Landrieu can't talk her way out of big political damage

No amount of spin emanating from Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu can change the fact that the victory by Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts Senate special election is for her an unmitigated political disaster. The interesting part is in discovering just how stupid she is willing to appear in trying to avoid that.

Landrieu’s subsequent remarks about this betray any one or all of a heretofore-unimagined vapidity, an incredibly stone ear, or a super-sized blithering idiocy. Let’s start with her declaring that the victory by Brown, which deprives Democrats of a chance to be able to break Republican Senate filibusters to prevent a health care reform bill that would raise costs, premiums, and lower quality that Landrieu supported, was “a wake-up call to the wing of the Democratic Party that wants the federal government to overreach and overspend.”

By that statement, Landrieu suggests she is not part of that “wing” of her party. That being the case, if she doesn’t want “the federal government to overreach and overspend,” then why did she vote for a bill that precisely did these things? (And, in another self-negating act, for a spending bill that has done nothing positive for the economy?) Despite numerous constituent outcries in Louisiana against the bill for these reasons (that is, when she could be bothered to listen which appeared to be seldom) to alert her to this fact, she seemed to ignore the reality of what she now admits.

Absent Vitter blunder, Melancon Senate chances gone

You might write it off as a fluke owing to sample size, method, etc. or not compelling if one poll gives a candidate even a decent-sized lead 10 months from an election. But when two give a Louisiana candidate with the field essentially to himself for the Senate an average of a 19 point lead and an average of over half the electorate intending to vote/support him – especially an incumbent Republican – the race is over.

Republican Sen. David Vitter finds himself in this enviable position as a Rasmussen poll of likely voters by phone and a YouGov/Politmetrix Internet poll of likely voters put him solidly ahead of Democrat U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon. This is the largest lead registered by one major-party candidate over another in almost two decades in the state, before Senate races started to field competitive Republicans. Also favoring Vitter is that it’s been eight decades since an incumbent lost in Louisiana and, in the competitive era, no Senate candidate with such a lead ever has lost.

Add to that the darkening red shade of Louisiana statewide electoral politics and it might be a long, lonely, and resource-poor interval for Melancon as he beats his head against this brick wall. It’s difficult to think of any normal scenario where Melancon could pull this out given these numbers and must be stoking up the heartburn among himself and his campaign staff.

For example, what if the election of Republican Scott Brown from Massachusetts to the Senate, flipping the seat, stops radical health care reform in its tracks? Without that shoved down an unwilling American people’s throats, that issue goes off the table and Melancon won’t have to deal with that toxicity? Not really, because Vitter will remind all he was right from the start while Melancon had to be dragged kicking and screaming to starting over.

Or if Obama suddenly came to his senses and began to try to govern from the center instead of the far left? No, Vitter gets the credit for opposition that he can legitimately claim pulled Obama in that direction, while Melancon becomes an enabler for votes such as for the spending bill that has done nothing positive to the economy and hiked debt up to previously-unimaginable levels.

(As a side note, with Secretary of State Jay Dardenne announcing that he won’t contest Vitter for the GOP nomination, that would indicate Dardenne may be seriously contemplating getting into the lieutenant governor’s chair if, as he is predicted to do, current holder Mitch Landrieu wins the New Orleans mayoralty. His odds would have been better than Melancon’s but still long and the expense huge, so this comes as no real surprise regardless of whether a vacancy will come soon.)

As always, a lot can happen in a little under 300 days. But the facts are if anybody is going to come back from 20-point deficits in 2010 elections, it’s not going to be a Democrat. Numbers and history show that, unless Vitter is crazy enough to commit another “serious sin,” what once was considered a possible Democrat pickup opportunity has vanished.

Some in LA higher education their own worst enemies

Often in this state, elements of higher education become its own worst enemy, indicated by a tantrum thrown concerning the adverse impact of budget cuts on Louisiana’s colleges and universities that will only turn off the public even more about their plight.

Last month, the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration was handed the unpleasant news that before the end of this month constitutionally it would have to axe $248 million from current year spending. Because of the fiscal structure of the state’s spending of its own revenues, the largest absolute hit happens to health care, but the largest proportional hit goes to higher education. Added to previous reductions for the same reason, higher education has now gone from a $1.4 billion budget a couple of years ago to about $1.15 billion.

