State Sen. Walter Boasso announced his intention to run as a Democrat for governor, marginally increasing the chances of that party to win the governor’s mansion this fall, and reducing the zero the chance that a liberal will occupy the office.
Unitl now, the party’s main hope had been Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell, an idea which must have blanched in the minds of moonbat liberals who enthuse in baby-killing, work to defeat America at all costs, and delight in perpetrating the myth that the majority of Americans enthusiastically support the oppression of (approved liberal: read “non-Asian”) ethnic minority members – he’s just an liberal economic populist. Their problem is Boasso is even more off the reservation than Campbell.
According to his voting record the past two years, Boasso is a semi-reliable conservative (with conservative/reform scores of 66 in 2005 and 60 in 2006). Because of that, while a switch may make him more likely to win heads-up in a general election runoff with Republican frontrunner Rep. Bobby Jindal, by cobbling together moderate Democrats, voters from the GOP disaffected with Jindal’s almost impeccably conservative record, and conservative Democrat racists, black and white, that cost Jindal the 2003 tilt along with hate-Jindal-at-all-costs blacks and white liberals, he’s not likely to make the general election runoff to get in position to do so in the first place. Instead, most of those black votes will go to Campbell, and enough wingnut liberals will support Campbell to push him to the runoff where Jindal will annihilate him.
Which is why, more than ever, expect state Democrats, goaded by the national party, to wage a scorched earth campaign against Jindal. They’ll let Boasso spend his own funds to promote himself, but liberals’ real agenda will be to prevent Jindal from winning and that’s the task on which they’ll spend their money. Jindal is living proof of the invalidity of their ahistorical, illogical, dehumanizing liberal ideology, and national Democrats who understand this cannot afford to allow such a potent candidate to grow as a political force that can have an impact on national politics. This course of action becomes easier because Boasso’s deep pockets allow him to fend for himself, and they do not want to support a conservative – mirroring their national policy regarding the war on terror: criticize real solutions but offer nothing realistic or beneficial on their own.
Thus, the biggest impact of a Boasso switch is that against Jindal opening the floodgates to a vicious attack agenda the likes of which Louisiana, or perhaps the country, never before has seen.
25.4.07
Legislature must deal with pork now, or Jindal later
If the Louisiana Legislature doesn’t clean up its own act regarding doling out taxpayer money to private entities with next to no oversight, political events may end up doing it for it.
Last year, the typically slow-reacting Gov. Kathleen Blanco administration, after failure of bills to do so and some ruckus raised outside Baton Rouge, got around to drawing up reporting requirements that recipients of state money outside of the normal budget process had to file. This irked legislators who enjoy the privilege of being able to pass taxpayers’ money along to these almost-unknown groups who no doubt remember these gifts come reelection time, with the complainers led by one of the most enthusiastic practitioners of this tactic state Sen. Cleo Fields.
Atty. Gen. Charles Foti, without the need to pass signals to putative candidates or dealing with an issue that could affect his reelection, did actually issue an opinion on the matter siding with the plaintiffs. Although it seems the crux of the matter mainly was that Blanco would hold up 80 percent of the money as use it to reimburse expenditures, the opinion also covered the very concept of requiring extra reporting.
Fields indicated that he felt it was obnoxious, if not downright nosey, of the public to question his and his colleagues’ decisions to send the people’s money to black holes: “I'm a bit tired of coming down here every session and appropriating money and then having people question what we do.” But on the off chance that a majority of the Legislature has the good sense, Fields won’t have to worry about that because the information will be all up front, at least to certain legislators.
HB 266 by state Rep. Blade Morrish would make it a matter of state law that such reporting be done for members of the respective committees dealing with appropriations. Something similar was attempted last year but political hi-jinks voided that effort and if Fields has his way, the same will happen.
But something Fields is unlikely to veto is the political tide of 2007. Or, to be more precise, can you imagine in 2008 a Gov. Bobby Jindal not brandishing a line-item veto pen (which is what Blanco should have done last year) on these kinds of obscured items? Fields may stand in the way of structural reform and better government, but despite his opposition political considerations well may produce those changes.
Last year, the typically slow-reacting Gov. Kathleen Blanco administration, after failure of bills to do so and some ruckus raised outside Baton Rouge, got around to drawing up reporting requirements that recipients of state money outside of the normal budget process had to file. This irked legislators who enjoy the privilege of being able to pass taxpayers’ money along to these almost-unknown groups who no doubt remember these gifts come reelection time, with the complainers led by one of the most enthusiastic practitioners of this tactic state Sen. Cleo Fields.
Atty. Gen. Charles Foti, without the need to pass signals to putative candidates or dealing with an issue that could affect his reelection, did actually issue an opinion on the matter siding with the plaintiffs. Although it seems the crux of the matter mainly was that Blanco would hold up 80 percent of the money as use it to reimburse expenditures, the opinion also covered the very concept of requiring extra reporting.
Fields indicated that he felt it was obnoxious, if not downright nosey, of the public to question his and his colleagues’ decisions to send the people’s money to black holes: “I'm a bit tired of coming down here every session and appropriating money and then having people question what we do.” But on the off chance that a majority of the Legislature has the good sense, Fields won’t have to worry about that because the information will be all up front, at least to certain legislators.
HB 266 by state Rep. Blade Morrish would make it a matter of state law that such reporting be done for members of the respective committees dealing with appropriations. Something similar was attempted last year but political hi-jinks voided that effort and if Fields has his way, the same will happen.
