Cazayoux misleading goes beyond ads to issues

In the rough and tumble of politics and with the First Amendment in place, you can’t ensure honest impressions will be conveyed about you as a candidate by anybody else. Then again, often candidates won’t in their campaigning convey honesty even about themselves.

State Sen. Bill Cassidy, Republican opposing Democrat Rep. Don Cazayoux for reelection, has a legitimate quarrel with the incumbent over an ad by the latter that states, concerning Cassidy’s support to privatize a small portion of funds for investing for Social Security, “His plan would cut guaranteed benefits.” But as Cassidy has made clear “his plan” is to guarantee benefits already promised. Cazayoux’s campaign is perpetuating a flat out lie, but one protected by our basic guarantee of free speech.

Rather than complain, Cassidy should cut his own ad pointing out Cazayoux’s mendacity and tie it to a larger pattern of dishonesty – the mirage that Cazayoux tries to perpetuate that he represents the views of the majority of the district. The fact is, Cazayoux is the lapdog of liberal Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If there’s some important legislation to be passed that is part of the liberal agenda, almost always she can count on his vote. The rest of the time, as a competent speaker will do, she’ll take his leash off and allow him to cast a few votes here and there to allow him to inoculate himself as a faux moderate or conservative to try to stay in office, but make no mistake, Cazayoux (as he first demonstrated in the Louisiana House) is a fraud on this account.

But more specifically on this Social Security issue, while Cazayoux’s criticizes, in concert with his southern Democrat playbook to shout the inoculating issues to the skies and ignore and obfuscate everything else he has no solutions or leadership for the coming funding crisis in Social Security that Cassidy addresses and addresses sensibly. Cazayoux’s official statement on the matter is he “believes that Social Security is a trust between the generations and we should do everything we can to protect it. He is against privatizing Social Security.”

That’s it, no plan or solutions present – because he doesn’t want to tell the public what he really will vote for, which is similar to what his other opponent, Democrat-turned-independent Michael Jackson stated he would do which is the plan supported by the Democrat leadership. They would raise taxes and force higher payments from some with no increase in benefits. It’s unlikely Democrats would have enough guts to try to solve the problem anytime soon precisely because they know their solution is unloved, but rest assured if it ever came to that Cazayoux would do whatever the liberal majority (assuming it and he were still there) wanted him to do.

If Cazayoux really believed in a different solution than what his party offers, he would say so. But he won’t because he doesn’t. It’s a dishonesty that extends past mere campaign ads.

Sterlization idea needs rethink to address attitudes

State Rep. John LaBruzzo has floated the idea of a new natality program designed to discourage births among those of lower socioeconomic status in the belief that this will reduce the number of people “trapped” in a cycle of poverty and thereby reduce welfare expenditures on them, simultaneously easing the tax burden on others. But the plan, something along the lines of paying $1,000 for voluntary sterilizations of women, fails both conceptually and practically.

LaBruzzo’s idea addresses logic known by mankind for millennia and less than a quarter century ago relevant to welfare policy was addressed empirically by Charles Murray’s groundbreaking Losing Ground: subsidize people who behave unproductively through receipt of welfare monies (as opposed to the deserving poor who use such funds for more productive means), and you get more of that behavior. In the 1970s in fact, Murray did find the welfare structure then did provide a small incentive for bringing children in the world precisely to acquire either separation from a family unit funded by government or to increase that funding.

But where LaBruzzo miscalculates is in that his proposal deals with the actual derivative behavior, not the attitudes behind it. Copulation by women to produce more children, or for its own sake with the consequences of having children reduced by assurance of a government payout (and with little consequence to the randy male), stems from a short-horizon desire that itself may be adjusted through appropriate government policy. That is, to cure the disease (inferior attitudes with behavioral consequences), you must attack the disease itself rather than it symptoms (the behavior).

On sugar issue, McCain principled, Landrieu hypocritical

The issue of sugar subsidies does a wonderful job of confounding ideological principle in Louisiana and in this year’s federal elections of all the statewide-elected officials in the state, or the presidential tickets running statewide, that issue reveals the most principled of the bunch to be – Sen. John McCain?

If you’re a “maverick” as McCain styles himself, that means you would be most likely to buck your party and/or ideological principles on issues, and subsidizing sugar or any other commodity might seem like an easy reach. But on both sides of the spectrum – Republicans and conservatives Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. David Vitter, and Treasurer and Senate candidate John Kennedy; and Democrats and liberals Sens. Barack Obama and Mary Landrieu – McCain comes off the most principled by his opposition to sugar subsidies.