It would have been worse without the federal spending bill passed last year, and part of that law which allowed money to be used for higher education also has a provision that says support levels for higher education can’t go below 2006 levels. Projected cuts of $84 million this time would put the state $60 million below, thus to proceed a waiver from the federal government – already successfully obtained by two other states – must be granted.

Case shows desirability of LA retirement policy change

Louisiana House Speaker Jim Tucker got resolved that the Legislature should look at changing Louisiana’s retirement system from a defined benefit to a defined contribution plan. The experience of former Jefferson parish President Aaron Broussard shows why this is a wise move.

Until 1990, most state employees and many parochial and municipal employees on hiring were enrolled in a defined benefit retirement plan which means they receive a set annuity (adjusted optionally legislatively for cost-of-living increases) monthly. It is computed typically at one of 2.5, 3 or (for elected state officials) 4 percent of base salary times number of years served. Base salary is determined by an employee’s retirement eligibility (usually 30 years in or after age 55) date for the three following years if an employee requests to declare participation in the Deferred Retirement Option Program. During that time, money that would be paid upon retirement is banked and then becomes available shortly after retirement. If the 36 months passes and an employee continues to work, the money earns interest until it can be withdrawn.

Broussard, who resigned under pressure, has almost-immediate access to $185,000 (although for tax reasons he may wish to do otherwise) because of his DROP participation. Further, he will draw a pension of about $90,000 annually, or about 72 percent of his last salary. If he has any, also available is compensation for any sick/leave days which can be substantial.

By contrast, a defined contribution plan essentially takes tax-free a part of an employee’s pay (currently 8 percent) and a state match (currently 7 percent) and puts them into what is essentially an individual retirement account. Upon retiring, depending upon age, a lump sum and/or annuity payments could be taken. Unlike the defined benefit plan, there is no disability or survivor’s benefit after five years of service.

Just by using this example, the state can save in at least three ways and promote more efficiency. First, the state doesn’t have to pony up money three years before retirement which looses interest income for it. Second, by not allowing employees to leave potentially in the 50’s and paying them essentially full salary, experienced employees are encouraged to work longer instead of becoming double-dippers by taking another job after state retirement. Third, the state won’t be on the hook for extras like disability pay, survivor’s benefits, and the like which should be the responsibility of individuals to arrange.

Thus, while it is impossible to say with certain actuarially, it is likely that the state would save money this way. Even if those costs ended up the same, it would bring more order to the process (no more predicting about who retires and dies when, just known amounts going into plans every month) and keep the state from having to front money early by DROP. Note also perverse incentives for early retirement would be reduced, and the state would save money by eventually not having to a pension-management apparatus.

The matter’s urgency intensifies because of the huge deficit the defined benefit plan has triggered in the state. It’s now estimated that the unfunded accrued liability on accounts – which constitutionally must be solvent by 2029 – is almost $17 billion which creates a massive debt to be financed. While a switch in strategy won’t reduce this, it will prevent it from becoming larger through new obligations.

Committees have mused about ending the current system by the start of the next fiscal year Jul. 1. A defined contribution plan won’t deprive future employees of a generous retirement if they behave reasonably, and will save taxpayer resources. The example of Broussard’s case should sensitize politicians and the public to the wisdom of making the change.

Legislators complain about wrong disabled policy

Some Louisiana legislators expressed perturbation over the state’s Department of Health and Hospitals abruptness in moving to privatize group homes the state has maintained for the developmentally disabled. More appropriately this emotion would be levied at themselves over their lack of alacrity dealing with the disposition of past privatization fruits concerning this clientele.

Members of the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget complained that they and the relatives of individuals living in these homes, which are geared to serve moderately mentally and physically disabled individuals, received next to no warning of the decision before it was announced that the facilities were not going to be closed immediately and that over the next few months they would be privatized or, failing that, their residents dispersed to other homes. The move by the state came as a result of necessary mid-year budget cuts and similar previous utilizations showed that costs per client are significantly lower with comparable or better care in private facilities.

But it must be acknowledged even as legislators pontificate about how forcibly quick decisions of this nature – which aren’t that hasty in that closing such facilities has been a long-term goal of the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration and before – threaten outcomes that provide for maximal care and peace of mind for client’s relatives, that in the minds of many of them there is another reason for their pique: as with any state-run operation, these homes are seen as devices by which to win votes locally. Being able to campaign with taking credit for providing this service, as well as the state jobs attached to it, is off the table when the state no longer directly provides the service or jobs. Legislators do not like it when executive branch officials take away their ability to be perceived as doling service and employment opportunities, so this was part of their angst although none will admit that.

