumbered funds from the gambling revenue. Let’s see, to get a million dollars in a year, you’d need to invest about $21 million … oops, Bossier City’s spendthrift politicians already gave that away to a private developer who would have built and paid for it regardless, no questions asked, so I guess it won’t come from that.
(Speaking of the parking garage gift to the Louisiana Boardwalk, the public has been treated with more lame defenses of the giveaway. One angle is to point out tax revenue figures – neglecting, of course, to include increased costs such as increased police presence or cannibalization of existing businesses which have been dealt with thoroughly in this space previously. Regardless, that misses the point – these revenues could have been achieved without the city giving $21 million away. More humorously, the donated structure as an investment has been compared with city parks as an “investment” by the city, seeming to forget it was given to private developers on private land and is not serving as public property for recreation. Or, as my wife said, shaking her head when she heard that argument, “What are we supposed to do, have a picnic in the parking garage?” And, I would be surprised if Bossier City has spent $21 million total ever in creating its entire public park system, another indication of its recent priorities.)
The city may have frittered away the garage money, but with plenty on its way, there’s no reason by the summer this ramp project should not start. With a huge state surplus projected, the city should give its local legislators a shot with the 2006-07 capital outlay budget to get the money, but, if they come up short (and if can’t get this funding, with the bonanza of money state officials insist is coming in for the next several years, they never will), then it needs to fund the project itself.
If it’s looking for money, sell the CenturyTel Center (at a loss, naturally; the private sector would not built it because it wasn’t economically feasible but if the city shaved about $20 million off the building costs as its price, that probably would make it cost-effective for a buyer and relieve the city of a chronic money-loser) and use the interest from that to fund this and many other capital projects.
The sooner the ramps get built the better for the public as well for Bossier City elected officials, because the festering issue only reminds the public of these politicians’ strange priorities and desires to squeeze money out of the citizenry first to pay for them.
17.1.07
Less government will produce better building code policy
As is typical in Louisiana, public policy problems remain unsolved not because government has not addressed them, but because too much government has gone into addressing them.
Such is the case with building codes enacted statewide in the wake of the 2005 hurricane disasters. The laws will increase the ability of new structures to withstand disasters, which should lead to lower insurance costs and less damage if such unfortunate events occur. But complaints have arisen over the increased cost to consumers in all parts of the state, including those where such disasters practically have no chance of affecting structures, and regarding the increased costs of enforcement by governments, particularly from some with jurisdictions over few people with low resources upon which to draw.
Both are legitimate complaints, although in the case of the increased building costs passed onto the buyer some of that would be offset by lower insurance costs. But note that both are caused by increased government regulation that tackles the problem in an inefficient fashion. A far more efficient solution costing less in resources for all concerned would be to let the marketplace organize behavior, rather than doing it by government mandate.
In those parts of the state deemed less in need of protection under the new law, it could be amended to make compliance voluntary, so builders could choose whether to offer structures at the higher standard. If they did, they would have to pay for an inspection by someone licensed by the state to do so, and if the structure passed this would become part of the legal record of the property, allowing insurers to have confidence in offering lower rates on that structure. Then a stable of inspectors could be hired at the state level, to spot check on the private inspectors, and any deficiencies noted could lead to revoking of licenses.
Note how this would take small, resource-poor local governments out of having to hire their own inspectors, and would require fewer private inspections than full implementation of the law now would dictate since some portion of new structures would be built below the new standards (which might satisfy some buyers but also they would face higher insurance rates). Throw in a small state regulatory body and costs should be much lower to government with less government and more freedom afforded to builders and buyers of structures.
If any reform is to be done concerning these codes in the next legislative session, this is the direction it should take.
Such is the case with building codes enacted statewide in the wake of the 2005 hurricane disasters. The laws will increase the ability of new structures to withstand disasters, which should lead to lower insurance costs and less damage if such unfortunate events occur. But complaints have arisen over the increased cost to consumers in all parts of the state, including those where such disasters practically have no chance of affecting structures, and regarding the increased costs of enforcement by governments, particularly from some with jurisdictions over few people with low resources upon which to draw.
Both are legitimate complaints, although in the case of the increased building costs passed onto the buyer some of that would be offset by lower insurance costs. But note that both are caused by increased government regulation that tackles the problem in an inefficient fashion. A far more efficient solution costing less in resources for all concerned would be to let the marketplace organize behavior, rather than doing it by government mandate.
