At its last meeting, the Louisiana Public Service Commission had a motion to slightly tighten its requirements concerning permissible lobbyist expenditures on its members behalf. It wasn’t a bad idea, but was far from what is necessary to address negative concerns raised by the most recent Louisiana Legislative Auditor’s report on the agency.
Released last month, the audit was critical on several grounds. It did recommend that instead of following state statute that public servants accept only as much as $50 worth of free food and drink per day to have a total ban on acceptance by commissioners and staff. It also pointed out several areas in which internal procedures were unclear or undocumented, and also noted that even when procedures in areas such as rate review and auditing of those charges they were not being consistently followed.
In response to the former, Commissioner Lambert Bossiere III introduced an order that would have implemented this ban on commissioners. He got fellow Democrat Foster Campbell to go along with him but the three Republican commissioners voted it down. (Incidentally, these two had the least amount of free chow given to them or their families over the 2002-mid-2006 period, although Bossiere did not assume office until 2004; Campbell was a model of economy accepting a whopping $8 worth.)
This was not a bad idea, but not only did it not include all staff members of the LPSC, it didn’t really address the most significant shortcoming of the audit – inconsistent application of rate review procedures both before and after implementation. That is, requests for rate changes and determining whether approved rates were being charged accurately in the opinion of the auditor were being handled too sketchily to ensure comprehensive information was available for setting rates and that once set these rates were actually the ones being utilized in billing.
While the Commission staff disputed many of the discoveries, a common theme concerning its admissions of shortcomings appeared to be lack of resources. These are a matter of legislative appropriation and therefore, if it is not a problem of inefficiency in their use, it is incumbent on the commissioners themselves to lobby the Legislature for more than the roughly $10 million it receives to regulate over $1 billion in utility revenues.
But the commissioners have not made any public crusade for increased funding to hire more staff to more adequately address the rate setting and monitoring tasks. Instead, this year they quietly backed a two-thirds increase of their $45,000 salaries, which Gov. Bobby Jindal wisely vetoed.
Tinkering with the minor detail of commissioner acceptance of culinary gifts is fine, but if the Commission really is serious about improving its performance, the commissioners themselves must take the lead in changing procedures and procuring necessary resources to accomplish meaningful improvement.
12.11.08
Jindal doing, saying right things for future national run
Gov. Bobby Jindal showed some great political instincts when he turned down an offer to be considered running mate to Sen. John McCain’s recently unsuccessful Republican bid for the presidency. If he is interested in further national political advancement, he’ll have to keep up his perspicacity in a different way over the next few years.
Certainly it’s correct to muse that one or more of the next great political leaders will come from the party’s gubernatorial ranks. The chances of the party retaining the White House went nearly to zero with the nomination of McCain, and also reclaiming control of Congress when GOP Congressional leaders continued to be more concerned with power than popular policy, with Jindal accurately diagnosing the problem: drifting away from its “roots” of conservative principles and limited government, allowing big government to become their focus which spawned the temptation for corrupt behavior. The party became perceived more of an ill-defined echo than a real choice compared to the empty vessel/hidden agenda strategy of the Democrats.
New leadership more conservative and less enamored with big government for the party finally looks to be emerging in Congress, but it will take time for these figures to develop national electoral constituencies and they must fight getting steamrolled by the new Democrat majority. In the meantime, governors have the stages and opportunity to display their mettle to the public. And, as has been discussed elsewhere, Jindal will have plenty of opportunity (unlikely by choice) to show his abilities.
In retrospect, Jindal accurately seems to have gauged the impact of being on the McCain ticket if he brought any political criteria into that calculus. Losing vice presidential candidates usually don’t have much of a future on the national stage, and in this case he would have been tied onto someone whose electoral philosophy was the opposite of that needed to defeat a weak opponent trying to ride favorable political tides. Now all this baggage belongs to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, although she deftly used the opportunity to demonstrate she did have the correct philosophy for victory in these times and did prove she could withstand everything the Democrats and media allies could throw at her.
But whether these strengths would be enough for her to overcome the stigma of the McCain candidacy is another matter. Her presumed frontrunner status over Jindal may have become too impugned by this association and the job the media did on her. Jindal to some degree is better positioned to withstand a media assault, having done so to a lesser extent in his gubernatorial run in an environment larger and less isolated than Alaska which itself spawned some national coverage. The Democrats with complicit media largely have missed their chance to define Jindal negatively already and this may make him preferred by Republicans over Palin in a hypothetical presidential campaign.
Jindal also showed in his comments that he is politically astute enough to acquire and use the vacuous staple of the Democrats’ main campaign theme this year, “bipartisan change.” Of course, this crops up somewhat at odds with his diagnosis of Republican Party ills, because to Democrats “bipartisan” means the GOP acquiescing to whatever Democrats want and “change” occurs by pursuing policy fundamentally philosophically different than that of the majority of the American people, featuring big government interfering more extensively in people’s lives and liberty. Perhaps if Jindal becomes more serious about pursuing national office, he may begin to speak more accurately of a conservative “restoration” of smaller government and greater individual autonomy. But for now, he seems content to borrow these phrasings.
