Recently I wrote of the leadership battle brewing in the Louisiana Senate. Republicans cannot realistically hope to bag that position despite incoming Gov. Bobby Jindal being Republican because of the relatively large gap between parties in incoming Senate strength.
But even if the GOP does not take the Louisiana House, bet on state Rep. Jim Tucker taking the Speaker’s position. Enough seats are up for grabs so that either party could be in the majority come January, but using the metric I developed to measure partisanship of districts (that is, without an incumbent running Democrats win if their registered voters outnumber Republicans’ 8:3, and vice-versa), I would predict a 55-50 effective Democrat majority (there are likely to be two independents elected, one each leaning to the major parties).
Despite the Democrat lead, this indicates the leader of the Republican caucus Tucker is in the best position to take the gavel. With Republican Jindal as governor and the fact that a few Democrat newcomers lean to the moderate side and will want to increase their influence by siding with the governor’s party, Tucker can expect a few crossover votes with otherwise close if not perfect party loyalty from Republicans in a chamber leadership vote.
Only if the Democrats do really well in the House elections might this scenario fail to manifest, with the favorite to assume the top job being state Rep. Don Cazayoux. Either way, look for the majority of committee chairmanships to go to Democrats unless Republicans get a majority but if not, still a substantial minority of those top panel positions will go to Republicans.
Even as he talks publicly of not intervening in legislative leadership contests, the stakes are too high for Jindal to remain completely out of these determinations. He has struck a theme of bipartisanship, so behind the scenes Jindal forces likely would signal approval of a GOP-lead House with a slight majority of Democrat chairmen, and a Democrat-led Senate with the same balance of committee heads. Tucker would constitute a great choice to assist Jindal and for the state and it seems unlikely Jindal would sit out a contest where Tucker's election would be in doubt.
That will create an interesting but not unprecedented situation. Under GOP Gov. Mike Foster’s second term split control of the Legislature’s leadership existed with Democrat Charlie DeWitt as Speaker and Republican John Hainkel as President (who as a Democrat has been Speaker years earlier). Reversed, it’s a formula that well could appear again.
7.11.07
Eliminating July election saves money, increases input
Sec. of State Jay Dardenne has the right idea in wanting to eliminate the July election date for Louisiana local governments. Cost savings relatively would be small but the greater impact would come from increased participation and representative government.
Currently, R.S. 18:402 allows for four election dates, March/April, July, October, and November (and in Orleans Parish, a fifth in February). Until last year there was an additional one in January, but that was done away with and the logic justifying that still applies.
Dardenne noted to a legislative panel that the most recent July election got less than 5 percent of the state’s registered voters out (although statistics show it actually was almost 6 percent), and occurred in fewer than half of the state’s parishes. If lower than usual, that is not atypical: in the past several, figures (going backwards were) 10.6, 11.7, 9.5, 11.1, 8.9, 10.8, 11.2, and 11.2 percent, or anywhere from three to four times lower than the typical fall election dates’. Each costs the state a minimum of around a half million dollars a shot.
Dardenne’s point is that the money can be saved by scheduling such an election, almost always for tax issues, either three months early or later. Opponents as in the case of the January elimination have squawked that fewer election dates creates less democracy, but is curtailing options that make a difference of three months really that critical of a reduction of choice? Further, if an emergency situation comes up where the need for money truly cannot wait, the law provides a relatively easy process to have a special election, with concurrence of two-thirds of the State Bond Commission.
But it’s the actual motivation for trying to keep the date, not this publicly-articulated one, which stirs opposition to its abolishment – local governments often use this date, as they did the January one, to try to get tax renewals and new taxes passed. Typically since the tax is dedicated to a certain constituency – such as government employee salaries – that constituency will vote in heavy numbers positively for the tax while only a small portion of those much larger numbers who get no direct benefit from the measure but who are only slightly negatively impacted will turn out.
Governing authorities hope the high turnout rate of the smaller constituency that gets direct benefits will more than offset the very low turnout of the much larger mostly unaffected populace which as a whole may well vote against the item. Having to put such things on a ballot shared with state or other local elections that will get many times more people to the polls probably increases their chances of losing, or at least will require greater efforts at justification and more compelling persuasion to get them passed.
There’s no good reason why these kinds of propositions should be shunted to low-stimulus election dates that unnecessarily spend taxpayer dollars. And even with wiping away the July date there still will be the spring date which have turnout rates similar to those of the summer date. Cost savings alone justify this elimination; the benefits to increasing citizen input on these matters are lagniappe.
Currently, R.S. 18:402 allows for four election dates, March/April, July, October, and November (and in Orleans Parish, a fifth in February). Until last year there was an additional one in January, but that was done away with and the logic justifying that still applies.
Dardenne noted to a legislative panel that the most recent July election got less than 5 percent of the state’s registered voters out (although statistics show it actually was almost 6 percent), and occurred in fewer than half of the state’s parishes. If lower than usual, that is not atypical: in the past several, figures (going backwards were) 10.6, 11.7, 9.5, 11.1, 8.9, 10.8, 11.2, and 11.2 percent, or anywhere from three to four times lower than the typical fall election dates’. Each costs the state a minimum of around a half million dollars a shot.
