(To understand why this is appearing in this space, read about my father. Thanks in advance for any comments that might be left.)
While my father was more about direct political action -- writing letters to policy-makers and newspapers, running for office, etc. -- my mother's contributions to politics were less publicly visible and stemmed from her vast enjoyment of philosophy. especially when they intersected with her deep religious faith. In an undergraduate philosophy class her Jesuit instructor once quizzed on some matter of philosophy and she volunteered an answer. He asked how she had formulated that and she said, "It's obvious" and gave a brief explanation. After class, he took her aside and told her that particular concept usually did not become understood even in a simple form to most students until the end of the semester and then some still never got it. The complexity of her level of understanding, he noted, he rarely ever encountered.
Probably her greatest pleasure came from exploring the nuances of the nexus of philosophy and theology; besides her poetry appearing in the high school yearbook of her senior year there is a telling passage in the "Class Will" section that reads "Helen Haddock, our argumentative senior, leaves her glamor to ...." Even as she very much enjoyed the contemplative aspect of philosophy and theology, she did extend that to the world of politics, basing her beliefs on incredibly logical and informed presuppositions. A few around Monroe probably remember her activity in the Republican women's club. But even earlier in life she extended belief to action. When she began working in the deep South in the 1940s, she was appalled at the segregationist culture and would subvert it in small ways, such as (only occasionally having access to a car) giving rides to black co-workers at her hospital who otherwise would have to walk.
Unlike my father, who read this space, my mother never was into computers. Regardless, some understanding about her should be left in cyberspace. So long, Mom.
19.3.09
18.3.09
Tobacco tax hike more motivated by politics than policy
An effort to raise taxes on cigarettes illuminates not just a pair of interesting public policy questions, but also a political battle that has taken on personal connotations for its sponsor.
Democrat State Rep. Karen Carter Peterson, the second in command in the House, plans to offer a bill to increase the state’s tobacco tax a dollar per unit to $1.36. This is on top of a projected increase in the federal tax of another dollar. She said it could raise in the neighborhood of $200 million a year just off cigarette pack sales to fund state coffers, although she does not propose that it specifically go towards health care. She opined that it would constitute “fair share” of health costs of these products to do this and could be used to avoid some budget cuts this year proposed by Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal.
There are a few policy dimensions to this idea. First, if used as a tactic to raise revenue for government, it is an unstable and unreliable means. While “sin taxes” may be the least objectionable form of government expropriation of the people’s resources because they simultaneously discourage presumed sub-optimal behavior, this concept creates an internal contradiction: discouraging the activity limits its usefulness as a revenue-raising agent because the decline it brings in behavior concurrently reduces the revenue. In other words, particularly in the long run, any revenue increases probably will be minimal. So if this just another way to raise revenue, it’s not going to be very effective.
Also, the best public policy tries to connect a revenue source to its public policy purpose. In this case, that implies that the revenue should go into health care spending, and even more directly to activities related to the presumed ills caused by smoking, But Peterson did not make that explicit which makes the budgeting process and its execution less predictable, increasing the potential for distracting adjustments in the middle of a fiscal year. It also can lead to political posturing, the mode in which former Gov. Kathleen Blanco operated when she championed a similar idea.
Still, one could argue that the health and fiscal benefits alone should justify such a tax; that is, a presumably healthier population encouraged by this move should reduce costs to government and by the private sector in treatment of diseases allegedly induced by smoking. Unfortunately, from a fiscal perspective, this isn’t even true. Studies show that while smoking cessation in the short run would cause health care costs to come down, in the long term health care costs as a whole probably would increase, simply because longer lives bring additional and typically even more costly medical complications. Bluntly, people dying earlier from believed smoking-related causes cost the health care system less than if they lived longer.
Understanding these aspects of the issue leads one to conclude that the motivation behind this idea really has a political, if not personal, basis. If Peterson really were concerned about smoking and general tobacco use, from the moment she was elected she would have stumped for this as a health issue. Instead, she catches this religion in the second year of a governor’s administration that has cut taxes and specific pet projects from legislators and now proposes to do the same for general government spending.
Peterson, it must be understood, like a significant portion of the Legislature, wants more, not less, government control over people’s lives. She, and others, have become increasingly upset with Jindal’s support of tax cuts, his refusal to consider tax increases (which has lead him to state he will not support this), his past vetoes of legislators’ pet projects, his present cuts in spending generally identified as welfare-related, and (if never spoken then surely in the background) Jindal’s unsteady handling of a legislator pay raise to full-time status issue last year that ended up with his veto and plenty of bad publicity for legislators. Therefore, this measure not only accomplishes the goal of, on the surface, appearing to improve public health and avoiding spending cuts, but at a deeper level satisfies a desire for bigger, more intrusive government, yet at the most basic level of all is an attempt simply to defeat Jindal for its own sake. Peterson’s challenging rhetoric implying she could defeat a veto lends credence to this belief.
As this bill wends it way through the legislative process, its argumentation will focus on matters of health, finance, and government power over people’s lives. But beneath it all, recognize it represents a struggle between those who want to empower government against those who wish to empower people, and that for some in the conflict it will take on very personal undertones.
