David Duke may have been a blip on Louisiana’s political radar, but to this day his image still blots a considerable portion of others’ radar reception of the state. (Personal anecdote, of which I promise few and far between: when in 1994 I was staying in Belize City barely on the right side of the tracks, my brother and I hung out one night on the second-floor veranda of our hotel. An itinerant, like the plurality of Belizeans, black and, by his manner, not well educated, came wandering by and struck up a conversation with us and a woman from California also staying there. He digested her residence and Jonathan’s, Texas, with equanimity, but in response to mine he noted, “The state with David Duke and all those racists”).
Thus when about a year ago an article published in the premier online journal in political science, The Forum came out essentially arguing racism was alive and well in Louisiana’s 2003 governor’s contest, it got some attention. The state’s leading unaffiliated journalist John Maginnis wrote about it, the state’s leading talk show host Moon Griffon mentioned it, and a couple of newspapers noted it in editorials.
It got my attention too because a number of years ago I got involved in an intramural argument about the meaning of the Duke vote in 1991. Essentially a set of authors argued that vote still showed a considerable anti-black affect among white Louisianans. I eventually published another piece disputing that and demonstrating that a better electoral interpretation was that Duke had tapped into an anti-interventionist, anti-big government populism among Louisianans. In short, contrary to what the other authors asserted that a nontrivial portion of the Duke vote came from racial prejudice, instead it came because they saw him as an outsider ready to take on a government too ready to support special interests at their expense.
30.3.05
Loose ethics = no federal dollars
Quick, what do begging the federal government for coastal restoration funds, lobbying the executive branch, and carping legislators have in common? Well, they all boil down to a matter of trust that without is what makes getting some right things done so hard in Louisiana.
It appears, finally, that the commonsense application of lobbying regulations to the executive branch as well as the legislative branch of state government is about to happen. The administration/politics dichotomy in any executive branch does not exist as many of its members, from department head (elected or appointed) all the way down to minor functionaries who interpret regulations make policies with their decisions. Thus, they become targets for influence and the extension of the limits only can be positive.
Yet for closing the one loophole that exists, free tickets to sporting events (and cultural events, but I haven’t seen lawmakers in LSU caps desperately queuing up for the Ballet Folkloríco), legislators still voice concern over not just the elimination, but even any reduction, in the $100 limit. Sen. Jay Dardenne plans to file a bill to remove it (after a similar one failed last year) and still has picked up co-sponsors equaling only about a quarter of the Senate for what should be a slam-dunk measure.
Why are these strengthenings of ethics laws in the state so important? Because Louisiana’s reputation that lawmakers play fast and loose with rules and resources precedes itself, and maybe that’s why the federal government is so hesitant to commit funds to the state for grand purposes that don’t already directly involve some interest of constituency. Witness how Gov. Kathleen Blanco has gone to the length of wanting to introduce a constitutional amendment to dedicate funding to the task, the hopes of attracting federal dollars to it.
We’ve already gto nearly three-quarters of the state budget tied into some revenue stream somewhere, and Blanco may even understand that to reduce this flexibility further is bad public policy, but, if so, she’s desperate enough to do this anyway to get this money to do it. Put simply, it’s an attempt to tell the federal government that state government actually will do with grant monies it gets what it promises to do.
It’s going to take a lot more than this tightening of ethics laws to turn that image around, but it’s never too early to start erasing the reputation that makes for a national joke.
It appears, finally, that the commonsense application of lobbying regulations to the executive branch as well as the legislative branch of state government is about to happen. The administration/politics dichotomy in any executive branch does not exist as many of its members, from department head (elected or appointed) all the way down to minor functionaries who interpret regulations make policies with their decisions. Thus, they become targets for influence and the extension of the limits only can be positive.
Yet for closing the one loophole that exists, free tickets to sporting events (and cultural events, but I haven’t seen lawmakers in LSU caps desperately queuing up for the Ballet Folkloríco), legislators still voice concern over not just the elimination, but even any reduction, in the $100 limit. Sen. Jay Dardenne plans to file a bill to remove it (after a similar one failed last year) and still has picked up co-sponsors equaling only about a quarter of the Senate for what should be a slam-dunk measure.
Why are these strengthenings of ethics laws in the state so important? Because Louisiana’s reputation that lawmakers play fast and loose with rules and resources precedes itself, and maybe that’s why the federal government is so hesitant to commit funds to the state for grand purposes that don’t already directly involve some interest of constituency. Witness how Gov. Kathleen Blanco has gone to the length of wanting to introduce a constitutional amendment to dedicate funding to the task, the hopes of attracting federal dollars to it.
We’ve already gto nearly three-quarters of the state budget tied into some revenue stream somewhere, and Blanco may even understand that to reduce this flexibility further is bad public policy, but, if so, she’s desperate enough to do this anyway to get this money to do it. Put simply, it’s an attempt to tell the federal government that state government actually will do with grant monies it gets what it promises to do.
It’s going to take a lot more than this tightening of ethics laws to turn that image around, but it’s never too early to start erasing the reputation that makes for a national joke.
29.3.05
Party may be over for Caddo's Hanna
Who says you can’t party in Shreveport like you can in New Orleans? We have parish administrators and governor’s aides who actions testify otherwise.
Of course, having multiple drinks at a time is not a reason to fire Caddo Parish Administrator Bill Hanna. But a questionable job performance in terms of effectiveness is. Just in the past two years a number of incidences have occurred that point to his waning effectiveness.
He subjected the parish to an embarrassing personnel episode when a former high-level employee openly complained about his behavior, including what she described as obvious inebriation
He has failed to amicably negotiate through a dispute with the Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Department concerning reimbursements to house prisoners
After issuing on behalf of the parish campaign materials insisting that voter defeat last July 17 in Caddo Parish of a 0.15% sales tax would cause massive cutbacks in service for juvenile justice, voters called his bluff and defeated the measure, and the sky hasn’t fallen yet
At least one parish commissioner has openly questioned his leadership and, in a maladroit maneuver, asked for his resignation
Neither has Hanna acquitted himself well in this current episode by his statements. As the guy who launched the private investigation correctly notes, when Hanna protests that this revelation came as result of a vendetta against him, even if true it does not change the fact that Hanna was engaging in this behavior. Further, it makes it look like Hanna would have continued (if we take the Commission’s statement at face value) to flout the Commission’s wishes in this regard had this information never been uncovered. (And, honestly, when you’re drinking four fingers worth of vodka with a single digit’s worth of mixer three to four times during a lunch hour that may well affect your judgment on the road and on the job.)