Dardenne’s point is that the money can be saved by scheduling such an election, almost always for tax issues, either three months early or later. Opponents as in the case of the January elimination have squawked that fewer election dates creates less democracy, but is curtailing options that make a difference of three months really that critical of a reduction of choice? Further, if an emergency situation comes up where the need for money truly cannot wait, the law provides a relatively easy process to have a special election, with concurrence of two-thirds of the State Bond Commission.
But it’s the actual motivation for trying to keep the date, not this publicly-articulated one, which stirs opposition to its abolishment – local governments often use this date, as they did the January one, to try to get tax renewals and new taxes passed. Typically since the tax is dedicated to a certain constituency – such as government employee salaries – that constituency will vote in heavy numbers positively for the tax while only a small portion of those much larger numbers who get no direct benefit from the measure but who are only slightly negatively impacted will turn out.
Governing authorities hope the high turnout rate of the smaller constituency that gets direct benefits will more than offset the very low turnout of the much larger mostly unaffected populace which as a whole may well vote against the item. Having to put such things on a ballot shared with state or other local elections that will get many times more people to the polls probably increases their chances of losing, or at least will require greater efforts at justification and more compelling persuasion to get them passed.
There’s no good reason why these kinds of propositions should be shunted to low-stimulus election dates that unnecessarily spend taxpayer dollars. And even with wiping away the July date there still will be the spring date which have turnout rates similar to those of the summer date. Cost savings alone justify this elimination; the benefits to increasing citizen input on these matters are lagniappe.
6.11.07
Reform and GOP candidates prospering in NW LA
Reformism and Republican conservatism were the watchwords of the 2007 Louisiana elections, and each side of the Red River gave us a dose of one or the other.
On the Caddo side, a set of predictable races surprisingly made the Senate District 38 race the most interesting. Incumbent Republican Sherri Smith Cheek has one of the most liberal/populist voting records of Senate Republicans, and even in the entire Senate, but with her campaign coffers awash in funds from special interests, particularly the health care industry where she has fought to keep state priorities away from more efficient, individual- and community-based care in favor of more wasteful spending favoring institutionalized care, it was not expected that an unknown Republican reformer, attorney Alan Seabaugh, would give her much competition.
But despite being outspent about three to one, Seabaugh, who relentlessly placed himself as a genuine conservative, reform-minded alternative to her, nearly knocked off Cheek whose total expenditures approached the $200,000 level. He came within 300 votes of her in Caddo Parish but only got 40 percent of the vote in the smaller-populated DeSoto Parish part of the district.
On the Caddo side, a set of predictable races surprisingly made the Senate District 38 race the most interesting. Incumbent Republican Sherri Smith Cheek has one of the most liberal/populist voting records of Senate Republicans, and even in the entire Senate, but with her campaign coffers awash in funds from special interests, particularly the health care industry where she has fought to keep state priorities away from more efficient, individual- and community-based care in favor of more wasteful spending favoring institutionalized care, it was not expected that an unknown Republican reformer, attorney Alan Seabaugh, would give her much competition.
But despite being outspent about three to one, Seabaugh, who relentlessly placed himself as a genuine conservative, reform-minded alternative to her, nearly knocked off Cheek whose total expenditures approached the $200,000 level. He came within 300 votes of her in Caddo Parish but only got 40 percent of the vote in the smaller-populated DeSoto Parish part of the district.
5.11.07
Democrats to blame for impeding LA recovery dollars
More than two years past, liberal elites continue trying to impose a template on the “after Katrina” story that simply does not match reality, if a Washington Post editorial is taken to be indicative.
The newspaper essentially blames Republican Pres. George W. Bush for foot-dragging on providing recovery dollars for Louisiana, citing as a recent example the Road Home shortfall. In doing so, it ignores a few facts.
First, progress was slow because Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco couldn’t get her act together. By the beginning of 2006 plenty of federal recovery bucks were waiting to be used. Instead, because first she supported an entirely unrealistic $250 billion level, then because she pinned her hopes on the flawed “Baker plan,” the cumbersome Road Home program didn’t get up and running until the second half of 2006 and has been plagued by inefficiency since. In the meantime, GO Zone lending and granting had been authorized providing potentially large infusions for commercial applications of which many have taken advantage.
Second, the reason the Road Home shortfall exists is because of deliberate actions by Blanco’s administration. The federal government set down one set of rules about who would qualify for what money if federal dollars were going to it, yet the Blanco Administration disregarded them and without permission vastly expanded the program. This put Washington over a barrel: either cough up additional money or be made to look unfair and have eligible people under the proper rules not receive promised funding. For political purposes, Blanco tricked the federal government and the American taxpayer out of billions.
Finally, it’s difficult to blame Bush for perceived funding shortages in the past year because of his reduced leverage over a Democrat-led Congress. Not one bill specifically designed to address the Road Home gap or any additional funding has even been allowed to come to the floor by the Democrats. It smacks of intellectual dishonesty to give Democrats a pass on this when they’ve been the ones who have refused to date to give additional funds, and instead to try to fob that off on the White House.
The editorial essentially wishes Republican incoming Gov. Bobby Jindal luck in getting the recovery going but entirely misidentified the problem. It’s not Bush impeding things, it’s the past mistakes of Blanco as well as a culture of dependency and a too-prevalent belief that government exists to acquire and transfer wealth rather than facilitate its creation. But understanding the true causes of a slow recovery would violate the “blame Bush and/or GOP” script.