Like any commodity subsidy either where some quota is imposed to keep out imports or guarantees a certain amount of sales, or outright transfer occurs of taxpayers’ dollars into the pockets of producers to prop up prices, support programs that interfere with the marketplace have the deleterious effects of increasing prices on consumers, using taxpayer funds inefficiently, and causing undesirable spillover effects such as environmental degradation. For those reasons conservatives should oppose any of these, while liberals, who favor using government to reorder society to their ideological whims, would favor these as they increasingly adopt using alternative fuels such as ethanol from sugar under the cover of environmentalism to force inefficiency into markets as a prelude to greater government control of markets and peoples’ lives.

Yet Jindal, Kennedy, and Vitter speak in favor of controls favoring sugar, and Vitter gets special recognition for making the extra effort to justify why McCain too should be using the alternative fuels argument to endorse sugar support: if McCain generally favors alternative energy sources being subsidized by government, sugar he says should qualify on that account. But that misses the point that McCain consistently has been a critic of ethanol subsidies, besides the fact support of them violates conservative principles.

All of the Republicans mentioned venture into unprincipled territory on this because it does collect votes in Louisiana, even as the portion of those assisted makes up a small (but politically influential; Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon’s previous occupation was leading the American Sugar Cane League) part of the population. Political considerations also explain why Obama is against sugar support as well.

Obama, the most liberal senator in Washington, needs an inoculation point to deflect attention from that record (note: liberals frequently use an “inoculation” strategy where, to avoid a politically-troubling labeling, they find an exception to their rhetoric and/or behavior and on that basis declare that his views on the whole becomes subrogated to that exception, i.e. a liberal who almost always votes for higher taxes makes one vote against them, et voilà, he’s a tax-cutter). Sugar support is a great out for him especially given that Obama is one of the biggest champions of subsidizing corn for ethanol-making purposes.

Landrieu’s lack of principle here comes not from her support of sugar support, consistent with her liberalism, but in how her view contradicts Obama’s. Here the award for thinking you are clever but making yourself look stupid in the process goes to Louisiana’s Democrat Party flack Brain Welsh, whose parent national organization had criticized Landrieu’s opponent Kennedy’s support which contradicts McCain’s, but who argued Landrieu really wasn’t being inconsistent because she didn’t support Obama as wholeheartedly as Kennedy did McCain.

Of course, this totally ignores the embarrassing retraction that Landrieu made when she had removed her name co-hosting an East Coast fundraiser for Obama when it became public knowledge. Nobody believes the claim it was a mistaken listing; these events are carefully planned and hosting mention is intensely fought for. Landrieu simply is a very intense backer of Obama’s (who did attend the interestingly named, in light of future developments, “Lipstick, Laughter and Libations” event) who knows that public perception will cost her votes back home and disingenuously is trying to distance herself from Obama.

The dust settles, and on this issue only McCain comes out principled, most of the others as unprincipled, and Landrieu as unprincipled and a hypocrite. McCain’s status on this issue may surprise some, but Landrieu’s machinations on it should surprise no one.

Rid Louisiana of elected judges system, but do it right

The Shreveport Times printed an interesting editorial arguing, as I have for many years, that Louisiana needs to rid itself of election of judges. Without going into too many details, it parallels my thoughts in that election simply provides too many opportunities for compromising justice with politics, running the gamut of aspects from contribution to accountability.

At the same time, a purely direct appointive system such as seen at the federal level would not be best either. Given, unlike at the federal level where criminal cases are relatively few and then only serious crimes, that at the state and local level most cases are criminal involving local people with generally little attention paid to them, it becomes too easy for a judge appointed for life during good behavior to interject personal or political agendas into the decision-making process.

But The Times’ suggestion, which is a judicial panel of supposed “experts” such as sitting lawyers to achieve merit selection, also would do harm to justice. In both Florida and Missouri ideologically politicized panels of lawyers have been able to subvert the process. The better means would be to remove direct political influence from an appointive process that otherwise could force the selection of individuals who adhere to a particular ideology.

Cazayoux needs to step up and oppose drilling ban

As the clock ticks away on the likely short-lived Congressional career of Rep. Don Cazayoux, he’s doing everything possible to send it into overtime. How he’s doing it suggests he may wish to pursue a post-elective career involving sleight of hand.

