Slowly but surely, Sen. Mary Landrieu continues to become more marginalized, and thus more shrill, as her power begins seeping away.
She knows the math as well as anybody else – in the Southern state which perhaps has better bucked the Republican trend than any other, its gradual drift towards a Republican majority suddenly got a good push from Hurricane Katrina, as those likely to have left the state disproportionately would have been future Democrat voters. In both 1996 and 2002 she won Orleans Parish, by an average of 90,000 votes, where her final margins were in the neighborhood of 6,000 and 42,000, respectively. That buffer is more than gone.
Further, Louisiana’s federal elected Republicans and their national legislative leaders who control Congress have shunted her to the side now that they have one of their own, Sen. David Vitter, as a headliner to work through in the Senate. Thus, reconstruction efforts after the hurricanes can be structured to make Vitter look good and remove Landrieu from any taking of credit. Indeed, her bickering and obstructionism that delayed the $750 million loan to help local governments keep afloat smacked of the same dogmatism that cost Democrat Max Cleland his Senate seat in 2002.
Were Landrieu truly a centrist, she might act gracefully in the light of this and thus have a shot at reelection in 2008. But she’s a liberal at heart whose strategy, in absence of an ideology she shares with the Louisiana public, is to attack, and increasingly she continues to spout nonsense that only serves as the shovel she continues to dig with more deeply the hole she’s in.
She criticizes a guy who has real power in the Senate to determine what kind of aid Louisiana gets when he voices his concern over to what uses aid allocated to Louisiana goes, and the best rejoinder she can come up with is an example that backfires on her – the recent engineered indictment of House Majority Leader Republican Tom DeLay by a corrupt Democrat. And she stays on the same Pres. George W. Bush-bashing that has been so thoroughly discredited while obscuring her own culpability in setting up the conditions for the disaster.
But she stoops to a new low when she starts criticizing the American Red Cross. While she may be accustomed to thinking that government ought to control everything, somebody needs to tell her that the Red Cross is a nonprofit agency, not part of the government. Through the goodness of their hearts its volunteers and donors are providing assistance. They don’t have to.
FEMA does contract the Red Cross as one of its three non-federal primary response agencies for disasters, which means it holds the final authority in this area. So if Landrieu wants to keep trying to deflect blame from herself, the least she can do is stay on message criticizing FEMA and not start beating up on a charity.
Her reactions continue to show that, while she’s only halfway through her term, she knows full well her days in the Senate are numbered.
13.10.05
Blanco: confused, overshadowed, and vulnerable
With two years to go until the 2007 elections, encouraged by her lack of performance in the wake of the Katrina and Rita hurricane disasters, state Democrats are starting to draw long knives to use on the political career of Gov. Kathleen Blanco.
A month-and-a-half later, Blanco continues to look uncertain and in over her head dealing with the aftermath. At a press conference with Sen. David Vitter, the timing of her appearance at which implies she was an unanticipated, perhaps not eagerly desired, guest, she argued that Pres. George W. Bush could authorize use of funds to allow local governments to fund continuing operations.
Vitter noted that his information concluded any such authorization would have to be statutory in nature, a matter for Congress to deal with. Later, Blanco staffers continued to insist the president had the authority, but this insistence only serves to make Blanco look as unaware of what she needs to do as she did in the immediate aftermath of Katrina.
Blanco appeared to refer to her Sep. 23 request to the president to allow federal government full funding of local government employees with this remark. She bases her request on a regulation tied to the statute concerning federal government paying for rebuilding of local assets using local government employees, not paying for continuing operations. A regulation can be changed through the executive branch, perhaps even by something as simple as a presidential executive order, but if the statute defines the kind of activity allowable which is unrelated to the request then the statute must be changed.
Also notably at the conference, Louisiana’s Treasurer John Kennedy received more of a headliner status than did Blanco. Perhaps more than Blanco he has appeared at the forefront of the state’s response to reconstruction efforts, dispensing a slew of good advice (which his staff will be happy to inform readers about at Treasury’s blog). It makes one wonder where this Kennedy was last year during his ill-fated campaign for Vitter’s job when, in an effort to differentiate himself from conservative Vitter and moderately liberal former Rep. Chris John, he ran hard left to populism, an ideology he now counsels against in reference to acquisition of and uses of reconstruction funding.
