State Sen. Nick Gautreaux’s bills, SB 6 that would eliminate the state income tax on individuals, estates, and trusts over 10 years starting next year, and SB 8 that would allow nonrecurring state surpluses to be given out in tax rebates, both have some good essentials but as is won’t achieve optimal economic development.
A cut in income taxes always is welcome but the question presently is whether legislators would be willing to risk this when the budget already seems seriously out of balance to the estimated tune of $1.75 billion (we’ll know more tomorrow when the official budget is released). No fiscal note on this request yet has been compiled, but the December Revenue Estimating Conference forecast predicts that individual income taxes will be over $2.8 billion in collection for next fiscal year – over a third of general fund revenues meaning the 10 percent reduction that would start halfway through the budget cycle would clip over $140 million from this pending budget, then $280 million or more each year in addition to the previous amount from there on out.
The forecast thinks state revenues will begin to pick up again in a couple of years, so as not to create budgetary chaos, a better plan might be first to drop rates sequentuially, then tackle the elimination of them. While it’s hard to tell exactly given the way the data are reported, the present two percent tax bracket appeared to bring in $111 million for fiscal year 2007-07, the four percent bracket $355 million, and the six percent bracket $2.179 billion. What could be done would be for the first three years starting next year would be slashing a percent off the lowest, then middle, then highest, or reducing (by tax year) state coffers by about $56 million, then $89 million more, and then finally $363 million. This would fit in with revenue projections with the most realistic withdrawal and opportunities to cut spending.
After those three years, then the cut by a tenth every year until elimination could happen. By then, the economic growth triggered by the first three years of reductions (starting with the lowest earners as the economy improves) will cushion the removal of the annual 10 percent. This may take three years longer but smoothes the process somewhat.
His amendment to allow usage of nonrecurring surpluses in rebates is an unobjectionable idea. But passage of this should not serve as a means to deflect attention from enduring tax cuts. Economists note that one-time rebates are far less effective in stimulating economic growth, simply because taxpayers know it is not recurring and they are reluctant to invest money of that nature.
Tinkering with SB 6 is a good start, and SB 8 won’t do any harm unless it is seen as the only cure necessary for a stagnant economic development climate.
11.3.09
Plenty of posturing, little intellect present in funds request
Partisan politics is alive and well with Democrat leaders in Louisiana’s Senate arguing for a ploy ill-conceived, counterproductive to the good of the state, and whose only impact would be symbolic to sow division and thereby try to embarrass Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal.
The contretemps has developed because Jindal refuses to accept about $98 million of federal dollars from the supplemental spending package that trebled the annual debt passed by the Democrat Congress and signed into law by Democrat Pres. Barack Obama. These would pay for the state to give unemployment insurance benefits to people who are not involuntarily separated from their jobs, an extra $15 a week per dependent, and add 26 weeks worth to benefits to those in training programs after having been laid off from a “declining” industry.
The problem is the money lasts only two years and then the state is on the hook for it – meaning state businesses and workers, who are assessed money out of payrolls to fund the program. Further, not only would one of these three conditions have to be changed in state law, the period for which eligibility may be established also would have to be changed in state law, creating a permanent obligation that expands the program. Jindal rejected the money because he did not think the permanence served the state well.
The contretemps has developed because Jindal refuses to accept about $98 million of federal dollars from the supplemental spending package that trebled the annual debt passed by the Democrat Congress and signed into law by Democrat Pres. Barack Obama. These would pay for the state to give unemployment insurance benefits to people who are not involuntarily separated from their jobs, an extra $15 a week per dependent, and add 26 weeks worth to benefits to those in training programs after having been laid off from a “declining” industry.
The problem is the money lasts only two years and then the state is on the hook for it – meaning state businesses and workers, who are assessed money out of payrolls to fund the program. Further, not only would one of these three conditions have to be changed in state law, the period for which eligibility may be established also would have to be changed in state law, creating a permanent obligation that expands the program. Jindal rejected the money because he did not think the permanence served the state well.
10.3.09
With adjustment, session start bill makes sense
From time to time comes a move to alter the regular legislative session schedule in Louisiana, and another such one is afoot. If it’s going to be done, it needs to be done right and for the right reasons.
State Sen. Neil Riser has prefiled SB 5 which would advance the beginning of the state’s regular legislative sessions to the last Monday in January for the even-numbered year general regular sessions, and to the last Monday in February for the odd-numbered year “fiscal only” regular sessions (meaning only fiscal bills, local bills, and five non-local, non-fiscal bills per member may be considered). He argues that with the latest start of a part-time legislature among all the states, too much chaos is created for Louisiana’s budgeting purposes for a fiscal year beginning Jul. 1. It would not change the number of days – 45 of 60 or 60 of 85 – that it meets.
The latter consideration in particular is not a bad thought. But as conceptualized, this will never happen, for it would have the Legislature in session many years the period that it simply cannot be in this state – Jan. 25 through Mar. 9, the potential days given the liturgical calendar that would encompass the entirety of the Carnival parade season, generally considered to last two Fridays before Ash Wednesday through Mardi Gras. Riser, from rural north Louisiana, may be forgiven for not realizing the depths to which Carnival enthralls southern state legislators and therefore will have at least a third of the Legislature against the constitutional amendment needed to accomplish this change.
At the same time, however, a minor tweaking of the schedule may be in order. Starting an even-numbered year session on the third Monday in March – never earlier than Mar. 15, nor later than Mar. 20 – would miss Carnival, and odd-numbered sessions never threaten it. Even a week could be a big advantage to getting the budgetary house more in order for the Jul. 1 new fiscal year. Starting the second Monday in March would interrupt Carnival only once every 84 or so years, so even that could be lived with (that Mar. 8 the Legislature could get its initial business out of the way, then adjourn until Mar. 10), so a two-week advance would be even better.