The newspaper essentially blames Republican Pres. George W. Bush for foot-dragging on providing recovery dollars for Louisiana, citing as a recent example the Road Home shortfall. In doing so, it ignores a few facts.
First, progress was slow because Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco couldn’t get her act together. By the beginning of 2006 plenty of federal recovery bucks were waiting to be used. Instead, because first she supported an entirely unrealistic $250 billion level, then because she pinned her hopes on the flawed “Baker plan,” the cumbersome Road Home program didn’t get up and running until the second half of 2006 and has been plagued by inefficiency since. In the meantime, GO Zone lending and granting had been authorized providing potentially large infusions for commercial applications of which many have taken advantage.
Second, the reason the Road Home shortfall exists is because of deliberate actions by Blanco’s administration. The federal government set down one set of rules about who would qualify for what money if federal dollars were going to it, yet the Blanco Administration disregarded them and without permission vastly expanded the program. This put Washington over a barrel: either cough up additional money or be made to look unfair and have eligible people under the proper rules not receive promised funding. For political purposes, Blanco tricked the federal government and the American taxpayer out of billions.
Finally, it’s difficult to blame Bush for perceived funding shortages in the past year because of his reduced leverage over a Democrat-led Congress. Not one bill specifically designed to address the Road Home gap or any additional funding has even been allowed to come to the floor by the Democrats. It smacks of intellectual dishonesty to give Democrats a pass on this when they’ve been the ones who have refused to date to give additional funds, and instead to try to fob that off on the White House.
The editorial essentially wishes Republican incoming Gov. Bobby Jindal luck in getting the recovery going but entirely misidentified the problem. It’s not Bush impeding things, it’s the past mistakes of Blanco as well as a culture of dependency and a too-prevalent belief that government exists to acquire and transfer wealth rather than facilitate its creation. But understanding the true causes of a slow recovery would violate the “blame Bush and/or GOP” script.
4.11.07
Tale of two New Orleans highlights reformers task
It can’t really be a tale of two cities in physical terms because they’re in the same city. But it might as well be in terms of attitude, and the wide gulf that separates two illustrate the challenge that Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal and other reformers will face statewide over the next four years.
Recently in New Orleans Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot premiered on an outdoor stage in an area largely unreconstructed over two years after flood water pooled in it. There, former residents and others were heard to likening the “waiting” in the play to that which they say they have faced in their experiences with government, that they wait on government to provide for them in order to get things rebuilt. In the meantime, little gets done.
Meanwhile, only a short distance down the road, some people didn’t wait on others. The largely Vietnamese community radiating around the Michoud Blvd. and Chef Menteur Highway intersection not long after having their homes flooded got together didn’t wait on anybody to start rebuilding. As much of the rest of New Orleans east residents complained about not having things done for them, these people got to work, helped themselves, and now the Village de l’Est area is almost completely rebuilt.
Where Louisiana needs to be is adopting the mindset of those that didn’t wait, not where it is which is too many people waiting because they wanted somebody else to do it for them, and then blame others for it not getting done. It’s the difference between a dependency inculcated by a governing philosophy that posits big government as the solution for everything and government as the tool by which resources are distributed, and the independence that comes from getting government out as much as possible out of people’s lives, a government that does not take too much from people to disable their sense of independence and to encourage dependency.
Louisiana’s historical problem, why the state underachieves so much, has been big government that either saps people of initiative, interferes too much to allow them to exercise it, or both. Reformers like the Republican Jindal articulate the different vision but those who benefit from aggressive use of government as a means of resource distribution will fight them strenuously. It will take much effort by them to cause the cultural paradigm shift that is necessary for Louisiana to improve its quality of life in any way, and they need to be prepared to fight to do it.
Recently in New Orleans Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot premiered on an outdoor stage in an area largely unreconstructed over two years after flood water pooled in it. There, former residents and others were heard to likening the “waiting” in the play to that which they say they have faced in their experiences with government, that they wait on government to provide for them in order to get things rebuilt. In the meantime, little gets done.
Meanwhile, only a short distance down the road, some people didn’t wait on others. The largely Vietnamese community radiating around the Michoud Blvd. and Chef Menteur Highway intersection not long after having their homes flooded got together didn’t wait on anybody to start rebuilding. As much of the rest of New Orleans east residents complained about not having things done for them, these people got to work, helped themselves, and now the Village de l’Est area is almost completely rebuilt.
Where Louisiana needs to be is adopting the mindset of those that didn’t wait, not where it is which is too many people waiting because they wanted somebody else to do it for them, and then blame others for it not getting done. It’s the difference between a dependency inculcated by a governing philosophy that posits big government as the solution for everything and government as the tool by which resources are distributed, and the independence that comes from getting government out as much as possible out of people’s lives, a government that does not take too much from people to disable their sense of independence and to encourage dependency.
Louisiana’s historical problem, why the state underachieves so much, has been big government that either saps people of initiative, interferes too much to allow them to exercise it, or both. Reformers like the Republican Jindal articulate the different vision but those who benefit from aggressive use of government as a means of resource distribution will fight them strenuously. It will take much effort by them to cause the cultural paradigm shift that is necessary for Louisiana to improve its quality of life in any way, and they need to be prepared to fight to do it.
1.11.07
Big Democrat turnout drop gives GOP runoff opportunities
It’s not that Republicans appeared any more motivated to vote last month in state elections, it’s that Democrats weren’t and many have left the state and taking potential Democrat votes with them – consequences of which will reverberate in future elections as early as this month’s.
