At first I thought I was reading a term paper from one of my sub-par students. No, it turned out to be an Abbeville Meridional newspaper editorial advocating the early release of former Gov. Edwin Edwards, now better know as Prisoner #03128-095, and the intellect and logic showed in demonstrates exactly why Louisiana ranks at the bottom of many quality-of-life indicators.
The rambling thesis of this appears to be that the elderly Edwards has suffered enough. A lifetime of achievement it offers as exculpatory justification. In doing so, not only does it miss the entire point of Edwards’ punishment, it doesn’t even provide convincing arguments that he merits commutation of his 10-year sentence.
The editorial skirts Edwards’ apparent corruption in office. Instead, it advances the peculiar notion that his long service in various capacity somehow exempts him from paying the full price for his misdeeds, even going so far as to maintain proof of his overriding good work was being elected governor four times showed “he must have done something right. Voters in this state are not stupid.” No comment of mine can illuminate better the “merit” of this statement and I’ll leave it to my readers to ponder this wisdom without my input.
While he never was convicted of abuse of office, plenty of circumstantial evidence makes it hard to explain what the author claims is a “myth” that “Edwards made his money in politics.” If he didn’t make it while in office, it seems difficult to understand why Edwards was so unconcerned from what today would be illegal lobbyist cash gifts from Tongsun Park while in Congress, or why his former operative Clyde Vidrine would produce salacious revelations in his books about these things, or why during his 1986 corruption trial it was revealed that Edwards regularly visited Las Vegas casinos with suitcases full of hundreds of thousands of dollars when as governor he made in salary a fraction of the contents of one such case each year. Willing suspension of disbelief does not make for good argumentation.
It also reads a “second myth is that government in Louisiana is corrupt and that all elected officials are crooks.” Insofar as this is a straw man argument – nobody seriously argues this so why waste the space refuting something irrelevant – it claims corruption essentially stops at the Orleans Parish lines. The author needs to do a little research to discover just in the past year high-profile corruption cases being decided in Jefferson Parish concerning judges and a former state senator and in Baton Rouge about the state’s film office. Somehow, asserting without proof that little corruption exists outside of New Orleans is supposed to make readers believe … what? That since Edwards wasn’t from New Orleans he wasn’t corrupt?
The sad fact that the author runs from is that Edwards was convicted of a federal crime of using his influence improperly in politics. No amount of character references or favorable polling can change this fact, and it is important for him to serve his entire (and typical for the collection of crimes for which he was convicted) sentence because, as noted elsewhere, it provides disincentive to deter criminals from doing things, including performing additional corrupt activities to prevent the day of reckoning from coming to hold off their punishments long enough to have a way to escape their full sentences.
It will be interesting to see whether the Meridional is consistent in its view about Edwards concerning the case of Bernard Madoff who also allegedly engaged in corrupt activities (in the financial markets). Investors may have lost billions by him (although some made quite a bit from him as well, so he did help the public), but, hey, the guy is 70 years old and no doubt the trial will be taxing on him so why not let him off light? I await this editorial that argues if Edwards should be let off despite what he did to the Louisiana citizen, regarding Madoff that he merit the same treatment for what he did to duped millionaires.
That such an editorial so oblivious and would seem to take itself seriously just provides another indicator explaining Louisiana’s dismal situation. People who entertain the notion that violation of public trust not be punished to the full extent of the law are the same folks who keep putting into office politicians and supporting public policy that tolerates such behavior to the detriment of the state.
23.12.08
Normal circumstances make Cao reelection difficult
With all due respect to longtime Orleans Parish stalwart Republican and former city councilman Bryan Wagner, saying GOP Rep.-elect Anh “Joseph” Cao was going to win earlier this month the majority-black-Democrat Second District without a favorable confluence of events shows less political sense than the neophyte Cao’s, who acknowledges these things. Whether he can win absent these dynamics in 2010 is another matter.
Wagner, who played a major role in the Cao campaign, naturally wants to create the impression of future electability of Cao because he understands the fundamental truism (misunderstood by many) that donations go to candidates on the basis of their quality, i.e. ability to win. These resources Cao will need for a 2010 run because all the Democrats in the 2008 contest except one outraised him as of Nov. 16 in terms of both total funding and individual donations. However, it is likely when the next reports in early January are released through the general election, Cao’s totals should have gone up considerably and won’t be reported too far behind incumbent and indicted Bill Jefferson’s.
Let’s not kid ourselves over why this was the case: Jefferson was viewed by many, even by some who voted for him, as corrupt, discouraging electoral and monetary support. Some portion of these people, as shown previously, who had supported Democrats against him twice unsuccessfully in the party primary and runoff, while they could not bear to vote for a non-Democrat in the general election did not vote for Jefferson thus at all. But an underreported aspect of the election was the fissures in the black vote that had begun to appear in the Democrat runoff primary in black support for Jefferson spread more forcefully in the general election.
As previously noted, in the runoff estimated black support (calculated by Jefferson proportion of the vote less proportion black registration) for Jefferson dipped to about 89.5 percent against a Hispanic opponent. It further dipped in the 142 precincts with at least 90 percent black registration to less than 85 percent, precincts on average only voting about 80 percent in Jefferson’s favor (in several, he barely pulled an estimated 70 percent of the black vote). (Contrast this with the five 90 percent-plus white precincts that gave Cao an average 92 percent of the vote, where he got an estimated 95 percent of the white vote.) Simply, an unusually high proportion of blacks abandoned a black candidate in favor of a Republican, and it’s hard not to conclude it was more the scandal-tinged Jefferson than Cao’s campaign that triggered this significant exodus.
So Cao was seen this election cycle as a quality, competitive candidate, but most likely because of the nature of his opposition. Reduced black loyalty to a black candidate when running against a non-black, the introduction of (mostly white) Republicans into the contest who were absent in the primary which had produced the least-electable candidate, and, as previously observed, a much bigger drop in black compared to white participation from the primaries in part due to black registrants’ questions about Jefferson all played a role in making Cao an attractive candidate, obviously enough to win.
That perception will be enhanced by a couple of years’ service in Washington. But that time also is plenty for one or more black Democrats free of scandal to position themselves well to win the 2010 party nomination to go up against Cao. Such a candidate will restore black voting loyalty to levels not far below those below the Jefferson era’s (giving Cao a little credit for some minor conversion through good service) and not discourage those blacks who stayed home. This scenario creates numbers that undeniably will make Cao a longshot for reelection, and no amount of talking up his chances by senior Republicans will change this. Not acknowledging this reality almost certainly will lead to his defeat.
Although I do envision one scenario where Cao’s chances would be pretty good. I won’t go into details now, but it involves as the Democrat nominee somebody who believes a high crime rate “keeps the New Orleans brand visible” and envisions New Orleans as a “chocolate city” ….
