Cox Cable sure picked some good timing to announce a rate increase, just days before the Louisiana Legislature opens its regular session with a couple of bills on tap to break the near-monopoly cable companies have on the provision of cable services.
HB 869 by state Rep. Jeff Arnold and SB 422 by Sen. Ann Duplessis would allow the granting of cable franchises through the state and bypass most obligations and obstinacy heaped upon competitors to cable companies by local governments. By reserving the power to grant franchises to local governments, it has discouraged competition because of the start-up costs a local government can impose including fees that simply transfer money from cable consumers into the accounts of local governments for no other reason that local governments can do that. Having the state franchise providers can prevent discriminatory costs that have the effect of allowing cable companies to monopolize the service.
A similar bill was attempted in 2006 and passed the Legislature. But among her most stupid moves, former Gov. Kathleen Blanco vetoed the bill. Election year 2007 seemed to stymie the bill’s chances, but it’s no surprise that New Orleans-area legislators Arnold and Duplessis are leading the charge in 2008 because New Orleans suffered a 43 percent increase in cable rates (courtesy of Cox Cable) over the past eight years, well past the rate of inflation.
Cable companies may respond that such rate increases have come as a result of expansion of service to individual household, i.e. more channels. But the most prominent point about these bills would be they would encourage other providers (as already are able to in many states) to come and provide on-demand service, where instead of being locked into a limited set of packages which is the cable company strategy, consumers can pick and choose which specific channels they want to have without having to pay for many they don’t want.
These bills can expect severe resistance from cable companies and local governments – both extreme hypocrites on this matter. Cable companies successfully fought for providing phone service at the state level, yet they want to prevent phone (and other companies) from doing the same with cable. Further, they are aided and abetted by local government who can refuse to grant franchises to any other competitors and do so unless huge concessions are involved, because they see allowing cable companies to be monopoly providers as a conduit to pass money from consumers to their own treasuries.
If not for Blanco’s stupidity, consumers already would have been enjoying lower prices and better quality. It’s imperative that one of these bills in pretty much the form they currently exist be passed and sent to a pro-competition Gov. Bobby Jindal finally to help out Louisiana telecommunications consumers.
26.3.08
Hesitation welcome signal for health care redesign
Health care redesign into an efficient, sensible system for indigent care finally may be on the way in Louisiana, signaled by the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration’s desire to review specifications for a new Medical Center of Louisiana – New Orleans (temporarily renamed “LSU Interim Hospital”) rebuilt hospital.
During his gubernatorial campaign last fall, one of the more prominent themes involved delivering health care in a more efficient manner – a crucial task since indigent health care costs are at about a billion dollars a year so better use of these resources could provide crucial cost savings as a predicted period of leaner state budgets loom. Yet barely a peep has been issued from Jindal concerning this issue since – until his Secretary of Health and Hospitals Alan Levine testified in front of a Senate panel yesterday.
Levine indicated skepticism at former Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s plan to build a grandiose new “Big Charity” in his refusal to move forward immediately with that plan. Blanco had envisioned this replacement facility for the one damaged by Hurricane Katrina and was one of the cornerstones for the plan that essentially retained Louisiana’s inefficient indigent care system, unique among the states, that primarily funnels to a handful of large, state-run institutions money for this care. This contrasts with the approach gaining acceptance in the rest of the country, where public money follows the person who then, guided by program rules, seeks out appropriate care at any eligible institution, private or public.
This approach, favored by the federal government, was rejected by the state which led to the federal government balking at providing $225 million for costs towards the hospital. Blanco then found a way to leverage other federal dollars into allowing the state to put up this money itself. But in doing so, she left the expenditure of it up to her successor Jindal who favors the alternative approach.
Blanco and her allies ideologically prefer the existing charity hospital approach because it keeps money in the hands of state government, as they believe big government knows best how to make health care decisions for individuals plus this arrangement provides more jobs to distribute. By building as big as possible a new Big Charity, it would commit the state to continue with this system in order to make sure its beds would be filled. The most enthusiastic partner in this attempt is the Louisiana State University system which runs the charity hospital system and thereby gains the resources and patronage opportunities from it.
Levine’s statement that a review may take a couple of months probably indicates the Jindal Administration is going to reject the palatial version of Big Charity, opening the gates for a money-follows-the-person system to be instituted. Since the indigent won’t be herded into state-run hospitals for care, there would be less need for large facilities. Reformers have argued that the LSU-run hospitals should really be focusing more on teaching in a more centralized fashion, and LSU’s dream of a huge facility was dealt a blow when its longtime partner in providing charity services Tulane University stated it believed a smaller hospital was more justified with current medical practice trends.
Jindal has not moved aggressively on health care reform simply because it may be the single most daunting task on his docket, requiring intermediate steps such as scaling down the hospital request. In the short run the transition also will cost money, and with an anticipated budgetary crunch ahead, he may be thinking a second term would be the time to start it. But aligning the hospital size with such a plan would create impetus for reform down the road, just as Blanco tried to do the same to prevent reform. Expect Levine near the end of the session in June to announce the Administration wants to move in the direction of a smaller, more sensible, facility.
During his gubernatorial campaign last fall, one of the more prominent themes involved delivering health care in a more efficient manner – a crucial task since indigent health care costs are at about a billion dollars a year so better use of these resources could provide crucial cost savings as a predicted period of leaner state budgets loom. Yet barely a peep has been issued from Jindal concerning this issue since – until his Secretary of Health and Hospitals Alan Levine testified in front of a Senate panel yesterday.
Levine indicated skepticism at former Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s plan to build a grandiose new “Big Charity” in his refusal to move forward immediately with that plan. Blanco had envisioned this replacement facility for the one damaged by Hurricane Katrina and was one of the cornerstones for the plan that essentially retained Louisiana’s inefficient indigent care system, unique among the states, that primarily funnels to a handful of large, state-run institutions money for this care. This contrasts with the approach gaining acceptance in the rest of the country, where public money follows the person who then, guided by program rules, seeks out appropriate care at any eligible institution, private or public.
