And the trend continues: candidates tainted with the perception of being “politics as usual” are going to have a hard time winning office in Louisiana this year.
The special elections for two state House seats are congruent with results of previous such legislative contests. District 4 had two ex-politicians face off, but the one who prevailed has the least connection to past politics. Democrat Patrick Williams served just a term as a Caddo Parish commissioner before choosing to run for and fail to gain this seat in 2003. His decisively defeated opponent Democrat Larry Ferdinand, by contrast, has served almost continuously in government for 30 years, first as a Shreveport city councilman, then working for the city, and most recently working for the state.
More to this point was the results of the District 94 contest, where political newcomer Republican Nick Lorusso bested fellow GOP member Jeb Bruneau. The latter is the son of the present seat-holder Peppi Bruneau, and that relationship appears to have been a major factor in Lorusso’s triumph.
The elder Bruneau resigned weeks ago in order to trigger a special election to have a winner seated right as the Apr. 30 regular session of the Legislature began. Lorusso, and others, charged it was an effort to have an election when a smaller portion of casual voters would participate and, with attention spans lower among the electorate rather than during a regular election, the Bruneau machine would get working and the Bruneau name would carry greater weight as a factor in making a vote decision to the assistance of the younger Bruneau.
Instead, this early resignation became an issue and looks to have backfired if that were the intent – but a risk perhaps the Bruneau’s were willing to take. Peppi is an astute politician and may have figured anti-incumbent or anything that smacked of an incumbent sentiment in October would make a special election a better bet for his son. If so, he underestimated the swelling of power of this sentiment that looks ready to intensify as the year moves along to the benefit of legislative newcomers and disproportionately against Democrats.
29.3.07
Election politics driving inferior building code policy options
For readers who have been in a recent coma, yes, it is an election year in Louisiana and, yes, that means a lot of pandering by politicians will go on even if it results in counterproductive policy. One need look no further for such an example as with deliberations made by the Louisiana House’s Commerce Committee.
The panel met recently to consider the implementation of Act 12 of the 2005 First Extraordinary Session, which established a uniform building code statewide. There is at least one outstanding issue of great importance, the extra costs into the thousands of dollars that new construction has to face for inspection to meet the code, and the obvious solution there is to make following the codes voluntary to some degree, where the incentive would be paying more now to have lower insurance rates later.
Another fix would be to vastly increase the number of inspectors, which are far and few between licensed in a monopoly fashion by the International Code Council. If there’s talk of really bringing costs down, this is the place to really start with government providing incentives for individuals to get the training, or, if the sector fails to ramp up quickly and cost efficiently enough, to empower other organizations to provide it and change the law to allow them to inspect. (Presently, the law allows for just an affidavit saying a structure meets code, meaning these high costs can be avoided, but there is talk of getting rid of that provision.)
But instead of these commonsensical solutions, some legislators are going off on tangents that threaten to exacerbate the insurance crisis in Louisiana. In a nutshell, insurance prices are too high in Louisiana because of too much government regulation. Reducing government interference will encourage policy-writers, which will lower prices. (And there’s always a Department of Insurance to oversee them.)
Instead, some politicians like committee chairman Gil Pinac are saying the state should force insurers to give discounts, and others like state Rep. Billy Chandler complain that “It is time for the insurance companies to come up with a plan . . . to give a reduction in high rates.” What Chandler seems to indicate that he doesn’t know is the code went into effect only on Jan. 1 of this year, so there are few if any structures even built under the code that are occupied yet; how can companies make these kinds of decisions with such a vacuum of information?
Even a plan to have government give tax credits to those living in approved structures isn’t optimal. This would take money away from other priorities and involve government in something that the private sector perfectly can properly price by itself.
All of these proposals are impatient responses attributable to a desire to look for fall elections. Instead of thinking clearly on the issue, legislators want to be able to crow during their reelection campaigns that they got people tax credits, or forced rates down, when the sensible, optimal thing to do would be to give the private sector time to fully understand the differing levels of risk and their histories under the new code, to then price things properly. That ability will meet interference by and ultimately produce higher prices from elected officials trying to insert more government into the process.
The panel met recently to consider the implementation of Act 12 of the 2005 First Extraordinary Session, which established a uniform building code statewide. There is at least one outstanding issue of great importance, the extra costs into the thousands of dollars that new construction has to face for inspection to meet the code, and the obvious solution there is to make following the codes voluntary to some degree, where the incentive would be paying more now to have lower insurance rates later.
Another fix would be to vastly increase the number of inspectors, which are far and few between licensed in a monopoly fashion by the International Code Council. If there’s talk of really bringing costs down, this is the place to really start with government providing incentives for individuals to get the training, or, if the sector fails to ramp up quickly and cost efficiently enough, to empower other organizations to provide it and change the law to allow them to inspect. (Presently, the law allows for just an affidavit saying a structure meets code, meaning these high costs can be avoided, but there is talk of getting rid of that provision.)
But instead of these commonsensical solutions, some legislators are going off on tangents that threaten to exacerbate the insurance crisis in Louisiana. In a nutshell, insurance prices are too high in Louisiana because of too much government regulation. Reducing government interference will encourage policy-writers, which will lower prices. (And there’s always a Department of Insurance to oversee them.)
