Money-raising totals at this time point to clear favorites in the race to succeed Rep. Jim McCrery in Louisiana’s Fourth District – whether some candidates wish to believe it.
Of the five declared candidates who had done so in time to be required to file reports to the Federal Election Commission Mar. 31, only Caddo District Attorney Democrat Paul Carmouche had raised the vast majority – in fact, all – of his funds from contributors. The significance of this is that funds raised this way serves as a proxy of approximate support for a candidate with typically the higher the proportion of funds raised from others not using own resources, the greater the perceived quality of the candidate.
Far too many people do not understand the relationship between donations to a campaign and the likelihood of a candidate winning a contest. Donors reflect the larger public and they are like investors, putting money down on candidates they think likely to win in the hopes of having access to that person when elected. Why give to a candidate, unless you truly believe in the ideas of that candidate, if you don’t think much of his chances of winning?
Thus, the largely self-financed nature of some candidates in the contest demonstrates the public at large doesn’t think much of their chances of winning and largely ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. By contrast, those pulling in a decent amount of donations are considered higher quality and could win. By this metric, among those announced at this time, Carmouche would be the favorite.
Another error made in thinking about these dynamics is to believe spending a lot on a campaign can make you into a quality candidate; rather, quality attracts money to spend. This may disappoint some in the campaign, but spending a fair amount of money is not going to make you a winner, and not necessarily competitive or even “serious.” The latter label comes not from spending a lot of money, but having a lot of money given to you and/or a lot of people assisting in the campaign.
Using these definitions, at this point only Carmouche can be considered competitive if not serious, although the numbers indicate Republican Chris Gorman might become so unless he is swamped by the entry into the contest of local attorney Jeff Thompson, endorsed by McCrery, or by the potential interest of state Rep. Wayne Waddell whose voting record in the Louisiana Legislature in the past few years has been among the more conservative. Thompson’s endorsed status and Waddell’s record have the potential to attract some meaningful money and make them clear frontrunners if nobody can else wrest that distinction.
The next reports due in the summer should really distinguish contenders from pretenders. Unless a Republican emerges with a clear margin by then over comrades in money raised from donors, the district is vulnerable to a party switch in the form of Carmouche.
16.4.08
GOP statewide looks to benefit from disaster displacement
One of my professional colleagues recently released a paper estimating the changing dynamics of both New Orleans and the state in distribution of partisan voting. They echo a paper that readers may not have heard about (unless they listened to an interview on Eric Asher’s “Inside New Orleans” on WIST-AM) that I presented at the Southern Political Science Association annual meeting which was in New Orleans back in January.
Part of the paper dealt with the effects of term limits on the partisan composition of the Legislature resulting from the 2007 elections. I discovered that the majority of the seat gain for the Republicans (seven of 12, chambers combined) came from the imposition of term limits. That the minority party picks up seats in a term-limited environment is consistent with theory: incumbents appear to have advantages in reelection campaigns over challengers by virtue of their elective office and status, which term limits eliminate.
But appropriate to changes in the electorate, statewide I discovered the impact of displacement from the 2005 hurricane disasters had shifted to the advantage of Republicans. As the 2007 elections approached, only three parishes had nontrivial impacts still present in their electoral compositions, Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard, all on the minus side (but not, as some had speculated, East Baton Rouge on the plus side).
Jefferson was almost back to normal, estimated at almost 96 percent of its July 1, 2005 population (adjusted by expected changes without intervention by the storms). But Orleans was at but half-strength, and St. Bernard was still reeling at less than a quarter. Altogether, they indicated over 290,000 had left the state, the adults of which who had been registered to vote would be expected only in small proportions to vote absentee in the fall elections..
Translated in actual expected voting, by comparing voting patterns in 2003 to 2007 it seems 61,000 fewer partisan voters from these three parishes participated in the 2007 governor’s contest, and about 4,000 more non-major party voters also had pushed buttons. (The total of around 65,000 was almost precisely the difference in total statewide turnout from 2003 to 2007 – meaning the lower proportion voting for governor in 2007 than in 2003 was almost solely attributable to the absence of displaced voters.) And of the partisans not present, over 54,000 were registered Democrats (of which around 41,000 were black) and only somewhat more than 6,000 Republicans, meaning an advantage of about 48,000 votes for GOP candidates statewide.
At the parish level, Orleans suffered the biggest losses, over 37,000 partisan votes including 60 percent of the total Democrats lost, although St Bernard endured the biggest proportional losses, losing about 60 percent of both its Democrat and Republican potential votes. To underscore the devastation in St. Bernard, it actually lost a few more total votes than all of Jefferson even though in 2005 it was estimated as one-seventh the total population of Jefferson.
The larger point here is that, for now, statewide Republican candidates are advantaged in this new environment compared to the old. The roughly 48,000 more votes relatively a GOP candidate can expect turned what would have been a razor-thin primary win into a comfortable one for Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, and it would have sent Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu to defeat in 1996 thereby mooting her 2002 reelection bid that would have been uncomfortably close.
While people still trickle back to the affected areas, and thereby disproportionately would be adding Democrats to the vote columns, sooner rather than later this will stop. Whether this becomes a major component to the ascendancy of the Republican Party as the state’s majority party will depend on how well the GOP does other things to win elections consistently.
Part of the paper dealt with the effects of term limits on the partisan composition of the Legislature resulting from the 2007 elections. I discovered that the majority of the seat gain for the Republicans (seven of 12, chambers combined) came from the imposition of term limits. That the minority party picks up seats in a term-limited environment is consistent with theory: incumbents appear to have advantages in reelection campaigns over challengers by virtue of their elective office and status, which term limits eliminate.
But appropriate to changes in the electorate, statewide I discovered the impact of displacement from the 2005 hurricane disasters had shifted to the advantage of Republicans. As the 2007 elections approached, only three parishes had nontrivial impacts still present in their electoral compositions, Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard, all on the minus side (but not, as some had speculated, East Baton Rouge on the plus side).
Jefferson was almost back to normal, estimated at almost 96 percent of its July 1, 2005 population (adjusted by expected changes without intervention by the storms). But Orleans was at but half-strength, and St. Bernard was still reeling at less than a quarter. Altogether, they indicated over 290,000 had left the state, the adults of which who had been registered to vote would be expected only in small proportions to vote absentee in the fall elections..