As Democrats staunchly oppose any realistic bill to increase domestic energy production but favored a bill that would reward environmental special interests with huge payouts for infeasible targets, Cazayoux was given permission by the Democrat leadership, since they had the other votes to pass it, to oppose this bill in order to boost his flagging reelection chances and because Democrats knew their effort would be largely symbolic because of Senate and presidential opposition. Nonetheless, it gave them a chance to look like they were doing something they really were not, and it gave Cazayoux a chance to try to ingratiate himself with his pro-drilling constituency.

But if Cazayoux really wants to put his money where his mouth is, he will vote down any budget bill that includes language that would continue the Congressional moratorium to allow drilling outside of three miles from the American coast. As a fallback position, Democrats want to include the renewal of the ban in one or more budget bills to try to force it through Congress. Republicans have indicated they would stall bills with this rider even if it shut down government operations, practically meaning a Senate filibuster given the Democrat House majority would ram these bills through. Even if Cazayoux’ vote couldn’t stop this, it would be good if at least one of his symbolic votes turns out to be for the good.

They will pass these out of the House because lapdogs of Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi like Cazayoux will obediently follow her orders, highlighting the fact that the only time Cazayoux is given freedom to oppose the liberal majority it is for show back home, and that he faithfully supports liberal orthodoxy the majority of then time. Actually, he’ll probably be a willing participant, given his latest articulated idea.

Cazayoux is also pushing for tax credits to homeowners who had higher insurance deductibles because the hurricanes were named storms. While this populist measure may sound good to those in that situation, the fact of the matter is it represents a subsidy to homeowner who chose to live in riskier areas being fobbed off on the rest of the state and nation. It’s a poor decision to socialize and subsidize risk, but it will play well in his district and shows he’ll be servile to the liberal leadership on anything meaningful.

He hopes to fool enough people to get reelection on Nov. 4. Whether his tactics will succeed is another matter.

Jindal PSC choice highlights political conflict, stakes

Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal got a rare chance to appoint somebody to the Louisiana Public Service Commission, because it is an elective position where this chance only comes because of vacancy of the office, and decided so because of the dynamics surrounding that particular position and the entire commission.

Jindal appointed E. Pat Manuel, an Alexandria-area businessman and GOP stalwart to replace Democrat Dale Sittig who took over as Jindal’s new appointee to head the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port. Manuel was a large contributor to Jindal for his gubernatorial campaign but will not run in the special election to fulfill the remainder of the term ending in 2010.

This gives for the first time a Republican majority on the Commission although Sittig tended to vote more in the conservative direction along with other Republicans Jay Blossman and Jimmy Field than with Democrats Lambert Boissiere III and Foster Campbell. This would tend to less unnecessary state interference in the areas the Commission had jurisdiction – utilities and road transportation – and thereby produce a better economic climate.

But obviously Manuel was not the long-term solution for Jindal to keep the seat in GOP hands. The challenge to both Jindal and the party especially is great because already announcing for the job is Democrat term-limited state Sen. Joe McPherson who in many ways is the antithesis of reform movement in Louisiana. McPherson is well known as one of the last populists and one of the best of the good old boys.

McPherson also is no fan of Jindal. When the new Legislature convened earlier this year Jindal made sure McPherson didn’t get the chamber’s top spot was demoted from a committee chairmanship the latter used to favor the industry in which he makes his living, nursing homes. They also clashed on the scope and role of government and on ethics reforms. McPherson has not been shy in expressing his views on Jindal, sarcastically promoting Jindal’s chances to be named Sen. John McCain’s vice presidential running mate in order to get him out of the state, such havoc had Jindal wreaked on McPherson’s political way of life.

Ironically, now perhaps he’ll do Jindal a favor. Were McPherson to win the special election, his Senate exit surely would bring a more responsible senator, probably Republican, to the chamber and McPherson will have followed the path of Campbell, also a leading Senate Democrat populist who left for the Commission, in removing that undesirable element from the Senate. One wonders whether Jindal picked somebody not interested in more than interim service precisely to convey no incumbency advantage to somebody that would make him better able to defeat McPherson just to get McPherson out of the Senate.

Perhaps not given partisan control of the Commission in the balance (and with Blossman’s seat open this fall the chance that a Republican may not get elected there; Campbell drew no opposition in the other race this fall). Republicans particularly would cringe with a Campbell clone joining him on the Commission, so there’s probably some work going on behind the scenes to find a strong candidate to put up against McPherson with this appointment buying time to do so.

Disruption puts Jefferson in reelection driver's seat

As previously discussed, election delays brought about by hurricanes indeed have provided an opportunity for indicted Rep. William Jefferson to salvage his chances at reelection to the Second Congressional District.

