Yesterday we witnessed state Democrats’ strategy to try to hold onto power in the fall state elections – create an enormously expensive, duplicative, and potentially-fraud-ridden election system. And to some degree, former Republican state Rep. Peppi Bruneau is to blame.
Perceptive observers knew what was going to happen when in 2006 Democrats during the first special session muscled through pieces of legislation that allowed for voting at satellite precincts, made the state send out unsolicited absentee/early voting materials, and allowed people whose identities could not be positively verified to vote. They did have expiration dates, but it was widely known that if blatant fraud and technical problems did not happen, that Democrats would be back again with this, using the previous episode to justify making these provisions permanent – even though existing provisions perfectly were adequate and far less costly.
It helped that they had an ally in Democrat stalwart Al Ater, then the appointed secretary of state. He drained state coffers to make this work for the New Orleans municipal elections, where the costs per voter utilizing these new methods was almost 40 times that of regular voters. But current elections boss Republican Jay Dardenne won the special election to fill the vacancy Ater had occupied temporarily, and Dardenne had been one of the most vocal opponents of that legislation when in the Senate at that time.
With Dardenne providing a good dose of reality in yesterday’s hearings by the House and Governmental Affairs Committee as opposed to Ater’s partisan cheerleading, had the committee that had sat the year before been present it might have been enough to stop the measure from passing. Then as now, the committee had six Democrats and five Republicans even as its Chairman state Rep. Charlie Lancaster was a Republican.
But last year, perhaps eyeing his eventual switch to the Republican Party in order to increase his chances of evading the three-term limit in the House and continuing his legislative career by getting elected to the Senate this fall, state Rep. Billy Montgomery, when not absenting himself from committee meetings at certain key intervals, proved an uncertain vote for the panel’s Democrats. In fact, some of the crucial legislation now being resurrected and expanded by Democrats got enacted because a Republican, state Rep. Loulan Pitre, voted in favor of it.
However, Democrats shored up their support on the committee courtesy of the actions of a reliable vote against them on it, former member Bruneau. They knew that Montgomery’s switch between terms would have given the panel a Republican majority and made him unlikely to support what he had in the past. But Bruneau’s early resignation this year before the session’s start in a failed attempt to facilitate his son’s election in his place gave Democrats the chance to appoint another of their own to replace him, newly-elected Patrick Williams, who joined four other black Democrats, three from urban areas, and the ever-reliable good-old-boy Orleans-area white Democrat Jeff Arnold to form a rock solid majority on the panel.
Thus, election-related measures that would cost the state three years out of four at least $20 million extra for elections, and probably at minimum two or three times that since the Legislative Fiscal Office could not estimate costs of satellite voting offices statewide, were approved on party-line votes (Pitre this time was absent, so his vote wouldn’t have mattered.) All because state Democrats want to make eligible to vote people who have not resided in the state for (when the elections are held) two years who do not have to demonstrate in any substantive way that they want to live in the state, and almost led by their noses to cast a ballot utilizing a process wide-open to fraud given the enormous taxation on election staff resources it will demand, because Democrats think it will help them win elections.
Lancaster vowed to fight this legislation on the House floor. There, we will see whether House Democrats are more interested in election integrity or trying to create conditions allowing for election rigging that could prevent their party’s loss of power.
2.5.07
Union greed shortchanges quality LA education
Louisiana gets another reminder today about how teachers’ unions in this state exist only to fatten the wallets of their members at the expense of trying to educate students.
The Louisiana Federation of Teachers decided today would be a good day to ask its members to flee the classroom in favor of a political rally to urge support of pay raises. Enough responded so that several school systems will have to cancel classes today, leaving about 120,000 students in the lurch, and others will struggle to operate with a plethora of substitutes
Of course, this could have been done in June – the legislature will be in session well after the end of the school year and the appropriations bills that would contain language authorizing the salary increases won’t be finished until the very end. But that would miss the point: like petulant, spoiled children, they intentionally want to disrupt schooling in the state because they don’t really care about teaching but they are greedy enough to shirk their responsibilities in favor of making the biggest political statement possible.
