Saving Obama rather than LA behind EPA opposition

Political agendas behind in the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to oppose a regular permit that would allow Louisiana’s berm building to continue make it clear that the Pres. Barack Obama Administration would rather preserve its own life and those of marine creatures than help Louisiana protect human life.

Under emergency permits, guided by Gov. Bobby Jindal’s directive the state began building six berms of about 34 miles to prevent oil from the recent Gulf of Mexico spill to prevent it from entering estuaries and lapping up on shore. Even incomplete, they have succeeded by catching a small amount of the total estimated spillage that would have fouled the coastline.

However, Jindal has bigger plans. He wants to build another 13 berms that could protect another 103 miles of coastline which not only could catch oil but also could be used as the first stage of a comprehensive coastal restoration plan. Always a stickler for efficient government in action, Jindal reasoned this could bring that kind of restoration, which counters disruption of some aquacultural and agricultural production but, more importantly, provides for increased hurricane protection, more quickly and more cheaply to the state.

Instead, the EPA indicated it would shoot down the idea by its asking for a halt of the first six berms’ construction, still months away from completion even as they are enough present to catch oil (and already paid for by the miscreant company responsible for the spill) and opposing the construction of the other 13. The commentary attached to the decision said the potential environmental costs it felt exceeded the benefits of catching oil, especially since the leak had been stopped.

Both ideological and partisan politics influenced this decision. Keep in mind that the most radically environmentalist presidential administration in history wishes to use this agenda as a method for government to gain more control over the economy, resorting to corrupt science and unconstitutional fiat using the EPA to impose its will. EPA mandarins may not be so much interested in that mission, aside from the increased power it gives them, as they are in propagating an agenda that inappropriately overvalues non-human concerns at the expense of human needs, especially as any potential harm to the environment is uncertain while a major storm striking the southeast part of the state’s coast certainly will have huge economic costs in dollars and human costs in lives. With such horrendous consequences, the cost of a chance of environmental degradation pales in comparison to these which can be mitigated the faster and more efficiently coastal restoration occurs, as Jindal proposes.

Unfortunately, political concerns even more brutally push the EPA into this position. As Obama was criticized severely for his inadequate response to dealing with the spill and its after-effects, Jindal was applauded by many for his proactive response, making Obama look bad by contrast. The berms were a key component of Jindal’s response, and that they have proven successful does more political damage to Obama. So, Obama has an interest in letting his subordinates at the EPA know that this reminder of his lacking leadership should be curtailed.

Further, as part of the strategy to downplay Obama’s fumbling of the issue, his Administration has floated a narrative that most of the leaked oil no longer poses a threat to the coast, hoping that minimizing the incident makes the public see it less critically as an issue. Thus, part of the EPA response mimics this assertion that not much oil out there thus can cause little damage, reducing the usefulness of the berms.

But in fact, the Obama Administration’s claims quickly were faulted by the scientific community, and more exacting and detailed analyses showed just the opposite. This reality magnifies the utility of the berms and their incorporation into a larger coastal restoration plan. By having this done, they can become more secure and provide better protection just like barrier islands. A decade or more from now a big storm could kick up all of this oil floating near or on the bottom of the ocean and thrust it inland, or a series of smaller events over time incrementally could push it shoreward. Without the berms, one day Louisiana will wake up without warning to a sudden influx of oil onto the coasts and into marshlands, and probably repeatedly.

In the end, this EPA pronouncement was more about saving the political ideology and fortunes of the Obama Administration than any reasoned analysis which would place primacy on protecting Louisiana’s people and coast – which should come as no surprise to observers of this regime since it came into power.

Jindal endorsement vacillation serves political needs

Gov. Bobby Jindal’s vacillation over whether to endorse incumbent Republican Sen. David Vitter isn’t really that mysterious when considering the nature and purpose of endorsements by politicians.

Before Labor Day, Jindal said he would be issuing no endorsement in this contest, where Vitter’s main challenger is Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon. After the holiday, his spokeswoman then said he might give one out, presumably for Vitter, before the election. Furthering muddying the waters was Jindal had said he would not get involved in this way in federal elections – despite having done so in a losing effort for the Sixth Congressional District special election in 2008, for a winning effort in that district months later, and also in a losing bid for the Senate simultaneously – later amended to say he had meant this just for this election cycle, before the hemming and hawing on that.