To review, lagging candidates and those who had greater ability to draw upon political resources would be advantaged by the delay of party nomination contests from Sep. 6 to Oct. 4. Jefferson fit the bill on both; his polling numbers were unimpressive particularly for an incumbent, and because of his legal woes his campaign treasury was anemic, again especially for an incumbent.

But Jefferson has other non-pecuniary resources of incumbency he can draw upon and was given the extra time to use them while other candidates, without these, had a diminished ability to campaign due to distractions caused by New Orleans area cleanup after Hurricane Gustav. This cannot hurt the political position he appeared to be in right before the storm, leading the Democrat field with 18 percent of the intended vote – largely composed of die-hard supporters or those who had thought nothing of the campaign and went with the incumbent’s name that they know.

Typically, informed speculation would consider 18 percent a dangerous number for an incumbent, especially given twice that amount remained undecided. But with the next closest candidate the non-black Helena Moreno at 16 percent and four other black males in the higher single digits in a primary contest from an electorate that is 60 percent black, Jefferson’s position is not bad. A majority of the non-black vote will go to Moreno so she is likely to top 20 percent, as is Jefferson although neither probably will go much beyond that number. Even so, it means among the other four realistic challengers in order to get to that figure, one would have to sweep up at least a third of the remaining vote meaning, in practical terms being anywhere from a third to a half of the undecided vote.

Whether any of the other four can achieve such a consolidation is less than three weeks is rather debatable. Put both Jefferson and Moreno at 20 percent (which would be underperforming significantly among the undecided voters) and then split out the remaining candidates proportionally with the remaining undecided vote (meaning they significantly overperform among these voters) and none of them catch the top two. In other words, somebody from that other four must break out of the pack and do significantly better among undecided voters for there not to be a Jefferson-Moreno runoff for the Democrat nomination.

Whether one candidate, in the more-confused immediate post-hurricane environment whose strategies were based upon a Sep. 6 election date, can consolidate enough of the vote to ace either Jefferson or Moreno out of the nomination runoff is fairly questionable, especially given this environment favors the electioneering efforts of Jefferson. And if it does end up being these two, incredibly Jefferson would be favored to retain the seat.

Most anywhere else, having the law after you with a compelling case against you means sure defeat even as an incumbent. But in the New Orleans area, race means everything to most black Democrats, as demonstrated by Orleanians reelecting black Mayor Ray Nagin in 2006 despite the tremendous negative publicity he garnered in handling the challenges of Hurricane Katrina the year previous and despite his runoff opponent being the white Democrat sitting lieutenant governor – and this with Republicans included in the voting.

The simple facts of life are if Jefferson makes the runoff against Hispanic Moreno he very likely wins. And then he very likely wins the general election against three other little-known non-black candidates even if it is four days after his trial begins, given the political loyalty black Democrats have to their party as well as race. As improbable as it seems, Jefferson must be considered the favorite for reelection now, and the intervention of Hurricane Gustav will have had something non-trivial to do with it.

Desperate Democrats try blame-shifting gambit on oil

A bit of a government scandal touched Louisiana as scathing reports about the ethics and integrity of a government agency were issued. No, it’s not from any state or local government, but the federal government. But more interesting is the reaction from certain politicians desperate to use the issue to try to reverse their party’s waning fortunes.

Turns out that some officials in the U.S. Mineral Management Service have been having a grand old time – a senior male official reported to have made booty calls and snorting coke with subordinates along pursuing with an illegal outside consultancy, and engaging in other breaches of integrity, while two female officials better known by randy and/or wary private sector clients as the “MMS chicks” were documented having considerable party experiences in New Orleans, among other places, all the while violating a number of ethics standards, and as many as 15 others also seemed to get in on the act in less lurid but equally corrupt fashion. A couple of proposed deals involved Louisiana properties.

So it’s a sad tale of government employees, even as it was documented they were well-trained on the appropriate ethical standards, with financial powers backed by the power of the federal government that let themselves act corruptly, right? Not according to certain Democrats in Congress. “This is why we must not allow Big Oil's agenda to be jammed through Congress,” snorted Sen. Bill Nelson, while Sen. Charles Schumer bloviated, “This IG report has it all — sex, drugs and the Bush administration officials once again in cahoots with Big Oil.”

Landrieu sham plan, complaint just more gamesmanship

Sen. Mary Landrieu’s apparent pro-oil drilling, pro-additional state revenues advocacy represents just another disingenuous attempt on her part to appear to be something that she isn’t during an election year.