Instead, some politicians like committee chairman Gil Pinac are saying the state should force insurers to give discounts, and others like state Rep. Billy Chandler complain that “It is time for the insurance companies to come up with a plan . . . to give a reduction in high rates.” What Chandler seems to indicate that he doesn’t know is the code went into effect only on Jan. 1 of this year, so there are few if any structures even built under the code that are occupied yet; how can companies make these kinds of decisions with such a vacuum of information?
Even a plan to have government give tax credits to those living in approved structures isn’t optimal. This would take money away from other priorities and involve government in something that the private sector perfectly can properly price by itself.
All of these proposals are impatient responses attributable to a desire to look for fall elections. Instead of thinking clearly on the issue, legislators want to be able to crow during their reelection campaigns that they got people tax credits, or forced rates down, when the sensible, optimal thing to do would be to give the private sector time to fully understand the differing levels of risk and their histories under the new code, to then price things properly. That ability will meet interference by and ultimately produce higher prices from elected officials trying to insert more government into the process.
28.3.07
Foti miscalculation may harm Democrats' chances further
It appears that Louisiana Atty. Gen. Charles Foti will accept an invitation at least to review the question of whether former senator and Louisiana resident John Breaux has continued to be a “citizen” of the state. In doing so, an if we take Breaux at his word that a negative decision will dissuade him from attempting the race, Foti either can bring the state Democrats back from the brink of the political abyss, or perhaps plunge them in further.
Perhaps Breaux should be listening to fellow Democrat state Sen. Noble Ellington, who has realized among others that a Breaux candidacy would be a very poor gamble for the party’s fortunes. Despite wishful thinking on the part by Democrats, the legal odds rest very much against Breaux being declared a “citizen” of the state for he past five years as required by the state Constitution for governor, for that optimistic view rests on an interpretation that would permit even non-U.S. citizens to qualify. Democrats risk having no candidate capable of winning on the ballot at all come Oct. 20, so prudence dictates finding somebody whose qualification chances are certain.
But the political problems are perhaps even more insurmountable. A challenge to Breaux’s candidacy would drag on, even expedited, close to the election date itself, covering his candidacy in unflattering connotations, with months of prior unfavorable publicity by two, perhaps three, well-financed Republican challengers. While Breaux would be vulnerable on many fronts, his most glaring weakness would be he could not fend off accusations that he was part of a good-old-boy network trying to preserve its power by twisting the Constitution out of shape. This would be political disaster to all Democrats running at all levels, validating the suspicion of many state voters that Louisiana Democrats are too corrupt to be entrusted with running the state’s government.
Perhaps Breaux should be listening to fellow Democrat state Sen. Noble Ellington, who has realized among others that a Breaux candidacy would be a very poor gamble for the party’s fortunes. Despite wishful thinking on the part by Democrats, the legal odds rest very much against Breaux being declared a “citizen” of the state for he past five years as required by the state Constitution for governor, for that optimistic view rests on an interpretation that would permit even non-U.S. citizens to qualify. Democrats risk having no candidate capable of winning on the ballot at all come Oct. 20, so prudence dictates finding somebody whose qualification chances are certain.
But the political problems are perhaps even more insurmountable. A challenge to Breaux’s candidacy would drag on, even expedited, close to the election date itself, covering his candidacy in unflattering connotations, with months of prior unfavorable publicity by two, perhaps three, well-financed Republican challengers. While Breaux would be vulnerable on many fronts, his most glaring weakness would be he could not fend off accusations that he was part of a good-old-boy network trying to preserve its power by twisting the Constitution out of shape. This would be political disaster to all Democrats running at all levels, validating the suspicion of many state voters that Louisiana Democrats are too corrupt to be entrusted with running the state’s government.
27.3.07
Bad personnel decisions to cost Caddo, Bossier citizens
As area local governments have demonstrated with some recent decisions they’ve made, there’s a wrong way to do things and, well, there’s a wrong way to do things.
In the past this space questioned Caddo Parish’s hiring of a lobbyist at a high salary who already had little time to commit to parish work, in part because she was employed by Bossier Parish also at a high full-time salary. Particularly noteworthy was the fact that in the three years Bossier Parish had her on the payroll, apparently only about 20 percent of the money paid to her actually was spent on lobbying activities for the parish (and apparently none at all in 2006). This led to the conclusion that the smart, constituent-driven decision for both parishes would be one of (1) each paying her considerably less, (2) each paying somebody else less to do a full-time job, or (3) dispense with the position and use those resources more efficiently among existing personnel to conduct lobbying.
One could try to make an argument that such a high salary for not much work would be justified – as one consistent defender of Bossier governments wrote – by paying a lobbyist $60,000 a year to get $3.9 million in federal projects (it is claimed, without independent verification). One could, but shouldn’t if one thought critically about the issue, knew something about lobbying, and could perceive the logical absurdity behind this thought.
Academic research shows that, except in the case of the very upper tier of lobbyists (typically ex-Congressmen, ex-staffers, or a few exceptionally talented individuals), there’s essentially no relation between lobbyist characteristics (including pay) and results (which themselves are hard to measure in any event). More intuitively, there’s no reason to believe that there’s not an individual out there who could have been paid, say, $30,000 a year who could not have done as well, or even have a parish pay $10,000 in expenses spread out over one or more employees to engage in this activity – and they might have had better results, which would seem very likely given little effort was made for the $60,000 in the case of Bossier last year.
Consider as well the absurdity of the statement that parish taxpayers had to pay $60,000 to get $3.9 million. With that logic, why doesn’t Bossier Parish pay $180,000 in lobbying expenses and – presto! – $11.7 million will come rolling in and it could stop trying to soak taxpayers and start turning shovels on the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway extension tomorrow?