Seems confusing, but it really isn’t. Endorsements by a sitting elected official for others seeking office actually contains reciprocal benefits. The endorser hopes his imprimatur helps a candidate he favors, for reason of party loyalty or ideological compatibility to assist his agenda, or maybe just genuine liking, to get elected. But he also expects the endorsement to reflect favorably on him, which combines the perceptions that the endorsement proves useful to get somebody in office and that winner is someone with which he identifies. Both directions, giving and getting, link the candidate to the endorser.

Were it not for Vitter’s having admitted to a “serious sin,” believed connected to a prostitution ring although that has not been proven nor subject to any legal proceedings, likely Jindal would have endorsed Vitter long ago. However, Jindal may think that such an act may cause him political harm with some voters who are more interested in rumors about candidate behavior than issue preferences and thereby dislike Vitter even as they agree with his agenda. By an endorsement, Jindal may think this feeling may rub off on him with some voters.

This consideration might pale for Jindal were Vitter in a close race. But he’s not as polls consistently show he will defeat Melancon handily and all others spectacularly. Endorsements generally help only in close races and/or ones where the preferred candidate is an underdog – precisely the circumstances behind Jindal’s other federal contest endorsements. Thus, a Jindal endorsement really does nothing to change Vitter’s chances of victory, so far ahead is he, and the cost to Jindal of such certainly does exist. Why then endorse when no benefit for you or your preferred candidate seems obvious, especially when a cost to you appears present?

If something really crazy happened and Vitter’s lead suddenly shrank, then Jindal retains the option to endorse, where at that point any cost he incurs will be lower than the overall cost, not just to his agenda but also to those agendas of his party and ideological cohort, of Vitter not winning reelection. At that juncture, an endorsement might matter and Jindal even could come out looking enhanced in image, were Vitter to then win a close race, as he may appear with it to have tipped the scales in Vitter’s favor.

So it’s not all that hard to fathom Jindal’s silence, particularly as he continues to attract a modicum of attention as a figure for high national office. When looking towards the next election, in matters where principles don’t appear at stake (and for many if they are at stake, even greatly) you do things that you think will win more votes than lose them. On this issue Jindal acts rationally, even if this perturbs some supporters of Vitter, Republicans, and conservatives.

Don't wait until election to remove dictatorial Deen

Maybe the Bossier Parish School Board thought the well had been poisoned for tax increases, despite its deficit spending, when it did not roll forward rates last week. Because if one wanted to find a definition of “farce,” “arrogant,” and perhaps even “illegal,” around these parts look to the June Potemkin meeting by Bossier Parish Sheriff Larry Deen to raise taxes on suffering Bossier Parish residents to satisfy some strange lust for taking maximal resources from them for minimal return.

Again, a review of statistics shows how Deen’s aberrant behavior has been over the past decade, as he has raised the overall tax millage far more than any other major governing authority in Bossier Parish through rolling forward rates. The Constitution mandates that rates be lowered above the legal maximum for an authority because of increase in value of property to keep overall tax paid the same, unless the authority acts to roll forward rates.

Unlike the Parish, Bossier City, and the School Board, he unilaterally may decide on this while these other authorities must have a supermajority of their governing bodies to do so.

Since 2000, Sheriff’s Office revenues have climbed 296 percent, expenses have increased 361 percent, property tax revenues – with just a 2005 roll forward prior to this one – went up 136 percent, and assets have exploded 932 percent. Parish population outside of municipal boundaries increased only about 12 percent in that period, and overall crime rates – which are more affected by things that policing cannot control such as proportion of young males in the population and economic performance – have gone down about 14 percent.

Lives, not marine life, should have priority in permitting

-->

You could see this coming from far off, in this case the adoption by Gov. Bobby Jindal of the Pres. Barack Obama Administration’s mantra, “never let a crisis go to waste.” But while Obama wishes to take, if not provoke and create, crises in order to empower government at the expense of people, Jindal wants to use an entirely unwanted one to score environmental protection way ahead of schedule and on the cheap.