Democrat State Rep. Karen Carter Peterson, the second in command in the House, plans to offer a bill to increase the state’s tobacco tax a dollar per unit to $1.36. This is on top of a projected increase in the federal tax of another dollar. She said it could raise in the neighborhood of $200 million a year just off cigarette pack sales to fund state coffers, although she does not propose that it specifically go towards health care. She opined that it would constitute “fair share” of health costs of these products to do this and could be used to avoid some budget cuts this year proposed by Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal.
There are a few policy dimensions to this idea. First, if used as a tactic to raise revenue for government, it is an unstable and unreliable means. While “sin taxes” may be the least objectionable form of government expropriation of the people’s resources because they simultaneously discourage presumed sub-optimal behavior, this concept creates an internal contradiction: discouraging the activity limits its usefulness as a revenue-raising agent because the decline it brings in behavior concurrently reduces the revenue. In other words, particularly in the long run, any revenue increases probably will be minimal. So if this just another way to raise revenue, it’s not going to be very effective.
Also, the best public policy tries to connect a revenue source to its public policy purpose. In this case, that implies that the revenue should go into health care spending, and even more directly to activities related to the presumed ills caused by smoking, But Peterson did not make that explicit which makes the budgeting process and its execution less predictable, increasing the potential for distracting adjustments in the middle of a fiscal year. It also can lead to political posturing, the mode in which former Gov. Kathleen Blanco operated when she championed a similar idea.
Still, one could argue that the health and fiscal benefits alone should justify such a tax; that is, a presumably healthier population encouraged by this move should reduce costs to government and by the private sector in treatment of diseases allegedly induced by smoking. Unfortunately, from a fiscal perspective, this isn’t even true. Studies show that while smoking cessation in the short run would cause health care costs to come down, in the long term health care costs as a whole probably would increase, simply because longer lives bring additional and typically even more costly medical complications. Bluntly, people dying earlier from believed smoking-related causes cost the health care system less than if they lived longer.
Understanding these aspects of the issue leads one to conclude that the motivation behind this idea really has a political, if not personal, basis. If Peterson really were concerned about smoking and general tobacco use, from the moment she was elected she would have stumped for this as a health issue. Instead, she catches this religion in the second year of a governor’s administration that has cut taxes and specific pet projects from legislators and now proposes to do the same for general government spending.
Peterson, it must be understood, like a significant portion of the Legislature, wants more, not less, government control over people’s lives. She, and others, have become increasingly upset with Jindal’s support of tax cuts, his refusal to consider tax increases (which has lead him to state he will not support this), his past vetoes of legislators’ pet projects, his present cuts in spending generally identified as welfare-related, and (if never spoken then surely in the background) Jindal’s unsteady handling of a legislator pay raise to full-time status issue last year that ended up with his veto and plenty of bad publicity for legislators. Therefore, this measure not only accomplishes the goal of, on the surface, appearing to improve public health and avoiding spending cuts, but at a deeper level satisfies a desire for bigger, more intrusive government, yet at the most basic level of all is an attempt simply to defeat Jindal for its own sake. Peterson’s challenging rhetoric implying she could defeat a veto lends credence to this belief.
As this bill wends it way through the legislative process, its argumentation will focus on matters of health, finance, and government power over people’s lives. But beneath it all, recognize it represents a struggle between those who want to empower government against those who wish to empower people, and that for some in the conflict it will take on very personal undertones.
17.3.09
"Cyberbabble" from Bossier causes credibility loss
There’s a new word being spawned that relates to efforts by area politicians and those living off of their efforts to justify the roughly $107 million taxpayers – including about $15 million and $35 million, respectively out of the pockets of Bossier Parish and Bossier City residents – have coughed up in the government venture capital project known as the Cyber Innovation Center. Prompt one of these individuals on the subject, and they produce, et voilà, “cyberbabble.”
Understandably, Bossier elected officials should be increasingly nervous as one of the biggest capital expenditure items in their governing bodies’ histories looks to be a failed gamble. The idea was provide a compelling reason for the Air Force to set up its cyber-warfare headquarters at Barksdale Air Force Base by creating an infrastructural hub at taxpayer expense.
Lost in the breathless predictions of as many as 10,000 jobs to be created was the hard, cold economic (a resource-poor cyber environment for which a new building could not compensate) and political (too many other national politicians interested in a piece of this pie) facts which thinking leaders should have considered before hanging this tab on the citizenry.
To distract the public from the fact that there is not going to be anything close to what they hoped would constitute federal government stimulation of the industry here, given military decisions to dilute the cyber-warfare element, Bossier politicians have shifted their emphases from deeds to words.
16.3.09
In search of hypocrites, Melancon need only look in mirror
With his latest published comments, one must wonder just what kind of cipher has been going on three terms representing Louisiana’s Third District in the U.S. House of Representatives, who doesn’t have the intellect to understand he does exactly what he accuses political opponents of doing.