(Alas, for the remainder of the year area voters should be prepared to suffer more of this drivel for at least one area candidate for office looks like he’ll make this exact argument for his election. It’ll go like this: “Elect term-limited state Rep. Billy Montgomery to the state Senate because he brought X projects worth $Y to his district.” The flaw in the logic is the same – that Montgomery was totally responsible, even if he wasn’t, for getting these projects so without him District 9 would have been left destitute these past 20 years. But there’s absolutely no reason to assume somebody else other than Montgomery wouldn’t have then, and couldn’t in the future, do as good of a – or a better – job of this. In fact, I think there's someone better.)
You might think Shreveport would learn from these instances that it’s all about priorities and being good stewards of the taxpayers’ monies. Instead, it seems new Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover is as stuck on stupid.
While Glover is breaking all records in hiring personal staffers, in numbers of them and therefore salaries paid out, one job he specifically eliminated was that of city grant-writer. In great contrast the nebulous nature and indifferent results that lobbying provides, the results from grant-writing are tangible and direct.
A mayor has the right to put whomever he pleases into unclassified positions which this one was, including discharging a holdover from a previous administration. But making this a very curious decision was rather than put someone else into the job, he dispensed with it. Very likely this happened because a mayor only has a limited pool of salary money to pay out and, already having hired allies into these other jobs he created, there’s not enough to go around to keep a position into which apparently an suitable ally could not be hired.
Good grant writers, unlike most lobbyists, directly translate their work into funds because the grant process is mostly by merit infused with some politics, with lobbying being opposite. Unless one or more of Glover’s new assistants can start cranking out decent grant applications, this decision will cost a city whose financial picture currently looks bleaker rather than brighter in the future.
In the past this space questioned Caddo Parish’s hiring of a lobbyist at a high salary who already had little time to commit to parish work, in part because she was employed by Bossier Parish also at a high full-time salary. Particularly noteworthy was the fact that in the three years Bossier Parish had her on the payroll, apparently only about 20 percent of the money paid to her actually was spent on lobbying activities for the parish (and apparently none at all in 2006). This led to the conclusion that the smart, constituent-driven decision for both parishes would be one of (1) each paying her considerably less, (2) each paying somebody else less to do a full-time job, or (3) dispense with the position and use those resources more efficiently among existing personnel to conduct lobbying.
One could try to make an argument that such a high salary for not much work would be justified – as one consistent defender of Bossier governments wrote – by paying a lobbyist $60,000 a year to get $3.9 million in federal projects (it is claimed, without independent verification). One could, but shouldn’t if one thought critically about the issue, knew something about lobbying, and could perceive the logical absurdity behind this thought.
Academic research shows that, except in the case of the very upper tier of lobbyists (typically ex-Congressmen, ex-staffers, or a few exceptionally talented individuals), there’s essentially no relation between lobbyist characteristics (including pay) and results (which themselves are hard to measure in any event). More intuitively, there’s no reason to believe that there’s not an individual out there who could have been paid, say, $30,000 a year who could not have done as well, or even have a parish pay $10,000 in expenses spread out over one or more employees to engage in this activity – and they might have had better results, which would seem very likely given little effort was made for the $60,000 in the case of Bossier last year.
Consider as well the absurdity of the statement that parish taxpayers had to pay $60,000 to get $3.9 million. With that logic, why doesn’t Bossier Parish pay $180,000 in lobbying expenses and – presto! – $11.7 million will come rolling in and it could stop trying to soak taxpayers and start turning shovels on the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway extension tomorrow?
(Alas, for the remainder of the year area voters should be prepared to suffer more of this drivel for at least one area candidate for office looks like he’ll make this exact argument for his election. It’ll go like this: “Elect term-limited state Rep. Billy Montgomery to the state Senate because he brought X projects worth $Y to his district.” The flaw in the logic is the same – that Montgomery was totally responsible, even if he wasn’t, for getting these projects so without him District 9 would have been left destitute these past 20 years. But there’s absolutely no reason to assume somebody else other than Montgomery wouldn’t have then, and couldn’t in the future, do as good of a – or a better – job of this. In fact, I think there's someone better.)
You might think Shreveport would learn from these instances that it’s all about priorities and being good stewards of the taxpayers’ monies. Instead, it seems new Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover is as stuck on stupid.
While Glover is breaking all records in hiring personal staffers, in numbers of them and therefore salaries paid out, one job he specifically eliminated was that of city grant-writer. In great contrast the nebulous nature and indifferent results that lobbying provides, the results from grant-writing are tangible and direct.
A mayor has the right to put whomever he pleases into unclassified positions which this one was, including discharging a holdover from a previous administration. But making this a very curious decision was rather than put someone else into the job, he dispensed with it. Very likely this happened because a mayor only has a limited pool of salary money to pay out and, already having hired allies into these other jobs he created, there’s not enough to go around to keep a position into which apparently an suitable ally could not be hired.
Good grant writers, unlike most lobbyists, directly translate their work into funds because the grant process is mostly by merit infused with some politics, with lobbying being opposite. Unless one or more of Glover’s new assistants can start cranking out decent grant applications, this decision will cost a city whose financial picture currently looks bleaker rather than brighter in the future.
26.3.07
"Partisan" Democrat code for opposition to their policies
Befitting the name of this space, I will use my advanced education in political science to translate for readers what some members of the Louisiana Legislature mean when they say certain things. But, if readers want a summary of what it all means without this detailed explanation, they merely need to read the last quote from the previous posting.