The state has compiled official voting statistics which prompted one analyst to assert that a “motivated community” or Republicans marked the contest. Actually, when comparing the results of the elections to those of the 2003 primary where 54.4 percent of Republicans votes, shows there was little difference. The real difference, which was under 4 percent for the total turnout between 2007 and 2003, came in Democrat voters and especially with black voters, as white Democrat participation dropped from 60.2 to 52 percent, but black Democrat participation swooned from 49.4 percent to 37 percent.
Three things explain the GOP voters staying essentially the same while Democrats suffered declines. First, switching and migration patterns favor the GOP, and at least among the switchers, since they are involved enough in politics to feel switching is necessary, are more likely to vote. Second, presented only with second-tier candidates for the governor’s contest, Democrats were unenthused and disproportionately less likely to turn out in October. Third, Democrats disproportionately, especially blacks, have been dispersed from Jefferson, St. Bernard, and Orleans Parishes by the 2005 disasters and, while their names remain on the rolls, are highly unlikely to participate in elections. While the dropoff in total vote in Jefferson was less than 10 percent or about 11,000 for governor, it was off almost 42,000 in Orleans or over a third, and in St. Bernard it plunged by over half or a loss of almost 14,000.
The last factor explains most of the decline and jeopardizes the fortunes of Democrats in statewide elections. For example, given that Republican Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal avoided a general election runoff by around 50,000 votes and that 67,000, majority Democrat, votes were “lost” from the previous primary, it would have been touch-and-go for him to have avoided the runoff had demographic patterns remained the same. This is a long-term problem with which Democrats must deal.
But even in the short run, it could prove costly. The Jindal candidacy and the chance to vote against Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom may have rallied Republicans in the primary. Yet if they retain motivation this could help GOP candidates principally Royal Alexander for attorney general. In 1999, another year when the governor’s race was decided in the primary, while GOP registrants’ rate dropped 17 percent, Democrats’ rate dropped about 20 percent.
If that happens again, not only will Alexander have a real chance at giving the GOP six out of seven statewide offices, but the Republicans also may gain control of the House for the first time in over 130 years.
The state has compiled official voting statistics which prompted one analyst to assert that a “motivated community” or Republicans marked the contest. Actually, when comparing the results of the elections to those of the 2003 primary where 54.4 percent of Republicans votes, shows there was little difference. The real difference, which was under 4 percent for the total turnout between 2007 and 2003, came in Democrat voters and especially with black voters, as white Democrat participation dropped from 60.2 to 52 percent, but black Democrat participation swooned from 49.4 percent to 37 percent.
Three things explain the GOP voters staying essentially the same while Democrats suffered declines. First, switching and migration patterns favor the GOP, and at least among the switchers, since they are involved enough in politics to feel switching is necessary, are more likely to vote. Second, presented only with second-tier candidates for the governor’s contest, Democrats were unenthused and disproportionately less likely to turn out in October. Third, Democrats disproportionately, especially blacks, have been dispersed from Jefferson, St. Bernard, and Orleans Parishes by the 2005 disasters and, while their names remain on the rolls, are highly unlikely to participate in elections. While the dropoff in total vote in Jefferson was less than 10 percent or about 11,000 for governor, it was off almost 42,000 in Orleans or over a third, and in St. Bernard it plunged by over half or a loss of almost 14,000.
The last factor explains most of the decline and jeopardizes the fortunes of Democrats in statewide elections. For example, given that Republican Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal avoided a general election runoff by around 50,000 votes and that 67,000, majority Democrat, votes were “lost” from the previous primary, it would have been touch-and-go for him to have avoided the runoff had demographic patterns remained the same. This is a long-term problem with which Democrats must deal.
But even in the short run, it could prove costly. The Jindal candidacy and the chance to vote against Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom may have rallied Republicans in the primary. Yet if they retain motivation this could help GOP candidates principally Royal Alexander for attorney general. In 1999, another year when the governor’s race was decided in the primary, while GOP registrants’ rate dropped 17 percent, Democrats’ rate dropped about 20 percent.
If that happens again, not only will Alexander have a real chance at giving the GOP six out of seven statewide offices, but the Republicans also may gain control of the House for the first time in over 130 years.
31.10.07
Contrary to facts, Blanco still trying to rewrite history
One would think that, even in the waning days of her term, Gov. Kathleen Blanco would have more to do than try to rewrite history inaccurately. Apparently not, judged by a recent visit of hers to tour economic concerns of which she had practically nothing to do in procuring for Louisiana.
Invited to recall her time in office, Blanco offered that it was her administration’s program to offer pre-kindergarten to all 4-year-olds from at-risk families. In fact, the legislation to so do came in 2001, three years before she took office. More accurately, she tried to increase funding for it.
She also talked of ethics reforms she supported. And she got some passed which barely tightened up campaign finance laws, before the 2005 hurricane disasters. But after then, she testified, she had to drop the matter because other issues had become more important. Yet the Legislature had made a full-blown effort this past session that would have made sweeping ethics changes in reporting requirements. Huge majorities supported it, until Sens. Don Hines and Robert Adley used parliamentary maneuvers to put the bill into a position to be killed. Throughout, Blanco adopted a hands-off attitude that if she had forsaken and put some weight behind the bill, surely would have overcome Hines and Adley – and, having forsworn running for reelection, would have been in the perfect position to have done so, yet she remained unengaged.