In an interview, Democrat U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon accused Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of being “hypocritical” in his televised response to the speech given by Democrat Pres. Barack Obama last month that touted an unprecedented increase in the amount of federal government spending and the deficit. Jindal had noted that he would refuse, as was his option, some spending directed to expanding the scope of unemployment benefits because of a tax increase they would entail that would depress economic activity. Melancon said this left him “puzzled” because Jindal had, as a congressman, voted for extending the time period for employment benefits to be received by people losing their jobs because of the destruction of the hurricane disasters of 2005, thereby to him meriting Jindal the “hypocritical” label.
But the puzzlement of Melancon is itself puzzling to anybody who can think clearly. The hurricanes wiped out a tremendous segment of productive capacity in the state for an extended period of time, unlike the current situation where productive capacity remains only slightly diminished. Further, then Jindal argued only for an extension of benefits, while now he fights an extension of coverage – two very different things that Melancon seems unable to distinguish.
More puzzling still is the utter lack of logic he expresses in his argument why Jindal ought to take the money and its conditions anyway – that the state’s unemployment trust fund may be more likely to run low because of increased demand the solution to which could be an increase in taxes on business anyway. Let’s see, take the money now and raise taxes for some job-killing into the indefinite future, as Melancon argues, or refuse that extra portion which can only go to the expanded purpose, accept the extra funds to cover the present scope of policy, and if any taxes have to be raised down the road they will be much more minimal, as Jindal suggests? If Melancon really believes his alternative is better, it only solidifies his big-government credentials.
Perhaps this explains why Melancon also appears to lack the capacity to understand just such a large hypocrite he is on the issue of government spending. Melancon regularly tries to convey the impressive that he is not a tax-and-spend liberal. Yet he voted for the budget-crippling spending package that denies every principle on this score that he claims to represent and tries to defend that by a display of ignorance of history, making the discredited argument that the big-government New Deal got the country out of the Depression when in fact it made matters worse (besides the historical record, common sense should tell him that a set of policies that depressed economic indicators more towards the end of the period than its beginning and lasted over a decade didn’t work).
Yet Melancon can’t dig a hole on this issue fast enough when he also tried to draw a parallel between economic conditions assumed these days by Obama and those inherited from the Democrat Pres. Jimmy Carter era, oblivious to the fact that Republican Pres. Ronald Reagan’s policies that brought the country out of the most severe recession other than the Depression in the twentieth century are exactly the opposite of those he now proposes – Reagan’s being broad-based and permanent tax cuts, restraint of government spending in many areas, and slashing regulation.
In a state known for its slick, vacuous politicians, Melancon seems determined to set a new standard on this account. And if he’s willing to go looking for elected hypocrites in the state, every time he passes by a mirror he need only look into it to find one.
In an interview, Democrat U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon accused Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of being “hypocritical” in his televised response to the speech given by Democrat Pres. Barack Obama last month that touted an unprecedented increase in the amount of federal government spending and the deficit. Jindal had noted that he would refuse, as was his option, some spending directed to expanding the scope of unemployment benefits because of a tax increase they would entail that would depress economic activity. Melancon said this left him “puzzled” because Jindal had, as a congressman, voted for extending the time period for employment benefits to be received by people losing their jobs because of the destruction of the hurricane disasters of 2005, thereby to him meriting Jindal the “hypocritical” label.
But the puzzlement of Melancon is itself puzzling to anybody who can think clearly. The hurricanes wiped out a tremendous segment of productive capacity in the state for an extended period of time, unlike the current situation where productive capacity remains only slightly diminished. Further, then Jindal argued only for an extension of benefits, while now he fights an extension of coverage – two very different things that Melancon seems unable to distinguish.
More puzzling still is the utter lack of logic he expresses in his argument why Jindal ought to take the money and its conditions anyway – that the state’s unemployment trust fund may be more likely to run low because of increased demand the solution to which could be an increase in taxes on business anyway. Let’s see, take the money now and raise taxes for some job-killing into the indefinite future, as Melancon argues, or refuse that extra portion which can only go to the expanded purpose, accept the extra funds to cover the present scope of policy, and if any taxes have to be raised down the road they will be much more minimal, as Jindal suggests? If Melancon really believes his alternative is better, it only solidifies his big-government credentials.
Perhaps this explains why Melancon also appears to lack the capacity to understand just such a large hypocrite he is on the issue of government spending. Melancon regularly tries to convey the impressive that he is not a tax-and-spend liberal. Yet he voted for the budget-crippling spending package that denies every principle on this score that he claims to represent and tries to defend that by a display of ignorance of history, making the discredited argument that the big-government New Deal got the country out of the Depression when in fact it made matters worse (besides the historical record, common sense should tell him that a set of policies that depressed economic indicators more towards the end of the period than its beginning and lasted over a decade didn’t work).
Yet Melancon can’t dig a hole on this issue fast enough when he also tried to draw a parallel between economic conditions assumed these days by Obama and those inherited from the Democrat Pres. Jimmy Carter era, oblivious to the fact that Republican Pres. Ronald Reagan’s policies that brought the country out of the most severe recession other than the Depression in the twentieth century are exactly the opposite of those he now proposes – Reagan’s being broad-based and permanent tax cuts, restraint of government spending in many areas, and slashing regulation.