Translated in actual expected voting, by comparing voting patterns in 2003 to 2007 it seems 61,000 fewer partisan voters from these three parishes participated in the 2007 governor’s contest, and about 4,000 more non-major party voters also had pushed buttons. (The total of around 65,000 was almost precisely the difference in total statewide turnout from 2003 to 2007 – meaning the lower proportion voting for governor in 2007 than in 2003 was almost solely attributable to the absence of displaced voters.) And of the partisans not present, over 54,000 were registered Democrats (of which around 41,000 were black) and only somewhat more than 6,000 Republicans, meaning an advantage of about 48,000 votes for GOP candidates statewide.
At the parish level, Orleans suffered the biggest losses, over 37,000 partisan votes including 60 percent of the total Democrats lost, although St Bernard endured the biggest proportional losses, losing about 60 percent of both its Democrat and Republican potential votes. To underscore the devastation in St. Bernard, it actually lost a few more total votes than all of Jefferson even though in 2005 it was estimated as one-seventh the total population of Jefferson.
The larger point here is that, for now, statewide Republican candidates are advantaged in this new environment compared to the old. The roughly 48,000 more votes relatively a GOP candidate can expect turned what would have been a razor-thin primary win into a comfortable one for Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, and it would have sent Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu to defeat in 1996 thereby mooting her 2002 reelection bid that would have been uncomfortably close.
While people still trickle back to the affected areas, and thereby disproportionately would be adding Democrats to the vote columns, sooner rather than later this will stop. Whether this becomes a major component to the ascendancy of the Republican Party as the state’s majority party will depend on how well the GOP does other things to win elections consistently.
15.4.08
Democrat fortunes shaky in LA for November contests
Despite some overly-cheery conjecturing by the pollster, a poll for a private group that tacked on a few questions about upcoming political contests provided some guarded, bad, and terrible news for Democrats likely subject to Louisiana statewide votes in November.
The Southern Media Opinion and Research poll taken about two weeks ago gave most hope to Sen. Mary Landrieu, running for reelection against heavyweight Republican challenger state Treas. John Kennedy. She led him 50-38 percent, any number below 50 percent meaning, because if an incumbent more than six months out from an election cannot draw at least that, she would be in serious trouble.
As it is, she’s only in mild trouble. With so few people tuned into the contest at this point with almost no advertising concerning it, some respondents will give an incumbent’s name simply out of familiarity, and some undecided voters, not really knowing about the competitor but leaning against the incumbent, will end up breaking against her later. Thus, her support is overstated at this point and if it drifts downwards even a little, she becomes unlikely to repeat in office. Stating “It means the voters obviously have a very high regard for her as their U.S. senator,” and “She is going to be tough to beat because she is so well-thought of,” as does the pollster shows little real understanding of what these head-to-head numbers actually mean
But that’s a better situation that Sen. Hillary Clinton faces in winning the state as a presidential candidate. She polled down 49-42 percent to Republican Sen. John McCain, apparent GOP nominee. Apparently, the only one surprised by this is the pollster, who marvels, “I don't know that she would carry Louisiana, but McCain would certainly have to come in here and campaign to win it. It's certainly not a cinch.”
In reality, Clinton has little chance of winning. She always will draw respectable numbers in Louisiana – recall that her husband won the state twice – because there are yellow-dog Clintonites who would vote for anything associated with the 42nd president. But she does not have his political skills or has had his good policy luck or the audacity to take credit for good GOP policy initiatives that got him to fool enough non-liberals to win here. Expect a bare modicum of campaigning regardless of who gets nominated; she would probably end up at least seven points down if she wins the nomination.
The 16 percent gap to McCain for Sen. Barack Obama, however, got the pollster to stop blowing Democrat sunshine up our skirts and instead got him musing about voter intentions – without actually making any enlightening observations. Noting that while a little more than a quarter of whites said they’d support Clinton against McCain while just over a seventh would support Obama in that matchup, he concluded, “Race is obviously entering into the extremely poor numbers he's receiving from white voters.”
I’d hate to see what this surveyor would term as not obvious, for racial attitudes probably play just a small part in that difference (additional questions that could determine some of these things seemed not to have been asked). It’s not “race,” but the facts that Obama thinks people of faith don’t worship God but “cling” to belief, that until very recently his wife never had any pride in her country America, and that by continued patronage and active participation in a church by him and his entire family he endorses the ideas behind the ranting of a minister who calls on God to condemn America and who tells his congregation about how evil America run by whites is, including how they foisted genocide by inventing AIDS and got paid back by 9/11. The problem for the white Louisiana electorate is not that Obama is black, it’s that Obama has Obama’s belief system, as much as he tries to obscure it, which is profoundly out of step with its own.
The best summary of this poll is that, if you’re a Democrat who spends most of your time outside of Louisiana, your chances of winning a statewide election are at best fair, and at worst none.
The Southern Media Opinion and Research poll taken about two weeks ago gave most hope to Sen. Mary Landrieu, running for reelection against heavyweight Republican challenger state Treas. John Kennedy. She led him 50-38 percent, any number below 50 percent meaning, because if an incumbent more than six months out from an election cannot draw at least that, she would be in serious trouble.
As it is, she’s only in mild trouble. With so few people tuned into the contest at this point with almost no advertising concerning it, some respondents will give an incumbent’s name simply out of familiarity, and some undecided voters, not really knowing about the competitor but leaning against the incumbent, will end up breaking against her later. Thus, her support is overstated at this point and if it drifts downwards even a little, she becomes unlikely to repeat in office. Stating “It means the voters obviously have a very high regard for her as their U.S. senator,” and “She is going to be tough to beat because she is so well-thought of,” as does the pollster shows little real understanding of what these head-to-head numbers actually mean
But that’s a better situation that Sen. Hillary Clinton faces in winning the state as a presidential candidate. She polled down 49-42 percent to Republican Sen. John McCain, apparent GOP nominee. Apparently, the only one surprised by this is the pollster, who marvels, “I don't know that she would carry Louisiana, but McCain would certainly have to come in here and campaign to win it. It's certainly not a cinch.”
In reality, Clinton has little chance of winning. She always will draw respectable numbers in Louisiana – recall that her husband won the state twice – because there are yellow-dog Clintonites who would vote for anything associated with the 42nd president. But she does not have his political skills or has had his good policy luck or the audacity to take credit for good GOP policy initiatives that got him to fool enough non-liberals to win here. Expect a bare modicum of campaigning regardless of who gets nominated; she would probably end up at least seven points down if she wins the nomination.
The 16 percent gap to McCain for Sen. Barack Obama, however, got the pollster to stop blowing Democrat sunshine up our skirts and instead got him musing about voter intentions – without actually making any enlightening observations. Noting that while a little more than a quarter of whites said they’d support Clinton against McCain while just over a seventh would support Obama in that matchup, he concluded, “Race is obviously entering into the extremely poor numbers he's receiving from white voters.”