In those parts of the state deemed less in need of protection under the new law, it could be amended to make compliance voluntary, so builders could choose whether to offer structures at the higher standard. If they did, they would have to pay for an inspection by someone licensed by the state to do so, and if the structure passed this would become part of the legal record of the property, allowing insurers to have confidence in offering lower rates on that structure. Then a stable of inspectors could be hired at the state level, to spot check on the private inspectors, and any deficiencies noted could lead to revoking of licenses.
Note how this would take small, resource-poor local governments out of having to hire their own inspectors, and would require fewer private inspections than full implementation of the law now would dictate since some portion of new structures would be built below the new standards (which might satisfy some buyers but also they would face higher insurance rates). Throw in a small state regulatory body and costs should be much lower to government with less government and more freedom afforded to builders and buyers of structures.
If any reform is to be done concerning these codes in the next legislative session, this is the direction it should take.
16.1.07
Picture for Democrat gubernatorial retention still dim
Speculation continues to swirl around the governor’s contest later this year. Let me provide an update on my previous prognosis which provides no more additional hope for Democrats despite hypotheses advancing new hopefuls.
The central fact is that, as long as Gov. Kathleen Blanco stays in the race, a Democrat cannot win short of a miracle. The problem is compounded by the near-certain entrance of Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell into the contest. In an electoral environment already challenging by the numbers for a Democrat, both of these in the race will take few voters from any projected GOP candidate but would grab a significant portion from any other Democrat that is electable.
This becomes most dangerous if there are two strong Republicans in the race, such as U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal who is as certain to run as is Campbell and Blanco, and state Sen. Walter Boasso who has given it some thought. In this scenario, the most likely outcome with an additional Democrat in would be a general election runoff between the two Republicans. No politically-smart Democrat would run in this environment because those dynamics make the odds long even for a quality Democrat – what few the party has to offer statewide at this time.
Even without Blanco, a lot of things would have to happen right for a Democrat to win given that Jindal and/or Boasso will be in the field. Perhaps the strongest Democrat of names circulated, U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon, has expressed as much disinterest in the job as Blanco has expressed interest. Treasurer John Kennedy is more likely to switch parties to face Sen. Mary Landrieu in her 2008 reelection bid. Former Democrat state chairman Jim Bernhard may have a lot of money, but his past association with Blanco and the impression he used his connections in state government to land lucrative contracts for his business interests in the wake of Hurricane Katrina make him not a viable candidate. Campbell, of course, appeals to a populist slice in the state that, thankfully, now is too small on its own to elect a candidate statewide if up against quality opponents like Jindal or Boasso.
This leaves at best somebody of the stature of former U.S. House member Chris John to enter if Blanco defers – a solid candidate but one who was trounced statewide in the 2004 Senate contest and who has been out of the spotlight for three years. Simply, both Jindal and Boasso in the past couple of years have built impressive records that have removed their political rookie status and shored up confidence in voters. Combined with the fact that some of the racist Democrats who disproportionately voted against Jindal in 2003 apparently have left the state, either can beat heads up any Democrat out there.
With the colossi of Jindal and Boasso on the GOP side, there is no apparent savior at this time for Democrats to keep this office.
The central fact is that, as long as Gov. Kathleen Blanco stays in the race, a Democrat cannot win short of a miracle. The problem is compounded by the near-certain entrance of Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell into the contest. In an electoral environment already challenging by the numbers for a Democrat, both of these in the race will take few voters from any projected GOP candidate but would grab a significant portion from any other Democrat that is electable.
This becomes most dangerous if there are two strong Republicans in the race, such as U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal who is as certain to run as is Campbell and Blanco, and state Sen. Walter Boasso who has given it some thought. In this scenario, the most likely outcome with an additional Democrat in would be a general election runoff between the two Republicans. No politically-smart Democrat would run in this environment because those dynamics make the odds long even for a quality Democrat – what few the party has to offer statewide at this time.
Even without Blanco, a lot of things would have to happen right for a Democrat to win given that Jindal and/or Boasso will be in the field. Perhaps the strongest Democrat of names circulated, U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon, has expressed as much disinterest in the job as Blanco has expressed interest. Treasurer John Kennedy is more likely to switch parties to face Sen. Mary Landrieu in her 2008 reelection bid. Former Democrat state chairman Jim Bernhard may have a lot of money, but his past association with Blanco and the impression he used his connections in state government to land lucrative contracts for his business interests in the wake of Hurricane Katrina make him not a viable candidate. Campbell, of course, appeals to a populist slice in the state that, thankfully, now is too small on its own to elect a candidate statewide if up against quality opponents like Jindal or Boasso.