That still may not placate naysayers like state Sen. John Alario, who may complain this alteration cuts into tax preparation season, among other things, too much. Of course, if any legislator finds his public service too much of a burden on his real job, we thank him for his service and he may resign. And to suggest that the May deadline for budgetary estimates is sacrosanct, which also could be changed, is a red herring as a criticism.
This small change should provide some benefit with no real costs, and Riser’s bill should be amended to reflect as such.
State Sen. Neil Riser has prefiled SB 5 which would advance the beginning of the state’s regular legislative sessions to the last Monday in January for the even-numbered year general regular sessions, and to the last Monday in February for the odd-numbered year “fiscal only” regular sessions (meaning only fiscal bills, local bills, and five non-local, non-fiscal bills per member may be considered). He argues that with the latest start of a part-time legislature among all the states, too much chaos is created for Louisiana’s budgeting purposes for a fiscal year beginning Jul. 1. It would not change the number of days – 45 of 60 or 60 of 85 – that it meets.
The latter consideration in particular is not a bad thought. But as conceptualized, this will never happen, for it would have the Legislature in session many years the period that it simply cannot be in this state – Jan. 25 through Mar. 9, the potential days given the liturgical calendar that would encompass the entirety of the Carnival parade season, generally considered to last two Fridays before Ash Wednesday through Mardi Gras. Riser, from rural north Louisiana, may be forgiven for not realizing the depths to which Carnival enthralls southern state legislators and therefore will have at least a third of the Legislature against the constitutional amendment needed to accomplish this change.
At the same time, however, a minor tweaking of the schedule may be in order. Starting an even-numbered year session on the third Monday in March – never earlier than Mar. 15, nor later than Mar. 20 – would miss Carnival, and odd-numbered sessions never threaten it. Even a week could be a big advantage to getting the budgetary house more in order for the Jul. 1 new fiscal year. Starting the second Monday in March would interrupt Carnival only once every 84 or so years, so even that could be lived with (that Mar. 8 the Legislature could get its initial business out of the way, then adjourn until Mar. 10), so a two-week advance would be even better.
That still may not placate naysayers like state Sen. John Alario, who may complain this alteration cuts into tax preparation season, among other things, too much. Of course, if any legislator finds his public service too much of a burden on his real job, we thank him for his service and he may resign. And to suggest that the May deadline for budgetary estimates is sacrosanct, which also could be changed, is a red herring as a criticism.
This small change should provide some benefit with no real costs, and Riser’s bill should be amended to reflect as such.
9.3.09
LA Democrats must reject attack on workers, economy
If the likes of Democrats Sen. Mary Landrieu and Rep. Charlie Melancon genuinely and sincerely wanted to help reduce the impact of the unfolding Obama recession, they will vote down the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act when Democrats try to ram it through Congress.
This legislation would replace secret ballot organizing elections with publicly signed union cards, allowing union organizers to deceive, harass, and threaten workers into signing these cards. Workers would not even have to know about the organizing drive. Once organizers had collected cards from a majority of employees the employer would have to recognize the union as representing all workers, even if the rest of their employees knew nothing about the organizing drive.
This is opposed to the current system, where a secret-ballot election must be held if 30 percent of the workers in a potential bargaining unit sign cards authorizing union representation and the company contests formation of a union. Under this law, a union could continue collecting signatures up to an absolute majority and then skip the election entirely – something either Melancon doesn’t know or is being deceptive about when he says a company could call for an election under the new guidelines.
Another canard about the legislation is that it somehow reduces a pro-company bias in the process. There is no bias is the process currently precisely because indication of interest by gathering cards from 30 percent of the workforce then leads to a secret ballot where neither side knows who is voting for what. In reality, unions tend to aim for double that before asking for an election precisely because they know intimidation currently results in more cards than actual votes when voting unions cannot convincingly accost workers and pressure them – and they still lose about 40 percent of the time. This bill would pervert the process, allowing unions to know who has signed and who hasn’t while the company is left totally in the dark on that matter. To make things worse, it increases penalties against certain practices by companies during an organizing drive but not against unions.
But besides its assault on workers’ freedom, choice, and rights, the bill will have serious deleterious effects on the economy because it allows for the artificial distortion of the market, increasing the price of a good (labor) above its true worth as does any cartel. Studies consistently show that unionization reduces the number of jobs, a conservative estimate being 765,000 in two years if this bill is adopted. In one study, manufacturers reduced jobs by 11 percent two years after unionization, with losses disproportionately among smaller businesses. The Great Depression was aggravated in its length and severity by an expansion of unionism, not a good omen.
With unemployment skyrocketing upwards and the economy shrinking at a near-record pace, the last thing that needs to be done is anything that destroys more jobs and discourages more productivity. Landrieu had been a co-sponsor of previous incarnations of the bill but wisely opted out this time; she can use as the excuse to vote against it the economic deterioration under Obama. Melancon claims he likes the bill with some change, and when major alterations of it are not forthcoming he can follow suit. Regardless of the reasons for not supporting it, these Louisiana Democrats need to put workers and people first rather than party and greed.
This legislation would replace secret ballot organizing elections with publicly signed union cards, allowing union organizers to deceive, harass, and threaten workers into signing these cards. Workers would not even have to know about the organizing drive. Once organizers had collected cards from a majority of employees the employer would have to recognize the union as representing all workers, even if the rest of their employees knew nothing about the organizing drive.
This is opposed to the current system, where a secret-ballot election must be held if 30 percent of the workers in a potential bargaining unit sign cards authorizing union representation and the company contests formation of a union. Under this law, a union could continue collecting signatures up to an absolute majority and then skip the election entirely – something either Melancon doesn’t know or is being deceptive about when he says a company could call for an election under the new guidelines.