I’d hate to see what this surveyor would term as not obvious, for racial attitudes probably play just a small part in that difference (additional questions that could determine some of these things seemed not to have been asked). It’s not “race,” but the facts that Obama thinks people of faith don’t worship God but “cling” to belief, that until very recently his wife never had any pride in her country America, and that by continued patronage and active participation in a church by him and his entire family he endorses the ideas behind the ranting of a minister who calls on God to condemn America and who tells his congregation about how evil America run by whites is, including how they foisted genocide by inventing AIDS and got paid back by 9/11. The problem for the white Louisiana electorate is not that Obama is black, it’s that Obama has Obama’s belief system, as much as he tries to obscure it, which is profoundly out of step with its own.
The best summary of this poll is that, if you’re a Democrat who spends most of your time outside of Louisiana, your chances of winning a statewide election are at best fair, and at worst none.
14.4.08
Another day, additional wackiness from LA Legislature
The Louisiana Legislature – more specifically, the House’s Transportation, Highways, and Public Works Committee – gave us a good example of the craziness that the legislative process can produce Monday.
The Committee spent over an hour debating HB 407 which started as a bill to prohibit the use of cell phones for drivers of public/commercial transportation. Gradually it got whittled down by allowing all hands-free devices (for example, modules in ears that could be turned on or off by the flick of a finger) and attempted exemptions. Eventually, it foundered over the question of Councils on Agings’ van drivers using cell phones and whether mandating the law would put an intolerable financial burden on them (despite the fact that Blackberry-capable headsets sell for under $50).
Then it spent less time and seemed to forget all of this when it passed HB 822 which would forbid cell phone use unless in the hands-free mode or in “emergency” situations. While this bill has great intentions, it likely overreaches on both grounds of necessity and in enforcement.
While it’s true some people drive much more idiotically when holding up and talking on a cell phone – driving well below speed limits, making rude lane changes and merges, etc. – others don’t inconvenience other drivers. And while statistics in committee were trotted out to show cell phone usage was associated with a couple of thousand accidents in each of the past coupled of years and even a few fatalities, there was no demonstration that they caused those accidents.
Enforcement will be a nightmare, particularly with the exemptions put in. Only inattentive drivers to the presence of police (what is law enforcement going to do, pull up beside a driver holding an animated discussion and flash the lights in the middle of heavy traffic?) will get caught, and the smart ones of them will immediately dial their doctor’s office and claim that was their call.
(Adding to the festivities was committee chairwoman Nita Hutter’s usually pleasant, but sometimes stern, reminders to members about just how to properly conduct business – all but four members of the committee are freshmen – as well as some of the stumbling as a result of that, such as with Dorothy Sue Hill – wife of term-limited ex-Rep. Herman Hill who defeated another ex-senator trying to get back his old House seat last fall – who would refer to the cost estimates produced by the Legislative Fiscal Office as “physical” notes.)
This bill serves as a typical example of some products that come from the Legislature – addressing an issue that really isn’t much of a problem with a solution uncertain really to work. We’ll just have to see if protection of personal autonomy and concerns over enforcement or regulation of obnoxious, perhaps even slightly dangerous behavior takes precedence as the bill moves on – applying even to Council on Aging van drivers.
The Committee spent over an hour debating HB 407 which started as a bill to prohibit the use of cell phones for drivers of public/commercial transportation. Gradually it got whittled down by allowing all hands-free devices (for example, modules in ears that could be turned on or off by the flick of a finger) and attempted exemptions. Eventually, it foundered over the question of Councils on Agings’ van drivers using cell phones and whether mandating the law would put an intolerable financial burden on them (despite the fact that Blackberry-capable headsets sell for under $50).
Then it spent less time and seemed to forget all of this when it passed HB 822 which would forbid cell phone use unless in the hands-free mode or in “emergency” situations. While this bill has great intentions, it likely overreaches on both grounds of necessity and in enforcement.
While it’s true some people drive much more idiotically when holding up and talking on a cell phone – driving well below speed limits, making rude lane changes and merges, etc. – others don’t inconvenience other drivers. And while statistics in committee were trotted out to show cell phone usage was associated with a couple of thousand accidents in each of the past coupled of years and even a few fatalities, there was no demonstration that they caused those accidents.
Enforcement will be a nightmare, particularly with the exemptions put in. Only inattentive drivers to the presence of police (what is law enforcement going to do, pull up beside a driver holding an animated discussion and flash the lights in the middle of heavy traffic?) will get caught, and the smart ones of them will immediately dial their doctor’s office and claim that was their call.
(Adding to the festivities was committee chairwoman Nita Hutter’s usually pleasant, but sometimes stern, reminders to members about just how to properly conduct business – all but four members of the committee are freshmen – as well as some of the stumbling as a result of that, such as with Dorothy Sue Hill – wife of term-limited ex-Rep. Herman Hill who defeated another ex-senator trying to get back his old House seat last fall – who would refer to the cost estimates produced by the Legislative Fiscal Office as “physical” notes.)
This bill serves as a typical example of some products that come from the Legislature – addressing an issue that really isn’t much of a problem with a solution uncertain really to work. We’ll just have to see if protection of personal autonomy and concerns over enforcement or regulation of obnoxious, perhaps even slightly dangerous behavior takes precedence as the bill moves on – applying even to Council on Aging van drivers.
13.4.08
Cuts for future purposes, not present pork, advisable
Interestingly political angles and motivations concerning Louisiana’s operating budget now being debated may result in much farther-reaching policy changes than originally appeared to be coming from Gov. Bobby Jindal this year.
Last week on Inside New Orleans with Eric Asher I remarked how it seemed the state’s media hardly were addressing an obvious disconnection within the operating budget proposed by Jindal: increased spending, with a big relative boost in some questionable areas, even as his administration predicted huge budget deficits over the nest few years. I had argued for shifting priorities, particularly out of a $307.1 million boost for an incentive fund to draw large employers to the state and $60 million additional going to nursing homes even though the system already is too heavily biased towards institutions for efficient use of existing dollars.
Lo and behold, even as I spoke, news was becoming public about the House sending along a request, due that day, to state agencies about how they would handle a five percent cut in revenues in anticipation of looming budget deficits. Further, in the Senate more vocal criticism was being expressed about the use of the money for the recruiting megafund.
Referring to the latter, the debate sharpened when Jindal proposed as part of an overhaul of the capital outlay process that no new projects be funded this year. One proposed use of some or all of this additional money scheduled for the megafund would be on capital projects, and Jindal appeared to partially relent by allowing that if the fund did not spend itself away by Oct. 1, some of that funding would head in that direction.
