While there never was any legal weight behind any potential opinion that Democrat Louisiana Atty. Gen. Charles Foti could issue regarding whether ex-Senator, Maryland resident Democrat John Breaux could run for Louisiana governor, the political import is significant.
By opting not to issue an opinion, which concerns whether Breaux meets the five-year citizenship requirement to run for the office, Foti signals to Breaux and fellow state Democrats that their case for getting Breaux eligible rests on very shaky legal ground – in part because Foti and Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Pascal Calogero are political allies from way back, and Foti must have sensed that Calogero did not perceive anything but difficulty in a Breaux candidacy prevailing on judicial grounds which surely would make its way to the highest court.
That doesn’t mean that the Court deciding in favor of a Breaux candidacy couldn’t happen – courts can decide anything, especially in Louisiana – but that the legal contortions responsible would be so transparent that politically it would work against Breaux. The last thing Breaux needs is for it to appear special interests are trying to rig procedures in his favor, as many already see him as a symbol of a good-old-boy political system in the state that is not above playing loose and fast with rules when it suits them. That’s not a good way to win votes in a climate already looking hostile to these kind of old-school politicians this election year.
Foti didn’t opine against because he wants to leave Breaux the option to decide for himself and, given his ego, Breaux well may brush aside this warning. Foti also hedged enough in his nondecision to try to give ammunition to allow Breaux not just to try to run, but even to try to skip the necessity of waiting until trying to run to determine his eligibility through a declaratory judgment (which at least one real constitutional law expert has said he cannot do). Putning also relieves Foti of facing flak for being a poltiical hack concerning his own reelection bid this fall.
But state Democrats shouldn’t put themselves through such histrionics if they are serious about winning the contest, and with this cue should start to look for a less-risky, gubernatorial candidate to rally around.
12.4.07
Blanco road plan reply shows continued fealty to politics
No longer may she be running for reelection, but that change in status hasn’t appeared to make Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco any smarter or less political when it comes to formulating good policy.
Louisiana has a $14 billion backlog in state road needs, for which independent state Rep. Joel Robideaux and Republican state Sen. Mike Michot have a great idea: divert sales taxes on vehicles to roads work in proportion to where the sales occur. Their plan would pump in about $300 million more a year into eating away that backlog (which currently gets only $100 million a year towards it; any remaining funding comes out of capital outlay debt).
Currently, that $300 million or so goes into the state’s general fund and is spent on anything. At the current rate of inflation, the general fund this year would remain about the same in level taking this stream of money away from it. Note also that estimates of a budget surplus are now above $3.2 billion, so the diverted amount is less than one-tenth of that.
Louisiana has a $14 billion backlog in state road needs, for which independent state Rep. Joel Robideaux and Republican state Sen. Mike Michot have a great idea: divert sales taxes on vehicles to roads work in proportion to where the sales occur. Their plan would pump in about $300 million more a year into eating away that backlog (which currently gets only $100 million a year towards it; any remaining funding comes out of capital outlay debt).
Currently, that $300 million or so goes into the state’s general fund and is spent on anything. At the current rate of inflation, the general fund this year would remain about the same in level taking this stream of money away from it. Note also that estimates of a budget surplus are now above $3.2 billion, so the diverted amount is less than one-tenth of that.
11.4.07
Strength of faith communities affects public policy
As the Diocese of Shreveport seeks new leadership, it would do well to put itself on a path to emulate what its neighbor to the south has done – as the repercussions here extend to non-Catholics as well.
Almost two years ago, when Pope Benedict XVI ascended to leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, I speculated that he would be the kind of pope that would bring good things to the Church. Apparently, he hit a homer with his appointment of the Rev. Ronald Herzog as bishop of the Diocese of Alexandria, according to one of the underappreciated jewels of the Catholic press, crisis magazine.
In its first-of-a-kind survey of all 176 U.S. dioceses, Alexandria was ranked the fourth most “vibrant.” The study measured this concept according to 2005 data of relative numbers of active priests, number of vocations to the priesthood and number of adults received into the church; the higher the growth rates, the higher the ranking. (And it seems the Diocese of Shreveport is surrounded by higher achievers: the Diocese of Little Rock ranked 13th overall, the Diocese of Tyler was top-ranked in the greatest increase in active priests, and the Diocese of Jackson ranked seventh in most adults received into the Church. Benedict has a chance to keep the momentum going in the Diocese of Lake Charles as well, still waiting an appointment; it ranked ninth in the greatest increase in priests.)