This leaves at best somebody of the stature of former U.S. House member Chris John to enter if Blanco defers – a solid candidate but one who was trounced statewide in the 2004 Senate contest and who has been out of the spotlight for three years. Simply, both Jindal and Boasso in the past couple of years have built impressive records that have removed their political rookie status and shored up confidence in voters. Combined with the fact that some of the racist Democrats who disproportionately voted against Jindal in 2003 apparently have left the state, either can beat heads up any Democrat out there.
With the colossi of Jindal and Boasso on the GOP side, there is no apparent savior at this time for Democrats to keep this office.
15.1.07
Landrieu lies cannot cover up liberal voting record
Yes, the Sen. Mary Landrieu spin machine continues to work overtime to fool Louisiana into thinking she represents a majority of its citizens a majority of the time, and it’s even got some people who should know better thinking that.
The biggest lie perpetrated by she and her operatives is that she is a “moderate” or “conservative Democrat.” They know foisting this image onto the public is the only way they can con some gullible, inattentive voters into supporting her. But a quick check of voting records, whether from conservative or liberal organizations that keep track of these things, shows that she cannot be seriously considered anything other than liberal in her political orientation:
On the conservative American Conservative Union’s scorecard where 100 means perfect conservatism in votes, lifetime Landrieu scores a 20. In 2005, she scored a 44. On the liberal Americans for Democratic Action’s scorecard where 100 means perfect liberalism in votes, lifetime Landrieu scores an 81. In 2005, she scored a 95.
In no way can this be considered a “moderate” record of any kind, even as Landrieu perjures herself with the claim, “My opponents and eternal critics continue to use 'liberal' as my middle name, but my record doesn't reflect that.” Loyola’s Ed Renwick summed it up most accurately by noting Landrieu cherrypicks certain issues and votes to try to make her appear moderate, but, unlike Landrieu herself on this subject, her overall record does not lie.
We can expect more mendacity from Landrieu as a challenging 2008 election approaches on her record, plus a few strategic votes here and there to try to provide bare substance to her “moderate” claim. But just as painting stripes on a horse does not make it a zebra, a sufficiently informed Louisiana voting public will see through this charade. The more clarity that can be provided in this matter, the more seriously jeopardized her reelection chances will be.
The biggest lie perpetrated by she and her operatives is that she is a “moderate” or “conservative Democrat.” They know foisting this image onto the public is the only way they can con some gullible, inattentive voters into supporting her. But a quick check of voting records, whether from conservative or liberal organizations that keep track of these things, shows that she cannot be seriously considered anything other than liberal in her political orientation:
In no way can this be considered a “moderate” record of any kind, even as Landrieu perjures herself with the claim, “My opponents and eternal critics continue to use 'liberal' as my middle name, but my record doesn't reflect that.” Loyola’s Ed Renwick summed it up most accurately by noting Landrieu cherrypicks certain issues and votes to try to make her appear moderate, but, unlike Landrieu herself on this subject, her overall record does not lie.
We can expect more mendacity from Landrieu as a challenging 2008 election approaches on her record, plus a few strategic votes here and there to try to provide bare substance to her “moderate” claim. But just as painting stripes on a horse does not make it a zebra, a sufficiently informed Louisiana voting public will see through this charade. The more clarity that can be provided in this matter, the more seriously jeopardized her reelection chances will be.
14.1.07
Remarks affirm good riddance to Breaux, Johnston
Do we need any more reason to breathe a sigh of relief that former Sen. John Breaux is happily enjoying retirement than remarks he made in conjunction with Congressional ethics reform? And to do the same concerning the previous Louisiana Sen. J. Bennett Johnston?
While most on the scene applaud these rules that ban meals, gifts and travel paid by lobbyists for members of Congress, Breaux complains. “When you restrict a member from interacting with the people he represents then you have a Congress that is isolated,” Breaux said. “If you’re only talking to yourself, you’re not going to get any ideas.”
