Baton Rouge Metropolitan government seems intent on making the same mistakes as has Shreveport and Alexandria with the imposition of its “Fair Share” program. We must recognize that its primary goal is to serve the needs of politicians and their cronies, not the people.
The concept rests upon the unsustainable notion that businesses not owned by white males without disability somehow are “disadvantaged” when it comes to doing business with a government. Therefore, numerical “goals” are put into place when contracting out that stipulate government should grant a certain proportion of business to firms that are majority owned by non-whites, females, the disabled, and the like. In this case, 25 percent of city-parish projects would have to go to these kinds of firms.
Proponents claim because it’s not a quota system, it has no deleterious effects. However, this not only is a mistaken notion, but this also tries to simulate a quota system without actually having to prove discrimination. (Legally, a “disparity study” must be performed that demonstrates unambiguous discrimination going on – and not even that unambiguous if its implementers get away with using only outcomes rather than investigation of procedures and intents – in order to impose a quota system, which are seldom done precisely as they so often show no discrimination.) Political pressure by backers of the concept make it clear that numbers must come in around that figure or else heads will roll meaning the “goal” is far less optional than would be implied.
12.8.09
N.O. meeting to have major impact on dissident group
Today begins meeting in New Orleans the Leadership Conference of Women Religious in what could be its last annual gathering that continues its straying from Catholicism as an organization affiliated with the Church.
The group lists itself as an organization composed of leaders from various U.S. Catholic religious orders, but one throughout the majority of its history that has placed the social gospel ahead of the Gospels. Examples abound: just recently, one president proclaimed with apparent approval about religious congregations “moving beyond the Church, even beyond Jesus.” Saying some congregations have “grown beyond the bounds of institutional religion,” she described them as “post-Christian” in most respects. Some years before, another defended the actions of a nun who headed an agency that funded abortions, and of another who ran a homosexual ministry in conflict with church teachings. Almost 30 years ago, the president then chided Pope John Paul II on the occasion of his visit to America for not allowing ordination of women as priests.
In 2001, these kinds of activities and statements triggered an inquiry by the body in charge of overseeing propagation of the faith, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Earlier this year, an American administrator was appointed to lead a more formal investigation of the organization. At the same time, a parallel study of all women’s religious organizations is being undertaken out of concerns that fidelity is lacking, i.e. practice and propagation of the faith is being performed improperly by organizations such as the LCWR.
The group lists itself as an organization composed of leaders from various U.S. Catholic religious orders, but one throughout the majority of its history that has placed the social gospel ahead of the Gospels. Examples abound: just recently, one president proclaimed with apparent approval about religious congregations “moving beyond the Church, even beyond Jesus.” Saying some congregations have “grown beyond the bounds of institutional religion,” she described them as “post-Christian” in most respects. Some years before, another defended the actions of a nun who headed an agency that funded abortions, and of another who ran a homosexual ministry in conflict with church teachings. Almost 30 years ago, the president then chided Pope John Paul II on the occasion of his visit to America for not allowing ordination of women as priests.
In 2001, these kinds of activities and statements triggered an inquiry by the body in charge of overseeing propagation of the faith, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Earlier this year, an American administrator was appointed to lead a more formal investigation of the organization. At the same time, a parallel study of all women’s religious organizations is being undertaken out of concerns that fidelity is lacking, i.e. practice and propagation of the faith is being performed improperly by organizations such as the LCWR.
11.8.09
Commission must ignore more availability, money advice
Louisiana’s Postsecondary Education Review Committee got off to a start, but using a very erroneous assumption that may poison the entire enterprise.
Its initial meeting, for a body designed to find more efficient ways of delivering higher education in the state, had some helpful information dispersed. Louisiana has one of the lowest graduation rates and one of the highest baccalaureate and above to community college ratios in the country. It also has low enrollment rates comparatively.
Yet a major mistake was made when a representative of a higher education research body stated, “Participation in higher education rises dramatically with availability,” and then asserted Louisiana lacked in this regard. Not only is the statement theoretically untrue, in fact regarding Louisiana is it untrue.
Dealing with the latter, if anything, Louisiana is overbuilt when it comes to postsecondary educational institutions. It ranks sixth in the country with 58 community and technical colleges dispersed across the state in the nation, and eighth with 17 baccalaureate and above institutions, even as in terms of population it ranks only 23rd. The real problem is not enough students graduate from these institutions.
Two factors cause this to be the case. One is that they are not prepared well enough at the secondary level to succeed past that. This has been a problem for years but as school accountability measures of the past dozen years’ implementation begin to take hold, perhaps in another dozen years (absent steps backwards such as potential dummy diplomas) that should be much reduced as a problem (although older potential students disserved by public education in Louisiana two decades or more ago attempting college will continue to be disadvantaged).
The other factor is within the grasp of higher education now: raise standards so that ill-prepared and/or not capable students don’t attempt certain collegiate levels in the first place. This means making entrance into baccalaureate and above universities much more demanding, with some increase also to standards at community colleges. This will have a beneficial domino effect, in that less capable students will filter down to a more appropriate level of instruction given their abilities, boosting graduation rates at all levels.
Of course, this strategy runs afoul of the so-called “common wisdom” touted by those in the educational establishment, that more resources pumped into higher education can be justified by trying to produce more graduates as this presumably stimulates economic growth. But this fails not just practically, but empirically. Regarding the former, one (but not the only) reason why graduation rates are lower than they should be is that too many incapable students are being shuffled into college (encouraged by the low standards of TOPS in Louisiana) because standards are set too low. Once there, they fail to make the cut. Regarding the latter, research shows that an increase of resources going to higher education does not automatically create better outcomes. In fact, after a certain point, increased higher education expenditures create less economic growth because resources that are taken from the private sector are then used less efficiently by government in funding higher education.
So what should Louisiana do? First, there must be recognition that more than enough institutions exist; availability is no problem and no more money need be spent in accomplishing that. Second, it must be understood that existing resources are sufficient but are not used efficiently and/or are misallocated. Third, understanding must occur that tinkering at the margins, such as dealing with program duplication, realigning programs, obvious realignments (some four-year schools existing within miles of each others being combined, for example), etc., by themselves cannot make the dramatic improvements desired. Fourth, the increased demands of secondary education’s escalated standards cannot be watered down in any way.