Jindal insists he wishes to remain governor if afforded that chance by Louisiana’s electorate. But should he change his mind to aspire to higher office, so far he has done everything necessary to make him a leading, if not the leading, contender.
Certainly it’s correct to muse that one or more of the next great political leaders will come from the party’s gubernatorial ranks. The chances of the party retaining the White House went nearly to zero with the nomination of McCain, and also reclaiming control of Congress when GOP Congressional leaders continued to be more concerned with power than popular policy, with Jindal accurately diagnosing the problem: drifting away from its “roots” of conservative principles and limited government, allowing big government to become their focus which spawned the temptation for corrupt behavior. The party became perceived more of an ill-defined echo than a real choice compared to the empty vessel/hidden agenda strategy of the Democrats.
New leadership more conservative and less enamored with big government for the party finally looks to be emerging in Congress, but it will take time for these figures to develop national electoral constituencies and they must fight getting steamrolled by the new Democrat majority. In the meantime, governors have the stages and opportunity to display their mettle to the public. And, as has been discussed elsewhere, Jindal will have plenty of opportunity (unlikely by choice) to show his abilities.
In retrospect, Jindal accurately seems to have gauged the impact of being on the McCain ticket if he brought any political criteria into that calculus. Losing vice presidential candidates usually don’t have much of a future on the national stage, and in this case he would have been tied onto someone whose electoral philosophy was the opposite of that needed to defeat a weak opponent trying to ride favorable political tides. Now all this baggage belongs to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, although she deftly used the opportunity to demonstrate she did have the correct philosophy for victory in these times and did prove she could withstand everything the Democrats and media allies could throw at her.
But whether these strengths would be enough for her to overcome the stigma of the McCain candidacy is another matter. Her presumed frontrunner status over Jindal may have become too impugned by this association and the job the media did on her. Jindal to some degree is better positioned to withstand a media assault, having done so to a lesser extent in his gubernatorial run in an environment larger and less isolated than Alaska which itself spawned some national coverage. The Democrats with complicit media largely have missed their chance to define Jindal negatively already and this may make him preferred by Republicans over Palin in a hypothetical presidential campaign.
Jindal also showed in his comments that he is politically astute enough to acquire and use the vacuous staple of the Democrats’ main campaign theme this year, “bipartisan change.” Of course, this crops up somewhat at odds with his diagnosis of Republican Party ills, because to Democrats “bipartisan” means the GOP acquiescing to whatever Democrats want and “change” occurs by pursuing policy fundamentally philosophically different than that of the majority of the American people, featuring big government interfering more extensively in people’s lives and liberty. Perhaps if Jindal becomes more serious about pursuing national office, he may begin to speak more accurately of a conservative “restoration” of smaller government and greater individual autonomy. But for now, he seems content to borrow these phrasings.
Jindal insists he wishes to remain governor if afforded that chance by Louisiana’s electorate. But should he change his mind to aspire to higher office, so far he has done everything necessary to make him a leading, if not the leading, contender.
11.11.08
College funding plan must not subvert its own goals
The idea that Gov. Bobby Jindal has to reward colleges on the basis of results which in part can be measured by graduations is a good one. But if not done correctly and in isolation of other considerations, this reform not only will not produce better-educated students, but may produce the opposite.
Presently, the financing formula for state universities inputs the number of students. This creates incentives to get students enrolled, but does not address their successful completion of degree programs. While any education is good, the credentialing afforded by a degree makes it most desirable to have students complete them, and to emphasize to universities’ efforts to facilitate this.
But at the same time, graduation rate is an inexact measure that can punish some universities and degrade the nature of collegiate education if done improperly. It must be recognized that many students start their academic careers at one institution and finish at another and incorporate the realities of placement choices. This especially is true for the state’s urban universities of Southern University – New Orleans, the University of New Orleans, and Louisiana State University Shreveport all of which are not the flagship universities in their systems. For example, only 26.3 percent of the student cohort that started at LSUS in Fall, 2002 graduated with a baccalaureate from any state school by 2007, with about a quarter dropping out after their first year.
10.11.08
Tough times may give Jindal chance to stand out
No doubt governors would prefer to be in the shoes of Alaska’s Sarah Palin, with a budgetary state surplus especially in these times where a slowing economy that, if they do what they say, will be slowed even further by Democrat control of the federal majoritarian branches which in turn will reduce federal largesse to states. Louisiana’s Gov. Bobby Jindal does not have this luxury – which may turn out to elevate his chances for higher political office.
The long-warned bubble economy infused with recovery dollars is coming to an end in Louisiana which will test Jindal’s governing ability. Already its looming has forced Jindal into tough decisions, the highest profile of which was his hesitancy to embrace this year’s income tax cut which will only start to come to fruition next year. Many more appear to be on the way.