This approach, favored by the federal government, was rejected by the state which led to the federal government balking at providing $225 million for costs towards the hospital. Blanco then found a way to leverage other federal dollars into allowing the state to put up this money itself. But in doing so, she left the expenditure of it up to her successor Jindal who favors the alternative approach.
Blanco and her allies ideologically prefer the existing charity hospital approach because it keeps money in the hands of state government, as they believe big government knows best how to make health care decisions for individuals plus this arrangement provides more jobs to distribute. By building as big as possible a new Big Charity, it would commit the state to continue with this system in order to make sure its beds would be filled. The most enthusiastic partner in this attempt is the Louisiana State University system which runs the charity hospital system and thereby gains the resources and patronage opportunities from it.
Levine’s statement that a review may take a couple of months probably indicates the Jindal Administration is going to reject the palatial version of Big Charity, opening the gates for a money-follows-the-person system to be instituted. Since the indigent won’t be herded into state-run hospitals for care, there would be less need for large facilities. Reformers have argued that the LSU-run hospitals should really be focusing more on teaching in a more centralized fashion, and LSU’s dream of a huge facility was dealt a blow when its longtime partner in providing charity services Tulane University stated it believed a smaller hospital was more justified with current medical practice trends.
Jindal has not moved aggressively on health care reform simply because it may be the single most daunting task on his docket, requiring intermediate steps such as scaling down the hospital request. In the short run the transition also will cost money, and with an anticipated budgetary crunch ahead, he may be thinking a second term would be the time to start it. But aligning the hospital size with such a plan would create impetus for reform down the road, just as Blanco tried to do the same to prevent reform. Expect Levine near the end of the session in June to announce the Administration wants to move in the direction of a smaller, more sensible, facility.
25.3.08
Plenty of reasons why Jindal wouldn't take VP nod
Enough already with the “Jindal for Vice President” talk. Political liberals and unthinking desperate conservatives may wish it to happen, but Lousiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is too smart and too caught up in his present job to make it a reality this election cycle.
Jindal’s 36 and been governor for a little more than two months. While he’s gotten a lot out of two special sessions, and there are risks in not striking while the iron is hot, he must know his upside his far higher to be wasted on a quest which politically will bring him little.
Some conservatives stump for him on a ticket with waiting GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain because he is an archetypical and young conservative contrasted with McCain’s moderate sympathies and McCain would be the oldest ever inaugurated to a first term as president. It also might counterbalance with a member on the Republican slate of an ethnic minority group (even as Jindal himself never advertises that fact) a Democratic ticket that could have such a person, or a female, or both on it.
But taking a vice presidential nomination not only has no upside now for Jindal, it damages his long-term political potential. If the GOP wins, Jindal is relegated to at least four years of nothing. He’ll have little opportunity to display governing skills while other conservative politicians will rack up these credentials. If the GOP loses, he will be criticized for being too ambitious and not enough of a “savior” for the party, and immediately make him a target of others who share future national ambitions – even if he outshines McCain during the campaign.
Additionally, Jindal running now would be like uprooting a productive plant before it reaches maturity. With at least four years as governor, Jindal has ample opportunity to demonstrate governing skill and the superiority of conservative ideology through the actions he takes if he implements a conservative agenda. This is why liberals already are working overtime with unconvincing arguments to discredit him precisely because he can effectively demonstrate the bankruptcy of their ideas.
Add to this that Jindal seems passionately involved in turning around Louisiana – which promises a massive amount of political capital if he has some measurable success – that will be a longer-term project in any event, and there’s just no way Jindal is going to assent to such a placement. Finally, the few individuals who used successfully the vice presidency to get to the White House were themselves distinguished politicians of extended service, so if Jindal has higher ambitions he knows that spot now really does him no political good.
It would be flattering, and Jindal’s governorship could go sour which could mean he’d never get such a chance again, but Jindal won’t go for this plan. So people are just wasting their breath bringing it up.
Jindal’s 36 and been governor for a little more than two months. While he’s gotten a lot out of two special sessions, and there are risks in not striking while the iron is hot, he must know his upside his far higher to be wasted on a quest which politically will bring him little.
Some conservatives stump for him on a ticket with waiting GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain because he is an archetypical and young conservative contrasted with McCain’s moderate sympathies and McCain would be the oldest ever inaugurated to a first term as president. It also might counterbalance with a member on the Republican slate of an ethnic minority group (even as Jindal himself never advertises that fact) a Democratic ticket that could have such a person, or a female, or both on it.
But taking a vice presidential nomination not only has no upside now for Jindal, it damages his long-term political potential. If the GOP wins, Jindal is relegated to at least four years of nothing. He’ll have little opportunity to display governing skills while other conservative politicians will rack up these credentials. If the GOP loses, he will be criticized for being too ambitious and not enough of a “savior” for the party, and immediately make him a target of others who share future national ambitions – even if he outshines McCain during the campaign.
Additionally, Jindal running now would be like uprooting a productive plant before it reaches maturity. With at least four years as governor, Jindal has ample opportunity to demonstrate governing skill and the superiority of conservative ideology through the actions he takes if he implements a conservative agenda. This is why liberals already are working overtime with unconvincing arguments to discredit him precisely because he can effectively demonstrate the bankruptcy of their ideas.
Add to this that Jindal seems passionately involved in turning around Louisiana – which promises a massive amount of political capital if he has some measurable success – that will be a longer-term project in any event, and there’s just no way Jindal is going to assent to such a placement. Finally, the few individuals who used successfully the vice presidency to get to the White House were themselves distinguished politicians of extended service, so if Jindal has higher ambitions he knows that spot now really does him no political good.
It would be flattering, and Jindal’s governorship could go sour which could mean he’d never get such a chance again, but Jindal won’t go for this plan. So people are just wasting their breath bringing it up.