If the last is achieved, what must happen at the postsecondary level over the next few years is that, first, standards are increased across the board, sometimes dramatically. At LSU Baton Rouge, for example, there’s no reason admission standards, which at present are significantly below that of presumably peer institutions, cannot be raised to their levels. Other four-year institutions in the state can have theirs raised as well by a comparable amount (but starting from a lower base), and few with really no standards at all can be brought into the 21st century by adding them. Basic minimum standards can be put in place at all community colleges, leaving technical school open to those who can’t even meet these.
Of course, this means a drop in enrollments in all four-year schools and will mean some minor retrenchment is in order. But not major retrenchment, because a better education and more emphasis can be made on retention with the additional resources left available not having to be allocated to students likely to fail. So if LSUBR enrollment fell 25 percent as a result of higher standards, a budget cut of only 10 percent may be in order, with the retained resources going to improved instruction (such as with smaller class sizes) and retention efforts, all of which should boost graduation rates significantly.
Tuition dollars (and some state dollars) would follow those now not eligible to go to a four-year place to community colleges, where they are more likely to succeed. The same would occur as more students now ineligible for community colleges make their way to technical schools. In other words, this would realign the same pool of existing dollars in a way that produces better outcomes, the second prong of the strategy.
This can be done over the next decade. Standards gradually can be increased. Hiring freezes can be put in place at baccalaureate and higher institutions, and perhaps if needed at the lower levels as well, to accommodate the new reality. State money can remain consistent overall but not really needing to be increased. What will happen over time is lower total enrollments at the top but consistently higher graduation rates there, while enrollments at the lower levels will increase, as will graduation rates, with the net overall effect being more Louisianans better educated with little in the way of increased funding necessary.
This is bold, challenges the unverified assertions of many, and will gore some sacred oxen in the educational establishment. But it is the optimal path to take so that by 2020 Louisiana will make marked strides in this area without unnecessary expenses. This kind of paradigm shift is what the commission needs to investigate. Accepting uncritically the assertions of those with a vested interest in chanting that more money solves every problem in this area of policy will produce little beneficial change.
Its initial meeting, for a body designed to find more efficient ways of delivering higher education in the state, had some helpful information dispersed. Louisiana has one of the lowest graduation rates and one of the highest baccalaureate and above to community college ratios in the country. It also has low enrollment rates comparatively.
Yet a major mistake was made when a representative of a higher education research body stated, “Participation in higher education rises dramatically with availability,” and then asserted Louisiana lacked in this regard. Not only is the statement theoretically untrue, in fact regarding Louisiana is it untrue.
Dealing with the latter, if anything, Louisiana is overbuilt when it comes to postsecondary educational institutions. It ranks sixth in the country with 58 community and technical colleges dispersed across the state in the nation, and eighth with 17 baccalaureate and above institutions, even as in terms of population it ranks only 23rd. The real problem is not enough students graduate from these institutions.
Two factors cause this to be the case. One is that they are not prepared well enough at the secondary level to succeed past that. This has been a problem for years but as school accountability measures of the past dozen years’ implementation begin to take hold, perhaps in another dozen years (absent steps backwards such as potential dummy diplomas) that should be much reduced as a problem (although older potential students disserved by public education in Louisiana two decades or more ago attempting college will continue to be disadvantaged).
The other factor is within the grasp of higher education now: raise standards so that ill-prepared and/or not capable students don’t attempt certain collegiate levels in the first place. This means making entrance into baccalaureate and above universities much more demanding, with some increase also to standards at community colleges. This will have a beneficial domino effect, in that less capable students will filter down to a more appropriate level of instruction given their abilities, boosting graduation rates at all levels.
Of course, this strategy runs afoul of the so-called “common wisdom” touted by those in the educational establishment, that more resources pumped into higher education can be justified by trying to produce more graduates as this presumably stimulates economic growth. But this fails not just practically, but empirically. Regarding the former, one (but not the only) reason why graduation rates are lower than they should be is that too many incapable students are being shuffled into college (encouraged by the low standards of TOPS in Louisiana) because standards are set too low. Once there, they fail to make the cut. Regarding the latter, research shows that an increase of resources going to higher education does not automatically create better outcomes. In fact, after a certain point, increased higher education expenditures create less economic growth because resources that are taken from the private sector are then used less efficiently by government in funding higher education.
So what should Louisiana do? First, there must be recognition that more than enough institutions exist; availability is no problem and no more money need be spent in accomplishing that. Second, it must be understood that existing resources are sufficient but are not used efficiently and/or are misallocated. Third, understanding must occur that tinkering at the margins, such as dealing with program duplication, realigning programs, obvious realignments (some four-year schools existing within miles of each others being combined, for example), etc., by themselves cannot make the dramatic improvements desired. Fourth, the increased demands of secondary education’s escalated standards cannot be watered down in any way.
If the last is achieved, what must happen at the postsecondary level over the next few years is that, first, standards are increased across the board, sometimes dramatically. At LSU Baton Rouge, for example, there’s no reason admission standards, which at present are significantly below that of presumably peer institutions, cannot be raised to their levels. Other four-year institutions in the state can have theirs raised as well by a comparable amount (but starting from a lower base), and few with really no standards at all can be brought into the 21st century by adding them. Basic minimum standards can be put in place at all community colleges, leaving technical school open to those who can’t even meet these.
Of course, this means a drop in enrollments in all four-year schools and will mean some minor retrenchment is in order. But not major retrenchment, because a better education and more emphasis can be made on retention with the additional resources left available not having to be allocated to students likely to fail. So if LSUBR enrollment fell 25 percent as a result of higher standards, a budget cut of only 10 percent may be in order, with the retained resources going to improved instruction (such as with smaller class sizes) and retention efforts, all of which should boost graduation rates significantly.
Tuition dollars (and some state dollars) would follow those now not eligible to go to a four-year place to community colleges, where they are more likely to succeed. The same would occur as more students now ineligible for community colleges make their way to technical schools. In other words, this would realign the same pool of existing dollars in a way that produces better outcomes, the second prong of the strategy.