When asked whether partisan behavior, meaning whether factions will form largely along partisan groupings in the 2007 Louisiana Legislature to contest things, will continue to increase in incidence, a number of such individuals replied:
1. Democrat House Speaker Pro-Tem Yvonne Dorsey, said “I would like to think that the partisan politics would take a backseat to some of the pressing issues we need to deal with. We should focus on those policy issues that really need to be addressed just like the governor has done in her executive budget.”
When asked whether partisan behavior, meaning whether factions will form largely along partisan groupings in the 2007 Louisiana Legislature to contest things, will continue to increase in incidence, a number of such individuals replied:
1. Democrat House Speaker Pro-Tem Yvonne Dorsey, said “I would like to think that the partisan politics would take a backseat to some of the pressing issues we need to deal with. We should focus on those policy issues that really need to be addressed just like the governor has done in her executive budget.”
22.3.07
Paranoiac, clueless Blanco misunderstands own failings
We have the megalomania of Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco to thank for her decision not to seek a second term, and the persecution complex that it spawned.
Administration aides indicate that, according to Blanco, the decision to drop out became made firmly when the federal government informed her that the Road Home Program was in violation of regulations regarding fund disbursement. The program was set up so that government, which was Blanco’s preference because her ideology distrusts the ability of the common folk to conduct their own affairs, controlled grant disbursement. The rules, which have existed for a long time and were communicated to Blanco months ago, state at the least that recipients must have the option to get funds immediately or else the nature of the program was such that additional qualification would have to be met.
This apparently was added to a litany of other perceived slights Blanco thinks she gets from the federal government, which include a belief that Mississippi got more hurricane disaster recovery money than it should have relative to Louisiana and health care redesign that promoted taking money away from state institutions and instead giving it to the uninsured. One also could add the federal government only partially removing the state matching requirement for some recovery funds the entire amount of which almost always in the past for other states regarding other disasters has been removed. The motive, according to her, was partisanship by the Republican administration.
Naturally, this worldview betrays an inability to see things as they are and to understand the political world:
Mississippi by some metrics did do proportionally better than Louisiana in getting money, but not really because they had Republican senators and a governor of that party. It was because those senators had senior positions relative to the appropriations process, the governor previously worked with those senators and the then-GOP majority as party leader, because the law of long-standing capped the amount Louisiana could get relative to other affected states, and the state acted much less rashly and more effectively than did Blanco in her initial recovery plans Indigent health care redesign is focusing on different ideologies about how to care to the poor: continue to route money into an institution-based charity system that is less efficient and produces worse outcomes, but which brings the state government more money and employees, or to send money to potential patients themselves where they could choose to spend it how they preferred on their care. It wasn’t a basic question of partisanship, but one of ideology: Blanco favors continuing to empower government, while the majority of health care professionals, non-government institutions, patient advocates, other states, and the federal government wish to empower people. The state is being asked, at this point, to return less than 1 percent of the $60 billion (and counting) the state has been given, far more than any state in history, while it has benefited several times that requested refund in terms of tax revenues culled from the federal money and the federal government also built in a way for the state to have the money to meet the match through other disbursements. And why should the Road Home be exempt from regulations any other grant program must follow? Why does Louisiana deserve to be an exception to rule (just like with the charity hospital situation)?
None of this has anything to do with partisanship, except in the sense that Republicans and Democrats differ fundamentally ideologically. And the richest irony of all is that while Blanco blames the GOP for playing politics, she never has done anything but in her term. For example, records show that as soon as the extent of Hurricane Katrina’s effects became evident, she immediately began to formulate a political response to avoid (unsuccessfully) for being blamed for suboptimal actions she took that made the situation worse. Or, witness her refusal to create pay raises for educators in last December’s special session when Republicans offered to do so if she would cut other spending, and then she blamed the GOP for this.
Since taking office, Blanco always has displayed an incredible myopia regarding political conflict. She never has understood that she has the wrong ideology to move Louisiana forward, a liberalism that puts more faith in government than in the people, and a populism that had her focusing first on the good of her allies and special interests, and then only on the rest of the state. It is an ideology thinking people oppose on the basis of principle. Unable to grasp this, she therefore imputes all opposition to her (because she, by her definition, possesses a special wisdom that the great unwashed masses lack) as a product of venial political motives.
While Edwin Edwards may have acted out the Crucifixion in jest, Blanco by her own words would have us believe her political career has died for the sins of a Republican Party out to get her just because she was a Democrat. It’s why, clueless to the end, she seems honestly to believe a simple change of partisan label would have spared her all the criticism she has received for acting on an ideology wrong for Louisiana. Somebody needs to do her a favor and where she cannot help but see it slap a note paraphrasing a Louisianan’s advice to a presidential candidate, altered to fit Blanco’s own paranoiac view: “It’s the ideology, stupid.”
Administration aides indicate that, according to Blanco, the decision to drop out became made firmly when the federal government informed her that the Road Home Program was in violation of regulations regarding fund disbursement. The program was set up so that government, which was Blanco’s preference because her ideology distrusts the ability of the common folk to conduct their own affairs, controlled grant disbursement. The rules, which have existed for a long time and were communicated to Blanco months ago, state at the least that recipients must have the option to get funds immediately or else the nature of the program was such that additional qualification would have to be met.