24.3.08
Capital outlay reform may come at cost of bad priorities
It’s good to see that Louisiana elected officials concur with my assessment about an unglamorous, but very necessary reform of its capital budgeting process. Several, almost identical, bills have been introduced for the regular session to do so, but it’s the almost imperceptible differences that will make for interesting confrontations, may signal a transformation of power relations in state government, and could test the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration’s views on the role of the governor and Legislature and in policy.
In brief, the current process allows for many more projects than for which funding exists for them, because it allows legislators to claim they got goodies for their districts into the capital outlay budget and can blame the governor for not letting them through if they don’t get funding. This is because the governor may veto a very few, but if that doesn’t bring down the overall spending to the authorized spending, the administration working with the State Bond Commission technically decides what gets funded, with a majority of the composition of the latter normally controlled by the governor.
So the administration has three areas in which it may, in essence, veto requests. But it also has a way to forward requests, because the process by law begins with requests from the administration in the enabling legislation. Legislators then add to it but generally do not reject the governor’s initial requests. What is eventually decided on for funding gets money, and everything else goes back into limbo in part or in whole subject to the whims of the next annual capital budget process.
Bills HB 582, by House Speaker Jim Tucker, and SB 1, by state Sen. Robert Adley, among others seek to change this process so that enough gets funded for one year, and other items that miss the cut legally get put into a waiting list of one to four years, or perhaps could be funded in the present year if there’s a combination of gubernatorial line item vetoes or disapproval of the Commission. Tucker, of course, is a Jindal ally and floor leader, so we can assume his bill pasts muster with the administration.
Adley has been trying to get a version of his bill through for a couple of years now and when asked about it, Jindal’s lead official in his administration Commissioner of Administration Angéle Davis said “I think there are some components in Adley's bill that make sense,” she demonstrated an incredible mastery of understatement, for the bills are virtually identical in wording and differ in only one major respect: Adley’s is a constitutional amendment while Tucker’s is statutory.
In both cases, a funding plan must be established for all periods which would be binding, thereby limiting the governor’s choices without legislative intervention to pick and choose. However, it goes into effect only after this session.
Jindal’s apparent acquiescence shows he is willing to put his money where his mouth is in terms of reform. Whether legislators will go along with it is another matter and it may all come down to a fight over the official current capital priorities. Under present law, Jindal can change these by Apr. 7 and part of the deal may be to keep largely intact old priorities (already approved by reelected legislators and benefiting their districts) in order to get their support on the new process. (This implies Tucker’s approach, requiring only a simple majority, may work better than Adley’s, needing two-thirds votes and then citizen approval.)
This could lead to an interesting battle, given that the priorities under previous Gov. Kathleen Blanco leave something to be desired, such as an over-built new charity hospital for New Orleans. It may create a bad situation for Jindal aiming for reform but having to countenance bad policy to achieve it.
In brief, the current process allows for many more projects than for which funding exists for them, because it allows legislators to claim they got goodies for their districts into the capital outlay budget and can blame the governor for not letting them through if they don’t get funding. This is because the governor may veto a very few, but if that doesn’t bring down the overall spending to the authorized spending, the administration working with the State Bond Commission technically decides what gets funded, with a majority of the composition of the latter normally controlled by the governor.
So the administration has three areas in which it may, in essence, veto requests. But it also has a way to forward requests, because the process by law begins with requests from the administration in the enabling legislation. Legislators then add to it but generally do not reject the governor’s initial requests. What is eventually decided on for funding gets money, and everything else goes back into limbo in part or in whole subject to the whims of the next annual capital budget process.
Bills HB 582, by House Speaker Jim Tucker, and SB 1, by state Sen. Robert Adley, among others seek to change this process so that enough gets funded for one year, and other items that miss the cut legally get put into a waiting list of one to four years, or perhaps could be funded in the present year if there’s a combination of gubernatorial line item vetoes or disapproval of the Commission. Tucker, of course, is a Jindal ally and floor leader, so we can assume his bill pasts muster with the administration.
Adley has been trying to get a version of his bill through for a couple of years now and when asked about it, Jindal’s lead official in his administration Commissioner of Administration Angéle Davis said “I think there are some components in Adley's bill that make sense,” she demonstrated an incredible mastery of understatement, for the bills are virtually identical in wording and differ in only one major respect: Adley’s is a constitutional amendment while Tucker’s is statutory.
In both cases, a funding plan must be established for all periods which would be binding, thereby limiting the governor’s choices without legislative intervention to pick and choose. However, it goes into effect only after this session.
Jindal’s apparent acquiescence shows he is willing to put his money where his mouth is in terms of reform. Whether legislators will go along with it is another matter and it may all come down to a fight over the official current capital priorities. Under present law, Jindal can change these by Apr. 7 and part of the deal may be to keep largely intact old priorities (already approved by reelected legislators and benefiting their districts) in order to get their support on the new process. (This implies Tucker’s approach, requiring only a simple majority, may work better than Adley’s, needing two-thirds votes and then citizen approval.)
This could lead to an interesting battle, given that the priorities under previous Gov. Kathleen Blanco leave something to be desired, such as an over-built new charity hospital for New Orleans. It may create a bad situation for Jindal aiming for reform but having to countenance bad policy to achieve it.
23.3.08
Decision protects Louisiana blanket primary system
Louisiana’s election system for state and local elections dodged a bullet when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Washington state’s similar system did not violate political parties’ right of association.
Washington had tried to implement a system that differed from Louisiana’s in two ways, that even if a primary election occurred where candidates regardless of party affiliation all ran together it was not said to “nominate” candidates, and that a general election would be conducted even if one candidate secured an absolute majority of the vote. Last fall during oral arguments, some justices expressed skepticism that any difference between this and a nomination was cosmetic, thereby validating political parties’ arguments that the law infringed upon their ability to control their own nominations.
But the Court ruled, drawing conclusions that might make political scientists wince, that voters were smart enough to understand a nomination as not intended and could readily distinguish between a stated partisan preference and the issue preferences of a candidate. Therefore, if it was the will of the people not to allow parties to make nomination in essence, there was nothing constitutionally wrong with the law and the Court was very reluctant to overturn the popular will on this important matter.