Wagner, who played a major role in the Cao campaign, naturally wants to create the impression of future electability of Cao because he understands the fundamental truism (misunderstood by many) that donations go to candidates on the basis of their quality, i.e. ability to win. These resources Cao will need for a 2010 run because all the Democrats in the 2008 contest except one outraised him as of Nov. 16 in terms of both total funding and individual donations. However, it is likely when the next reports in early January are released through the general election, Cao’s totals should have gone up considerably and won’t be reported too far behind incumbent and indicted Bill Jefferson’s.
Let’s not kid ourselves over why this was the case: Jefferson was viewed by many, even by some who voted for him, as corrupt, discouraging electoral and monetary support. Some portion of these people, as shown previously, who had supported Democrats against him twice unsuccessfully in the party primary and runoff, while they could not bear to vote for a non-Democrat in the general election did not vote for Jefferson thus at all. But an underreported aspect of the election was the fissures in the black vote that had begun to appear in the Democrat runoff primary in black support for Jefferson spread more forcefully in the general election.
As previously noted, in the runoff estimated black support (calculated by Jefferson proportion of the vote less proportion black registration) for Jefferson dipped to about 89.5 percent against a Hispanic opponent. It further dipped in the 142 precincts with at least 90 percent black registration to less than 85 percent, precincts on average only voting about 80 percent in Jefferson’s favor (in several, he barely pulled an estimated 70 percent of the black vote). (Contrast this with the five 90 percent-plus white precincts that gave Cao an average 92 percent of the vote, where he got an estimated 95 percent of the white vote.) Simply, an unusually high proportion of blacks abandoned a black candidate in favor of a Republican, and it’s hard not to conclude it was more the scandal-tinged Jefferson than Cao’s campaign that triggered this significant exodus.
So Cao was seen this election cycle as a quality, competitive candidate, but most likely because of the nature of his opposition. Reduced black loyalty to a black candidate when running against a non-black, the introduction of (mostly white) Republicans into the contest who were absent in the primary which had produced the least-electable candidate, and, as previously observed, a much bigger drop in black compared to white participation from the primaries in part due to black registrants’ questions about Jefferson all played a role in making Cao an attractive candidate, obviously enough to win.
That perception will be enhanced by a couple of years’ service in Washington. But that time also is plenty for one or more black Democrats free of scandal to position themselves well to win the 2010 party nomination to go up against Cao. Such a candidate will restore black voting loyalty to levels not far below those below the Jefferson era’s (giving Cao a little credit for some minor conversion through good service) and not discourage those blacks who stayed home. This scenario creates numbers that undeniably will make Cao a longshot for reelection, and no amount of talking up his chances by senior Republicans will change this. Not acknowledging this reality almost certainly will lead to his defeat.
Although I do envision one scenario where Cao’s chances would be pretty good. I won’t go into details now, but it involves as the Democrat nominee somebody who believes a high crime rate “keeps the New Orleans brand visible” and envisions New Orleans as a “chocolate city” ….
22.12.08
Tax cuts blamed when LA really has spending problem
It’s official: the arbiter of liberalism in the American press, The New York Times, has weighed in on Louisiana’s budget deficits present and forecast, and as usual misses the point in its eagerness to slant the story in favor of big government.
The party line that liberals want to spread about the state’s deficit is that tax reduction, principally the individual income tax cut, is bad even in flush economic times, perhaps explained by irrationality. Appropriately to advance this notion, they trot out one of the most liberal state legislators, head of the Democrat Caucus state Sen. Eric LaFleur, who practices a little psychology in declaring “euphoria” captured the minds of so many greenhorn legislators who “hadn’t been around long enough” to know apparently that tax cuts have consequences by his reckoning. (For his part, LaFleur proved to have a gelatinous spine by voting for the cut, although at least he has done the proper liberal thing by declaring he had “misgivings” about it.)
Of course, this view entirely ignores the statistics and recent history of the state’s fiscal picture. Numbers officially got declared on Friday so they have yet to be posted, but the forecast has the fiscal year 2009-10 revenues numbers for the general fund outside of statutorily-dedicated funds to come in around $8.3 billion (as opposed to the previous that came in a billion bucks higher). Excluding in all cases federal recovery dollars, this can be compared to the numbers of (still-evolving) about $9.65 billion for FY 2008-09 (note that if the 2/10/08 forecast had held a surplus would have been declared instead of the deficit that used the 5/9/2008 forecast), about $9.5 billion in FY 2007-08, $8.2 billion in FY 2006-07, and $7.3 billion in FY 2005-06.
In other words, from FY 2005 to FY 2009 (predicted), state revenues have increased over 13 percent, at a decent annual clip of nearly 3 percent. The increase for 2005-08, pumped up by federal disaster recovery dollars, was 32 percent. By contrast, consumer inflation over the 2005-08 period was only 9 percent (and may not even be that high through 2009 given recently falling prices). Add to this that the state’s population has declined slightly (about 85,000) throughout this period. This shows that state revenues (and therefore, except for an eventual $500 million or so of tax cuts now or about to kick in, spending) rose much faster than existing needs and demands on government. Only unless one thinks (as no doubt The Times, LaFleur, and liberals in general) that government should do more (implying that people should be less responsible for their own affairs), could such an increase in spending from these revenues be justifiable.
Once again, the data are very clear: Louisiana has not had a revenue problem, which has grown at a faster rate than inflation with a stagnant population, but rather has had a spending problem. There is no justification why government must keep doing more just because more money rolls in. With all of the excess revenue coming in, a tax cut was not only appropriate because it allows people to keep more of their money and will set the stage for improved future economic growth, but it was the moral thing to do. Yet the majority of the attention of the article was about the revenue side of the equation, not on spending.
Deficits loom now because spending was not kept under control. If it had been, huge surpluses could have been declared for a couple of years and far-sighted legislators could have in the past (even one this year) voted to increase the maximum size of the Budget Stabilization Fund where this money could have been saved to cushion future deficits. Even better, with spending controlled, the deficits may not have appeared at all, and the excess money could have gone to unfunded accrued liabilities, coastal restoration, improved infrastructure, etc., if not even more tax cuts.
Often, when people advocate reductions in government spending, their ideological opponents ask where cuts should take place. But in this situation of rapid revenue growth above the baseline price and population levels, the more appropriate prior question is first to justify the increased spending beyond what was being done previously, and then what cannot be justified is the candidate for cutting. Trying to deflect attention from this imperative by fixating on revenue-raising measures disingenuously disserves the public.
The party line that liberals want to spread about the state’s deficit is that tax reduction, principally the individual income tax cut, is bad even in flush economic times, perhaps explained by irrationality. Appropriately to advance this notion, they trot out one of the most liberal state legislators, head of the Democrat Caucus state Sen. Eric LaFleur, who practices a little psychology in declaring “euphoria” captured the minds of so many greenhorn legislators who “hadn’t been around long enough” to know apparently that tax cuts have consequences by his reckoning. (For his part, LaFleur proved to have a gelatinous spine by voting for the cut, although at least he has done the proper liberal thing by declaring he had “misgivings” about it.)