This can be done over the next decade. Standards gradually can be increased. Hiring freezes can be put in place at baccalaureate and higher institutions, and perhaps if needed at the lower levels as well, to accommodate the new reality. State money can remain consistent overall but not really needing to be increased. What will happen over time is lower total enrollments at the top but consistently higher graduation rates there, while enrollments at the lower levels will increase, as will graduation rates, with the net overall effect being more Louisianans better educated with little in the way of increased funding necessary.
This is bold, challenges the unverified assertions of many, and will gore some sacred oxen in the educational establishment. But it is the optimal path to take so that by 2020 Louisiana will make marked strides in this area without unnecessary expenses. This kind of paradigm shift is what the commission needs to investigate. Accepting uncritically the assertions of those with a vested interest in chanting that more money solves every problem in this area of policy will produce little beneficial change.
10.8.09
Raising participation standards only helps students
Maybe some common sense has begun infiltrating a place in Louisiana that often lacks it, school boards, where at least somebody recognizes higher standards do a better job of preparing children for society than does sports participation.
This past legislative session, state Rep. Rickey Hardy introduced a bill that would increase the standard for which students could participate in extracurricular activities from a 1.5 – that is, alternating C’s and D’s or average and below average – to a 2.0 grade point average. Under some pressure especially from prep athletic interests, the bill did not make it. Hardy has said unless the body that governs Louisiana high school athletics voluntarily imposes the standard before next session, he’ll introduce it again.
He should if needed, but this also doesn’t mean school districts can’t do this on their own such as is being talked about in the Monroe City district by a school board member, Vickie Krutzer. Unfortunately, there is much incentive against a single district doing this because then some interests in it will fear this will shrink the athlete pool and create a disadvantage in competitions with other districts’ schools.
Those against the higher standards usually push a fraudulent argument at best, that the lower standard helps to keep in school marginal scholars attracted by athletic competitions. They claim that otherwise these kids would be lost through dropping out. Further, they also argue that grading scales may be different across schools.
But there are several fallacies to these arguments. First, they make the same mistake as do the proponents of recently-enacted legislation to create a less-demanding curriculum track in the schools, that graduation with a diploma in hand is the end-all and be-all of education. While that might pad statistics and soothe consciences of educators and politicians who now can believe they’ve succeeded, in reality it makes a diploma only a worthless piece of paper and graduation meaningless. If your standards are so low that you really haven’t prepared students to be more productive in the world, it doesn’t matter how grandiose the piece of paper and ceremony are. And it seems that allowing graduation with a slew of D’s, without challenging the student to do better even if it means forfeiting extracurricular participation, creates only one difference between those kinds of students and those who drop out: one has a worthless piece of paper, and the other doesn’t.
However, another consideration also moots the argument of those against raising standards: all Louisiana students in order to graduate must pass the Graduate Exit Exam, meaning three of four sections. It would appear chances are that if you are racking up D’s in school, you aren’t going to pass the GEE (in fact, in some particularly undemanding schools – some notable for their athletic successes – there are students with A averages who can’t pass the GEE). So by increasing the GPA standard, this motivates students to prepare themselves better for the GEE. Again, what good is it to string a child along by allowing below a 2.0 and thereby rewarded with extracurricular activity participation knowing the relaxed standards are increasing the risk of failure to graduate? There is, after all, a difference in “keeping kinds in school” as they opponents articulate they want and “preparing kids for life after school” as supporters want.
Finally, the difference in grading scales as a deterrent factor makes no sense. Regardless whether the floor is 1.5 or 2.0, it is the weaker students who would be relegated, the ones who need the most motivation to do better academically.
It helps to remember that participation in extracurricular activities is a privilege, one that should be enjoyed only when the basic job of the student, academic success, is achieved. Having such a low current standard mitigates most of the motivational import these privileges can bring to spur student success – which is measured not by keeping a child in school, but by having him graduate with a meaningful degree. Increasing the standard to at least a 2.0 only will better serve children in the long run, even if it means them spending Friday nights studying instead of under the lights.
This past legislative session, state Rep. Rickey Hardy introduced a bill that would increase the standard for which students could participate in extracurricular activities from a 1.5 – that is, alternating C’s and D’s or average and below average – to a 2.0 grade point average. Under some pressure especially from prep athletic interests, the bill did not make it. Hardy has said unless the body that governs Louisiana high school athletics voluntarily imposes the standard before next session, he’ll introduce it again.
He should if needed, but this also doesn’t mean school districts can’t do this on their own such as is being talked about in the Monroe City district by a school board member, Vickie Krutzer. Unfortunately, there is much incentive against a single district doing this because then some interests in it will fear this will shrink the athlete pool and create a disadvantage in competitions with other districts’ schools.
Those against the higher standards usually push a fraudulent argument at best, that the lower standard helps to keep in school marginal scholars attracted by athletic competitions. They claim that otherwise these kids would be lost through dropping out. Further, they also argue that grading scales may be different across schools.
But there are several fallacies to these arguments. First, they make the same mistake as do the proponents of recently-enacted legislation to create a less-demanding curriculum track in the schools, that graduation with a diploma in hand is the end-all and be-all of education. While that might pad statistics and soothe consciences of educators and politicians who now can believe they’ve succeeded, in reality it makes a diploma only a worthless piece of paper and graduation meaningless. If your standards are so low that you really haven’t prepared students to be more productive in the world, it doesn’t matter how grandiose the piece of paper and ceremony are. And it seems that allowing graduation with a slew of D’s, without challenging the student to do better even if it means forfeiting extracurricular participation, creates only one difference between those kinds of students and those who drop out: one has a worthless piece of paper, and the other doesn’t.
However, another consideration also moots the argument of those against raising standards: all Louisiana students in order to graduate must pass the Graduate Exit Exam, meaning three of four sections. It would appear chances are that if you are racking up D’s in school, you aren’t going to pass the GEE (in fact, in some particularly undemanding schools – some notable for their athletic successes – there are students with A averages who can’t pass the GEE). So by increasing the GPA standard, this motivates students to prepare themselves better for the GEE. Again, what good is it to string a child along by allowing below a 2.0 and thereby rewarded with extracurricular activity participation knowing the relaxed standards are increasing the risk of failure to graduate? There is, after all, a difference in “keeping kinds in school” as they opponents articulate they want and “preparing kids for life after school” as supporters want.
Finally, the difference in grading scales as a deterrent factor makes no sense. Regardless whether the floor is 1.5 or 2.0, it is the weaker students who would be relegated, the ones who need the most motivation to do better academically.