Hanna always has been a kind of accidental parish commissioner. He was mayor of Shreveport from 1978-82, having previously been a car dealer and, to be charitable, found that running a city is not the same thing, so with discretion being the better part of valor he chose not to run for reelection. He eventually drifted into Caddo Parish’s assistant administrator’s job and happened to be on the scene when the Commission finally tossed the corrupt (if unconvicted) Judy Durham out of the top job in 1996 to inherit it.
As the parish’s financial difficulties become more pressing, and several experienced parish commissioners leaving because of term limits in 2007, now would be a good time to break in a younger, more energetic, and less controversial leader. Perhaps Hanna, if need be with a nudge that the Commission seems strangely unwilling to give, should reprise his decision he made as mayor and depart gracefully and soon.
Of course, having multiple drinks at a time is not a reason to fire Caddo Parish Administrator Bill Hanna. But a questionable job performance in terms of effectiveness is. Just in the past two years a number of incidences have occurred that point to his waning effectiveness.
Neither has Hanna acquitted himself well in this current episode by his statements. As the guy who launched the private investigation correctly notes, when Hanna protests that this revelation came as result of a vendetta against him, even if true it does not change the fact that Hanna was engaging in this behavior. Further, it makes it look like Hanna would have continued (if we take the Commission’s statement at face value) to flout the Commission’s wishes in this regard had this information never been uncovered. (And, honestly, when you’re drinking four fingers worth of vodka with a single digit’s worth of mixer three to four times during a lunch hour that may well affect your judgment on the road and on the job.)
Hanna always has been a kind of accidental parish commissioner. He was mayor of Shreveport from 1978-82, having previously been a car dealer and, to be charitable, found that running a city is not the same thing, so with discretion being the better part of valor he chose not to run for reelection. He eventually drifted into Caddo Parish’s assistant administrator’s job and happened to be on the scene when the Commission finally tossed the corrupt (if unconvicted) Judy Durham out of the top job in 1996 to inherit it.
As the parish’s financial difficulties become more pressing, and several experienced parish commissioners leaving because of term limits in 2007, now would be a good time to break in a younger, more energetic, and less controversial leader. Perhaps Hanna, if need be with a nudge that the Commission seems strangely unwilling to give, should reprise his decision he made as mayor and depart gracefully and soon.
28.3.05
Double-dipper Odom preparing to face music?
It’ll be interesting to see how Agriculture Secretary Bob Odom reacts to the doings of a legislative committee he can’t control. The last person Odom probably wants to tangle with in the Legislature now is Sen. James David Cain, who gave some thought to opposing Odom for the job in 2003 and now probably wishes the election occurred in midterm.
Cain, who heads the Senate Insurance Committee, no doubt has plenty of motivation to thoroughly vet Odom’s third career as a contractor (his second being controlling state Democratic Party functions). Even if Odom has built up allies in the Legislature (and has the Senate Agriculture Committee and its chairman Mike Smith in his back pocket), even if he is a separately elected executive officer, even if about $69 million of dedicated monies and fees come under his control with another $10 million or so from the federal government, the fact is with a budget of around $109 million he needs the Legislature’s $30 million from the general fund more than it needs him.
(Actually, there may not be a worse bunch for Odom to rumble with than this committee. It’s full of Republicans from urban areas and the remainder are black Democrats, most significantly the guy who got the rawest deal out of the “Unity Ballot” fiasco. They probably won’t have a lot of sympathy for Odom’s shenanigans.)
The committee hearings on the matter of insurance risk to the state began today (and given this information won’t conclude today) should detail what a shady enterprise Odom runs. Not only are highly trained and educated employees being utilized in a manner that wastes their talents in other areas (and probably at higher salaries than even construction workers get), but begs the question if they have so much time not needed to being devoted to pesticide matters, veterinarian duties, legal things etc., that the department must be overstaffed in the first place.
(That being the case, Gov. Kathleen Blanco had the chance to excise some of these jobs out of the Odom’s budget, as she did hundreds of others across the state bureaucracy. While in her budget she did request a reduction of 12 classified employees, she left the number of unclassified ones, those actually moonlighting on Odom’s orders as construction workers, unchanged. She did, however, indicate she wanted to slice away around $15 million out of his dedicated funds – the bulk of which was from the notorious venture capital account Boll Weevil Eradication Fund; well, let’s use the executive budget’s phrasing:
Eliminates duplicate funding for bond payment of $12M, which is included in the Louisiana Agricultural Finance Authority funding and the Boll Weevil Eradication Fund -- which also has funding authority of $12M for the bond payment. In FY'06 $24M was appropriated to pay $12M in bond payments.
So maybe she is catching on and least trying to rein in Odom. Apparently, he’s been double-dipping, or at least trying to, on the fund.)
One thing the committee should do is make quite clear that Odom’s practices do not save the state any money at all. Either these employees are being underutilized in their real jobs, so those positions need not be there and cheaper construction labor from the private sector can be hired. Further, liability is a hidden cost. At least 10 workers have been injured on the job at Lacassine, and if the past is any indicator, that’s a hidden cost of perhaps at least $1 million to the final price tag of building the mill.
Of course, Odom does have his special interest supporters. Witness this howler from the Lake Charles Cane Co-op, Inc.:
He has brought together as much of the area talent skills and labor force, to do those jobs that they are best suited for, and by doing so he is exposing his upper management staff into the hard-core arena of what it takes to make development happen …. [He] has been and continues to be the only elected official in the state, that has partnered with the local farmers to do the 'heavy lifting' necessary to save the agricultural industry.
So these bozos give state taxpayers the Bronx cheer by applauding the wasting of money by making white collars into blue, in the name of “hard core … development” and “heavy lifting” … because, as they blatantly admit, they want state taxpayers to subsidize them to keep them in business.
Even if the Department of State Civil Service can’t do anything about this (because the employees being exploited are unclassified and this agency oversees classified employees), maybe this committee can do something to clean this cancer called Odom out of state government. What and how, I don’t know, but any attempt is better than none.Except for the very shortest terms, any stock fund of quality equities or bond fund of high-grade debt has beaten the government’s return over Social Security’s historyExcept for the very shortest terms, any stock fund of quality equities or bond fund of high-grade debt has beaten the government’s return over Social Security’s history
Cain, who heads the Senate Insurance Committee, no doubt has plenty of motivation to thoroughly vet Odom’s third career as a contractor (his second being controlling state Democratic Party functions). Even if Odom has built up allies in the Legislature (and has the Senate Agriculture Committee and its chairman Mike Smith in his back pocket), even if he is a separately elected executive officer, even if about $69 million of dedicated monies and fees come under his control with another $10 million or so from the federal government, the fact is with a budget of around $109 million he needs the Legislature’s $30 million from the general fund more than it needs him.