Another canard about the legislation is that it somehow reduces a pro-company bias in the process. There is no bias is the process currently precisely because indication of interest by gathering cards from 30 percent of the workforce then leads to a secret ballot where neither side knows who is voting for what. In reality, unions tend to aim for double that before asking for an election precisely because they know intimidation currently results in more cards than actual votes when voting unions cannot convincingly accost workers and pressure them – and they still lose about 40 percent of the time. This bill would pervert the process, allowing unions to know who has signed and who hasn’t while the company is left totally in the dark on that matter. To make things worse, it increases penalties against certain practices by companies during an organizing drive but not against unions.
But besides its assault on workers’ freedom, choice, and rights, the bill will have serious deleterious effects on the economy because it allows for the artificial distortion of the market, increasing the price of a good (labor) above its true worth as does any cartel. Studies consistently show that unionization reduces the number of jobs, a conservative estimate being 765,000 in two years if this bill is adopted. In one study, manufacturers reduced jobs by 11 percent two years after unionization, with losses disproportionately among smaller businesses. The Great Depression was aggravated in its length and severity by an expansion of unionism, not a good omen.
With unemployment skyrocketing upwards and the economy shrinking at a near-record pace, the last thing that needs to be done is anything that destroys more jobs and discourages more productivity. Landrieu had been a co-sponsor of previous incarnations of the bill but wisely opted out this time; she can use as the excuse to vote against it the economic deterioration under Obama. Melancon claims he likes the bill with some change, and when major alterations of it are not forthcoming he can follow suit. Regardless of the reasons for not supporting it, these Louisiana Democrats need to put workers and people first rather than party and greed.
8.3.09
Despite contrary assertions, numbers show Vitter strength
One begins to wonder just what kind of lens through which the political world outside of Louisiana views the political life of Republican Sen. David Vitter. Ever since Vitter began to demonstrate high-profile opposition to the leftist agenda of Democrat Pres. Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress, it seems that national – and some closer to home – media take pains to run stories about his “vulnerability” to a 2010 challenge. Another example (first reported on a loony tunes hard left website which may explain it) has come forward where the template is the same – except that the content directly contradicts any notion that Vitter is in much trouble.
The rules of thumb about an incumbent who might be vulnerable to defeat (at least until a few months prior to an election when information about actual candidates becomes widely available to the public) are that he is entirely untouchable barring future major scandal if he polls at least 50 percent in any hypothetical possible matchup and gets at least 40 percent in a question about whether someone who would vote for him again and it is at least 10 percent higher than the proportion who say they will not. By these standards, a polling firm that typically contracts out to leftist organizations reveals, Vitter is borderline secure in his seat.
This poll has him defeating current U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon 48-41 percent and former and defeated Congressman Don Cazayoux 48-39. For good measure, he beats GOP Sec. of State Jay Dardenne 43-32 (presumably only Republicans were polled on that question, but the poll’s internals are not public information) in a putative GOP primary. (That he appears about as safe against a Republican challenger as against any Democrat already has been addressed.) Finally, 41 percent say they would reelect him while 27 say they would not with the remainder saying they would be willing to vote for him but consider somebody else.
As to the meaning of the roughly 40 percent that would vote for another candidate, one must always adjust that figure for the fact that, with blacks comprising 31.2 percent of the electorate, one could run a yellow dog against Vitter and the canine would be guaranteed 30 percent of the vote. This means Vitter is pulling 75 percent of the white vote already and the names mentioned got about 15 percent of it. If three-quarters of whites already are sticking with Vitter after a year’s worth of endless reminders that Vitter admitted to a “serious sin,” it’s going to be hard for any Democrat to peel off enough white support to win.
While some seemed impressed that Melancon’s gap came within the poll’s margin of error, at the same time Melancon is not a candidate and has said so (probably in part precisely because of these numbers). Vitter has a tremendous war chest, is raising money easily, and Melancon may feel he has a decent chance for his Third District to remain intact after redistricting. He said he could change his mind, which means he could jump in if Vitter’s numbers showed weakness. So far, they do not.
Nor is Cazayoux a realistic choice, as he is more interested in securing a federal district attorney’s job and after Democrats politicized debate about a president’s ability to hire and fire these officials at will in the previous administration, Cazayoux cannot even express interest in the Senate (nor would he be likely to win, being unable even to engineer his own reelection). And as far as other Democrats with any statewide name recognition, Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu also never has shown any interest, couldn’t even win in New Orleans when he ran for mayor, and surely knows enough of the public would feel uncomfortable having siblings in the Senate. Atty. Gen. Buddy Caldwell won his job just about a year ago because he was the least flawed candidate, hardly the credential to threaten Vitter.
If we weren’t already, after these guys we’re on to the second team. Former Member of Congress Chris John was blown out five years ago by Vitter and there’s little to suggest he would be much more competitive a year from now than he was then. Businessman Jim Bernhard would be an easy target for Vitter because of his associations as former head of the state Democrats and with former Gov. Kathleen Blanco who made politically everything that touched her toxic, and Vitter is one guy who could match the wealthy Bernhard dollar for dollar. And the quality of challengers goes further downhill from there.
At best, in the past year Vitter has gone from invulnerable to slightly vulnerable by these latest numbers. The only way he now can lose is if the right candidate comes along at the right time, and not only does that candidate seem unlikely to exist, but given the Obama Administration rhetoric and budgetary intentions that continue attacking America’s prosperity, early indications are 2010 is beginning to shape up as an ugly election year for Democrats and certainly not the environment to try to knock off a pretty secure incumbent like Vitter. Judgments that Vitter is in any real trouble at this time seem more indicative of wishful thinking than any valid analysis of the real world.