This definitively provides constitutional cover for Louisiana’s nonpartisan blanket primary system. In essence, the court has said that the presence of party labels does not automatically mean a nomination is taking place, a point on which it had been unclear.
Unfortunately, this system muddles political choice because the vast majority of voters do not care to distinguish issue preferences from other aspects about a candidate, often conflating partisanship and ideology. This reduces accountability of elected officials and obscures responsibility in advancing a program. Nevertheless, absent some great groundswell of popular revulsion of it, it looks like it’s here to stay.
Washington had tried to implement a system that differed from Louisiana’s in two ways, that even if a primary election occurred where candidates regardless of party affiliation all ran together it was not said to “nominate” candidates, and that a general election would be conducted even if one candidate secured an absolute majority of the vote. Last fall during oral arguments, some justices expressed skepticism that any difference between this and a nomination was cosmetic, thereby validating political parties’ arguments that the law infringed upon their ability to control their own nominations.
But the Court ruled, drawing conclusions that might make political scientists wince, that voters were smart enough to understand a nomination as not intended and could readily distinguish between a stated partisan preference and the issue preferences of a candidate. Therefore, if it was the will of the people not to allow parties to make nomination in essence, there was nothing constitutionally wrong with the law and the Court was very reluctant to overturn the popular will on this important matter.
This definitively provides constitutional cover for Louisiana’s nonpartisan blanket primary system. In essence, the court has said that the presence of party labels does not automatically mean a nomination is taking place, a point on which it had been unclear.
Unfortunately, this system muddles political choice because the vast majority of voters do not care to distinguish issue preferences from other aspects about a candidate, often conflating partisanship and ideology. This reduces accountability of elected officials and obscures responsibility in advancing a program. Nevertheless, absent some great groundswell of popular revulsion of it, it looks like it’s here to stay.
20.3.08
Capital punishment prohibition would cost LA lives
Young and energetic state Rep.Walker Hines has a good idea in HB 432 which would limit lobbyist emoluments for food and rink for legislators to $50 a day from the present (presumably) $150 per day. If only his HB 323 which would outlaw capital punishment was as well-substantiated and as clearly considered.
Democrat Hines thinks that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent. "We have to err on the side of life," he says, and is also anti-abortion. But clearly he does not know the research involving the death penalty because to err on the side of life, you must favor capital punishment simply because study after study for 40 years has shown it does deter murders at rate exceeding rate of commission of the sentence.
By definition, first-degree murder is a premeditated crime (leaving out the other two instances allowed under Louisiana law for imposition of capital punishment, aggravated rape of a child 13 or younger, and treason even though both also appear to assume premeditation). Human beings are assumed to be behaving rationally in premeditation is proven, so for that reason they respond to incentives and disincentives. Knowledge that plotting and executing a murder can cost you your life simply will deter some people, as these studies have demonstrated as many as 18 lives per execution.
Democrat Hines thinks that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent. "We have to err on the side of life," he says, and is also anti-abortion. But clearly he does not know the research involving the death penalty because to err on the side of life, you must favor capital punishment simply because study after study for 40 years has shown it does deter murders at rate exceeding rate of commission of the sentence.
By definition, first-degree murder is a premeditated crime (leaving out the other two instances allowed under Louisiana law for imposition of capital punishment, aggravated rape of a child 13 or younger, and treason even though both also appear to assume premeditation). Human beings are assumed to be behaving rationally in premeditation is proven, so for that reason they respond to incentives and disincentives. Knowledge that plotting and executing a murder can cost you your life simply will deter some people, as these studies have demonstrated as many as 18 lives per execution.
19.3.08
Sessions downplayed coming clash of governing ideas
One observer muses how it was that Gov. Bobby Jindal experienced a good (not great) deal of success in getting through the agendas of his recent special sessions, wondering whether it was a good-natured granting of a “honeymoon” or fear of a popular mandate for Jindal and thereby his policies. The answer, as the upcoming regular session might show, is more the latter but the real lesson of the sessions’ results was legislative forces opposed to Jindal used the opportunity to conserve resources for future battles even as he did the possible and collected power potentially to oppose them down the line.
The relative ease of success by Jindal might tempt one, very mistakenly, to think his agenda, reform built along the lines of reducing the size of government and shifting its spending priorities to more productive, less redistributive purposes is shared by a majority of the Legislature. Even with conservative gains in last year’s elections, liberals and populists still have a majority in the Legislature as a whole, particularly in the Senate.
This is why Jindal picked his spots carefully and why ethics reform was made into a special session and first. After all, who is against cleaner government? In truth some, a few powerful, legislators are, but with the spotlight directly on the issue, with many new legislators sharing Jindal’s ideas on this, and with Jindal having shaped his campaign around this issue more than any other which was easy for the populace to understand, the regressive forces in the Legislature knew the best they could do was water down (which they did) such reform. But Jindal got enough victories to build on his political capital even as the regressive forces conserved theirs for battles down the road they have a chance to win.
Concerning his next opportunity, Jindal had gotten a bit lucky then having budget surpluses courtesy of federal government largesse in recovery spending. There were two types, nonrecurring that the Constitution limited in kinds of spending, and recurring. Craftily but also taking some risks, his administration got legislative leaders (who in part owed their positions to Jindal) to allow just two kinds of bills.
One was using the Constitution as cover for the nonrecurring expenses. Here, regressive forces had no option constitutionally but to follow in the broad parameters; politics as usual emerged only in dividing spending within the specified categories and really only in the case of capital expenditures. The other dealing with recurring funds was to take three measures already approved in the past in various forms – transference of transportation revenues to those kinds of capital projects, elimination of certain business taxes, and favorable tax treatment of some non-public school expenses by families – all of which had been watered down or foundered because of threats and vetoes by previous Gov. Kathleen Blanco, and to try to get them through.