(Actually, there may not be a worse bunch for Odom to rumble with than this committee. It’s full of Republicans from urban areas and the remainder are black Democrats, most significantly the guy who got the rawest deal out of the “Unity Ballot” fiasco. They probably won’t have a lot of sympathy for Odom’s shenanigans.)
The committee hearings on the matter of insurance risk to the state began today (and given this information won’t conclude today) should detail what a shady enterprise Odom runs. Not only are highly trained and educated employees being utilized in a manner that wastes their talents in other areas (and probably at higher salaries than even construction workers get), but begs the question if they have so much time not needed to being devoted to pesticide matters, veterinarian duties, legal things etc., that the department must be overstaffed in the first place.
(That being the case, Gov. Kathleen Blanco had the chance to excise some of these jobs out of the Odom’s budget, as she did hundreds of others across the state bureaucracy. While in her budget she did request a reduction of 12 classified employees, she left the number of unclassified ones, those actually moonlighting on Odom’s orders as construction workers, unchanged. She did, however, indicate she wanted to slice away around $15 million out of his dedicated funds – the bulk of which was from the notorious venture capital account Boll Weevil Eradication Fund; well, let’s use the executive budget’s phrasing:
Eliminates duplicate funding for bond payment of $12M, which is included in the Louisiana Agricultural Finance Authority funding and the Boll Weevil Eradication Fund -- which also has funding authority of $12M for the bond payment. In FY'06 $24M was appropriated to pay $12M in bond payments.
So maybe she is catching on and least trying to rein in Odom. Apparently, he’s been double-dipping, or at least trying to, on the fund.)
One thing the committee should do is make quite clear that Odom’s practices do not save the state any money at all. Either these employees are being underutilized in their real jobs, so those positions need not be there and cheaper construction labor from the private sector can be hired. Further, liability is a hidden cost. At least 10 workers have been injured on the job at Lacassine, and if the past is any indicator, that’s a hidden cost of perhaps at least $1 million to the final price tag of building the mill.
Of course, Odom does have his special interest supporters. Witness this howler from the Lake Charles Cane Co-op, Inc.:
He has brought together as much of the area talent skills and labor force, to do those jobs that they are best suited for, and by doing so he is exposing his upper management staff into the hard-core arena of what it takes to make development happen …. [He] has been and continues to be the only elected official in the state, that has partnered with the local farmers to do the 'heavy lifting' necessary to save the agricultural industry.
So these bozos give state taxpayers the Bronx cheer by applauding the wasting of money by making white collars into blue, in the name of “hard core … development” and “heavy lifting” … because, as they blatantly admit, they want state taxpayers to subsidize them to keep them in business.
Even if the Department of State Civil Service can’t do anything about this (because the employees being exploited are unclassified and this agency oversees classified employees), maybe this committee can do something to clean this cancer called Odom out of state government. What and how, I don’t know, but any attempt is better than none.Except for the very shortest terms, any stock fund of quality equities or bond fund of high-grade debt has beaten the government’s return over Social Security’s historyExcept for the very shortest terms, any stock fund of quality equities or bond fund of high-grade debt has beaten the government’s return over Social Security’s history
27.3.05
Gibson's bond plan performs duty, turns up heat on Hightower
Not just at least a down payment on Shreveport’s infrastructure woes, the move by City Councilman and Council President Mike Gibson to propose a bond issue for street repair also represents a shrewd political move.
The $75 million request to voters would address needs estimated in the $450 million range and politically stands in marked contrast to Mayor Keith Hightower’s bypassing voters on the $40 million question whether to fund a convention center hotel. Not only does Gibson want voters to have a say, it highlights the different priorities the two politicians seem to have.
Almost everybody traveling around Shreveport can see first-hand the necessity of street and drainage repair, whereas no such need for a publicly-owned hotel is evident, especially as it now appears likely that legal changes concerning gambling in Arkansas and Texas could strip area casinos of half of their business, making the profitability of that hotel that much more questionable. And Gibson is comfortable giving people the choice; in fact, during the campaign he can apologize to voters that with approval of the general obligation bonds their interest rates will be slightly higher (thus costing city taxpayers more) because of the extra debt Hightower committed to an increasingly financially-precarious hotel.
There’s no way Hightower can look good out of this. With Gibson and the other two Republican councilmen Thomas Carmody and Jeff Hogan almost sure to approve this, only one Democrat vote is needed for it to pass. Hightower would look incompetent to veto it (can you imagine this being thrown in his face in some future campaign, that as long as it’s above the ground no matter whether it’s needed he’ll build it, but if it’s on or below ground he won’t even if it’s vitally needed) and petty to oppose the referendum when the need is so clear. Hightower couldn’t even have suggested it and gain credit for it, after opponents of the hotel kept pointing out how massively the city has run up debt under Hightower.
The move further locks Hightower, and his legacy as well, into the fate of the hotel, a fate that is looking simultaneously increasingly pessimistic for him and more costly to Shreveport taxpayers.
The $75 million request to voters would address needs estimated in the $450 million range and politically stands in marked contrast to Mayor Keith Hightower’s bypassing voters on the $40 million question whether to fund a convention center hotel. Not only does Gibson want voters to have a say, it highlights the different priorities the two politicians seem to have.
Almost everybody traveling around Shreveport can see first-hand the necessity of street and drainage repair, whereas no such need for a publicly-owned hotel is evident, especially as it now appears likely that legal changes concerning gambling in Arkansas and Texas could strip area casinos of half of their business, making the profitability of that hotel that much more questionable. And Gibson is comfortable giving people the choice; in fact, during the campaign he can apologize to voters that with approval of the general obligation bonds their interest rates will be slightly higher (thus costing city taxpayers more) because of the extra debt Hightower committed to an increasingly financially-precarious hotel.
There’s no way Hightower can look good out of this. With Gibson and the other two Republican councilmen Thomas Carmody and Jeff Hogan almost sure to approve this, only one Democrat vote is needed for it to pass. Hightower would look incompetent to veto it (can you imagine this being thrown in his face in some future campaign, that as long as it’s above the ground no matter whether it’s needed he’ll build it, but if it’s on or below ground he won’t even if it’s vitally needed) and petty to oppose the referendum when the need is so clear. Hightower couldn’t even have suggested it and gain credit for it, after opponents of the hotel kept pointing out how massively the city has run up debt under Hightower.