Yet ironically, in the larger question of the state getting out of the business of direct provision of living spaces for the developmentally disabled, it is legislators themselves who are not addressing about the right thing nor making efforts to see that it is done. As the state has reduced its role, it has been slow to implement the cost savings from the growing privatization campaign which delays possible benefits going to that client population.

In recent years, beginning before Jindal assumed office, the state has had a strategy to shed itself of some of the supports and services centers for the most severely disabled and downsizing others to group homes. The strategy was to close and sell the facilities and, according to Act 555 of 2006, to use proceeds to fund more Medicaid waiver slots that would permit home- and community-based care. However, this has occurred at a snail’s pace where the state still has the facilities (one is no longer residential and four have been turned into glorified group homes) with costs still being even higher by keeping them operating with far fewer clients so that no proceeds have been forthcoming to fulfill that new law. This statute also would apply to the closing of these group homes.

Legislators should not be so concerned about facilities getting closed as they should be getting the proceeds from their sale into reducing the tremendous backlog in the waiver program that will only grow as de-institutionalization becomes recognized as an option for some clients displaced through the closings. Further, the cost savings (such as maintenance) from taking these properties off the state’s hands can go to addressing the budgetary crisis in the state’s Medicaid system because the state’s fiscal structure forces so many reductions on it. They need to pay more attention to their oversight duties on this account, and not so much sniping over decisions made for efficiency and effectiveness sakes.

Jindal request for better reform tips aggressive agenda

If his reaction to a proposed pay plan change for classified state employees is any indication, Gov. Bobby Jindal may be looking to swing for the fences in 2010.

Late last year, the State Civil Service Commission approved a change that would tie specific pay raises to performance levels, with better evaluated performances earning higher pay. It would allow exceptions to those with SCSC approval. The current system gives a flat raise to anybody scoring in the three highest performance categories which in 2008-09 turned out to be 98.4 percent of those rated, if the Legislature and governor authorizes one, although the Director of Civil Service can waive or halt these if budgetary difficulties are demonstrated.

This certainly was better than the prior system as it provided more rewards for higher achievers and provided incentives for lower achievers to improve or to leave the system. But Jindal vetoed this good reform, saying it was not as flexible as another proposal that had failed to gain passage which would set the percentage increase targets as discretionary maximums decided on a case-by-case basis by agencies, and would leave the ability to grant variances in the hands of the director.

The main reason why Jindal found this objectionable was because the adjustment in the scale, where adequate performers automatically would get a three percent, good performers four percent, and outstanding performers six percent, cures only a symptom and not the major disease that inhibits creation of a compensation adjustment regime that truly would reflect merit and encourage more efficient work: that the current distribution of evaluations simply is not credible and biased well to the high side. For 2008-09, about a third of evaluated employees were placed in the middle “meets expectations” category, almost half were in the higher “exceed expectations” category, and about a seventh were in the highest “outstanding” category. The last proportion might be realistic, but it is way too much to believe that four-fifths of the state’s classified work force is in the other two categories to be valid.

The DSCS has discussed with the SCSC reforming the evaluation process to make it more realistic, so this call for the unapproved previous plan is Jindal’s way of putting pressure on them to do so and to have a backup in case they don’t. Simply, if no genuine ratings will occur, agencies (on direction by the governor) would have the option of setting their own, lower levels than the 3/4/6 scheme under the governor-backed plan.

Jindal will get his way, and in time for the 2010 fiscal year. Not only does he appoint all but one of the SCSC members and can threaten not to reappoint if thwarted, but also he can inform them that it the change isn’t made, he’ll veto any legislative attempt to provide a pay raise according to the present four percent flat regime which the Legislature will not override. Raises will be given his way or not at all, and the change will happen.

This signals that Jindal isn’t content to settle for staying inside the park on this issue, but wants to hit a homer. If he brings that attitude to the legislative session this year (as one of his key allies predicts), there could be a lot of dramatic change and fireworks in the offing.