But something Fields is unlikely to veto is the political tide of 2007. Or, to be more precise, can you imagine in 2008 a Gov. Bobby Jindal not brandishing a line-item veto pen (which is what Blanco should have done last year) on these kinds of obscured items? Fields may stand in the way of structural reform and better government, but despite his opposition political considerations well may produce those changes.
24.4.07
Call to make new Big Charity big reveals hidden agenda
The good old boys aren’t going to give up without a fight on the patronage and prestige that Louisiana’s two-tiered, government-run health care system gives them, if the latest attempt to justify the system in a backdoor way is any indication.
Recently, a report was issued, backed and paid for by the Democrat-run executive branch with the Democrat-lead Legislature’s blessing, that stated the ideal size of a new public hospital in New Orleans was not a smaller figure cost-conscious, mostly Republican, policy-makers such as Sen. David Vitter wanted, nor even a figure that supporters of a larger facility, mainly Democrats including the legislative leadership and Gov. Kathleen Blanco, had wanted. Instead, the bed figure with cost to match was at the upper range – 484 at $1.2 billion – of what anybody had anticipated.
One doesn’t have to be of suspicious nature to see quickly validity problems about this conclusion. The consultant was hired by the forces wanting to justify a bigger size – this requirement as a result of a stunning victory a couple of months previous for the forces against the larger size – and we know how that tends to make things turn out in this state: recommendations favoring more useless reservoirs, money-losing public hotels, taxpayer-draining sugar mills, etc.
But logic also fails to substantiate the claim. The basis on which the claim is made that larger is better is that if it’s “too small,” it won’t make enough money to pay off its construction costs. Two red flags immediately go up concerning that idea.
First, it makes the disastrous assumption often mistakenly made when government thinks it can do a better job than the marketplace at providing for efficient use of resources, the “Field of Dreams” error: build it and they will come. It assumes that the marketplace will be sufficient to fill the increased number of beds, meaning two things: that the market will be large enough, and that against the private sector a public hospital will be competitive enough to draw enough people in.
The study estimates that by 2016 the area population will be at 82 percent of pre-Hurricane Katrina levels. Given that would be an increase of 15 percent from the current rate in nine years, that is optimistic but not beyond believability. The same cannot be said for the other crucial estimate made in the report, that the patient mix would include 11.3 percent paying patients as opposed to the 10 percent historical level (note that means that currently 90 percent of patients seen pay nothing). “Big Charity” has not recently ever approached that higher level but the consultants cross their fingers and chirp loudly that modern facilities will encourage referrals there – and so, even if that worked, what happens when other hospitals themselves up the ante by redoing their facilities? Do Louisiana taxpayers keep paying through the nose to rebuild facilities in a chase for patient dollars?
Which demonstrates the second, disastrous, assumption made which directly impacts the related statewide issue of health care redesign – that debate being does Louisiana abandon its only-in-the-nation money-goes-to-the-institution philosophy of indigent health care, with its lower outcomes and greater expense, in favor of the money-follows-the-person system being steadily adopted by other states? That is, that the new Big Charity is primarily going to be an indigent care facility as opposed to a teaching hospital.
If Louisiana truly redesigns health care, existing charity hospitals will see drops in patient numbers, either forcing their closure or sale or reduction in size meaning there is no way a facility of the size imagined by the consultants ever would be financially viable. In fact, that would not be the purpose of an institution whose primary objective is medical education – by definition, there is an expectation that the state will subsidize the facility (and will reap tuition dollars as well) because it function is educative. Creating a facility designed at least to “break even” is relevant only when you plan to use the facility as a relevant cost center in a government-run enterprise.
This fact illuminates the strategy being employed here by those with vested interests in the current inefficient system: create a huge charity hospital in New Orleans, then try to justify retention of the existing system with it, bleating that the “sunk costs” of the new facility make pursuing real reform more expensive than keeping what already exists. It also demonstrates the suboptimal mindset these politicians have, that it is government’s job to directly provide full-spectrum health care, a view abandoned everywhere else in the country.
It’s a clever slight of hand that might fool those not attentive, but the fact remains that the non-government sector will do a better and cheaper job of providing health care than the government, that government policy should not provide disincentives to provide this care, and that building a larger Big Charity will be a costly mistake that unfortunately has become custom in this state, another example of putting politics before people.
Recently, a report was issued, backed and paid for by the Democrat-run executive branch with the Democrat-lead Legislature’s blessing, that stated the ideal size of a new public hospital in New Orleans was not a smaller figure cost-conscious, mostly Republican, policy-makers such as Sen. David Vitter wanted, nor even a figure that supporters of a larger facility, mainly Democrats including the legislative leadership and Gov. Kathleen Blanco, had wanted. Instead, the bed figure with cost to match was at the upper range – 484 at $1.2 billion – of what anybody had anticipated.
One doesn’t have to be of suspicious nature to see quickly validity problems about this conclusion. The consultant was hired by the forces wanting to justify a bigger size – this requirement as a result of a stunning victory a couple of months previous for the forces against the larger size – and we know how that tends to make things turn out in this state: recommendations favoring more useless reservoirs, money-losing public hotels, taxpayer-draining sugar mills, etc.
But logic also fails to substantiate the claim. The basis on which the claim is made that larger is better is that if it’s “too small,” it won’t make enough money to pay off its construction costs. Two red flags immediately go up concerning that idea.