Most importantly, the authors argued that it was a bishop’s pastoral leadership that matters in the attainment of higher rankings. Shreveport currently has an opening to lead the diocese, with Benedict expected to make a decision next year, so the capacity to bring about greater health of the diocese will be much dependent upon the decision he makes.
And, according to the authors, there is some room for concern. They compared statistics from 1995 to find the biggest positive and negative changers over the past decade. For Shreveport, the good news was in 1995 it ranked 11th. The bad news was it fell to 88th over the past ten years, the tenth steepest drop in America.
This situation should merit the attention not only of area Catholics, but all people of faith regardless of their affiliations. By religiosity, the fastest growing category of adults in America does not favor a particular religious sect, but is that of atheists and agnostics. This continues to have consequences for government, politics, and policy.
Faith communities that grow increase the chances of translating moral concerns into policy, for as more people embrace the word of God and more strongly, this will be reflected in what governments do. It’s a fashionable, but entirely untrue, canard that government cannot legislate morality, because unavoidably moral values are part and parcel of public policy. For example, every society prohibits murder because it is considered immoral behavior.
Rather, the real issue is whose morality will government legislate? Today, believers and non-believers are more starkly in opposition than ever before, by indications of support of political parties. Exit polls from 2006 indicated that in terms of candidates voted for, even in an anti-Republican year, that Republicans held a 12 percent advantage over Democrats among voters who attended church regularly, but Democrats led better than two-to-one among those who never attended church, with the latter fueled by the 15 percent of the population who said they had no religious affiliation who preferred the Democrats by better than a three-to-one margin. (Among all Protestants and Catholics, almost 80 percent of the sample, the GOP held a small edge which magnified among whites only.)
Simply, stronger faith communities mean government policy will more likely favor turning into policy the moral values people of those communities cherish. It’s not to say that all those who profess a faith truly practice it, or that even those who refuse to acknowledge the existence of God cannot be moral nor support moral values associated with religion. The implication is a strong diocese in Shreveport not only has a big impact on the spiritual lives of area Catholics, but indirectly also may affect public policy as well.
Almost two years ago, when Pope Benedict XVI ascended to leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, I speculated that he would be the kind of pope that would bring good things to the Church. Apparently, he hit a homer with his appointment of the Rev. Ronald Herzog as bishop of the Diocese of Alexandria, according to one of the underappreciated jewels of the Catholic press, crisis magazine.
In its first-of-a-kind survey of all 176 U.S. dioceses, Alexandria was ranked the fourth most “vibrant.” The study measured this concept according to 2005 data of relative numbers of active priests, number of vocations to the priesthood and number of adults received into the church; the higher the growth rates, the higher the ranking. (And it seems the Diocese of Shreveport is surrounded by higher achievers: the Diocese of Little Rock ranked 13th overall, the Diocese of Tyler was top-ranked in the greatest increase in active priests, and the Diocese of Jackson ranked seventh in most adults received into the Church. Benedict has a chance to keep the momentum going in the Diocese of Lake Charles as well, still waiting an appointment; it ranked ninth in the greatest increase in priests.)
Most importantly, the authors argued that it was a bishop’s pastoral leadership that matters in the attainment of higher rankings. Shreveport currently has an opening to lead the diocese, with Benedict expected to make a decision next year, so the capacity to bring about greater health of the diocese will be much dependent upon the decision he makes.
And, according to the authors, there is some room for concern. They compared statistics from 1995 to find the biggest positive and negative changers over the past decade. For Shreveport, the good news was in 1995 it ranked 11th. The bad news was it fell to 88th over the past ten years, the tenth steepest drop in America.
This situation should merit the attention not only of area Catholics, but all people of faith regardless of their affiliations. By religiosity, the fastest growing category of adults in America does not favor a particular religious sect, but is that of atheists and agnostics. This continues to have consequences for government, politics, and policy.
Faith communities that grow increase the chances of translating moral concerns into policy, for as more people embrace the word of God and more strongly, this will be reflected in what governments do. It’s a fashionable, but entirely untrue, canard that government cannot legislate morality, because unavoidably moral values are part and parcel of public policy. For example, every society prohibits murder because it is considered immoral behavior.
Rather, the real issue is whose morality will government legislate? Today, believers and non-believers are more starkly in opposition than ever before, by indications of support of political parties. Exit polls from 2006 indicated that in terms of candidates voted for, even in an anti-Republican year, that Republicans held a 12 percent advantage over Democrats among voters who attended church regularly, but Democrats led better than two-to-one among those who never attended church, with the latter fueled by the 15 percent of the population who said they had no religious affiliation who preferred the Democrats by better than a three-to-one margin. (Among all Protestants and Catholics, almost 80 percent of the sample, the GOP held a small edge which magnified among whites only.)