The Louisiana Federation of Teachers decided today would be a good day to ask its members to flee the classroom in favor of a political rally to urge support of pay raises. Enough responded so that several school systems will have to cancel classes today, leaving about 120,000 students in the lurch, and others will struggle to operate with a plethora of substitutes
Of course, this could have been done in June – the legislature will be in session well after the end of the school year and the appropriations bills that would contain language authorizing the salary increases won’t be finished until the very end. But that would miss the point: like petulant, spoiled children, they intentionally want to disrupt schooling in the state because they don’t really care about teaching but they are greedy enough to shirk their responsibilities in favor of making the biggest political statement possible.
1.5.07
Landrieu blame GOP strategy shredded by Democrats
While Louisiana seems unlikely to provide any electoral relief for Democrats in terms of this year’s governor’s contest and in delivering electoral votes in next year’s presidential square-off, the one statewide tilt where their chances are close to even is in the retention of Sen. Mary Landrieu’s seat. But Landrieu now finds her Senate partisan colleagues are doing her no favors in this quest.
Ever since the levees broke in New Orleans in tragic 2005, Landrieu has recognized that, with the hollowing of her New Orleans base accelerated, she would have to attract different supporters. Following her Democrat cohort Gov. Kathleen Blanco, she adopted the strategy of attracting future votes by blaming the federal government, then entirely controlled by Republicans, for any and every thing no matter how little it had to do with whatever or how much culpability Landrieu herself had.
But now that strategy is starting to backfire since Democrats took control of Congress. Landrieu still can try to rail against the GOP White House, but now she finds Democrats’ pursuit of their agenda largely to blame for a lack of advancement of her causes which she needs to desperately to succeed to have any chance for reelection.
It is a committee led by a Democrat who is stalling some of her legislation. It is the Democrat leadership who shoved her legislation into the Iraq surrender bill that will go nowhere. While other parts of her bringing bacon to the state are being held up by Republicans (since the Democrats cling to the barest of majorities in the Senate), Senate Democrats can solve those problems procedurally, such as moving the Morganza-to-the-Gulf levee project to the general Water Resources Development Act reauthorization. Since that bill has been delayed for years and Republicans are interested in its passage, it is only Democrats failing to act on it (as they prefer to spend resources trying to score political points over war funding) that prevents it from becoming reality.
Landrieu continues to bleat about how Republicans thwart her, but informed observers know the truth – Democrat leaders don’t see Louisiana as a political ally and look down on the state that increasingly rejects their liberalism which is wrong for the American people. They want to help Landrieu retain her seat because it will help them retain Senatorial power, but if that clashes with promoting their own narrow, misbegotten agenda, they’ll throw her overboard – confident that most of the time her loyalty to them still will get her to hew the party line.
It’s a lesson Louisiana voters hopefully will recognize to cut through Landrieu and state Democrat propaganda during the 2008 election season.
Ever since the levees broke in New Orleans in tragic 2005, Landrieu has recognized that, with the hollowing of her New Orleans base accelerated, she would have to attract different supporters. Following her Democrat cohort Gov. Kathleen Blanco, she adopted the strategy of attracting future votes by blaming the federal government, then entirely controlled by Republicans, for any and every thing no matter how little it had to do with whatever or how much culpability Landrieu herself had.
But now that strategy is starting to backfire since Democrats took control of Congress. Landrieu still can try to rail against the GOP White House, but now she finds Democrats’ pursuit of their agenda largely to blame for a lack of advancement of her causes which she needs to desperately to succeed to have any chance for reelection.