Of course, this view entirely ignores the statistics and recent history of the state’s fiscal picture. Numbers officially got declared on Friday so they have yet to be posted, but the forecast has the fiscal year 2009-10 revenues numbers for the general fund outside of statutorily-dedicated funds to come in around $8.3 billion (as opposed to the previous that came in a billion bucks higher). Excluding in all cases federal recovery dollars, this can be compared to the numbers of (still-evolving) about $9.65 billion for FY 2008-09 (note that if the 2/10/08 forecast had held a surplus would have been declared instead of the deficit that used the 5/9/2008 forecast), about $9.5 billion in FY 2007-08, $8.2 billion in FY 2006-07, and $7.3 billion in FY 2005-06.
In other words, from FY 2005 to FY 2009 (predicted), state revenues have increased over 13 percent, at a decent annual clip of nearly 3 percent. The increase for 2005-08, pumped up by federal disaster recovery dollars, was 32 percent. By contrast, consumer inflation over the 2005-08 period was only 9 percent (and may not even be that high through 2009 given recently falling prices). Add to this that the state’s population has declined slightly (about 85,000) throughout this period. This shows that state revenues (and therefore, except for an eventual $500 million or so of tax cuts now or about to kick in, spending) rose much faster than existing needs and demands on government. Only unless one thinks (as no doubt The Times, LaFleur, and liberals in general) that government should do more (implying that people should be less responsible for their own affairs), could such an increase in spending from these revenues be justifiable.
Once again, the data are very clear: Louisiana has not had a revenue problem, which has grown at a faster rate than inflation with a stagnant population, but rather has had a spending problem. There is no justification why government must keep doing more just because more money rolls in. With all of the excess revenue coming in, a tax cut was not only appropriate because it allows people to keep more of their money and will set the stage for improved future economic growth, but it was the moral thing to do. Yet the majority of the attention of the article was about the revenue side of the equation, not on spending.
Deficits loom now because spending was not kept under control. If it had been, huge surpluses could have been declared for a couple of years and far-sighted legislators could have in the past (even one this year) voted to increase the maximum size of the Budget Stabilization Fund where this money could have been saved to cushion future deficits. Even better, with spending controlled, the deficits may not have appeared at all, and the excess money could have gone to unfunded accrued liabilities, coastal restoration, improved infrastructure, etc., if not even more tax cuts.
Often, when people advocate reductions in government spending, their ideological opponents ask where cuts should take place. But in this situation of rapid revenue growth above the baseline price and population levels, the more appropriate prior question is first to justify the increased spending beyond what was being done previously, and then what cannot be justified is the candidate for cutting. Trying to deflect attention from this imperative by fixating on revenue-raising measures disingenuously disserves the public.
21.12.08
Success on Jindal health plan also can help budget woes
It is all interconnected, the balancing act Gov. Bobby Jindal is trying to pull off as state revenues look to underperform and state expenditures, basically Medicaid, prepare to overperform. He has to get it right or practical and political ramifications will be substantial.
Naturally the state’s current and looming budget deficits have dominated headlines for the past week, even as surrealistically a surplus came about for last year.. Problem is, that surplus cannot directly be used to offset this year’s or the predicted deficit. As has been suggested previously, the best use of the surplus would be to boost the Budget Stabilization Fund, which would comprise about 60 percent of it. And while paying off debt and then using interest savings with the remainder also would generate some more short-term cash to offset the future deficit, perhaps a better strategy would be paying down unfunded accrued liabilities of state retirement systems to reduce huge expenditures in the next two decades.
But aggravating spending over the long run will continue unless the single biggest portion of the biggest item growing at the fastest rate continues, and that is Medicaid spending on the poor and indigent. This week, Jindal got a significant victory with legislative approval to allow him to bring to the federal government a coordinated care plan that would introduce private sector aspects to the system that promise to hold down costs.
This came despite two different forces who oppose the plan. One comes from physician organizations which would prefer the fee-for-service model because it better serves their interests. The new plan would reduce providers’ abilities to make nonessential and/or duplicative charges and thereby also their revenues. It additionally would force more attention to be paid regarding their own practice management which some would prefer not to do.
The other, represented by the only dissenting legislative committee vote of state Rep. Karen Carter Peterson, objects because Jindal’s plan disempowers government too much for its liking. The current fee-for-service arrangement, where government pays whatever reasonably is billed, puts everybody but the health care consumer in charge and encourages no efficiency. Jindal’s plan, developed by Health and Hospitals Secretary Alan Levine who supervised a similar reform in Florida, introduces market forces with competing nongovernment administrators. This is in contrast to rumblings coming from Democrats in Washington who now control both majoritarian branches of government and campaigned on providing national universal health care.
Peterson commented that the process was too rushed, even though legislators were not being asked to make a commitment and many options were open. The implication was this plan was trying to get approval before Democrats essentially could force a plan onto states that had no free-market mechanisms to it, as it would be more difficult for them to dismantle these kinds of programs (which more and more states are turning to) oncethey were put into place. Particularly dangerous to their perspectives is that Jindal’s plan has elements of universal coverage in it, making it politically difficult to turn down half a loaf.
However, while a rearguard action of the likes of Peterson’s would slow things down for nothing more than political reasons, the fact is it is highly unlikely that in less than a month the federal government will be able to act on and approve the waiver anyway. The real concern is that with the new administration coming in, months will pass before positions are filled where these kinds of decisions can be made and that threatened to push back the intended launch date a year from 2010. By having lower-level bureaucrats start immediately on approval, that could save several months, and Democrats still would get a chance to approve or not.
Jindal is being particularly crafty with his introduction of the elements of universal coverage, and not just because it can win approval for a free market-oriented plan. Because of past shenanigans, the state owes $771 million to the federal government for Medicaid overcharges. Jindal has proposed waiving that if the state plows that into a phase-in of universal coverage, and also makes for a more compelling case for the efficiencies from the free market elements to be introduced in order to keep overall costs down. One must be there for the other, and without either, as Levine has preached constantly, costs will continue to spiral without any improvement in coverage or service.
The timing is everything because while Jindal probably can come up with stopgap measures to take care of this next fiscal year’s deficit, with no attempt to control Medicaid spending future year deficits will create a chronic budget problem. So not only does Jindal have political stakes attached to Medicaid reform for its own sake, but also to help mitigate potential future budget woes. With legislative approval, given the confluence of political forces in these times of transition, he may have started playing a winning hand.