Simply, stronger faith communities mean government policy will more likely favor turning into policy the moral values people of those communities cherish. It’s not to say that all those who profess a faith truly practice it, or that even those who refuse to acknowledge the existence of God cannot be moral nor support moral values associated with religion. The implication is a strong diocese in Shreveport not only has a big impact on the spiritual lives of area Catholics, but indirectly also may affect public policy as well.
10.4.07
LA local governments need to pursue true cable reform
While it’s good to see that more and more Louisiana municipalities are revolting against exclusive cable television franchise agreements, local governments must beware of the Trojan Horse language being pushed on them by the Louisiana Municipal Association.
Last regular legislative session, HB 699 nearly got an agreement in place that would allow non-punitively a variety of providers into cable provision. It didn’t because author state Rep. Billy Montgomery didn’t have the political heft to outgun opposition that got Gov. Kathleen Blanco to veto the bill – opposition in large part led by the LMA.
Yet now the LMA claims it is encouraging passage of resolutions by local franchising authorities to open up cable competition. At best, this is a half-truth: the LMA wants to have passed state legislation that will continue to divert the benefits of competition to government instead of letting them go to the people.
Attached to their model ordinance is an appendix of what the LMA would like to see as the model franchise agreement, around which state law would be shaped. In it, while it says it opens up competition, it really doesn’t. This is because it is not the exclusivity in agreements that presently stifles competition, but instead it is conditions the LMA would like to see reconfirmed that in effect would discourage competition.
For one, the LMA language continues to support the ability of local authorities to use pass-through charges in setting cable rates. These are fees local government tacks on that has nothing to do with cable provision but instead are used as backdoor revenue-raisers for local government. For another, the LMA model also, in arguing that competitors must come to agreeing to the substantially same language in existing contracts, foists build-out on new entrants – the idea that providers must be forced to provide service even where it is economically unfeasible to do so.
The vetoed bill would have allowed new providers to avoid both these competition-killing requirements, because the franchise granted would have been at the state level which would not necessarily have included build-out mandates or the ability to slip pass-through charges into agreements. This is why the LMA’s language, which disallows the state’s ability to award franchises, would do nothing to encourage competition and thus lower rates: if such costly, unneeded measures continue to be required, this will be a tremendous disincentive to any competition, and, given the huge start-up costs, would not make an attempt to enter these markets generally cost-effective.
If Louisiana municipalities like Shreveport and other franchise authorities want to get serious about enabling lower rates for their citizens, they need to disavow any support of the LMA language and instead support the old HB 699 language.
Last regular legislative session, HB 699 nearly got an agreement in place that would allow non-punitively a variety of providers into cable provision. It didn’t because author state Rep. Billy Montgomery didn’t have the political heft to outgun opposition that got Gov. Kathleen Blanco to veto the bill – opposition in large part led by the LMA.
Yet now the LMA claims it is encouraging passage of resolutions by local franchising authorities to open up cable competition. At best, this is a half-truth: the LMA wants to have passed state legislation that will continue to divert the benefits of competition to government instead of letting them go to the people.
Attached to their model ordinance is an appendix of what the LMA would like to see as the model franchise agreement, around which state law would be shaped. In it, while it says it opens up competition, it really doesn’t. This is because it is not the exclusivity in agreements that presently stifles competition, but instead it is conditions the LMA would like to see reconfirmed that in effect would discourage competition.
For one, the LMA language continues to support the ability of local authorities to use pass-through charges in setting cable rates. These are fees local government tacks on that has nothing to do with cable provision but instead are used as backdoor revenue-raisers for local government. For another, the LMA model also, in arguing that competitors must come to agreeing to the substantially same language in existing contracts, foists build-out on new entrants – the idea that providers must be forced to provide service even where it is economically unfeasible to do so.
The vetoed bill would have allowed new providers to avoid both these competition-killing requirements, because the franchise granted would have been at the state level which would not necessarily have included build-out mandates or the ability to slip pass-through charges into agreements. This is why the LMA’s language, which disallows the state’s ability to award franchises, would do nothing to encourage competition and thus lower rates: if such costly, unneeded measures continue to be required, this will be a tremendous disincentive to any competition, and, given the huge start-up costs, would not make an attempt to enter these markets generally cost-effective.
If Louisiana municipalities like Shreveport and other franchise authorities want to get serious about enabling lower rates for their citizens, they need to disavow any support of the LMA language and instead support the old HB 699 language.