She also commented that, in the state’s futile chase to land a steel mill, that as a result of her efforts “[i]t positioned us as a player. We were not players when I started. We were an afterthought.” Which shows how poor her judgment was and still is on these matters. Until Louisiana reforms its business tax structure – of which Blanco rejected such efforts such as her veto of HB 505 this past session except for the most tepid measures – and adopts sweeping ethics reforms that Blanco did not try to get passed, Louisiana almost always will be an afterthought in this regard.
But her most gross misstatements came in regards to her conduct right after and for the next couple of months after the 2005 disasters. She claims short of “immediately turning Republican,” she said she doesn't know how she could have gotten more help more quickly from the Pres. George W. Bush administration. Which shows either her memory is incredibly short or incredibly selective.
First, Blanco completely botched the process by which to request aid. Even though just a year earlier she had participated in a simulation and had a near-miss, she didn’t know how to request aid. Had she known what she was doing, immediate aid would have come more quickly.
Second, as her e-mail messages show, almost from the start she viewed the crisis through political lenses, giving way too much emphasis to the political consequences of options that prejudiced her decisions. For example, this was why she refused to allow in federal assistance earlier than it came because she feared it would make her look upstaged, so it was her own actions, not Washington’s that slowed everything down.
Third, she tried the patience of Washington, the nation’s public, and Louisiana citizens by moving slowly and insisting on doing things her way, again with an eye towards political considerations, rather than pursue the most effective solutions. For example, at first she assumed the federal government would just throw money at the state by latching onto a ridiculous $250 billion request, then by latching onto the imprudent “Baker plan,” and finally taking almost a year to come up with any plan at all, the inefficient Road Home. Even then, without proper authorization she allowed the program to reimburse for uncovered expenses, bankrupting the program.
Try as she might, Blanco cannot jawbone her way into changing the historical facts surrounding her failed governorship. Opportunities abounded and she missed many because of her captivity to a liberal, populist ideology that trusts government before the people it’s supposed to serve and looks to take from and blame others rather than doing the work itself to bring about achievement. No amount of revisionism changes these truths.
Invited to recall her time in office, Blanco offered that it was her administration’s program to offer pre-kindergarten to all 4-year-olds from at-risk families. In fact, the legislation to so do came in 2001, three years before she took office. More accurately, she tried to increase funding for it.
She also talked of ethics reforms she supported. And she got some passed which barely tightened up campaign finance laws, before the 2005 hurricane disasters. But after then, she testified, she had to drop the matter because other issues had become more important. Yet the Legislature had made a full-blown effort this past session that would have made sweeping ethics changes in reporting requirements. Huge majorities supported it, until Sens. Don Hines and Robert Adley used parliamentary maneuvers to put the bill into a position to be killed. Throughout, Blanco adopted a hands-off attitude that if she had forsaken and put some weight behind the bill, surely would have overcome Hines and Adley – and, having forsworn running for reelection, would have been in the perfect position to have done so, yet she remained unengaged.
She also commented that, in the state’s futile chase to land a steel mill, that as a result of her efforts “[i]t positioned us as a player. We were not players when I started. We were an afterthought.” Which shows how poor her judgment was and still is on these matters. Until Louisiana reforms its business tax structure – of which Blanco rejected such efforts such as her veto of HB 505 this past session except for the most tepid measures – and adopts sweeping ethics reforms that Blanco did not try to get passed, Louisiana almost always will be an afterthought in this regard.
But her most gross misstatements came in regards to her conduct right after and for the next couple of months after the 2005 disasters. She claims short of “immediately turning Republican,” she said she doesn't know how she could have gotten more help more quickly from the Pres. George W. Bush administration. Which shows either her memory is incredibly short or incredibly selective.
First, Blanco completely botched the process by which to request aid. Even though just a year earlier she had participated in a simulation and had a near-miss, she didn’t know how to request aid. Had she known what she was doing, immediate aid would have come more quickly.
Second, as her e-mail messages show, almost from the start she viewed the crisis through political lenses, giving way too much emphasis to the political consequences of options that prejudiced her decisions. For example, this was why she refused to allow in federal assistance earlier than it came because she feared it would make her look upstaged, so it was her own actions, not Washington’s that slowed everything down.
Third, she tried the patience of Washington, the nation’s public, and Louisiana citizens by moving slowly and insisting on doing things her way, again with an eye towards political considerations, rather than pursue the most effective solutions. For example, at first she assumed the federal government would just throw money at the state by latching onto a ridiculous $250 billion request, then by latching onto the imprudent “Baker plan,” and finally taking almost a year to come up with any plan at all, the inefficient Road Home. Even then, without proper authorization she allowed the program to reimburse for uncovered expenses, bankrupting the program.
Try as she might, Blanco cannot jawbone her way into changing the historical facts surrounding her failed governorship. Opportunities abounded and she missed many because of her captivity to a liberal, populist ideology that trusts government before the people it’s supposed to serve and looks to take from and blame others rather than doing the work itself to bring about achievement. No amount of revisionism changes these truths.