In a state known for its slick, vacuous politicians, Melancon seems determined to set a new standard on this account. And if he’s willing to go looking for elected hypocrites in the state, every time he passes by a mirror he need only look into it to find one.
14.3.09
Fiscal conservatism in pared LA budget vitally needed
The harshness of the budgetary conditions under which Louisiana must operate for at least the next couple of years illuminates the roadmap of reform of the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration, as the policy preferences encapsulated in his fiscal year 2009-10 budget show.
Federal dollars once again play a prominent role in interpretation of these. As always, a good chunk – this year nearly half – comes from the federal government, but more than ever now. Until a few years ago, much came from regular federal programs of matching and formulaic grants, but with the hurricane disasters of 2005 a significant portion started coming to the state for that reason. Now for this upcoming year, another specialized portion from the federal government is on its way, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds better known as the deficit spending package, and it creates its own set of solutions and problems.
The impact of federal funds always complicates interpretation, and for Jindal this has led both to overstatement on his part and under-appreciation on the part of others concerning assessments of his fiscal policy. Last year, Jindal took credit for “cutting” the state’s budget which was lower considerably over the previous year’s. But backing out federal monies dedicated to disaster relief showed a small proposed increase in state spending on continuing operations, 3.31 percent or $466.5 million. The area over which Jindal had the most control, the non-dedicated, non-self-generated portion of the general fund, he asked for a 6.19 percent increase or $536.9 million.
Federal dollars once again play a prominent role in interpretation of these. As always, a good chunk – this year nearly half – comes from the federal government, but more than ever now. Until a few years ago, much came from regular federal programs of matching and formulaic grants, but with the hurricane disasters of 2005 a significant portion started coming to the state for that reason. Now for this upcoming year, another specialized portion from the federal government is on its way, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds better known as the deficit spending package, and it creates its own set of solutions and problems.
The impact of federal funds always complicates interpretation, and for Jindal this has led both to overstatement on his part and under-appreciation on the part of others concerning assessments of his fiscal policy. Last year, Jindal took credit for “cutting” the state’s budget which was lower considerably over the previous year’s. But backing out federal monies dedicated to disaster relief showed a small proposed increase in state spending on continuing operations, 3.31 percent or $466.5 million. The area over which Jindal had the most control, the non-dedicated, non-self-generated portion of the general fund, he asked for a 6.19 percent increase or $536.9 million.
12.3.09
Income tax cut bills desirable if used the proper way
State Sen. Nick Gautreaux’s bills, SB 6 that would eliminate the state income tax on individuals, estates, and trusts over 10 years starting next year, and SB 8 that would allow nonrecurring state surpluses to be given out in tax rebates, both have some good essentials but as is won’t achieve optimal economic development.
A cut in income taxes always is welcome but the question presently is whether legislators would be willing to risk this when the budget already seems seriously out of balance to the estimated tune of $1.75 billion (we’ll know more tomorrow when the official budget is released). No fiscal note on this request yet has been compiled, but the December Revenue Estimating Conference forecast predicts that individual income taxes will be over $2.8 billion in collection for next fiscal year – over a third of general fund revenues meaning the 10 percent reduction that would start halfway through the budget cycle would clip over $140 million from this pending budget, then $280 million or more each year in addition to the previous amount from there on out.
The forecast thinks state revenues will begin to pick up again in a couple of years, so as not to create budgetary chaos, a better plan might be first to drop rates sequentuially, then tackle the elimination of them. While it’s hard to tell exactly given the way the data are reported, the present two percent tax bracket appeared to bring in $111 million for fiscal year 2007-07, the four percent bracket $355 million, and the six percent bracket $2.179 billion. What could be done would be for the first three years starting next year would be slashing a percent off the lowest, then middle, then highest, or reducing (by tax year) state coffers by about $56 million, then $89 million more, and then finally $363 million. This would fit in with revenue projections with the most realistic withdrawal and opportunities to cut spending.
After those three years, then the cut by a tenth every year until elimination could happen. By then, the economic growth triggered by the first three years of reductions (starting with the lowest earners as the economy improves) will cushion the removal of the annual 10 percent. This may take three years longer but smoothes the process somewhat.
His amendment to allow usage of nonrecurring surpluses in rebates is an unobjectionable idea. But passage of this should not serve as a means to deflect attention from enduring tax cuts. Economists note that one-time rebates are far less effective in stimulating economic growth, simply because taxpayers know it is not recurring and they are reluctant to invest money of that nature.
Tinkering with SB 6 is a good start, and SB 8 won’t do any harm unless it is seen as the only cure necessary for a stagnant economic development climate.
A cut in income taxes always is welcome but the question presently is whether legislators would be willing to risk this when the budget already seems seriously out of balance to the estimated tune of $1.75 billion (we’ll know more tomorrow when the official budget is released). No fiscal note on this request yet has been compiled, but the December Revenue Estimating Conference forecast predicts that individual income taxes will be over $2.8 billion in collection for next fiscal year – over a third of general fund revenues meaning the 10 percent reduction that would start halfway through the budget cycle would clip over $140 million from this pending budget, then $280 million or more each year in addition to the previous amount from there on out.