First, it makes the disastrous assumption often mistakenly made when government thinks it can do a better job than the marketplace at providing for efficient use of resources, the “Field of Dreams” error: build it and they will come. It assumes that the marketplace will be sufficient to fill the increased number of beds, meaning two things: that the market will be large enough, and that against the private sector a public hospital will be competitive enough to draw enough people in.
The study estimates that by 2016 the area population will be at 82 percent of pre-Hurricane Katrina levels. Given that would be an increase of 15 percent from the current rate in nine years, that is optimistic but not beyond believability. The same cannot be said for the other crucial estimate made in the report, that the patient mix would include 11.3 percent paying patients as opposed to the 10 percent historical level (note that means that currently 90 percent of patients seen pay nothing). “Big Charity” has not recently ever approached that higher level but the consultants cross their fingers and chirp loudly that modern facilities will encourage referrals there – and so, even if that worked, what happens when other hospitals themselves up the ante by redoing their facilities? Do Louisiana taxpayers keep paying through the nose to rebuild facilities in a chase for patient dollars?
Which demonstrates the second, disastrous, assumption made which directly impacts the related statewide issue of health care redesign – that debate being does Louisiana abandon its only-in-the-nation money-goes-to-the-institution philosophy of indigent health care, with its lower outcomes and greater expense, in favor of the money-follows-the-person system being steadily adopted by other states? That is, that the new Big Charity is primarily going to be an indigent care facility as opposed to a teaching hospital.
If Louisiana truly redesigns health care, existing charity hospitals will see drops in patient numbers, either forcing their closure or sale or reduction in size meaning there is no way a facility of the size imagined by the consultants ever would be financially viable. In fact, that would not be the purpose of an institution whose primary objective is medical education – by definition, there is an expectation that the state will subsidize the facility (and will reap tuition dollars as well) because it function is educative. Creating a facility designed at least to “break even” is relevant only when you plan to use the facility as a relevant cost center in a government-run enterprise.
This fact illuminates the strategy being employed here by those with vested interests in the current inefficient system: create a huge charity hospital in New Orleans, then try to justify retention of the existing system with it, bleating that the “sunk costs” of the new facility make pursuing real reform more expensive than keeping what already exists. It also demonstrates the suboptimal mindset these politicians have, that it is government’s job to directly provide full-spectrum health care, a view abandoned everywhere else in the country.
It’s a clever slight of hand that might fool those not attentive, but the fact remains that the non-government sector will do a better and cheaper job of providing health care than the government, that government policy should not provide disincentives to provide this care, and that building a larger Big Charity will be a costly mistake that unfortunately has become custom in this state, another example of putting politics before people.
23.4.07
Stuck on stupid XXIV: Landrieu postures rather than helps
Once again, as is often the case led by Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu, Louisiana is making itself known to the rest of the country as a bunch of whining ingrates who recoil at the slightest hint that the state ought to be financially responsible for its own affairs – all to serve Landrieu’s political agenda.
This latest unsavory reminder comes from Landrieu’s posturing concerning S. 965, the bill dealing with supplemental war funding which among other things would waive the state’s 10 percent (down from the usual 25 percent) match on a portion of disaster relief funds that federal law requires. This amount is estimated at around $800 million and the amount on which it is based is but a small fraction of the entire federal aid sent free to Louisiana to deal with the hurricane disasters of 2005. Republican Pres. George W. Bush threatens to veto the bill if this provision is included, among others of course (such as any deadline to remove troops fighting in Iraq, something that runs counter to American interests and goals also supported by Landrieu).
This space already has recounted the extraordinarily favorable treatment the state has received over this money, mostly echoed recently by federal recovery coordinator Donald Powell:
Funds with absolutely no strings at all given by the federal government more than compensate any matching requirement and could be used by such if the state desired – and doing so would not beggar the state in any way since the federal government has pledged, and so far adhered to it, that all the money genuinely needed for recovery by the state beyond its means will be provided
The state’s record budget surplus in the form of higher tax collections almost solely is due to the tens of billions of dollars given free by the American people through federal spending, a total amount of aid far exceeding any disaster assistance for any other single episode, or even adding the next several-highest together.
Contrary to statements Landrieu and others have been making that this instance was almost the only one where the full cost of the disaster was being borne by the federal government, another official also pointed out that in only two other instances had the federal government completely waived all costs, so there’s no lack of favoritism here.
Powell also pointed out how the state could solve for technical objections to the law such as paperwork requirements. Instead, it seems like Landrieu would rather screech and play politics rather than facilitate the obvious solution.
One thing Powell didn’t point out was Landrieu’s own culpability behind her most sensational (and somewhat illogical) charge that Bush made a “factually false” claim that Louisiana had received enough no-strings-attached money (Community Development Black Grants). Her lack of clarity and rationality makes understanding what she tries to mean difficult, but apparently she is arguing that the state, relative to others, did not get “enough” of these kinds of funds, so therefore it should not be expected to use them to pay its share of the match.
But what Landrieu doesn’t want people to realize is that Louisiana’s share of this money is determined by federal law over which the president has no influence. Only Landrieu and her colleagues can change that, and that’s part of this obnoxious bill that, for Democrats, serves a dual purpose: to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory to score political points, or to get Bush to veto the bill to score political points. Again, this shows that Landrieu is using the issue to score her own political points at the expense of real solutions.