It is a committee led by a Democrat who is stalling some of her legislation. It is the Democrat leadership who shoved her legislation into the Iraq surrender bill that will go nowhere. While other parts of her bringing bacon to the state are being held up by Republicans (since the Democrats cling to the barest of majorities in the Senate), Senate Democrats can solve those problems procedurally, such as moving the Morganza-to-the-Gulf levee project to the general Water Resources Development Act reauthorization. Since that bill has been delayed for years and Republicans are interested in its passage, it is only Democrats failing to act on it (as they prefer to spend resources trying to score political points over war funding) that prevents it from becoming reality.
Landrieu continues to bleat about how Republicans thwart her, but informed observers know the truth – Democrat leaders don’t see Louisiana as a political ally and look down on the state that increasingly rejects their liberalism which is wrong for the American people. They want to help Landrieu retain her seat because it will help them retain Senatorial power, but if that clashes with promoting their own narrow, misbegotten agenda, they’ll throw her overboard – confident that most of the time her loyalty to them still will get her to hew the party line.
It’s a lesson Louisiana voters hopefully will recognize to cut through Landrieu and state Democrat propaganda during the 2008 election season.
30.4.07
Blanco pleads to invest in government rather than in people
In yesterday’s posting, I lamented how Gov. Kathleen Blanco would not feel the need to act responsibly, in the sense that it counters her ideology, with her 2007-08 budget for Louisiana. Instead, as her State of the State address to start the 2007 regular session of the Legislature, she is more interested in convey the impression of a positive “legacy” of her tenure in office than any lasting, meaningful policies.
Faced with a budget surplus that could be over $3 billion, yet at the same time because state spending has grown so much during her just four years almost in office (over 50 percent according to this budget, which is why one had to laugh when she said she and the state had engaged in “fiscal discipline” to produce this surplus), her requests have outstripped the Constitution’s stricture that the rate of government growth not exceed that of the private sector, Blanco kept referring to “investments” in the state. But the context of her usage of that term shows she really does not understand it.
For example, she asks to “invest” in education with a pay raise for teachers. This would represent a significant recurring expense of over $100 million a year. Yet the surplus is mostly a product of a bonanza of federal dollars coming into the state for reconstruction purposes which will end within a couple of years. There’s no guarantee this kind of expenditure will be affordable over the long haul, so if salaries are going to be raised past cost-of-living increases, at least another year should go by to assess the affordability of this.
(Another unintended moment of humor came when Blanco, by way of example to make a comparison with a high-achieving educational state, mentioned Massachusetts – which a few years ago introduced teacher evaluations and accountability into its education system which Louisiana doesn’t have and Blanco has never backed. What she doesn’t understand and made her statement the object of ridicule is that more spending on personnel is just one part of the equation for improving education; regular evaluations including testing of teachers for knowledge in areas they are certified to teach must occur or little change in performance will ensue no matter how high the salaries.)
In other words, Blanco is asking the state to behave like somebody to take out a mortgage on a house they can only afford at their current level of income – even knowing it is temporary and will end soon with no guarantee of continuing to earn at that level. The only way for that level to be reacquired is to cut taxes and create a more productive economy that will fatten both the wallets of the citizenry and state tax coffers.
But Blanco doesn’t want to do this, except a few “targeted” tax cuts that will shovel money to the day care industry and create a credit to families with children. The latter is not a bad idea but it won’t do what’s necessary: reducing the state’s high, and in per capita terms absurdly high, tax burden on its citizenry, which discourages both growth and attracting business to that state to help provide it.
Still, she exhorted the Legislature to bypass common sense here to spend more and not give it back to the people where it will be more productively used and instead to chase after a label which may make them, and her, feel good but not really do anything: the “education Legislature.” Much better it will be if the Legislature rejects that and rather takes the historic opportunity to be known as the “reform Legislature” that seeks to invest in people, not government as Blanco wants.
While her arguments to use nonrecurring funds weren’t bad on roads and coastal restoration, and to restructure the way insurance is regulated in the state, assignments like hers that weigh heavily on style but not much on logical or informed substance on the main issue don’t do well in my classes. For her last State of the State address, Blanco earns a C-.