Naturally the state’s current and looming budget deficits have dominated headlines for the past week, even as surrealistically a surplus came about for last year.. Problem is, that surplus cannot directly be used to offset this year’s or the predicted deficit. As has been suggested previously, the best use of the surplus would be to boost the Budget Stabilization Fund, which would comprise about 60 percent of it. And while paying off debt and then using interest savings with the remainder also would generate some more short-term cash to offset the future deficit, perhaps a better strategy would be paying down unfunded accrued liabilities of state retirement systems to reduce huge expenditures in the next two decades.
But aggravating spending over the long run will continue unless the single biggest portion of the biggest item growing at the fastest rate continues, and that is Medicaid spending on the poor and indigent. This week, Jindal got a significant victory with legislative approval to allow him to bring to the federal government a coordinated care plan that would introduce private sector aspects to the system that promise to hold down costs.
This came despite two different forces who oppose the plan. One comes from physician organizations which would prefer the fee-for-service model because it better serves their interests. The new plan would reduce providers’ abilities to make nonessential and/or duplicative charges and thereby also their revenues. It additionally would force more attention to be paid regarding their own practice management which some would prefer not to do.
The other, represented by the only dissenting legislative committee vote of state Rep. Karen Carter Peterson, objects because Jindal’s plan disempowers government too much for its liking. The current fee-for-service arrangement, where government pays whatever reasonably is billed, puts everybody but the health care consumer in charge and encourages no efficiency. Jindal’s plan, developed by Health and Hospitals Secretary Alan Levine who supervised a similar reform in Florida, introduces market forces with competing nongovernment administrators. This is in contrast to rumblings coming from Democrats in Washington who now control both majoritarian branches of government and campaigned on providing national universal health care.
Peterson commented that the process was too rushed, even though legislators were not being asked to make a commitment and many options were open. The implication was this plan was trying to get approval before Democrats essentially could force a plan onto states that had no free-market mechanisms to it, as it would be more difficult for them to dismantle these kinds of programs (which more and more states are turning to) oncethey were put into place. Particularly dangerous to their perspectives is that Jindal’s plan has elements of universal coverage in it, making it politically difficult to turn down half a loaf.
However, while a rearguard action of the likes of Peterson’s would slow things down for nothing more than political reasons, the fact is it is highly unlikely that in less than a month the federal government will be able to act on and approve the waiver anyway. The real concern is that with the new administration coming in, months will pass before positions are filled where these kinds of decisions can be made and that threatened to push back the intended launch date a year from 2010. By having lower-level bureaucrats start immediately on approval, that could save several months, and Democrats still would get a chance to approve or not.
Jindal is being particularly crafty with his introduction of the elements of universal coverage, and not just because it can win approval for a free market-oriented plan. Because of past shenanigans, the state owes $771 million to the federal government for Medicaid overcharges. Jindal has proposed waiving that if the state plows that into a phase-in of universal coverage, and also makes for a more compelling case for the efficiencies from the free market elements to be introduced in order to keep overall costs down. One must be there for the other, and without either, as Levine has preached constantly, costs will continue to spiral without any improvement in coverage or service.
The timing is everything because while Jindal probably can come up with stopgap measures to take care of this next fiscal year’s deficit, with no attempt to control Medicaid spending future year deficits will create a chronic budget problem. So not only does Jindal have political stakes attached to Medicaid reform for its own sake, but also to help mitigate potential future budget woes. With legislative approval, given the confluence of political forces in these times of transition, he may have started playing a winning hand.
18.12.08
Vitter opponents' rhetoric only helping his reelection
If his opponents want to oust Sen. David Vitter from office in 2010, they have found exactly the wrong way to do it. He now enjoys the happy coincidence of an issue where he can come out in favor of his conservative principles and ride public sentiment in his favor while making opponents look sanctimonious and simultaneously devalue the only real vulnerable issue concerning Vitter.
Until last year, Vitter was 99.44 percent assured of reelection, given his strong conservative voting record in a majority conservative state. Then he revealed commission of a “serious sin” in the past, likely the usage of a prostitution ring prior to election to federal office. Given his record on the issues, his apparent contrition, and that many voters will accept somebody who votes the right way as long he doesn’t abuse the powers of his office, his chances for reelection may have plunged to 90 percent.
But with the emergence the possibility of the federal government bailing out one or more failing domestic automakers, he may be on the way to that higher plateau of reelection possibility. This issue not only allows Vitter to remind Louisianans of his specific opposition to this, shared nationally, and general dislike of government intervention into the economy, but the way in which his opponents have attacked him about it makes him look even better while pushing away the “character” issue. Just one sample of the rhetoric from a union hack that plays into Vitter’s hands:
“I don't know what Sen. Vitter has against GM [which has a major facility in Shreveport] or the United Auto Workers or the entire domestic auto industry; whatever it is, whatever he thinks we've done, it's time for him to forgive us, just like Sen. Vitter has asked the citizens of Louisiana to forgive him,” said [Morgan] Johnson, president of [Shreveport] Local 2166. Otherwise, Johnson said of Vitter, it would appear, “He'd rather pay a prostitute than pay auto workers.”
Is it possible to critique Vitter in a less intelligent way than this? Here’s a guy defending an industry losing money hand over fist because of an inadequate business model that allows a $30 differential in labor costs to its rivals promoted by his very union which allow typical workers to make $55,000 a year (exclusive of benefits worth 150 percent more), which until recently paid people not to work up to two years, paid them more in early retirement than when they worked, and supplies health benefits that even members of Congress would envy. And has the audacity to ask taxpayers many of whom are poorer that these unionized workers to subsidize this? Especially when Vitter would have supported a bailout bill that moved up minor union concessions only two years?
(It’s not like the UAW has been a fan of Vitter’s. Over his career, on average he has supported the UAW in votes only 6 percent of the time. So what did they expect? And General Motors hasn’t exactly been generous to Vitter during his 9 years in office: for the first time, earlier this year it gave him a contribution, of $1,000. Contrast this with the $19,000 they have thrown at Republican Vitter’s Democrat colleague Sen. Mary Landrieu in her 12 years in office, who wanted the bailout to go through.)
All this rhetoric does is it makes Vitter look like a champion of taxpayers, the middle class, and even more courageous because he is going against a special interest in his own state. And to drag in the shot about “pay” not only looks stupid because it’s clear that Vitter, nor anybody else, is obligated to “pay” any workers, but by coming up with such a strained metaphor on the character issue reduces its effectiveness. That is, when people see such an attack and recognize it is so ludicrous, it desensitizes them to the issue forcibly tied to it.
It also helps Vitter that he has attackers from outside the state that also seem to be part of a greedy cabal asking for handout to save them from their own folly. Speaking of paying, Vitter could not have had the funds to fund all the favorable publicity he can derive from a column appearing in the Detroit Free Press which basically called Vitter and others ingrates from not supporting the handout when Detroit manufacturers had sent aid after the 2005 hurricane disasters – never mind the difference between a natural disaster and bringing your own problems onto yourself, and not having the wisdom to figure out that if you’re doing something wrong that put you in this situation you don’t ask for a handout and not make more than cosmetic changes. (Perhaps it’s no surprise that with such simplemindedness in its product this outlet is losing so much money it is eliminating home delivery every day of the week; maybe it should ask for a bailout, too.)