The move further locks Hightower, and his legacy as well, into the fate of the hotel, a fate that is looking simultaneously increasingly pessimistic for him and more costly to Shreveport taxpayers.
24.3.05
Just say no if behavior is irresponsible
Elected officials have a moral obligation to be wise stewards of the citizenry’s resources. Since government has the ability to coerce from the governed the latter’s resources, it must do so only to address a problem that affects or might affect the entire society that otherwise cannot be solved for by the individual by any means. The Bossier Parish School Board’s decision at present to not pay for an employee’s gastric bypass surgery represents such a hard but just decision.
The school system self-insures and already is facing dramatically higher spending in the area of health care of its employees. Part of the system’s response, mirroring the overall trend in the industry, is to create wellness incentives, so that their insured will undertake actions that can prevent much larger and expensive health care problems down the road. A policy that would pay for gastric bypass surgery is contrary to this philosophy.
An uncontroversial performance of this technique costs tens of thousands of dollars; complicated cases can run closer to $100,000 per individual. In assessing the total potential liability faced by the board by sanctioning this procedure, the estimate at present ran to $3 million, more than this year’s large jump in expenses from all causes.
And the fact of the matter is if there is an area of wellness where individual responsibility can avoid huge medical costs, it concerns obesity. Almost all cases of morbid obesity develop because the individual involved chooses to overeat relative to activity level. That individuals who behave in this fashion who have no medical condition that would cause morbid obesity would expect the rest of society to pay to subsidize this behavior is an immoral request, placing a burden on others when they first have not exhausted all possibilities that they can pursue on their own.
To have a government body grant such a request also would be immoral, both from the perspective of society and the individual involved. By holding out this option to its insured, the district would create a false sense of security for those on their way to morbid obesity, a belief that they could continue to engage in personally destructive behavior without major consequence. Instead, the wise insurer would pay for programs designed to wean away people from this self-destructive behavior.
A person in such straits also has other options than getting taxpayers to pay for her overindulgence. At any time, a person simply can choose to eat less and to seek from the Bossier school system to help make this happen as with any other form of addiction. Stories are legion about people who made a personal commitment to change their diets and whose mastery of urges and self-discipline allowed them to drop hundreds of pounds.
Another option would be seeking employment in the private sector with an employer who does offer surgery as a benefit. Unlike the public sector, those in the private sector represent voluntary associations, so these employers are free to offer whatever benefits they like, just as employees are free to work with whatever employer will hire them. If leaving long-time employment in the school system is necessary to obtain the surgery, then that is a cost of an individual’s suboptimal behavior.
An unpalatable but possible option would be to pay out of one’s own resources for the procedure. It might involve years to pay back a lender or provider, but this possibility as a last option perhaps can serve as a discouragement to those tempted to get on the road to future morbid obesity.
These options do exist, so the action to deny by the Board does not in any way threaten the life of its employees with this condition. By offering incentives to avoid behavior leading to this condition, rather than funding a repair of the consequences of this condition, the Board serves both the purposes of the community and individuals acquiring this syndrome. For that reason, the Board recently decided wisely, and future refusals to include gastric bypass surgery as a reimbursable procedure serve the entire community of employees, children, and taxpayers of Bossier Parish.
The school system self-insures and already is facing dramatically higher spending in the area of health care of its employees. Part of the system’s response, mirroring the overall trend in the industry, is to create wellness incentives, so that their insured will undertake actions that can prevent much larger and expensive health care problems down the road. A policy that would pay for gastric bypass surgery is contrary to this philosophy.
An uncontroversial performance of this technique costs tens of thousands of dollars; complicated cases can run closer to $100,000 per individual. In assessing the total potential liability faced by the board by sanctioning this procedure, the estimate at present ran to $3 million, more than this year’s large jump in expenses from all causes.
And the fact of the matter is if there is an area of wellness where individual responsibility can avoid huge medical costs, it concerns obesity. Almost all cases of morbid obesity develop because the individual involved chooses to overeat relative to activity level. That individuals who behave in this fashion who have no medical condition that would cause morbid obesity would expect the rest of society to pay to subsidize this behavior is an immoral request, placing a burden on others when they first have not exhausted all possibilities that they can pursue on their own.
To have a government body grant such a request also would be immoral, both from the perspective of society and the individual involved. By holding out this option to its insured, the district would create a false sense of security for those on their way to morbid obesity, a belief that they could continue to engage in personally destructive behavior without major consequence. Instead, the wise insurer would pay for programs designed to wean away people from this self-destructive behavior.
A person in such straits also has other options than getting taxpayers to pay for her overindulgence. At any time, a person simply can choose to eat less and to seek from the Bossier school system to help make this happen as with any other form of addiction. Stories are legion about people who made a personal commitment to change their diets and whose mastery of urges and self-discipline allowed them to drop hundreds of pounds.
Another option would be seeking employment in the private sector with an employer who does offer surgery as a benefit. Unlike the public sector, those in the private sector represent voluntary associations, so these employers are free to offer whatever benefits they like, just as employees are free to work with whatever employer will hire them. If leaving long-time employment in the school system is necessary to obtain the surgery, then that is a cost of an individual’s suboptimal behavior.
An unpalatable but possible option would be to pay out of one’s own resources for the procedure. It might involve years to pay back a lender or provider, but this possibility as a last option perhaps can serve as a discouragement to those tempted to get on the road to future morbid obesity.
These options do exist, so the action to deny by the Board does not in any way threaten the life of its employees with this condition. By offering incentives to avoid behavior leading to this condition, rather than funding a repair of the consequences of this condition, the Board serves both the purposes of the community and individuals acquiring this syndrome. For that reason, the Board recently decided wisely, and future refusals to include gastric bypass surgery as a reimbursable procedure serve the entire community of employees, children, and taxpayers of Bossier Parish.
23.3.05
In a better world Rombach stays while Wooley goes
If it’s not a double standard, it should be. Witness the treatment afforded to state Insurance Commissioner Robert Wooley in his annual purchase of a luxury vehicle at taxpayer expense compared to that of the officer of the Louisiana Legislative Fiscal Office, Johnny Rombach.
Wooley barely bats an eyebrow over the statewide outrage (here, and here, and here again, and here yet again, and here one more time, let’s keep going, here, here, and here) and there’s nothing I can add about the arrogance and audacity of Wooley except that it is Odom-esque in nature.