Democrat Kennedy’s increased exposure amidst the disparaging evaluations of Democrat Blanco’s performance (punctuated by Vitter himself?) fuels speculation that he could be a serious rival to her in the 2007 governor’s contest. That he or somebody else could provide her a serious challenge from Democrats receives confirmation from the criticism she has received from legislative Democrats, black and white.
In short, Blanco continues to look confused, overshadowed by a potential rival, and therefore vulnerable in 2007.
A month-and-a-half later, Blanco continues to look uncertain and in over her head dealing with the aftermath. At a press conference with Sen. David Vitter, the timing of her appearance at which implies she was an unanticipated, perhaps not eagerly desired, guest, she argued that Pres. George W. Bush could authorize use of funds to allow local governments to fund continuing operations.
Vitter noted that his information concluded any such authorization would have to be statutory in nature, a matter for Congress to deal with. Later, Blanco staffers continued to insist the president had the authority, but this insistence only serves to make Blanco look as unaware of what she needs to do as she did in the immediate aftermath of Katrina.
Blanco appeared to refer to her Sep. 23 request to the president to allow federal government full funding of local government employees with this remark. She bases her request on a regulation tied to the statute concerning federal government paying for rebuilding of local assets using local government employees, not paying for continuing operations. A regulation can be changed through the executive branch, perhaps even by something as simple as a presidential executive order, but if the statute defines the kind of activity allowable which is unrelated to the request then the statute must be changed.
Also notably at the conference, Louisiana’s Treasurer John Kennedy received more of a headliner status than did Blanco. Perhaps more than Blanco he has appeared at the forefront of the state’s response to reconstruction efforts, dispensing a slew of good advice (which his staff will be happy to inform readers about at Treasury’s blog). It makes one wonder where this Kennedy was last year during his ill-fated campaign for Vitter’s job when, in an effort to differentiate himself from conservative Vitter and moderately liberal former Rep. Chris John, he ran hard left to populism, an ideology he now counsels against in reference to acquisition of and uses of reconstruction funding.
Democrat Kennedy’s increased exposure amidst the disparaging evaluations of Democrat Blanco’s performance (punctuated by Vitter himself?) fuels speculation that he could be a serious rival to her in the 2007 governor’s contest. That he or somebody else could provide her a serious challenge from Democrats receives confirmation from the criticism she has received from legislative Democrats, black and white.
In short, Blanco continues to look confused, overshadowed by a potential rival, and therefore vulnerable in 2007.
12.10.05
Vitter vs. taking the money and run spells problems for Dems
Sen. David Vitter has begun to find his political legs as partisan implications begin to creep in to post-hurricane reconstruction politics in Louisiana.
Last week, Republican Vitter argued contrary to Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu’s view that an emergency $750 million (sliced from the current $62.3 billion amount allocated to the state for cleanup) to fund government operations in the state should come in the form of loans due in three years, rather than be an outright gift. Landrieu argued that past federal bailouts in time of emergency has been grants, not loans (actually, nine times out of ten), applicable here because local governments may well be too strapped over the short run to pay back funds.
Vitter said House attitudes were such that he could not see a grant going through in time for a 10-day recess following last Friday, and the House did hold up its end of the bargain by zipping the loan measure right through. The loan as opposed to grant aspect got Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon in a lather, who famously counseled local governments receiving such funds to “take the money and run.”
But Vitter is right. With political shenanigans so well known that even the Louisiana media’s opinion columnists and news reporters write about it, Congress will not let any money given for government operations go without at least the appearance of strings attached. Vitter also has promised to work to get those strings detached over the three-year exemption window.
Note the different psychological approaches involved. If there were no strings from the start, this would discourage more thorough bookkeeping and accountability. But if localities knew they were on the hook for the funds, even with an implicit promise that they would be forgiven, they have much more incentive to be frugal and wise in the funds’ use, knowing that this manumission would occur only if the federal government felt the funds had been used that way.
And thus note the different psychologies of the Democrats Melancon and Landrieu compared to the Republican Vitter (and, apparently, the remainder of the Republican Louisiana House delegation). When Melancon says to “take the money and run,” he reveals his own beliefs about resources collected by government, that it is inconsequential that they come from the people, and that the goal is to get and spend as much of them as possible. Vitter, by contrast, urges responsibility for government in its duty to carefully shepherd the people’s bounty.
