Score one for common sense as the entire 5th Circuit Court of Appeals narrowly reversed a decision made by a smaller panel of it that ruled nonsectarian prayer at Tangipahoa Parish School Board meetings violated the first amendment. While it does not settle the matter by any means, the buildup to this decision and its content reveal once again the lengths to which anti-religion advocates are willing to go to erase religion from the public sphere.
By 8-7, the Court ruled the plaintiffs that sued the Board for violation of the conjured “wall of separation” between church and state that argues government should not support the concept of religion in any way even to the point out promoting secularism (contrary to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution) did not have standing to do so because they could not prove harm. Its Chief Judge Edith Jones (frequently mentioned as a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court) in the majority opinion said a lower court would have to visit that question, which it did not do so when District Court Judge Ginger Berrigan (a former president of the Louisiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, the organization which brought the suit on behalf of plaintiffs) ruled against the board.
It’s bad enough that a judge ideologically predisposed against the board made the initial ruling, but worse was the attitude displayed in the minority opinion written by Circuit Judge Rhesa Barksdale, who wrote the opinion of the three-judge panel earlier, calling the decision “a most grievous and unpardonable judicial sin of exalting form over substance.” Translation: “since the rules dictated that the outcome go against my ideological agenda, we need to break the rules.”
Essentially, the previous decisions were vacated, but expect a renewed ACLU challenge this time doing its best to demonstrate standing. In the meantime, Alliance Defense Fund counsel Mike Johnson (who defended the board at no cost to taxpayers) has developed a set of guidelines he thinks will pass constitutional muster that would anticipate forestalling another suit. It won’t given the blind ambition of the ACLU and its fellow travelers on this issue. This won’t go away and may well go all the way to the Supreme Court and maybe there a favorable outcome will protect expression of religious belief from anti-religion forces using government to try to squelch this right.
25.7.07
Odom again intends to use taxpayer funds unwisely
Louisiana Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom is up to his old tricks again, proposing taxpayer funding of ventures likely to fail. Previously having sought to sink money into sugar mill sinkholes, he now wants the state to take possession of a livestock and rodeo arena, plus adjacent land.
Currently, the privately-owned Lamar-Dixon Expo Center is run under a lease-buy agreement with Ascension Parish. Built for $54 million and never having turned a profit, the agreement says the parish may buy in July, 2009 for $7.5 million; Odom has a securitized stream of money he says can support an $8 million price tag upon sale of bonds to accomplish that purpose. He accomplished this because the law dedicating money to boll weevil eradication has a loophole that allows excess funds from it to go to any purpose seen fit by the Louisiana Agricultural Finance Authority – a body controlled by Odom which approved this plan.
It may be that the state actually would not take large losses at this price. But the real question is whether the state’s taxpayers ought to be paying up for an arena that will benefit very few. Even more to the point, is this something government at any level should be involved with at all?
Currently, the privately-owned Lamar-Dixon Expo Center is run under a lease-buy agreement with Ascension Parish. Built for $54 million and never having turned a profit, the agreement says the parish may buy in July, 2009 for $7.5 million; Odom has a securitized stream of money he says can support an $8 million price tag upon sale of bonds to accomplish that purpose. He accomplished this because the law dedicating money to boll weevil eradication has a loophole that allows excess funds from it to go to any purpose seen fit by the Louisiana Agricultural Finance Authority – a body controlled by Odom which approved this plan.
It may be that the state actually would not take large losses at this price. But the real question is whether the state’s taxpayers ought to be paying up for an arena that will benefit very few. Even more to the point, is this something government at any level should be involved with at all?
24.7.07
Reports confirm Jindal loses only if he beats himself
Despite one opponent’s wallet being a little fatter than his, when Rep. Bobby Jindal swings his it’s going to hurt a lot worse relevant to the governor’s race in Louisiana this fall than anybody else’s.
Campaign finance reports that are out show Republican Jindal raised the most dollars over the most recent reporting period, topping other reporting candidates Democrats state Sen. Walter Boasso and Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell and Republican businessman John Georges. However, courtesy of his own money, Georges has a slightly higher total of cash on hand than Jindal’s $5.7 million, both dwarfing the amounts available to Boasso (although he has pledged to throw more than the $1.4 million he already has put in as well) and to Campbell (who already loaned himself $400,000).