But if he can get the Legislature to handle it with a minimum of pain to the state, he sets himself up as a devastatingly strong candidate for the presidential ticket in 2012 as the worst nightmare for a White House incumbent of Barack Obama. If Obama and Congressional Democrat leaders do what they promised they will do, the country will be in its worst economic shape since the 1970s with a daunting “misery index” and deficits as a percentage of gross domestic product the highest since World War II. Guiding Louisiana to a better economic picture will stand in stark contrast to that.
This is where Jindal would have the edge on today’s leading Republican for the 2012 national ticket, Palin, who has show she can govern in good times for her state but not yet the bad ones. Further, to some degree the Democrats aided by the media (who treated the first female vice presidential candidate from a major party Geraldine Ferraro with skepticism, but added outright hostility to coverage of Palin) demonized Palin aided by a narrow time frame which may have created enough of a negative lasting first impression to voters that also could give Jindal the edge.
Of course, Jindal must succeed, which means producing a balanced budget that also shifts priorities to areas that appear both necessary and popular despite an environment of increasing costs in some areas and decreasing revenues. But if he does, the fear he has struck into Democrats ever since he began his political career will become their painful reality.
The long-warned bubble economy infused with recovery dollars is coming to an end in Louisiana which will test Jindal’s governing ability. Already its looming has forced Jindal into tough decisions, the highest profile of which was his hesitancy to embrace this year’s income tax cut which will only start to come to fruition next year. Many more appear to be on the way.
But if he can get the Legislature to handle it with a minimum of pain to the state, he sets himself up as a devastatingly strong candidate for the presidential ticket in 2012 as the worst nightmare for a White House incumbent of Barack Obama. If Obama and Congressional Democrat leaders do what they promised they will do, the country will be in its worst economic shape since the 1970s with a daunting “misery index” and deficits as a percentage of gross domestic product the highest since World War II. Guiding Louisiana to a better economic picture will stand in stark contrast to that.
This is where Jindal would have the edge on today’s leading Republican for the 2012 national ticket, Palin, who has show she can govern in good times for her state but not yet the bad ones. Further, to some degree the Democrats aided by the media (who treated the first female vice presidential candidate from a major party Geraldine Ferraro with skepticism, but added outright hostility to coverage of Palin) demonized Palin aided by a narrow time frame which may have created enough of a negative lasting first impression to voters that also could give Jindal the edge.
Of course, Jindal must succeed, which means producing a balanced budget that also shifts priorities to areas that appear both necessary and popular despite an environment of increasing costs in some areas and decreasing revenues. But if he does, the fear he has struck into Democrats ever since he began his political career will become their painful reality.
9.11.08
Ideas, not skin color, matter most to most LA white voters
In their enthusiasm to validate certain agendas, some observers are (again) using Louisianans’ voting behavior as a means by which to attempt to do this. Thus, it is imperative to set the record straight.
Upon observing that, according to exit polls, Sen. Barack Obama improved upon his proportion of white voters in many parts of the country but not in some deep South states such as Louisiana, some argue it was Obama’s race (officially mulatto but thought of as black) that primarily explained this. That is, vestiges of racism remained in some white Louisianans who otherwise would have voted for Obama on the basis of other qualities, according to this view.
While such a hypothesis might support a larger ideological view that racism is thereby still too ingrained in American society and therefore would justify activist government to “correct” for it, one obviously very ignored and blatant piece of evidence cannot be admitted by these advocates for it to stand: last year, an overwhelming proportion of white voters in the state touched the screen for a very dark-skinned Gov. Bobby Jindal, even when there were plenty of white alternative candidates.
This points us to the real reason behind much greater white enthusiasm for Jindal than Obama – ideology. Jindal’s Republican identification and rhetoric made clear his conservative credentials, and although Obama intentionally muddied his liberalism with generic bromides, this and his Democrat label clarified to all but the most causal voter that he was liberal. White voters in the state are overwhelmingly conservative (exit polling shows of all voters 42 percent call themselves conservative and only 16 percent liberal; half of the latter figure is probably nonwhites) and these elections have shown that they will respond accordingly if given at least minimal amounts of cues about candidates.
While undoubtedly a few whites will harbor racial prejudice in their voting behavior, the notion that it is widespread or generally significant to an election outcome cannot be sustained by the facts (as I demonstrated elsewhere), at least in Louisiana. Give Obama Jindal’s rhetoric and not only would he have done much better in the state, he would have won; paint Obama paler and little would have changed. Until analysts understand this basic truism, their conjectures on voting behavior in the Pelican State largely will be useless.
Upon observing that, according to exit polls, Sen. Barack Obama improved upon his proportion of white voters in many parts of the country but not in some deep South states such as Louisiana, some argue it was Obama’s race (officially mulatto but thought of as black) that primarily explained this. That is, vestiges of racism remained in some white Louisianans who otherwise would have voted for Obama on the basis of other qualities, according to this view.