The forecast thinks state revenues will begin to pick up again in a couple of years, so as not to create budgetary chaos, a better plan might be first to drop rates sequentuially, then tackle the elimination of them. While it’s hard to tell exactly given the way the data are reported, the present two percent tax bracket appeared to bring in $111 million for fiscal year 2007-07, the four percent bracket $355 million, and the six percent bracket $2.179 billion. What could be done would be for the first three years starting next year would be slashing a percent off the lowest, then middle, then highest, or reducing (by tax year) state coffers by about $56 million, then $89 million more, and then finally $363 million. This would fit in with revenue projections with the most realistic withdrawal and opportunities to cut spending.
After those three years, then the cut by a tenth every year until elimination could happen. By then, the economic growth triggered by the first three years of reductions (starting with the lowest earners as the economy improves) will cushion the removal of the annual 10 percent. This may take three years longer but smoothes the process somewhat.
His amendment to allow usage of nonrecurring surpluses in rebates is an unobjectionable idea. But passage of this should not serve as a means to deflect attention from enduring tax cuts. Economists note that one-time rebates are far less effective in stimulating economic growth, simply because taxpayers know it is not recurring and they are reluctant to invest money of that nature.
Tinkering with SB 6 is a good start, and SB 8 won’t do any harm unless it is seen as the only cure necessary for a stagnant economic development climate.
11.3.09
Plenty of posturing, little intellect present in funds request
Partisan politics is alive and well with Democrat leaders in Louisiana’s Senate arguing for a ploy ill-conceived, counterproductive to the good of the state, and whose only impact would be symbolic to sow division and thereby try to embarrass Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal.
The contretemps has developed because Jindal refuses to accept about $98 million of federal dollars from the supplemental spending package that trebled the annual debt passed by the Democrat Congress and signed into law by Democrat Pres. Barack Obama. These would pay for the state to give unemployment insurance benefits to people who are not involuntarily separated from their jobs, an extra $15 a week per dependent, and add 26 weeks worth to benefits to those in training programs after having been laid off from a “declining” industry.
The problem is the money lasts only two years and then the state is on the hook for it – meaning state businesses and workers, who are assessed money out of payrolls to fund the program. Further, not only would one of these three conditions have to be changed in state law, the period for which eligibility may be established also would have to be changed in state law, creating a permanent obligation that expands the program. Jindal rejected the money because he did not think the permanence served the state well.
The contretemps has developed because Jindal refuses to accept about $98 million of federal dollars from the supplemental spending package that trebled the annual debt passed by the Democrat Congress and signed into law by Democrat Pres. Barack Obama. These would pay for the state to give unemployment insurance benefits to people who are not involuntarily separated from their jobs, an extra $15 a week per dependent, and add 26 weeks worth to benefits to those in training programs after having been laid off from a “declining” industry.
The problem is the money lasts only two years and then the state is on the hook for it – meaning state businesses and workers, who are assessed money out of payrolls to fund the program. Further, not only would one of these three conditions have to be changed in state law, the period for which eligibility may be established also would have to be changed in state law, creating a permanent obligation that expands the program. Jindal rejected the money because he did not think the permanence served the state well.
10.3.09
With adjustment, session start bill makes sense
From time to time comes a move to alter the regular legislative session schedule in Louisiana, and another such one is afoot. If it’s going to be done, it needs to be done right and for the right reasons.
State Sen. Neil Riser has prefiled SB 5 which would advance the beginning of the state’s regular legislative sessions to the last Monday in January for the even-numbered year general regular sessions, and to the last Monday in February for the odd-numbered year “fiscal only” regular sessions (meaning only fiscal bills, local bills, and five non-local, non-fiscal bills per member may be considered). He argues that with the latest start of a part-time legislature among all the states, too much chaos is created for Louisiana’s budgeting purposes for a fiscal year beginning Jul. 1. It would not change the number of days – 45 of 60 or 60 of 85 – that it meets.
The latter consideration in particular is not a bad thought. But as conceptualized, this will never happen, for it would have the Legislature in session many years the period that it simply cannot be in this state – Jan. 25 through Mar. 9, the potential days given the liturgical calendar that would encompass the entirety of the Carnival parade season, generally considered to last two Fridays before Ash Wednesday through Mardi Gras. Riser, from rural north Louisiana, may be forgiven for not realizing the depths to which Carnival enthralls southern state legislators and therefore will have at least a third of the Legislature against the constitutional amendment needed to accomplish this change.
At the same time, however, a minor tweaking of the schedule may be in order. Starting an even-numbered year session on the third Monday in March – never earlier than Mar. 15, nor later than Mar. 20 – would miss Carnival, and odd-numbered sessions never threaten it. Even a week could be a big advantage to getting the budgetary house more in order for the Jul. 1 new fiscal year. Starting the second Monday in March would interrupt Carnival only once every 84 or so years, so even that could be lived with (that Mar. 8 the Legislature could get its initial business out of the way, then adjourn until Mar. 10), so a two-week advance would be even better.