If Vitter keeps getting these political softballs to whack over the fence, nobody is going to remember he had a “transgression” at all. If his opponents allow Vitter to demonstrate conservative credentials favored by the state’s majority over and over again, they might as well save their resources and give up on defeating him now.
Until last year, Vitter was 99.44 percent assured of reelection, given his strong conservative voting record in a majority conservative state. Then he revealed commission of a “serious sin” in the past, likely the usage of a prostitution ring prior to election to federal office. Given his record on the issues, his apparent contrition, and that many voters will accept somebody who votes the right way as long he doesn’t abuse the powers of his office, his chances for reelection may have plunged to 90 percent.
But with the emergence the possibility of the federal government bailing out one or more failing domestic automakers, he may be on the way to that higher plateau of reelection possibility. This issue not only allows Vitter to remind Louisianans of his specific opposition to this, shared nationally, and general dislike of government intervention into the economy, but the way in which his opponents have attacked him about it makes him look even better while pushing away the “character” issue. Just one sample of the rhetoric from a union hack that plays into Vitter’s hands:
“I don't know what Sen. Vitter has against GM [which has a major facility in Shreveport] or the United Auto Workers or the entire domestic auto industry; whatever it is, whatever he thinks we've done, it's time for him to forgive us, just like Sen. Vitter has asked the citizens of Louisiana to forgive him,” said [Morgan] Johnson, president of [Shreveport] Local 2166. Otherwise, Johnson said of Vitter, it would appear, “He'd rather pay a prostitute than pay auto workers.”
Is it possible to critique Vitter in a less intelligent way than this? Here’s a guy defending an industry losing money hand over fist because of an inadequate business model that allows a $30 differential in labor costs to its rivals promoted by his very union which allow typical workers to make $55,000 a year (exclusive of benefits worth 150 percent more), which until recently paid people not to work up to two years, paid them more in early retirement than when they worked, and supplies health benefits that even members of Congress would envy. And has the audacity to ask taxpayers many of whom are poorer that these unionized workers to subsidize this? Especially when Vitter would have supported a bailout bill that moved up minor union concessions only two years?
(It’s not like the UAW has been a fan of Vitter’s. Over his career, on average he has supported the UAW in votes only 6 percent of the time. So what did they expect? And General Motors hasn’t exactly been generous to Vitter during his 9 years in office: for the first time, earlier this year it gave him a contribution, of $1,000. Contrast this with the $19,000 they have thrown at Republican Vitter’s Democrat colleague Sen. Mary Landrieu in her 12 years in office, who wanted the bailout to go through.)
All this rhetoric does is it makes Vitter look like a champion of taxpayers, the middle class, and even more courageous because he is going against a special interest in his own state. And to drag in the shot about “pay” not only looks stupid because it’s clear that Vitter, nor anybody else, is obligated to “pay” any workers, but by coming up with such a strained metaphor on the character issue reduces its effectiveness. That is, when people see such an attack and recognize it is so ludicrous, it desensitizes them to the issue forcibly tied to it.
It also helps Vitter that he has attackers from outside the state that also seem to be part of a greedy cabal asking for handout to save them from their own folly. Speaking of paying, Vitter could not have had the funds to fund all the favorable publicity he can derive from a column appearing in the Detroit Free Press which basically called Vitter and others ingrates from not supporting the handout when Detroit manufacturers had sent aid after the 2005 hurricane disasters – never mind the difference between a natural disaster and bringing your own problems onto yourself, and not having the wisdom to figure out that if you’re doing something wrong that put you in this situation you don’t ask for a handout and not make more than cosmetic changes. (Perhaps it’s no surprise that with such simplemindedness in its product this outlet is losing so much money it is eliminating home delivery every day of the week; maybe it should ask for a bailout, too.)
If Vitter keeps getting these political softballs to whack over the fence, nobody is going to remember he had a “transgression” at all. If his opponents allow Vitter to demonstrate conservative credentials favored by the state’s majority over and over again, they might as well save their resources and give up on defeating him now.
17.12.08
Looming deficits beg reevaluation of handling mechanisms
As Louisiana goes forward to contend with a budget deficit of $341 million this year (so far; there are two more regularly checkpoints at minimum on this figure before the end of the fiscal year) and a potential $2 billion deficit for fiscal year 2009-10, the question arises how the state’s fiscal mechanisms can deal with these deficit situations which cannot exist according to the state’s Constitution except for extreme circumstances. A review of these procedures is in order.
As of this year note that about 65 percent of the state operating expenditures can be financed currently through federal monies of some kind. Thus, the total being discussed here is about $14.5 billion. (Recognize this excludes any disaster recovery federal dollars.) Of that, a little over 63 percent is discretionary funds that have no strings attached to them in their expenditures, a little over 10 percent are non-discretionary in that they are fees or other self-generated revenues that go back into the programs from which they are generated, and the remainder is by law revenues dedicated to a certain purpose. (Technically, about three percent of the grand total really goes to capital outlay projects.) The “undedicated” monies go into the general fund, and the dedicated funds have each of 36 funds into which they go.
When there is a budget deficit in the current year reported in a fund, appropriations from the fund in question may be reduced. Typically, the only meaningful deficits that exist are in the general fund, and to take care of those typically appropriations must be reduced to the discretionary areas. In this instance, on Friday the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget is likely to certify the deficit numbers coming from the general fund with little or no deficits from the others.
As of this year note that about 65 percent of the state operating expenditures can be financed currently through federal monies of some kind. Thus, the total being discussed here is about $14.5 billion. (Recognize this excludes any disaster recovery federal dollars.) Of that, a little over 63 percent is discretionary funds that have no strings attached to them in their expenditures, a little over 10 percent are non-discretionary in that they are fees or other self-generated revenues that go back into the programs from which they are generated, and the remainder is by law revenues dedicated to a certain purpose. (Technically, about three percent of the grand total really goes to capital outlay projects.) The “undedicated” monies go into the general fund, and the dedicated funds have each of 36 funds into which they go.
When there is a budget deficit in the current year reported in a fund, appropriations from the fund in question may be reduced. Typically, the only meaningful deficits that exist are in the general fund, and to take care of those typically appropriations must be reduced to the discretionary areas. In this instance, on Friday the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget is likely to certify the deficit numbers coming from the general fund with little or no deficits from the others.
15.12.08
LA tightened belt 4 years ago; it can work again
The news about Louisiana’s looming budget deficit probably was beyond what elected officials wanted to hear – current year $341 million, and if spending stays at the current projection factoring in known increases without adding services, it will be a billion dollars more and $1.2 billion less in revenues to cover it.