While such a hypothesis might support a larger ideological view that racism is thereby still too ingrained in American society and therefore would justify activist government to “correct” for it, one obviously very ignored and blatant piece of evidence cannot be admitted by these advocates for it to stand: last year, an overwhelming proportion of white voters in the state touched the screen for a very dark-skinned Gov. Bobby Jindal, even when there were plenty of white alternative candidates.
This points us to the real reason behind much greater white enthusiasm for Jindal than Obama – ideology. Jindal’s Republican identification and rhetoric made clear his conservative credentials, and although Obama intentionally muddied his liberalism with generic bromides, this and his Democrat label clarified to all but the most causal voter that he was liberal. White voters in the state are overwhelmingly conservative (exit polling shows of all voters 42 percent call themselves conservative and only 16 percent liberal; half of the latter figure is probably nonwhites) and these elections have shown that they will respond accordingly if given at least minimal amounts of cues about candidates.
While undoubtedly a few whites will harbor racial prejudice in their voting behavior, the notion that it is widespread or generally significant to an election outcome cannot be sustained by the facts (as I demonstrated elsewhere), at least in Louisiana. Give Obama Jindal’s rhetoric and not only would he have done much better in the state, he would have won; paint Obama paler and little would have changed. Until analysts understand this basic truism, their conjectures on voting behavior in the Pelican State largely will be useless.
6.11.08
Orleans mystery: "Obama effect" or something else?
Sen. Mary Landrieu was quick to assert that the “Katrina effect” appeared nonexistent in her reelection bid. She and others should have concentrated more on the unusual reasons why it did not appear to exist.
First, we must recognize that the “effect” – that depopulation of New Orleans as a result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 had disproportionately affected blacks who in turn disproportionately vote for Landrieu or other Democrat candidates – is there to happen. After all, the 7/1/2007 census estimate put Orleans Parish’s population at 239,124, of which 146,631 or 61.3 percent were black, compared to the 7/1/2005 estimate of 453,726 of which 304,268 or 67.1 percent were black. (Around the time of her last Senate race, on 7/1/2002 estimated population was 472,085 of which 317,672 or 67.3 percent were black).
But registration figures alter the picture considerably. Using information related to her last Senate contest, 2002, Orleans had 298,776 people registered to vote of which 187,289 or 62.3 percent were black, while as of last month there were 278,677 registrants of which 175,431 or 63 percent were black. The contrast is even greater when viewing the 2005 second quarter numbers – 299,369 total voters of which 189,628 or 63.3 percent black.
In other words, Orleans Parish has moved from a situation where, as a proportion of the population blacks were under-registered, now they are over-registered compared to whites. So, even if absolute numbers have dropped, they’ve dropped in all categories so Landrieu and other Democrats would not be disproportionately harmed, and of those remaining, Democrats now actually have picked up a small advantage relative to where they were.
However, this brings up another astonishing point. Even if we conceded that by October of this year Orleans had 324,000 residents and assuming that of the 125,000 or so missing relative to 2005 that, using historical data, 85,000 of them would have been registered to vote, registrations have dropped only about 20,000 from 2002 but turnout for Tuesday’s election for the Senate race of 141,968 was almost 10,000 more than for the 2002 runoff and over 15,000 for the 2002 primary. In other words, in 2002 registrations were 63.3 percent of the population of which 44.4 percent of the registrants and 28.1 percent of the population voted, while in 2008 registrations were 86 percent of the population of which 50.9 percent of the registrants and 43.8 percent of the population voted.
Since registration changes can lag actual population changes by a few years, the relatively small drop in registrations is understandable. And it’s also the case that the voting-age-eligible proportion of the population rose from about 70.6 percent in 2002 to 77 percent in 2007. Plus we can factor in a potential “Obama effect,” which may have raised black turnout as much as 5 percent over enthusiasm of the presidential candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama. Even so, these are remarkable figures, especially concerning voting age population proportion up 15 percentage points, particularly since less than 4,000 were absentee mail-ins which is how the many who had been displaced would have voted.
Contrast this with East Baton Rouge, where 70.9 percent of the population is voting-age-eligible and 71 percent of registrants voted comprising 45 percent of the population, and Jefferson, where 73.8 percent of the population is voting-age-eligible and 63 percent of registrants voted comprising 41.4 percent of the population. That is, whereas a few years ago the participation statistics of Orleans differed significantly from these other urban parishes, now it looks much more like them.
This is the real story of the election – what has happened in Orleans to suddenly make it like the other urban parishes in this regard? Could the “Obama effect” been so intense to produce this? If so, then Landrieu caught a real fluke as applying the 2002 metrics who have meant over 21,000 fewer people would have voted in Orleans, probably most for Landrieu, and perhaps another 50,000 (assuming the 5 percent bonus for the effect statewide rather than 15 percent) elsewhere in the state.