It helps to remember that participation in extracurricular activities is a privilege, one that should be enjoyed only when the basic job of the student, academic success, is achieved. Having such a low current standard mitigates most of the motivational import these privileges can bring to spur student success – which is measured not by keeping a child in school, but by having him graduate with a meaningful degree. Increasing the standard to at least a 2.0 only will better serve children in the long run, even if it means them spending Friday nights studying instead of under the lights.
9.8.09
Money matters sublimate N.O. mayoral jockeying
There appears to be pondering over a presumed slow start to the race to succeed Ray Nagin as Mayor of New Orleans. Understanding past and present contexts removes much of the mystery.
To start, the past two election cycles have made later starts more customary. In 2001, many potential candidates waited whether a referendum to allow former Mayor Marc Morial to serve a third term would pass before ramping up efforts (it failed). In 2005, when matters might have been expected to get kicked off in the fall, the hurricane disasters muted all electoral action until the end of the year. These may have conditioned participants in the political scene to wait awhile longer before going public.
The reason why one must launch efforts early regardless of visibility of them if there can be any chance of winning forms the second reason: running seriously for the position has become absurdly expensive. One has to make an early start just to collect enough money it takes to win – but the amount has become so high it drives the initial phase of the campaign underground.
In 2006, Nagin spent $2.2 million in getting reelected. But this made him a piker compared to Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, whom was vanquished in the general election runoff despite spending $3.6 million in 2006. He barely outspent one of his primary opponents dispatched early, Ron Forman who shelled out $2 million that year, while the other major candidate, Rob Couhig, could only muster up around $600,000 in spending then. If you’re keeping score, that’s $8.4 million and if you throw in previous year spending and the minor candidates, it creeps close to $9 million. (These costs were somewhat inflated by some attempts at national campaigning by major candidates due to a believed Diaspora of voters, but it would not be surprising for multiple candidates to hit the $2 million level this time out.)
This reality creates a subterranean campaign. Potential candidates sound out potential donors and other individuals who can round up donors, all behind the scenes. No longer can you (if you can) find a few core backers and announce. Now, entire infrastructures must be initiated and without as much ready-made help from the alphabet soup and other political organizations that only now are coming back from the disruptions of the disasters (if they survived other hazards, which at least one has not). Only until these things seem possible does it behoove a candidate to formally announce, and it takes time to put these things together.
Part of this involves a game of chicken. Certain individuals will be involved in political staring contests as they vie for the promise of money and endorsements. The goal for each is to convince would-be opponents not to enter by making them think you would be stronger, or at least significantly undercut their presumed bases of support so as to make a run by them futile – even as the reverse is true. But you can’t let your opponent know that and if you triumph in the war of wills, you will strengthen your own position without spending anything. As the dollar stakes get higher, this process becomes longer precisely because it does not involve spending. Rumors about who might be running come largely from reports of these activities.
Speaking to this point of winning stare-downs, strategy certainly also plays a part, seeing who might be in or out, but one aspect of that which may confuse is demographics. With city-wide victories for an at-large City Council slots and for Orleans District Attorney in 2008 by white candidates, a misperception has grown that a white candidate can win the mayor’s job. It could happen, but only in the unlikely event that a major black candidate does not run.
The fact is if there is one office where race matters most, it is for the mayor’s office. When 63 percent of the registered voters are black and they double up the white electorate, there is a perception among the large majority of the black community that there should be a black in the city’s highest office. As long as at least one quality black candidate runs, one will win given these numbers as conditions for a white candidate winning aren’t even as good as they were four years ago.
Frankly, any white candidate will have to get fairly lucky to win, and that’s a lot to gamble a couple of million dollars on. Within a month expect any potentially serious white candidate to pass, as did Landrieu this time, and this also will prompt announcements by black candidates that they will run. The only exception to this, because he is so wealthy that dropping a few million won’t faze him, is former gubernatorial candidate John Georges.
For those who already have announced, either they will not be competitive or they are gambling that they can steal a march on those who are engaging in staring at this time. If the latter goes long enough, they may be able to build sufficient momentum to carry themselves to victory. But any other major candidate who enters after having built up the infrastructure can make these others’ entrances seem premature, if she doesn’t dally.
The contest goes on, it’s just harder to see given the dynamics especially concerning money have changed. As most if not all major white candidates bow out and the realities of population changes threaten certain politicians with losing their current districts (the 2010 census being less than eight months away) so a move to mayor may seem appealing, the formal field will swell by the end of the year. Even as the stress of recovery from both disasters and economic conditions seems daunting, that condition precisely allows the opportunity for the next mayor to hold more power than ever.
To start, the past two election cycles have made later starts more customary. In 2001, many potential candidates waited whether a referendum to allow former Mayor Marc Morial to serve a third term would pass before ramping up efforts (it failed). In 2005, when matters might have been expected to get kicked off in the fall, the hurricane disasters muted all electoral action until the end of the year. These may have conditioned participants in the political scene to wait awhile longer before going public.
The reason why one must launch efforts early regardless of visibility of them if there can be any chance of winning forms the second reason: running seriously for the position has become absurdly expensive. One has to make an early start just to collect enough money it takes to win – but the amount has become so high it drives the initial phase of the campaign underground.
In 2006, Nagin spent $2.2 million in getting reelected. But this made him a piker compared to Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, whom was vanquished in the general election runoff despite spending $3.6 million in 2006. He barely outspent one of his primary opponents dispatched early, Ron Forman who shelled out $2 million that year, while the other major candidate, Rob Couhig, could only muster up around $600,000 in spending then. If you’re keeping score, that’s $8.4 million and if you throw in previous year spending and the minor candidates, it creeps close to $9 million. (These costs were somewhat inflated by some attempts at national campaigning by major candidates due to a believed Diaspora of voters, but it would not be surprising for multiple candidates to hit the $2 million level this time out.)
This reality creates a subterranean campaign. Potential candidates sound out potential donors and other individuals who can round up donors, all behind the scenes. No longer can you (if you can) find a few core backers and announce. Now, entire infrastructures must be initiated and without as much ready-made help from the alphabet soup and other political organizations that only now are coming back from the disruptions of the disasters (if they survived other hazards, which at least one has not). Only until these things seem possible does it behoove a candidate to formally announce, and it takes time to put these things together.