Of course, she must cover up this fact that the bill cannot succeed to provide anything by opining that if Bush vetoes the bill, there would be enough votes to override. While this part of the legislation was made broad enough to encompass all the Gulf Coast states in order to try to buy their senators’ votes, the rest of the country’s senators aren’t going to want to give any more handouts to Louisiana – and Republicans aren’t going to want to endorse waving the white flag of surrender that Democrats advocate, so no override attempt would come close to be successful. Even the state’s Republican senator David Vitter wisely voted against the measure, which barely passed.
But if she were serious about this, she would be working on getting enacted something like H.R. 1144 which is largely a standalone version. Even if misguided, it represents an attempt to get the bill passed on its own merits rather than attaching it to a bill designed for political purposes.
We must recognize all of this represents an effort by Landrieu to boost her sagging reelection chances which must deflect the Louisiana public’s attention away from her record. Thus Landrieu, as is typical, remains stuck on stupid.
This latest unsavory reminder comes from Landrieu’s posturing concerning S. 965, the bill dealing with supplemental war funding which among other things would waive the state’s 10 percent (down from the usual 25 percent) match on a portion of disaster relief funds that federal law requires. This amount is estimated at around $800 million and the amount on which it is based is but a small fraction of the entire federal aid sent free to Louisiana to deal with the hurricane disasters of 2005. Republican Pres. George W. Bush threatens to veto the bill if this provision is included, among others of course (such as any deadline to remove troops fighting in Iraq, something that runs counter to American interests and goals also supported by Landrieu).
This space already has recounted the extraordinarily favorable treatment the state has received over this money, mostly echoed recently by federal recovery coordinator Donald Powell:
Powell also pointed out how the state could solve for technical objections to the law such as paperwork requirements. Instead, it seems like Landrieu would rather screech and play politics rather than facilitate the obvious solution.
One thing Powell didn’t point out was Landrieu’s own culpability behind her most sensational (and somewhat illogical) charge that Bush made a “factually false” claim that Louisiana had received enough no-strings-attached money (Community Development Black Grants). Her lack of clarity and rationality makes understanding what she tries to mean difficult, but apparently she is arguing that the state, relative to others, did not get “enough” of these kinds of funds, so therefore it should not be expected to use them to pay its share of the match.
But what Landrieu doesn’t want people to realize is that Louisiana’s share of this money is determined by federal law over which the president has no influence. Only Landrieu and her colleagues can change that, and that’s part of this obnoxious bill that, for Democrats, serves a dual purpose: to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory to score political points, or to get Bush to veto the bill to score political points. Again, this shows that Landrieu is using the issue to score her own political points at the expense of real solutions.
Of course, she must cover up this fact that the bill cannot succeed to provide anything by opining that if Bush vetoes the bill, there would be enough votes to override. While this part of the legislation was made broad enough to encompass all the Gulf Coast states in order to try to buy their senators’ votes, the rest of the country’s senators aren’t going to want to give any more handouts to Louisiana – and Republicans aren’t going to want to endorse waving the white flag of surrender that Democrats advocate, so no override attempt would come close to be successful. Even the state’s Republican senator David Vitter wisely voted against the measure, which barely passed.
But if she were serious about this, she would be working on getting enacted something like H.R. 1144 which is largely a standalone version. Even if misguided, it represents an attempt to get the bill passed on its own merits rather than attaching it to a bill designed for political purposes.
We must recognize all of this represents an effort by Landrieu to boost her sagging reelection chances which must deflect the Louisiana public’s attention away from her record. Thus Landrieu, as is typical, remains stuck on stupid.
19.4.07
Boasso switch unlikely to derail coming GOP victory
On the eve of qualifying for the 1995 governor’s contest, wealthy businessman and then state Sen. Mike Foster switched from the Democrat to Republican Parties, and less than three months later he was elected. A few months earlier and in reverse, wealthy businessman and state Sen. Walter Boasso looks set to do the same. But he is unlikely to produce the same victorious result.
The dynamics between the two contests differ in a few significant ways. First, Foster, even that late in the game, switched in an environment of a largely fragmented electorate, where opinion polls showed no real front-runner and a good quarter of the electorate still undecided. Recent polls have showed in this year Rep. Bobby Jindal already has a huge following with not many undecided.
Second, Foster’s move was to capture conservatives who did not see one they could trust in the race. He had impeccable social conservative credentials and talked a good game regarding fiscal conservatism, making the move credible. In a sense, it seemed like, as in the case of many southern Democrats to this day making the same switch, he was coming home leaving a party that had deserted him. Such a move by Boasso will not be seen the same way; few liberals are going to be comfortable with him as he has compiled a mostly-conservative voting record in the Senate.
Third, Foster was able to make the general election runoff and eventually win because of fragmentation in his opponents’ support. Crucially, now state Sen. Cleo Fields ended up attracting the vast majority of black votes which was enough to put him into the runoff and thus provided Foster with the most easily beatable candidate of the bunch. Without Fields, third-place finisher now Sen. Mary Landrieu probably not only would have finished first, but then had at least an even-money chance of beating Foster in the runoff.
To put it another way, the largely unknown Foster bested much better known candidates because he could go after voters they could only with difficulty while they had to fight among themselves and divided up others. If anything, Boasso is moving from more prosperous territory (anti-Democrat voters) to sparser fields. Fewer Republicans will vote for him now and, although the total Democrat vote cast may rise as he carries some otherwise Democrat defectors back into the party’s voting camp, it’s not enough to make him competitive against Jindal, the only well-known candidate and with fantastically-high approval ratings, who already has such a lock on the GOP base.