9.4.07
Reservoirs as economic development all wet, wasteful
Yesterday’s posting looked at the absurdity of claims the state needs more man-made reservoirs for water supply. The other main justification backers of these plans cite for their utility is building lakes is economic development – a fallacious claim if there ever was one.
In a way, it is true – as long as you are one of a handful of people intimately involved in the project, such as state Rep. Francis Thompson, his brother consultant Michael Thompson, and the engineering firm connected to the Thompsons, Denmon Engineering. All together, they have made roughly $7 million off of contracts and real estate sales.
While they have gotten the gold mine by Francis Thompson’s ability to muscle through legislation and funding for the Poverty Point Reservoir, the rest of the state has gotten the shaft. “Economic development” often is the rallying cry when somebody proposes spending public money on any capital item (which is not confined just to the state level of government), but that shoe never fits. Real economic development occurs when government sticks to funding transportation and utilities infrastructure but not much else, because the idea is to have government provide people with the means by which to engage in productive enterprise, not have government do it itself.
In a way, it is true – as long as you are one of a handful of people intimately involved in the project, such as state Rep. Francis Thompson, his brother consultant Michael Thompson, and the engineering firm connected to the Thompsons, Denmon Engineering. All together, they have made roughly $7 million off of contracts and real estate sales.
While they have gotten the gold mine by Francis Thompson’s ability to muscle through legislation and funding for the Poverty Point Reservoir, the rest of the state has gotten the shaft. “Economic development” often is the rallying cry when somebody proposes spending public money on any capital item (which is not confined just to the state level of government), but that shoe never fits. Real economic development occurs when government sticks to funding transportation and utilities infrastructure but not much else, because the idea is to have government provide people with the means by which to engage in productive enterprise, not have government do it itself.
8.4.07
Data show Nevers' water policy would serve LA poorly
It is axiomatic that Louisiana has underachieved both for its citizens and in freeing its citizens to accomplish on their own because too often its politicians decide on the basis of their personal political fortunes rather than making good choices for the entire state and its people. A recent report reconfirms this awful tendency.
The U.S. Geological Survey’s Louisiana Water Science Center is preparing to issue recently-collected data about the status of water resources available in the state. They show most of the state’s aquifer and surface water capacity is adequate for immediate and short-run future needs. Additionally, if the need for more water came about, another USGS geologist stated that Louisiana has many untapped above-ground natural sources not yet being utilized.
But that’s not the conclusion Denmon Engineering seems to draw from the situation. This firm stands to profit from being at the forefront of building reservoirs across the state, as it has done already. It claims there won’t be enough water around in some locations without the reservoirs, despite what government scientists argue.
One such project Denmon is backing a controversial reservoir in Washington Parish – which the unpublished data show is now drawing less water from the Southern Hills aquifer than before. One of the authors of this idea is Democrat state Sen. Ben Nevers, who naturally disputes the scientific data on the question of future capacity.
Nevers is no stranger to having state money pumped into a project that duplicates and creates redundancy. In 2005, he and others managed to get a rural medicine residency program started at Bogalusa Medical Center. That replicates the already-existing program at W.O. Moss Regional in Lake Charles.
His political style perfectly illustrates why he and too many others who practice it have put this state into such trouble. Instead of sending money where real needs exist, fake ones are created in order to give politicians the chance to steer money to “fix” false problems, buying enough support to win reelection.
Too much money already has gone into the reservoir-building frenzy; money, for example that could have been spent on a $14 billion roads improvement backlog that would do far more for economic development (the other reason reservoir backers cite for their building) that chasing away private property owners, reconfiguring some land, and directing water into it at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Hopefully, the release of this data will help put a halt to this manifestation of a public policy philosophy that has served the state so ill.
The U.S. Geological Survey’s Louisiana Water Science Center is preparing to issue recently-collected data about the status of water resources available in the state. They show most of the state’s aquifer and surface water capacity is adequate for immediate and short-run future needs. Additionally, if the need for more water came about, another USGS geologist stated that Louisiana has many untapped above-ground natural sources not yet being utilized.
But that’s not the conclusion Denmon Engineering seems to draw from the situation. This firm stands to profit from being at the forefront of building reservoirs across the state, as it has done already. It claims there won’t be enough water around in some locations without the reservoirs, despite what government scientists argue.
One such project Denmon is backing a controversial reservoir in Washington Parish – which the unpublished data show is now drawing less water from the Southern Hills aquifer than before. One of the authors of this idea is Democrat state Sen. Ben Nevers, who naturally disputes the scientific data on the question of future capacity.
