Some of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s announced education initiatives smack so much of common sense one wonders why they haven’t been done before (or were discontinued decades ago). Others portend potential contentious policy battles. Either way, from the broad outlines he presented yesterday, they seem bound to improve elementary and secondary education in Louisiana.
Jindal’s education legislative agenda addresses four areas. The first deals with charter school regulation. So far, the move to allow these institutions which operate much like state-run schools except with fewer regulations has turned out to be a success, with outcomes improvement outpacing that of government schools especially in the cases where charters took over academically unacceptable institutions. Jindal wants to increase regulation at the low end of these kinds of schools by having them vetted by the national professional association of them and hopefully at the high end making them perform even better by allowing faith-based organizations to organize and run charter schools.
The last matter will draw opposition from the usual anti-religion zealots but these political or constitutional matters should not stand in the way of this proposal’s passage. So long as religion is not advocated mandatorily in the classroom, it should not matter who runs the school. Another issue, allowing simple majorities rather than two-thirds votes of teachers to request a move of their school into charter status should prove even more controversial, as the education establishment and teachers’ unions historically have fought charter schools because they take resources and power out of the hands of the former and the latter cannot protect mediocre performers in exchange for their support in unions’ quest to redistribute resources from taxpayers to their members.
A second is in minor tweaking to teacher assessment. While competency testing and additional forms of accountability measuring for teachers are badly needed in Louisiana education and would do more than any other reform to improve schooling, this very small step to improve the manner of assessment is positive.
Third, Jindal will stump for broader authority to remove disruptive students from the classroom. The tolerated presence of such students is a major problem in low-performing schools in that acting up interferes with learning by students who want education. Less coddling may draw opposition from the education establishment which fears obnoxious parents berating them for acting firmly against their overindulged and/or unsupervised children, but at least they would have the law on their side now.
In addition, the plan sensibly argues for alternative instruction of these suspended students. Rather than have them sit out with most neglecting studies, they would be put into after-school or Saturday learning situations in order to allow them to keep up with their studies but in an environment where they can’t hold others’ learning hostage. The hangup here will be this likely will cost more money and the annual automatic Minimum Foundation Program funding is not designed to incorpoarte something like this. Additional appropriation for these kinds of programs may be necessary, but these are tight budgetary times. Yet if implemented, these ideas could make a dent in the dropout rates that plague state education.
Finally, another big part of the dropout tendency, truancy, Jindal addresses also. Laws would be strengthened to put more of the onus for discouraging this activity on parents. They would be notified immediately of absences, extant fines that can be levied on parents for repeated truancy would be increased, and alternative penalties are proposed to be added. Sensibly, in the case of minors society holds parents responsible for many of their actions and truancy should be no exception. If parents face sanctions for their children’s bad behavior, it should prompt them to put greater effort into better parenting to prevent it; one suggestion is that mandatory parenting classes be an option for remediation.
Jindal smartly recognizes that mindless dispersal of more money to administrators and teachers to improve education has diminishing returns, a point probably largely reached in Louisiana. The focus must be on the philosophy and procedures to produce superior learning which means wringing out of the system the attitude that self-actualization means more than learning facts and how to reason, or the difference between gearing the system towards a lowest common denominator and challenging all to rise up – even if that means in the case of some to use an iron fist in a velvet glove to motivate them. If the legislation that accompanies this broad outline adheres to this thinking and passes, in the coming years Louisiana will reap significant benefits.
11.2.09
Jindal travel critiques need to show its harm to LA
Where in the world is Gov. Bobby Jindal? Learning that you just can’t win as governor on the issue of travel.
When former Gov. Mike Foster spent perhaps a couple of days of his entire eight years in office outside of Louisiana, critics said he should be out “selling” the state. When former Gov. Kathleen Blanco tried, almost totally unsuccessfully, to do just that, critics rightly pointed out such quixotic travel did taxpayers a disservice. Now Jindal is coming under fire not because he goes nowhere, not because his travels on state expense yield next to nothing in return, but because he goes everywhere on his own (campaign’s) dime.
Jindal just isn’t taking off on a whim, at least he’s getting invited to deliver speeches that often only tangentially address state issues. This is why his organization or others pay for his peripatetic lifestyle. The main focus of these is Republican party-building and refreshing his own campaign coffers, and to date he has been doing it in a way that has gotten him noticed on the national scene to the point he has been selected as the counterpoint to Pres. Barack Obama’s state of the union lite speech in 13 days.