Correctly so, VP interest still hovers around Jindal

Two things seem apparent from a recent entry to Newsweek’s “The Gaggle” by Andrew Romano: that he read this post of mine from a half year ago, and that national interest among the chattering classes has yet to abate concerning the political future of Louisiana’s Gov. Bobby Jindal.

The piece speculates about whether Republican Jindal will position himself for a potential vice presidential nomination slot in 2012. He reviews my logic about why Jindal is unlikely to run for president in 2012 – a constrained election calendar, additional benefits of serving two terms as governor, and the chancy nature of running against an incumbent (although he failed to note that this holds true even against a damaged incumbent, which I forecasted about Pres. Barack Obama even before he took office and which is coming to pass) – and also agrees with me that former candidate and governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney might be the guy to hook up with.

Romano takes the Romney angle and runs further with it, showing how Romney appears to favor Jindal and interaction between the two. In fact, given the demographics of various GOP hopefuls for 2012, most are in Jindal’s age range and would have been governors, so they probably would pick a running mate with more national experience and wrinkled craniums than Jindal; besides former candidate and governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee whose economic populism will be in deep disfavor after four years of Obama, only Romney fits the profile of a candidate that would pick someone with Jindal’s profile.

In case Romney does capture the nomination next time, another thing may favor Jindal’s selection even more compellingly: Democrat Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu is the likeliest winner of the upcoming New Orleans’ mayor’s race and thereby with his exit to take that job probably means a Republican lieutenant governor will be present by the time Jindal would have to jump ship if getting elected in 2012. That’s one less discouragement to keep Jindal from leaving the national sidelines, knowing a Democrat and especially one with the surname of Landrieu won’t be sliding into the Governor’s Mansion as a result.

And yet another contingency works for Jindal on this account: if he can guide Louisiana through some tough budgetary times through his first term, he will gain major credit and maybe even a brighter 2012 economically and fiscally within the state – perhaps by some of his very deeds – could allow him a first year of a second term to spread a little cheer with moves such as tax cuts. The publicity from being able to manage the state without much pain in bad times and delivering on a conservative agenda in the good would make him even more attractive on a ticket.

If elected, it’s obvious where conceivably he could go from there. If not, a piece of historical risk remains for this strategy – only one president in the modern campaign period ever won the office after having participated in a losing vice presidential candidacy, and it took a depression to do it. Still, it’s a risk most politicians would take. From the other side of the equation, a reason that a presidential nominee might not take him would be he does not come from a swing state where a running mate could be used to move some electoral votes into the GOP column.

Still, what Romano wrote recently is as plausible as when I wrote it six months ago. Jindal may have this as an ultimate middle-term strategy that will hinge on his (very likely) reelection in 2011, and having the party pick the right guy to lead the way in 2012. If so, in the near-term look for him to continue with party-building efforts on his trips out of state, a prominent role in an upcoming Republican meeting in April (already listed as an invited speaker), and continued interaction with Romney.

Panel's uneven choices need fixing before conclusion

Louisiana’s Postsecondary Education Review Commission, assigned to find ways to make the state’s higher education work more efficiently, made some more decisions about recommendations for policy changes that are more uneven than the good work it has done to this point, with undesirable consequences unless fixed.

It produced two notable suggestions, which will be forwarded next month for disposition by the Legislature, from its latest meeting. First, it argued that the state should merge its several higher education governance boards into three, one for community and technical colleges, one for baccalaureate-and-above institutions, and the Board of Regents where the latter would provide overall policy coordination while the others concentrated on operational aspects. However, it said this should occur only if certain benchmarks were not achieved by 2014.

This was disappointing because the benefits of consolidation stand independently of any timeframe or other goals. Why have three different systems for baccalaureate-and-above schools (with a community college thrown into one of them) when their tasks essentially are the same? Perhaps it was a bow to political expediency because the constituencies built up behind the different systems would make difficult the merger, and some kind of signal of failure to create an imperative may have been thought necessary to have any chance of getting this through a majority of the Legislature, and with two-thirds voting approval by the public (as this necessitates a constitutional amendment).

LA GOP rightly censures group devaluing party ID

Internecine war to a degree broke out at the latest meeting of the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee meeting. The question is whether the conflict helped or hindered the party’s chance at propagating its ideas.