When the Apr. 20 well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico began pumping oil into the sea, that unfortunate incident cost lives and environmental degradation. But while Obama sought to use the incident as a catalyst to push for a costly, counterproductive alternative energy agenda, Jindal saw a silver lining to the tragedy enabled by a confluence of disparate circumstances.

The disappearance or retreat of Louisiana’s coastline long has been recognized, caused by human intervention such as through activities to prevent flooding and controlling waterways and economic activities, and also through natural changes. While the environmental and economic consequences are troubling, perhaps the greatest threat from change this comes from hurricanes. As marshlands recede, natural impediments to hurricanes are reduced to permit stronger ones to hit larger populated areas just off the coast.

In Senate race, Melancon shows worse character

It’s the other shoe time dropping time with the final prong of the Rep. Charlie Melancon campaign emerging, possibly as part of a presumably coordinated effort with defeated Senate candidate Chet Traylor.

In his quest to take the seat held by incumbent Sen. David Vitter, the Democrat Melancon has found himself on the wrong side of most issues about which a majority of Louisianans care. Recognizing this, he has based his campaign almost entirely on attempted character assassination of the Republican Vitter, making thoughtful people wonder whether it’s worth putting such a petty, vituperative person that focuses most of his efforts attacking his opponent into such an office of great responsibility.

The unusual entrance of Republican Traylor into that party’s primary from the beginning smacked of an attempt to create a stalking horse working with Melancon against Vitter. With little organization, almost no money, and considerable political baggage himself, the only plausible explanation as to why Traylor would enter, and lose devastatingly, was as an excuse to intensify Melancon’s attack strategy against Vitter.

In particular, Traylor ran some ads thin on substance but long on personal attacks on Vitter, more extreme and explicit than previously had surfaced from the Melancon campaign or from allied Democrat organizations and affiliates. This level of venom has continued with new ads out designed to support Melancon by tearing down Vitter. Now, Melancon, who would have looked less statesman-like had he initiated these on his own in the past, can claim he’s simply repeating what other candidates already have articulated.

If Traylor was encouraged by backers of Melancon to enter the race, that was the main purpose, to provide this kind of cover for a campaign that will get nastier because that’s all Melancon has to offer. It reflects poor character on his part to permit such shenanigans to go forward, rather than conduct a campaign concentrating instead on issues of government spending, taxation, support of Democrats’ agenda, federal funding of abortion, and wasteful junkets.

But if polling data to date don’t change dramatically, it’s not working. Louisiana voters are more focused on issues, even if Melancon avoids them as well as his constituents, and this final descent into hate-filled politics that Democrats are making serves perhaps as the final validation of why in the next couple of months Americans will judge them unfit to run its national legislature, as well as illuminating Melancon’s deficient character.

Protests, reaction to damage higher education more

Not wanting to do a run-of-the-mill fifth year anniversary story on the Hurricane Katrina disaster, I wasn’t sure what to do and these past couple of weeks kept finding better stuff about which to write. Then, thanks to some manifest irresponsibility and self-absorbed cluelessness, I found this direction in which to head.

Narcissistic students who fancy themselves as “rebels” (who all end up dressing, acting, and thinking as a herd of lemmings) and hippie graybeards in academia must have had their hearts skip a beat of joy when they discovered student protest over university funding cuts had broken out at the University of New Orleans. There of all places made it a wonder still; the vast majority of the students at my alma mater with their jobs and family responsibilities don’t have the time, their parents’ money, or taxpayer-funded free tuition to allow them the luxury of behaving as spoiled brats.

First, it was a small group (not all of them UNO students) that barred classes from starting in one building by getting themselves locked in overnight, then obstructing doorways. After their disgorgement in time for the next set of classes to begin, some actually cheered their brazenness. Then, at a rally already scheduled to protest the reductions a scuffle broke when university police ordered several dozens of participants to leave and some refused after they unexpectedly entered then yawped around the Administration Building, leading to violence and a couple of arrests.