In the first instance, legislators like spending so Jindal only suffered minor setbacks by reallocations of it. In the second, he had more compromises forced on him but the fact many veteran legislators had passed similar measures and new solons generally were more than less favorable in attitude towards them made it hard for them to outright oppose these measures. Clever planning again meant Jindal got most of what he wanted and in doing so preserved political capital.
Of course, the tactical defeats suffered by regressive forces were minor and simply that, tactical in nature. Nor will they be challenged that much in the regular session, at least according to Jindal’s budget, this acquiescence of which in part is by the administration’s design. One thing to date it has not done that good of a job on is explaining just what a fiscal mess Blanco left behind, and to a large degree this inherited situation hamstrings him in implementation of his agenda.
As a result there’s no reduction in government (although it doesn’t have to be left at this) and only minor shifting of priorities with just one contentious issue there, merit pay for teachers. For an example of this budget that features more reprogramming than a rethink, more money will be poured into workforce development, to which there is little opposition, but no broad-based tax relief which might face fierce opposition especially in the Senate.
Thus the real questions that remain to be answered are, is Jindal correct in being cautious initially rather than pushing ahead his agenda more aggressively, or is it that will Jindal offer any fundamental philosophical change in governing at all or will he just tinker at the margins with different spending priorities but no real reduction of government? Given the looming large deficits on the horizon, the cautious approach seems warranted but at the risk of missing an opportunity to drive home fundamental fiscal reform while his political capital his high and regressive forces, even if still potent, are on the defensive.
If so, the clash will come in the future, not this regular session. Unless it’s that Jindal loses or already has lost his taste for this fundamental reform, but it looks as if we won’t know that for sure until next year’s session.
The relative ease of success by Jindal might tempt one, very mistakenly, to think his agenda, reform built along the lines of reducing the size of government and shifting its spending priorities to more productive, less redistributive purposes is shared by a majority of the Legislature. Even with conservative gains in last year’s elections, liberals and populists still have a majority in the Legislature as a whole, particularly in the Senate.
This is why Jindal picked his spots carefully and why ethics reform was made into a special session and first. After all, who is against cleaner government? In truth some, a few powerful, legislators are, but with the spotlight directly on the issue, with many new legislators sharing Jindal’s ideas on this, and with Jindal having shaped his campaign around this issue more than any other which was easy for the populace to understand, the regressive forces in the Legislature knew the best they could do was water down (which they did) such reform. But Jindal got enough victories to build on his political capital even as the regressive forces conserved theirs for battles down the road they have a chance to win.
Concerning his next opportunity, Jindal had gotten a bit lucky then having budget surpluses courtesy of federal government largesse in recovery spending. There were two types, nonrecurring that the Constitution limited in kinds of spending, and recurring. Craftily but also taking some risks, his administration got legislative leaders (who in part owed their positions to Jindal) to allow just two kinds of bills.
One was using the Constitution as cover for the nonrecurring expenses. Here, regressive forces had no option constitutionally but to follow in the broad parameters; politics as usual emerged only in dividing spending within the specified categories and really only in the case of capital expenditures. The other dealing with recurring funds was to take three measures already approved in the past in various forms – transference of transportation revenues to those kinds of capital projects, elimination of certain business taxes, and favorable tax treatment of some non-public school expenses by families – all of which had been watered down or foundered because of threats and vetoes by previous Gov. Kathleen Blanco, and to try to get them through.
In the first instance, legislators like spending so Jindal only suffered minor setbacks by reallocations of it. In the second, he had more compromises forced on him but the fact many veteran legislators had passed similar measures and new solons generally were more than less favorable in attitude towards them made it hard for them to outright oppose these measures. Clever planning again meant Jindal got most of what he wanted and in doing so preserved political capital.
Of course, the tactical defeats suffered by regressive forces were minor and simply that, tactical in nature. Nor will they be challenged that much in the regular session, at least according to Jindal’s budget, this acquiescence of which in part is by the administration’s design. One thing to date it has not done that good of a job on is explaining just what a fiscal mess Blanco left behind, and to a large degree this inherited situation hamstrings him in implementation of his agenda.
As a result there’s no reduction in government (although it doesn’t have to be left at this) and only minor shifting of priorities with just one contentious issue there, merit pay for teachers. For an example of this budget that features more reprogramming than a rethink, more money will be poured into workforce development, to which there is little opposition, but no broad-based tax relief which might face fierce opposition especially in the Senate.
Thus the real questions that remain to be answered are, is Jindal correct in being cautious initially rather than pushing ahead his agenda more aggressively, or is it that will Jindal offer any fundamental philosophical change in governing at all or will he just tinker at the margins with different spending priorities but no real reduction of government? Given the looming large deficits on the horizon, the cautious approach seems warranted but at the risk of missing an opportunity to drive home fundamental fiscal reform while his political capital his high and regressive forces, even if still potent, are on the defensive.
If so, the clash will come in the future, not this regular session. Unless it’s that Jindal loses or already has lost his taste for this fundamental reform, but it looks as if we won’t know that for sure until next year’s session.
18.3.08
Senate contest still impacts NW LA political scene
Ripple effects from the state Senate District 37 contest in northwest Louisiana in the latter part of last year continue to impact the political environment.
A ghost of the region’s political past – a recent specter – arose a little too unexpectedly for some Bossier Parish Police Jury members when it was discovered that, very quietly, Parish Administrator and member Bill Altimus had hired former state Rep. Billy Montgomery to work on special projects for the parish.
This is perfectly within Altimus’ purview, even though the scope of Montgomery’s duties are unimpressive and altogether probably do not merit much of salary or even a full-time job. Even as juror Rick Avery argued it was a job that needed filling for two years, it begged the question – which got delivered by juror Brad Cummings – why suddenly the job got filled when Montgomery became available, or as Cummings astutely observed, “If Billy Wayne would have won the Senate race we would not be talking about this today.”