Last year, a groups of GOP registrants but which has no formal affiliation with the party from New Orleans, the Greater New Orleans Republicans, had voted as a group to endorse state Sen. Edwin Murray’s bid to be the city’s next mayor. The problem was, Murray was a Democrat in a contest which had multiple Republican candidates, one of which, businessman Rob Couhig, had run respectably in 2006 gaining a double-digit share of the votes in a fragmented field.

This brought expressions of disapproval from the Committee, which meets quarterly to make broad governance decisions about the state party. It passed a resolution specifically censuring the group and generally calling on any state organization of Republicans to refrain from endorsements of non-Republicans when a GOP candidate was in a race. Mike Bayham, a Committee member who also is a member of the group, explained a majority of the group felt Couhig could not win. Ryan Booth, another Committee member, said he could understand the move as Murray was the best available candidate to defeat Democrat Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu “and the Democratic machine.” (Although the resolutions carry no enforcement, embarrassment on the group was increased when Murray subsequently dropped out of contest.)

But one wonders where Booth has been from the past several decades as political machines have come and gone in New Orleans no matter who was mayor. They’ve all had one thing in common – they’ve been of the Democrats, so what difference does it make which Democrat ends up leading whichever faction can gain ascendancy in the coming months as a result of this election?

And he and the group didn’t seem to understand that Murray would appear to have little to do with their presumed agendas – in the past five years as measured by my legislative scorecard at the Louisiana Legislature Log, on a scale where low scores represent extreme liberalism/populism, Murray has scored 42, 37, 35, 25, and (most recently), 5. In 2006 you might have been able to argue Murray wasn’t too far off being moderate, perhaps even more than Landrieu, but not now.

Bayham argued the specific mention of the group was a move of damaging inter-party strife that should be avoided. But that smacks more of acquiescence than understanding the purpose of a political party. To use the definition I give my American Government students, a political party seeks to organize and operate government for the purposes of making public policy by supplying candidates for offices with a label. That does mean if you are a group that deliberately adopts a party label in its name, you should be in the business of supporting candidates using that label or at least not supporting others with a different one when one or more of your own runs.

No, a Republican has little chance of winning citywide Feb. 6 or in any runoff. Yet to write off completely support of one of your own damages the very label and thereby the causes associated with it that those choosing to do so say they value. Like any attitude, party identification and thus the strong correlation it has with subsequent behavior like voting for the party’s candidates erodes when it is devalued by deliberately setting it aside in these situations, And the more often that is done, the chances of that party’s candidates winning become even longer as fewer people stay enthusiastic about the party’s candidates and attitudes become more complacent in accepting an agenda further and further from what was once believed. Such an environment, for example, would have made the election of the area’s Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao – himself a recent GOP convert that likely could not have won otherwise –impossible.

The state party entirely was correct to word the censure motion as it did and pass it. If this group’s majority feels this way which is more indicative of an interest group than of an organization claiming affiliation with a political party, it either should change its name or change its behavior. Otherwise, its disingenuousness will cause it to lose credibility among those in the area truly interested in wanting to offer a choice, not an echo, to the Democrats which is the only way the Republicans have a chance to succeed.

Broussard joins promising politicians abruptly gone

As I prepared to return to Louisiana after a few years teaching at universities across the South, I viewed from afar the train wreck developing concerning the governor’s race. With incumbent moderate Buddy Roemer fading against the Hobson’s choice of former holder liberal Edwin Edwards and conservative masquerader David Duke, with genuine conservative Rep. Clyde Holloway not catching on, some wondered if then-mayor of Kenner Aaron Broussard might not be an attractive alternative, a presumed moderate Democrat with a record of achievement at the civic level.

It was thought that with Roemer having just turned Republican that a moderate Democrat could seize a number of votes, possibly Broussard or a then-member of the Public Service Commission, Kathleen Blanco. Blanco got in but never qualified, yet probably chased Broussard whose candidacy never caught fire. We know she eventually won the office a dozen years later, but ended her political career ignominiously wrecked on the shoals of her handling of the hurricane disasters of 2005. The same should have happened to Broussard, but his political exit appears to come for a very different reason.

Despite an image of political competence and progressiveness courtesy of a growing Kenner and then Jefferson Parish which he served first on its council and then as its president for the past several years, Broussard was an old-style political hack as befitting the environs around New Orleans. He worked inside to retain and use power, and he could play the populist card when needed.