Landrieu addressed two of the biggest issues for Louisianans, increasing domestic oil production and revenues sharing of federal money to the states, in her statement in opposition to her own party’s House colleagues’ plan modeled after one onto which she signed with (now) 19 other senators. Her plan largely is cosmetic and would do little other than shift money from energy consumers in the public to favored environmental causes of Democrats but even so the small difference with the plan backed by House Democrats, revenue sharing removed from theirs, brought her rebuke.

But we must understand the additional sham she is perpetrating other than her original plan. House Democrats leaders say their version can’t include revenue sharing because it would violate the “pay-as-you-go” (PAYGO) rules re-established in Congress at the beginning of 2007 courtesy of Democrat campaign pledges. They sounded impressive: if legislation reduces predicted revenues, spending must be cut to match.

However, PAYGO as a concept has been violated by Democrats so much they would make Storyville of a century ago look like a nunnery. From the start its form was riddled with loopholes and exceptions and since then it has been ignored on numerous occasions. In fact, at the end of last year Landrieu’s Senate Democrats gave up on it, ending the pretense to show its real purpose is to be used as an excuse to prevent permanent tax reductions from being realized while creating the chimera of fiscal responsibility.

Still, the House Democrats continue to prop up this charade which is what provided Landrieu the perfect excuse to try to demonstrate she cares about Louisiana. She knew House Democrats could use PAYGO as an excuse to ignore her, even as they have routinely waived its applicability in the past. In exchange, she comes across making an apparently bold statement allegedly showing she’s not a slave to the party line and bringing more attention to her bogus plan.

If the heat gets too much for Democrats on the drilling issue, their House contingent simply will waive PAYGO again and go along with the plan, making Landrieu look even more heroic which she desperately needs in her quest to fight off Republican state Treasurer John Kennedy for reelection. Voters must recognize the manipulative game she is waging here on two levels: first in trumpeting a plan that does little-to-nothing to bring down energy prices in the short- or long-term, then being made to appear courageous in fighting for federal dollars.

As Landrieu’s lifetime voting record shows, she consistently sticks with the Democrat left contrary to the policy preferences of Louisiana’s majority, even on the issue of more domestic production. No amount of gamesmanship on her part changes that fact.

Delay helps Landrieu little, but may turn out decisive

It’s true that perhaps the only person who benefitted from Hurricane Gustav was Sen. Mary Landrieu. But just a little bit, even if that little bit might go a long way.

Gustav’s coming did interject a pause into the contest for U.S. Senate in Louisiana as the Democrat aims to hang onto the seat against a formidable challenge by Republican state Treasurer John Kennedy. It’s not so much incumbents who get favored by campaigning forced to cease temporarily, but those who lead those races, and in all cases in all races in the state incumbents, even if narrowly, would appear to be doing that with the probable exception of Rep. Don Cazayoux’s troubled bid for a full term.

As explained previously, those who are behind in contests want campaigning to go on as long as possible, so they (usually challengers where there are no open seats) have more time to catch up. But the only meaningful contests this cycle, except for the two mentioned above, in the state are for open seats so realistic challengers were not only not advantaged by the prospect of extra time but also because no realistic challengers were in a position to take advantage of delays because the nature of their party primaries were uncontested so that the general election still would be held on Nov. 4; only general elections which feature open seats would likely be pushed back to Dec. 6.

The Senate race with no party primary challenges will not be delayed. With Kennedy trailing to a small degree according to the few impartial (and, admittedly, small sampled) polls about the race, having a few days taken away for campaigning won’t help him.

But just as Landrieu got lucky with the involuntary curtailment, Kennedy did with its timing if there was going to have to be a break. Gustav began to dominate attention right when another event would have done the same – first the Democrats’, the then Republicans’ national conventions, especially filled with drama as vice presidential nominees were chosen only on the eves of them. Campaigning for lower-level offices to win the general election usually is ineffective during these two weeks, with so much potential voters’ interests elsewhere politically.

That situation typically lasts a week or two after the conventions as many voters finally begin to pay attention to and to make up their minds about the presidential vote. For most, only after that most important decision will they begin to concentrate on other contests. Thus, if Kennedy had to have suffered campaign postponement, the best time for it to have happened was when campaigning would have been at its least effective anyways, as it did.

So the net boost for Landrieu is small. Still, in a race appearing to be very close, that could be the difference. Luck boosted her into office in her two previous runs and it could play a decisive role yet again to her benefit.