That still may not placate naysayers like state Sen. John Alario, who may complain this alteration cuts into tax preparation season, among other things, too much. Of course, if any legislator finds his public service too much of a burden on his real job, we thank him for his service and he may resign. And to suggest that the May deadline for budgetary estimates is sacrosanct, which also could be changed, is a red herring as a criticism.
This small change should provide some benefit with no real costs, and Riser’s bill should be amended to reflect as such.
State Sen. Neil Riser has prefiled SB 5 which would advance the beginning of the state’s regular legislative sessions to the last Monday in January for the even-numbered year general regular sessions, and to the last Monday in February for the odd-numbered year “fiscal only” regular sessions (meaning only fiscal bills, local bills, and five non-local, non-fiscal bills per member may be considered). He argues that with the latest start of a part-time legislature among all the states, too much chaos is created for Louisiana’s budgeting purposes for a fiscal year beginning Jul. 1. It would not change the number of days – 45 of 60 or 60 of 85 – that it meets.
The latter consideration in particular is not a bad thought. But as conceptualized, this will never happen, for it would have the Legislature in session many years the period that it simply cannot be in this state – Jan. 25 through Mar. 9, the potential days given the liturgical calendar that would encompass the entirety of the Carnival parade season, generally considered to last two Fridays before Ash Wednesday through Mardi Gras. Riser, from rural north Louisiana, may be forgiven for not realizing the depths to which Carnival enthralls southern state legislators and therefore will have at least a third of the Legislature against the constitutional amendment needed to accomplish this change.
At the same time, however, a minor tweaking of the schedule may be in order. Starting an even-numbered year session on the third Monday in March – never earlier than Mar. 15, nor later than Mar. 20 – would miss Carnival, and odd-numbered sessions never threaten it. Even a week could be a big advantage to getting the budgetary house more in order for the Jul. 1 new fiscal year. Starting the second Monday in March would interrupt Carnival only once every 84 or so years, so even that could be lived with (that Mar. 8 the Legislature could get its initial business out of the way, then adjourn until Mar. 10), so a two-week advance would be even better.
That still may not placate naysayers like state Sen. John Alario, who may complain this alteration cuts into tax preparation season, among other things, too much. Of course, if any legislator finds his public service too much of a burden on his real job, we thank him for his service and he may resign. And to suggest that the May deadline for budgetary estimates is sacrosanct, which also could be changed, is a red herring as a criticism.
This small change should provide some benefit with no real costs, and Riser’s bill should be amended to reflect as such.
9.3.09
LA Democrats must reject attack on workers, economy
If the likes of Democrats Sen. Mary Landrieu and Rep. Charlie Melancon genuinely and sincerely wanted to help reduce the impact of the unfolding Obama recession, they will vote down the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act when Democrats try to ram it through Congress.
This legislation would replace secret ballot organizing elections with publicly signed union cards, allowing union organizers to deceive, harass, and threaten workers into signing these cards. Workers would not even have to know about the organizing drive. Once organizers had collected cards from a majority of employees the employer would have to recognize the union as representing all workers, even if the rest of their employees knew nothing about the organizing drive.
This is opposed to the current system, where a secret-ballot election must be held if 30 percent of the workers in a potential bargaining unit sign cards authorizing union representation and the company contests formation of a union. Under this law, a union could continue collecting signatures up to an absolute majority and then skip the election entirely – something either Melancon doesn’t know or is being deceptive about when he says a company could call for an election under the new guidelines.
Another canard about the legislation is that it somehow reduces a pro-company bias in the process. There is no bias is the process currently precisely because indication of interest by gathering cards from 30 percent of the workforce then leads to a secret ballot where neither side knows who is voting for what. In reality, unions tend to aim for double that before asking for an election precisely because they know intimidation currently results in more cards than actual votes when voting unions cannot convincingly accost workers and pressure them – and they still lose about 40 percent of the time. This bill would pervert the process, allowing unions to know who has signed and who hasn’t while the company is left totally in the dark on that matter. To make things worse, it increases penalties against certain practices by companies during an organizing drive but not against unions.
But besides its assault on workers’ freedom, choice, and rights, the bill will have serious deleterious effects on the economy because it allows for the artificial distortion of the market, increasing the price of a good (labor) above its true worth as does any cartel. Studies consistently show that unionization reduces the number of jobs, a conservative estimate being 765,000 in two years if this bill is adopted. In one study, manufacturers reduced jobs by 11 percent two years after unionization, with losses disproportionately among smaller businesses. The Great Depression was aggravated in its length and severity by an expansion of unionism, not a good omen.
With unemployment skyrocketing upwards and the economy shrinking at a near-record pace, the last thing that needs to be done is anything that destroys more jobs and discourages more productivity. Landrieu had been a co-sponsor of previous incarnations of the bill but wisely opted out this time; she can use as the excuse to vote against it the economic deterioration under Obama. Melancon claims he likes the bill with some change, and when major alterations of it are not forthcoming he can follow suit. Regardless of the reasons for not supporting it, these Louisiana Democrats need to put workers and people first rather than party and greed.