There is so much ignorance wrapped up in this remark that we’ll have to look at it piece by piece. First of all, how does the banning of the perks have anything to do with restricting interaction? Is Breaux saying that you have to buy him meals, take him on trips, or give him stuff in order or else he feels that restricts interaction with him? Or, because he as a senator was the one to decide who did and did not get access to him, in other words Breaux wouldn’t give you the time of day unless you gave him perks?
And how does lobbyists not being able to give stuff to Members of Congress make Members any more isolated? Something Breaux could have done, and anybody can do now as a Member is to circulate among the people of his district or state, and just listen to concerned citizens and there’s no isolation. If there’s any isolation, it’s self-imposed by Members too willing to hang out with lobbyists and not willing enough to move among their constituents and to find out their real needs and concerns (and from his voting record, one can see how little attention Breaux paid to what was best for Louisiana.)
Of course, who Breaux said he “represents” in those days likely was not the entirety of Louisiana. In his mind, he probably believes that the people he represented themselves were represented by lobbyists he favored (now his own profession). Again, a liberal voting record against the desires of a more conservative Louisiana (who also expressed in these instances, contrary to Breaux, in terms of the right thing to do, what was correct), as well as his current career choices, shows he places more faith in special interests than he did in the people of Louisiana.
Finally, I guess Breaux never had much of an original thought in his head, nor any desire to learn things on his own, leading to his love of incessant chatter, food, and trips from lobbyists. He only had a staff of a few dozen, the entire Library of Congress, opportunities for hearings, communications from those pesky constituents, etc. to learn from. A denseness and stubbornness are the only things that could explain that, despite all of these opportunities to get ideas, he feels without lobbyists that as a policy-maker “you’re not going to get any ideas.”
Another rocket scientist legislator-turned-lobbyist, Johnston, said one gets “weaker government” by not allowing the likes of his former colleagues to partake of hundreds of thousands of dollars of perks now banned. That’s because making lobbyists pay these things to get access to Members apparently robs newly-elected members of a “useful and pleasant way for new members to learn.” Heaven forbid that Members actually use the resources listed above to learn. But even if they don’t, why don’t they learn from lobbyists without having to have the latter pony up food, travel, and gifts? Is it so painful not to be an empty suit that you have to have these perks as palliatives so you can learn about policy?
These insipid remarks shows how lucky Louisiana is to be rid of these good-old-boy, get-along-go-along dinosaurs, out of the way of progressive policy-making in this state desperately needs that they never provided. (That Breaux’s replacement Sen. David Vitter pushed wholeheartedly these reforms not only is stunningly refreshing but alone probably constitutes more good policymaking from Louisiana senators than these two brain surgeons ever managed in 42 years service.) And it reinforces the fact that in this year’s upcoming state elections that the citizenry must avoid electing lower-level clones of these clowns if that progressive policymaking is to come.
While most on the scene applaud these rules that ban meals, gifts and travel paid by lobbyists for members of Congress, Breaux complains. “When you restrict a member from interacting with the people he represents then you have a Congress that is isolated,” Breaux said. “If you’re only talking to yourself, you’re not going to get any ideas.”
There is so much ignorance wrapped up in this remark that we’ll have to look at it piece by piece. First of all, how does the banning of the perks have anything to do with restricting interaction? Is Breaux saying that you have to buy him meals, take him on trips, or give him stuff in order or else he feels that restricts interaction with him? Or, because he as a senator was the one to decide who did and did not get access to him, in other words Breaux wouldn’t give you the time of day unless you gave him perks?
And how does lobbyists not being able to give stuff to Members of Congress make Members any more isolated? Something Breaux could have done, and anybody can do now as a Member is to circulate among the people of his district or state, and just listen to concerned citizens and there’s no isolation. If there’s any isolation, it’s self-imposed by Members too willing to hang out with lobbyists and not willing enough to move among their constituents and to find out their real needs and concerns (and from his voting record, one can see how little attention Breaux paid to what was best for Louisiana.)
Of course, who Breaux said he “represents” in those days likely was not the entirety of Louisiana. In his mind, he probably believes that the people he represented themselves were represented by lobbyists he favored (now his own profession). Again, a liberal voting record against the desires of a more conservative Louisiana (who also expressed in these instances, contrary to Breaux, in terms of the right thing to do, what was correct), as well as his current career choices, shows he places more faith in special interests than he did in the people of Louisiana.