The question is, does this schedule help or harm the state? On the balance, from current evidence, the answer is the former. These speaking trips don’t cost the state’s taxpayer’s a dime, they do at least present Louisiana in a positive light, and they don’t preclude Jindal from taking “homework” along. In fact, when Jindal let a legislative pay raise controversy get out of hand last year while firmly ensconced at the Capitol this showed he didn’t have to be out of state to let inattention play havoc with his agenda.
Some argue against the extensive travel because it somehow detracts from his ability to do the job as governor, although they never explain exactly how that occurs and/or how the state would be better off if he stuck around Baton Rouge more. That’s probably an assertion that won’t fully be answered until it comes time for the 2011 contest for governor, when a comprehensive comparison of what Jindal said he would do against what he actually has done can happen.
So far, Jindal has initiated meaningful (despite some lame protestations otherwise) ethics reform, backed a few business tax cuts early, did not stand in the way of individual income tax cuts late, restructured workforce development, and curbed some low-priority government spending. Still on the agenda are health care reform to increase efficiency, realigning higher education spending on the basis of outcomes, eliminating even more dubious government spending, and (for a grand slam) the elimination of individual income taxation.
If Jindal can accomplish all of this in the next almost three years, such a record of achievement would demonstrate that travel didn’t seem to impede it. But if he lacks the political will and/or capital to do much more than he has, then the travel issue becomes legitimate. But until then, unless somebody can demonstrate exactly how Jindal is putting too much time into talking and not enough into doing, this criticism seems pointless.
When former Gov. Mike Foster spent perhaps a couple of days of his entire eight years in office outside of Louisiana, critics said he should be out “selling” the state. When former Gov. Kathleen Blanco tried, almost totally unsuccessfully, to do just that, critics rightly pointed out such quixotic travel did taxpayers a disservice. Now Jindal is coming under fire not because he goes nowhere, not because his travels on state expense yield next to nothing in return, but because he goes everywhere on his own (campaign’s) dime.
Jindal just isn’t taking off on a whim, at least he’s getting invited to deliver speeches that often only tangentially address state issues. This is why his organization or others pay for his peripatetic lifestyle. The main focus of these is Republican party-building and refreshing his own campaign coffers, and to date he has been doing it in a way that has gotten him noticed on the national scene to the point he has been selected as the counterpoint to Pres. Barack Obama’s state of the union lite speech in 13 days.
The question is, does this schedule help or harm the state? On the balance, from current evidence, the answer is the former. These speaking trips don’t cost the state’s taxpayer’s a dime, they do at least present Louisiana in a positive light, and they don’t preclude Jindal from taking “homework” along. In fact, when Jindal let a legislative pay raise controversy get out of hand last year while firmly ensconced at the Capitol this showed he didn’t have to be out of state to let inattention play havoc with his agenda.
Some argue against the extensive travel because it somehow detracts from his ability to do the job as governor, although they never explain exactly how that occurs and/or how the state would be better off if he stuck around Baton Rouge more. That’s probably an assertion that won’t fully be answered until it comes time for the 2011 contest for governor, when a comprehensive comparison of what Jindal said he would do against what he actually has done can happen.
So far, Jindal has initiated meaningful (despite some lame protestations otherwise) ethics reform, backed a few business tax cuts early, did not stand in the way of individual income tax cuts late, restructured workforce development, and curbed some low-priority government spending. Still on the agenda are health care reform to increase efficiency, realigning higher education spending on the basis of outcomes, eliminating even more dubious government spending, and (for a grand slam) the elimination of individual income taxation.
If Jindal can accomplish all of this in the next almost three years, such a record of achievement would demonstrate that travel didn’t seem to impede it. But if he lacks the political will and/or capital to do much more than he has, then the travel issue becomes legitimate. But until then, unless somebody can demonstrate exactly how Jindal is putting too much time into talking and not enough into doing, this criticism seems pointless.
10.2.09
Higher exemption fails to address real problem of taxes
The mistake being made by those who support an increase in the homestead exemption is that it won’t reduce their overall taxes by much if at all, it will merely change the way in which they pay it.