But if we can’t attribute the entire increase to the effect, then we are left with a mystery – one we should hope has an explanation that does not test the bounds of legality.
First, we must recognize that the “effect” – that depopulation of New Orleans as a result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 had disproportionately affected blacks who in turn disproportionately vote for Landrieu or other Democrat candidates – is there to happen. After all, the 7/1/2007 census estimate put Orleans Parish’s population at 239,124, of which 146,631 or 61.3 percent were black, compared to the 7/1/2005 estimate of 453,726 of which 304,268 or 67.1 percent were black. (Around the time of her last Senate race, on 7/1/2002 estimated population was 472,085 of which 317,672 or 67.3 percent were black).
But registration figures alter the picture considerably. Using information related to her last Senate contest, 2002, Orleans had 298,776 people registered to vote of which 187,289 or 62.3 percent were black, while as of last month there were 278,677 registrants of which 175,431 or 63 percent were black. The contrast is even greater when viewing the 2005 second quarter numbers – 299,369 total voters of which 189,628 or 63.3 percent black.
In other words, Orleans Parish has moved from a situation where, as a proportion of the population blacks were under-registered, now they are over-registered compared to whites. So, even if absolute numbers have dropped, they’ve dropped in all categories so Landrieu and other Democrats would not be disproportionately harmed, and of those remaining, Democrats now actually have picked up a small advantage relative to where they were.
However, this brings up another astonishing point. Even if we conceded that by October of this year Orleans had 324,000 residents and assuming that of the 125,000 or so missing relative to 2005 that, using historical data, 85,000 of them would have been registered to vote, registrations have dropped only about 20,000 from 2002 but turnout for Tuesday’s election for the Senate race of 141,968 was almost 10,000 more than for the 2002 runoff and over 15,000 for the 2002 primary. In other words, in 2002 registrations were 63.3 percent of the population of which 44.4 percent of the registrants and 28.1 percent of the population voted, while in 2008 registrations were 86 percent of the population of which 50.9 percent of the registrants and 43.8 percent of the population voted.
Since registration changes can lag actual population changes by a few years, the relatively small drop in registrations is understandable. And it’s also the case that the voting-age-eligible proportion of the population rose from about 70.6 percent in 2002 to 77 percent in 2007. Plus we can factor in a potential “Obama effect,” which may have raised black turnout as much as 5 percent over enthusiasm of the presidential candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama. Even so, these are remarkable figures, especially concerning voting age population proportion up 15 percentage points, particularly since less than 4,000 were absentee mail-ins which is how the many who had been displaced would have voted.
Contrast this with East Baton Rouge, where 70.9 percent of the population is voting-age-eligible and 71 percent of registrants voted comprising 45 percent of the population, and Jefferson, where 73.8 percent of the population is voting-age-eligible and 63 percent of registrants voted comprising 41.4 percent of the population. That is, whereas a few years ago the participation statistics of Orleans differed significantly from these other urban parishes, now it looks much more like them.
This is the real story of the election – what has happened in Orleans to suddenly make it like the other urban parishes in this regard? Could the “Obama effect” been so intense to produce this? If so, then Landrieu caught a real fluke as applying the 2002 metrics who have meant over 21,000 fewer people would have voted in Orleans, probably most for Landrieu, and perhaps another 50,000 (assuming the 5 percent bonus for the effect statewide rather than 15 percent) elsewhere in the state.
But if we can’t attribute the entire increase to the effect, then we are left with a mystery – one we should hope has an explanation that does not test the bounds of legality.
5.11.08
Genuine conservatism in candidates key for GOP success
The major lesson for Louisiana, and perhaps for the country as a whole, from federal elections in the state is that in this era where the main Democrat strategy is to demonize Republicans, the GOP triumphs if their candidates are genuine conservatives, run as a conservatives, and explain honestly issue preferences when they seem to deviate from conservatism.
Those in the know did not take seriously Sen. Mary Landrieu’s claim of a huge lead over state Treasurer John Kennedy for her reelection, but Kennedy’s loss was not surprising either. Landrieu actually won by more than a pittance for the first time in her Senate-chasing career because of doubts about Kennedy’s genuineness as a conservative, having run just four years earlier espousing some liberal issue preferences. Suspicious about Kennedy, enough voters decided that if they had to choose between the liberal-but-trying-to-appear moderate Landrieu and the conservative-now-but-liberal-past Kennedy, they would go with the she-devil they knew.
But it’s possible that the “Obama effect” also may have contributed to Landrieu’s win. With a black at the top of the Democrat ticket, although we will know for sure in a few days when the final statistics are compiled, I’m willing to estimate that black turnout (reviewing almost all-black precincts in Caddo Parish from 2004 and 2008) was up about 5 percent. Computing that to the number of registered blacks in time for this election and assuming almost all voted for Landrieu as long as Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy had gotten them to the polls gives Landrieu another 42,000 or so votes. These two factors together probably gave Landrieu the win.