That the initially-planned rally was ill-conceived did not make it too counterproductive. Had it been held out as a rally at which could educate about the state’s budget situation, the place of higher education within it (including the inconvenient facts about there being too many schools a high per capita spending on them), and how to influence policy-makers to alleviate the extra structural burden higher education faces in fiscal arrangements in the state, that would have been a positive step. Instead, from reports it ended up as a festival of whining and posturing combined with a dance party.

Unfortunately, this degree of cluelessness exhibited should surprise no one in academia. It never ceases to amaze me how some college students, who have roofs over their heads, generally get the chance for three square meals a day, have their health care paid for one way or another, and who get paid by taxpayers or from the generosity of donors or family to study and not work full-time, can form any idea that they in any way are being “oppressed.” Live a year in Cuba, Iran, or North Korea and they might wise up to the fact that larger class sizes with fewer scheduling options and major courses of study available isn’t exactly the end of the world.

Such an experience might do some good especially to the young savants who hung up signs like “Occupy! Strike! Resist!” and another who stated his selfless goals as “We want free education, free university for everybody” – despite the fact that the rally was scheduled specifically to conflict with class times and some associated with it urged students to boycott these classes, So, they want everybody else to pay for letting them sit in classes at which they don’t even bother to show? Many non-participating students seemed to grasp that, but because they just went along with their business of acquiring education it didn’t garner any publicity.

Regrettably, the stupidity did. Viewing this, thinking members of the public might conclude UNO enrolls too many people who, if their brains were gunpowder, couldn’t even blow their own noses. The problem is, perhaps they took their cues from a few too many members of the faculty as some (students said) encouraged students to miss classes to attend the rally, and the even more accommodating ones cancelled classes. Needless to write, such an abrogation of duty by these pretentious blowhards and/or milquetoasts not only demonstrates a distinct lack of character but also great willingness simultaneously to give taxpayers a Bronx salute and to cheat students out of education by failing to perform the very task for which they are supposed to be there.

Nor did their superiors acquit themselves well. They did, by breaking up the Administration Building disruption, hew to what the university spokesman said, that UNO would not allow the normal functioning of the university to be impeded. But then administrators validated the very concept of disruption by refusing to punish the building occupiers/barricaders, who caused class cancellations, and invited them to do the same in the future by meekly requesting the powers that be to get served a heads up next time on any planned occupational activities.

This all connects to Katrina because that is what started UNO’s downward spiral that prompted some of these toy revolutionaries to get worked up. Heavily dependent on the surrounding parishes for enrollments, with Orleans and Plaquemines still down substantial numbers of people, when budget crises came at the state level, you simply couldn’t keep a university with infrastructure and personnel budgeted for 16,000 students operating when only 12,000 were there. It’s sad that services must be cut and people let go, but it’s a fact of life.

And when the general public sees these events, itself under pressure from other state cutbacks and general economic malaise that only has grown since Pres. Barack Obama came into office saying he’d produce the exact opposite, this will strengthen its conclusion that in dealing with predicted future budget woes the cutting of more funds for self-indulgent students, self-absorbed faculty members, and self-parodying administrators isn’t such a bad idea after all.

Conditions make Cao's reelection not hopeless cause

All along, the chattering classes have assumed that Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao cannot hold onto his Second Congressional District seat, a Republican in a district where only one in nine voters are and two-thirds are Democrats. In light Saturday’s party primary election results, it’s time to reassess that conjecture.

Cao’s only real competition will come from state Rep. Cedric Richmond, securer of the Democrats’ nomination, who racked up 60 percent of the just over 24,000 votes cast in that primary. A colleague of mine estimates that Richmond picked up two-thirds of black votes, estimated at nine percent turnout, and almost half of white votes, estimated turnout at seven percent. Cao did not have challengers for his nomination.

Three things must be considered to extrapolate these results to November. First, Cao will benefit from an enthusiasm gap, where supporters of Republican candidates will be more likely to turn out than those supporting Democrats, as other Saturday results showed. Second, on the baseline white voter turnout for elections in this district historically is a little higher than black turnout, again favoring Republicans since blacks vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Third, only Democrats and no-party registrants could vote in the primary; Republicans were absent. They get their shot obviously in a general election, and no-party registrants can get a chance to vote for a Republican.