Part of this involves a game of chicken. Certain individuals will be involved in political staring contests as they vie for the promise of money and endorsements. The goal for each is to convince would-be opponents not to enter by making them think you would be stronger, or at least significantly undercut their presumed bases of support so as to make a run by them futile – even as the reverse is true. But you can’t let your opponent know that and if you triumph in the war of wills, you will strengthen your own position without spending anything. As the dollar stakes get higher, this process becomes longer precisely because it does not involve spending. Rumors about who might be running come largely from reports of these activities.
Speaking to this point of winning stare-downs, strategy certainly also plays a part, seeing who might be in or out, but one aspect of that which may confuse is demographics. With city-wide victories for an at-large City Council slots and for Orleans District Attorney in 2008 by white candidates, a misperception has grown that a white candidate can win the mayor’s job. It could happen, but only in the unlikely event that a major black candidate does not run.
The fact is if there is one office where race matters most, it is for the mayor’s office. When 63 percent of the registered voters are black and they double up the white electorate, there is a perception among the large majority of the black community that there should be a black in the city’s highest office. As long as at least one quality black candidate runs, one will win given these numbers as conditions for a white candidate winning aren’t even as good as they were four years ago.
Frankly, any white candidate will have to get fairly lucky to win, and that’s a lot to gamble a couple of million dollars on. Within a month expect any potentially serious white candidate to pass, as did Landrieu this time, and this also will prompt announcements by black candidates that they will run. The only exception to this, because he is so wealthy that dropping a few million won’t faze him, is former gubernatorial candidate John Georges.
For those who already have announced, either they will not be competitive or they are gambling that they can steal a march on those who are engaging in staring at this time. If the latter goes long enough, they may be able to build sufficient momentum to carry themselves to victory. But any other major candidate who enters after having built up the infrastructure can make these others’ entrances seem premature, if she doesn’t dally.
The contest goes on, it’s just harder to see given the dynamics especially concerning money have changed. As most if not all major white candidates bow out and the realities of population changes threaten certain politicians with losing their current districts (the 2010 census being less than eight months away) so a move to mayor may seem appealing, the formal field will swell by the end of the year. Even as the stress of recovery from both disasters and economic conditions seems daunting, that condition precisely allows the opportunity for the next mayor to hold more power than ever.
6.8.09
School cell phone ban needs wider implementation
In a move that ought to be emulated statewide, the Lafayette Parish School Board outlawed the possession of cell phones on their high school campuses, outside of cars in parking lots, for students during the regular school day, complementing a ban for junior highs and elementary schools. Why this hasn’t been done before and in more places is the real mystery.
Cell phones bring nothing but distraction, if not outright unethical or illegal behavior, to the learning experience. Texting, picture-taking, and even outright calls taken or made in classrooms only interfere with the educative mission. And these are the least concerns. Increasingly, schools are reporting the photographic features of phones are being used to take and then texting/mailing features employed to send inappropriate images that may be illegal. Also, these same tactics can be used to cheat on exams, and, as phones have gotten increasingly sophisticated, phones’ storage and applications can be used to do the same.
Yet some apparently insecure parents resist the idea, citing safety concerns such as notification of them in emergency situations, or for convenience sake. One wonders how these adults of today functioned when they were in school, when their parents (without cell phones themselves) would be notified by the school office phones when necessary. It seemed to work well then, and there’s no reason it can’t work well now.
This policy also may help combat this weird co-dependency increasingly observed among those moving into adulthood and their parents. Some parents act like their children are possessions that can be stolen from them at any time, so they must be in touch with them constantly, going to extreme lengths such as equipping them with homing devices so they can track their every move (not just toddlers which might actually be justifiable, but older children as well). Others have to have intermittent streams of verbal contact by phone. For their part, these attitudes discourage the children from learning independence, self-reliance, and taking responsibility onto their own shoulders. Maybe the real world can be threatening some times, but children have to learn how they can deal with it on their own if they want to function as normal adults in it.
Most students don’t engage in these kinds of behavior, and most parents don’t facilitate an unusual tendency to cling to the apron strings but, as usual, a few rotten apples have come together to spoil things for the responsible users of this technology in the schools. But it is a reasonable burden for them to bear with this kind of policy, given the removal of the drawbacks associated with continuing the ways things were. Other districts would be wise to copy Lafayette.
Cell phones bring nothing but distraction, if not outright unethical or illegal behavior, to the learning experience. Texting, picture-taking, and even outright calls taken or made in classrooms only interfere with the educative mission. And these are the least concerns. Increasingly, schools are reporting the photographic features of phones are being used to take and then texting/mailing features employed to send inappropriate images that may be illegal. Also, these same tactics can be used to cheat on exams, and, as phones have gotten increasingly sophisticated, phones’ storage and applications can be used to do the same.
Yet some apparently insecure parents resist the idea, citing safety concerns such as notification of them in emergency situations, or for convenience sake. One wonders how these adults of today functioned when they were in school, when their parents (without cell phones themselves) would be notified by the school office phones when necessary. It seemed to work well then, and there’s no reason it can’t work well now.
This policy also may help combat this weird co-dependency increasingly observed among those moving into adulthood and their parents. Some parents act like their children are possessions that can be stolen from them at any time, so they must be in touch with them constantly, going to extreme lengths such as equipping them with homing devices so they can track their every move (not just toddlers which might actually be justifiable, but older children as well). Others have to have intermittent streams of verbal contact by phone. For their part, these attitudes discourage the children from learning independence, self-reliance, and taking responsibility onto their own shoulders. Maybe the real world can be threatening some times, but children have to learn how they can deal with it on their own if they want to function as normal adults in it.
Most students don’t engage in these kinds of behavior, and most parents don’t facilitate an unusual tendency to cling to the apron strings but, as usual, a few rotten apples have come together to spoil things for the responsible users of this technology in the schools. But it is a reasonable burden for them to bear with this kind of policy, given the removal of the drawbacks associated with continuing the ways things were. Other districts would be wise to copy Lafayette.