His biggest problem is the presence of Foster Campbell. Being the only “true” Democrat in the race, Campbell can expect a quarter of the vote right of the top from blacks, with few going to Boasso. Assuming Jindal is kept from winning outright, this means Campbell will have to get almost no non-black votes, and Boasso will have to pick up almost every white vote not committed to Republicans, to make a runoff with Jindal. (This remains true even if Metairie businessman John Georges enters the race, for he would take votes only from Jindal, but not enough to keep the congressman out of a runoff.)
This almost is impossible. Had Gov. Kathleen Blanco stayed in the race, Boasso would have had an easier time of it because she would have sucked most black support from Campbell but she would have been considered anathema by many white Democrats. This white electorate would have written off Campbell and looked elsewhere for someone like Boasso. But some of these same whites now will give Campbell a chance because he does not carry Blanco’s baggage and can be regarded as a serious candidate because of solid black support. Thus, these white Democrats no longer would consider Boasso an “anti-Blanco” alternative because they have found one in Campbell (and white liberals never would have thought that of Boasso in any event). And now with blacks heading to Campbell’s column, Boasso’s chances of making the runoff even as a Democrat are actually less than if Blanco were in it and Boasso remained loyal.
Still, they probably are better than if he stayed in the GOP, without Blanco to kick around as a device to make him look better. If the switch happens, it may make the overall Democrat vote look better than otherwise, but it’s hardly more likely to net them a win later this year.
The dynamics between the two contests differ in a few significant ways. First, Foster, even that late in the game, switched in an environment of a largely fragmented electorate, where opinion polls showed no real front-runner and a good quarter of the electorate still undecided. Recent polls have showed in this year Rep. Bobby Jindal already has a huge following with not many undecided.
Second, Foster’s move was to capture conservatives who did not see one they could trust in the race. He had impeccable social conservative credentials and talked a good game regarding fiscal conservatism, making the move credible. In a sense, it seemed like, as in the case of many southern Democrats to this day making the same switch, he was coming home leaving a party that had deserted him. Such a move by Boasso will not be seen the same way; few liberals are going to be comfortable with him as he has compiled a mostly-conservative voting record in the Senate.
Third, Foster was able to make the general election runoff and eventually win because of fragmentation in his opponents’ support. Crucially, now state Sen. Cleo Fields ended up attracting the vast majority of black votes which was enough to put him into the runoff and thus provided Foster with the most easily beatable candidate of the bunch. Without Fields, third-place finisher now Sen. Mary Landrieu probably not only would have finished first, but then had at least an even-money chance of beating Foster in the runoff.
To put it another way, the largely unknown Foster bested much better known candidates because he could go after voters they could only with difficulty while they had to fight among themselves and divided up others. If anything, Boasso is moving from more prosperous territory (anti-Democrat voters) to sparser fields. Fewer Republicans will vote for him now and, although the total Democrat vote cast may rise as he carries some otherwise Democrat defectors back into the party’s voting camp, it’s not enough to make him competitive against Jindal, the only well-known candidate and with fantastically-high approval ratings, who already has such a lock on the GOP base.
His biggest problem is the presence of Foster Campbell. Being the only “true” Democrat in the race, Campbell can expect a quarter of the vote right of the top from blacks, with few going to Boasso. Assuming Jindal is kept from winning outright, this means Campbell will have to get almost no non-black votes, and Boasso will have to pick up almost every white vote not committed to Republicans, to make a runoff with Jindal. (This remains true even if Metairie businessman John Georges enters the race, for he would take votes only from Jindal, but not enough to keep the congressman out of a runoff.)
This almost is impossible. Had Gov. Kathleen Blanco stayed in the race, Boasso would have had an easier time of it because she would have sucked most black support from Campbell but she would have been considered anathema by many white Democrats. This white electorate would have written off Campbell and looked elsewhere for someone like Boasso. But some of these same whites now will give Campbell a chance because he does not carry Blanco’s baggage and can be regarded as a serious candidate because of solid black support. Thus, these white Democrats no longer would consider Boasso an “anti-Blanco” alternative because they have found one in Campbell (and white liberals never would have thought that of Boasso in any event). And now with blacks heading to Campbell’s column, Boasso’s chances of making the runoff even as a Democrat are actually less than if Blanco were in it and Boasso remained loyal.
Still, they probably are better than if he stayed in the GOP, without Blanco to kick around as a device to make him look better. If the switch happens, it may make the overall Democrat vote look better than otherwise, but it’s hardly more likely to net them a win later this year.
18.4.07
Bill to strip pensions to deter lawbreakers desirable
One bill that didn’t make it into law last year that deserved better was state Sen. Art Lentini’s SB 60 (along with SB 59 although the former was pulled and repackaged as SB 669), which would have denied state pensions to employees convicted of a serious crime. With several allegations and convictions of such crimes among Louisiana public officials this year, the Legislature would be wise to revisit the issue.
There were three main objections to SB 60 last year, which passed committee but was defeated on the Senate floor. One was that families would be punished as well as the miscreant, which prompted some to ask that an “innocent spouse” provision be put into place that would exempt dependents and allow them to receive the pension benefits. However, this could lead to chicanery to avoid the penalty in the form of marriages of convenience. As well, it is unlikely that many minor children would have been affected given that pensions must be drawn later in life.