Some things to note about the issue for this fiscal year:
For this year as a whole, this projects to about a 3.5 percent hit on the general fund minus dedicated funds which constitutionally means Gov. Bobby Jindal and the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget together can handle the cutting (although in reality, since half the year has gone by, it is a 7 percent real cut) by up to 5 percent in a fund
Over half of this, about $5 billion, for disbursement lies in statutory dedications many of which are stable but some potentially unpredictable in cost – for example, higher enrollments and tuitions at state universities through TOPS, those stemming from judicial proceedings, debt service increases, etc. – which must be paid without the budget going into deficit
The remainder is not statutorily dedicated and is considered totally discretionary in its treatment, of which almost 34 percent goes to higher education and 40 percent to health care – meaning that potentially if cuts are uniform across agencies at the 3.5 percent level, these two will absorb around $252 million in cuts, or a real reduction in their general fund allocations for the remainder of the fiscal year of 15.6 percent and to their overall budgets of 8 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively
About 29 percent, the largest portion, of the general fund goes to the Minimum Foundation Program, but that is the exception to the rule and can be cut at most only 1 percent, or around $27 million, providing less than 10 percent of the amount needed.
About $4.35 billion of statutory revenue dedications, as opposed to those of expenditures above, also come into the state’s coffers, but to redirect any of these immediately would require legislation from a special session, so the only savings here would be from operations such as those from executive orders recently issued by Jindal and then subsequent transfers of funds
Next year’s numbers truly are sobering (although not unreal such as those of 20 years ago were with a $1 billion deficit to a general fund that then was less than $4 billion in generated revenue), a drop of about 13 percent to around $8 billion in revenue for the general fund (note that as recently as May, the forecast for next fiscal year was essentially flat). Jindal wisely has promised not to use the Budget Stabilization Fund monies to tackle this year’s deficit because next year’s really will call for these funds. It also cries out for him to dump the maximum amount of funds from the declared fiscal year 2007-08 surplus into it to use next year.
This is serious. The head of my budget unit has called a faculty meeting tomorrow on 18 hours notice just to address this. It’s going to take quite a bit of skill to maneuver this just for this year’s alone so Jindal better be prepared to sacrifice his holidays (the budget must be brought in balance 30 days after a deficit projection or else a special session is triggered).
As for the future, as Jindal wisely has ruled out tax increases that might depress the economy even further, tinkering around the margins as Jindal can do for this fiscal year will be insufficient. Still, to put matters in perspective, the initial revenue forecast after the 2005 hurricane disasters pegged the general fund at $6.6 billion and $700 million worth of cuts made that turned out to be not needed to match realized revenues. If it could be done then, it can be done again.
Some things to note about the issue for this fiscal year:
Next year’s numbers truly are sobering (although not unreal such as those of 20 years ago were with a $1 billion deficit to a general fund that then was less than $4 billion in generated revenue), a drop of about 13 percent to around $8 billion in revenue for the general fund (note that as recently as May, the forecast for next fiscal year was essentially flat). Jindal wisely has promised not to use the Budget Stabilization Fund monies to tackle this year’s deficit because next year’s really will call for these funds. It also cries out for him to dump the maximum amount of funds from the declared fiscal year 2007-08 surplus into it to use next year.
This is serious. The head of my budget unit has called a faculty meeting tomorrow on 18 hours notice just to address this. It’s going to take quite a bit of skill to maneuver this just for this year’s alone so Jindal better be prepared to sacrifice his holidays (the budget must be brought in balance 30 days after a deficit projection or else a special session is triggered).
As for the future, as Jindal wisely has ruled out tax increases that might depress the economy even further, tinkering around the margins as Jindal can do for this fiscal year will be insufficient. Still, to put matters in perspective, the initial revenue forecast after the 2005 hurricane disasters pegged the general fund at $6.6 billion and $700 million worth of cuts made that turned out to be not needed to match realized revenues. If it could be done then, it can be done again.
Months later, wisdom of line item vetoes confirmed
Much wailing and gnashing of teeth occurred this summer when Gov. Bobby Jindal did what he said he would, cut down on state government money going to private interests. He employed his line item veto to excise around $16 million going to 258 nonprofit organizations, and some legislators who had one or more such entities in their districts made disapproving noises about how crippling the lack of funds would be for the organizations.
But Jindal and supporters of these moves pointed out that if these truly were desirable functions being performed, other sources of money would compensate for the loss of state funds, or the organizations would find more efficient ways of doing these things, or government formally would oversee the function. Almost six months later, this is exactly what has happened as opposed to the apocalyptic scenarios some legislators asserted would be the outcome.
Some organizations did find other philanthropic sources. Others relied more heavily on volunteers. Still others found ways to work more efficiently. Many had to cut back services to some degree, but that only demonstrates that perhaps they was an oversupply of that service to begin with or a more efficient way or alternative funding sources could not be found. In all, this demonstrates that government money was not being used as optimally as it should have been, as these other solutions and resolutions existed but had not been implemented precisely because of the free flow of money from government.
This disposition also points out why the system has existed so long, not because it is a good use of taxpayers’ monies, but because it suited the political needs of politicians. Legislators could promise money to these organizations, the members of which no doubt would work for that legislator’s reelection and sing that person’s praises. The governor could use line item veto threats of these kinds of projects to entice legislators to support his initiatives.
By taking the issue off the table, however, these political dynamics no longer apply. It was a bold move by Jindal, unilaterally surrendering this tool of power, but he did so and by his continuing to enforce this standard, the state will be better off.
But Jindal and supporters of these moves pointed out that if these truly were desirable functions being performed, other sources of money would compensate for the loss of state funds, or the organizations would find more efficient ways of doing these things, or government formally would oversee the function. Almost six months later, this is exactly what has happened as opposed to the apocalyptic scenarios some legislators asserted would be the outcome.
Some organizations did find other philanthropic sources. Others relied more heavily on volunteers. Still others found ways to work more efficiently. Many had to cut back services to some degree, but that only demonstrates that perhaps they was an oversupply of that service to begin with or a more efficient way or alternative funding sources could not be found. In all, this demonstrates that government money was not being used as optimally as it should have been, as these other solutions and resolutions existed but had not been implemented precisely because of the free flow of money from government.
This disposition also points out why the system has existed so long, not because it is a good use of taxpayers’ monies, but because it suited the political needs of politicians. Legislators could promise money to these organizations, the members of which no doubt would work for that legislator’s reelection and sing that person’s praises. The governor could use line item veto threats of these kinds of projects to entice legislators to support his initiatives.
By taking the issue off the table, however, these political dynamics no longer apply. It was a bold move by Jindal, unilaterally surrendering this tool of power, but he did so and by his continuing to enforce this standard, the state will be better off.
14.12.08
Fleming takes Democrats' best shot, likely to stay awhile
A year ago, when Rep. Jim McCrery semi-surprisingly announced his retirement, it would have been hard to believe that an obscure coroner from Webster Parish would succeed him. Lessons both locally and nationally may be learned from this.