The real story, however, is that Jindal collected his sum from a broad base of donors that makes the other three candidates’ look puny. In other words, compared to Jindal Campbell is hardly getting any money from any body, while Boasso and Georges would be in the same boat if they weren’t throwing in so much of their own personal funds.
It’s an indicator that not a lot of people are betting on anybody but Jindal winning. Donors are rational individuals: unless they feel very ideologically committed to a certain candidate and his ideas, there’s no sense in giving money to somebody they really don’t has a chance of winning because money buys access to elected politicians. But there’s no access if they guy can’t get elected, so why waste your money? (Really telling is that, to this point, no Democrat party organization has given to Campbell or Boasso.)
The reports, by way of listed expenditures, give some insight into their strategies. Being in the most enviable situation of having both high name recognition and intended vote percentage, Jindal has not had to spend much to this point since he hasn’t had to create both of these conditions. No doubt the day after the reporting period Jindal went out and made major expenditures revealing what his campaign will do – but opponents will have to wait weeks before finding out what they are on the next report, if the products of those buys haven’t already hit the airwaves, phone lines, etc. by then.
One must wonder what kind of advice Georges has been getting. For a guy with almost zero name recognition and getting about a percent of the vote in polls, he can’t start spending big too soon, especially with so much of the Jindal mountain to have to detonate. Yet outside of some print ads there’s hardly any indicator that he’s running for this office; waiting until after Labor Day and thinking money can buy him parity or better with Jindal is foolhardly (remember this guy?). Campbell’s campaign soon will suffocate for lack of funds, while only Boasso’s campaign is doing what it has to do to have a chance to beat Jindal.
The reports only reaffirm that at this point the only guy that can beat Jindal in this contest is Jindal himself.
Campaign finance reports that are out show Republican Jindal raised the most dollars over the most recent reporting period, topping other reporting candidates Democrats state Sen. Walter Boasso and Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell and Republican businessman John Georges. However, courtesy of his own money, Georges has a slightly higher total of cash on hand than Jindal’s $5.7 million, both dwarfing the amounts available to Boasso (although he has pledged to throw more than the $1.4 million he already has put in as well) and to Campbell (who already loaned himself $400,000).
The real story, however, is that Jindal collected his sum from a broad base of donors that makes the other three candidates’ look puny. In other words, compared to Jindal Campbell is hardly getting any money from any body, while Boasso and Georges would be in the same boat if they weren’t throwing in so much of their own personal funds.
It’s an indicator that not a lot of people are betting on anybody but Jindal winning. Donors are rational individuals: unless they feel very ideologically committed to a certain candidate and his ideas, there’s no sense in giving money to somebody they really don’t has a chance of winning because money buys access to elected politicians. But there’s no access if they guy can’t get elected, so why waste your money? (Really telling is that, to this point, no Democrat party organization has given to Campbell or Boasso.)
The reports, by way of listed expenditures, give some insight into their strategies. Being in the most enviable situation of having both high name recognition and intended vote percentage, Jindal has not had to spend much to this point since he hasn’t had to create both of these conditions. No doubt the day after the reporting period Jindal went out and made major expenditures revealing what his campaign will do – but opponents will have to wait weeks before finding out what they are on the next report, if the products of those buys haven’t already hit the airwaves, phone lines, etc. by then.
One must wonder what kind of advice Georges has been getting. For a guy with almost zero name recognition and getting about a percent of the vote in polls, he can’t start spending big too soon, especially with so much of the Jindal mountain to have to detonate. Yet outside of some print ads there’s hardly any indicator that he’s running for this office; waiting until after Labor Day and thinking money can buy him parity or better with Jindal is foolhardly (remember this guy?). Campbell’s campaign soon will suffocate for lack of funds, while only Boasso’s campaign is doing what it has to do to have a chance to beat Jindal.
The reports only reaffirm that at this point the only guy that can beat Jindal in this contest is Jindal himself.