This apparently was added to a litany of other perceived slights Blanco thinks she gets from the federal government, which include a belief that Mississippi got more hurricane disaster recovery money than it should have relative to Louisiana and health care redesign that promoted taking money away from state institutions and instead giving it to the uninsured. One also could add the federal government only partially removing the state matching requirement for some recovery funds the entire amount of which almost always in the past for other states regarding other disasters has been removed. The motive, according to her, was partisanship by the Republican administration.
Naturally, this worldview betrays an inability to see things as they are and to understand the political world:
None of this has anything to do with partisanship, except in the sense that Republicans and Democrats differ fundamentally ideologically. And the richest irony of all is that while Blanco blames the GOP for playing politics, she never has done anything but in her term. For example, records show that as soon as the extent of Hurricane Katrina’s effects became evident, she immediately began to formulate a political response to avoid (unsuccessfully) for being blamed for suboptimal actions she took that made the situation worse. Or, witness her refusal to create pay raises for educators in last December’s special session when Republicans offered to do so if she would cut other spending, and then she blamed the GOP for this.
Since taking office, Blanco always has displayed an incredible myopia regarding political conflict. She never has understood that she has the wrong ideology to move Louisiana forward, a liberalism that puts more faith in government than in the people, and a populism that had her focusing first on the good of her allies and special interests, and then only on the rest of the state. It is an ideology thinking people oppose on the basis of principle. Unable to grasp this, she therefore imputes all opposition to her (because she, by her definition, possesses a special wisdom that the great unwashed masses lack) as a product of venial political motives.
While Edwin Edwards may have acted out the Crucifixion in jest, Blanco by her own words would have us believe her political career has died for the sins of a Republican Party out to get her just because she was a Democrat. It’s why, clueless to the end, she seems honestly to believe a simple change of partisan label would have spared her all the criticism she has received for acting on an ideology wrong for Louisiana. Somebody needs to do her a favor and where she cannot help but see it slap a note paraphrasing a Louisianan’s advice to a presidential candidate, altered to fit Blanco’s own paranoiac view: “It’s the ideology, stupid.”
21.3.07
Breaux candidacy possible crippling Democrat mistake
With Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s pass on running for reelection, a number of observers both in and out of elective office seem fixated that lobbyist John Breaux, a former Democrat senator from Louisiana, will change residency from Maryland and move it back to Louisiana. Breaux himself has encouraged such speculation by asking for an attorney general’s opinion on his citizenship status in the state. (That office says Breaux has not and legally cannot.) A review of both legal facts and political realities shows that Breaux and any Democrats supportive of this move are making a tremendous mistake that could cripple the state party for years to come.
Louisiana State University Dale Bennett Professor of Law John S, Baker, Jr. has argued convincingly that Breaux could not meet the Louisiana Constitution’s citizenship requirement of five years. As such, given that a challenge to his candidacy would occur days after his filing, even an expedited court hearing probably would not have the case heard prior to the middle of September. Appeals then would be filed regardless of the outcome and no doubt eventually would make its way to the Louisiana Supreme Court which, again even expedited, might rule barely three weeks before the Oct. 20 election at the earliest. And if the judiciary were to follow well-established case law, as Baker observes, Breaux has no real chance of successfully fending off the challenge.
Nor can the process begin any quicker. An attorney general’s opinion is just that and has no impact on a court’s decision. Neither can any challenge to the Constitution on this part be made in state court until there is party to be challenged, i.e. Breaux filing. Even a federal challenge, Baker notes, would be highly unlikely to work and would push the process past the election date.
Those are the legal realities, which are daunting enough. But the political impact of going through all of this will cripple a Breaux candidacy and will tarnish the reputation of state Democrats for trying to defend it, to the point that Breaux would be a significantly weakened candidate who would drag other Democrats down with him.
Understand that Breaux is the poster child for the good-old-boy network and politics as usual in the state (plus his longtime association with former governor Prisoner 03128-095). The reputation these labels have with a growing proportion of state voters is that these kinds of politicians are in it for themselves and their friends first, leaving the state ranked at the bottom of almost all significant quality of life indicators in the U.S. Better than almost all others Breaux has managed to metamorphisize away from these labels, but the events surrounding his candidacy will reverse all of that.
Already the state’s voters have been sensitized to the issue by the attempted chamber-jumping of state legislators to avoid the modified three-term limit (three consecutive terms maximum for a particular chamber seat, meaning term-limited members of one house can run for the other). Watching Breaux bend over backward in the weeks immediately prior to the election, contorting the law to extremes to make a case he qualifies to run for the office, will only fuel people’s cynicism about his motives and squarely associate him as the kind of politician that is trying to get into to office despite the letter and the spirit of the law to take advantage of the job, rather than to serve the state.
And with major Republican candidates Rep. Bobby Jindal and state Sen. Walter Boasso with a likely excess of $10 million to use during the campaign, reminders about how Breaux, like so many Louisiana politicians of the past, is trying to twist the law for political reasons will keep the focus squarely on Breaux as a corrupt politician. This doesn’t even include the pounding he would receive for having fled the state the second he was out of the Senate and how he didn’t lift a finger to help the state after the hurricane disasters (for example, picture a Boasso commercial showing the state senator as he tried to rescue people in the days after Hurricane Katrina, while the ex-senator is shown living the high life in and around his East Coast mansion and in fancy Washington restaurants).