The rules of thumb about an incumbent who might be vulnerable to defeat (at least until a few months prior to an election when information about actual candidates becomes widely available to the public) are that he is entirely untouchable barring future major scandal if he polls at least 50 percent in any hypothetical possible matchup and gets at least 40 percent in a question about whether someone who would vote for him again and it is at least 10 percent higher than the proportion who say they will not. By these standards, a polling firm that typically contracts out to leftist organizations reveals, Vitter is borderline secure in his seat.
This poll has him defeating current U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon 48-41 percent and former and defeated Congressman Don Cazayoux 48-39. For good measure, he beats GOP Sec. of State Jay Dardenne 43-32 (presumably only Republicans were polled on that question, but the poll’s internals are not public information) in a putative GOP primary. (That he appears about as safe against a Republican challenger as against any Democrat already has been addressed.) Finally, 41 percent say they would reelect him while 27 say they would not with the remainder saying they would be willing to vote for him but consider somebody else.
As to the meaning of the roughly 40 percent that would vote for another candidate, one must always adjust that figure for the fact that, with blacks comprising 31.2 percent of the electorate, one could run a yellow dog against Vitter and the canine would be guaranteed 30 percent of the vote. This means Vitter is pulling 75 percent of the white vote already and the names mentioned got about 15 percent of it. If three-quarters of whites already are sticking with Vitter after a year’s worth of endless reminders that Vitter admitted to a “serious sin,” it’s going to be hard for any Democrat to peel off enough white support to win.
While some seemed impressed that Melancon’s gap came within the poll’s margin of error, at the same time Melancon is not a candidate and has said so (probably in part precisely because of these numbers). Vitter has a tremendous war chest, is raising money easily, and Melancon may feel he has a decent chance for his Third District to remain intact after redistricting. He said he could change his mind, which means he could jump in if Vitter’s numbers showed weakness. So far, they do not.
Nor is Cazayoux a realistic choice, as he is more interested in securing a federal district attorney’s job and after Democrats politicized debate about a president’s ability to hire and fire these officials at will in the previous administration, Cazayoux cannot even express interest in the Senate (nor would he be likely to win, being unable even to engineer his own reelection). And as far as other Democrats with any statewide name recognition, Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu also never has shown any interest, couldn’t even win in New Orleans when he ran for mayor, and surely knows enough of the public would feel uncomfortable having siblings in the Senate. Atty. Gen. Buddy Caldwell won his job just about a year ago because he was the least flawed candidate, hardly the credential to threaten Vitter.
If we weren’t already, after these guys we’re on to the second team. Former Member of Congress Chris John was blown out five years ago by Vitter and there’s little to suggest he would be much more competitive a year from now than he was then. Businessman Jim Bernhard would be an easy target for Vitter because of his associations as former head of the state Democrats and with former Gov. Kathleen Blanco who made politically everything that touched her toxic, and Vitter is one guy who could match the wealthy Bernhard dollar for dollar. And the quality of challengers goes further downhill from there.
At best, in the past year Vitter has gone from invulnerable to slightly vulnerable by these latest numbers. The only way he now can lose is if the right candidate comes along at the right time, and not only does that candidate seem unlikely to exist, but given the Obama Administration rhetoric and budgetary intentions that continue attacking America’s prosperity, early indications are 2010 is beginning to shape up as an ugly election year for Democrats and certainly not the environment to try to knock off a pretty secure incumbent like Vitter. Judgments that Vitter is in any real trouble at this time seem more indicative of wishful thinking than any valid analysis of the real world.
5.3.09
Jindal endorsement takes risk with uncertain payoff
Gov. Bobby Jindal took a bit of a risk in endorsing one Republican candidate, businessman Lee Domingue, over two others, Laurinda Calogne and Dan Claitor, in the special election for the District 16 Senate seat occurring this Saturday, while any payoff seems small.
Typically, there are three reasons why a high-level elected official endorses someone lower down: because the preferred candidates’ issue preferences are distinctly different from the others and can prove definitively helpful for that policy-maker’s future agenda, the policy-maker wants to have a way to demonstrate political power, or because of a strong personal relationship between the two. Only one of these would seen even to come close to explaining Jindal’s action here.
Frankly, in policy terms, the three candidates don’t differ much. All would be reliable voters for a conservative agenda that Jindal backs. Further, while Jindal has said he is friendly with Domingue, usually there has to be a pretty strong bond between individuals for an endorsement to be made unless is for a comparable office for partisan reasons. For example, former Rep. Jim McCrery made just one such endorsement for the entire 20 years of his service – for his college roommate running for the Caddo Parish Commission. (For the record, that candidate lost.)
The reason why elected officials almost always shy away from these kinds of support is by its nature any endorsement is risky when coming from somebody already with power. If the favored candidate were to lose, not only would this be considered a negative reflection on the political strength of the higher official, but chances are the winner would harbor a grudge against him and be much less reliable of a supporter in the future had there been no intervention. This payoff must be really high and/or the victory of the desired candidate pretty certain for the official to go out on a limb like that, especially as an endorsement carries more weight in a low-stimulus contest like this legislative special election race.
It’s possible that Jindal has inside information that Domingue is expected to win, and perhaps even has given tacit support to him all along, so he may not see endorsement as a risk. Even so, if somebody looks likely to win, why alienate others if he really doesn’t need the help to win unless you really want to prove a point? One never knows when, down the road, political help might be needed by a vanquished candidate and this endorsement makes this far less likely.
There could be another explanation, but it seems pretty unlikely: Domingue contributed $3,500 to past Jindal campaigns, and others in his family $115,000, to Jindal since 2006 while the others contributed nothing. But other candidates for other state and local office from legislative on down have given big sums to Jindal and he never got involved in those contests. If one could “buy” a Jindal endorsement this way he’d have been making them left and right and it would be known so Domingue’s opponents could have made their own before qualifying. In any event, this would not be a good political strategy for Jindal to be known for auctioning off an endorsement, so it’s got to be something other than this.