That would be a mistake. In light of looming deficits, this money needs to be sequestered into the Budget Stabilization Fund to provide a cushion for future revenue loss and/or a tax cut that would eventually recoup the loss. Even though the House seems agreeable on this approach, it’s going a step further by looking for ways to reduce spending.
That task is made more complicated in that it is unclear exactly from where the cuts could emanate. Many agencies would be protected in part of in full because their sources of funds which minimally or not all use general fund revenues – for example, all the revenues for the Department of Insurance come from fees, statutory dedications, and grants. But the two largest recipients of discretionary funds outside of the Executive Department (almost all of which revenues are federal pass-through dollars for disaster recovery) are health care, where about half of its funding is of that nature, and higher education, where almost all of it is.
As a result, Louisiana State University system president John Lombardi cried foul at this request, noting the disproportionate impact that request could have, making dire predictions. There was a bit of truth to his protestations, but such cuts would not be nearly as drastic as he asserted. For example, my employer LSUS until last year was only funded at about 80 percent of the recommended level and then brought up to 100 percent. A five percent cut still would leave us well up on where we were two years ago.
Cuts that could be coming to health care, however, may not be a bad thing if they are connected to changes in the way indigent care is provided. Moving from an institutional-based to an individual-based system promises long-term savings, especially since disaster displacement has cut down disproportionately the number of indigent, yet Jindal’s budget increases health care expenditures by a nearly a quarter. (The Administration argues this is to continue services at present levels, and that it takes the place of nonrecurring monies used for essentially recurring expenses by the previous administration.)
And cuts in higher education may cause a light bulb to go on in the Administration’s head as they could provide a reprogramming opportunity in the future for shifting education resources towards two-year degrees and technical training. Jindal and the schools offering these things have been most insistent that real growth in graduates must occur here for economic development to proceed.
Besides the obvious laudatory aspects of the desire to reduce spending in anticipation of future deficits, this jockeying may represent a power play. It may have been initially the Legislature used the five percent reduction as a way to siphon money out of the megafund. Yet the basic idea of less spending to forestall deficits is sound regardless. Reductions in spending might pave the way to reform of indigent health care spending and reprogramming of education spending towards workforce training which might entice the Jindal Administration to join the attempt. Allowing raiding of the megafund for capital projects might be the way for Jindal to get that item passed.
But the danger here is in not banking the money for the future. If Jindal and legislative leaders allow such shifts to become an opportunity for a porkfest, nothing useful has been accomplished. Keeping in mind those looming shortfalls (or, in the optimistic case, building revenues to trigger tax cuts to spur economic growth) when paring government by this strategy cannot take a back seat to any other motivation.
Last week on Inside New Orleans with Eric Asher I remarked how it seemed the state’s media hardly were addressing an obvious disconnection within the operating budget proposed by Jindal: increased spending, with a big relative boost in some questionable areas, even as his administration predicted huge budget deficits over the nest few years. I had argued for shifting priorities, particularly out of a $307.1 million boost for an incentive fund to draw large employers to the state and $60 million additional going to nursing homes even though the system already is too heavily biased towards institutions for efficient use of existing dollars.
Lo and behold, even as I spoke, news was becoming public about the House sending along a request, due that day, to state agencies about how they would handle a five percent cut in revenues in anticipation of looming budget deficits. Further, in the Senate more vocal criticism was being expressed about the use of the money for the recruiting megafund.
Referring to the latter, the debate sharpened when Jindal proposed as part of an overhaul of the capital outlay process that no new projects be funded this year. One proposed use of some or all of this additional money scheduled for the megafund would be on capital projects, and Jindal appeared to partially relent by allowing that if the fund did not spend itself away by Oct. 1, some of that funding would head in that direction.
That would be a mistake. In light of looming deficits, this money needs to be sequestered into the Budget Stabilization Fund to provide a cushion for future revenue loss and/or a tax cut that would eventually recoup the loss. Even though the House seems agreeable on this approach, it’s going a step further by looking for ways to reduce spending.
That task is made more complicated in that it is unclear exactly from where the cuts could emanate. Many agencies would be protected in part of in full because their sources of funds which minimally or not all use general fund revenues – for example, all the revenues for the Department of Insurance come from fees, statutory dedications, and grants. But the two largest recipients of discretionary funds outside of the Executive Department (almost all of which revenues are federal pass-through dollars for disaster recovery) are health care, where about half of its funding is of that nature, and higher education, where almost all of it is.
As a result, Louisiana State University system president John Lombardi cried foul at this request, noting the disproportionate impact that request could have, making dire predictions. There was a bit of truth to his protestations, but such cuts would not be nearly as drastic as he asserted. For example, my employer LSUS until last year was only funded at about 80 percent of the recommended level and then brought up to 100 percent. A five percent cut still would leave us well up on where we were two years ago.
Cuts that could be coming to health care, however, may not be a bad thing if they are connected to changes in the way indigent care is provided. Moving from an institutional-based to an individual-based system promises long-term savings, especially since disaster displacement has cut down disproportionately the number of indigent, yet Jindal’s budget increases health care expenditures by a nearly a quarter. (The Administration argues this is to continue services at present levels, and that it takes the place of nonrecurring monies used for essentially recurring expenses by the previous administration.)
And cuts in higher education may cause a light bulb to go on in the Administration’s head as they could provide a reprogramming opportunity in the future for shifting education resources towards two-year degrees and technical training. Jindal and the schools offering these things have been most insistent that real growth in graduates must occur here for economic development to proceed.
Besides the obvious laudatory aspects of the desire to reduce spending in anticipation of future deficits, this jockeying may represent a power play. It may have been initially the Legislature used the five percent reduction as a way to siphon money out of the megafund. Yet the basic idea of less spending to forestall deficits is sound regardless. Reductions in spending might pave the way to reform of indigent health care spending and reprogramming of education spending towards workforce training which might entice the Jindal Administration to join the attempt. Allowing raiding of the megafund for capital projects might be the way for Jindal to get that item passed.
But the danger here is in not banking the money for the future. If Jindal and legislative leaders allow such shifts to become an opportunity for a porkfest, nothing useful has been accomplished. Keeping in mind those looming shortfalls (or, in the optimistic case, building revenues to trigger tax cuts to spur economic growth) when paring government by this strategy cannot take a back seat to any other motivation.
10.4.08
Opponents to LA indigent care reform show hands
Battle lines have become clearer as a result of testimony in front of the Louisiana Senate’s Health and Welfare Committee regarding the future of indigent health care, starkly illuminating the direction of this policy the decision about which could provide better health care at reduced costs if vested interests don’t get in the way.