It’s politicians like Wooley who think the taxpayers’ monies are their own who need to be driven out of state government, but instead it’s Rombach who was forced out of his job. Rombach’s tenure in office not only ensured that somebody providing information to lawmakers would tell the facts, but he also was not shy about exploring and publicizing the facts as they related to the state’s fiscal situation.
And because the facts weren’t flattering, Rombach became a marked man among those who enjoyed and prospered from the “business-as-usual” attitude which has sent the state spiraling downwards in terms of economic development. Or, as Rombach’s office noted in perhaps the finest data-driven explanation of the causes and consequences of this, into a vortex. The inconvenience he posed to these politicians led to move to his ouster when they found something they could hang on him.
True, Rombach did bend rules – the same rules bent by others including legislators for which they never suffered consequences, the same people who then hypocritically called for his head (and who make it legal for their allies to enjoy the very same benefits for which Rombach gets investigated). And Wooley legally could do what he asked (although “luxury” items were not supposed to be part of the deal).
But this episode precisely points out the very ethos Rombach long warned about. For so long some political elites in this state found ways to follow the letter of the law (although some didn’t and went to jail for it, and others like Wooley's former boss blame the FBI for their crimes) while still enriching themselves financially and/or politically. Actions like Wooley’s demonstrate the contempt they have for the people, instead of carrying the attitude that they are there to serve the people and to be good stewards of the resources they take from the people to operate the government on the citizenry’s behalf.
Rombach’s work argued for living up to this vision, the spirit of the laws that lay behind our ideas of governance in America, not the faux version too many elites have tried to inflict upon this state. It’s bad enough the likes of Wooley stay in power, but worse that Rombach gets run out of a meaningful role in state government
Wooley barely bats an eyebrow over the statewide outrage (here, and here, and here again, and here yet again, and here one more time, let’s keep going, here, here, and here) and there’s nothing I can add about the arrogance and audacity of Wooley except that it is Odom-esque in nature.
It’s politicians like Wooley who think the taxpayers’ monies are their own who need to be driven out of state government, but instead it’s Rombach who was forced out of his job. Rombach’s tenure in office not only ensured that somebody providing information to lawmakers would tell the facts, but he also was not shy about exploring and publicizing the facts as they related to the state’s fiscal situation.
And because the facts weren’t flattering, Rombach became a marked man among those who enjoyed and prospered from the “business-as-usual” attitude which has sent the state spiraling downwards in terms of economic development. Or, as Rombach’s office noted in perhaps the finest data-driven explanation of the causes and consequences of this, into a vortex. The inconvenience he posed to these politicians led to move to his ouster when they found something they could hang on him.
True, Rombach did bend rules – the same rules bent by others including legislators for which they never suffered consequences, the same people who then hypocritically called for his head (and who make it legal for their allies to enjoy the very same benefits for which Rombach gets investigated). And Wooley legally could do what he asked (although “luxury” items were not supposed to be part of the deal).
But this episode precisely points out the very ethos Rombach long warned about. For so long some political elites in this state found ways to follow the letter of the law (although some didn’t and went to jail for it, and others like Wooley's former boss blame the FBI for their crimes) while still enriching themselves financially and/or politically. Actions like Wooley’s demonstrate the contempt they have for the people, instead of carrying the attitude that they are there to serve the people and to be good stewards of the resources they take from the people to operate the government on the citizenry’s behalf.
Rombach’s work argued for living up to this vision, the spirit of the laws that lay behind our ideas of governance in America, not the faux version too many elites have tried to inflict upon this state. It’s bad enough the likes of Wooley stay in power, but worse that Rombach gets run out of a meaningful role in state government
22.3.05
Stelly still trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear
It’s not only journalists who write disingenuous pieces, but politicians as well – actually, ex-politicians, as Vic Stelly demonstrates.
Stelly for years to come will be championed by some and reviled by others for the tax change plan that acquired his name. Basically, it rid Louisiana filers of taking deductions beyond those countable against the federal income tax standard rate and forced more people into higher tax brackets in exchange for dropping off “temporary” sales taxes (prohibited on unprepared food, utilities, and drugs unless the Legislature voted periodically to allow them; in essence, disallowing the Legislature from being able to impose these taxes even temporarily).
Most people’s income taxes went up as a result of this by amounts that more than offset any sales tax savings they received. This was the original intent of the backers of the plan, because income tax revenues were growing annually at an 8 percent clip as opposed to the 1 percent rate of sales taxes. In short, they wanted to tap into a more lucrative source of revenue, simply to get their hands on more of the people’s money.
But not according to Stelly:
The reason for the ‘Stelly Plan’ in the first place was never just a means to raise personal income tax. The goal from the word go was simple – get rid of the ridiculous unfair "temporary" sale tax on necessities of life (food, drugs and utilities) that we had continued to renew for 16 years.
This is disingenuity at its finest. At any time the Legislature could have forgone imposing the 4 percent tax (for a couple of years it did with 1 cent of it). There was no need whatsoever to link it to a raise in income taxes. There would have been more red ink, but perhaps that would have spurred the Legislature on to make the hard but necessary choices in cutting programs ill-serving the state and wring more efficiency out of the bureaucracy. If those temporary taxes were so “unfair,” nothing was stopping the legislature from forgoing them.
But Stelly tries to justifies the linkage:
A study … reported among other things that we rank 40th in America in state income tax, have the most lenient tax brackets in the country, and are one of only a few who allow for "excess itemized deductions."
We therefore chose to only make changes in those two areas (brackets and deductions). We still allow the most generous personal exemptions (which we double for retirees), a deduction for all federal taxes paid, and do not tax public retirement benefits whatsoever. We currently rank 45th in America in total state and local tax burden. Home mortgage interest and charitable contributions are still fully deductible on our federal returns.
First, Stelly is dead wrong about the 45th place ranking, by about half. I don’t know when that was true, but as of 2004 Louisiana was 23rd, and you would think Stelly would be more careful in his assertions (or he’s spreading false information in a desperate attempt to back himself up). But more telling is Stelly’s use of a comparative ranking as the appropriate metric by which to consider whether the tax burden ought to be changed.
In other words, even if we were low and lenient compared to others that the people of the state weren’t paying their “fair share” of personal income taxes? Such arrogance belies an attitude that it’s not really the people’s money, but the government’s. In determining the use of government’s coercive power to take from the people, one must analyze it in absolute, rather than relative, terms. What if 40th, or 45th, is too high? Just because Stelly tells us people from other states are jumping off of bridges, does it mean we have to follow them?
Then he makes one final attempt to justify it the removal of “excess itemized deductions”:
Many fail to remember that it was the Legislature itself that removed 50 percent of this deduction two years before the Stelly Plan passed.