Nevers is no stranger to having state money pumped into a project that duplicates and creates redundancy. In 2005, he and others managed to get a rural medicine residency program started at Bogalusa Medical Center. That replicates the already-existing program at W.O. Moss Regional in Lake Charles.
His political style perfectly illustrates why he and too many others who practice it have put this state into such trouble. Instead of sending money where real needs exist, fake ones are created in order to give politicians the chance to steer money to “fix” false problems, buying enough support to win reelection.
Too much money already has gone into the reservoir-building frenzy; money, for example that could have been spent on a $14 billion roads improvement backlog that would do far more for economic development (the other reason reservoir backers cite for their building) that chasing away private property owners, reconfiguring some land, and directing water into it at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Hopefully, the release of this data will help put a halt to this manifestation of a public policy philosophy that has served the state so ill.
5.4.07
GOP Breaux strategy based on voter frustration, not fear
Why are nearly daily announcements, ad campaigns preemptively launched, and lengthy analysis of Maryland resident’s John Breaux Louisiana citizenship dominating political discourse? One wrong answer is that opposition to the candidacy of Breaux by Republicans and conservatives indicates unusual trepidation of a Breaux candidacy and lack of confidence in GOP frontrunner Rep. Bobby Jindal.
Following analysis in this space, it is becoming generally accepted by observers of all political persuasions that a Breaux candidacy would constitute a tremendous risk for Democrats to take which at worst will leave them without an “official” candidate come October and almost certainly will go down in defeat given the fodder produced by a candidacy asking the state to play fast and loose with its own Constitution and an opposition more than able to publicize that. Thus, it is the last thing Breaux, Democrats, and the supporters of politics-as-usual want, protracted conflict reminding the voting public of this.
But, obviously, it is exactly what Jindal, Republicans, and reformists want to have happen. They will take any opportunity to remind the public, with an election still over six months away, of who Breaux is and that his and his allies’ very actions regarding his candidacy illustrate perfectly a major reason why Louisiana is so backwards compared to the rest of America (because good-old-boy politicians look first to taking care of their own interests and those of their allies through powerful government, throwing ethics and integrity out the window, while the liberties of other individuals are just an afterthought), to drive home another nail into the liberal/populist elite that have run roughshod over Louisiana for decades.
The ultimate payoff is if Breaux does run. His opponents are rapidly creating a condition where any such success in gaining ballot access will appear illegitimate, destroying any chance he has of winning. This is why, as I have counseled before, Breaux must move as quickly as possible to set the state for another Democrat’s candidacy, then exit immediately, to prevent continuing the long-term damage he will do to his Democrat/liberal/populist co-religionists.
A more sophisticated analysis of the situation reveals hammering on the Breaux qualification question occurs not out of fear, nor from poor strategy (that theory being don’t attack with a lead, as polls continue to show Jindal with a huge advantage in a hypothetical matchup with Breaux). Rather, proper understanding reveals that opponents of politics of the past in the state understand elements are converging rapidly in their favor and the opportunity exists to move the state forward farther than they believed before the troubled nature of the Breaux candidacy surfaced, as long as it continues to limp along. It is the lack of understanding of this by Breaux sympathizers which increases the magnitude of this opportunity.
Following analysis in this space, it is becoming generally accepted by observers of all political persuasions that a Breaux candidacy would constitute a tremendous risk for Democrats to take which at worst will leave them without an “official” candidate come October and almost certainly will go down in defeat given the fodder produced by a candidacy asking the state to play fast and loose with its own Constitution and an opposition more than able to publicize that. Thus, it is the last thing Breaux, Democrats, and the supporters of politics-as-usual want, protracted conflict reminding the voting public of this.
But, obviously, it is exactly what Jindal, Republicans, and reformists want to have happen. They will take any opportunity to remind the public, with an election still over six months away, of who Breaux is and that his and his allies’ very actions regarding his candidacy illustrate perfectly a major reason why Louisiana is so backwards compared to the rest of America (because good-old-boy politicians look first to taking care of their own interests and those of their allies through powerful government, throwing ethics and integrity out the window, while the liberties of other individuals are just an afterthought), to drive home another nail into the liberal/populist elite that have run roughshod over Louisiana for decades.
The ultimate payoff is if Breaux does run. His opponents are rapidly creating a condition where any such success in gaining ballot access will appear illegitimate, destroying any chance he has of winning. This is why, as I have counseled before, Breaux must move as quickly as possible to set the state for another Democrat’s candidacy, then exit immediately, to prevent continuing the long-term damage he will do to his Democrat/liberal/populist co-religionists.