For years, now-state Sen. John Alario has introduced legislation to raise the level from the nation-high $75,000 to $100,000. A New Orleans real estate agent (who no doubt believes a higher exemption will make housing more attractive, bringing more sales and him more commissions) has upped the ante in an online petition to $170,000. The proposal has an inflation-adjusted mechanism that he says if present when the last change was made in 1982 would have put the level at $160,000 today.
Rightfully, he notes that the state Constitution can foist automatic increases in property taxes when reassessment occurs quadrennially if local taxing bodies vote to roll forward millages to their present levels. The thinking of this proposal is that an increased homestead exemption, which prevents parish governments from taxing on that amount of value, will help mitigate higher taxes forced upon homeowners in that way.
But this is entirely the wrong approach because it addresses exceptions to taxation, not the actual level of taxation itself, an approach that won’t do much to reduce its overall level. Raising the exemption will prompt governments subject to it simply roll forward millages. Worse, it could tempt the state which constitutionally can levy its own property tax but which presently defers to do that. If these things are done, high-valued homeowners could find their overall amounts going up, making the burden already more inequitable. This means many with homes valued between $75,000 and $170,000 may see little or no decrease, while those owners of abodes above $170,000 may see an increase. And the inflation trigger will only goad governments into taking these steps.
One of the great mistaken assumptions concerning the exemption is those who fall under it thinking they don’t pay for the exemption. This is faulty. If, for example, as a response to a higher exemption government prevents rolling back, this becomes a tax increase to businesses and owners of rental property. They will then raise their prices or rents to compensate, passing this cost in part onto those who don’t directly pay property taxes. Because the burden is being shifted, the overall level of taxation, the real problem, does not get addressed.
If you want to address the question of property taxes being too high, the answer lies in the procedure for dealing with reassessment. Currently, it takes a two-thirds vote by a taxing authority to roll forward. If people are upset with an increase in taxes, they should take it out on their elected representatives who did it to them. However, some bodies that have this power have appointed members, so mechanisms should be put in place to control their ability to do this, perhaps by amending the Constitution (as has been tried) to also bring rolling forward to a vote of the people. In addition, people simply could exercise the franchise by voting down new proposals or renewals of property taxes, instead of fiddling with the exemption.
The trick is not to make somebody else pay, which only imperfectly avoids you paying, but to make sure everybody pays less. That comes through mechanisms to promote overall reduction, not redistribution of tax burden as this flawed proposal
9.2.09
Ending costly subsidies encourages moving forward
It’s too bad that Hurricane Katrina had to strike the New Orleans area about 42 months ago, displacing hundreds of thousands who had to find new places to live and means to finance them. But enough is enough: the federal program that subsidizes rent for those who are verified as having lived in an area hit by Katrina needs to end on schedule at the end of this month.
For some, the elderly and disabled, slack should be given and a federal program to do so is starting operations. If processing applications is too slow, extensions should be given to ensure all who are eligible and care to sign up have the chance.
But as for able-bodied others, consider that it has been three-and-a-half years since the disaster. The vast majority of the 17,000 households receiving the subsidy in Louisiana had lived in Federal Emergency Management Administration manufactured housing parks until they were closed at the end of May of last year, so they have known about this deadline for the past nine months and had plenty of time to make preparations. Regardless of prior living arrangements, the deadline has been known by all for months and years.
For some, the elderly and disabled, slack should be given and a federal program to do so is starting operations. If processing applications is too slow, extensions should be given to ensure all who are eligible and care to sign up have the chance.
But as for able-bodied others, consider that it has been three-and-a-half years since the disaster. The vast majority of the 17,000 households receiving the subsidy in Louisiana had lived in Federal Emergency Management Administration manufactured housing parks until they were closed at the end of May of last year, so they have known about this deadline for the past nine months and had plenty of time to make preparations. Regardless of prior living arrangements, the deadline has been known by all for months and years.
8.2.09
Dire charity hospital scenario may work in reform's favor
In response to requests from the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration, the Louisiana State University system which runs the state’s charity hospitals prepared reports of the impact of impending budget cuts, including the worst case scenario. Despite a small percentage loss, that scenario predicted a major impact. But would that be so bad?