In addition, we must remember human nature and the theory as to why penalties are escalated on crime – they are to deter. Opponents forget that even human beings that do immoral, calculated things use a process of rationality to decide whether to do it. Thus, any disincentive like this (which can be reinforced by periodic reminders from hiring to retiring assuming, of course, they care about spouse and children) inevitably will reduce the aggregate amount of bad behavior among state employees.
Another was that prosecution might become more difficult, as guilty defendants in this position would have less incentive to plea since there is more at stake to be lost. But if prosecutors do their homework this shouldn’t be an issue and if they don’t, they can go for a lesser charge. Finally, there is the constitutional issue of whether this would represent an unconstitutional taking of property (money vested into the pension system), but if the law allowed rebate with interest to the guilty of personal contributions, that should not be a problem.
Lentini has said he may try again this year although he sees his opportunities as limited as this would be a general purpose bill which are restricted to five in number this odd-numbered-year session (although if he is on the ball he still has a couple of days to pre-file an unlimited number of general purpose bills). If not him, somebody else should for a positive contribution to ethics laws not only to ensure greater confidence in honesty among elected officials, but among any state employees.
There were three main objections to SB 60 last year, which passed committee but was defeated on the Senate floor. One was that families would be punished as well as the miscreant, which prompted some to ask that an “innocent spouse” provision be put into place that would exempt dependents and allow them to receive the pension benefits. However, this could lead to chicanery to avoid the penalty in the form of marriages of convenience. As well, it is unlikely that many minor children would have been affected given that pensions must be drawn later in life.
In addition, we must remember human nature and the theory as to why penalties are escalated on crime – they are to deter. Opponents forget that even human beings that do immoral, calculated things use a process of rationality to decide whether to do it. Thus, any disincentive like this (which can be reinforced by periodic reminders from hiring to retiring assuming, of course, they care about spouse and children) inevitably will reduce the aggregate amount of bad behavior among state employees.
Another was that prosecution might become more difficult, as guilty defendants in this position would have less incentive to plea since there is more at stake to be lost. But if prosecutors do their homework this shouldn’t be an issue and if they don’t, they can go for a lesser charge. Finally, there is the constitutional issue of whether this would represent an unconstitutional taking of property (money vested into the pension system), but if the law allowed rebate with interest to the guilty of personal contributions, that should not be a problem.
Lentini has said he may try again this year although he sees his opportunities as limited as this would be a general purpose bill which are restricted to five in number this odd-numbered-year session (although if he is on the ball he still has a couple of days to pre-file an unlimited number of general purpose bills). If not him, somebody else should for a positive contribution to ethics laws not only to ensure greater confidence in honesty among elected officials, but among any state employees.
17.4.07
Revise Louisiana law to protect better all schools
As it stands, Louisiana RS 14:95.2 may place university campuses, or any school, in the state in the same jeopardy as suffered by Virginia Tech University yesterday.
This law allows for a campus to be designated “firearm free,” meaning that only state police personnel, security guards, students taking classes using firearms, or students who leave those firearms located in dorm rooms or vehicles may possess them on campus grounds. Further, since concealed weapons face additional restrictions, the presence of them to defend oneself is even less likely in such a zone. This describes a situation similar to that which VTU operated under (which obviously did nothing to deter the shooter).
And that cannot be a consideration absent from the sick mind of those like the VTU suspect. If in their twisted logic they want to exact “revenge” or whatever their crazed motive is for so grossly violating moral and juridical laws, they know that their chances are extremely high of imposing their revolting wishes in an environment that has nobody able to defend himself against his firepower.
It’s what has happened in Louisiana already, in the McDonogh High shooting in New Orleans in 2003. Despite plenty of metal detecting and armed security guard capacity, in an apparent retaliation event, four non-students, two armed, shot into a gymnasium. None of that security stopped or deterred the shooters.
Obviously, a secondary school is different from a university – minors should not have access in public buildings to guns outside of JROTC, period – but the faculty members and other employees themselves were prohibited under law (expect with the principal’s permission) to carry firearms. From the criminals’ perspective, avoiding (in the McDonough case) four armed guards is not a difficult thing. But walking into a gym where at your first shot some adult who is carrying may drop you a second later creates an entirely new level of disincentive to even think about doing something so reprehensible.
The tragedy in Virginia is compounded by the fact that last year its General Assembly failed to pass a bill that would have allowed anybody with a concealed weapons carry permit to exercise that right on campuses. Who knows if any of the threatened students in the classroom building would have had a weapon in those circumstances – but even a sicko like the shooter might have had second thoughts about his insane actions if he knew somebody could be packing instead of being assured he could make the environment into his own personal shooting gallery.
Louisiana would increase school security of all kinds if it were this legislative session to pass a law similar to that rejected in Virginia last year – allow any adults with concealed carry permits legal authority to have their weapons on their persons on school property.
This law allows for a campus to be designated “firearm free,” meaning that only state police personnel, security guards, students taking classes using firearms, or students who leave those firearms located in dorm rooms or vehicles may possess them on campus grounds. Further, since concealed weapons face additional restrictions, the presence of them to defend oneself is even less likely in such a zone. This describes a situation similar to that which VTU operated under (which obviously did nothing to deter the shooter).
And that cannot be a consideration absent from the sick mind of those like the VTU suspect. If in their twisted logic they want to exact “revenge” or whatever their crazed motive is for so grossly violating moral and juridical laws, they know that their chances are extremely high of imposing their revolting wishes in an environment that has nobody able to defend himself against his firepower.