And your point? Just because the Legislature did something dumb doesn’t mean you have to follow (review the “jumping off of bridges” example). But Stelly has to get in a shot at state politicians such as state Reps. Pete Schneider and Peppi Bruneau and Sen. James David Cain who want to restore the deductibility of charitable and home mortgage expenses on state taxes:
[I]t is more than a little aggravating to read misrepresentations from political demagogues who have made a career of feeding from the public trough while never stepping up to the plate and submitting a plan of their own, unless of course it is self-serving or has to do with pork barrel projects.
I don’t seem to be the object of his scorn, but I’ll give you a plan: restore these deductibles and institute a flat 4 percent tax regardless of income. That may well raise more revenue than the current graduated 2-4-6 percent brackets and certainly is fairer. Why punish the most productive people in society with a higher rate? They’ve already contributed once by creating more wealth that subsequently gets taxed; why take that productive capital out of their hands by forcing them to make another, unjustified contribution to the state?
In essence, the Stelly Plan represents just another link in the long history of Louisiana tax policy that favors redistribution and discourages economic development. It’s that kind of thinking that has gotten us into an economic mess, and no amount of dressing it up by an ex-politician can change that.
Stelly for years to come will be championed by some and reviled by others for the tax change plan that acquired his name. Basically, it rid Louisiana filers of taking deductions beyond those countable against the federal income tax standard rate and forced more people into higher tax brackets in exchange for dropping off “temporary” sales taxes (prohibited on unprepared food, utilities, and drugs unless the Legislature voted periodically to allow them; in essence, disallowing the Legislature from being able to impose these taxes even temporarily).
Most people’s income taxes went up as a result of this by amounts that more than offset any sales tax savings they received. This was the original intent of the backers of the plan, because income tax revenues were growing annually at an 8 percent clip as opposed to the 1 percent rate of sales taxes. In short, they wanted to tap into a more lucrative source of revenue, simply to get their hands on more of the people’s money.
But not according to Stelly:
The reason for the ‘Stelly Plan’ in the first place was never just a means to raise personal income tax. The goal from the word go was simple – get rid of the ridiculous unfair "temporary" sale tax on necessities of life (food, drugs and utilities) that we had continued to renew for 16 years.
This is disingenuity at its finest. At any time the Legislature could have forgone imposing the 4 percent tax (for a couple of years it did with 1 cent of it). There was no need whatsoever to link it to a raise in income taxes. There would have been more red ink, but perhaps that would have spurred the Legislature on to make the hard but necessary choices in cutting programs ill-serving the state and wring more efficiency out of the bureaucracy. If those temporary taxes were so “unfair,” nothing was stopping the legislature from forgoing them.
But Stelly tries to justifies the linkage:
A study … reported among other things that we rank 40th in America in state income tax, have the most lenient tax brackets in the country, and are one of only a few who allow for "excess itemized deductions."
We therefore chose to only make changes in those two areas (brackets and deductions). We still allow the most generous personal exemptions (which we double for retirees), a deduction for all federal taxes paid, and do not tax public retirement benefits whatsoever. We currently rank 45th in America in total state and local tax burden. Home mortgage interest and charitable contributions are still fully deductible on our federal returns.
First, Stelly is dead wrong about the 45th place ranking, by about half. I don’t know when that was true, but as of 2004 Louisiana was 23rd, and you would think Stelly would be more careful in his assertions (or he’s spreading false information in a desperate attempt to back himself up). But more telling is Stelly’s use of a comparative ranking as the appropriate metric by which to consider whether the tax burden ought to be changed.
In other words, even if we were low and lenient compared to others that the people of the state weren’t paying their “fair share” of personal income taxes? Such arrogance belies an attitude that it’s not really the people’s money, but the government’s. In determining the use of government’s coercive power to take from the people, one must analyze it in absolute, rather than relative, terms. What if 40th, or 45th, is too high? Just because Stelly tells us people from other states are jumping off of bridges, does it mean we have to follow them?
Then he makes one final attempt to justify it the removal of “excess itemized deductions”:
Many fail to remember that it was the Legislature itself that removed 50 percent of this deduction two years before the Stelly Plan passed.
And your point? Just because the Legislature did something dumb doesn’t mean you have to follow (review the “jumping off of bridges” example). But Stelly has to get in a shot at state politicians such as state Reps. Pete Schneider and Peppi Bruneau and Sen. James David Cain who want to restore the deductibility of charitable and home mortgage expenses on state taxes:
[I]t is more than a little aggravating to read misrepresentations from political demagogues who have made a career of feeding from the public trough while never stepping up to the plate and submitting a plan of their own, unless of course it is self-serving or has to do with pork barrel projects.
I don’t seem to be the object of his scorn, but I’ll give you a plan: restore these deductibles and institute a flat 4 percent tax regardless of income. That may well raise more revenue than the current graduated 2-4-6 percent brackets and certainly is fairer. Why punish the most productive people in society with a higher rate? They’ve already contributed once by creating more wealth that subsequently gets taxed; why take that productive capital out of their hands by forcing them to make another, unjustified contribution to the state?
In essence, the Stelly Plan represents just another link in the long history of Louisiana tax policy that favors redistribution and discourages economic development. It’s that kind of thinking that has gotten us into an economic mess, and no amount of dressing it up by an ex-politician can change that.
21.3.05
What happens when reporters disdain fact and logic
When an undergraduate at the University of Oklahoma, I spent my career there in journalism, as a reporter, copy editor, and finally as editor-in-chief of the school newspaper. In the years since, I have been interviewed hundreds of different times by dozens of different journalists from newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and television stations, all the way from local outlets to those in Washington, Berlin, and Tokyo. Having practiced it and been around it for over two decades, one of the things I have learned is that a fair number of these folks don’t really understand what they’re reporting on.
Consider that most people in the profession have journalism degrees, which focuses on the craft of reporting rather than substantive knowledge in any area in which they would report. Further, particularly with electronic media (stories being brief by nature especially with television tied into visuals) there’s not much in the way of depth and their news menu changes daily. In short, unless one does a lot of study outside of working hours and is allowed to concentrate in particular areas, reporters aren’t going to know much about the topics they cover, which not only means they won’t ask the really vital questions but that they’ll report questionable arguments with dubious conclusions.
(Fortunately, informed reporters are out there and it is a pleasure to serve as a source to them. But they seem to be becoming rarer and rarer.)