Those in the know did not take seriously Sen. Mary Landrieu’s claim of a huge lead over state Treasurer John Kennedy for her reelection, but Kennedy’s loss was not surprising either. Landrieu actually won by more than a pittance for the first time in her Senate-chasing career because of doubts about Kennedy’s genuineness as a conservative, having run just four years earlier espousing some liberal issue preferences. Suspicious about Kennedy, enough voters decided that if they had to choose between the liberal-but-trying-to-appear moderate Landrieu and the conservative-now-but-liberal-past Kennedy, they would go with the she-devil they knew.
But it’s possible that the “Obama effect” also may have contributed to Landrieu’s win. With a black at the top of the Democrat ticket, although we will know for sure in a few days when the final statistics are compiled, I’m willing to estimate that black turnout (reviewing almost all-black precincts in Caddo Parish from 2004 and 2008) was up about 5 percent. Computing that to the number of registered blacks in time for this election and assuming almost all voted for Landrieu as long as Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy had gotten them to the polls gives Landrieu another 42,000 or so votes. These two factors together probably gave Landrieu the win.
4.11.08
Let's see what happens, and record it for posterity
There's no point in writing anything today about Louisiana politics. The big stuff happens tonight, and the relevance of it won't be known until tomorrow. Instead, I invite you to participate in making a small bit of history.
Starting at 6 PM tonight I will be one fo the guest analysts for KSLA, CBS channel 12 in Shreveport. I done this many times for a myriad of outlets but what makes this different and relevant to you readers is much of the time I will be pounding away on a live blogging session in the studio. Some attention will be devoted to the 4th Congressional District contests, and also to the national picture, but for you Louisiana politics junkies I'll covering the Senate race and the constitutional amendments and, if the spirit moves me, maybe throw in a little of the state's other important contests as well at all levels.
Making matters more interesting, you all can dive in as well. The facility allows you to enter comments that, if they are perspicacious enough, I can have posted for the world to see and respond to them. As for making history, the software creates a log of everything so when it's finally over, it is archived and can be replayed, so your input can be played and replayed for all eternity.
Go to KSLA's site to find the blog. Meanwhile, if you haven't already, go vote.
Starting at 6 PM tonight I will be one fo the guest analysts for KSLA, CBS channel 12 in Shreveport. I done this many times for a myriad of outlets but what makes this different and relevant to you readers is much of the time I will be pounding away on a live blogging session in the studio. Some attention will be devoted to the 4th Congressional District contests, and also to the national picture, but for you Louisiana politics junkies I'll covering the Senate race and the constitutional amendments and, if the spirit moves me, maybe throw in a little of the state's other important contests as well at all levels.
Making matters more interesting, you all can dive in as well. The facility allows you to enter comments that, if they are perspicacious enough, I can have posted for the world to see and respond to them. As for making history, the software creates a log of everything so when it's finally over, it is archived and can be replayed, so your input can be played and replayed for all eternity.
Go to KSLA's site to find the blog. Meanwhile, if you haven't already, go vote.
3.11.08
Bypass idiocy, ignorance to understand tomorrow's turnout
There appears to be a lot of hyperventilating concerning potential turnout tomorrow in federal elections in Louisiana. Facts rather deflate the idea that there will be anything unprecedented concerning it.
What seems to have gotten some to guess there could be record turnout for a presidential election is the highest degree of early voting ever. But to view this in isolation ignores the fact that it has been since the last presidential election that significant relaxation of early voting requirements occurred which has encouraged people who would have voted tomorrow to have voted already. In other words, most of the increase in early voting from 2004 will constitute a decrease of those who vote tomorrow.
The fact that it is up compared to last year’s governor’s election, when the new rules were in effect although people were less familiar with the brand-new rules then, is because of black Democrat enthusiasm for their party’s nominee Sen. Barack Obama and, to a lesser extent, Republican horror at the most liberal candidate since 1972’s George McGovern, and perhaps ever. The election also is relatively close, so we can expect that as well to drive turnout to levels approximating last election’s 59 percent.
(Note: there are several ways to define just what is “turnout.” Most common is by voting age population which is 59 percent. Less common because it is less accurate is the measure as a proportion of all registered voters, which in 2004 was 66 percent in Louisiana. Most accurate but the most difficult to compute is by voting eligible population, which excludes people who have lost the right to vote for some reason such as conviction of a felony or not being a citizen, which was 61 percent in the state in 2004. Given Louisiana’s past discrimination against blacks from roughly 1900-64 in not allowing them to register which prevented otherwise voting-age-eligible people from registering, for comparative purposes proportion of registration will be used to define “turnout.”)
But some observers let their enthusiasm get the best of the known historical facts and theories concerning voting turnout. One crowed it would be the “highest in Louisiana history” while another at least limited to saying it would be the highest in what he termed “modern electoral history,” since 1948.