It’s a good comeback for Vitter, who, when in a rush to look like he was trying to “do” something about the disaster he authored a bill filled with pork for Louisiana’s recovery, took a lot of heat both at home and nationally. His Republican House counterparts have taken the tack of less-grandiose, more-workmanlike specific bills, to which Vitter should allow the gutting of his vehicle to accommodate their present and future efforts.
If so, Democrats Melancon and Landrieu could be in for rough electoral sailing. Melancon is the only House member willing to stick with the Vitter mega-package (and Landrieu’s identical version). Next year, Republicans can use his comment and support of the mega-bills to fairly paint Melancon as an unconcerned big spender. And if Republican Washington sets up Vitter to be able to take credit for getting the loans forgiven by 2008, it also will become easier to tag Landrieu the same way in that reelection year for her.
If Vitter takes this route, then federal Louisiana Republicans not only will accomplish getting relief to the state and be able to take credit for it, they will make federal Louisiana Democrats look bad in the process.
Last week, Republican Vitter argued contrary to Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu’s view that an emergency $750 million (sliced from the current $62.3 billion amount allocated to the state for cleanup) to fund government operations in the state should come in the form of loans due in three years, rather than be an outright gift. Landrieu argued that past federal bailouts in time of emergency has been grants, not loans (actually, nine times out of ten), applicable here because local governments may well be too strapped over the short run to pay back funds.
Vitter said House attitudes were such that he could not see a grant going through in time for a 10-day recess following last Friday, and the House did hold up its end of the bargain by zipping the loan measure right through. The loan as opposed to grant aspect got Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon in a lather, who famously counseled local governments receiving such funds to “take the money and run.”
But Vitter is right. With political shenanigans so well known that even the Louisiana media’s opinion columnists and news reporters write about it, Congress will not let any money given for government operations go without at least the appearance of strings attached. Vitter also has promised to work to get those strings detached over the three-year exemption window.
Note the different psychological approaches involved. If there were no strings from the start, this would discourage more thorough bookkeeping and accountability. But if localities knew they were on the hook for the funds, even with an implicit promise that they would be forgiven, they have much more incentive to be frugal and wise in the funds’ use, knowing that this manumission would occur only if the federal government felt the funds had been used that way.
And thus note the different psychologies of the Democrats Melancon and Landrieu compared to the Republican Vitter (and, apparently, the remainder of the Republican Louisiana House delegation). When Melancon says to “take the money and run,” he reveals his own beliefs about resources collected by government, that it is inconsequential that they come from the people, and that the goal is to get and spend as much of them as possible. Vitter, by contrast, urges responsibility for government in its duty to carefully shepherd the people’s bounty.
It’s a good comeback for Vitter, who, when in a rush to look like he was trying to “do” something about the disaster he authored a bill filled with pork for Louisiana’s recovery, took a lot of heat both at home and nationally. His Republican House counterparts have taken the tack of less-grandiose, more-workmanlike specific bills, to which Vitter should allow the gutting of his vehicle to accommodate their present and future efforts.
If so, Democrats Melancon and Landrieu could be in for rough electoral sailing. Melancon is the only House member willing to stick with the Vitter mega-package (and Landrieu’s identical version). Next year, Republicans can use his comment and support of the mega-bills to fairly paint Melancon as an unconcerned big spender. And if Republican Washington sets up Vitter to be able to take credit for getting the loans forgiven by 2008, it also will become easier to tag Landrieu the same way in that reelection year for her.
If Vitter takes this route, then federal Louisiana Republicans not only will accomplish getting relief to the state and be able to take credit for it, they will make federal Louisiana Democrats look bad in the process.
11.10.05
Gibson's exit clarifies little Shreveport mayoral politics
So former City Councilman Mike Gibson has ridden off into the sunset, leaving a host of questions now and for next year in city politics.
Gibson was considered a leading contender for the mayor’s job in 2006, but a promotion to that office looked less appealing to him than a kind of promotion in his day job out of state. His sudden departure has ramifications for the present composition of the Council, its future composition, and the contest for the city’s top spot.