23.7.07
Landrieu endorses govt censorship of political views
Lost last week in the continuing efforts to force from office Republican Sen. David Vitter, the Louisiana media have ignored the actions of Louisiana’s Democrat senator that threaten its very freedom.
Sen. Mary Landrieu along with every other Democrat senator save one, voted to prevent language that would bar the Federal Communications Commission from reinstituting the misnamed “Fairness Doctrine” applying to broadcasting. Two decades ago the rule lapsed as electronic media outlets began to proliferate. Originally, with just over-the-air sources of electronic media available, government wanted to ensure that the few broadcasting oligopolies (local and national) then existing could not force one viewpoint down people’s throats and so decreed controversial viewpoints broadcast by a station had to allow time for opposing views.
But the advent of cable and now satellite radio with Internet components to the media have more than mooted this concern. However, also in the interim, political opinion broadcasting mostly on radio has exploded – but to the great consternation of liberals like Landrieu, almost totally favoring the conservative side of the spectrum.
Understanding liberalism and conservatism explains the dominance of the latter easily. If you are well-informed about history and current events, you are a logical thinker, and you don’t let emotion cloud your arguments, only if you are intellectually dishonest with yourself can you think liberalism is a valid, coherent ideology. Because radio doesn’t have accompanying images that play much more to the basis of today’s liberalism, unreasoned emotion, it demands much more critical thinking on the part of its broadcasters and listeners when explicating ideas, accentuating the vastly superior quality of reasoning and fact presentation of conservatism.
Thus, talk radio has been the great equalizer to the liberal bent of other broadcast media. This makes liberals mad and explains the move to reopen the possibility of the rule’s promulgation in the future because they cannot stand the thought that, in the marketplace of ideas, conservatism trounces liberalism, endangering their political power. The idea would be, with the rule back in place to scare broadcasters away from presenting any opinion as conservatism resonates with the audience, to enable every single utterance to have liberal rebuttals that would cost so much time, money, and create such chaos that broadcasters would be discouraged from giving conservative arguments demanded by the public.
It won’t happen immediately give the alignment of political forces but it could in the future were liberals to get much healthier majorities in the U.S. government’s majoritarian branches. Thus moves were made to write into law a prohibition on the doctrine, which last month passed in the House.
The same was tried in the Senate attaching it to an unrelated bill. Perhaps the Democrat with the most to gain from this was Landrieu, whose seat is the most at peril among Democrats in 2008 and with a compliant print media in Louisiana, only talk radio has been able to present consistently to the public aspects about her record that demonstrate why she is a poor choice to represent the state. With her help, the amendment failed.
Make no mistake, Landrieu wants to use government to censor opinions she doesn’t like, to silence those who speak truth to power – itself another indicator of her unfitness for office.
Sen. Mary Landrieu along with every other Democrat senator save one, voted to prevent language that would bar the Federal Communications Commission from reinstituting the misnamed “Fairness Doctrine” applying to broadcasting. Two decades ago the rule lapsed as electronic media outlets began to proliferate. Originally, with just over-the-air sources of electronic media available, government wanted to ensure that the few broadcasting oligopolies (local and national) then existing could not force one viewpoint down people’s throats and so decreed controversial viewpoints broadcast by a station had to allow time for opposing views.
But the advent of cable and now satellite radio with Internet components to the media have more than mooted this concern. However, also in the interim, political opinion broadcasting mostly on radio has exploded – but to the great consternation of liberals like Landrieu, almost totally favoring the conservative side of the spectrum.
Understanding liberalism and conservatism explains the dominance of the latter easily. If you are well-informed about history and current events, you are a logical thinker, and you don’t let emotion cloud your arguments, only if you are intellectually dishonest with yourself can you think liberalism is a valid, coherent ideology. Because radio doesn’t have accompanying images that play much more to the basis of today’s liberalism, unreasoned emotion, it demands much more critical thinking on the part of its broadcasters and listeners when explicating ideas, accentuating the vastly superior quality of reasoning and fact presentation of conservatism.