Both are unlikely to happen. The highest ever mark known to be was in 1868 (credit Tulane historian Laurence Powell for pretty much getting this), after Reconstruction when turnout was 77 percent, driven by carpetbag Republicans and Democrats desperate to hold onto power (in those days, governor’s elections almost always were on the same days, probably boosting turnout for both offices). We aren’t going to get there this year, and we’re unlikely to even get to the top “modern” election, 73 percent in 1964, a very salient one for the state as segregationist forces tried by ballot box to resist the inevitable tide against them.
It’s also, to be charitable, a bit mistaken to think Louisiana will deliver one of the highest turnouts of any state as these observers appear to suggest. Its history against reformist government and relative lack of development compared to other states depresses its turnout. It ranked 20th in 2004, nearly 15 percent behind the leading states
Ignorance of history is one thing, but downright stupidity is another, with that award going to political consultant Raymond Strother, whose antediluvian, facile view of what motivates white Louisiana voters isn’t even race – where you could make a decent argument the complex of issues related to it is important – but actual racism itself. Needless to say much academic research has shown this (one such effort concerning Louisiana in particular being here) rather unsophisticated view to lack validity among today’s electorate, and it certainly doesn’t explain the anti-Obama vote that will contribute to higher turnout (which goes to show ability to manipulate voters and really understanding them do not go hand-in-hand). Many whites will be mobilized to vote against Obama because they understand all too well his policies will be against their own interests, and the good of the country’s as a whole, not merely because he’s black.
So, tomorrow will produce an above-average turnout in Louisiana, one of the higher in its history. Only by understanding that and the real reasons why will allow us to learn anything from it.
What seems to have gotten some to guess there could be record turnout for a presidential election is the highest degree of early voting ever. But to view this in isolation ignores the fact that it has been since the last presidential election that significant relaxation of early voting requirements occurred which has encouraged people who would have voted tomorrow to have voted already. In other words, most of the increase in early voting from 2004 will constitute a decrease of those who vote tomorrow.
The fact that it is up compared to last year’s governor’s election, when the new rules were in effect although people were less familiar with the brand-new rules then, is because of black Democrat enthusiasm for their party’s nominee Sen. Barack Obama and, to a lesser extent, Republican horror at the most liberal candidate since 1972’s George McGovern, and perhaps ever. The election also is relatively close, so we can expect that as well to drive turnout to levels approximating last election’s 59 percent.
(Note: there are several ways to define just what is “turnout.” Most common is by voting age population which is 59 percent. Less common because it is less accurate is the measure as a proportion of all registered voters, which in 2004 was 66 percent in Louisiana. Most accurate but the most difficult to compute is by voting eligible population, which excludes people who have lost the right to vote for some reason such as conviction of a felony or not being a citizen, which was 61 percent in the state in 2004. Given Louisiana’s past discrimination against blacks from roughly 1900-64 in not allowing them to register which prevented otherwise voting-age-eligible people from registering, for comparative purposes proportion of registration will be used to define “turnout.”)
But some observers let their enthusiasm get the best of the known historical facts and theories concerning voting turnout. One crowed it would be the “highest in Louisiana history” while another at least limited to saying it would be the highest in what he termed “modern electoral history,” since 1948.
Both are unlikely to happen. The highest ever mark known to be was in 1868 (credit Tulane historian Laurence Powell for pretty much getting this), after Reconstruction when turnout was 77 percent, driven by carpetbag Republicans and Democrats desperate to hold onto power (in those days, governor’s elections almost always were on the same days, probably boosting turnout for both offices). We aren’t going to get there this year, and we’re unlikely to even get to the top “modern” election, 73 percent in 1964, a very salient one for the state as segregationist forces tried by ballot box to resist the inevitable tide against them.
It’s also, to be charitable, a bit mistaken to think Louisiana will deliver one of the highest turnouts of any state as these observers appear to suggest. Its history against reformist government and relative lack of development compared to other states depresses its turnout. It ranked 20th in 2004, nearly 15 percent behind the leading states
Ignorance of history is one thing, but downright stupidity is another, with that award going to political consultant Raymond Strother, whose antediluvian, facile view of what motivates white Louisiana voters isn’t even race – where you could make a decent argument the complex of issues related to it is important – but actual racism itself. Needless to say much academic research has shown this (one such effort concerning Louisiana in particular being here) rather unsophisticated view to lack validity among today’s electorate, and it certainly doesn’t explain the anti-Obama vote that will contribute to higher turnout (which goes to show ability to manipulate voters and really understanding them do not go hand-in-hand). Many whites will be mobilized to vote against Obama because they understand all too well his policies will be against their own interests, and the good of the country’s as a whole, not merely because he’s black.
So, tomorrow will produce an above-average turnout in Louisiana, one of the higher in its history. Only by understanding that and the real reasons why will allow us to learn anything from it.