In short, Breaux will be depicted in a saturation of the media as an opportunistic carpetbagger who doesn’t really care about the state engaged in shady legal maneuvering to get a prize that he will use to feed his million-dollar spending habits acquired as a high-paid lobbyist and to reward shady political allies and operatives. This to a state continuing to drift away from the Democrats who doesn’t really know Breaux or remember him, which hasn’t experienced a Breaux campaign in nine years, nor a serious one in 21 years, to try to convince them he does not comport to this image. It is folly to think that Breaux would not be an underdog candidate in this environment.
But let’s say for whatever reason Breaux and Democrats still think he could win despite all of this. And let’s also say that, despite tremendous legal evidence otherwise (maybe because they think they can manipulate the state judiciary?), they think there’s even a good chance a Breaux candidacy would be allowed to legally happen. The fact is it is a tremendous, ill-advised gamble on which everything could be lost.
It’s bad enough that Breaux as the Democrat standard bearer could become seen as the face of a tired, stuck-in-the-past, solution-less, perhaps even dishonest party, lose the election and drag down a lot of other Democrats with him, but the chance, even if (in their minds) it is not a large chance that he could be disqualified should alert any thinking political strategist that it is a huge risk with poor payoff. Simply, going with Breaux would be putting all their eggs in one basket that could completely scrambled weeks, or even days, before the election itself.
The whole point of Blanco removing herself from the contest was to enable Democrats to unite around a particular stronger candidate. But if that candidate himself has a non-trivial chance that he would not qualify, it is a stupid bet to go in this direction. If not allowed to run, Democrats would have no chance to find a “replacement” and the only other Democrat of consequence running, Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell, is not the answer to the Jindal-Boasso juggernaut (indeed, Campbell would gleefully pile on against Breaux). And you can’t have a “backup” simultaneously running with Breaux, because this defeats the purpose as it would split the Democrat vote (something party insiders already worry about with Campbell).
But even if the challenge to Breaux is unsuccessful, that outcome itself dooms a Breaux candidacy. By having a judiciary warp the Constitution and law to find a way to allow Breaux to run would be the perfect demonstration of why Breaux should not be allowed to win: a corrupt system allowing in one of its own to save itself. His opponents would argue voting against Breaux would be the perfect way to demonstrate protest against this regime. So either Breaux stays on the ballot in an untenable situation, or he’s off and Democrats are left with no candidate that could compete against Jindal and Boasso.
Perhaps Breaux can be excused if he is deluded enough to think he can get elected governor in this environment. State Democrats cannot be and have lost touch with reality if they think there are not other candidates who would stand a better chance against two strong Republican foes, given the risks brought to the party by a Breaux candidacy.
Louisiana State University Dale Bennett Professor of Law John S, Baker, Jr. has argued convincingly that Breaux could not meet the Louisiana Constitution’s citizenship requirement of five years. As such, given that a challenge to his candidacy would occur days after his filing, even an expedited court hearing probably would not have the case heard prior to the middle of September. Appeals then would be filed regardless of the outcome and no doubt eventually would make its way to the Louisiana Supreme Court which, again even expedited, might rule barely three weeks before the Oct. 20 election at the earliest. And if the judiciary were to follow well-established case law, as Baker observes, Breaux has no real chance of successfully fending off the challenge.
Nor can the process begin any quicker. An attorney general’s opinion is just that and has no impact on a court’s decision. Neither can any challenge to the Constitution on this part be made in state court until there is party to be challenged, i.e. Breaux filing. Even a federal challenge, Baker notes, would be highly unlikely to work and would push the process past the election date.
Those are the legal realities, which are daunting enough. But the political impact of going through all of this will cripple a Breaux candidacy and will tarnish the reputation of state Democrats for trying to defend it, to the point that Breaux would be a significantly weakened candidate who would drag other Democrats down with him.
Understand that Breaux is the poster child for the good-old-boy network and politics as usual in the state (plus his longtime association with former governor Prisoner 03128-095). The reputation these labels have with a growing proportion of state voters is that these kinds of politicians are in it for themselves and their friends first, leaving the state ranked at the bottom of almost all significant quality of life indicators in the U.S. Better than almost all others Breaux has managed to metamorphisize away from these labels, but the events surrounding his candidacy will reverse all of that.
Already the state’s voters have been sensitized to the issue by the attempted chamber-jumping of state legislators to avoid the modified three-term limit (three consecutive terms maximum for a particular chamber seat, meaning term-limited members of one house can run for the other). Watching Breaux bend over backward in the weeks immediately prior to the election, contorting the law to extremes to make a case he qualifies to run for the office, will only fuel people’s cynicism about his motives and squarely associate him as the kind of politician that is trying to get into to office despite the letter and the spirit of the law to take advantage of the job, rather than to serve the state.
And with major Republican candidates Rep. Bobby Jindal and state Sen. Walter Boasso with a likely excess of $10 million to use during the campaign, reminders about how Breaux, like so many Louisiana politicians of the past, is trying to twist the law for political reasons will keep the focus squarely on Breaux as a corrupt politician. This doesn’t even include the pounding he would receive for having fled the state the second he was out of the Senate and how he didn’t lift a finger to help the state after the hurricane disasters (for example, picture a Boasso commercial showing the state senator as he tried to rescue people in the days after Hurricane Katrina, while the ex-senator is shown living the high life in and around his East Coast mansion and in fancy Washington restaurants).