Perhaps friendship had something to do with it, and don’t put it past Jindal to send as a friendly subtle warning to potential candidates that a donation to his campaign might be some good insurance, at the least, to prevent an endorsement for your opponent (and also note that Jindal technically lives in this district, so I suppose he has every right as a constituent to voice an opinion), but the main motive here seems to be a demonstration of power. If so, there is some risk here. Should Domingue pick up an absolutely majority on Saturday, Jindal probably can claim some small credit and a little additional political capital. However, if he heads to a runoff in April, while it may bring Jindal on this account no loss it likely brings him no gain, either, and an elimination of Domingue now or defeat in April will harm Jindal’s standing.
Obviously, Jindal is not going to comment on these types of motivations so we’ll never know for sure how much of a role these considerations played in his decision-making, but it is even more obvious that this unusual and unexpected move represents a real potential risk for Jindal the payoff for which may not be commensurate.
Typically, there are three reasons why a high-level elected official endorses someone lower down: because the preferred candidates’ issue preferences are distinctly different from the others and can prove definitively helpful for that policy-maker’s future agenda, the policy-maker wants to have a way to demonstrate political power, or because of a strong personal relationship between the two. Only one of these would seen even to come close to explaining Jindal’s action here.
Frankly, in policy terms, the three candidates don’t differ much. All would be reliable voters for a conservative agenda that Jindal backs. Further, while Jindal has said he is friendly with Domingue, usually there has to be a pretty strong bond between individuals for an endorsement to be made unless is for a comparable office for partisan reasons. For example, former Rep. Jim McCrery made just one such endorsement for the entire 20 years of his service – for his college roommate running for the Caddo Parish Commission. (For the record, that candidate lost.)
The reason why elected officials almost always shy away from these kinds of support is by its nature any endorsement is risky when coming from somebody already with power. If the favored candidate were to lose, not only would this be considered a negative reflection on the political strength of the higher official, but chances are the winner would harbor a grudge against him and be much less reliable of a supporter in the future had there been no intervention. This payoff must be really high and/or the victory of the desired candidate pretty certain for the official to go out on a limb like that, especially as an endorsement carries more weight in a low-stimulus contest like this legislative special election race.
It’s possible that Jindal has inside information that Domingue is expected to win, and perhaps even has given tacit support to him all along, so he may not see endorsement as a risk. Even so, if somebody looks likely to win, why alienate others if he really doesn’t need the help to win unless you really want to prove a point? One never knows when, down the road, political help might be needed by a vanquished candidate and this endorsement makes this far less likely.
There could be another explanation, but it seems pretty unlikely: Domingue contributed $3,500 to past Jindal campaigns, and others in his family $115,000, to Jindal since 2006 while the others contributed nothing. But other candidates for other state and local office from legislative on down have given big sums to Jindal and he never got involved in those contests. If one could “buy” a Jindal endorsement this way he’d have been making them left and right and it would be known so Domingue’s opponents could have made their own before qualifying. In any event, this would not be a good political strategy for Jindal to be known for auctioning off an endorsement, so it’s got to be something other than this.
Perhaps friendship had something to do with it, and don’t put it past Jindal to send as a friendly subtle warning to potential candidates that a donation to his campaign might be some good insurance, at the least, to prevent an endorsement for your opponent (and also note that Jindal technically lives in this district, so I suppose he has every right as a constituent to voice an opinion), but the main motive here seems to be a demonstration of power. If so, there is some risk here. Should Domingue pick up an absolutely majority on Saturday, Jindal probably can claim some small credit and a little additional political capital. However, if he heads to a runoff in April, while it may bring Jindal on this account no loss it likely brings him no gain, either, and an elimination of Domingue now or defeat in April will harm Jindal’s standing.
Obviously, Jindal is not going to comment on these types of motivations so we’ll never know for sure how much of a role these considerations played in his decision-making, but it is even more obvious that this unusual and unexpected move represents a real potential risk for Jindal the payoff for which may not be commensurate.
4.3.09
Study confirms wastefulness of LA film tax credits
Always looking out to justify its existence, the Louisiana’s Department of Economic Development commissioned and has released a report blowing some more sunshine up the skirts of taxpayers in the guise of the state’s corporate welfare program for motion picture development.
This report, which follows one done for the state a few years ago, throws out all sorts of seemingly-impressive numbers for 2007 that the state gets for the $115.1 million given to producers of movies: $429.2 million in “direct in-state spending” (almost half of which were wages at an average of around $32,000 annually per job) which translates into $763 million in “economic benefit.” It also directly pays $14.6 million in tax revenues.
Of course, that means that the taxpayers are still on the hook for $100.5 million. And that’s the part LED hopes you gloss over: the credits never pay for themselves in terms of actual return for the state. This was noted back in 2004 when Louisiana’s own Legislative Fiscal Office prepared a report which, ironically, is still considered one of the seminal works and is used often to point out that these kinds of tax credit programs, where producers can write off portions of in-state expenditures on Louisiana income taxes (or, more likely, sell these credits to brokers to resell them to high-income entities within the state), cost far more in revenue than they bring to state tax coffers.
3.3.09
Sheep, sophists deny veracity of Jindal remarks
It is an indicator about how much the world has turned upside down when Gov. Bobby Jindal delivers a tepid but insightful response to a well-done but absolutely moronic address by Pres. Barack Obama, and it’s the latter who earns accolades. This attitude already is doing significant damage to the country and that will not go unnoticed by the public.
Jindal’s remarks, if not well-delivered, were spot on. They hewed to what every valid theory about human economic behavior tell us, confirmed statistically throughout history: government that governs the least governs the best, that government cannot tax and spend its way to prosperity, and only by empowering people instead of government can prosperity be attained.