The operation of these hospitals consumes only $90 million of the general fund out of $971 million spent by the unit, of which the largest projected cut is $31 million. However, that portion that does come from the general fund mostly covers medical direct-care personnel and prisoner care, the latter of which the Jindal Administration said not to cut. The system argues that having to do without some of that personnel would require closing some services that would have, at its most extensive, a ripple effect that would close three unnamed hospitals. Even the best-case scenario would turn two into out-patient-only facilities.
Yet when contemplating this outcome and putting in the context of grander plans that Jindal has for the restructuring of indigent care in Louisiana, these might not be bad alternatives. This plan would provide incentives to move indigents out of the inefficient current system that promotes the ill to troop to a government hospital regardless of the nature of the malady, to one that uses the private sector for more efficient utilization of services that likely would shift usage away from charity hospitals towards non-government facilities, with lower per-patient costs to the taxpayer.
Cuts in the charity system could speed the process along. In fact, one aspect of Jindal’s plan coincides with an outcome identified by the LSU system, making Lake Charles’ W.O. Moss Medical Center into an out-patient-only facility. This might argue making them in the larger urban areas (although paying attention to the medical education missions in New Orleans and Shreveport) where there is more slack for the private sector to pick up.
If Jindal is smart, as mentioned elsewhere he can use budgetary problems to accelerate and more comprehensively introduce government spending reforms as flush coffers would allow opponents who believe big government should provide all more cover to obstruct reform. Using this tool of necessity, Jindal could save not just the relatively small projected amount, but leverage that to drive down expenses in covering the indigent while have care provided as good or even better to more people.
Even if the “no government spending left behind” debt-inducing spending package championed by national Democrats gets rammed into law, Jindal would be wise to follow his reformist instincts and not let that interfere with this opportunity. The Legislature may thwart him in the end, but as the health care spending crisis of the state continues to eat away at state resources, he at least must try.
The operation of these hospitals consumes only $90 million of the general fund out of $971 million spent by the unit, of which the largest projected cut is $31 million. However, that portion that does come from the general fund mostly covers medical direct-care personnel and prisoner care, the latter of which the Jindal Administration said not to cut. The system argues that having to do without some of that personnel would require closing some services that would have, at its most extensive, a ripple effect that would close three unnamed hospitals. Even the best-case scenario would turn two into out-patient-only facilities.
Yet when contemplating this outcome and putting in the context of grander plans that Jindal has for the restructuring of indigent care in Louisiana, these might not be bad alternatives. This plan would provide incentives to move indigents out of the inefficient current system that promotes the ill to troop to a government hospital regardless of the nature of the malady, to one that uses the private sector for more efficient utilization of services that likely would shift usage away from charity hospitals towards non-government facilities, with lower per-patient costs to the taxpayer.
Cuts in the charity system could speed the process along. In fact, one aspect of Jindal’s plan coincides with an outcome identified by the LSU system, making Lake Charles’ W.O. Moss Medical Center into an out-patient-only facility. This might argue making them in the larger urban areas (although paying attention to the medical education missions in New Orleans and Shreveport) where there is more slack for the private sector to pick up.
If Jindal is smart, as mentioned elsewhere he can use budgetary problems to accelerate and more comprehensively introduce government spending reforms as flush coffers would allow opponents who believe big government should provide all more cover to obstruct reform. Using this tool of necessity, Jindal could save not just the relatively small projected amount, but leverage that to drive down expenses in covering the indigent while have care provided as good or even better to more people.
Even if the “no government spending left behind” debt-inducing spending package championed by national Democrats gets rammed into law, Jindal would be wise to follow his reformist instincts and not let that interfere with this opportunity. The Legislature may thwart him in the end, but as the health care spending crisis of the state continues to eat away at state resources, he at least must try.
5.2.09
More symptoms appear; LA instead must treat disease
Yesterday a number of policy developments around Louisiana demonstrated why the state lags the country in so many ways. Disparate as they were, they share they common element that temptation to treat symptoms lets the disease rage on.
A legislative panel was told that the special TIMED tax of 4 cents per gallon of gas collected for the past 20 years still will not be enough to finish the 16 special projects the extra tax is supposed to fund. It appears one cent now will have to be diverted from the regular 16 cents per gallon tax for the next 35 years and maybe even beyond to pay off bonds issued to complete all but two projects by 2013 – at least an extra $1 billion that could have gone to other roads, and it still leaves off two projects.