A group of private health care providers and insurers argued for a modified money-follows-the-person system to replace the current money-goes-to-the-institution indigent care model that, unique among the states, Louisiana follows. Its plan calls for steering 61,000 uninsured adults into managed-care "medical homes." The group said the premiums would average $194 a month for an annual cost of $156 million, which would come from the "disproportionate share" of Medicaid dollars that now pays for most of the care in the Louisiana State University-run charity system.
But members of the committee were unimpressed, and their comments are instructive in terms of how opponents will try to attack this reform if instituted statewide – policies that more states are adopting to improve outcomes often at reduced costs for the indigent. State Sen. Cheryl Gray remarked the idea didn’t seem to have an endorsement from LSU nor the state’s Department of Health and Hospitals.
As far as the latter, its Secretary Alan Levine made approving noises about the plan but stopped short of endorsing it. This reluctance should prove temporary on theoretical and practical grounds. Levine probably is looking to roll out a plan similar to that he helped institute in Florida which would skip the “medical home” concept and go straight to the vouchers, but he is not yet ready to do so and tactically probably would wait until the next fiscal year after the legislative session has ended (the state needs no legislative action on this, just approval of a waiver request to the federal government).
Also, Levine needs to finish a recommendation on the size of the new “Big Charity” hospital in New Orleans. Simply, a plan along these lines would mandate a decrease in the size of the palatial facility envisioned by the Kathleen Blanco Administration, and would make sense only if Levine and his boss Gov. Bobby Jindal backed a smaller-sized hospital. And, of course LSU never would endorse such a plan because it would be taking money from that agency, so Gray shouldn’t hold her breath on this one.
The fact that temporary facilities currently serve the New Orleans-area indigent is why the plan envisioned just starting in that area; politically speaking, it wouldn’t threaten existing LSU resources in other areas of the state. State Sen. Sherri Smith Cheek thought that wasn’t good enough and said she couldn’t justify that to her constituents, that it was unfair. But if Levine rolls out a similar plan to go statewide, watch for Cheek to change dramatically her tune, to sound like state Sen. Joe McPherson.
McPherson, who operates a series of nursing homes, called the cost figures “unrealistic” and said health care premiums for his employees are at least 250 percent higher. Understand that this conflict is quite personal to McPherson: if the state succeeds in steering money away from institutions on this front, his nursing homes, the collective of which in Louisiana are probably the most inefficient users of taxpayers dollars in the entire nation according to the Louisiana Legislative Auditor and which typically derive the vast majority of their revenues from government payments, might be next.
Of course, being in an industry so heavily regulated and subsidized by government, McPherson is a poor judge of what actual costs are. Using a pioneer state in this kind of plan extending not just to the indigent but the uninsured, Massachusetts, a state with higher costs but healthier people, had for a standard set of benefits a target premium for a 37 year-old single male at $250 a month, but the marketplace currently actually prices it at $184. That is consistent with the coalition’s estimate, not McPherson’s. (And Massachusetts is seeing lower costs and improved outcomes.)
Expect these kinds of arguments to resurface if and when Levine forwards an indigent care plan, integrated with a smaller Big Charity, along the lines of the Massachusetts model restricted to the indigent. This is because senators like these and their allies have as their primary goal not more efficient delivery of health care to the indigent, but that big government be as involved as possible in its delivery to protect powers, privilege, and patronage of the existing LSU hospital system. They are believers that big government makes better decisions than do individuals, and that state employees’ jobs and agency resources must be protected.
Hopefully, that is not the attitude of the Jindal Administration and it will prove as such over the next several months.
A group of private health care providers and insurers argued for a modified money-follows-the-person system to replace the current money-goes-to-the-institution indigent care model that, unique among the states, Louisiana follows. Its plan calls for steering 61,000 uninsured adults into managed-care "medical homes." The group said the premiums would average $194 a month for an annual cost of $156 million, which would come from the "disproportionate share" of Medicaid dollars that now pays for most of the care in the Louisiana State University-run charity system.
But members of the committee were unimpressed, and their comments are instructive in terms of how opponents will try to attack this reform if instituted statewide – policies that more states are adopting to improve outcomes often at reduced costs for the indigent. State Sen. Cheryl Gray remarked the idea didn’t seem to have an endorsement from LSU nor the state’s Department of Health and Hospitals.
As far as the latter, its Secretary Alan Levine made approving noises about the plan but stopped short of endorsing it. This reluctance should prove temporary on theoretical and practical grounds. Levine probably is looking to roll out a plan similar to that he helped institute in Florida which would skip the “medical home” concept and go straight to the vouchers, but he is not yet ready to do so and tactically probably would wait until the next fiscal year after the legislative session has ended (the state needs no legislative action on this, just approval of a waiver request to the federal government).
Also, Levine needs to finish a recommendation on the size of the new “Big Charity” hospital in New Orleans. Simply, a plan along these lines would mandate a decrease in the size of the palatial facility envisioned by the Kathleen Blanco Administration, and would make sense only if Levine and his boss Gov. Bobby Jindal backed a smaller-sized hospital. And, of course LSU never would endorse such a plan because it would be taking money from that agency, so Gray shouldn’t hold her breath on this one.
The fact that temporary facilities currently serve the New Orleans-area indigent is why the plan envisioned just starting in that area; politically speaking, it wouldn’t threaten existing LSU resources in other areas of the state. State Sen. Sherri Smith Cheek thought that wasn’t good enough and said she couldn’t justify that to her constituents, that it was unfair. But if Levine rolls out a similar plan to go statewide, watch for Cheek to change dramatically her tune, to sound like state Sen. Joe McPherson.
McPherson, who operates a series of nursing homes, called the cost figures “unrealistic” and said health care premiums for his employees are at least 250 percent higher. Understand that this conflict is quite personal to McPherson: if the state succeeds in steering money away from institutions on this front, his nursing homes, the collective of which in Louisiana are probably the most inefficient users of taxpayers dollars in the entire nation according to the Louisiana Legislative Auditor and which typically derive the vast majority of their revenues from government payments, might be next.
Of course, being in an industry so heavily regulated and subsidized by government, McPherson is a poor judge of what actual costs are. Using a pioneer state in this kind of plan extending not just to the indigent but the uninsured, Massachusetts, a state with higher costs but healthier people, had for a standard set of benefits a target premium for a 37 year-old single male at $250 a month, but the marketplace currently actually prices it at $184. That is consistent with the coalition’s estimate, not McPherson’s. (And Massachusetts is seeing lower costs and improved outcomes.)