This legislation would replace secret ballot organizing elections with publicly signed union cards, allowing union organizers to deceive, harass, and threaten workers into signing these cards. Workers would not even have to know about the organizing drive. Once organizers had collected cards from a majority of employees the employer would have to recognize the union as representing all workers, even if the rest of their employees knew nothing about the organizing drive.
This is opposed to the current system, where a secret-ballot election must be held if 30 percent of the workers in a potential bargaining unit sign cards authorizing union representation and the company contests formation of a union. Under this law, a union could continue collecting signatures up to an absolute majority and then skip the election entirely – something either Melancon doesn’t know or is being deceptive about when he says a company could call for an election under the new guidelines.
Another canard about the legislation is that it somehow reduces a pro-company bias in the process. There is no bias is the process currently precisely because indication of interest by gathering cards from 30 percent of the workforce then leads to a secret ballot where neither side knows who is voting for what. In reality, unions tend to aim for double that before asking for an election precisely because they know intimidation currently results in more cards than actual votes when voting unions cannot convincingly accost workers and pressure them – and they still lose about 40 percent of the time. This bill would pervert the process, allowing unions to know who has signed and who hasn’t while the company is left totally in the dark on that matter. To make things worse, it increases penalties against certain practices by companies during an organizing drive but not against unions.
But besides its assault on workers’ freedom, choice, and rights, the bill will have serious deleterious effects on the economy because it allows for the artificial distortion of the market, increasing the price of a good (labor) above its true worth as does any cartel. Studies consistently show that unionization reduces the number of jobs, a conservative estimate being 765,000 in two years if this bill is adopted. In one study, manufacturers reduced jobs by 11 percent two years after unionization, with losses disproportionately among smaller businesses. The Great Depression was aggravated in its length and severity by an expansion of unionism, not a good omen.
With unemployment skyrocketing upwards and the economy shrinking at a near-record pace, the last thing that needs to be done is anything that destroys more jobs and discourages more productivity. Landrieu had been a co-sponsor of previous incarnations of the bill but wisely opted out this time; she can use as the excuse to vote against it the economic deterioration under Obama. Melancon claims he likes the bill with some change, and when major alterations of it are not forthcoming he can follow suit. Regardless of the reasons for not supporting it, these Louisiana Democrats need to put workers and people first rather than party and greed.
8.3.09
Despite contrary assertions, numbers show Vitter strength
One begins to wonder just what kind of lens through which the political world outside of Louisiana views the political life of Republican Sen. David Vitter. Ever since Vitter began to demonstrate high-profile opposition to the leftist agenda of Democrat Pres. Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress, it seems that national – and some closer to home – media take pains to run stories about his “vulnerability” to a 2010 challenge. Another example (first reported on a loony tunes hard left website which may explain it) has come forward where the template is the same – except that the content directly contradicts any notion that Vitter is in much trouble.
The rules of thumb about an incumbent who might be vulnerable to defeat (at least until a few months prior to an election when information about actual candidates becomes widely available to the public) are that he is entirely untouchable barring future major scandal if he polls at least 50 percent in any hypothetical possible matchup and gets at least 40 percent in a question about whether someone who would vote for him again and it is at least 10 percent higher than the proportion who say they will not. By these standards, a polling firm that typically contracts out to leftist organizations reveals, Vitter is borderline secure in his seat.
This poll has him defeating current U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon 48-41 percent and former and defeated Congressman Don Cazayoux 48-39. For good measure, he beats GOP Sec. of State Jay Dardenne 43-32 (presumably only Republicans were polled on that question, but the poll’s internals are not public information) in a putative GOP primary. (That he appears about as safe against a Republican challenger as against any Democrat already has been addressed.) Finally, 41 percent say they would reelect him while 27 say they would not with the remainder saying they would be willing to vote for him but consider somebody else.
As to the meaning of the roughly 40 percent that would vote for another candidate, one must always adjust that figure for the fact that, with blacks comprising 31.2 percent of the electorate, one could run a yellow dog against Vitter and the canine would be guaranteed 30 percent of the vote. This means Vitter is pulling 75 percent of the white vote already and the names mentioned got about 15 percent of it. If three-quarters of whites already are sticking with Vitter after a year’s worth of endless reminders that Vitter admitted to a “serious sin,” it’s going to be hard for any Democrat to peel off enough white support to win.
While some seemed impressed that Melancon’s gap came within the poll’s margin of error, at the same time Melancon is not a candidate and has said so (probably in part precisely because of these numbers). Vitter has a tremendous war chest, is raising money easily, and Melancon may feel he has a decent chance for his Third District to remain intact after redistricting. He said he could change his mind, which means he could jump in if Vitter’s numbers showed weakness. So far, they do not.