By contrast, Obama’s polished bromides not only revealed a stupidity about optimal economic policy, but were false and misleading. Aside from errors of historical fact, Obama advocated for an incredible surge in spending that he insisted would not significantly increase debt because of tax increases, a stance even his liberal allies questioned afterwards and when the first of his budget proposals began to filter out. Meanwhile, Americans voted with their resources and in the past week have taken $1 trillion out of the markets because they know these ideas will kill growth for the next months or years.
To summarize, Jindal told it like it was and many in the chattering classes tried to knock his effort not only in style, but in content despite the veracity of his message. By contrast, Obama’s polemic reminds one of the old joke, “how do you know when a lawyer is lying – when his mouth is moving,” yet not just gets a pass, but some actually think his ideas have merit. As market performance shows, and as anybody in a pension plan, with an IRA, or with a 401(k) or equivalent can tell, the notion that Obama and Democrats know how to deal adequately with the economy is pure rubbish.
Fortunately, while the American people often can be taken in by glib sophists, over time reality has a habit of waking people up. It’s already beginning to set in, and hopefully we won’t need Carter hangover misery index numbers to drive home the point, with its concomitant losses of economic resources and personal freedom stolen by a government whose ideological tunnel vision will not permit unleashing individuals to improve life for everybody, but instead which rapaciously demands for itself resources in its quest to remake society in its twisted image.
Jindal’s message warns about this (even concerning his criticism about spending on monitoring volcanic activity which, if it is so meritorious, why wasn’t this done in the Democrat Congress the past two years and in the Obama budget instead of imbecilic spending on “green” initiatives based on junk science, larger welfare payments, etc.?) and it is a message that will resonate increasingly as the know-nothings who now run government further shatter the hopes and dreams of the people. The fatcats who lord over the people at present may disparage Jindal’s remarks now, but in years to come his (and others’) prescience will be recognized by the people who will pull these oppressors down from their perches into the dustbin of history that they so richly deserve.
If things continue as they are at present, history will vindicate Jindal’s sentiments, while Obama’s will be dismissed as part of a period of national insanity. Because in the end, substance trumps style and long ago liberals like Obama intellectually disarmed themselves for which no amount of smooth talking can compensate. That there are so many lemmings out there that cannot understand the difference, or provocateurs who want to create a crisis situation to enhance their own power and prestige, is to their everlasting discredit.
Jindal’s remarks, if not well-delivered, were spot on. They hewed to what every valid theory about human economic behavior tell us, confirmed statistically throughout history: government that governs the least governs the best, that government cannot tax and spend its way to prosperity, and only by empowering people instead of government can prosperity be attained.
By contrast, Obama’s polished bromides not only revealed a stupidity about optimal economic policy, but were false and misleading. Aside from errors of historical fact, Obama advocated for an incredible surge in spending that he insisted would not significantly increase debt because of tax increases, a stance even his liberal allies questioned afterwards and when the first of his budget proposals began to filter out. Meanwhile, Americans voted with their resources and in the past week have taken $1 trillion out of the markets because they know these ideas will kill growth for the next months or years.
To summarize, Jindal told it like it was and many in the chattering classes tried to knock his effort not only in style, but in content despite the veracity of his message. By contrast, Obama’s polemic reminds one of the old joke, “how do you know when a lawyer is lying – when his mouth is moving,” yet not just gets a pass, but some actually think his ideas have merit. As market performance shows, and as anybody in a pension plan, with an IRA, or with a 401(k) or equivalent can tell, the notion that Obama and Democrats know how to deal adequately with the economy is pure rubbish.
Fortunately, while the American people often can be taken in by glib sophists, over time reality has a habit of waking people up. It’s already beginning to set in, and hopefully we won’t need Carter hangover misery index numbers to drive home the point, with its concomitant losses of economic resources and personal freedom stolen by a government whose ideological tunnel vision will not permit unleashing individuals to improve life for everybody, but instead which rapaciously demands for itself resources in its quest to remake society in its twisted image.
Jindal’s message warns about this (even concerning his criticism about spending on monitoring volcanic activity which, if it is so meritorious, why wasn’t this done in the Democrat Congress the past two years and in the Obama budget instead of imbecilic spending on “green” initiatives based on junk science, larger welfare payments, etc.?) and it is a message that will resonate increasingly as the know-nothings who now run government further shatter the hopes and dreams of the people. The fatcats who lord over the people at present may disparage Jindal’s remarks now, but in years to come his (and others’) prescience will be recognized by the people who will pull these oppressors down from their perches into the dustbin of history that they so richly deserve.
If things continue as they are at present, history will vindicate Jindal’s sentiments, while Obama’s will be dismissed as part of a period of national insanity. Because in the end, substance trumps style and long ago liberals like Obama intellectually disarmed themselves for which no amount of smooth talking can compensate. That there are so many lemmings out there that cannot understand the difference, or provocateurs who want to create a crisis situation to enhance their own power and prestige, is to their everlasting discredit.
2.3.09
Policy change would benefit merchants, public, disabled
Rights in conflict always pose public policy and juridical problems. But in the case that unnecessary ambiguity exacerbates the conflict, government can reduce this.
Twice in the past year northwest Louisiana commercial establishments have encountered controversy over the appropriateness of service dogs on premises. Recently, another such incident occured in Baton Rouge. Unfortunately, current nationally-defined disability law is the source of misunderstandings in this realm.
The Americans with Disabilities Act allows service animals (almost always dogs, but other animals can be used if they are “individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability” where the animal must perform an act that the disabled person cannot) into almost any public place (if the animal does not compromise the essential function of the business; for example, they can be excluded from zoos because they may carry diseases to zoo animals). The problem is, the law does not define what constitutes “training” nor does the owner typically have to provide any documentation concerning that training or his “disability.”