Another panel heard about how local government retirees were unlikely to receive cost-of-living-adjustments because of the chronic underfunding of many state retirement funds. The latest estimates put the combined figure in the neighborhood of $12 billion, which constitutionally must be eliminated by 2029. As part of that amendment, retirees can’t get a COLA if a certain proportional target isn’t met annually towards fully funding by the target date. This may be met by a combination of actuarial dynamics, transfer of additional money into the system by the Legislature, or superior investment returns. With investments doing poorly in the current market environment, this may prevent COLAs for years.
And announced by the LSU System was the full extent of budget cuts under the most draconian assumptions which were said to impair significantly the quality of higher education in that system. These are foisted onto higher education because of constitutional and legal restrictions relevant to deficit avoidance that make it, in relative terms of its portion of the budget at risk, the most vulnerable function of state government when revenues slack.
There are solutions to each of these difficulties. Money can be diverted from the regular road fund to TIMED. The Legislature can override the prohibition of a COLA in order to not make those about to retire victims of bad timing. Creative budgetary maneuvers can reduce the impact on higher education, but to go without cuts or even accepting cuts that are not significant, only tax increases could fill the gap.
But recognize that all of these palliatives address symptoms of the larger disease, which is and has been in Louisiana for the better part of a century poor choices related to the purposes of raising revenue and spending them by the government. These policy responses in no way address, and even exacerbate, this fundamental shortcoming to which only recently has come slow change.
In the case of roads, there is no way that monetary inflation alone can explain how a set of projects has better than quadrupled in cost over 20 years (one, the Huey P. Long bridge, is now 20 times more expensive – meaning every year since the project was on the boards its costs have gone up by the original total amount). Only a combination of mismanagement and/or fraud could explain this stunning escalation. And so much money that could have gone to roads has been wasted on idiocy such as reservoirs that allowed, the state alleges, local government officials and their agents to corruptly profit on this.
Regarding pension COLAs, the fact is until recently Louisiana offered extremely generous benefits particularly in the area of retirement, only some years ago being reduced to just very generous (not just in terms of amounts, but in coverage such as allowing part-timers like elected officials to be in it). Reckless promises were made, and since 1986 the Legislature has made little effort to shore up the unfunded portion despite full knowledge of it. Here again, rather than pay for horse barns money could have gone to real needs.
Finally, with higher education the legal constraints are just part of larger problem of a state set of ethics, regulatory, and fiscal structures which historically have created disincentives for economic development. This means state revenues that provide the majority of funding for it are lower than they could have been, constricting provision of this good and inviting a response of raising taxes to compensate – which only aggravates the situation by choking off growth even further and perpetuating the cycle of trying to feed the golden goose of economic development by killing it.
All of these problems are coming home to roost, and the only solution in the short term that will not create problems in the longer term is to tighten belts. In the long term, the slow shift of attitudes from big government being the solution to problems to big government being the problem must continue if not accelerate. This alteration may cause short-term pain, but would be more than compensated for by long-term gain.
A legislative panel was told that the special TIMED tax of 4 cents per gallon of gas collected for the past 20 years still will not be enough to finish the 16 special projects the extra tax is supposed to fund. It appears one cent now will have to be diverted from the regular 16 cents per gallon tax for the next 35 years and maybe even beyond to pay off bonds issued to complete all but two projects by 2013 – at least an extra $1 billion that could have gone to other roads, and it still leaves off two projects.
Another panel heard about how local government retirees were unlikely to receive cost-of-living-adjustments because of the chronic underfunding of many state retirement funds. The latest estimates put the combined figure in the neighborhood of $12 billion, which constitutionally must be eliminated by 2029. As part of that amendment, retirees can’t get a COLA if a certain proportional target isn’t met annually towards fully funding by the target date. This may be met by a combination of actuarial dynamics, transfer of additional money into the system by the Legislature, or superior investment returns. With investments doing poorly in the current market environment, this may prevent COLAs for years.
And announced by the LSU System was the full extent of budget cuts under the most draconian assumptions which were said to impair significantly the quality of higher education in that system. These are foisted onto higher education because of constitutional and legal restrictions relevant to deficit avoidance that make it, in relative terms of its portion of the budget at risk, the most vulnerable function of state government when revenues slack.