Expect these kinds of arguments to resurface if and when Levine forwards an indigent care plan, integrated with a smaller Big Charity, along the lines of the Massachusetts model restricted to the indigent. This is because senators like these and their allies have as their primary goal not more efficient delivery of health care to the indigent, but that big government be as involved as possible in its delivery to protect powers, privilege, and patronage of the existing LSU hospital system. They are believers that big government makes better decisions than do individuals, and that state employees’ jobs and agency resources must be protected.
Hopefully, that is not the attitude of the Jindal Administration and it will prove as such over the next several months.
9.4.08
Jindal impresses on outlay reform, but challenges remain
Gov. Bobby Jindal’s declaration that the capital projects he wants the state to pursue are only those approved in prior years and constitute nothing new casts optimism and uncertainty into the reform process.
Under the current process, far more items are stuffed into the capital outlay budget each year than constitutionally the state can spend money on. The items that pass muster really emanate from the governor’s office when the State Bond Commission is brought spending proposals and then approves, a body lined with gubernatorial allies. As a result, roughly three-quarters of authorized spending annually lies on the table where, maybe, in future years it might actually get funded.
Jindal has said for this year’s round, he’s going to take previous years’ choices and not introduce anything new. He can say legitimately that he is not ignoring any new broad needs because the state spent over a half billion dollars last month in a special session on such needs.
Impressively, Jindal also issued an executive order with new guidelines to determine spending priorities. A more formal ranking system would be imposed, and anything local would have to have some commitment from local governments. Jindal also backs reform bills that would stop the state from making future commitments that do not have a scheduled appropriation attached to them.
This sets the state up well for reform of the process, but questions remain. For one, until the process reform becomes law, nothing stops the Legislature from doing the same thing again, loading up this years capital outlay bill with three times the authorized amount – except for a committed governor, willing to use a line item veto on items that he thinks will bust that budget and, most importantly, telling legislators he will do that.
Also, the interim procedures established in the executive remain hostage to politics. The Jindal Administration still will have to choose if all goes well, just one out of three dollars instead of one out of four, and make sure these are the best choices. And the Legislature will have to be sufficiently under control not to pass instruments overriding the executive order.
Most importantly, Jindal’s crew must choose wisely. It’s assumed the order’s standards will be used, and Jindal must resist political ploys to bend them. Finally, even if the reform bill gets through and moots much of this interim strategy in the future, nothing about this addresses the nagging problem of earmarks that appear in the general appropriations bill, where only stern threatened use of a line item veto can rid it of projects that almost uniformally are of very low priority and really do not help the state as a whole.
Especially the executive order ratifies Jindal’s pledge of reform of state spending priorities. Now he needs to follow through by getting the reform bill into law and holding fast threatening, even using, his veto power, despite the political challenges no doubt coming his way.
Under the current process, far more items are stuffed into the capital outlay budget each year than constitutionally the state can spend money on. The items that pass muster really emanate from the governor’s office when the State Bond Commission is brought spending proposals and then approves, a body lined with gubernatorial allies. As a result, roughly three-quarters of authorized spending annually lies on the table where, maybe, in future years it might actually get funded.
Jindal has said for this year’s round, he’s going to take previous years’ choices and not introduce anything new. He can say legitimately that he is not ignoring any new broad needs because the state spent over a half billion dollars last month in a special session on such needs.
Impressively, Jindal also issued an executive order with new guidelines to determine spending priorities. A more formal ranking system would be imposed, and anything local would have to have some commitment from local governments. Jindal also backs reform bills that would stop the state from making future commitments that do not have a scheduled appropriation attached to them.
This sets the state up well for reform of the process, but questions remain. For one, until the process reform becomes law, nothing stops the Legislature from doing the same thing again, loading up this years capital outlay bill with three times the authorized amount – except for a committed governor, willing to use a line item veto on items that he thinks will bust that budget and, most importantly, telling legislators he will do that.
Also, the interim procedures established in the executive remain hostage to politics. The Jindal Administration still will have to choose if all goes well, just one out of three dollars instead of one out of four, and make sure these are the best choices. And the Legislature will have to be sufficiently under control not to pass instruments overriding the executive order.
Most importantly, Jindal’s crew must choose wisely. It’s assumed the order’s standards will be used, and Jindal must resist political ploys to bend them. Finally, even if the reform bill gets through and moots much of this interim strategy in the future, nothing about this addresses the nagging problem of earmarks that appear in the general appropriations bill, where only stern threatened use of a line item veto can rid it of projects that almost uniformally are of very low priority and really do not help the state as a whole.
Especially the executive order ratifies Jindal’s pledge of reform of state spending priorities. Now he needs to follow through by getting the reform bill into law and holding fast threatening, even using, his veto power, despite the political challenges no doubt coming his way.
8.4.08
Paranoia, selective arguments mark SB 561 opponents
All the fire and brimstone surrounding SB 561 on the docket of the Louisiana Legislature tells more about the paranoia and insecurities of those trying to create a controversy than the bill’s language actually suggests.
Sen. Ben Nevers introduced this bill to increase academic freedom in Louisiana schools. It asserts that it is to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that “encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, to help students develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues.” Also, it is to prohibit the state or its officials from interfering with this.
But the innocuous language has gotten some people very upset. People associated with organizations that claim they are interested in education have spoken publicly and sent out e-mail messages calling the bill essentially a “backdoor” for the teaching of creationism in schools. Interestingly, they base this interpretation (one which, in its reading, is exceptionally broad in taking selected passages) not on the actual language of the bill, but on the bill’s digest.
A bill’s digest is written by a legislative staffer and has no legal importance. The actual wording, if these alarmists would care to read it instead of dispensing with it because it doesn’t fit their agenda, contains the following section what that the law is to do: “protects the teaching of scientific information, and this section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.”
It couldn’t be less ambiguous that the bill does not in any way endorse that creationism or any other religious or non-religious (like the imperfect theory of evolution) idea be advocated uncritically in the classroom. It simply buttresses the academic freedom of instructors to explore the merits and demerits of any particular scientific theory.
The reaction of those who argue against academic freedom in this instance is telling, however. One wonders whether they see the theory of evolution itself as a religion, given they are so scared of any critical examination of it.
Any educator at any level should support this bill for the protection it gives the concept of academic freedom – the pursuit of which seems to make some who call themselves educators very nervous.
Sen. Ben Nevers introduced this bill to increase academic freedom in Louisiana schools. It asserts that it is to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that “encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, to help students develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues.” Also, it is to prohibit the state or its officials from interfering with this.