Maybe Montgomery would be an excellent front man to shake some hands at ceremonial occasions, to look at some financial statements once a year, to shuffle some paperwork on various parish initiatives, and to hang around a few meetings where seldom does anything happen where the parish needs quick notification if at all. But it’s unlikely whatever he’s getting paid is worth it to the parish taxpayer considering the alternative uses of those funds and who else in parish government or how else and at what cost it could perform those tasks. (Although not long after his hiring Montgomery suffered a health setback, so regardless of whether he is on the parish taxpayers' dime hopefully he'll soon recover.)
Regardless that the sheepish Jury mainly fell in line and agreed with Altimus’ decision, this make-work patronage payoff smacks more of politics than of good sense – something voters need to remember when the jury and especially if Altimus runs for reelection in 2011. Maybe Republicans already have made a statement; in the election last month, Altimus was the only candidate to the Republican Parish Executive Committee not to be elected, narrowly – one wonders whether enough GOP voters knew of this hire and decided to withhold their vote from him because of it.
That dynamic of knowing something disappointing about a candidate also may have been in play regarding another candidate from that Senate contest of last fall. Running for the third time in four years for a legislative office, Barrow Peacock came much closer this time but still missed out by almost 400 votes to former Shreveport City Councilman Thomas Carmody in the special election to fill the state House District 6 vacancy.
There wasn’t a whole lot of difference between the two Republicans in terms of issue preferences, although Carmody was the more experienced in office compared to the never-elected Peacock. This lack of ideological distinguishing may have made Peacock’s behavior during the general election runoff phase of his previous election a decisive factor.
Peacock’s hopes there died in the primary, leaving the longtime liberal Democrat but new Republican Montgomery up against now-state Sen. B.L. “Buddy” Shaw, a conservative Republican former member of the state House. As a response, another defeated conservative Republican candidate Jay Murrell not only immediately publicly endorsed Shaw, but also sent around a note to backers urging them to vote for Shaw in the runoff.
Murrell, returning to private life, had nothing to gain except seeing a man who paralleled his beliefs win. But Peacock curiously made no endorsement. Shaw clearly was the more conservative of the two candidates, and at age 74 he may well not return to the Senate after this term. A Peacock endorsement and work on Shaw’s behalf would have set up the man younger by half excellently to run in 2011 as the older’s heir apparent and he quite legitimately could have gained great credit for helping Shaw in his ultimate win.
Instead, the impression Peacock gave by his remaining mum was he was putting aside principle by angling for Montgomery’s support by not opposing him in the hopes of winning Montgomery’s support for a political bid some years later. If so, he made two costly errors in assumption – that Montgomery would win and that if he didn’t that the more informed voters who understood he hadn’t endorsed Shaw would be forgetful or forgiving by the time Peacock was to run again.
But Shaw won no thanks to Peacock and then he ran again just a couple of months later. This makes Peacock now a three-time loser after spending more personal funds than perhaps any candidate in state history who did not win a legislative seat. It really has taken a lot of luster off his electability to area conservatives and Republicans and threatens to turn him into a white, male, Republican, bigger-campaign-spending version of state Rep. Barbara Norton.
However, she did win an office on her seventh try. Peacock only can hope, if he tries yet again, that his luck is even as good.
A ghost of the region’s political past – a recent specter – arose a little too unexpectedly for some Bossier Parish Police Jury members when it was discovered that, very quietly, Parish Administrator and member Bill Altimus had hired former state Rep. Billy Montgomery to work on special projects for the parish.
This is perfectly within Altimus’ purview, even though the scope of Montgomery’s duties are unimpressive and altogether probably do not merit much of salary or even a full-time job. Even as juror Rick Avery argued it was a job that needed filling for two years, it begged the question – which got delivered by juror Brad Cummings – why suddenly the job got filled when Montgomery became available, or as Cummings astutely observed, “If Billy Wayne would have won the Senate race we would not be talking about this today.”
Maybe Montgomery would be an excellent front man to shake some hands at ceremonial occasions, to look at some financial statements once a year, to shuffle some paperwork on various parish initiatives, and to hang around a few meetings where seldom does anything happen where the parish needs quick notification if at all. But it’s unlikely whatever he’s getting paid is worth it to the parish taxpayer considering the alternative uses of those funds and who else in parish government or how else and at what cost it could perform those tasks. (Although not long after his hiring Montgomery suffered a health setback, so regardless of whether he is on the parish taxpayers' dime hopefully he'll soon recover.)
Regardless that the sheepish Jury mainly fell in line and agreed with Altimus’ decision, this make-work patronage payoff smacks more of politics than of good sense – something voters need to remember when the jury and especially if Altimus runs for reelection in 2011. Maybe Republicans already have made a statement; in the election last month, Altimus was the only candidate to the Republican Parish Executive Committee not to be elected, narrowly – one wonders whether enough GOP voters knew of this hire and decided to withhold their vote from him because of it.
That dynamic of knowing something disappointing about a candidate also may have been in play regarding another candidate from that Senate contest of last fall. Running for the third time in four years for a legislative office, Barrow Peacock came much closer this time but still missed out by almost 400 votes to former Shreveport City Councilman Thomas Carmody in the special election to fill the state House District 6 vacancy.
There wasn’t a whole lot of difference between the two Republicans in terms of issue preferences, although Carmody was the more experienced in office compared to the never-elected Peacock. This lack of ideological distinguishing may have made Peacock’s behavior during the general election runoff phase of his previous election a decisive factor.
Peacock’s hopes there died in the primary, leaving the longtime liberal Democrat but new Republican Montgomery up against now-state Sen. B.L. “Buddy” Shaw, a conservative Republican former member of the state House. As a response, another defeated conservative Republican candidate Jay Murrell not only immediately publicly endorsed Shaw, but also sent around a note to backers urging them to vote for Shaw in the runoff.
Murrell, returning to private life, had nothing to gain except seeing a man who paralleled his beliefs win. But Peacock curiously made no endorsement. Shaw clearly was the more conservative of the two candidates, and at age 74 he may well not return to the Senate after this term. A Peacock endorsement and work on Shaw’s behalf would have set up the man younger by half excellently to run in 2011 as the older’s heir apparent and he quite legitimately could have gained great credit for helping Shaw in his ultimate win.