A more sophisticated analysis of the situation reveals hammering on the Breaux qualification question occurs not out of fear, nor from poor strategy (that theory being don’t attack with a lead, as polls continue to show Jindal with a huge advantage in a hypothetical matchup with Breaux). Rather, proper understanding reveals that opponents of politics of the past in the state understand elements are converging rapidly in their favor and the opportunity exists to move the state forward farther than they believed before the troubled nature of the Breaux candidacy surfaced, as long as it continues to limp along. It is the lack of understanding of this by Breaux sympathizers which increases the magnitude of this opportunity.
4.4.07
Fanciful Breaux candidacy thoughts still distract Democrats?
As John Breaux continues to dither with a decision whether to announce a run for Louisiana governor later this year, the reason for that may be turning away from an information search to determine whether he can qualify to run to allowing time for another viable Democrat to get a campaign organization together.
In a note to fellow Democrat Atty. Gen. Charles Foti who is preparing a (nonbinding) opinion on the question whether Breaux has been a “citizen” of the state for he past five years, state Rep. Ronnie Johns pointed out the absurdity of Breaux’s justification – being a partner in property ownership in the state – that has repeatedly appeared in this space: Breaux’s formulation would allow foreign nationals to run for governor. In addition, Johns pointed out that Breaux could not qualify for Louisiana resident hunting and fishing licenses (although the legal question involved is about “citizenship,” not “residency”).
Breaux allies also have floated the idea that he could get a declaratory judgment from the Louisiana judiciary about the matter. But Louisiana constitutional law expert Louisiana State University Dale Bennett Professor of Law John S. Baker, Jr. (who also has outlined the compelling argument that Breaux does not meet the citizenship requirement) asserted on the Moon Griffon radio program that such a case is too hypothetical for it to accept until qualifying produced actual plaintiffs and defendants – early September.
Surely Democrats must be aware of the bind they are putting themselves in with continued speculation about a Breaux candidacy. It is now abundantly apparent the tremendous twisting of the law and Constitution that would have to happen to have Breaux declared qualified – a matter that surely would go to the Louisiana Supreme Court which last year did not start its October term until the middle of the month (the election is Oct. 20). This naked power-grab attempt will further enrage Louisiana voters who already are showing little patience for old faces running for office like Breaux’s, ensuring his defeat. (This, of course, assumes he’s even on the ballot which, if the Louisiana judiciary does its job correctly, he would not be.)
If they are sensible, state Democrats will be using the Breaux circus as a diversion while they recruit a stronger candidate. It could be that Breaux is not out interviewing campaign staffers actually for his own, but for a friend such as Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu. In any event, the state should know for sure by about Apr. 17, when 180-day reports are due for campaign financial disclosure, whether state Democrats with Breaux are committing themselves to a suicidal course to lose the Governor’s Mansion and perhaps more.
In a note to fellow Democrat Atty. Gen. Charles Foti who is preparing a (nonbinding) opinion on the question whether Breaux has been a “citizen” of the state for he past five years, state Rep. Ronnie Johns pointed out the absurdity of Breaux’s justification – being a partner in property ownership in the state – that has repeatedly appeared in this space: Breaux’s formulation would allow foreign nationals to run for governor. In addition, Johns pointed out that Breaux could not qualify for Louisiana resident hunting and fishing licenses (although the legal question involved is about “citizenship,” not “residency”).
Breaux allies also have floated the idea that he could get a declaratory judgment from the Louisiana judiciary about the matter. But Louisiana constitutional law expert Louisiana State University Dale Bennett Professor of Law John S. Baker, Jr. (who also has outlined the compelling argument that Breaux does not meet the citizenship requirement) asserted on the Moon Griffon radio program that such a case is too hypothetical for it to accept until qualifying produced actual plaintiffs and defendants – early September.
Surely Democrats must be aware of the bind they are putting themselves in with continued speculation about a Breaux candidacy. It is now abundantly apparent the tremendous twisting of the law and Constitution that would have to happen to have Breaux declared qualified – a matter that surely would go to the Louisiana Supreme Court which last year did not start its October term until the middle of the month (the election is Oct. 20). This naked power-grab attempt will further enrage Louisiana voters who already are showing little patience for old faces running for office like Breaux’s, ensuring his defeat. (This, of course, assumes he’s even on the ballot which, if the Louisiana judiciary does its job correctly, he would not be.)
If they are sensible, state Democrats will be using the Breaux circus as a diversion while they recruit a stronger candidate. It could be that Breaux is not out interviewing campaign staffers actually for his own, but for a friend such as Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu. In any event, the state should know for sure by about Apr. 17, when 180-day reports are due for campaign financial disclosure, whether state Democrats with Breaux are committing themselves to a suicidal course to lose the Governor’s Mansion and perhaps more.