Nor is Cazayoux a realistic choice, as he is more interested in securing a federal district attorney’s job and after Democrats politicized debate about a president’s ability to hire and fire these officials at will in the previous administration, Cazayoux cannot even express interest in the Senate (nor would he be likely to win, being unable even to engineer his own reelection). And as far as other Democrats with any statewide name recognition, Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu also never has shown any interest, couldn’t even win in New Orleans when he ran for mayor, and surely knows enough of the public would feel uncomfortable having siblings in the Senate. Atty. Gen. Buddy Caldwell won his job just about a year ago because he was the least flawed candidate, hardly the credential to threaten Vitter.
If we weren’t already, after these guys we’re on to the second team. Former Member of Congress Chris John was blown out five years ago by Vitter and there’s little to suggest he would be much more competitive a year from now than he was then. Businessman Jim Bernhard would be an easy target for Vitter because of his associations as former head of the state Democrats and with former Gov. Kathleen Blanco who made politically everything that touched her toxic, and Vitter is one guy who could match the wealthy Bernhard dollar for dollar. And the quality of challengers goes further downhill from there.
At best, in the past year Vitter has gone from invulnerable to slightly vulnerable by these latest numbers. The only way he now can lose is if the right candidate comes along at the right time, and not only does that candidate seem unlikely to exist, but given the Obama Administration rhetoric and budgetary intentions that continue attacking America’s prosperity, early indications are 2010 is beginning to shape up as an ugly election year for Democrats and certainly not the environment to try to knock off a pretty secure incumbent like Vitter. Judgments that Vitter is in any real trouble at this time seem more indicative of wishful thinking than any valid analysis of the real world.
The rules of thumb about an incumbent who might be vulnerable to defeat (at least until a few months prior to an election when information about actual candidates becomes widely available to the public) are that he is entirely untouchable barring future major scandal if he polls at least 50 percent in any hypothetical possible matchup and gets at least 40 percent in a question about whether someone who would vote for him again and it is at least 10 percent higher than the proportion who say they will not. By these standards, a polling firm that typically contracts out to leftist organizations reveals, Vitter is borderline secure in his seat.
This poll has him defeating current U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon 48-41 percent and former and defeated Congressman Don Cazayoux 48-39. For good measure, he beats GOP Sec. of State Jay Dardenne 43-32 (presumably only Republicans were polled on that question, but the poll’s internals are not public information) in a putative GOP primary. (That he appears about as safe against a Republican challenger as against any Democrat already has been addressed.) Finally, 41 percent say they would reelect him while 27 say they would not with the remainder saying they would be willing to vote for him but consider somebody else.
As to the meaning of the roughly 40 percent that would vote for another candidate, one must always adjust that figure for the fact that, with blacks comprising 31.2 percent of the electorate, one could run a yellow dog against Vitter and the canine would be guaranteed 30 percent of the vote. This means Vitter is pulling 75 percent of the white vote already and the names mentioned got about 15 percent of it. If three-quarters of whites already are sticking with Vitter after a year’s worth of endless reminders that Vitter admitted to a “serious sin,” it’s going to be hard for any Democrat to peel off enough white support to win.
While some seemed impressed that Melancon’s gap came within the poll’s margin of error, at the same time Melancon is not a candidate and has said so (probably in part precisely because of these numbers). Vitter has a tremendous war chest, is raising money easily, and Melancon may feel he has a decent chance for his Third District to remain intact after redistricting. He said he could change his mind, which means he could jump in if Vitter’s numbers showed weakness. So far, they do not.
Nor is Cazayoux a realistic choice, as he is more interested in securing a federal district attorney’s job and after Democrats politicized debate about a president’s ability to hire and fire these officials at will in the previous administration, Cazayoux cannot even express interest in the Senate (nor would he be likely to win, being unable even to engineer his own reelection). And as far as other Democrats with any statewide name recognition, Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu also never has shown any interest, couldn’t even win in New Orleans when he ran for mayor, and surely knows enough of the public would feel uncomfortable having siblings in the Senate. Atty. Gen. Buddy Caldwell won his job just about a year ago because he was the least flawed candidate, hardly the credential to threaten Vitter.
If we weren’t already, after these guys we’re on to the second team. Former Member of Congress Chris John was blown out five years ago by Vitter and there’s little to suggest he would be much more competitive a year from now than he was then. Businessman Jim Bernhard would be an easy target for Vitter because of his associations as former head of the state Democrats and with former Gov. Kathleen Blanco who made politically everything that touched her toxic, and Vitter is one guy who could match the wealthy Bernhard dollar for dollar. And the quality of challengers goes further downhill from there.
At best, in the past year Vitter has gone from invulnerable to slightly vulnerable by these latest numbers. The only way he now can lose is if the right candidate comes along at the right time, and not only does that candidate seem unlikely to exist, but given the Obama Administration rhetoric and budgetary intentions that continue attacking America’s prosperity, early indications are 2010 is beginning to shape up as an ugly election year for Democrats and certainly not the environment to try to knock off a pretty secure incumbent like Vitter. Judgments that Vitter is in any real trouble at this time seem more indicative of wishful thinking than any valid analysis of the real world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)