There are solutions to each of these difficulties. Money can be diverted from the regular road fund to TIMED. The Legislature can override the prohibition of a COLA in order to not make those about to retire victims of bad timing. Creative budgetary maneuvers can reduce the impact on higher education, but to go without cuts or even accepting cuts that are not significant, only tax increases could fill the gap.
But recognize that all of these palliatives address symptoms of the larger disease, which is and has been in Louisiana for the better part of a century poor choices related to the purposes of raising revenue and spending them by the government. These policy responses in no way address, and even exacerbate, this fundamental shortcoming to which only recently has come slow change.
In the case of roads, there is no way that monetary inflation alone can explain how a set of projects has better than quadrupled in cost over 20 years (one, the Huey P. Long bridge, is now 20 times more expensive – meaning every year since the project was on the boards its costs have gone up by the original total amount). Only a combination of mismanagement and/or fraud could explain this stunning escalation. And so much money that could have gone to roads has been wasted on idiocy such as reservoirs that allowed, the state alleges, local government officials and their agents to corruptly profit on this.
Regarding pension COLAs, the fact is until recently Louisiana offered extremely generous benefits particularly in the area of retirement, only some years ago being reduced to just very generous (not just in terms of amounts, but in coverage such as allowing part-timers like elected officials to be in it). Reckless promises were made, and since 1986 the Legislature has made little effort to shore up the unfunded portion despite full knowledge of it. Here again, rather than pay for horse barns money could have gone to real needs.
Finally, with higher education the legal constraints are just part of larger problem of a state set of ethics, regulatory, and fiscal structures which historically have created disincentives for economic development. This means state revenues that provide the majority of funding for it are lower than they could have been, constricting provision of this good and inviting a response of raising taxes to compensate – which only aggravates the situation by choking off growth even further and perpetuating the cycle of trying to feed the golden goose of economic development by killing it.
All of these problems are coming home to roost, and the only solution in the short term that will not create problems in the longer term is to tighten belts. In the long term, the slow shift of attitudes from big government being the solution to problems to big government being the problem must continue if not accelerate. This alteration may cause short-term pain, but would be more than compensated for by long-term gain.
4.2.09
Shreveport burns itself again with tax dollar giveaway
It's signing day for college football teams across America, the first day recruits formally can commit themselves to a school's scholarship offer. But around northwest Louisiana, it additionally serves as a reminder to take that imposing structure next to the Fairgrounds called Independence Stadium and chuck it. And maybe some Shreveport politicians with it?
Seems like the stadium serves as a dangerous object to Shreveport politicians who are preternaturally compelled to throw money at things having to do with it in a way that ends up costing the taxpayer every time. One merely has to review the venture capital episode with the Shreveport Pirates in the Canadian Football League, or the remodeling and expansion of the Stadium a few years later which devolved into disputes, litigation, and extra city expense, and now bailing out the Independence Bowl Foundation. Each involved presumed defaults of hundreds of thousands to million of dollars. Each now additionally has required expensive litigation with the prospects that not all that is owed will be recouped.
Some fault needs to be assigned to the Foundation. Heads were scratched when a couple of years past it was announced PetroSun, currently sued by the Foundation for breach on contract even as Shreveport made good on the money owed and is promised by the Foundation to get whatever recompense the suit produces, was accepted by the Foundation as the title sponsor of the game. PetroSun essentially was a “pink sheet” company whose equities traded over-the-counter. They weren’t even required to post financial statements publicly.
Seems like the stadium serves as a dangerous object to Shreveport politicians who are preternaturally compelled to throw money at things having to do with it in a way that ends up costing the taxpayer every time. One merely has to review the venture capital episode with the Shreveport Pirates in the Canadian Football League, or the remodeling and expansion of the Stadium a few years later which devolved into disputes, litigation, and extra city expense, and now bailing out the Independence Bowl Foundation. Each involved presumed defaults of hundreds of thousands to million of dollars. Each now additionally has required expensive litigation with the prospects that not all that is owed will be recouped.
Some fault needs to be assigned to the Foundation. Heads were scratched when a couple of years past it was announced PetroSun, currently sued by the Foundation for breach on contract even as Shreveport made good on the money owed and is promised by the Foundation to get whatever recompense the suit produces, was accepted by the Foundation as the title sponsor of the game. PetroSun essentially was a “pink sheet” company whose equities traded over-the-counter. They weren’t even required to post financial statements publicly.