3.4.07
Vitter correctly predicts judicial partisanship, Breaux loss
Regarding the upcoming governor’s race, Sen. David Vitter made two noteworthy statements: that the Louisiana Supreme Court will allow ex-resident John Breaux to run for governor if he tries to qualify, and that regardless Rep. Bobby Jindal will win. These comments deserve further examination.
If Breaux has the audacity to run, there will be a challenge about Sep. 10 to his candidacy. It will appear in the 19th District in Baton Rouge and a decision will be made around the Sep. 16 at best. Also at best, the inevitable appeal will be heard around Sep. 20 at the First Circuit, and the inevitable appeal to that to the Louisiana Supreme Court. However, the Court’s September session will have occurred by then. Even if it expedites, it will not be until the first week of October that the Court would hear any appeal, and an indeterminate number of days would pass before an opinion is issued. The election is Oct. 20.
But Vitter probably is correct about the Court approving of a Breaux candidacy. That’s because, reviewing the composition of the Court, there are five identifiable sympathizers with the notion of a Breaux candidacy and if you need to know one thing about the Louisiana judiciary, whose judges are elected, if it involves a political matter, that its judiciary can be as partisan as any other branch of government.
Yet Vitter also is correct about Jindal winning, in some part because of the tremendous stink that declaring Breaux as a “citizen” of Louisiana form the past five years would raise. Many would recognize this as a sham, as a naked political assertion of power by a dying machine born to place politics above the good of the state trying to preserve its power and privilege. After all, the basis by which Breaux has claimed he has been a “citizen” of Louisiana is so open-ended that any non-American who owns property in Louisiana and hardly sets foot in the state could qualify.
(To emphasize this point, the GOP should find a sympathetic somebody who matches Breaux’s “citizenship” claims as closely as possible, and have him qualify for governor, then contest his candidacy, publicizing it all along and seeing what the Democrats, media, and other willing allies of them have to say about this person, culminating in what the Court has to say about this candidacy. In case he makes the ballot, he could withdraw if he likes.)
Even with willing media accomplices trying to spin any favorable, obviously political decision about a Breaux candidacy, enough of the Louisiana voting public will be sickened by this arrogant display of exactly what good-old-boy attitude has afflicted the state for so many decades to prevent a Breaux victory, likely making Jindal the beneficiary. Which is why the state GOP should be rooting for this suicidal strategy by its opponents.
If Breaux has the audacity to run, there will be a challenge about Sep. 10 to his candidacy. It will appear in the 19th District in Baton Rouge and a decision will be made around the Sep. 16 at best. Also at best, the inevitable appeal will be heard around Sep. 20 at the First Circuit, and the inevitable appeal to that to the Louisiana Supreme Court. However, the Court’s September session will have occurred by then. Even if it expedites, it will not be until the first week of October that the Court would hear any appeal, and an indeterminate number of days would pass before an opinion is issued. The election is Oct. 20.
But Vitter probably is correct about the Court approving of a Breaux candidacy. That’s because, reviewing the composition of the Court, there are five identifiable sympathizers with the notion of a Breaux candidacy and if you need to know one thing about the Louisiana judiciary, whose judges are elected, if it involves a political matter, that its judiciary can be as partisan as any other branch of government.
Yet Vitter also is correct about Jindal winning, in some part because of the tremendous stink that declaring Breaux as a “citizen” of Louisiana form the past five years would raise. Many would recognize this as a sham, as a naked political assertion of power by a dying machine born to place politics above the good of the state trying to preserve its power and privilege. After all, the basis by which Breaux has claimed he has been a “citizen” of Louisiana is so open-ended that any non-American who owns property in Louisiana and hardly sets foot in the state could qualify.
(To emphasize this point, the GOP should find a sympathetic somebody who matches Breaux’s “citizenship” claims as closely as possible, and have him qualify for governor, then contest his candidacy, publicizing it all along and seeing what the Democrats, media, and other willing allies of them have to say about this person, culminating in what the Court has to say about this candidacy. In case he makes the ballot, he could withdraw if he likes.)
Even with willing media accomplices trying to spin any favorable, obviously political decision about a Breaux candidacy, enough of the Louisiana voting public will be sickened by this arrogant display of exactly what good-old-boy attitude has afflicted the state for so many decades to prevent a Breaux victory, likely making Jindal the beneficiary. Which is why the state GOP should be rooting for this suicidal strategy by its opponents.