Finally, I guess Breaux never had much of an original thought in his head, nor any desire to learn things on his own, leading to his love of incessant chatter, food, and trips from lobbyists. He only had a staff of a few dozen, the entire Library of Congress, opportunities for hearings, communications from those pesky constituents, etc. to learn from. A denseness and stubbornness are the only things that could explain that, despite all of these opportunities to get ideas, he feels without lobbyists that as a policy-maker “you’re not going to get any ideas.”
Another rocket scientist legislator-turned-lobbyist, Johnston, said one gets “weaker government” by not allowing the likes of his former colleagues to partake of hundreds of thousands of dollars of perks now banned. That’s because making lobbyists pay these things to get access to Members apparently robs newly-elected members of a “useful and pleasant way for new members to learn.” Heaven forbid that Members actually use the resources listed above to learn. But even if they don’t, why don’t they learn from lobbyists without having to have the latter pony up food, travel, and gifts? Is it so painful not to be an empty suit that you have to have these perks as palliatives so you can learn about policy?
These insipid remarks shows how lucky Louisiana is to be rid of these good-old-boy, get-along-go-along dinosaurs, out of the way of progressive policy-making in this state desperately needs that they never provided. (That Breaux’s replacement Sen. David Vitter pushed wholeheartedly these reforms not only is stunningly refreshing but alone probably constitutes more good policymaking from Louisiana senators than these two brain surgeons ever managed in 42 years service.) And it reinforces the fact that in this year’s upcoming state elections that the citizenry must avoid electing lower-level clones of these clowns if that progressive policymaking is to come.
11.1.07
Port of N.O. must focus on sensible solutions
It’s been almost a year and a half now since Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, triggering the city’s flooding. Memories fade about the event and the infrastructure that shaped it, and perhaps that’s the thinking why again we’re hearing from the Port of New Orleans as it tries to grab more taxpayer money for no good reason.
For many years, an ongoing project to replace the lock at the Industrial Canal (officially the “Inner Harbor Navigation Canal”) has continued. The Port supports this, even as studies have shown the $748 million device could be replaced far more cheaply, especially as the canal has continued to see a decrease in use with the wider Mississippi River being more accommodating to deep-draft ocean-going vessels and barge traffic going elsewhere.
It also has lost traffic as it connects to the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, itself in declining use for large vessels. MR-GO is widely blamed for increasing the impact of the hurricane. It looks all but certain that MR-GO will be closed for reasons of cost effectiveness and flood protection, which even though its use was on the decline, concerns the Port because there will be some loss of business.
For many years, an ongoing project to replace the lock at the Industrial Canal (officially the “Inner Harbor Navigation Canal”) has continued. The Port supports this, even as studies have shown the $748 million device could be replaced far more cheaply, especially as the canal has continued to see a decrease in use with the wider Mississippi River being more accommodating to deep-draft ocean-going vessels and barge traffic going elsewhere.
It also has lost traffic as it connects to the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, itself in declining use for large vessels. MR-GO is widely blamed for increasing the impact of the hurricane. It looks all but certain that MR-GO will be closed for reasons of cost effectiveness and flood protection, which even though its use was on the decline, concerns the Port because there will be some loss of business.
10.1.07
Landrieu spending plan shows no comprehension of reality
Does Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu think Louisianans are stupid? Or is it he’s just a mental lightweight? Because nobody with any sense is going to buy his argument that the state needs a $125 million advertising blitz to cure its ailing tourism industry.
Landrieu bases this absurd idea on two equally absurd presumptions, that national media are conveying the impression that New Orleans still is filled with water, and that for every buck spent on tourism publicity, $16 comes back. Let’s review these claims.
Do an Internet search of both video and print stories about New Orleans and guess what you find? Stories about rampant crime committed by both criminals and law enforcement, along with news about the Saints, dominate the non-Louisiana media since the beginning of the year. Looking specifically at video over the past 30 days there are stories extolling it being “party time” in New Orleans and recommencing a small portion of the streetcar line, but nothing about high water.
Which makes one wonder if Landrieu somehow hasn’t gotten confused about his VCR and he keeps watching old news feeds over and over again (perhaps in an attempt to wipe out the memory of his mayoral election loss?) In any event, you can bet those in the tourism industry are watching current news and they know two things, that the water is long gone from New Orleans, and so is any semblance of law and order, now including shootings on Bourbon Street when the place is packed. And that’s why tourists and conventioneers are staying away.