30.10.07
Artificial voting drop may get used for political purposes
Apparently there’s been a lot of jaw-flapping going on about the meaning of the 46 percent turnout in the governor’s contest, some four to five percent below the elections for that office in 2003, with Democrat politicians arguing it signals that politicians are failing to “inspire.” As a statement of what primarily caused the drop, that sentiment is utter tripe.
The primary reason is very simple – Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes and, to a lesser extent, Jefferson, have kept a number of people on the voting rolls who are not residents of their parishes because they left and haven’t returned from the 2005 hurricane disasters and, without extraordinary efforts being made by candidates, will not vote. Just look at the provisional figures recently released by the state – two of the three lowest turnouts of the highest-turnout contests in a parish were Orleans at 29.2 percent and St. Bernard at 37 percent; Madison got in just below at 36.3 percent. Jefferson was a few places higher at 42.8 percent.
But compare the 2003 numbers: among all but Orleans, St. Bernard, and Jefferson, the state had 1,096,733 of 2,244,867 vote, or 48.9 percent – less than 1.5 percent below the 2003 primary total. And that 1.5 percent may have been an artifact of two different things: first, lack of a hot parish-wide race on the ballot especially in populous parishes (in the ten highest turnouts, eight were registered by a sheriff’s or parish president’s race while only two came from the gubernatorial contest) and blacks (besides those displaced from Orleans) turning out in noticeably few numbers (for example, from what I could derive, black turnout dropped a couple of percent in Caddo Parish but the bottom fell out in East Baton Rouge, down about 10 percent).
It’s interesting that Republican politicians pointed to the storms or, as a longer-term cause of a decline in turnout, legal changes that produced more registered voters but disproportionately fewer who would turn out. The Democrats may blame candidates because they may perceive the reduced excitement in the black community.
However, the Democrats in blaming politicians may have a political motive behind it. By ignoring the impact of the hurricanes’ displacement, they can attempt to make the problem out to be bigger than it really is – a mathematical artifact of essentially inaccurate representations of reality. This could give impetus to efforts to dilute ballot security in an effort to crease turnout for its own sake, such as by the unnecessary and wasteful laws passed in the wake of the hurricanes that applied to the New Orleans city elections of 2006.
It also may be an attempt to try to reduce the legitimacy of Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal’s landslide win. The fewer people that voted, the more impetus it gives to trying to deny Jindal’s win wasn’t what it was – a mandate for reform and conservative agendas.
The fact is, when adjusted for true residency, 2007 primary was not much below that of 2003 and, if anything, discouraged Democrats (of whom blacks disproportionately label themselves) probably account for most of the remaining difference. This is neither a crisis requiring relaxation of laws protecting ballot security nor repudiates the historic message of the election.
The primary reason is very simple – Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes and, to a lesser extent, Jefferson, have kept a number of people on the voting rolls who are not residents of their parishes because they left and haven’t returned from the 2005 hurricane disasters and, without extraordinary efforts being made by candidates, will not vote. Just look at the provisional figures recently released by the state – two of the three lowest turnouts of the highest-turnout contests in a parish were Orleans at 29.2 percent and St. Bernard at 37 percent; Madison got in just below at 36.3 percent. Jefferson was a few places higher at 42.8 percent.
But compare the 2003 numbers: among all but Orleans, St. Bernard, and Jefferson, the state had 1,096,733 of 2,244,867 vote, or 48.9 percent – less than 1.5 percent below the 2003 primary total. And that 1.5 percent may have been an artifact of two different things: first, lack of a hot parish-wide race on the ballot especially in populous parishes (in the ten highest turnouts, eight were registered by a sheriff’s or parish president’s race while only two came from the gubernatorial contest) and blacks (besides those displaced from Orleans) turning out in noticeably few numbers (for example, from what I could derive, black turnout dropped a couple of percent in Caddo Parish but the bottom fell out in East Baton Rouge, down about 10 percent).
It’s interesting that Republican politicians pointed to the storms or, as a longer-term cause of a decline in turnout, legal changes that produced more registered voters but disproportionately fewer who would turn out. The Democrats may blame candidates because they may perceive the reduced excitement in the black community.
However, the Democrats in blaming politicians may have a political motive behind it. By ignoring the impact of the hurricanes’ displacement, they can attempt to make the problem out to be bigger than it really is – a mathematical artifact of essentially inaccurate representations of reality. This could give impetus to efforts to dilute ballot security in an effort to crease turnout for its own sake, such as by the unnecessary and wasteful laws passed in the wake of the hurricanes that applied to the New Orleans city elections of 2006.
It also may be an attempt to try to reduce the legitimacy of Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal’s landslide win. The fewer people that voted, the more impetus it gives to trying to deny Jindal’s win wasn’t what it was – a mandate for reform and conservative agendas.
The fact is, when adjusted for true residency, 2007 primary was not much below that of 2003 and, if anything, discouraged Democrats (of whom blacks disproportionately label themselves) probably account for most of the remaining difference. This is neither a crisis requiring relaxation of laws protecting ballot security nor repudiates the historic message of the election.
29.10.07
Chaisson realistic hope for leader from obstinate Senate
Of those persons who have presented themselves as potential leaders for the Louisiana Senate starting next year, the question of who would best serve the state in this positions is juxtaposed with who politically can win, meaning some compromise may have to occur in the hopes of getting this balky institution moving in the right direction.