Thus, talk radio has been the great equalizer to the liberal bent of other broadcast media. This makes liberals mad and explains the move to reopen the possibility of the rule’s promulgation in the future because they cannot stand the thought that, in the marketplace of ideas, conservatism trounces liberalism, endangering their political power. The idea would be, with the rule back in place to scare broadcasters away from presenting any opinion as conservatism resonates with the audience, to enable every single utterance to have liberal rebuttals that would cost so much time, money, and create such chaos that broadcasters would be discouraged from giving conservative arguments demanded by the public.
It won’t happen immediately give the alignment of political forces but it could in the future were liberals to get much healthier majorities in the U.S. government’s majoritarian branches. Thus moves were made to write into law a prohibition on the doctrine, which last month passed in the House.
The same was tried in the Senate attaching it to an unrelated bill. Perhaps the Democrat with the most to gain from this was Landrieu, whose seat is the most at peril among Democrats in 2008 and with a compliant print media in Louisiana, only talk radio has been able to present consistently to the public aspects about her record that demonstrate why she is a poor choice to represent the state. With her help, the amendment failed.
Make no mistake, Landrieu wants to use government to censor opinions she doesn’t like, to silence those who speak truth to power – itself another indicator of her unfitness for office.
20.7.07
Blanco hypocritically denies tax cut to all Louisianans
Predictably politically motivated, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco gave a final “up yours” to groups she no doubt believes forced her into quitting after just one term as governor when she vetoed HB 505, writing another hypocritical chapter into her legacy and punishing the state as a result.
The bill would have eliminated one percent of the state sales tax on utilities expenditures for business beginning next Jul. 1, as well as created for almost three years beginning in October a reduction in tax for certain industries in New Orleans and items shipped through its port. The cost of the cut, estimated only for the statewide utility portion, was about $68 million.
In her veto message, Blanco expressed concern that over the long run a tax cut of this nature would cost the state too much revenue. Economic illiterate that she is, Blanco continues failing to understand that that tax cuts develop the economy to the point that the growth causes increases in revenues beyond what would be “lost.”
The bill would have eliminated one percent of the state sales tax on utilities expenditures for business beginning next Jul. 1, as well as created for almost three years beginning in October a reduction in tax for certain industries in New Orleans and items shipped through its port. The cost of the cut, estimated only for the statewide utility portion, was about $68 million.
In her veto message, Blanco expressed concern that over the long run a tax cut of this nature would cost the state too much revenue. Economic illiterate that she is, Blanco continues failing to understand that that tax cuts develop the economy to the point that the growth causes increases in revenues beyond what would be “lost.”
19.7.07
Good polling news still means bad news for Boasso
The good news for gubernatorial candidate Democrat state Sen. Walter Boasso is that his support for the job leapt 150 percent in the past couple of months. The bad news is that 2.5 times nothing is still nothing and five-sixths of everything for his main competitor leaves him very much on the defensive in this contest.
Boasso’s poll puts him at 21 percent in the race after a $1.3 million advertising blitz. Problem is that trails frontrunner Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal who barely has spent any money at all and who just formally started his campaign by 31 points who went from 62 percent, according to the released results. That still would give Jindal the outright win.
Curiously, the over-time comparison of results had undecided voters increase by half to 21 percent, bringing that figure up from its unusually low level five months prior to the contest. This likely represents soft supporters for Jindal, who recognized his name and little else and gave previous support on that basis, detached by Boasso’s media blitz. That’s not good news at all for the recent returnee to the Democrats because this result shows the floor for Jindal support is right around the majority mark.
Besides the fact that Boasso spent big and could not even reduce his gap to Jindal who spent little by half, and that Jindal still has a majority, news for him will get worse if New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin launches a quixotic campaign for the office. The poll under-sampled blacks (who are most likely to vote for Democrat Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell, who the poll showed losing a third of his small support, under the current lineup) and thus overstated Boasso’s support somewhat, but if Nagin actually gets in, by these numbers Boasso will lose the most and almost guarantee his inability to make a general election runoff, if Jindal even lets it come to that.
So while there’s good short-term news in the poll for Boasso, with little to cheer about previously, the long-term picture still remains grim for him or anybody else other than Jindal for this fall.