The area which this occurs the most frequently and detrimentally is in stories involving business and economics. One of my constant disappointments in academia, outside of colleges of business (but even sometimes within), is encountering the amount of sheer ignorance a number of highly educated people have about economics. But it’s even worse with many in the media, and the Associated Press’ Adam Nossiter’s remarks about President George W. Bush’s stop in Shreveport are Exhibit A of this malady.
“Analysis” stories like this pose some risks for a beat reporter like Nossiter who on the beat are presumed to follow the journalistic canons of fairness and objectivity (and should also know a bit about the subject area they regularly cover). With its derogatory tone concerning Bush this might call many to question whether the stories he writes regarding Bush (or Republicans, or conservatism, or political ideas connected to Bush) in fact are impartial and honest. His adherence to these canons becomes more questionable when he does such a poor job in logic and with fact in this piece.
Let’s review the multitude of problems with this piece. What follows are his statements, italicized in quotes, with then commentary on them.
In regards to the nature of the event, the President’s visit to Shreveport: “What is important here are the trappings of reality, not whether there is anything real about it.”
Already we are tipped off that this guy is an opponent of the president. Fair enough, but his column is credible only if now he can prove this – that the president’s plan is flawed in concept and assumptions. He can do this by logical presentation with points that are relevant to the president’s argument with clear facts. It also belies an attitude that the president seeks to make up for a lack of credibility through pomp and circumstance.
Answering a question he poses, “Why not simply give a sober speech on behalf of your ideas at some pre-existing forum, and be done with it:” “It's an idea whose necessity is, to put it gently, fiercely disputed — and not just by Democrats. There are economists and even some Republicans who aren't buying. First, they don't agree with Bush's notion that Social Security faces imminent crisis, and second, they sharply dispute the idea that private accounts will be beneficial. Polls show a majority of citizens share these doubts.”
One of the great tragedies of intellectual thought in modern times is the notion now so prevalent that just because there is some dispute about an issue that must mean that there is more than one “right” answer to it, that all answers are equally “valid.” Or, another way of putting it, that a fact supported by incontrovertible evidence is no more valuable than any opinion, no matter how divorced from reality it might be from reality, merely because the opinion is uttered
This paragraph is a classic example. So what if Democrats, and even some Republicans, don’t “buy it?” The fact remains, unless changes are made, Social Security does face imminent crisis, no matter how loudly and often opponents of the idea may bray otherwise. It simply is an actuarial fact. And so what if a majority of the public “doubts” the idea of private accounts. These may be political problems, but they are not problems with the validity of the president’s plan itself. I can go around long and loud stating “2+2=5,” but that doesn’t make it so.
On Bush’s stating that funding for the program doesn’t come from the depleted Social Security trust fund, but is pay-as-you-go: “But he didn't mention what the critics say: that Social Security's trust fund is something real, that it contains rock-solid government bonds, that interest and principal on them would easily cover any Social Security shortfall, and that if the U.S. government ever (unimaginably) defaulted on these bonds, it wouldn't just be the old-age pension that would come crashing down, but the country's financial structure as well.”
This comment simply is disingenuous. What the president is pointing out is that there is no current asset pool of money waiting to be tapped. Instead, starting long ago these funds were borrowed away by government for its spending and the bonds that represent the fund have to be paid back by the government – meaning ultimately by taxpayers. These are the hundreds of billions of “transitional” dollars that will have to be spent regardless of any attempt to reform Social Security. It’s those “missing” dollars which are the problem, and others that will be added to them if the system continues to be underfunded, not that there will be any default (this shift in presumed argument being a “straw man,” common in this debate). Nossiter either doesn’t have the financial acumen to understand this simple fact and see through the fallaciousness of this argument, or he is being dishonest in his zeal to attack the plan.
The “best” appeared last in the column, because when Bush pitched his plan he made: “…no mention of the argument that a small tax increase now, or a slight adjustment to previously enacted cuts, would cover any shortfall. "Investing in the private markets, you'll be able to get a better rate of return," the President declared. Only if stocks yield around 7 percent, after inflation, economists say; anything but a sure thing.”
We get two-for-one here. First, the fact that Bush does not mention less palatable alternatives to his does not make his any less valid, nor would these tax increases or cuts be small or solve the problem. Then, the second part about a 7 percent after inflation yield that “economists say [is] anything but a sure thing” is an attempt to fool the reader into thinking the extreme, improbable case is much more of a possibility than it really is – or that you would need a 7 percent rate of return which simply is untrue.
The facts:
The rate of return on Social Security has averaged 1.8 percent, and over may years a rate not much higher than this would make the system solvent.
Except for the very shortest terms, any stock fund of quality equities or bond fund of high-grade debt has beaten the government’s return over Social Security’s history.
The projected custodial fee to be charged on the privatized government accounts will be microscopic, well below that of the private sector and a fraction of that effectively taken by government bureaucracy now in administering Social Security – reducing the required rate of return for solvency.
Throughout, Nossiter keeps trying to convey the impression that a lot of wishful thinking or assumptions are being made by the president, which therefore have to be made up for by rousing spectacle, when the truth is very much the opposite. His plan is solid, and it is telling that opponents of it continually resort either to misreporting, rhetorical tricks, or to insinuating it is all a con job to deflect the public from this reality.Except for the very shortest terms, any stock fund of quality equities or bond fund of high-grade debt has beaten the government’s return over Social Security’s historyExcept for the very shortest terms, any stock fund of quality equities or bond fund of high-grade debt has beaten the government’s return over Social Security’s history
Consider that most people in the profession have journalism degrees, which focuses on the craft of reporting rather than substantive knowledge in any area in which they would report. Further, particularly with electronic media (stories being brief by nature especially with television tied into visuals) there’s not much in the way of depth and their news menu changes daily. In short, unless one does a lot of study outside of working hours and is allowed to concentrate in particular areas, reporters aren’t going to know much about the topics they cover, which not only means they won’t ask the really vital questions but that they’ll report questionable arguments with dubious conclusions.
(Fortunately, informed reporters are out there and it is a pleasure to serve as a source to them. But they seem to be becoming rarer and rarer.)
The area which this occurs the most frequently and detrimentally is in stories involving business and economics. One of my constant disappointments in academia, outside of colleges of business (but even sometimes within), is encountering the amount of sheer ignorance a number of highly educated people have about economics. But it’s even worse with many in the media, and the Associated Press’ Adam Nossiter’s remarks about President George W. Bush’s stop in Shreveport are Exhibit A of this malady.