It’s what has happened in Louisiana already, in the McDonogh High shooting in New Orleans in 2003. Despite plenty of metal detecting and armed security guard capacity, in an apparent retaliation event, four non-students, two armed, shot into a gymnasium. None of that security stopped or deterred the shooters.
Obviously, a secondary school is different from a university – minors should not have access in public buildings to guns outside of JROTC, period – but the faculty members and other employees themselves were prohibited under law (expect with the principal’s permission) to carry firearms. From the criminals’ perspective, avoiding (in the McDonough case) four armed guards is not a difficult thing. But walking into a gym where at your first shot some adult who is carrying may drop you a second later creates an entirely new level of disincentive to even think about doing something so reprehensible.
The tragedy in Virginia is compounded by the fact that last year its General Assembly failed to pass a bill that would have allowed anybody with a concealed weapons carry permit to exercise that right on campuses. Who knows if any of the threatened students in the classroom building would have had a weapon in those circumstances – but even a sicko like the shooter might have had second thoughts about his insane actions if he knew somebody could be packing instead of being assured he could make the environment into his own personal shooting gallery.
Louisiana would increase school security of all kinds if it were this legislative session to pass a law similar to that rejected in Virginia last year – allow any adults with concealed carry permits legal authority to have their weapons on their persons on school property.
16.4.07
With Breaux out, Dems may play defense against Jindal
So now what for Louisiana Democrats? With Maryland resident John Breaux wisely out of the running for governor after having accomplished the party’s objective of pushing out unpopular Gov. Kathleen Blanco, only two such declared candidates, Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell and Rev. Raymond Brown, at this point remain, and the latter, a member of the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, thereby only can be regarded as a crank.
While more serious, Campbell’s candidacy also has limited upside. He keeps hitting just one note, and a rather unconvincing one at that about how Big Oil can fund Louisiana government without anyone else having to break a sweat. Even if he can raise the $3 million he says he can, it won’t make any difference. With Rep. Bobby Jindal having already over $5 million in the bank, with businessman John Georges promising to get into the race with almost as many of his own bucks, and state Sen. Walter Boasso willing to throw in a couple million of his own, there’s not enough money out there to counteract these funds that could make Campbell a serious threat.
Other Democrat benchwarmers have their own problems. In order of their chances of winning from marginal to none, Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu will face the same dynamic that defeated him in the New Orleans mayor’s race last year, being associated with his sister Sen. Mary Landrieu and the uneasiness people have in giving that family too much political power. Former Congressman Chris John didn’t show much and was soundly defeated in the 2004 Senate race. A year earlier, former Atty. Gen. Richard Ieyoub showed even less in his defeat for governor. While they might have the best chance of winning, Rep. Charlie Melancon and Treasurer John Kennedy can’t because they won’t.
While more serious, Campbell’s candidacy also has limited upside. He keeps hitting just one note, and a rather unconvincing one at that about how Big Oil can fund Louisiana government without anyone else having to break a sweat. Even if he can raise the $3 million he says he can, it won’t make any difference. With Rep. Bobby Jindal having already over $5 million in the bank, with businessman John Georges promising to get into the race with almost as many of his own bucks, and state Sen. Walter Boasso willing to throw in a couple million of his own, there’s not enough money out there to counteract these funds that could make Campbell a serious threat.
Other Democrat benchwarmers have their own problems. In order of their chances of winning from marginal to none, Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu will face the same dynamic that defeated him in the New Orleans mayor’s race last year, being associated with his sister Sen. Mary Landrieu and the uneasiness people have in giving that family too much political power. Former Congressman Chris John didn’t show much and was soundly defeated in the 2004 Senate race. A year earlier, former Atty. Gen. Richard Ieyoub showed even less in his defeat for governor. While they might have the best chance of winning, Rep. Charlie Melancon and Treasurer John Kennedy can’t because they won’t.
14.4.07
Breaux's right choice to defer race made for wrong reason
In the final analysis, Maryland resident John Breaux’s decision not to pursue the state’s governor’s office in 2007 was right for Louisiana Democrats, right for Louisiana … and for the wrong reasons.
Breaux and his allies in one voice said this decision was a product of the contest becoming one as much about his eligibility to run as it was about issue confronting the state. These remarks show that, right up to the end, Breaux and these people still had absolute no understanding about what the real issues are.
Because they never would have said such things if they truly understood that perhaps the major issue confronting the state in this election was whether Louisiana law should be subverted, twisted, contorted, and bent out of shape to continue to protect the political fortunes of those most responsible for the policies that have dragged down Louisiana for so long. The major issue of the election was whether Louisiana would sell it soul to try to stop reformist impulses from reversing the state’s slide.
This fundamental and uncomplicated thought largely eludes the Breauxs of the world, and all of the liberal, populist, good-old-boy hangers-on who he has represented all of his political career. In their political world, which reflects reality as a shadow reflects an object, they see themselves as the good whose right it is to control government to prevent people of evil intent from holding power – defined by them as those who have the talent to gather and create any wealth, business who by their definition exploits people, moral crusaders who believe government service is a privilege and sacrifice made and not a chance to accumulate wealth and power, and those other special interests who are not their friends and allies.
Thus, they are left incredulous when a fuss is made over their attempts to violate the integrity of the polity, because they see this violation as necessary and good to “save Louisiana.” It is why they cannot see their acts not only as not the most important issue in such a campaign, but as an issue at all. They call it the “politics of personal destruction” when in fact this is issue is best described as the “politics of constitutional integrity.”