2.4.07
Vitter smartly, Landrieu recklessly deals with troop issue
It is important to understand what was supported and what was not when last week the U.S. Senate voted on (a different version than did the House on) H.R. 1591 – especially since some of the senators doing the voting aren’t exactly conceptually clear on it.
The bill has three parts to it. First, it authorizes about $100 billion for war-related expenditures which best estimates show will be needed by the middle of May for current operations to remain unaffected. (The war on terror currently is being financed by supplemental appropriations like this, not through the regular budget process.) Second, it authorizes another $22 billion or so for matters entirely unrelated to prosecution of the war, including around $800 million to waive state and local government matches in Louisiana for some kinds of federal aid and $1.3 billion due to a programmatic shift of funding for flood control projects. Finally, it sets a deadline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Louisiana’s senators provide a contrast in proper understanding and wisdom concerning this bill. Republican Sen. David Vitter voted against it, even as he supported the reauthorization and the extra funding parts of it. (The non-war-related funds are highly questionable for approval now: federal government monies pumped into Louisiana have created revenue for governments far beyond what the matching requirement is, other funds given by the federal government without strings more than make up for it as well, and the flood control money will be granted later in the year during the normal budget process as there is no urgency for it now given reconstruction timelines.)
Vitter did so because he realizes that a forced withdrawal policy is tantamount to following the Democrats’ foreign policy in regards to the war – waving the white flag of surrender unconditionally. A set deadline encourages America’s enemies to wait it out, then after American departure do their best to dismantle America’s closest Arab ally, Iraq – the strategy followed in America’s major self-inflicted wound of the 20th century, the Vietnam Conflict. To allow defeat in this theater will create a worse situation than ever for America in the region. Vitter also knew that Pres. George W. Bush surely would veto the bill as it stands precisely because of this reason, so it was a grand waste of time to even consider moving it forward.
By contrast, Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu shows no such sophistication in her vote for the measure. Wringing more money more quickly out of the federal government for Louisiana might be appealing to her, but it is reckless and irresponsible for her to do so at the cost of the country’s security. She demonstrated no grasp of this simple fact, that the vote showed those voting against it were for victory, and those like her voting for it were for defeat.
Even if, as is highly likely, the Democrat-controlled Congress is forced by veto threat or reality to send a bill to Bush without the deadline within the next 45 days for which she votes, Landrieu repeatedly on this issue has shown a serious error in judgment that once again calls into question her fitness to serve as Louisiana’s senator.
The bill has three parts to it. First, it authorizes about $100 billion for war-related expenditures which best estimates show will be needed by the middle of May for current operations to remain unaffected. (The war on terror currently is being financed by supplemental appropriations like this, not through the regular budget process.) Second, it authorizes another $22 billion or so for matters entirely unrelated to prosecution of the war, including around $800 million to waive state and local government matches in Louisiana for some kinds of federal aid and $1.3 billion due to a programmatic shift of funding for flood control projects. Finally, it sets a deadline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Louisiana’s senators provide a contrast in proper understanding and wisdom concerning this bill. Republican Sen. David Vitter voted against it, even as he supported the reauthorization and the extra funding parts of it. (The non-war-related funds are highly questionable for approval now: federal government monies pumped into Louisiana have created revenue for governments far beyond what the matching requirement is, other funds given by the federal government without strings more than make up for it as well, and the flood control money will be granted later in the year during the normal budget process as there is no urgency for it now given reconstruction timelines.)
Vitter did so because he realizes that a forced withdrawal policy is tantamount to following the Democrats’ foreign policy in regards to the war – waving the white flag of surrender unconditionally. A set deadline encourages America’s enemies to wait it out, then after American departure do their best to dismantle America’s closest Arab ally, Iraq – the strategy followed in America’s major self-inflicted wound of the 20th century, the Vietnam Conflict. To allow defeat in this theater will create a worse situation than ever for America in the region. Vitter also knew that Pres. George W. Bush surely would veto the bill as it stands precisely because of this reason, so it was a grand waste of time to even consider moving it forward.
By contrast, Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu shows no such sophistication in her vote for the measure. Wringing more money more quickly out of the federal government for Louisiana might be appealing to her, but it is reckless and irresponsible for her to do so at the cost of the country’s security. She demonstrated no grasp of this simple fact, that the vote showed those voting against it were for victory, and those like her voting for it were for defeat.
Even if, as is highly likely, the Democrat-controlled Congress is forced by veto threat or reality to send a bill to Bush without the deadline within the next 45 days for which she votes, Landrieu repeatedly on this issue has shown a serious error in judgment that once again calls into question her fitness to serve as Louisiana’s senator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)