In short, Breaux will be depicted in a saturation of the media as an opportunistic carpetbagger who doesn’t really care about the state engaged in shady legal maneuvering to get a prize that he will use to feed his million-dollar spending habits acquired as a high-paid lobbyist and to reward shady political allies and operatives. This to a state continuing to drift away from the Democrats who doesn’t really know Breaux or remember him, which hasn’t experienced a Breaux campaign in nine years, nor a serious one in 21 years, to try to convince them he does not comport to this image. It is folly to think that Breaux would not be an underdog candidate in this environment.
But let’s say for whatever reason Breaux and Democrats still think he could win despite all of this. And let’s also say that, despite tremendous legal evidence otherwise (maybe because they think they can manipulate the state judiciary?), they think there’s even a good chance a Breaux candidacy would be allowed to legally happen. The fact is it is a tremendous, ill-advised gamble on which everything could be lost.
It’s bad enough that Breaux as the Democrat standard bearer could become seen as the face of a tired, stuck-in-the-past, solution-less, perhaps even dishonest party, lose the election and drag down a lot of other Democrats with him, but the chance, even if (in their minds) it is not a large chance that he could be disqualified should alert any thinking political strategist that it is a huge risk with poor payoff. Simply, going with Breaux would be putting all their eggs in one basket that could completely scrambled weeks, or even days, before the election itself.
The whole point of Blanco removing herself from the contest was to enable Democrats to unite around a particular stronger candidate. But if that candidate himself has a non-trivial chance that he would not qualify, it is a stupid bet to go in this direction. If not allowed to run, Democrats would have no chance to find a “replacement” and the only other Democrat of consequence running, Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell, is not the answer to the Jindal-Boasso juggernaut (indeed, Campbell would gleefully pile on against Breaux). And you can’t have a “backup” simultaneously running with Breaux, because this defeats the purpose as it would split the Democrat vote (something party insiders already worry about with Campbell).
But even if the challenge to Breaux is unsuccessful, that outcome itself dooms a Breaux candidacy. By having a judiciary warp the Constitution and law to find a way to allow Breaux to run would be the perfect demonstration of why Breaux should not be allowed to win: a corrupt system allowing in one of its own to save itself. His opponents would argue voting against Breaux would be the perfect way to demonstrate protest against this regime. So either Breaux stays on the ballot in an untenable situation, or he’s off and Democrats are left with no candidate that could compete against Jindal and Boasso.
Perhaps Breaux can be excused if he is deluded enough to think he can get elected governor in this environment. State Democrats cannot be and have lost touch with reality if they think there are not other candidates who would stand a better chance against two strong Republican foes, given the risks brought to the party by a Breaux candidacy.
20.3.07
Blanco out, but Democrat gubernatorial hopes still shaky
Floating a phantom candidate such as John Breaux worked: now the question is, with Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco announcing she won’t seek reelection, what will state Democrats do to stop a conservative (state Sen. Walter Boasso) to a very conservative (Rep. Bobby Jindal) successful Republican candidacy for that office?
Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell is not the answer, who has staked his entire candidacy to this point on a dubious fiscal scheme. Not only is the shell-game of dropping income taxes in favor of jacking up taxation of oil companies not going to solve the state’s fiscal difficulties, Campbell has no plans, unrealistic or otherwise, to address the engorged size of state government and its suboptimal spending habits. Nor is Breaux the answer, whose candidacy would be a huge, probably poor gamble, both in terms of even qualifying and in his ability to best Boasso but particularly Jindal.
Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell is not the answer, who has staked his entire candidacy to this point on a dubious fiscal scheme. Not only is the shell-game of dropping income taxes in favor of jacking up taxation of oil companies not going to solve the state’s fiscal difficulties, Campbell has no plans, unrealistic or otherwise, to address the engorged size of state government and its suboptimal spending habits. Nor is Breaux the answer, whose candidacy would be a huge, probably poor gamble, both in terms of even qualifying and in his ability to best Boasso but particularly Jindal.
Breaux candidate talk unrealistic; ploy to nudge Blanco out
The problem with a John Breaux candidacy for Louisiana governor is not so much in the legal requirement, but in the political risk that would take for state Democrats.
State Democrat leaders have recognized that Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s is a wounded candidacy unlikely to bring victory against at least two quality Republican challengers, Rep. Bobby Jindal and state Sen. Walter Boasso. At the same time, because of the strength of these opponents, if another quality Democrat is to enter, not enough of the electorate would remain to prevent a Boasso-Jindal runoff. Thus, only the “new” Democrat could remain in the race. This means Blanco would have to leave the contest.
While there is another alternative for the party at this point, new official Democrat entrant Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell is viewed as more of an impediment by the leaders than anything else. His currently one-note campaign whose refrain argues for elimination of income taxes in favor of a six percent oil processing tax does not have a lot of fiscal credibility, so these people would prefer that former senator Breaux be the Blanco alternative.
But here’s where the risk comes in. If Blanco somehow is convinced to leave it, for the next five months the GOP can take all sorts of shots at Breaux, and then only when he qualifies to run in August need they pull their ace out of objecting to the qualification of his candidacy which almost certainly violates the citizenship requirement of the Louisiana Constitution. (The argumentation used to try to justify Breaux’s state citizenship would make Dame Helen Mirren a citizen of Louisiana – and she can’t even be a U.S. citizen because she has a title of nobility.) Even in Louisiana it’s almost certain he would not be allowed to qualify.
Still, even if the chances were better than even that Breaux could qualify, the fact that there would be a non-trivial chance that by sometime in September that the courts could rule he could not, makes this a risk that Democrats and Breaux cannot afford to take – the party then being left bereft of any candidate except Campbell, who cannot win, not much more of a month out from the election at the most, and maybe much closer to it than that, leaving no viable electoral contingency plan.