5.8.09
Yes we can shrink LA govt with little pain, results show
A lot of moaning was heard from advocates of big government, often state legislators, about how the budget reductions forced upon the state for this fiscal year would be so harmful, and how those who were against raising taxes to supply more revenues (at least temporarily) needed to come up with some “plan” to deal with shrinking government. By contrast, with hardly a peep from them comes a refreshing story about how two senior officials in state government didn’t complain, they just did it.
Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry Mike Strain, through hiring freezes and voluntary (but with incentives) retirements, took his department’s work force level down 156 positions in the 19 months he’s been on the elected job, a drop of over 20 percent. Deputy Secretary of Insurance Shirley Bowler (appointed by the top, elected, official in the department) reports using the same strategy they have 62 fewer authorized positions, nearly a 20 percent drop in the past year.
From what they are saying, it appears there won’t be much of an impact on service provision even scaled back in personnel significantly. No doubt in some more specific areas some isolated clients might find fairly reduced service levels, and the general public may have to be more inconvenienced at times, but overall the savings of millions of dollars (even after paying out one-time retirement bonuses) will far exceed what little will be lost in terms of service as a whole.
These stories confirm what has been known about Louisiana government (reiterated recently by Treasurer John Kennedy) – comparatively speaking, it is overstaffed for its population. Too many things are being done too inefficiently or should not be done, and squeezing excess employment out of the system will induce more efficiency and shed the essentially unnecessary tasks to save taxpayer dollars.
So to naysayers about how government needs more money or less reduction in size, these signal it can be done, and can be done across the entirety of state government (matching genuine need to available resources, and using such resources smartly). As we head into another fiscally strained year next year, this reality needs to guide policy-makers’ decision-making.
Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry Mike Strain, through hiring freezes and voluntary (but with incentives) retirements, took his department’s work force level down 156 positions in the 19 months he’s been on the elected job, a drop of over 20 percent. Deputy Secretary of Insurance Shirley Bowler (appointed by the top, elected, official in the department) reports using the same strategy they have 62 fewer authorized positions, nearly a 20 percent drop in the past year.
From what they are saying, it appears there won’t be much of an impact on service provision even scaled back in personnel significantly. No doubt in some more specific areas some isolated clients might find fairly reduced service levels, and the general public may have to be more inconvenienced at times, but overall the savings of millions of dollars (even after paying out one-time retirement bonuses) will far exceed what little will be lost in terms of service as a whole.
These stories confirm what has been known about Louisiana government (reiterated recently by Treasurer John Kennedy) – comparatively speaking, it is overstaffed for its population. Too many things are being done too inefficiently or should not be done, and squeezing excess employment out of the system will induce more efficiency and shed the essentially unnecessary tasks to save taxpayer dollars.
So to naysayers about how government needs more money or less reduction in size, these signal it can be done, and can be done across the entirety of state government (matching genuine need to available resources, and using such resources smartly). As we head into another fiscally strained year next year, this reality needs to guide policy-makers’ decision-making.
4.8.09
Jindal must push to reform wasteful long-term care sytem
Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals finally has promulgated new rules in response to budget cuts that started this fiscal year. They address the symptoms but largely miss the disease, an approach that produces inefficiency that Gov. Bobby Jindal has targeted for elimination.
Cuts include reimbursement rates to hospitals, physicians, and home- and community-based providers. These will serve to reduce supply of medical services, of which some may not have been necessary or inefficiently performed which now may become more efficient by this new imperative, but the needed remainder now will be parceled out involving more inefficient use of resources (such as in waiting times) or not at all.
But note one tremendous (roughly 85 percent of their revenues) user of state government money was not affected at all – nursing homes. This is tragic, not only because they perhaps utilize the least efficiently health care dollars yet suffer no penalty for that in hard times, but also because the state largely has set itself up to remove this option from being a solution for tight budgetary times.
For decades, Louisiana has placed way too much reliance on these institutions, culminating in a disastrous law passed in 2006 that locks in a formula that rewards the system some $20 million a year for overcapacity. A Legislative Auditor’s report of 2004 showed that if other rules that determined rates were altered to standards used typically by other states, the state could save almost $100 million a year. Put these two figures together, and that’s half of the $240 million reduction faced by DHH this fiscal year.
At the end of 2008, Jindal made some changes at the margins to slightly improve the situation, but more needs to be both administratively and legislative to correct the imbalance that is needlessly costing the state money. Addressing the former, the state must begin applying its new resource allocation model to nursing homes, as it is doing for other manners of care. Using this, it can identify which patients are improperly institutionalized, i.e. need less intensive services that can be provided in a community home or in their own homes, and move them out to these less expensive yet more appropriate environments.
This would entail transferring money from nursing homes to these other programs – which will make institution operators scream because they deliberately overexpanded to take advantage of the warehousing ethos and now they won’t be getting their payoff. As a safeguard against this, the 2006 law locks in reimbursement for them. Thus, to rectify the situation and to get people into their proper environment of care, this law must be undone. It will take political will – a will that, as a whole, the Legislature may be lacking because of the political clout and donations the nursing home industry can bring.
So it may be up to Jindal. With a huge donor base, he may be the only one to be able to push for this change along the lines of the recommendation of the 2004 report without being held hostage politically by the industry. If this budget situation has made anything clear, it’s that the system must be reformed, Jindal has said he wants to reform it, so now is as good as any time for him to put his money where his mouth is.
Cuts include reimbursement rates to hospitals, physicians, and home- and community-based providers. These will serve to reduce supply of medical services, of which some may not have been necessary or inefficiently performed which now may become more efficient by this new imperative, but the needed remainder now will be parceled out involving more inefficient use of resources (such as in waiting times) or not at all.
But note one tremendous (roughly 85 percent of their revenues) user of state government money was not affected at all – nursing homes. This is tragic, not only because they perhaps utilize the least efficiently health care dollars yet suffer no penalty for that in hard times, but also because the state largely has set itself up to remove this option from being a solution for tight budgetary times.
For decades, Louisiana has placed way too much reliance on these institutions, culminating in a disastrous law passed in 2006 that locks in a formula that rewards the system some $20 million a year for overcapacity. A Legislative Auditor’s report of 2004 showed that if other rules that determined rates were altered to standards used typically by other states, the state could save almost $100 million a year. Put these two figures together, and that’s half of the $240 million reduction faced by DHH this fiscal year.