Gibson’s absence represents a big opportunity for Mayor Keith Hightower. Gibson probably was the biggest thorn in Hightower’s side, repeatedly questioning the spending priorities of Hightower. He could be counted upon for a sure vote against these matters where Hightower generally had four votes. While this still enabled Hightower to get things passed, he had no margin for error.
But with Gibson gone, there’s basically no chance that any interim councilman would be any more hostile to Hightower’s agenda than the guy being replaced, at the worst. At the best, for the next several months and perhaps until the end of his term, Hightower could have a solid ally.
In any event, likely the narrow Democrat majority will be refreshed as the Council gets to select its own replacement and it seems unlikely they would let this go even if District D leaned Republican in Gibson’s victory and trends have accelerated in that direction since. To pick a Republican for the interim would probably remove any chance of a Democrat picking up the seat in 2006, given an incumbency advantage that can be accrued.
This person will end up serving until the end of 2006. This year-plus of incumbency may create enough of a margin for a Democrat to survive in the regular election so Council Democrats would maximize their chances of holding the seat by picking as high-profile and uncontroversial a candidate as possible. This might mean Gard Wayt would be their choice, who has garnered good name recognition by heading up the Interstate 49 International Coalition.
This dynamic may eliminate from consideration another choice, former seat-holder Republican Phil Serio. While he argues that he would not seek the seat full-time, this could be a positioning to make a run for the mayor’s office. Even if he is an ally of Hightower’s, he’s unlikely to get the chance by getting the seat from what would be a long-shot candidacy in any event.
Yet the greatest long-term impact of Gibson’s departure undoubtedly will hit the mayor’s contest. Whether Gibson would have given up a safe seat now is moot, but this certainly increases the chances of two term-limited Republican politicians, state Sen. Max Malone and City Councilman Thomas Carmody. The dynamics of the contest suggest the general election will involve a black Democrat and white Republican so without Gibson as competition, this puts each of these guys one step closer to that result.
At the same time, it all but finishes the chances of City Councilman Monty Walford. As a white Democrat, Walford actually would have the best chance of winning against anybody in the general election, but with most whites voting Republican and blacks almost all for a black Democrat of the stature of state Rep. Cedric Glover and television executive Ed Bradley, too few voters are out there for Walford unless he could split both voting blocs. With Gibson definitely out, the splitting of the vote on both sides is not enough for Walford.
Unfortunately for Walford, his problems even in retaining his own seat are not much less severe. District B continues to pile up a black majority so any black running will have an edge on Walford. Where before Gibson’s exit Walford’s best bet might have been to seek the mayor’s office, now he might find the odds better to battle to stay in his seat.
The same dynamic in Walford’s district is being replicated city-wide and may have had a hand in Gibson’s deciding to leave the area. With the black population continuing to gain proportionally, white politicians’ chances for the top spot decrease in tandem. From Gibson’s perspective, taking leave from running a contractors’ association in a mid-sized city to be mayor might have been enough to offer having no current political career but leading the association in a smaller state. But with the chances of the former appear dimmer and dimmer for any white Republican in Shreveport, he may have been willing to forgo politics for greater career opportunities.
Gibson was considered a leading contender for the mayor’s job in 2006, but a promotion to that office looked less appealing to him than a kind of promotion in his day job out of state. His sudden departure has ramifications for the present composition of the Council, its future composition, and the contest for the city’s top spot.
Gibson’s absence represents a big opportunity for Mayor Keith Hightower. Gibson probably was the biggest thorn in Hightower’s side, repeatedly questioning the spending priorities of Hightower. He could be counted upon for a sure vote against these matters where Hightower generally had four votes. While this still enabled Hightower to get things passed, he had no margin for error.
But with Gibson gone, there’s basically no chance that any interim councilman would be any more hostile to Hightower’s agenda than the guy being replaced, at the worst. At the best, for the next several months and perhaps until the end of his term, Hightower could have a solid ally.
In any event, likely the narrow Democrat majority will be refreshed as the Council gets to select its own replacement and it seems unlikely they would let this go even if District D leaned Republican in Gibson’s victory and trends have accelerated in that direction since. To pick a Republican for the interim would probably remove any chance of a Democrat picking up the seat in 2006, given an incumbency advantage that can be accrued.