To ask about the latter is considered discriminatory and while many organizations provide high-quality training and include identification cards, vests, and the like, and states may have certification programs, none of this documentation is required to allow admittance to the animal; simple assertion by the owner is enough. Not even state or local health regulations supersede the initial contact: while dogs in general may be prohibited from entry because of health concerns, service dogs cannot be unless after entry they create a health hazard (such as licking foodstuffs) or other disturbance to the nature of the business in which subsequently the dog can be prohibited and the owner invited to stay in the business without the dog.
This vagueness and bias greatly in the favor of the “disabled” person has produced two regrettable trends that not only produce confusion and needless conflict, but also cast negativity upon the disabled using service animals in general. One is that some places like pet stores offer to “train” dogs to be service animals in a matter of hours. Frankly, this is almost legalized fraud. For adequately dealing with the demands of most disabilities and for public conveyance of an animal, qualified dogs take months or even years to train.
Worse, many of these places claim they can take your own dog and train it this way. The fact is, reputable organizations (one example being Canine Companions for Independence) are highly selective in the dogs they take, judging them on strength, intelligence, sociability, and discipline – and most dogs wash out because of the exacting standards. Hardly any pets meet these standards. The few dogs that make the cut are recertified by their training organizations on a regular basis.
Those people permitted to be given one of these dogs also must qualify. For example, someone who claims disability because of “anxiety” probably could not legally use a service animal because there is no specific “task” or set of them that the animal helps that person perform. Qualifying individuals also spend days or weeks in training in all aspects of service dogs so that the dogs are used properly without their training dissolving (dogs being dogs it can disappear rapidly through poor technique applied by the owners). The humans also face recertification by the organizations and additional training if necessary.
High-quality trained and superior dogs are necessary because anything otherwise makes them far likelier to cause disruptions. Owners themselves must be knowledgeable. So with dogs ill-suited for their roles and owners who don’t know what their doing, perhaps who know even less about the law itself, combined with merchants’ confusion, these create a recipe for potentially disastrous relations. In turn, each such incident raises the animus of the public against the disabled using service animals, unfairly besmirching responsible human team members.
Local governments can only alleviate the situation somewhat given the legal primacy of the ADA and its ambiguity. But one thing they can do is require licenses for any service animal team on the basis of health and safety that would involve testing owners on their knowledge of the ADA and when it applies relevant to service animals. While legally it could not prevent the use of these animals without it, this would increase levels of education that might avoid inappropriate or illegal uses of animals and potential conflict (licenses automatically could be granted to those who get animals from reputable trainers, such as members of Assistance Dogs International).
In the granting of business licenses, part of that also could require testing on the ADA so proprietors (responsible for training their employees) are aware of when animals legally may be used and when they may be denied. This can be legally required and enforced.
As the ADA has expanded through regulatory and judicial arenas, conflicts over the rights of the disabled and those in public purveyance only can increase. Especially since Louisiana aspires to be a tourist destination, it would be wise for local governments to take these proactive steps.
Twice in the past year northwest Louisiana commercial establishments have encountered controversy over the appropriateness of service dogs on premises. Recently, another such incident occured in Baton Rouge. Unfortunately, current nationally-defined disability law is the source of misunderstandings in this realm.
The Americans with Disabilities Act allows service animals (almost always dogs, but other animals can be used if they are “individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability” where the animal must perform an act that the disabled person cannot) into almost any public place (if the animal does not compromise the essential function of the business; for example, they can be excluded from zoos because they may carry diseases to zoo animals). The problem is, the law does not define what constitutes “training” nor does the owner typically have to provide any documentation concerning that training or his “disability.”
To ask about the latter is considered discriminatory and while many organizations provide high-quality training and include identification cards, vests, and the like, and states may have certification programs, none of this documentation is required to allow admittance to the animal; simple assertion by the owner is enough. Not even state or local health regulations supersede the initial contact: while dogs in general may be prohibited from entry because of health concerns, service dogs cannot be unless after entry they create a health hazard (such as licking foodstuffs) or other disturbance to the nature of the business in which subsequently the dog can be prohibited and the owner invited to stay in the business without the dog.
This vagueness and bias greatly in the favor of the “disabled” person has produced two regrettable trends that not only produce confusion and needless conflict, but also cast negativity upon the disabled using service animals in general. One is that some places like pet stores offer to “train” dogs to be service animals in a matter of hours. Frankly, this is almost legalized fraud. For adequately dealing with the demands of most disabilities and for public conveyance of an animal, qualified dogs take months or even years to train.
Worse, many of these places claim they can take your own dog and train it this way. The fact is, reputable organizations (one example being Canine Companions for Independence) are highly selective in the dogs they take, judging them on strength, intelligence, sociability, and discipline – and most dogs wash out because of the exacting standards. Hardly any pets meet these standards. The few dogs that make the cut are recertified by their training organizations on a regular basis.
Those people permitted to be given one of these dogs also must qualify. For example, someone who claims disability because of “anxiety” probably could not legally use a service animal because there is no specific “task” or set of them that the animal helps that person perform. Qualifying individuals also spend days or weeks in training in all aspects of service dogs so that the dogs are used properly without their training dissolving (dogs being dogs it can disappear rapidly through poor technique applied by the owners). The humans also face recertification by the organizations and additional training if necessary.
High-quality trained and superior dogs are necessary because anything otherwise makes them far likelier to cause disruptions. Owners themselves must be knowledgeable. So with dogs ill-suited for their roles and owners who don’t know what their doing, perhaps who know even less about the law itself, combined with merchants’ confusion, these create a recipe for potentially disastrous relations. In turn, each such incident raises the animus of the public against the disabled using service animals, unfairly besmirching responsible human team members.