Breaux now refuses to reenter the scene, which is a blessing for Democrats whose other candidates for other offices would have faced voters’ wrath for their association with him. As far as “saving Louisiana,” that will best happen if those who think like him on this account who still hold elective office in the state are escorted involuntarily from their positions of power by the end of the year.
Breaux and his allies in one voice said this decision was a product of the contest becoming one as much about his eligibility to run as it was about issue confronting the state. These remarks show that, right up to the end, Breaux and these people still had absolute no understanding about what the real issues are.
Because they never would have said such things if they truly understood that perhaps the major issue confronting the state in this election was whether Louisiana law should be subverted, twisted, contorted, and bent out of shape to continue to protect the political fortunes of those most responsible for the policies that have dragged down Louisiana for so long. The major issue of the election was whether Louisiana would sell it soul to try to stop reformist impulses from reversing the state’s slide.
This fundamental and uncomplicated thought largely eludes the Breauxs of the world, and all of the liberal, populist, good-old-boy hangers-on who he has represented all of his political career. In their political world, which reflects reality as a shadow reflects an object, they see themselves as the good whose right it is to control government to prevent people of evil intent from holding power – defined by them as those who have the talent to gather and create any wealth, business who by their definition exploits people, moral crusaders who believe government service is a privilege and sacrifice made and not a chance to accumulate wealth and power, and those other special interests who are not their friends and allies.
Thus, they are left incredulous when a fuss is made over their attempts to violate the integrity of the polity, because they see this violation as necessary and good to “save Louisiana.” It is why they cannot see their acts not only as not the most important issue in such a campaign, but as an issue at all. They call it the “politics of personal destruction” when in fact this is issue is best described as the “politics of constitutional integrity.”
Breaux now refuses to reenter the scene, which is a blessing for Democrats whose other candidates for other offices would have faced voters’ wrath for their association with him. As far as “saving Louisiana,” that will best happen if those who think like him on this account who still hold elective office in the state are escorted involuntarily from their positions of power by the end of the year.
13.4.07
Foti signals Breaux political trouble lies ahead in bid
While there never was any legal weight behind any potential opinion that Democrat Louisiana Atty. Gen. Charles Foti could issue regarding whether ex-Senator, Maryland resident Democrat John Breaux could run for Louisiana governor, the political import is significant.
By opting not to issue an opinion, which concerns whether Breaux meets the five-year citizenship requirement to run for the office, Foti signals to Breaux and fellow state Democrats that their case for getting Breaux eligible rests on very shaky legal ground – in part because Foti and Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Pascal Calogero are political allies from way back, and Foti must have sensed that Calogero did not perceive anything but difficulty in a Breaux candidacy prevailing on judicial grounds which surely would make its way to the highest court.
That doesn’t mean that the Court deciding in favor of a Breaux candidacy couldn’t happen – courts can decide anything, especially in Louisiana – but that the legal contortions responsible would be so transparent that politically it would work against Breaux. The last thing Breaux needs is for it to appear special interests are trying to rig procedures in his favor, as many already see him as a symbol of a good-old-boy political system in the state that is not above playing loose and fast with rules when it suits them. That’s not a good way to win votes in a climate already looking hostile to these kind of old-school politicians this election year.
Foti didn’t opine against because he wants to leave Breaux the option to decide for himself and, given his ego, Breaux well may brush aside this warning. Foti also hedged enough in his nondecision to try to give ammunition to allow Breaux not just to try to run, but even to try to skip the necessity of waiting until trying to run to determine his eligibility through a declaratory judgment (which at least one real constitutional law expert has said he cannot do). Putning also relieves Foti of facing flak for being a poltiical hack concerning his own reelection bid this fall.
But state Democrats shouldn’t put themselves through such histrionics if they are serious about winning the contest, and with this cue should start to look for a less-risky, gubernatorial candidate to rally around.
By opting not to issue an opinion, which concerns whether Breaux meets the five-year citizenship requirement to run for the office, Foti signals to Breaux and fellow state Democrats that their case for getting Breaux eligible rests on very shaky legal ground – in part because Foti and Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Pascal Calogero are political allies from way back, and Foti must have sensed that Calogero did not perceive anything but difficulty in a Breaux candidacy prevailing on judicial grounds which surely would make its way to the highest court.
That doesn’t mean that the Court deciding in favor of a Breaux candidacy couldn’t happen – courts can decide anything, especially in Louisiana – but that the legal contortions responsible would be so transparent that politically it would work against Breaux. The last thing Breaux needs is for it to appear special interests are trying to rig procedures in his favor, as many already see him as a symbol of a good-old-boy political system in the state that is not above playing loose and fast with rules when it suits them. That’s not a good way to win votes in a climate already looking hostile to these kind of old-school politicians this election year.
Foti didn’t opine against because he wants to leave Breaux the option to decide for himself and, given his ego, Breaux well may brush aside this warning. Foti also hedged enough in his nondecision to try to give ammunition to allow Breaux not just to try to run, but even to try to skip the necessity of waiting until trying to run to determine his eligibility through a declaratory judgment (which at least one real constitutional law expert has said he cannot do). Putning also relieves Foti of facing flak for being a poltiical hack concerning his own reelection bid this fall.
But state Democrats shouldn’t put themselves through such histrionics if they are serious about winning the contest, and with this cue should start to look for a less-risky, gubernatorial candidate to rally around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)