As laughable as Landrieu’s assertion is on this subject, it gets more warped when he talks about spending taxpayers’ money to make it. Let’s see, if there’s a multiplier of 16 here that means the $125 million will turn into $2 billion in the tourist trade. Well, why stop there, how about spending $1 billion? Glory be, that will pump $16 billion into the state and we’ll be better off than ever before!
Landrieu doesn’t see the idiocy of his thinking because he never has believed that it is people and the private sector, not government, that create economic growth. If he had any sense at all, he’d want to steer that $125 million into the state treasury to pay for tax cuts for New Orleans small businesses to keep them afloat while the longer term problems get solved. Or, if he’d rather tackle the latter, devote that money to policing the city.
But that’s not what a lieutenant governor has the power to do, and Landrieu knows nothing more about being a political leader than taxing and spending, so that’s all that he’s capable of providing as he tries to revive his fading political career. Which goes to show New Orleans voters left themselves really bad choices after last year’s delayed primary election.
Landrieu bases this absurd idea on two equally absurd presumptions, that national media are conveying the impression that New Orleans still is filled with water, and that for every buck spent on tourism publicity, $16 comes back. Let’s review these claims.
Do an Internet search of both video and print stories about New Orleans and guess what you find? Stories about rampant crime committed by both criminals and law enforcement, along with news about the Saints, dominate the non-Louisiana media since the beginning of the year. Looking specifically at video over the past 30 days there are stories extolling it being “party time” in New Orleans and recommencing a small portion of the streetcar line, but nothing about high water.
Which makes one wonder if Landrieu somehow hasn’t gotten confused about his VCR and he keeps watching old news feeds over and over again (perhaps in an attempt to wipe out the memory of his mayoral election loss?) In any event, you can bet those in the tourism industry are watching current news and they know two things, that the water is long gone from New Orleans, and so is any semblance of law and order, now including shootings on Bourbon Street when the place is packed. And that’s why tourists and conventioneers are staying away.
As laughable as Landrieu’s assertion is on this subject, it gets more warped when he talks about spending taxpayers’ money to make it. Let’s see, if there’s a multiplier of 16 here that means the $125 million will turn into $2 billion in the tourist trade. Well, why stop there, how about spending $1 billion? Glory be, that will pump $16 billion into the state and we’ll be better off than ever before!
Landrieu doesn’t see the idiocy of his thinking because he never has believed that it is people and the private sector, not government, that create economic growth. If he had any sense at all, he’d want to steer that $125 million into the state treasury to pay for tax cuts for New Orleans small businesses to keep them afloat while the longer term problems get solved. Or, if he’d rather tackle the latter, devote that money to policing the city.
But that’s not what a lieutenant governor has the power to do, and Landrieu knows nothing more about being a political leader than taxing and spending, so that’s all that he’s capable of providing as he tries to revive his fading political career. Which goes to show New Orleans voters left themselves really bad choices after last year’s delayed primary election.
9.1.07
Performance-based college measuring must be done correctly
Having been on the front lines of educating at what is essentially an open-enrollment university in Louisiana for the past 15 years, I have great sympathy for goals outlined in the upcoming review of higher education in Louisiana. The fact is, as verified during my year of teaching in Illinois in 2000-01, the skills of the students attending and the quality of education provided at our state universities lag the rest of the country’s. However, one suggestion made to change this well could make matters worse rather than better.
Performance funding, or granting money to universities on the basis of some criteria that presumably captures their performance, in general is a good idea, but policy-makers must be careful when it comes to its actual measurement. With the new plan, campuses will be rewarded for how students perform in the classroom, based on graduation and retention rates, and how they do on exams for certification after they graduate.
The second aspect of that, testing, is a good idea and already is done in some areas such as for education degrees. But if left in isolation, the first part, classroom performance and its resulting ideal product graduation with a degree, will produce the opposite effect just as we’ve seen at the secondary level, i.e. dumbing down instruction and/or grade inflation designed more to get students out the door than to ensure they have a quality education.
Grade inflation increasingly is a problem in Louisiana high schools. Here’s just one bit of anecdotal evidence on this account: when my nephew graduated last year from high school, in a class of over 300, the average GPA of the entire class was slightly over a 3.0 (B) and over a dozen students had a 4.0 (perfect straight A). In contrast, when my wife graduated sixteen years earlier from another area high school with a slightly larger class, she and one other guy had a 4.0 – and it had been a couple of years, and would be a couple of years after, than any other student would achieve that.