But the innocuous language has gotten some people very upset. People associated with organizations that claim they are interested in education have spoken publicly and sent out e-mail messages calling the bill essentially a “backdoor” for the teaching of creationism in schools. Interestingly, they base this interpretation (one which, in its reading, is exceptionally broad in taking selected passages) not on the actual language of the bill, but on the bill’s digest.
A bill’s digest is written by a legislative staffer and has no legal importance. The actual wording, if these alarmists would care to read it instead of dispensing with it because it doesn’t fit their agenda, contains the following section what that the law is to do: “protects the teaching of scientific information, and this section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.”
It couldn’t be less ambiguous that the bill does not in any way endorse that creationism or any other religious or non-religious (like the imperfect theory of evolution) idea be advocated uncritically in the classroom. It simply buttresses the academic freedom of instructors to explore the merits and demerits of any particular scientific theory.
The reaction of those who argue against academic freedom in this instance is telling, however. One wonders whether they see the theory of evolution itself as a religion, given they are so scared of any critical examination of it.
Any educator at any level should support this bill for the protection it gives the concept of academic freedom – the pursuit of which seems to make some who call themselves educators very nervous.
7.4.08
LA Democrat superdelegates will go with most electable
There’s much confusion about the role Louisiana’s Democrat Party Leaders and Elected Officials (PLEO) delegates (“superdelegates”) will play in the party’s nomination of either Sens. Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for the presidency. Having taught how the Democrats’ system works for almost two decades, let me be of assistance.
Initially, it must be understood that the complicated system of the Democrats – no unit rule decisions by state or territory or Democrats Overseas (that is, no winner-take-all), the presence of the PLEOs, and the diversity mandates (for example, half of delegates must be female) – came as a result of the disastrous 1972 nomination of former Sen. George McGovern. Simply, the existing system permitted popular passions of the party’s most liberal members to be translated into an unelectable candidate. Thus, the reform efforts beginning with the party’s 1974 meeting and tweaked several times since was to give those with a substantial stake in party affairs – officers and elected Democrats – significant weight in the nomination process while balancing that with grassroots representation of all meaningful parts of the party. It was believed the superdelegates would use good political sense in their choices to vote for the candidate most capable of winning in the fall.
In short order, they almost became critical deciders of nominations. Both in 1980 and 1984 the eventual nominee barely squeaked out enough “pledged” delegates to have an absolute majority (note: technically, no delegate is officially “pledged” among Democrats – delegates apportioned as a result of primaries essentially are chosen by the candidate’s campaigns themselves, and of course pledged caucus delegates already have promised, and are expected to be loyal to that candidate, but any delegate can vote for any nominee although defection is very rare). Both Obama and Clinton will fall far short in 2008, making the superdelegates, who represent almost a fifth of the total nomination votes, in fact the critical deciders.
So, in analyzing what superdelegates intend to do as a matter of course it is mistaken and facile to assume generally they’ll follow some standard such as how a state’s vote turned out. Some who have been early backers of a candidate out of loyalty will continue that support regardless of anything else, and those who rate the candidate’s chances and equal for November victory might use a popular vote standard. (Note also that not all superdelegates are yet picked – each state gets anywhere from one to several picked by the party’s leadership, usually at the state chairman’s discretion; Louisiana’s singleton will be chosen May 3).
But the large majority of these officials will use a very parsimonious decision rule in making their choice (hopefully from the national party’s perspective by a self-imposed Jul. 1 date): who has the best chance of beating presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain? That’s regardless of any other consideration, especially since both candidates can claim a mandate from the party: likely after all nomination contests cease in early June, Obama will have a non-PLEO delegate lead in the neighborhood of a hundred, but Clinton actually will have received more popular votes and will have outperformed Obama in the predicted closely contested “swing” states.
While it’s tempting to try to reduce the complexity of the situation to buzz phrases, such as believing Obama has the nomination wrapped up because blacks would abandon the party in the fall, it also misunderstands the situation. Using this as an example, if superdelegates swing the nomination to Clinton, it will be because many of them believe Clinton has a better chance of winning even if some blacks (actually, it won’t be many) might sit out the presidential election because Obama doesn’t get the party’s nod.
It’s still anybody’s contest, which is why so many Louisiana superdelegates have yet to give public endorsements. They’ve got their fingers in the air, seeing which way the wind blows, and they’ll decide when they feel certain enough one candidate has a better shot than the other.
Initially, it must be understood that the complicated system of the Democrats – no unit rule decisions by state or territory or Democrats Overseas (that is, no winner-take-all), the presence of the PLEOs, and the diversity mandates (for example, half of delegates must be female) – came as a result of the disastrous 1972 nomination of former Sen. George McGovern. Simply, the existing system permitted popular passions of the party’s most liberal members to be translated into an unelectable candidate. Thus, the reform efforts beginning with the party’s 1974 meeting and tweaked several times since was to give those with a substantial stake in party affairs – officers and elected Democrats – significant weight in the nomination process while balancing that with grassroots representation of all meaningful parts of the party. It was believed the superdelegates would use good political sense in their choices to vote for the candidate most capable of winning in the fall.
In short order, they almost became critical deciders of nominations. Both in 1980 and 1984 the eventual nominee barely squeaked out enough “pledged” delegates to have an absolute majority (note: technically, no delegate is officially “pledged” among Democrats – delegates apportioned as a result of primaries essentially are chosen by the candidate’s campaigns themselves, and of course pledged caucus delegates already have promised, and are expected to be loyal to that candidate, but any delegate can vote for any nominee although defection is very rare). Both Obama and Clinton will fall far short in 2008, making the superdelegates, who represent almost a fifth of the total nomination votes, in fact the critical deciders.
So, in analyzing what superdelegates intend to do as a matter of course it is mistaken and facile to assume generally they’ll follow some standard such as how a state’s vote turned out. Some who have been early backers of a candidate out of loyalty will continue that support regardless of anything else, and those who rate the candidate’s chances and equal for November victory might use a popular vote standard. (Note also that not all superdelegates are yet picked – each state gets anywhere from one to several picked by the party’s leadership, usually at the state chairman’s discretion; Louisiana’s singleton will be chosen May 3).
But the large majority of these officials will use a very parsimonious decision rule in making their choice (hopefully from the national party’s perspective by a self-imposed Jul. 1 date): who has the best chance of beating presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain? That’s regardless of any other consideration, especially since both candidates can claim a mandate from the party: likely after all nomination contests cease in early June, Obama will have a non-PLEO delegate lead in the neighborhood of a hundred, but Clinton actually will have received more popular votes and will have outperformed Obama in the predicted closely contested “swing” states.