Faced with a budget surplus that could be over $3 billion, yet at the same time because state spending has grown so much during her just four years almost in office (over 50 percent according to this budget, which is why one had to laugh when she said she and the state had engaged in “fiscal discipline” to produce this surplus), her requests have outstripped the Constitution’s stricture that the rate of government growth not exceed that of the private sector, Blanco kept referring to “investments” in the state. But the context of her usage of that term shows she really does not understand it.
For example, she asks to “invest” in education with a pay raise for teachers. This would represent a significant recurring expense of over $100 million a year. Yet the surplus is mostly a product of a bonanza of federal dollars coming into the state for reconstruction purposes which will end within a couple of years. There’s no guarantee this kind of expenditure will be affordable over the long haul, so if salaries are going to be raised past cost-of-living increases, at least another year should go by to assess the affordability of this.
(Another unintended moment of humor came when Blanco, by way of example to make a comparison with a high-achieving educational state, mentioned Massachusetts – which a few years ago introduced teacher evaluations and accountability into its education system which Louisiana doesn’t have and Blanco has never backed. What she doesn’t understand and made her statement the object of ridicule is that more spending on personnel is just one part of the equation for improving education; regular evaluations including testing of teachers for knowledge in areas they are certified to teach must occur or little change in performance will ensue no matter how high the salaries.)
In other words, Blanco is asking the state to behave like somebody to take out a mortgage on a house they can only afford at their current level of income – even knowing it is temporary and will end soon with no guarantee of continuing to earn at that level. The only way for that level to be reacquired is to cut taxes and create a more productive economy that will fatten both the wallets of the citizenry and state tax coffers.
But Blanco doesn’t want to do this, except a few “targeted” tax cuts that will shovel money to the day care industry and create a credit to families with children. The latter is not a bad idea but it won’t do what’s necessary: reducing the state’s high, and in per capita terms absurdly high, tax burden on its citizenry, which discourages both growth and attracting business to that state to help provide it.
Still, she exhorted the Legislature to bypass common sense here to spend more and not give it back to the people where it will be more productively used and instead to chase after a label which may make them, and her, feel good but not really do anything: the “education Legislature.” Much better it will be if the Legislature rejects that and rather takes the historic opportunity to be known as the “reform Legislature” that seeks to invest in people, not government as Blanco wants.
While her arguments to use nonrecurring funds weren’t bad on roads and coastal restoration, and to restructure the way insurance is regulated in the state, assignments like hers that weigh heavily on style but not much on logical or informed substance on the main issue don’t do well in my classes. For her last State of the State address, Blanco earns a C-.
29.4.07
Legislature needs to force Blanco to do right on taxes, spending
When those in the know saw Gov. Kathleen Blanco runs towards the center in her 2003 bid for governor, they knew this was a conversion only of political convenience. Since then, she has acted consistently liberal on taxing and spending issues, overseeing a 50 percent growth in the size of government in just four years while offering crumbs in tax cuts and attempting to tax things from cigarettes to sick people.
Had she stayed in the 2007 race for reelection, we might have expected to see this year a mirroring of the 2003 promises, in the form of a budget that veered away from big government and for empowering people by allowing them to keep more of what they earn. But she didn’t do that and we didn’t see such a budget.
By contrast, increasingly recognized by legislators of both parties is a conservative/reformist surge ready to sweep the state in the fall elections. For some, especially those who wish to perpetuate their legislative careers by jumping from one chamber to another to circumvent the three-term limit, they will emulate Blanco’s move of political opportunism by distancing themselves from their records of supporting big government to become evangelists for tax cuts and reducing the size of government. Along with genuine small government, low tax advocates, this puts them on a collision course with Blanco.
Regardless of their motives, they need to prevail. Louisiana is already one of the most heavily taxed states (in state and local taxes) in the union even with having one of the lowest per capita incomes of all, and, despite a surplus largely derived from temporary causes, Blanco wants to provide just the most tepid and uneven of tax reductions (indeed one of her ideas, subsidizing day care with tax credits, actually would expand government’s role). Only legislators are expressing a desire for meaningful tax cuts and reduction in the size of government.