3.2.09
Democrats wasting money on attacks on LA Republicans
Some have mused (including me) whether the election last Dec. 6 of Reps. Anh “Jospeh” Cao and John Fleming signaled Democrat fortunes had reached their crest and now Republicans would begin to ascend at their expense. That trend will manifest with surety if Democrats continue to help out their opponents.
As did every Republican in the House along with 10 Democrats, Cao, Fleming, and Rep. Bill Cassidy, another freshman elected a month prior to them, votes against the version of the “no government left behind” bill that produces massive government spending that swells the national debt almost 10 percent on a liberal wish list of items most of which will produce little economic stimulus in the near future. It also provides for one-time tax breaks of $500 or $1,000 to those families that draw paychecks, but also transfers wealth to those who pay little or no taxes up to the same amount, neither of which provides much if any boost compared permanent cuts for only those who pay taxes.
This the American people see, that this is a far cry from what was promised by Pres. Barack Obama who said he would attack wasteful spending and provide meaningful tax cuts. Polling shows 54 percent do not want it passed in its current form, and even more believe it will not help much and certainly not immediately. Those are nationwide numbers; chances are that at least in Fleming’s Fourth and Cassidy’s Sixth Districts with their higher proportion of conservative voters the number for support are even more dismal.
Yet Democrats have gotten the notion that they should run ads criticizing these three for their votes against this unpopular plan, on the basis that Fleming won narrowly, they think Cassidy would not have won without a black Democrat the party alienated running in the general election as an independent, and because Cao won in a majority black district. Only in the case of Cao are they correct that such ads will pay off by assisting defeat of these incumbents. Even in Cao’s case, that is a kind of defeat, for this represents resources that the party would not usually have to spend, which could have gone elsewhere to help other Democrats.
So let Democrats waste their money on these enterprises. It may presage a coming Republican comeback in 2010 that grows more certain as Obama fumbles away his early days in office by botched appointments and policy charades the American people clearly see through.
As did every Republican in the House along with 10 Democrats, Cao, Fleming, and Rep. Bill Cassidy, another freshman elected a month prior to them, votes against the version of the “no government left behind” bill that produces massive government spending that swells the national debt almost 10 percent on a liberal wish list of items most of which will produce little economic stimulus in the near future. It also provides for one-time tax breaks of $500 or $1,000 to those families that draw paychecks, but also transfers wealth to those who pay little or no taxes up to the same amount, neither of which provides much if any boost compared permanent cuts for only those who pay taxes.
This the American people see, that this is a far cry from what was promised by Pres. Barack Obama who said he would attack wasteful spending and provide meaningful tax cuts. Polling shows 54 percent do not want it passed in its current form, and even more believe it will not help much and certainly not immediately. Those are nationwide numbers; chances are that at least in Fleming’s Fourth and Cassidy’s Sixth Districts with their higher proportion of conservative voters the number for support are even more dismal.
Yet Democrats have gotten the notion that they should run ads criticizing these three for their votes against this unpopular plan, on the basis that Fleming won narrowly, they think Cassidy would not have won without a black Democrat the party alienated running in the general election as an independent, and because Cao won in a majority black district. Only in the case of Cao are they correct that such ads will pay off by assisting defeat of these incumbents. Even in Cao’s case, that is a kind of defeat, for this represents resources that the party would not usually have to spend, which could have gone elsewhere to help other Democrats.
So let Democrats waste their money on these enterprises. It may presage a coming Republican comeback in 2010 that grows more certain as Obama fumbles away his early days in office by botched appointments and policy charades the American people clearly see through.
2.2.09
Less govt proving effective for LA insurance provision
It’s good to know when state government gets something right and how to do even better. The evolution of homeowner insurance regulation in Louisiana over the past three years provides such an opportunity.
A few years ago, in order to insure riskier areas of the state, it altered its means of homeowner insurance provision by creating the Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, a state-run insurer of last resort that would write policies where no private sector insurer would go. Unfortunately, a couple of years later before its accounts had built up, the hurricane disasters of 2005 wiped out its resources and led to a state bailout.
The agency also faced internal problems. Cozy arrangements with the insurance industry led to a lack of internal controls that now have brought allegations that its former head Terry Lisotta engaged in fraudulent if not corrupt practices. It also brought mismanagement, most prominently in its record-keeping that to this day casts doubt on the actual financial position of the agency. Finally, it might have broken the law by allowing rates that were too low; Citizens must charge a 10 percent higher rate than a basket of private providers in a parish except in 12 coastal parishes until Aug. 15. 2010.