2.11.08
Deficit maneuvers highlight future health spending conflict
First there was, then there wasn’t, and now one must wonder whether there’s more than meets the eye to spending decisions made concerning Louisiana’s Medicaid program.
In September, Secretary of Health and Hospitals Alan Levine asked permission from the Legislature (through its Joint Committee on the Budget) to cut some spending as a result of a projected deficit. Most of his requests were acceded to after criticism about how perhaps the action was premature or accounting practices weren’t painting an accurate picture.
Then, Levine announced days after this was granted that, rather than a deficit, there was an even larger surplus. This appeared because of fewer demands on services as a result of delayed entry of people into the health care system as a result of the hurricanes blowing over the state in September. Levine specifically mentioned some 400 waiver slots for home- and community-based care programs going unfilled that did not make claim on resources. He also pointed out that these expenses were going to happen, they just had been postponed.
The timing seemed curious, as some observed that the 2005 hurricane experiences could have been used to make better projections, while others thought the predictive historical data being used were too sparse, and still others thought the projected deficit of $81 million could be worked through internally with a $7 billion annual Medicaid budget without budgetary intervention. However, state Rep. Jim Fannin ascribed political motives when he wondered whether Levine already had known the number might come in better before arguing for the fixes.
Fannin’s musings certainly seem credible. And Levine’s numbers don’t quite add up: if there was $181 million swing in resources, for 400 waiver slots on an annual basis the typical recipient might cost about $70,000 annually, that’s only $28 million of concern.
It’s possible that Levine’s actions are accounted for by larger policy and budgetary concerns. With the state looking more certain to encounter future difficult budgetary times and a major component to reduce those being restructuring of health care, the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration may have seen this projected deficit at the time as being a persuasive element to start implementing a move from the less efficient institutional-cased health care system to a more cost-effective home- and community-based system.
The changes accepted by the committee for the most part addressed money going to institutions. The one change that was not sanctioned, which essentially would have lowered payments going to rural hospitals, also did. It is possible that the Jindal Administration thought these kinds of changes – many in fact which appeared to be contrary to federal regulations that may have resulted in denial of funding from that source, or were outright duplicative in nature thus wasteful – would bring resistance from the strong institutional health care lobby and that any hint of a crisis could overcome that among legislators who in the past have been reluctant to move the state in a better direction on indigent health care structural spending.
Fannin and his ilk may cry about political motives, but that fact is these changes they made last month were justifiable without any crisis real or imagined. That there was such resistance to them by legislators regardless shows that politics may be a significant obstacle to providing improved, less costly health care that reduced deficit aggravation in Louisiana.
In September, Secretary of Health and Hospitals Alan Levine asked permission from the Legislature (through its Joint Committee on the Budget) to cut some spending as a result of a projected deficit. Most of his requests were acceded to after criticism about how perhaps the action was premature or accounting practices weren’t painting an accurate picture.
Then, Levine announced days after this was granted that, rather than a deficit, there was an even larger surplus. This appeared because of fewer demands on services as a result of delayed entry of people into the health care system as a result of the hurricanes blowing over the state in September. Levine specifically mentioned some 400 waiver slots for home- and community-based care programs going unfilled that did not make claim on resources. He also pointed out that these expenses were going to happen, they just had been postponed.
The timing seemed curious, as some observed that the 2005 hurricane experiences could have been used to make better projections, while others thought the predictive historical data being used were too sparse, and still others thought the projected deficit of $81 million could be worked through internally with a $7 billion annual Medicaid budget without budgetary intervention. However, state Rep. Jim Fannin ascribed political motives when he wondered whether Levine already had known the number might come in better before arguing for the fixes.
Fannin’s musings certainly seem credible. And Levine’s numbers don’t quite add up: if there was $181 million swing in resources, for 400 waiver slots on an annual basis the typical recipient might cost about $70,000 annually, that’s only $28 million of concern.
It’s possible that Levine’s actions are accounted for by larger policy and budgetary concerns. With the state looking more certain to encounter future difficult budgetary times and a major component to reduce those being restructuring of health care, the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration may have seen this projected deficit at the time as being a persuasive element to start implementing a move from the less efficient institutional-cased health care system to a more cost-effective home- and community-based system.
The changes accepted by the committee for the most part addressed money going to institutions. The one change that was not sanctioned, which essentially would have lowered payments going to rural hospitals, also did. It is possible that the Jindal Administration thought these kinds of changes – many in fact which appeared to be contrary to federal regulations that may have resulted in denial of funding from that source, or were outright duplicative in nature thus wasteful – would bring resistance from the strong institutional health care lobby and that any hint of a crisis could overcome that among legislators who in the past have been reluctant to move the state in a better direction on indigent health care structural spending.
Fannin and his ilk may cry about political motives, but that fact is these changes they made last month were justifiable without any crisis real or imagined. That there was such resistance to them by legislators regardless shows that politics may be a significant obstacle to providing improved, less costly health care that reduced deficit aggravation in Louisiana.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)