This person will end up serving until the end of 2006. This year-plus of incumbency may create enough of a margin for a Democrat to survive in the regular election so Council Democrats would maximize their chances of holding the seat by picking as high-profile and uncontroversial a candidate as possible. This might mean Gard Wayt would be their choice, who has garnered good name recognition by heading up the Interstate 49 International Coalition.
This dynamic may eliminate from consideration another choice, former seat-holder Republican Phil Serio. While he argues that he would not seek the seat full-time, this could be a positioning to make a run for the mayor’s office. Even if he is an ally of Hightower’s, he’s unlikely to get the chance by getting the seat from what would be a long-shot candidacy in any event.
Yet the greatest long-term impact of Gibson’s departure undoubtedly will hit the mayor’s contest. Whether Gibson would have given up a safe seat now is moot, but this certainly increases the chances of two term-limited Republican politicians, state Sen. Max Malone and City Councilman Thomas Carmody. The dynamics of the contest suggest the general election will involve a black Democrat and white Republican so without Gibson as competition, this puts each of these guys one step closer to that result.
At the same time, it all but finishes the chances of City Councilman Monty Walford. As a white Democrat, Walford actually would have the best chance of winning against anybody in the general election, but with most whites voting Republican and blacks almost all for a black Democrat of the stature of state Rep. Cedric Glover and television executive Ed Bradley, too few voters are out there for Walford unless he could split both voting blocs. With Gibson definitely out, the splitting of the vote on both sides is not enough for Walford.
Unfortunately for Walford, his problems even in retaining his own seat are not much less severe. District B continues to pile up a black majority so any black running will have an edge on Walford. Where before Gibson’s exit Walford’s best bet might have been to seek the mayor’s office, now he might find the odds better to battle to stay in his seat.
The same dynamic in Walford’s district is being replicated city-wide and may have had a hand in Gibson’s deciding to leave the area. With the black population continuing to gain proportionally, white politicians’ chances for the top spot decrease in tandem. From Gibson’s perspective, taking leave from running a contractors’ association in a mid-sized city to be mayor might have been enough to offer having no current political career but leading the association in a smaller state. But with the chances of the former appear dimmer and dimmer for any white Republican in Shreveport, he may have been willing to forgo politics for greater career opportunities.
10.10.05
If you think Louisiana has had budgetary problems before ....
The wages of the political hacks on the board of the Orleans Levee District, and of those local and state elected officials who put them there, are about to cost taxpayers and/or homeowners huge sums of money.
Lawsuits already have come concerning the design and quality of construction of certain levees which gave way under the duress of Hurricane Katrina. In the coming months, researchers likely will confirm that preventable design errors and subpar construction efforts allowed the flooding to occur. Plaintiffs believe that without this negligence that they would not have lost most of their possessions and use of their homes.
For many, the problem is they did not have any flood insurance and regular homeowner insurance normally would not pay for these damages. While as a practical matter it would make sense for anybody living below sea level to have it, about half of New Orleans homeowners including those in this category did not. This creates a massive public policy problem for government because it, and the public, would resist any suggestion that those in the situation just suck it up and live with their short-sightedness.
This being the case, then either government socks it to the taxpayers to pay for most everything, or it tries to pass off the expenses to insurance companies anyway for policies they didn’t write and didn’t get premiums on. (Don’t even think about the consequences about a successful suit charging state government officials with violations of civil liberties for short-sighted policy-making.) The former would make a lot of voters angry, especially those affected by the flooding who did have flood insurance and paid for it, and who now would have to pay for somebody else’s retroactively at a far higher rate, in essence.
But the latter won’t work, either, because if the state ever attempted this, few if any insurance companies ever would want to write policies in the state again. Even if they did stay, rates would go sky-high to compensate, making homeownership prohibitively expensive and further battering the state’s fragile economy.
This investigation adds another wrinkle because the policy decision well may get ripped out of the state’s hands because if the initial suspicions become confirmed, the state will have no choice but to pay out a gigantic sum of money to participants in a successful class-action suit. Say if 100,000 homeowners with a home at an average value of $100,000 plus 1,000 business owners with properties worth on average $1,000,000 (including apartment complexes) were part of this. That’s an $11 billion hit to the state, or more than half of its 2005-06 operating and capital outlay budgets.