In fact, Blanco continues to have enormous faith in government to do things and singularly lacks it in the people of Louisiana. Her over-10 percent per annum spending increase request calls for all sorts of new recurring spending that is unlikely to be sustained under the current fiscal structure of the state. Instead, she should be holding off of new commitments and cut taxes to allow the economy to grow to support revenue growth exceeding that of current expenditure growth to enable such spending in the future.
This is common sense, it has gripped the Louisiana public more than usual this year, and legislators, even those who have demonstrated in the past they share Blanco’s view, are jumping on the bandwagon. Unfortunately, Blanco is too blind to see this, witness her ridiculous statement: “If the Legislature wants to do excessive tax cuts, it could throw everything off … I am trying to be responsible for future administrations. I would rather not pass on financial struggles. Any massive tax cuts will mess with the next administration.” As one might elaborate on the sentiment expressed in a Garbage tune, she’s too dense to understand her very proposed actions are the ones that will imperil the state’s financial health and leave massive problems for the next governor.
Unfortunately, she has a veto pen but regardless the Legislature should send her a reduced budget and tax decreases. If so, she can’t jack up the spending so maybe she’ll go along with the cuts. Otherwise, the state misses a golden, perhaps once-in-a-generation chance to improve its quality of life.
Had she stayed in the 2007 race for reelection, we might have expected to see this year a mirroring of the 2003 promises, in the form of a budget that veered away from big government and for empowering people by allowing them to keep more of what they earn. But she didn’t do that and we didn’t see such a budget.
By contrast, increasingly recognized by legislators of both parties is a conservative/reformist surge ready to sweep the state in the fall elections. For some, especially those who wish to perpetuate their legislative careers by jumping from one chamber to another to circumvent the three-term limit, they will emulate Blanco’s move of political opportunism by distancing themselves from their records of supporting big government to become evangelists for tax cuts and reducing the size of government. Along with genuine small government, low tax advocates, this puts them on a collision course with Blanco.
Regardless of their motives, they need to prevail. Louisiana is already one of the most heavily taxed states (in state and local taxes) in the union even with having one of the lowest per capita incomes of all, and, despite a surplus largely derived from temporary causes, Blanco wants to provide just the most tepid and uneven of tax reductions (indeed one of her ideas, subsidizing day care with tax credits, actually would expand government’s role). Only legislators are expressing a desire for meaningful tax cuts and reduction in the size of government.
In fact, Blanco continues to have enormous faith in government to do things and singularly lacks it in the people of Louisiana. Her over-10 percent per annum spending increase request calls for all sorts of new recurring spending that is unlikely to be sustained under the current fiscal structure of the state. Instead, she should be holding off of new commitments and cut taxes to allow the economy to grow to support revenue growth exceeding that of current expenditure growth to enable such spending in the future.
This is common sense, it has gripped the Louisiana public more than usual this year, and legislators, even those who have demonstrated in the past they share Blanco’s view, are jumping on the bandwagon. Unfortunately, Blanco is too blind to see this, witness her ridiculous statement: “If the Legislature wants to do excessive tax cuts, it could throw everything off … I am trying to be responsible for future administrations. I would rather not pass on financial struggles. Any massive tax cuts will mess with the next administration.” As one might elaborate on the sentiment expressed in a Garbage tune, she’s too dense to understand her very proposed actions are the ones that will imperil the state’s financial health and leave massive problems for the next governor.
Unfortunately, she has a veto pen but regardless the Legislature should send her a reduced budget and tax decreases. If so, she can’t jack up the spending so maybe she’ll go along with the cuts. Otherwise, the state misses a golden, perhaps once-in-a-generation chance to improve its quality of life.
26.4.07
Boasso switch encourages Dems to lynch Jindal
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)