Instead, the impression Peacock gave by his remaining mum was he was putting aside principle by angling for Montgomery’s support by not opposing him in the hopes of winning Montgomery’s support for a political bid some years later. If so, he made two costly errors in assumption – that Montgomery would win and that if he didn’t that the more informed voters who understood he hadn’t endorsed Shaw would be forgetful or forgiving by the time Peacock was to run again.
But Shaw won no thanks to Peacock and then he ran again just a couple of months later. This makes Peacock now a three-time loser after spending more personal funds than perhaps any candidate in state history who did not win a legislative seat. It really has taken a lot of luster off his electability to area conservatives and Republicans and threatens to turn him into a white, male, Republican, bigger-campaign-spending version of state Rep. Barbara Norton.
However, she did win an office on her seventh try. Peacock only can hope, if he tries yet again, that his luck is even as good.
17.3.08
LA Democrats whistle in wind to obscure racial strife
As the contest for the 6th Congressional District continues into its next phase, the main question about it isn’t so much whether Democrats can win it, but how much of a rift its outcome will cause within the party.
National Democrats have wanted to assist state Rep. Don Cazayoux because, according to their official story and code word, he is a “moderate.” That isn’t really the case, as the legislative scorecards from the Louisiana Legislature Log shows with Cazayoux scoring (lower scores indicating more liberal/populist leanings) in 2005 a 44, in 2006 a 30, and in 2007 a 10, so he’s definitely a mainstream liberal. What national Democrats really mean is that Cazayoux, unlike his runoff opponent state Rep. Michael Jackson, is white and therefore has the potential to fool enough white voters, typically conservative in that district, into thinking he’s not ideologically liberal.
Once again, this attitude exposes the ugly racist secret of Democrats. If you’re black, they love to have your votes, but you need not apply to hold office unless there are too many black voters in your district to prevent it. This is because, unfortunately, most of the time being a black Democrat candidate makes it impossible to hide the fact you also are a political liberal, and Democrat leaders know they cannot win elections in Louisiana and much of the rest of the country if they are honest about what policies they prefer. So by putting a white face on their candidate and then obscuring his record, they hope to put one over on enough of a district’s voters.
This also explains why the party decided to open its primaries for federal offices to no party (independent) registrants as well whereas Republicans made theirs a true closed primary (only registered Republicans can participate in theirs). Using the 6th District as an example, whites now have only a plurality in registration among Democrats, leading blacks by about 2,000. But among other party registrants (the vast majority of which are independents), whites outnumber blacks three to one. If closed entirely, using the rough standard that white candidates get 80 percent of the white vote, black candidates get 90 percent of the vote, and blacks vote at 90 percent of the rate of whites, black candidates win Democrat nominations in that district, all else held equal. But throw in some portion of independent voters and a white candidate may have the upper hand.
But Louisiana’s black Democrats are getting restless on their party’s plantation. One such indicator came by the challenge by Opelousas Mayor Don Cravins, who felt slighted by the party when he ran competitively for the 7th District seat four years ago, for the state party’s chairmanship this weekend. He lost both times, but in doing so served notice that blacks were not going to want to remain second-class citizens among Democrats. And powerbroker Cleo Fields in the 6th also had made veiled comments that if national Democrats came in trying to assist successfully Cazayoux to the nomination, that his political machine would discourage black participation in the general election.
This strife only can help the chances of presumptive GOP nominee Louis “Woody” Jenkins, regardless of who he faces from the Democrats. So the talk from Democrats that they could win the district actually is more to paper over the turmoil within the party, in the hopes they can jawbone their way to placating blacks and getting their preferred white candidate into the fall election, than a true summary of any Democrat’s chances in that election.
National Democrats have wanted to assist state Rep. Don Cazayoux because, according to their official story and code word, he is a “moderate.” That isn’t really the case, as the legislative scorecards from the Louisiana Legislature Log shows with Cazayoux scoring (lower scores indicating more liberal/populist leanings) in 2005 a 44, in 2006 a 30, and in 2007 a 10, so he’s definitely a mainstream liberal. What national Democrats really mean is that Cazayoux, unlike his runoff opponent state Rep. Michael Jackson, is white and therefore has the potential to fool enough white voters, typically conservative in that district, into thinking he’s not ideologically liberal.
Once again, this attitude exposes the ugly racist secret of Democrats. If you’re black, they love to have your votes, but you need not apply to hold office unless there are too many black voters in your district to prevent it. This is because, unfortunately, most of the time being a black Democrat candidate makes it impossible to hide the fact you also are a political liberal, and Democrat leaders know they cannot win elections in Louisiana and much of the rest of the country if they are honest about what policies they prefer. So by putting a white face on their candidate and then obscuring his record, they hope to put one over on enough of a district’s voters.
This also explains why the party decided to open its primaries for federal offices to no party (independent) registrants as well whereas Republicans made theirs a true closed primary (only registered Republicans can participate in theirs). Using the 6th District as an example, whites now have only a plurality in registration among Democrats, leading blacks by about 2,000. But among other party registrants (the vast majority of which are independents), whites outnumber blacks three to one. If closed entirely, using the rough standard that white candidates get 80 percent of the white vote, black candidates get 90 percent of the vote, and blacks vote at 90 percent of the rate of whites, black candidates win Democrat nominations in that district, all else held equal. But throw in some portion of independent voters and a white candidate may have the upper hand.
But Louisiana’s black Democrats are getting restless on their party’s plantation. One such indicator came by the challenge by Opelousas Mayor Don Cravins, who felt slighted by the party when he ran competitively for the 7th District seat four years ago, for the state party’s chairmanship this weekend. He lost both times, but in doing so served notice that blacks were not going to want to remain second-class citizens among Democrats. And powerbroker Cleo Fields in the 6th also had made veiled comments that if national Democrats came in trying to assist successfully Cazayoux to the nomination, that his political machine would discourage black participation in the general election.