At the end of 2008, Jindal made some changes at the margins to slightly improve the situation, but more needs to be both administratively and legislative to correct the imbalance that is needlessly costing the state money. Addressing the former, the state must begin applying its new resource allocation model to nursing homes, as it is doing for other manners of care. Using this, it can identify which patients are improperly institutionalized, i.e. need less intensive services that can be provided in a community home or in their own homes, and move them out to these less expensive yet more appropriate environments.
This would entail transferring money from nursing homes to these other programs – which will make institution operators scream because they deliberately overexpanded to take advantage of the warehousing ethos and now they won’t be getting their payoff. As a safeguard against this, the 2006 law locks in reimbursement for them. Thus, to rectify the situation and to get people into their proper environment of care, this law must be undone. It will take political will – a will that, as a whole, the Legislature may be lacking because of the political clout and donations the nursing home industry can bring.
So it may be up to Jindal. With a huge donor base, he may be the only one to be able to push for this change along the lines of the recommendation of the 2004 report without being held hostage politically by the industry. If this budget situation has made anything clear, it’s that the system must be reformed, Jindal has said he wants to reform it, so now is as good as any time for him to put his money where his mouth is.
3.8.09
Melancon con game continues with scripted votes
Last week we got another example of why his job title might be “Member of the House of Representatives,” but a better description going by what Rep. Charlie Melancon actually does is “con man.” (Con Man Melancon, has nice ring to it, huh?)
Melancon has built his congressional career on trying to appear as one thing to his constituents, but actually behaving as another. The greatest disconnect between his desired image and actions is his self-appointed status as a “Blue Dog,” supposedly fiscally conservative Democrats. Yet to date he has been a total Lap Dog when it comes to approving of trillions in budget-busting, deficit-escalating spending at the behest of liberals, his boss Speaker Nancy Pelosi and overlord Pres. Barack Obama.
Yet another chapter got added to his continuing deception when dealing with H.R. 3200, Obama’s attempt to nationalize health care by creating a subsidized public option that would drive the private sector out of the business. Part of that at this point includes an option to publicly fund elective abortions, an idea resisted by a healthy majority of Melancon’s constituents. (It leaves the option for the plan to do so, which no doubt under Obama would occur, and would require the same for federally subsidized private plans to do so.) And Melancon greased the skids for it to happen.
This happened because, at first, an amendment was offered and succeeded in Melancon’s House Energy and Commerce Committee that would have amended the bill to ban, as is current practice, federal dollars to going to fund abortions directly or indirectly. Apparently, committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman realized at that time he lacked the numbers to stop it. While Democrats have a solid majority on the committee, several term themselves as “Blue Dogs” and were skeptical about public funding of abortion and of the high cost of the bill as a whole.
Forced to have a vote, Waxman voted for the amendment which, while passing it, allowed him to bring it up for reconsideration later. Melancon voted for this, also. As the committee moved on, a Democrat against it who had been absent showed up and another claimed he had “accidentally” voted the wrong way and wanted reconsideration. Waxman asked for it and got a majority, including Melancon, to vote for that. This time, with three new votes, two, flipping, against the bill, what had been a four-vote victory for it turned into a one vote defeat, with Melancon again voting for it. Later, the entire bill passed, again with Melancon and several other Democrats voting against it but with more than enough others to pass the entire thing.
Translation: Waxman gave orders to all committee Democrats that an exact few, including Melancon, could vote for the amendment and against the bill, just few enough so the bill would pass. Regardless whether the first vote was for show or because of miscalculation, had everybody who on that vote kept their next vote the same, reconsideration never would have occurred successfully. But Waxman ordered Melancon to support reconsideration, and like the lap dog that he is, he did along with others.
The flim-flam from Melancon comes from his trumpeting to the world about how he voted against the bill not only because of its cost, but because of the abortion provision. But if he was being honest and meant what he said, he would not have voted for reconsideration – he knew what would happen. Either that, or he is a stupid man (not that big of a stretch to consider given some of his past statements) after having been in the House for over four years to not to know what he was doing. Stupid, disingenuous, or both are not traits we want to see in our Congressmen, yet Melancon certainly fit the bill on one or both with these antics.
So this is how Melancon tries to have his cake and eat it, too – do something symbolic to spin enough to please his constituents and to salve his conscience (if he is actually telling the truth about his beliefs, which, again unless he’s stupid, don’t square with his actions) yet allow his masters that he slavishly serves to succeed with their agenda with his help. This does wrong by his constituents, the real objects that he should be serving.
This incident leaves Melancon wide open to charges of hypocrisy and incompetence. Hopefully, future electoral opponents of his will take note of this, explain the situation to potential voters, and not allow him to create a false picture of himself to the public. Thus the Melancon con game continues.
Melancon has built his congressional career on trying to appear as one thing to his constituents, but actually behaving as another. The greatest disconnect between his desired image and actions is his self-appointed status as a “Blue Dog,” supposedly fiscally conservative Democrats. Yet to date he has been a total Lap Dog when it comes to approving of trillions in budget-busting, deficit-escalating spending at the behest of liberals, his boss Speaker Nancy Pelosi and overlord Pres. Barack Obama.
Yet another chapter got added to his continuing deception when dealing with H.R. 3200, Obama’s attempt to nationalize health care by creating a subsidized public option that would drive the private sector out of the business. Part of that at this point includes an option to publicly fund elective abortions, an idea resisted by a healthy majority of Melancon’s constituents. (It leaves the option for the plan to do so, which no doubt under Obama would occur, and would require the same for federally subsidized private plans to do so.) And Melancon greased the skids for it to happen.
This happened because, at first, an amendment was offered and succeeded in Melancon’s House Energy and Commerce Committee that would have amended the bill to ban, as is current practice, federal dollars to going to fund abortions directly or indirectly. Apparently, committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman realized at that time he lacked the numbers to stop it. While Democrats have a solid majority on the committee, several term themselves as “Blue Dogs” and were skeptical about public funding of abortion and of the high cost of the bill as a whole.
Forced to have a vote, Waxman voted for the amendment which, while passing it, allowed him to bring it up for reconsideration later. Melancon voted for this, also. As the committee moved on, a Democrat against it who had been absent showed up and another claimed he had “accidentally” voted the wrong way and wanted reconsideration. Waxman asked for it and got a majority, including Melancon, to vote for that. This time, with three new votes, two, flipping, against the bill, what had been a four-vote victory for it turned into a one vote defeat, with Melancon again voting for it. Later, the entire bill passed, again with Melancon and several other Democrats voting against it but with more than enough others to pass the entire thing.