It’s just not a risk state Democrats can take. Any Breaux candidacy is dead in the water, so any further mention of it must be viewed as an effort to get Blanco out in favor of another candidate, not to get Breaux in the contest.
State Democrat leaders have recognized that Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s is a wounded candidacy unlikely to bring victory against at least two quality Republican challengers, Rep. Bobby Jindal and state Sen. Walter Boasso. At the same time, because of the strength of these opponents, if another quality Democrat is to enter, not enough of the electorate would remain to prevent a Boasso-Jindal runoff. Thus, only the “new” Democrat could remain in the race. This means Blanco would have to leave the contest.
While there is another alternative for the party at this point, new official Democrat entrant Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell is viewed as more of an impediment by the leaders than anything else. His currently one-note campaign whose refrain argues for elimination of income taxes in favor of a six percent oil processing tax does not have a lot of fiscal credibility, so these people would prefer that former senator Breaux be the Blanco alternative.
But here’s where the risk comes in. If Blanco somehow is convinced to leave it, for the next five months the GOP can take all sorts of shots at Breaux, and then only when he qualifies to run in August need they pull their ace out of objecting to the qualification of his candidacy which almost certainly violates the citizenship requirement of the Louisiana Constitution. (The argumentation used to try to justify Breaux’s state citizenship would make Dame Helen Mirren a citizen of Louisiana – and she can’t even be a U.S. citizen because she has a title of nobility.) Even in Louisiana it’s almost certain he would not be allowed to qualify.
Still, even if the chances were better than even that Breaux could qualify, the fact that there would be a non-trivial chance that by sometime in September that the courts could rule he could not, makes this a risk that Democrats and Breaux cannot afford to take – the party then being left bereft of any candidate except Campbell, who cannot win, not much more of a month out from the election at the most, and maybe much closer to it than that, leaving no viable electoral contingency plan.
It’s just not a risk state Democrats can take. Any Breaux candidacy is dead in the water, so any further mention of it must be viewed as an effort to get Blanco out in favor of another candidate, not to get Breaux in the contest.
19.3.07
Road Home roadblock product of inept Blanco's ideas
Score another instance of the ineptitude of the Gov. Kathleen Blanco Administration when it discovered, despite having been briefed months ago about these matters, it inadvertently administered the Road Home Program in violation of federal rules. Why it did so is instructive.
Essentially, the program controls disbursement of funds to homeowners rebuilding, allowing money out in stages. Under federal regulations this creates a “rehabilitation” or “rebuilding” program subject to a whole new layer of time-consuming rules to follow. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development said for it to be a much less regulated “compensation” program at the very least grantees would have to have a choice to receive the money in lump sum form immediately.
Administration officials worried this might allow unwise expenditures unrelated to rebuilding, or unscrupulous contractors to take advantage of the situation. Neither is a real concern. As long as the program attaches a covenant to receipt with a requirement that the money be used for rebuilding and that the owner will keep the property for a year, the first concern is unwarranted. The second can be dealt with by allowing disbursement only under the condition that a contract be signed by a program-approved contractor, with that approval process being made simple by allowing only licensed contractors into it.
Proper analysis reveals the real reason why the program was set up to put money into escrow and to release it only slowly, and that harkens back to a basic part of Blanco’s philosophy about government: that government is there to take care of people because they (except for the few wise folk like Blanco and your local state legislators) are incapable of making even the most basic decisions about their lives. This is why Blanco in her entire political career has desired bigger, more powerful government as she thinks she and her ilk know better how to run people’s lives than they do.
Even if this were not its real motive, HUD’s directive has had the effect of empowering Louisianans in this unfortunate situation. And thus the whole episode demonstrates not just more fumbling by the Blanco Administration, but reveals its liberal/populist mindset under which it operates which over the decades has done and continues to do more harm to this state than it deserves.
Essentially, the program controls disbursement of funds to homeowners rebuilding, allowing money out in stages. Under federal regulations this creates a “rehabilitation” or “rebuilding” program subject to a whole new layer of time-consuming rules to follow. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development said for it to be a much less regulated “compensation” program at the very least grantees would have to have a choice to receive the money in lump sum form immediately.
Administration officials worried this might allow unwise expenditures unrelated to rebuilding, or unscrupulous contractors to take advantage of the situation. Neither is a real concern. As long as the program attaches a covenant to receipt with a requirement that the money be used for rebuilding and that the owner will keep the property for a year, the first concern is unwarranted. The second can be dealt with by allowing disbursement only under the condition that a contract be signed by a program-approved contractor, with that approval process being made simple by allowing only licensed contractors into it.
Proper analysis reveals the real reason why the program was set up to put money into escrow and to release it only slowly, and that harkens back to a basic part of Blanco’s philosophy about government: that government is there to take care of people because they (except for the few wise folk like Blanco and your local state legislators) are incapable of making even the most basic decisions about their lives. This is why Blanco in her entire political career has desired bigger, more powerful government as she thinks she and her ilk know better how to run people’s lives than they do.
Even if this were not its real motive, HUD’s directive has had the effect of empowering Louisianans in this unfortunate situation. And thus the whole episode demonstrates not just more fumbling by the Blanco Administration, but reveals its liberal/populist mindset under which it operates which over the decades has done and continues to do more harm to this state than it deserves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)