Republican Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal has stated that, unlike almost every previous governor, that he will not dictate the process of choosing legislative leaders. Traditionally, governors would impose leadership on the bodies by dangling out the threat of line-item vetoes and the ability of the governor to organize too many capital budget requests making claim on too little money. Jindal says he will eschew this past practice, in all likelihood because he plans to depoliticize to a large degree the capital outlay process – to move items through not on the basis of political expedience, but on genuine need.
However, deferring in this way risks his reform agenda, for, of the declared candidates for Senate President, some hostile to his agenda definitely have put themselves into the running. Two such obstacles to progress in Louisiana would be Democrat state Sens. Joe McPherson and Robert Adley.
Not only does McPherson have a fairly liberal/populist voting record (as a check of voting scorecard postings on the Louisiana Legislature Log will show), but he also is a major shill for the industry in which he has a financial interest, nursing homes. Probably the biggest area of savings in the budget that Jindal has pledged to scrub is in health care which, thanks to the influence of legislators like McPherson, has a heavy tilt towards institutionalized rather than community- or individual-based care. This has led to, as studies and Legislative Auditor reports have shown, one of the most expensive and least efficient long-term health care systems in the nation, and one of the least efficient and worst-performing indigent care systems in the country.
Unfortunately, McPherson probably has done more to prevent meaningful reform in this area than any other legislator. His actions have particularly been at odds with Jindal’s emphasis of shifting health care away from a government-run, one-size-fits-all operation to maximizing individual autonomy and choice, a stance just re-articulated by Jindal over the weekend. Further, Jindal’s ethics reforms also likely would restrict McPherson’s activities in the nursing home sector, giving McPherson another reason to be as obstinate as possible with helping Jindal change the state. Few choices could be worse as Senate leader.
Adley would represent minor improvement. His voting record is better but, if Jindal’s premier issue is ethics reform, few legislators have proven themselves more of an impediment to this than him. Last session, with current Sen. Pres. Don Hines, Adley derailed an ethics reform bill much like favored by Jindal despite it having virtually unanimous support in the Legislature. Adley claims he had to kill the bill to save it, while less amused observers believe he never wanted any reform. So Adley either is too incompetent to get a widely-supported bill through the legislative process, which does not commend his leadership skills well, or he’s an opponent to Jindal on the incoming governor’s biggest issue. Either way, that’s not the guy to be running the Senate.
Further, he’s shown himself to oppose meaningful tax reduction or willing to pursue tax and spending reduction solutions that Jindal will want to enhance the state’s economic development. He’s also been a past advocate of wasteful health care spending. Like McPherson, Adley simply is unacceptable as a leader to move the state forward.
This leaves state Sens. Joel Chaisson, a Democrat, Willie Mount, also a Democrat, and Mike Michot, a Republican, as remaining contenders. The best of the lot by voting record is Michot (although he has warts here, principally his supporting the 2005 sick tax) but with a likely solid Democrat majority in the Senate, without Jindal intervention a Democrat seems the more probable choice. Mount’s voting record is worse than even McPherson’s, so Chaisson, who has been slightly left of center and is one of the more moderate Democrats in the Senate, could end up, given political considerations, the best Louisianans can hope for from the institution that will put up the most resistance to changing the state for the better over the next four years.
Republican Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal has stated that, unlike almost every previous governor, that he will not dictate the process of choosing legislative leaders. Traditionally, governors would impose leadership on the bodies by dangling out the threat of line-item vetoes and the ability of the governor to organize too many capital budget requests making claim on too little money. Jindal says he will eschew this past practice, in all likelihood because he plans to depoliticize to a large degree the capital outlay process – to move items through not on the basis of political expedience, but on genuine need.
However, deferring in this way risks his reform agenda, for, of the declared candidates for Senate President, some hostile to his agenda definitely have put themselves into the running. Two such obstacles to progress in Louisiana would be Democrat state Sens. Joe McPherson and Robert Adley.
Not only does McPherson have a fairly liberal/populist voting record (as a check of voting scorecard postings on the Louisiana Legislature Log will show), but he also is a major shill for the industry in which he has a financial interest, nursing homes. Probably the biggest area of savings in the budget that Jindal has pledged to scrub is in health care which, thanks to the influence of legislators like McPherson, has a heavy tilt towards institutionalized rather than community- or individual-based care. This has led to, as studies and Legislative Auditor reports have shown, one of the most expensive and least efficient long-term health care systems in the nation, and one of the least efficient and worst-performing indigent care systems in the country.
Unfortunately, McPherson probably has done more to prevent meaningful reform in this area than any other legislator. His actions have particularly been at odds with Jindal’s emphasis of shifting health care away from a government-run, one-size-fits-all operation to maximizing individual autonomy and choice, a stance just re-articulated by Jindal over the weekend. Further, Jindal’s ethics reforms also likely would restrict McPherson’s activities in the nursing home sector, giving McPherson another reason to be as obstinate as possible with helping Jindal change the state. Few choices could be worse as Senate leader.
Adley would represent minor improvement. His voting record is better but, if Jindal’s premier issue is ethics reform, few legislators have proven themselves more of an impediment to this than him. Last session, with current Sen. Pres. Don Hines, Adley derailed an ethics reform bill much like favored by Jindal despite it having virtually unanimous support in the Legislature. Adley claims he had to kill the bill to save it, while less amused observers believe he never wanted any reform. So Adley either is too incompetent to get a widely-supported bill through the legislative process, which does not commend his leadership skills well, or he’s an opponent to Jindal on the incoming governor’s biggest issue. Either way, that’s not the guy to be running the Senate.