That last point explains the racial turnout figures in the primary. While blacks comprise only 13 percent of GOP registrations and whites over three-quarters, the figures are for Democrats over three-quarters and 15 percent, and for none and other parties 43 and 40 percent, respectively. With no conservative candidates in the primary that would be more likely to appeal to white Democrats and independents, they disproportionately sat this one out. Come November, not only should the historical gap of 2-4 percent white over black emerge again, it probably will be greater given the enthusiasm gap.

Estimating that very roughly can be accomplished by looking at the Senate primary voting patterns in the larger of the two parishes that comprise the Second, Orleans (about 278,000 registered voters; Jefferson contributes around 111,000). Backing out the tenth or so of Orleans precincts not in the district and then comparing turnouts, the hot House race got 8.3 percent turnout, the sleepy Democrat Senate primary picked up 7.7 percent, and the overhyped Republican Senate contest (the only one on the ballot for them) got 7.4 percent.

These numbers ought to encourage Cao, because if a high-stimulus Democrat House race marginally outdraws a low-stimulus GOP Senate contest, it does show an enthusiasm gap in his favor. Further, perhaps part of the reason why House turnout did not much exceed the Senate’s was some Democrats and independents not wanting to vote for any of the Democrat candidates, but willing to vote for Cao in November. This hypothesis finds additional support when looking at the party primary in 2008, when turnout was almost three times what it was this time. While there were additional contests on the ballot then – mostly judicial, one being for the state Supreme Court, but also a Public Service Commission spot and, most stimulating, for Orleans District Attorney – it’s a stretch to say those additional contests were that much more incentive to draw out voters.

Instructive here is that no-party registrants came out below 10 percent for that primary in 2008, but when the general election came along two months later, despite that contest being the only one on the ballot, their turnout jumped five percent. It was noted at the time that this very likely represented disproportionately Cao voters. In addition, in 2008 in the first primary election white turnout exceeded black by about one percent, contrasted to down about two percent this year, so the effect of whites sitting out the primary waiting for the general election to vote for Cao may be felt to a greater degree this year. Again, all signs point to an enthusiasm gap strongly favoring Cao despite his natural constituency being far fewer in numbers.

However, in 2008 that enthusiasm gap was magnified by disgust with his main opponent former, convicted Rep. William Jefferson, even as national tides worked against that for Cao. What may give Cao more hope this time are results from Jefferson Parish, now about 30 percent of the district, where enthusiasm seems even stronger. There, the House race drew only 4 percent participation while the GOP Senate contest brought over 50 percent to the polls. Some of that is due to Sen. David Vitter being from Jefferson, but most has to be ascribed to much greater enthusiasm.

Jefferson, the parish as well as the opponent, also was a key to Cao’s win in 2008. While white participation was about 11 percent higher in Orleans than black voting, it doubled up at almost 29 percent in Jefferson, nearly five points higher than in Orleans. Put its figures the same as Orleans, and the race is a toss-up. If anything, enthusiasm among Cao’s constituency – recalling there is a much higher proportion of Republicans in this part of the Second and almost as many whites as blacks – in Jefferson is likely to be even higher relative to Orleans than in 2008. Also helping him potentially here is that Jefferson is going to have some high-profile municipal, parish, and school board contests decided on that date, driving turnout higher.

To put it into boilerplate, Cao’s situation is far from hopeless. He can win, following the formula of 2008, modified to current conditions. Rather than depend upon depression of his opponent’s turnout because of his opponent being under indictment, he has to hope this time around greater enthusiasm among his supporters takes up that slack. This time out turnout should be double the 2008 general election’s, around 35 percent if following historical norms. Cao can win if he can get at least 40 percent white turnout in Jefferson, which also doubles black turnout there, and if white turnout exceeds black turnout in Orleans by at least five percent whose total turnout is only two-thirds or less of the district’s (it was 68.5 percent in 2008).

For this to happen, Cao must create, through enthusiastic turnout of his supporters, as big a gap in participation as in 2008 when it was disgruntlement over Jefferson that depressed his vote. This will not be easy, especially as Richmond can expect closer to 90 percent of the black vote rather than Jefferson’s 80 percent. But the macro electoral conditions are there for him to pull it off. Thus, electoral obituaries written about him almost two years gone may turn out premature.