Dr. John Fleming not only was not considered a contender at the time, he wasn’t even on the radar screen. But after a couple of big names passed as they liked their current situations, local Republicans were presented with a thin bench of elected officials to compete for this due to a mixture of age, inexperience, too much flirtation with the Democrats, or interest in keeping some semblance of a private life.
Still another factor loomed as well – 2008 was not shaping up to be a good GOP year on the national front. When around Baton Rouge a Democrat slid into that seat in a special election months later, that seemed to confirm the trend, and by then it was known a lackluster nominee would head the Republican ticket for the presidency.
This opened up the field for candidates willing to take risks and those who had little connection with government, given the anti-incumbent sentiment that more than anything else was hurting the GOP. Of the three Republicans who finally contested the nomination, only Fleming had any experience in elective office – serving as Webster Parish coroner from 1996-2000 by virtue of racking up about 7,000 votes, and then bowing out after a single term.
With no real record for any of these candidates to fall back on yet unabashedly conservative in their orientations, Fleming ultimately would come out on top because his personal story was the most compelling. Born of humble circumstances, by grit and wit he had persevered to become an extremely successful businessman – the antithesis to what many saw as the typical Washington politician. This was despite his being probably the most conservative candidate in the contest, articulating some issue preferences that on the surface can be easily caricatured negatively but in reality are nuanced, complex, and on the whole comprise very sound public policy.
Fleming then caught a couple of breaks with his Democrat opponent, retiring First District (Caddo Parish) Attorney Paul Carmouche. While Carmouche fit well the Democrat playbook for the South – be conservative on a few, mainly social, issues to mask a willingness to serve liberal interests in Washington – and had a much larger geographical base, the fact that he was a career politician who had not run a campaign in decades not only provided a lengthy record with sufficient negative fodder to publicize, but made it easy to have him appear as just another political insider.
However, as important was Mother Nature which sent Hurricane Gustav to cause postponement of state elections. Without this, the general election would have been held the same day as all national elections; instead, the runoff primaries for party nomination were pushed back to then. Carmouche would show his weakness as a competitor in two ways here: first, when he got forced into a runoff with a black retiree from the rural southern part of the district who spent a tenth of what Carmouche did, and that he, an old-time white politician preaching that he was conservative, depended so much on black voters for support. On Nov. 4, with Barack Obama on the top of the ticket, Carmouche got about 93,000 votes in wining the nomination.
But on Dec. 6, with no other contest on the ballot, in the general election that should have been on Nov. 4, not even 93,000 votes total were cast. Carmouche’s total was only about 47 percent of his runoff total, while Fleming exceeded his total from a month previous by 3 percent. In other words, a significant portion of Republicans who voted for Fleming’s runoff opponent showed up again and voted for Fleming, while many who had voted for Carmouche and his opponent, probably largely blacks, sat out the general election. Had an inspiring figure such as Obama topped the ticket as would have happened without the delay, Carmouche would have won.
Republicans have faced a lot of bad luck this election cycle, with the difference in the presidential election being an economic crisis triggered by Democrat over-regulation of the mortgage industry yet blame placed on Republicans. Yet the postponed election finally got something to break their way, at least in northwest Louisiana. And it’s a break Democrats will rue for years, because the Fourth District’s history is that once elected, a Member of Congress typically stays as long as he likes. Unless he makes some seriously questionable and/or liberal policy choices, Fleming can stay in this seat as long as he likes, thereby adding another chapter to his interesting life story.
Finally, when Republicans were down after Pres. Bill Clinton’s 1992 triumph, the first sign of a turnaround came when a Republican knocked off an incumbent Democrat senator a month later. Two years later, the GOP swept into power on Capitol Hill. Is the Fleming victory a sign that Republican fortunes are rebounding from their nadir?
Dr. John Fleming not only was not considered a contender at the time, he wasn’t even on the radar screen. But after a couple of big names passed as they liked their current situations, local Republicans were presented with a thin bench of elected officials to compete for this due to a mixture of age, inexperience, too much flirtation with the Democrats, or interest in keeping some semblance of a private life.
Still another factor loomed as well – 2008 was not shaping up to be a good GOP year on the national front. When around Baton Rouge a Democrat slid into that seat in a special election months later, that seemed to confirm the trend, and by then it was known a lackluster nominee would head the Republican ticket for the presidency.
This opened up the field for candidates willing to take risks and those who had little connection with government, given the anti-incumbent sentiment that more than anything else was hurting the GOP. Of the three Republicans who finally contested the nomination, only Fleming had any experience in elective office – serving as Webster Parish coroner from 1996-2000 by virtue of racking up about 7,000 votes, and then bowing out after a single term.
With no real record for any of these candidates to fall back on yet unabashedly conservative in their orientations, Fleming ultimately would come out on top because his personal story was the most compelling. Born of humble circumstances, by grit and wit he had persevered to become an extremely successful businessman – the antithesis to what many saw as the typical Washington politician. This was despite his being probably the most conservative candidate in the contest, articulating some issue preferences that on the surface can be easily caricatured negatively but in reality are nuanced, complex, and on the whole comprise very sound public policy.
Fleming then caught a couple of breaks with his Democrat opponent, retiring First District (Caddo Parish) Attorney Paul Carmouche. While Carmouche fit well the Democrat playbook for the South – be conservative on a few, mainly social, issues to mask a willingness to serve liberal interests in Washington – and had a much larger geographical base, the fact that he was a career politician who had not run a campaign in decades not only provided a lengthy record with sufficient negative fodder to publicize, but made it easy to have him appear as just another political insider.
However, as important was Mother Nature which sent Hurricane Gustav to cause postponement of state elections. Without this, the general election would have been held the same day as all national elections; instead, the runoff primaries for party nomination were pushed back to then. Carmouche would show his weakness as a competitor in two ways here: first, when he got forced into a runoff with a black retiree from the rural southern part of the district who spent a tenth of what Carmouche did, and that he, an old-time white politician preaching that he was conservative, depended so much on black voters for support. On Nov. 4, with Barack Obama on the top of the ticket, Carmouche got about 93,000 votes in wining the nomination.
But on Dec. 6, with no other contest on the ballot, in the general election that should have been on Nov. 4, not even 93,000 votes total were cast. Carmouche’s total was only about 47 percent of his runoff total, while Fleming exceeded his total from a month previous by 3 percent. In other words, a significant portion of Republicans who voted for Fleming’s runoff opponent showed up again and voted for Fleming, while many who had voted for Carmouche and his opponent, probably largely blacks, sat out the general election. Had an inspiring figure such as Obama topped the ticket as would have happened without the delay, Carmouche would have won.