This strife only can help the chances of presumptive GOP nominee Louis “Woody” Jenkins, regardless of who he faces from the Democrats. So the talk from Democrats that they could win the district actually is more to paper over the turmoil within the party, in the hopes they can jawbone their way to placating blacks and getting their preferred white candidate into the fall election, than a true summary of any Democrat’s chances in that election.
16.3.08
Jindal must alter present budget to create future tax cuts
Job done for Gov. Bobby Jindal with the 2008 Second Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature, which disposed in its entirety $1.088 billion in nonrecurring surplus funds, and about $23 million of surplus recurring funds. When he argued he “batted 1.000” for this session he called he wasn’t far off from the truth.
It wasn’t quite that high because Jindal did have to swallow an extra $3 million or so of recurring spending on tax breaks for school uniforms and books for any student to get his $20 million break on private school tuition and home schooling expenses, he had to accept that money from transportation revenues could be diverted from transportation infrastructure expenses in time of budgetary need, and put up with a minor redirection of one-time expenditures to lower-priority rural roads from pressing unfunded accrued liabilities needs, but overall he got most of what he wanted.
With that settled, it’s time for Jindal to revisit the biggest weakness of his contemplated 2008-09 budget since apparently the only tax cuts coming were three enacted during this special session, all aimed at business. None are forthcoming for anybody in the regular session, but that’s understandable given the Gov. Kathleen Blanco Administration created budgetary problems in overspending and finding ways to shift funds around essentially allowing one-time revenues to back commitments to permanent expenditures.
Still, Jindal must do a better job is setting the stage for future tax cuts. The biggest problem his administration faces is the trickling away of federal disaster recovery expenditure begins after this year and this will cause, it predicts, in the state’s general fund deficits over the next four years in the $1.2 to $1.9 billion range. Dedicated funds and other revenues such as from the federal government can make a dent in this but it a good chuck of change even by government standards. While the shift of priorities in the Jindal plan will spur some revenue growth, it’s not going to be enough with those numbers to offer any tax relief.
Thus, Jindal needs to set up now conditions that could allow for at least some in his final year in office, and the best way to do so is to pump up the cushion know as the Budget Stabilization Fund, or colloquially the “Rainy Day Fund.” The state may pull a third of the balance from it every other year if a continuing operations deficit is forecast. After the special session that deposited a little more into it, the funds has around three-quarters of a billion dollars.
But more can be added, up to four percent of total state revenue receipts for the previous year, which would indicate about $1.2 billion or adding around $450 million. And as it is, Jindal’s budget would seem to have around $437 million available, about $307 million designated for a fund, already containing $140 million, to attract large employers which would be better used to improve conditions for all through tax relief, another $60 million to fund nursing homes already blessed with an overgenerous payment scheme, and about $70 million to give yet another raise to teachers whose performance simply does not merit any pay increase.
If Jindal would commit that to the Fund, with interest it would be over $1.2 billion for next fiscal year, meaning he could shave off over $400 billion to close out a deficit. Perhaps by the next year, his third, his restructuring may have closed the deficit gap considerably, and by his fourth he could offer a tax cut to further stimulate revenues going forward.
Simply, the three planned expenditures above are not needed and certainly if those funds could be used to create a tax cut three years from now that is a far superior use of them. The Jindal Administration needs to revisit these decisions and do a better job in this budget to set up a tax cut during this term.
It wasn’t quite that high because Jindal did have to swallow an extra $3 million or so of recurring spending on tax breaks for school uniforms and books for any student to get his $20 million break on private school tuition and home schooling expenses, he had to accept that money from transportation revenues could be diverted from transportation infrastructure expenses in time of budgetary need, and put up with a minor redirection of one-time expenditures to lower-priority rural roads from pressing unfunded accrued liabilities needs, but overall he got most of what he wanted.
With that settled, it’s time for Jindal to revisit the biggest weakness of his contemplated 2008-09 budget since apparently the only tax cuts coming were three enacted during this special session, all aimed at business. None are forthcoming for anybody in the regular session, but that’s understandable given the Gov. Kathleen Blanco Administration created budgetary problems in overspending and finding ways to shift funds around essentially allowing one-time revenues to back commitments to permanent expenditures.
Still, Jindal must do a better job is setting the stage for future tax cuts. The biggest problem his administration faces is the trickling away of federal disaster recovery expenditure begins after this year and this will cause, it predicts, in the state’s general fund deficits over the next four years in the $1.2 to $1.9 billion range. Dedicated funds and other revenues such as from the federal government can make a dent in this but it a good chuck of change even by government standards. While the shift of priorities in the Jindal plan will spur some revenue growth, it’s not going to be enough with those numbers to offer any tax relief.
Thus, Jindal needs to set up now conditions that could allow for at least some in his final year in office, and the best way to do so is to pump up the cushion know as the Budget Stabilization Fund, or colloquially the “Rainy Day Fund.” The state may pull a third of the balance from it every other year if a continuing operations deficit is forecast. After the special session that deposited a little more into it, the funds has around three-quarters of a billion dollars.
But more can be added, up to four percent of total state revenue receipts for the previous year, which would indicate about $1.2 billion or adding around $450 million. And as it is, Jindal’s budget would seem to have around $437 million available, about $307 million designated for a fund, already containing $140 million, to attract large employers which would be better used to improve conditions for all through tax relief, another $60 million to fund nursing homes already blessed with an overgenerous payment scheme, and about $70 million to give yet another raise to teachers whose performance simply does not merit any pay increase.
If Jindal would commit that to the Fund, with interest it would be over $1.2 billion for next fiscal year, meaning he could shave off over $400 billion to close out a deficit. Perhaps by the next year, his third, his restructuring may have closed the deficit gap considerably, and by his fourth he could offer a tax cut to further stimulate revenues going forward.
Simply, the three planned expenditures above are not needed and certainly if those funds could be used to create a tax cut three years from now that is a far superior use of them. The Jindal Administration needs to revisit these decisions and do a better job in this budget to set up a tax cut during this term.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)