Boasso’s poll puts him at 21 percent in the race after a $1.3 million advertising blitz. Problem is that trails frontrunner Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal who barely has spent any money at all and who just formally started his campaign by 31 points who went from 62 percent, according to the released results. That still would give Jindal the outright win.
Curiously, the over-time comparison of results had undecided voters increase by half to 21 percent, bringing that figure up from its unusually low level five months prior to the contest. This likely represents soft supporters for Jindal, who recognized his name and little else and gave previous support on that basis, detached by Boasso’s media blitz. That’s not good news at all for the recent returnee to the Democrats because this result shows the floor for Jindal support is right around the majority mark.
Besides the fact that Boasso spent big and could not even reduce his gap to Jindal who spent little by half, and that Jindal still has a majority, news for him will get worse if New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin launches a quixotic campaign for the office. The poll under-sampled blacks (who are most likely to vote for Democrat Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell, who the poll showed losing a third of his small support, under the current lineup) and thus overstated Boasso’s support somewhat, but if Nagin actually gets in, by these numbers Boasso will lose the most and almost guarantee his inability to make a general election runoff, if Jindal even lets it come to that.
So while there’s good short-term news in the poll for Boasso, with little to cheer about previously, the long-term picture still remains grim for him or anybody else other than Jindal for this fall.
18.7.07
Vitter annoys media by not cooperating with their agenda
If a recent editorial by the Shreveport Times and other offerings are any indication, the media feel the pain of betrayal at the hands of Sen. David Vitter. But it’s a different betrayal than what some in the public may feel about his moral lapse.
Earlier this week Vitter essentially reiterated an apology for a “serious sin” that remained unnamed but highly likely is related to the presence of his phone number on a list provided by s suspected escort service operator. In general this annoyed the liberal media, most of who never have liked the conservative Republican Vitter and would like to see him out of office. They sensed this was a moment of vulnerability for him and his refusal to deal any more with the matter made them keenly aware his possible departure from office was slipping from their grasp. And they are not happy about it.
This reaction also highlights another attitude all too prevalent in today’s media – that the media somehow are the “guardians” of the public trust and for Vitter not to give them information that could help them live up to this self-assumed, erroneous view of themselves (as well as use that information to boost audience and run him out of office) they think cheats them and disserves the American public. Such egotism shows how far out of touch they are with the real world.
Earlier this week Vitter essentially reiterated an apology for a “serious sin” that remained unnamed but highly likely is related to the presence of his phone number on a list provided by s suspected escort service operator. In general this annoyed the liberal media, most of who never have liked the conservative Republican Vitter and would like to see him out of office. They sensed this was a moment of vulnerability for him and his refusal to deal any more with the matter made them keenly aware his possible departure from office was slipping from their grasp. And they are not happy about it.
This reaction also highlights another attitude all too prevalent in today’s media – that the media somehow are the “guardians” of the public trust and for Vitter not to give them information that could help them live up to this self-assumed, erroneous view of themselves (as well as use that information to boost audience and run him out of office) they think cheats them and disserves the American public. Such egotism shows how far out of touch they are with the real world.
17.7.07
Contrived sideshows unlikely to slow Jindal juggernaut
Both those presumably for and against Rep. Bobby Jindal in his quest to become governor of Louisiana tried to rain on his parade yesterday; that is, his formal campaign kickoff. But it’s unlikely to have any significant impact on its final outcome.
One could argue (as members of a group, of which I was formerly associated, rather unconvincingly did) that the slightly earlier news conference staged by Sen. David Vitter to some degree did upstage Jindal’s highly publicized announcement. Vitter had promised a statement about his apology last week for his phone number showing up in the records of an alleged leader of a prostitution ring, which contained little else other than what he had said last week, and delivered it about an hour before Jindal’s start.
While it might have been a slight show of defiance from Vitter to the man who most assuredly will become the undisputed leader of the state GOP to eclipse him, more likely Vitter did so in order to create further distraction from his situation.
If so, it seemed hardly to work as the media were there in force and brazenly insistent on his spilling his guts, like those who attend stock car races solely for the purpose of hoping to catch a glimpse of fatal crashes.