Republicans have faced a lot of bad luck this election cycle, with the difference in the presidential election being an economic crisis triggered by Democrat over-regulation of the mortgage industry yet blame placed on Republicans. Yet the postponed election finally got something to break their way, at least in northwest Louisiana. And it’s a break Democrats will rue for years, because the Fourth District’s history is that once elected, a Member of Congress typically stays as long as he likes. Unless he makes some seriously questionable and/or liberal policy choices, Fleming can stay in this seat as long as he likes, thereby adding another chapter to his interesting life story.
Finally, when Republicans were down after Pres. Bill Clinton’s 1992 triumph, the first sign of a turnaround came when a Republican knocked off an incumbent Democrat senator a month later. Two years later, the GOP swept into power on Capitol Hill. Is the Fleming victory a sign that Republican fortunes are rebounding from their nadir?
11.12.08
Cao win puts another nail into Melancon's House coffin
Besides the obvious fact that the biggest loser of Anh “Joseph” Cao’s upset win over Rep. Bill Jefferson was the incumbent himself, next in line is the neighbor to the south, Rep. Charlie Melancon, and Louisiana Democrats as a whole.
A Democrat as is Jefferson, he is the most endangered species in the Louisiana House delegation since every single member other member now is a Republican. The giddy dreams some state party officials must have had now have turned nightmarish; the party had hoped to wiggle out of this election cycle with another Democrat to succeed Jefferson on the Second District, Paul Carmouche to pick up the open seat in the Fourth, and Rep. Don Cazayoux to retain the seat he has won by special election only months early, to give the delegation a majority in the state. Instead, despite all being at least even-money possibilities, all three wishes came up craps.
In the short run, the surviving Melancon (unopposed for reelection) really gains nothing more than he already had. Even had Jefferson won, the indictments hanging over his head would had rendered him largely ineffective as a powerbroker, so Melancon among the state’s House members, being of the same party as the current Congressional majority and incoming president (plus now among the most senior even just starting his third term), would still have been the most influential. But in the long run, the Cao upset along with these other GOP victories makes Melancon’s deteriorating position even worse.
With Louisiana very likely losing a House seat due to reapportionment in 2012, Melancon’s seat remains the most threatened. Three interests will jockey over this process, and two of them have a community of interest that will drive it. Republicans will want to create conditions that will ensure at least five of the six seats remain in their hands, while black Democrats will want a secure seat for themselves.
This cuts out white Democrats entirely, and the other two forces have the muscle to put this through the state legislature. Republicans already effectively control the House and while Democrats control the Senate, black legislators among them will defect on this issue. And of course Gov. Bobby Jindal whose approval is necessary on any plan and could only be bypassed with an impossible supermajority is a Republican.
The idea all along has been to carve up Melancon’s Third District and shifting other districts at the margins. This would allow the Second District to take in majority black areas of the Third and reach into the Sixth and First to do the same to reinforce its current black majority – necessary not only because of general population loss, but as a result of the hurricane disasters of 2005. These with the Seventh then can swallow up the Third.
Just in case black Democrats hesitate, Jindal and his allies can offer them a deal they can’t refuse. With depopulation costing New Orleans as many as five legislative seats, Republicans can offer to save most of these black legislators’ seats in exchange for dismantling the Third. Those affected incumbents will throw Melancon overboard faster than the Silver Zipper can charm a female ex-reporter.
But with the election of Cao, they may not need such inducements. The special circumstances of this contest are not likely to repeat, but they still demonstrate that the seat is not as safe as they might like for a black. Any thoughts they may have harbored about trying to eliminate a Republican seat against the odds to save Melancon’s surely are reduced now.
As 2010 approached, had a black Democrat been ensconced in the Second and Cazayoux or Carmouche or both in office, there would have been less concern about shoring up the majority black status of the Second and perhaps the Sixth or Fourth (likely the latter) would have been more vulnerable for elimination. But the 2008 cycle produced the worst possible outcome for Melancon, meaning this could be his last term. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, in 2010 he may take a chance opposing a slightly vulnerable Sen. David Vitter as the only opportunity to extend his political career past 2012.
A Democrat as is Jefferson, he is the most endangered species in the Louisiana House delegation since every single member other member now is a Republican. The giddy dreams some state party officials must have had now have turned nightmarish; the party had hoped to wiggle out of this election cycle with another Democrat to succeed Jefferson on the Second District, Paul Carmouche to pick up the open seat in the Fourth, and Rep. Don Cazayoux to retain the seat he has won by special election only months early, to give the delegation a majority in the state. Instead, despite all being at least even-money possibilities, all three wishes came up craps.
In the short run, the surviving Melancon (unopposed for reelection) really gains nothing more than he already had. Even had Jefferson won, the indictments hanging over his head would had rendered him largely ineffective as a powerbroker, so Melancon among the state’s House members, being of the same party as the current Congressional majority and incoming president (plus now among the most senior even just starting his third term), would still have been the most influential. But in the long run, the Cao upset along with these other GOP victories makes Melancon’s deteriorating position even worse.
With Louisiana very likely losing a House seat due to reapportionment in 2012, Melancon’s seat remains the most threatened. Three interests will jockey over this process, and two of them have a community of interest that will drive it. Republicans will want to create conditions that will ensure at least five of the six seats remain in their hands, while black Democrats will want a secure seat for themselves.
This cuts out white Democrats entirely, and the other two forces have the muscle to put this through the state legislature. Republicans already effectively control the House and while Democrats control the Senate, black legislators among them will defect on this issue. And of course Gov. Bobby Jindal whose approval is necessary on any plan and could only be bypassed with an impossible supermajority is a Republican.
The idea all along has been to carve up Melancon’s Third District and shifting other districts at the margins. This would allow the Second District to take in majority black areas of the Third and reach into the Sixth and First to do the same to reinforce its current black majority – necessary not only because of general population loss, but as a result of the hurricane disasters of 2005. These with the Seventh then can swallow up the Third.
Just in case black Democrats hesitate, Jindal and his allies can offer them a deal they can’t refuse. With depopulation costing New Orleans as many as five legislative seats, Republicans can offer to save most of these black legislators’ seats in exchange for dismantling the Third. Those affected incumbents will throw Melancon overboard faster than the Silver Zipper can charm a female ex-reporter.
But with the election of Cao, they may not need such inducements. The special circumstances of this contest are not likely to repeat, but they still demonstrate that the seat is not as safe as they might like for a black. Any thoughts they may have harbored about trying to eliminate a Republican seat against the odds to save Melancon’s surely are reduced now.
As 2010 approached, had a black Democrat been ensconced in the Second and Cazayoux or Carmouche or both in office, there would have been less concern about shoring up the majority black status of the Second and perhaps the Sixth or Fourth (likely the latter) would have been more vulnerable for elimination. But the 2008 cycle produced the worst possible outcome for Melancon, meaning this could be his last term. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, in 2010 he may take a chance opposing a slightly vulnerable Sen. David Vitter as the only opportunity to extend his political career past 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)