Translation: Waxman gave orders to all committee Democrats that an exact few, including Melancon, could vote for the amendment and against the bill, just few enough so the bill would pass. Regardless whether the first vote was for show or because of miscalculation, had everybody who on that vote kept their next vote the same, reconsideration never would have occurred successfully. But Waxman ordered Melancon to support reconsideration, and like the lap dog that he is, he did along with others.
The flim-flam from Melancon comes from his trumpeting to the world about how he voted against the bill not only because of its cost, but because of the abortion provision. But if he was being honest and meant what he said, he would not have voted for reconsideration – he knew what would happen. Either that, or he is a stupid man (not that big of a stretch to consider given some of his past statements) after having been in the House for over four years to not to know what he was doing. Stupid, disingenuous, or both are not traits we want to see in our Congressmen, yet Melancon certainly fit the bill on one or both with these antics.
So this is how Melancon tries to have his cake and eat it, too – do something symbolic to spin enough to please his constituents and to salve his conscience (if he is actually telling the truth about his beliefs, which, again unless he’s stupid, don’t square with his actions) yet allow his masters that he slavishly serves to succeed with their agenda with his help. This does wrong by his constituents, the real objects that he should be serving.
This incident leaves Melancon wide open to charges of hypocrisy and incompetence. Hopefully, future electoral opponents of his will take note of this, explain the situation to potential voters, and not allow him to create a false picture of himself to the public. Thus the Melancon con game continues.
2.8.09
Scorecards' effect overblown, but nonetheless interesting
I don’t know what’s taking so long for some groups to put together and publicize their scorecards for the 2009 regular session of the Louisiana Legislature – the Louisiana Legislature Log’s that judges the degree of conservatism/reformism of legislators and the governor was published almost a month ago – but in most instances they are more something that political insiders concern themselves with than does the mass public.
Scorecards take a range of votes cast on bill passages or amendments and measures how a legislator performs on these matters of interest to groups. One end of the scale is perfect agreement with the group (usually made into 100 on a 100-point scale), and the other exactly the inverse. Often (commonly at the level of Congress, less so when dealing with state legislatures), groups will inform legislators prior to an important vote that the outcome will make their scorecard.
They do this, or at least generally publicize the fact some kind of scorecard on some varieties of issues will be compiled, as a subtle form of pressure. Implicitly, they argue that, for some purpose, the group will publicize the results that will make a legislator look more or less flatteringly as a result of this intervention. However, the audience almost always is a set of interests connected to the group, not voters.
Few groups in Louisiana – in fact, perhaps the only being the Louisiana Family Forum – have the ability to create mass dissemination of their scores and to activate enough interested individuals to which scores might actually mean something for an election. For this kind of group, the scorecards can be voter education tools where vote choices actually may be influenced by them in future elections. Yet for almost all other groups (and particularly those who don’t publicize theirs), they serve as instruments by which the group chooses whether to support officeholders in upcoming elections. This includes principally donation decisions or other less tangible means of electoral assistance such as endorsements. They also may be used as lobbying tools. They can identify more or less friendly legislators to the group’s agenda and allow resource allocation to be accomplished more strategically in persuasion process.
If one in hundred potential voters could name their own legislator’s score for one group on even just their own representative or senator, it would be amazing. But that’s not really the intent, measure for posterity (unlike my aforementioned Log), for almost every group doing these. Rather, they are devices before a vote before it’s even taken to persuade, with the implicit threat of bad publicity and/or lack of future support if the legislator votes the “wrong” way, and after the fact to make decisions about that future support.
Political science research on these scorecards has covered without exception the national level and generally concludes that, in terms of voting behavior, rarely does the publicity make a difference in a legislative career. For intermediary aspects such as donations and endorsements, on some occasions there may be a marginal electoral effect. In both cases, they tend to occur only for extreme cases. (In my years of doing the Log, only once has a legislator even asked about it.) Still, scorecards are an interesting tool by which to understand who is what.
Scorecards take a range of votes cast on bill passages or amendments and measures how a legislator performs on these matters of interest to groups. One end of the scale is perfect agreement with the group (usually made into 100 on a 100-point scale), and the other exactly the inverse. Often (commonly at the level of Congress, less so when dealing with state legislatures), groups will inform legislators prior to an important vote that the outcome will make their scorecard.
They do this, or at least generally publicize the fact some kind of scorecard on some varieties of issues will be compiled, as a subtle form of pressure. Implicitly, they argue that, for some purpose, the group will publicize the results that will make a legislator look more or less flatteringly as a result of this intervention. However, the audience almost always is a set of interests connected to the group, not voters.
Few groups in Louisiana – in fact, perhaps the only being the Louisiana Family Forum – have the ability to create mass dissemination of their scores and to activate enough interested individuals to which scores might actually mean something for an election. For this kind of group, the scorecards can be voter education tools where vote choices actually may be influenced by them in future elections. Yet for almost all other groups (and particularly those who don’t publicize theirs), they serve as instruments by which the group chooses whether to support officeholders in upcoming elections. This includes principally donation decisions or other less tangible means of electoral assistance such as endorsements. They also may be used as lobbying tools. They can identify more or less friendly legislators to the group’s agenda and allow resource allocation to be accomplished more strategically in persuasion process.
If one in hundred potential voters could name their own legislator’s score for one group on even just their own representative or senator, it would be amazing. But that’s not really the intent, measure for posterity (unlike my aforementioned Log), for almost every group doing these. Rather, they are devices before a vote before it’s even taken to persuade, with the implicit threat of bad publicity and/or lack of future support if the legislator votes the “wrong” way, and after the fact to make decisions about that future support.
Political science research on these scorecards has covered without exception the national level and generally concludes that, in terms of voting behavior, rarely does the publicity make a difference in a legislative career. For intermediary aspects such as donations and endorsements, on some occasions there may be a marginal electoral effect. In both cases, they tend to occur only for extreme cases. (In my years of doing the Log, only once has a legislator even asked about it.) Still, scorecards are an interesting tool by which to understand who is what.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)