Further, he’s shown himself to oppose meaningful tax reduction or willing to pursue tax and spending reduction solutions that Jindal will want to enhance the state’s economic development. He’s also been a past advocate of wasteful health care spending. Like McPherson, Adley simply is unacceptable as a leader to move the state forward.
This leaves state Sens. Joel Chaisson, a Democrat, Willie Mount, also a Democrat, and Mike Michot, a Republican, as remaining contenders. The best of the lot by voting record is Michot (although he has warts here, principally his supporting the 2005 sick tax) but with a likely solid Democrat majority in the Senate, without Jindal intervention a Democrat seems the more probable choice. Mount’s voting record is worse than even McPherson’s, so Chaisson, who has been slightly left of center and is one of the more moderate Democrats in the Senate, could end up, given political considerations, the best Louisianans can hope for from the institution that will put up the most resistance to changing the state for the better over the next four years.
28.10.07
Smart GOP campaigning will bring Democrats misery
The head of the Louisiana Democrats, Chris Whittington, has had to do an awful lot of whistling into the wind these past couple of years, and he was working up to a grand finale of it when asked about his party’s chances in the remaining legislative contests on Nov. 17.
Whittington asserted that “polling” showed that, of 17 House races remaining that did not pit a Democrat vs. Democrat, he saw Democrats ahead in 13 with one undecided. For the Senate, he conceded just one of four with one also too close to call.
One must wonder who did this “polling,” or if it even was done. In the Senate, I guess the one that will get away is in District 32 where Republican Neal Riser came within 550 votes of winning Oct. 20 with 49 percent. Maybe the one that is up-in-the-air is District 25 where although Republican state Rep. Blade Morrish trailed Democrat state Rep. Gil Pinac 39-32 percent, a Republican newcomer got 30 percent of the vote – and the bulk of that will be going to Morrish.
Likewise, Whittington appears to be doing a Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm imitation with his House numbers. There are several districts where the sum of total Democrat votes are less than the sum of Republican votes (and in the one Democrat vs. no party contest, adding the GOP votes to the latter goes over the 50 percent mark), and a few others where GOP candidates scored better than 40 percent or a combination of the runoff and defeated Republicans get that high. In other words, three or four seats not won by Democrats seem optimistic to say the least.
Throughout the election season Whittington has offered a Pollyanna view of Democrats’ chances (such as his last comments on the governor’s race). But his hopes may come close to realization if state Republicans let it. Without Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal or outgoing Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom on the ballot, because some incentives to vote for those interested in reform may have gone away, the party and its campaigning candidates may squander this opportunity to come close to a House majority and to make minor gains in the Senate.
To make Whittington look foolish again, Republicans needs to take the following steps:
While Jindal has said he won’t get involved in legislative races (and rightly so, as personal interjection of himself against potential winners may alienate them), that doesn’t mean his campaign organization can’t; some donations here and there and lending of certain resources and personnel can go a long way to shaping a Legislature more to his liking.
Defeated Republicans need to endorse those Republicans in runoffs who are willing to embrace reform and conservative values.
The state party and allied organizations need to target their resources wisely; for example, best not give additional aid to contests like Senate District 7 where the Democrat was just a few hundred votes from winning and the only Republican trailed by 17 points in the primary.
While it’s certainly possible that reformers and Republicans disproportionately won’t show up at the polls for the general election runoff, it’s a possibility that can be obviated by smart electioneering by Republicans, to make this an even more miserable legislative election cycle than Democrats wanted to endure.
Whittington asserted that “polling” showed that, of 17 House races remaining that did not pit a Democrat vs. Democrat, he saw Democrats ahead in 13 with one undecided. For the Senate, he conceded just one of four with one also too close to call.
One must wonder who did this “polling,” or if it even was done. In the Senate, I guess the one that will get away is in District 32 where Republican Neal Riser came within 550 votes of winning Oct. 20 with 49 percent. Maybe the one that is up-in-the-air is District 25 where although Republican state Rep. Blade Morrish trailed Democrat state Rep. Gil Pinac 39-32 percent, a Republican newcomer got 30 percent of the vote – and the bulk of that will be going to Morrish.
Likewise, Whittington appears to be doing a Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm imitation with his House numbers. There are several districts where the sum of total Democrat votes are less than the sum of Republican votes (and in the one Democrat vs. no party contest, adding the GOP votes to the latter goes over the 50 percent mark), and a few others where GOP candidates scored better than 40 percent or a combination of the runoff and defeated Republicans get that high. In other words, three or four seats not won by Democrats seem optimistic to say the least.
Throughout the election season Whittington has offered a Pollyanna view of Democrats’ chances (such as his last comments on the governor’s race). But his hopes may come close to realization if state Republicans let it. Without Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal or outgoing Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom on the ballot, because some incentives to vote for those interested in reform may have gone away, the party and its campaigning candidates may squander this opportunity to come close to a House majority and to make minor gains in the Senate.
To make Whittington look foolish again, Republicans needs to take the following steps:
While it’s certainly possible that reformers and Republicans disproportionately won’t show up at the polls for the general election runoff, it’s a possibility that can be obviated by smart electioneering by Republicans, to make this an even more miserable legislative election cycle than Democrats wanted to endure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)