No doubt their journalistic twins waited for, or even possibly some actually at the Vitter sideshow then scurried over to, the Jindal announcement and almost immediately asked how Jindal would treat Vitter and his revelations. Jindal coolly said he had said everything he wanted to about that and minimized the media’s story plans by reminding them this was his campaign and about the future of state government.
16.7.07
Selective outrage shows what LA Dems really think
One has to laugh at the selective outrage and post-modern hypocrisy shown by the Louisiana Democrat Party in its online petition for Republican Sen. David Vitter to resign – but in the process also to realize what it tells us about them.
Last week, Vitter issued an apology for an unspecified “sin” after his phone number turned up on a list connected to an alleged brothel operator in Washington, D.C. Previously politically invulnerable, Vitter’s enemies piled on him that is unlikely to remove him from office one way or the other for a long time.
That reality isn’t keeping state Democrats from trying with this petition which presents a reason for him to resign as being “hypocritical.” Funny thing is, though, that the very selectivity of its outrage demonstrates the hypocrisy of the party itself in revealing their hypocritical view of what “hypocrisy” is.
Vitter has admitted to no crime nor does it appear he is prosecutable for any crime, much less one of dealing with corrupt activities while in office. He confesses error in his personal life and promises to do (and apparently has done) better. Yet Democrat Rep. William Jefferson is indicted for corrupt activities while in office and I don’t see any calls from his state party for his resignation. Nor when former Democrat Gov. Prisoner 03128-095 was known as the “Silver Zipper” for his activities did we see his party ask for his resignation.
The reason, of course, is that Democrats know they are seen as the anti-moral party. It particularly enrages them that some Republicans get elected by stressing morality in both personal and public behavior and/or try to encourage it in public policy and then every once-in-awhile one of them is found not to have lived up to those articulated standards in private life. As far as Republicans go, that somehow then disqualifies them from serving in office.
Well, let me pose this question for my Democrat friends: is not better to aim high and occasionally miss than to aim low and never miss? Who would you rather have in office, someone who ethically promises much and delivers almost always, or someone who promises little and maybe can’t even do that?
More to the point, if a Democrat who never stressed moral behavior in campaigns or legislation gets in a similar situation as Vitter, is he not just as culpable and would we not demand true repentance on his part? After all, marriage vows are not contingent on your party affiliation (something Democrats seem to have forgotten in the case of Democrat Pres. Bill Clinton who went even farther by committing illegal acts to prevent investigation of the matter).
Or by the resignation call for Vitter by state Democrats on the basis of being “hypocritical” show that they believe not stressing values in campaigns and legislation inoculates one from any evaluation of yourself in moral terms, i.e. you can behave immorally if you don’t stress these things? Maybe that’s why Democrats often promote the idea that government should not encourage “conventional” morality so we are as free as we want to act badly without taking personal responsibility for that?
In the end, there are going to be former supporters of Vitter who feel betrayed because in moments of weakness (apparently now long past) Vitter failed to practice what he preached – values these people place primacy in not only in their own lives but in how they evaluate a politician. Their outrage is deserved and justified. But while marital fidelity and related moral precepts are meaningful values in these people’s lives, to the state Democrats they are merely political issues they try to use for personal gain. The political impact of the petition will be nil; the real message of the effort will be the demonstration that this is how state Democrats see moral “values.”
Last week, Vitter issued an apology for an unspecified “sin” after his phone number turned up on a list connected to an alleged brothel operator in Washington, D.C. Previously politically invulnerable, Vitter’s enemies piled on him that is unlikely to remove him from office one way or the other for a long time.
That reality isn’t keeping state Democrats from trying with this petition which presents a reason for him to resign as being “hypocritical.” Funny thing is, though, that the very selectivity of its outrage demonstrates the hypocrisy of the party itself in revealing their hypocritical view of what “hypocrisy” is.
Vitter has admitted to no crime nor does it appear he is prosecutable for any crime, much less one of dealing with corrupt activities while in office. He confesses error in his personal life and promises to do (and apparently has done) better. Yet Democrat Rep. William Jefferson is indicted for corrupt activities while in office and I don’t see any calls from his state party for his resignation. Nor when former Democrat Gov. Prisoner 03128-095 was known as the “Silver Zipper” for his activities did we see his party ask for his resignation.