Local governments can only alleviate the situation somewhat given the legal primacy of the ADA and its ambiguity. But one thing they can do is require licenses for any service animal team on the basis of health and safety that would involve testing owners on their knowledge of the ADA and when it applies relevant to service animals. While legally it could not prevent the use of these animals without it, this would increase levels of education that might avoid inappropriate or illegal uses of animals and potential conflict (licenses automatically could be granted to those who get animals from reputable trainers, such as members of Assistance Dogs International).
In the granting of business licenses, part of that also could require testing on the ADA so proprietors (responsible for training their employees) are aware of when animals legally may be used and when they may be denied. This can be legally required and enforced.
As the ADA has expanded through regulatory and judicial arenas, conflicts over the rights of the disabled and those in public purveyance only can increase. Especially since Louisiana aspires to be a tourist destination, it would be wise for local governments to take these proactive steps.
1.3.09
Vitter shadow challengers for now banking only on hope
Whisper campaigns to encourage Republicans to run against Sen. David Vitter in the 2010 primary probably will come to naught considering Vitter and the present objects of these desires.
Tony Perkins, former state legislator and for the past few years the head of the Family Research Council, admitted the job had been suggested to him. Similarly, former member of the U.S. House John Cooksey gave his assent to have people begin fundraising on his behalf for pursuit of the office. For over a year, Sec. of State Jay Dardenne has done nothing to discourage speculation that he will run for the office as well. All of this has come about because of Vitter’s admission last year of a “serious sin” that appears related to a prostitution ring which has led some to believe Vitter now is vulnerable to a successful challenge.
This appears to be wishful thinking on at least some people’s behalf. The whole premise to the vulnerability thesis is that the widespread perception that Vitter cavorted with call girls will make enough supporters ignore everything else about Vitter’s service as senator and base their vote on that. For the fact is, on nearly every issue Vitter has faithfully and genuinely reflected the preferences of anywhere from slim to large majorities in the state, and with a large campaign budget (he’s got plenty) he can make sure in any campaign that his record will not be ignored.
Further, Vitter has the advantage of incumbency. He can point to an actual record as senator, one favorably viewed by a majority of the state, whereas these unannounced challengers can only speak of hypothetical acts or doings from their own legislative careers largely unrelated to those of a senator. This is especially relevant given these would be primary challenges where these purported opponents could not claim to be any more, and may be not even as, conservative as Vitter. Nor can they claim a special “outsider” status as a merit badge against the “establishment,” as in Pres. Barack Obama’s America Vitter already is about as outsider as one can get.
And each of these three names has its own negatives. Perkins failed in a previous Senate bid and having been out of state for awhile may be seen as too much of a Washington insider and Louisiana outsider. Cooksey also lost a Senate try and comes from the sparsest-populated area of the state having been out of the public eye for seven years. Dardenne is considered by many conservative Republicans to have gone too easily with the tax-and-spend winds when he was in the state Senate.
But the problem all will face is that the only issue that they really can distinguish themselves positively from Vitter on presumably is “character,” and, given Vitter’s record and experience, that’s not enough to make them more electable than Vitter against a Democrat opponent. They know that, and this is why all are being coy about a candidacy. The measured approach they are taking is that a swell of enthusiasm and/or fundraising will provide a definitive positive signal to run. If they especially don’t get substantial commitments financially, they’ll stay on the sidelines.
As long as Vitter has no problem raising money and there’s no apparent congruent reaction accompanying any other shadow candidate, when actual qualification comes Vitter’s not going to face a quality challenger in the GOP primary.
Tony Perkins, former state legislator and for the past few years the head of the Family Research Council, admitted the job had been suggested to him. Similarly, former member of the U.S. House John Cooksey gave his assent to have people begin fundraising on his behalf for pursuit of the office. For over a year, Sec. of State Jay Dardenne has done nothing to discourage speculation that he will run for the office as well. All of this has come about because of Vitter’s admission last year of a “serious sin” that appears related to a prostitution ring which has led some to believe Vitter now is vulnerable to a successful challenge.
This appears to be wishful thinking on at least some people’s behalf. The whole premise to the vulnerability thesis is that the widespread perception that Vitter cavorted with call girls will make enough supporters ignore everything else about Vitter’s service as senator and base their vote on that. For the fact is, on nearly every issue Vitter has faithfully and genuinely reflected the preferences of anywhere from slim to large majorities in the state, and with a large campaign budget (he’s got plenty) he can make sure in any campaign that his record will not be ignored.
Further, Vitter has the advantage of incumbency. He can point to an actual record as senator, one favorably viewed by a majority of the state, whereas these unannounced challengers can only speak of hypothetical acts or doings from their own legislative careers largely unrelated to those of a senator. This is especially relevant given these would be primary challenges where these purported opponents could not claim to be any more, and may be not even as, conservative as Vitter. Nor can they claim a special “outsider” status as a merit badge against the “establishment,” as in Pres. Barack Obama’s America Vitter already is about as outsider as one can get.
And each of these three names has its own negatives. Perkins failed in a previous Senate bid and having been out of state for awhile may be seen as too much of a Washington insider and Louisiana outsider. Cooksey also lost a Senate try and comes from the sparsest-populated area of the state having been out of the public eye for seven years. Dardenne is considered by many conservative Republicans to have gone too easily with the tax-and-spend winds when he was in the state Senate.
But the problem all will face is that the only issue that they really can distinguish themselves positively from Vitter on presumably is “character,” and, given Vitter’s record and experience, that’s not enough to make them more electable than Vitter against a Democrat opponent. They know that, and this is why all are being coy about a candidacy. The measured approach they are taking is that a swell of enthusiasm and/or fundraising will provide a definitive positive signal to run. If they especially don’t get substantial commitments financially, they’ll stay on the sidelines.
As long as Vitter has no problem raising money and there’s no apparent congruent reaction accompanying any other shadow candidate, when actual qualification comes Vitter’s not going to face a quality challenger in the GOP primary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)