While it’s tempting to try to reduce the complexity of the situation to buzz phrases, such as believing Obama has the nomination wrapped up because blacks would abandon the party in the fall, it also misunderstands the situation. Using this as an example, if superdelegates swing the nomination to Clinton, it will be because many of them believe Clinton has a better chance of winning even if some blacks (actually, it won’t be many) might sit out the presidential election because Obama doesn’t get the party’s nod.
It’s still anybody’s contest, which is why so many Louisiana superdelegates have yet to give public endorsements. They’ve got their fingers in the air, seeing which way the wind blows, and they’ll decide when they feel certain enough one candidate has a better shot than the other.
5.4.08
Scalise almost certain, Jenkins favored to win in May
Runoff elections for Louisiana’s major party candidates for the two U.S. House seats recently vacated produced a congressman-in-waiting, but have left the other indeterminate.
State Sen. Steve Scalise bested state Rep. Tim Burns to win the Republican nomination in the Second District. Barring incredibly unlikely circumstances, Scalise will join the long line of GOP representatives in this seat next month.
The Sixth District is another matter. As expected since he was less than a hundred votes from avoiding a runoff last month to secure the GOP nomination, former state Rep. Louis “Woody” Jenkins grabbed that slot. And the results on the Democrat side, with state Rep. Don Cazayoux prevailing over colleague Michael Jackson, give Jenkins the edge in the upcoming general election.
Jenkins assuredly would have beaten the liberal black Jackson, but the white liberal Cazayoux would have an easier time of masquerading as a conservative making this a closer contest. Cazayouz is vulnerable on many issues as his voting record in the state Legislature demonstrates, so Jenkins’ optimal strategy is to turn this into a contest about ideology especially in the use of tax dollars. For example, just last session, Cazayoux voted to bust the state’s spending cap that facilitated using a lot of one-time money for recurring, now entrenched spending, to authorize building a palatial new charity hospital in New Orleans even as Baton Rouge struggles to get money to build its own new charity hospital, and to fund pay increases for “ghost” workers (vacant positions) in state government as well as to not cut those positions and continue funding them instead of allocating the money elsewhere..
While Cazayoux is not as liberal on social issues he can’t top Jenkins in conservatism on that. By contrast, Jenkins can tie Cazayoux into the biggest whipping boy among (at least among the public) concerning Congress, earmarks. In 2007 alone, Cazayoux steered $131,000 in state taxpayer dollars directly to New Roads and Pointe Coupee Parish, and perhaps more to more obscure nongovernmental organization.
Cazayoux, by contrast, will keep clear of ideology and try to make the race turn on personality. But even here, his upside is limited. His best card, saying Jenkins got fined in 2002 by the Federal Elections Commission for not reporting he got a phone bank list in his 1996 very narrow loss to Sen. Mary Landrieu, will be relevant only to his likely supporters and Jenkins can turn it around by asserting he was the victim of corruption in the 1996 contest (even as a U.S. Senate investigation could not definitively demonstrate enough fraudulent activity cost him that election).
Cazayoux might draw a false sense of security from the fact that over ten thousand more voters participated in the Democrat primary than Republican, but that would make him fall into the trap, as historically has been the case, of underestimating Jenkins’ support. Note first that Jenkins given his primary advantage was assumed to be the winner, depressing GOP turnout who will be there to vote for Jenkins in May. Also, independents were allowed to vote in the Democrat primary but not Republicans, and far more Democrats typically vote for GOP candidates in national contests than vice-versa, meaning a number of Jenkins voters who forcibly were sat on the sidelines this time will get their chance in May.
This is Jenkins’ race to lose. If he has the resources and makes the contest relentlessly ideological, it will be a GOP sweep on May 3.
State Sen. Steve Scalise bested state Rep. Tim Burns to win the Republican nomination in the Second District. Barring incredibly unlikely circumstances, Scalise will join the long line of GOP representatives in this seat next month.
The Sixth District is another matter. As expected since he was less than a hundred votes from avoiding a runoff last month to secure the GOP nomination, former state Rep. Louis “Woody” Jenkins grabbed that slot. And the results on the Democrat side, with state Rep. Don Cazayoux prevailing over colleague Michael Jackson, give Jenkins the edge in the upcoming general election.
Jenkins assuredly would have beaten the liberal black Jackson, but the white liberal Cazayoux would have an easier time of masquerading as a conservative making this a closer contest. Cazayouz is vulnerable on many issues as his voting record in the state Legislature demonstrates, so Jenkins’ optimal strategy is to turn this into a contest about ideology especially in the use of tax dollars. For example, just last session, Cazayoux voted to bust the state’s spending cap that facilitated using a lot of one-time money for recurring, now entrenched spending, to authorize building a palatial new charity hospital in New Orleans even as Baton Rouge struggles to get money to build its own new charity hospital, and to fund pay increases for “ghost” workers (vacant positions) in state government as well as to not cut those positions and continue funding them instead of allocating the money elsewhere..
While Cazayoux is not as liberal on social issues he can’t top Jenkins in conservatism on that. By contrast, Jenkins can tie Cazayoux into the biggest whipping boy among (at least among the public) concerning Congress, earmarks. In 2007 alone, Cazayoux steered $131,000 in state taxpayer dollars directly to New Roads and Pointe Coupee Parish, and perhaps more to more obscure nongovernmental organization.
Cazayoux, by contrast, will keep clear of ideology and try to make the race turn on personality. But even here, his upside is limited. His best card, saying Jenkins got fined in 2002 by the Federal Elections Commission for not reporting he got a phone bank list in his 1996 very narrow loss to Sen. Mary Landrieu, will be relevant only to his likely supporters and Jenkins can turn it around by asserting he was the victim of corruption in the 1996 contest (even as a U.S. Senate investigation could not definitively demonstrate enough fraudulent activity cost him that election).
Cazayoux might draw a false sense of security from the fact that over ten thousand more voters participated in the Democrat primary than Republican, but that would make him fall into the trap, as historically has been the case, of underestimating Jenkins’ support. Note first that Jenkins given his primary advantage was assumed to be the winner, depressing GOP turnout who will be there to vote for Jenkins in May. Also, independents were allowed to vote in the Democrat primary but not Republicans, and far more Democrats typically vote for GOP candidates in national contests than vice-versa, meaning a number of Jenkins voters who forcibly were sat on the sidelines this time will get their chance in May.
This is Jenkins’ race to lose. If he has the resources and makes the contest relentlessly ideological, it will be a GOP sweep on May 3.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)