The reason, of course, is that Democrats know they are seen as the anti-moral party. It particularly enrages them that some Republicans get elected by stressing morality in both personal and public behavior and/or try to encourage it in public policy and then every once-in-awhile one of them is found not to have lived up to those articulated standards in private life. As far as Republicans go, that somehow then disqualifies them from serving in office.
Well, let me pose this question for my Democrat friends: is not better to aim high and occasionally miss than to aim low and never miss? Who would you rather have in office, someone who ethically promises much and delivers almost always, or someone who promises little and maybe can’t even do that?
More to the point, if a Democrat who never stressed moral behavior in campaigns or legislation gets in a similar situation as Vitter, is he not just as culpable and would we not demand true repentance on his part? After all, marriage vows are not contingent on your party affiliation (something Democrats seem to have forgotten in the case of Democrat Pres. Bill Clinton who went even farther by committing illegal acts to prevent investigation of the matter).
Or by the resignation call for Vitter by state Democrats on the basis of being “hypocritical” show that they believe not stressing values in campaigns and legislation inoculates one from any evaluation of yourself in moral terms, i.e. you can behave immorally if you don’t stress these things? Maybe that’s why Democrats often promote the idea that government should not encourage “conventional” morality so we are as free as we want to act badly without taking personal responsibility for that?
In the end, there are going to be former supporters of Vitter who feel betrayed because in moments of weakness (apparently now long past) Vitter failed to practice what he preached – values these people place primacy in not only in their own lives but in how they evaluate a politician. Their outrage is deserved and justified. But while marital fidelity and related moral precepts are meaningful values in these people’s lives, to the state Democrats they are merely political issues they try to use for personal gain. The political impact of the petition will be nil; the real message of the effort will be the demonstration that this is how state Democrats see moral “values.”
15.7.07
LeBlanc cannot defend poor Blanco budget choices
So Louisiana Commissioner of Administration Jerry Luke LeBlanc challenged critics of the Blanco administration's financial decisions to supply a list of better ways to use state general revenue and surplus funds? Coming right up; he isn’t going to like being reminded of the Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s administrations shortcomings in this regard.
First, he says the huge increase in state spending – around $32 billion when everything is thrown in, more than double a decade ago – is skewed because a quarter of that is in federal funds related to disaster recovery spending. But that view misses the point that, on a comparative basis, state spending already was too high to begin with. And Blanco just made it worse, epitomized by spending, in a state whose population is declining, not only to continue to fund vacant state positions, but to give these “ghosts” pay raises and create almost 1,200 new jobs on top of them.
Second, he brushed aside criticism that the state budget contained tens of millions of dollars in local projects and/or ones of dubious statewide interest by asserting he has resisted this idea and tried to stop it. That’s hard to take seriously: if Blanco really wanted to stop those kinds of items from popping up, she would use her line-item veto them. The fact is, neither LeBlanc nor Blanco wanted to stop the practice because it serves their political and ideological interests.
Third, LeBlanc argued of a lack of perspective, that huge, even “historic” amounts had been budgeted by Blanco to address long-standing needs. Certainly $600 million against a $14 billion backlog in roads (a portion he did not define of which he dismissed as “the magic wish list”) is a lot and a record sum. But if Blanco were serious about these needs, she would have put into a place a mechanism to make sure the backlog was kept at a minimum. Instead, her administration argued against the likes of HB 722 which could have started sending annually at least $300 million a year for transportation needs.
The way that bill would have worked, it would have removed money going now into the general fund from transportation-related revenue sources, meaning there’s that much less to spend on recurring commitments. But considering that the state is overpaying about $100 million a year in long-term health care costs, refuses to reform indigent health care to make it more cost efficient, and has wasted hundreds of million on building lakes, among many poor uses of funds, this would not be a problem – and the Blanco Administration did nothing to stop or solve for these. Again, it’s not “you have to say enough is enough,” it’s a simple matter of political will: this reordering of priorities doesn’t occur because the Blanco Administration has other political goals in mind which involved making government bigger.