Grades have gone up because of TOPS, the state’s program of giving free money for college for students meeting certain grade point averages. Simply, many Louisiana high school teachers are afraid of giving grades that realistically assess a student’s ability because they don’t want to have parents complaining to principals that they are cheating their children out of having a college education paid for. (If you want more proof, even as their GPAs seem to show they are well above average, why is it that Louisiana high school students score well below the national average on the ACT?)
If classroom grades and graduation rates become the only metric by which some college programs are rewarded with funding, the same thing is going to happen. In order to ensure maximum funding, university administrators will pressure faculty members to give away high grades like candy at Christmas, compounding a grade inflation problem that already is rampant among universities nationwide and getting worse. This gamesmanship will do nothing to improve the educational quality of Louisiana college attendees. Indeed, it will encourage lowering standards even below where they are now.
Thus, while performance-based funding is a welcome development in Louisiana higher education, picking the wrong way to measure it not only will not improve the quality of higher education in the state, it will make it worse.
Performance funding, or granting money to universities on the basis of some criteria that presumably captures their performance, in general is a good idea, but policy-makers must be careful when it comes to its actual measurement. With the new plan, campuses will be rewarded for how students perform in the classroom, based on graduation and retention rates, and how they do on exams for certification after they graduate.
The second aspect of that, testing, is a good idea and already is done in some areas such as for education degrees. But if left in isolation, the first part, classroom performance and its resulting ideal product graduation with a degree, will produce the opposite effect just as we’ve seen at the secondary level, i.e. dumbing down instruction and/or grade inflation designed more to get students out the door than to ensure they have a quality education.
Grade inflation increasingly is a problem in Louisiana high schools. Here’s just one bit of anecdotal evidence on this account: when my nephew graduated last year from high school, in a class of over 300, the average GPA of the entire class was slightly over a 3.0 (B) and over a dozen students had a 4.0 (perfect straight A). In contrast, when my wife graduated sixteen years earlier from another area high school with a slightly larger class, she and one other guy had a 4.0 – and it had been a couple of years, and would be a couple of years after, than any other student would achieve that.
Grades have gone up because of TOPS, the state’s program of giving free money for college for students meeting certain grade point averages. Simply, many Louisiana high school teachers are afraid of giving grades that realistically assess a student’s ability because they don’t want to have parents complaining to principals that they are cheating their children out of having a college education paid for. (If you want more proof, even as their GPAs seem to show they are well above average, why is it that Louisiana high school students score well below the national average on the ACT?)
If classroom grades and graduation rates become the only metric by which some college programs are rewarded with funding, the same thing is going to happen. In order to ensure maximum funding, university administrators will pressure faculty members to give away high grades like candy at Christmas, compounding a grade inflation problem that already is rampant among universities nationwide and getting worse. This gamesmanship will do nothing to improve the educational quality of Louisiana college attendees. Indeed, it will encourage lowering standards even below where they are now.
Thus, while performance-based funding is a welcome development in Louisiana higher education, picking the wrong way to measure it not only will not improve the quality of higher education in the state, it will make it worse.
8.1.07
Term limits, displacement effects among hot political topics
Most readers were unfortunate enough not to be able to attend the two panels at the Southern Political Science Association meeting in New Orleans dealing specifically with Louisiana politics on Saturday, one of which being the venue at which I presented my paper concerning implications of term limits on legislators and voter displacement on state politics.
So, as a public service, here I will sum up some of the more interesting conclusions drawn based on discussion proceeding from the paper and by other roundtable participants – political science professors Albert Samuels of Southern, Henry Sirgo of McNeese State, Joshua Stockley of Nicholls State, and myself
1. In my study, it must be reemphasized that even if the GOP is much better off as a result of term limits and displacement (which gives the party great advantage in 13 of 16 legislative seats made competitive by terms limits, and removed around 49,000 net potential Democrat voters from the state, respectively), this represents only potential gains where the party has to get the work done in order to realize such gains. Poor campaigning or inferior candidates will not.
2. At the same time, national trends are not likely to affect campaigning for state office because, with Louisiana having elections separate from any federal elections, there won’t be a much tying the two together. Statewide trends, by contrast, may well affect this. For example, if the outcome of the second special session causes blame to be heaped disproportionately on one party, that would drag on electoral competitiveness of all that party’s candidates.
3. Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco is in big trouble and by extension Democrat hopes for winning the state’s top office are as well. The Democrats would be better off with a candidate such as former U.S. House member Chris John but that current Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal would remain the most formidable candidate in the field. Democrat U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon probably would not be interested if Blanco bowed out. If Blanco persists in running, with her and Democrat Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell in the field, no other competitive Democrat would likely see any chance of making the general election runoff and thus not run, making Democrat chances of winning very slim.
4. Democrats also should be worried about the displacement of voters for other statewide offices, particularly for the seat held Sen. Mary Landrieu coming up for grabs in 2008. While these elections are almost a year or two away, demographic changes are not favoring the party at the statewide level.
5. By contrast, it would be a mistake to impute that difficulties Democrats are having statewide will translate into lower-level offices. For example, while much attention has been given to big Democrat displacement from Orleans Parish, proportionally as much Republican voter displacement has occurred in St. Bernard Parish. As another indicator, my study showed that while the GOP could pick up 10 House seats from term limits, by contrast as many Republican districts as Democrat ones, two each, are endangered by term limits in the Senate – both GOP-held seats being in the strongest Democrat area outside of the state, Melancon’s stronghold of Acadiana to the Delta.
6. Redistricting in 2011 as a result of the national census almost certainly will cost Louisiana a seat in the House. Whether it will be a majority-black seat preserved around New Orleans because of the nascent remaining legislative strength in the area and reluctance not to have one majority-black district in the state, or because of the historical antipathy of southeastern-most Louisiana to Orleans that will preserve something akin to Melancon’s Third District instead, it looks likely that the Democrats will be the losers as all Republican seats will be preserved – but much depends upon the results of the 2007 state elections in this regard.
That’s our best guesses for four-plus years out. We’ll just have to see what happens.
So, as a public service, here I will sum up some of the more interesting conclusions drawn based on discussion proceeding from the paper and by other roundtable participants – political science professors Albert Samuels of Southern, Henry Sirgo of McNeese State, Joshua Stockley of Nicholls State, and myself
1. In my study, it must be reemphasized that even if the GOP is much better off as a result of term limits and displacement (which gives the party great advantage in 13 of 16 legislative seats made competitive by terms limits, and removed around 49,000 net potential Democrat voters from the state, respectively), this represents only potential gains where the party has to get the work done in order to realize such gains. Poor campaigning or inferior candidates will not.
2. At the same time, national trends are not likely to affect campaigning for state office because, with Louisiana having elections separate from any federal elections, there won’t be a much tying the two together. Statewide trends, by contrast, may well affect this. For example, if the outcome of the second special session causes blame to be heaped disproportionately on one party, that would drag on electoral competitiveness of all that party’s candidates.
3. Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco is in big trouble and by extension Democrat hopes for winning the state’s top office are as well. The Democrats would be better off with a candidate such as former U.S. House member Chris John but that current Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal would remain the most formidable candidate in the field. Democrat U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon probably would not be interested if Blanco bowed out. If Blanco persists in running, with her and Democrat Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell in the field, no other competitive Democrat would likely see any chance of making the general election runoff and thus not run, making Democrat chances of winning very slim.
4. Democrats also should be worried about the displacement of voters for other statewide offices, particularly for the seat held Sen. Mary Landrieu coming up for grabs in 2008. While these elections are almost a year or two away, demographic changes are not favoring the party at the statewide level.
5. By contrast, it would be a mistake to impute that difficulties Democrats are having statewide will translate into lower-level offices. For example, while much attention has been given to big Democrat displacement from Orleans Parish, proportionally as much Republican voter displacement has occurred in St. Bernard Parish. As another indicator, my study showed that while the GOP could pick up 10 House seats from term limits, by contrast as many Republican districts as Democrat ones, two each, are endangered by term limits in the Senate – both GOP-held seats being in the strongest Democrat area outside of the state, Melancon’s stronghold of Acadiana to the Delta.
6. Redistricting in 2011 as a result of the national census almost certainly will cost Louisiana a seat in the House. Whether it will be a majority-black seat preserved around New Orleans because of the nascent remaining legislative strength in the area and reluctance not to have one majority-black district in the state, or because of the historical antipathy of southeastern-most Louisiana to Orleans that will preserve something akin to Melancon’s Third District instead, it looks likely that the Democrats will be the losers as all Republican seats will be preserved – but much depends upon the results of the 2007 state elections in this regard.
That’s our best guesses for four-plus years out. We’ll just have to see what happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)