“Analysis” stories like this pose some risks for a beat reporter like Nossiter who on the beat are presumed to follow the journalistic canons of fairness and objectivity (and should also know a bit about the subject area they regularly cover). With its derogatory tone concerning Bush this might call many to question whether the stories he writes regarding Bush (or Republicans, or conservatism, or political ideas connected to Bush) in fact are impartial and honest. His adherence to these canons becomes more questionable when he does such a poor job in logic and with fact in this piece.
Let’s review the multitude of problems with this piece. What follows are his statements, italicized in quotes, with then commentary on them.
Already we are tipped off that this guy is an opponent of the president. Fair enough, but his column is credible only if now he can prove this – that the president’s plan is flawed in concept and assumptions. He can do this by logical presentation with points that are relevant to the president’s argument with clear facts. It also belies an attitude that the president seeks to make up for a lack of credibility through pomp and circumstance.
One of the great tragedies of intellectual thought in modern times is the notion now so prevalent that just because there is some dispute about an issue that must mean that there is more than one “right” answer to it, that all answers are equally “valid.” Or, another way of putting it, that a fact supported by incontrovertible evidence is no more valuable than any opinion, no matter how divorced from reality it might be from reality, merely because the opinion is uttered
This paragraph is a classic example. So what if Democrats, and even some Republicans, don’t “buy it?” The fact remains, unless changes are made, Social Security does face imminent crisis, no matter how loudly and often opponents of the idea may bray otherwise. It simply is an actuarial fact. And so what if a majority of the public “doubts” the idea of private accounts. These may be political problems, but they are not problems with the validity of the president’s plan itself. I can go around long and loud stating “2+2=5,” but that doesn’t make it so.
This comment simply is disingenuous. What the president is pointing out is that there is no current asset pool of money waiting to be tapped. Instead, starting long ago these funds were borrowed away by government for its spending and the bonds that represent the fund have to be paid back by the government – meaning ultimately by taxpayers. These are the hundreds of billions of “transitional” dollars that will have to be spent regardless of any attempt to reform Social Security. It’s those “missing” dollars which are the problem, and others that will be added to them if the system continues to be underfunded, not that there will be any default (this shift in presumed argument being a “straw man,” common in this debate). Nossiter either doesn’t have the financial acumen to understand this simple fact and see through the fallaciousness of this argument, or he is being dishonest in his zeal to attack the plan.
We get two-for-one here. First, the fact that Bush does not mention less palatable alternatives to his does not make his any less valid, nor would these tax increases or cuts be small or solve the problem. Then, the second part about a 7 percent after inflation yield that “economists say [is] anything but a sure thing” is an attempt to fool the reader into thinking the extreme, improbable case is much more of a possibility than it really is – or that you would need a 7 percent rate of return which simply is untrue.
The facts:
Throughout, Nossiter keeps trying to convey the impression that a lot of wishful thinking or assumptions are being made by the president, which therefore have to be made up for by rousing spectacle, when the truth is very much the opposite. His plan is solid, and it is telling that opponents of it continually resort either to misreporting, rhetorical tricks, or to insinuating it is all a con job to deflect the public from this reality.Except for the very shortest terms, any stock fund of quality equities or bond fund of high-grade debt has beaten the government’s return over Social Security’s historyExcept for the very shortest terms, any stock fund of quality equities or bond fund of high-grade debt has beaten the government’s return over Social Security’s history
20.3.05
Landrieu's ANWR vote good for Louisiana and the country
While a pessimist would remind us that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, Sen. Mary Landrieu stepped up to do the right thing with her vote to retain the authorization to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska as part of the energy budget bill. Not only did she help put into place a sensible policy for America, she made maximal use of the leverage her vote provided to win concessions for increased scrutiny of coastal erosion in Louisiana, even as her colleagues knew she was leaning this way anyway (without her vote on the side to keep the amendment doing this in, the ensuing 50-50 tie would have needed Vice President Dick Cheney’s vote to win).
The environmentalist left’s reaction to this issue always has served as a telling barometer to their true motivations and overall general wackiness. As on so many other issues these people act like the sky is falling almost any time any aspect about the environment is desired to be altered in any way, no matter how far the benefits exceed the costs. They and their Democrat allies have treated the prospect of drilling there as nothing short of a national environmental disaster that will despoil beautiful scenery, disrupt pristine nature, strike a blow against people living there, and generally will ruin the entire refuge while not making a dent in energy production in the U.S.
But the facts say otherwise:
The total area to be explored is about 0.01 percent of the entire refuge
That small parcel that would be, Section 1002 (about the size of a larger airport), is frozen over 290 days a year, in darkness two straight months (with wind chills hitting 120 degrees below zero), has little light for several months more, and when it’s thawed is almost treeless mud flats
The most common living being in the area, during the brief summer, is swarms of mosquitoes
Of the 1,500 area natives near there, 80 percent support drilling.
At an estimated 2 million barrels a day removed from a field that could last decades (these being typical estimates of those studying its capacity), with modern techniques and exacting safety standards (more oil leaks into a typical Wal-Mart parking lot per day than has been spilled in all of Alaska in the last 25 years), this would reduce our current import needs by 20 percent (although it will be seven years before the first crude hits the market)
To understand the hysteria opposing drilling, we must understand that for many environmentalists the issue serves as a cover for deeper resentments against free enterprise. To them, the use of any technology on the environment exemplifies the march of capitalism and its penchant for rewarding people in proportion to their contributions to society, and is the single greatest threat to their desire to control that economy (through government regulation) in order for them to extract power and privilege.
Too often in the past Landrieu sided with people such as these. But last week, she made the right call in opposing them and most of the Democratic Party. It’s a refreshing independence that hopefully she’ll display more often.
The environmentalist left’s reaction to this issue always has served as a telling barometer to their true motivations and overall general wackiness. As on so many other issues these people act like the sky is falling almost any time any aspect about the environment is desired to be altered in any way, no matter how far the benefits exceed the costs. They and their Democrat allies have treated the prospect of drilling there as nothing short of a national environmental disaster that will despoil beautiful scenery, disrupt pristine nature, strike a blow against people living there, and generally will ruin the entire refuge while not making a dent in energy production in the U.S.
But the facts say otherwise:
To understand the hysteria opposing drilling, we must understand that for many environmentalists the issue serves as a cover for deeper resentments against free enterprise. To them, the use of any technology on the environment exemplifies the march of capitalism and its penchant for rewarding people in proportion to their contributions to society, and is the single greatest threat to their desire to control that economy (through government regulation) in order for them to extract power and privilege.
Too often in the past Landrieu sided with people such as these. But last week, she made the right call in opposing them and most of the Democratic Party. It’s a refreshing independence that hopefully she’ll display more often.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)