Fourth, in terms of the foolishly forgone option of giving tax cuts greater than the roughly one half of one percent of the entire budget that Blanco has allowed, LeBlanc seemed wedded to the tired, disproven idea that reducing the size of government takings from the people have a negative impact on future state revenues. As demonstrated historically time and time again, tax cuts lead to economic development that increases funding to government naturally since the economy grows. This, however, runs counter to the Blanco Administration’s belief that it is government that knows best what to do with the people’s money to develop the state economically.
Finally, this attitude is reflected further in LeBlanc’s of claims plowing money into high-profile areas that will help the economy grow, such as in secondary education. But this will turn out to be just good money chasing bad if not done correctly, and Blanco’s approach – throw money at teachers without asking for accountability from them in their job performances – leaves little confidence that there will be any real improvement in education quality in the state.
Nice try, but for those who know something about this latest budget and understand behind it its liberal/populist precepts, proven bankrupt both logically and historically, LeBlanc’s rhetorical defense of the Blanco’s Administration throwing away a great opportunity fools no one.
First, he says the huge increase in state spending – around $32 billion when everything is thrown in, more than double a decade ago – is skewed because a quarter of that is in federal funds related to disaster recovery spending. But that view misses the point that, on a comparative basis, state spending already was too high to begin with. And Blanco just made it worse, epitomized by spending, in a state whose population is declining, not only to continue to fund vacant state positions, but to give these “ghosts” pay raises and create almost 1,200 new jobs on top of them.
Second, he brushed aside criticism that the state budget contained tens of millions of dollars in local projects and/or ones of dubious statewide interest by asserting he has resisted this idea and tried to stop it. That’s hard to take seriously: if Blanco really wanted to stop those kinds of items from popping up, she would use her line-item veto them. The fact is, neither LeBlanc nor Blanco wanted to stop the practice because it serves their political and ideological interests.
Third, LeBlanc argued of a lack of perspective, that huge, even “historic” amounts had been budgeted by Blanco to address long-standing needs. Certainly $600 million against a $14 billion backlog in roads (a portion he did not define of which he dismissed as “the magic wish list”) is a lot and a record sum. But if Blanco were serious about these needs, she would have put into a place a mechanism to make sure the backlog was kept at a minimum. Instead, her administration argued against the likes of HB 722 which could have started sending annually at least $300 million a year for transportation needs.
The way that bill would have worked, it would have removed money going now into the general fund from transportation-related revenue sources, meaning there’s that much less to spend on recurring commitments. But considering that the state is overpaying about $100 million a year in long-term health care costs, refuses to reform indigent health care to make it more cost efficient, and has wasted hundreds of million on building lakes, among many poor uses of funds, this would not be a problem – and the Blanco Administration did nothing to stop or solve for these. Again, it’s not “you have to say enough is enough,” it’s a simple matter of political will: this reordering of priorities doesn’t occur because the Blanco Administration has other political goals in mind which involved making government bigger.
Fourth, in terms of the foolishly forgone option of giving tax cuts greater than the roughly one half of one percent of the entire budget that Blanco has allowed, LeBlanc seemed wedded to the tired, disproven idea that reducing the size of government takings from the people have a negative impact on future state revenues. As demonstrated historically time and time again, tax cuts lead to economic development that increases funding to government naturally since the economy grows. This, however, runs counter to the Blanco Administration’s belief that it is government that knows best what to do with the people’s money to develop the state economically.
Finally, this attitude is reflected further in LeBlanc’s of claims plowing money into high-profile areas that will help the economy grow, such as in secondary education. But this will turn out to be just good money chasing bad if not done correctly, and Blanco’s approach – throw money at teachers without asking for accountability from them in their job performances – leaves little confidence that there will be any real improvement in education quality in the state.
Nice try, but for those who know something about this latest budget and understand behind it its liberal/populist precepts, proven bankrupt both logically and historically, LeBlanc’s rhetorical defense of the Blanco’s Administration throwing away a great opportunity fools no one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)