A few years ago, in order to insure riskier areas of the state, it altered its means of homeowner insurance provision by creating the Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, a state-run insurer of last resort that would write policies where no private sector insurer would go. Unfortunately, a couple of years later before its accounts had built up, the hurricane disasters of 2005 wiped out its resources and led to a state bailout.
The agency also faced internal problems. Cozy arrangements with the insurance industry led to a lack of internal controls that now have brought allegations that its former head Terry Lisotta engaged in fraudulent if not corrupt practices. It also brought mismanagement, most prominently in its record-keeping that to this day casts doubt on the actual financial position of the agency. Finally, it might have broken the law by allowing rates that were too low; Citizens must charge a 10 percent higher rate than a basket of private providers in a parish except in 12 coastal parishes until Aug. 15. 2010.
1.2.09
Spreading federal election calendar out desirable option
Many of Louisiana’s registrars of voters made an intriguing suggestion last week, to push the primary election process for federal elections earlier in the calendar. The way it works now, four weeks separate the primary from a potential runoff, and then a month later the general election follows. Given that early voting starts two weeks before the Saturday elections and lasts essentially eight days, and that registrations at least 30 days prior to an election must be checked, the time periods between the elections are packed and put strains on the capacities of registrars.
Louisiana, as it is, for federal elections has the most condensed election cycle in the country. Only a couple of states have primaries later for these offices, and none that has which includes a runoff which most states don’t have has its primary as late as Louisiana’s first Saturday in September. Georgia’s first Tuesday in August is the latest of the four states with runoffs.
Campaigning already begins several months in advance from the actual general election day, so fears about earlier dates creating a longer campaign season should dissipate. Only campaign consultants and the media should abhor a quicker date, as there will be less time for candidates to blow money on ads and other campaign services.
In fact, there could be only one real objection to the change. In Texas, for example, primaries are in March and then almost eight months pass to the general election. With that much time in between, the fancy back then months later may not strike partisans as the optimal candidate to send as the party’s nominee. A more-compressed timeline, necessarily involving a later primary date, is likelier to produce a candidate whose concerns strike a chord closer to voters on the general election day, since those same dynamics will play a stronger role in a later rather than earlier contest.
But this is an extreme example. Adoption of a regime similar to Georgia’s (which actually may have a runoff to a general election), a month earlier, should not substantially separate a primary choice from conditions more trenchant around the general election. A first-week-in- August with a third-week-in-September runoff might serve Louisiana just as well, and certainly would provide for less overtime and likely better performance therefore from the state’s registrars. And it might do a better job of dodging the odd hurricane here and there, which disrupted the 2008 elections, also. Hopefully we’ll see such a bill in the 2009 legislative session.
Louisiana, as it is, for federal elections has the most condensed election cycle in the country. Only a couple of states have primaries later for these offices, and none that has which includes a runoff which most states don’t have has its primary as late as Louisiana’s first Saturday in September. Georgia’s first Tuesday in August is the latest of the four states with runoffs.
Campaigning already begins several months in advance from the actual general election day, so fears about earlier dates creating a longer campaign season should dissipate. Only campaign consultants and the media should abhor a quicker date, as there will be less time for candidates to blow money on ads and other campaign services.
In fact, there could be only one real objection to the change. In Texas, for example, primaries are in March and then almost eight months pass to the general election. With that much time in between, the fancy back then months later may not strike partisans as the optimal candidate to send as the party’s nominee. A more-compressed timeline, necessarily involving a later primary date, is likelier to produce a candidate whose concerns strike a chord closer to voters on the general election day, since those same dynamics will play a stronger role in a later rather than earlier contest.
But this is an extreme example. Adoption of a regime similar to Georgia’s (which actually may have a runoff to a general election), a month earlier, should not substantially separate a primary choice from conditions more trenchant around the general election. A first-week-in- August with a third-week-in-September runoff might serve Louisiana just as well, and certainly would provide for less overtime and likely better performance therefore from the state’s registrars. And it might do a better job of dodging the odd hurricane here and there, which disrupted the 2008 elections, also. Hopefully we’ll see such a bill in the 2009 legislative session.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)