With this hanging over the state’s head, if you think Louisiana’s had budget problems in the past, you haven’t seen anything yet – nor the political courage to deal with this.
Lawsuits already have come concerning the design and quality of construction of certain levees which gave way under the duress of Hurricane Katrina. In the coming months, researchers likely will confirm that preventable design errors and subpar construction efforts allowed the flooding to occur. Plaintiffs believe that without this negligence that they would not have lost most of their possessions and use of their homes.
For many, the problem is they did not have any flood insurance and regular homeowner insurance normally would not pay for these damages. While as a practical matter it would make sense for anybody living below sea level to have it, about half of New Orleans homeowners including those in this category did not. This creates a massive public policy problem for government because it, and the public, would resist any suggestion that those in the situation just suck it up and live with their short-sightedness.
This being the case, then either government socks it to the taxpayers to pay for most everything, or it tries to pass off the expenses to insurance companies anyway for policies they didn’t write and didn’t get premiums on. (Don’t even think about the consequences about a successful suit charging state government officials with violations of civil liberties for short-sighted policy-making.) The former would make a lot of voters angry, especially those affected by the flooding who did have flood insurance and paid for it, and who now would have to pay for somebody else’s retroactively at a far higher rate, in essence.
But the latter won’t work, either, because if the state ever attempted this, few if any insurance companies ever would want to write policies in the state again. Even if they did stay, rates would go sky-high to compensate, making homeownership prohibitively expensive and further battering the state’s fragile economy.
This investigation adds another wrinkle because the policy decision well may get ripped out of the state’s hands because if the initial suspicions become confirmed, the state will have no choice but to pay out a gigantic sum of money to participants in a successful class-action suit. Say if 100,000 homeowners with a home at an average value of $100,000 plus 1,000 business owners with properties worth on average $1,000,000 (including apartment complexes) were part of this. That’s an $11 billion hit to the state, or more than half of its 2005-06 operating and capital outlay budgets.
With this hanging over the state’s head, if you think Louisiana’s had budget problems in the past, you haven’t seen anything yet – nor the political courage to deal with this.
9.10.05
Don't let liberal/Democrat interests fool you about Katrina flooding
While its clear many that many parties – federal elected officials, state and local politicians, and certain environmental interests – had to collaborate in order to leave New Orleans vulnerable to Hurricane Katrina flooding, one thing all share is that they almost exclusively were Louisianans, and almost all political liberals and/or partisan Democrats, from decades ago until now.
As a result, some have an interest in trying to widen the circle of blame because these Louisianans represent almost exclusively liberal and Democrat political interests. There’s occasionally a Republican like Sen. David Vitter who as a member of the House of Representatives should have been more forceful about steering money to flood control projects, or a Gov. Mike Foster who continued to allow political hacks to serve on the Orleans Levee District board. And, liberals are always quick to assert, Pres. George W. Bush is responsible for everything bad in the world, including hurricanes, but, more specifically here, it is argued that he didn’t pay enough attention to coastal restoration efforts.
But let us not ignore the causal chain to explain the lack of sufficient effort to prevent this flooding. It began at, and was driven by, Louisiana Democrats and liberals. At the state and local level, they were the ones who did not push their federal elected officials for more and better protection. They were the ones who refused to find money to pay for it. Their cohorts elected to federal office collected far more money per capita in Army Corps of Engineers projects than any other state yet typically spent only about 1 percent of that on flood control projects (and much more on dubious “economic development” projects).
They behaved this way because their ideology is all about taking as much money as possible earned by others (minimizing the use of their own resources as much as possible) and redistributing it in order to win votes and to accrue power. While all politicians face this temptation, at least true conservatives (typically Republicans) follow a philosophy that urges them to minimize government coercion to abscond with the people’s resources. With a much smaller pot of money to distribute, it’s much easier to follow the principle of deploying it where it is needed, not to use it as a leveling tool.
This situation is best described by the analogy of a drowning person with another standing by clutching a life preserver. No matter how the person got into the floundering situation, the other should toss the flotation device to save him. But just because it was through the victim’s own negligence that got him in deep water to begin with it does not follow that the other, who could have used much more forceful means to prevent him from placing himself at risk, bears as much or even a fraction of the blame for his predicament as the one needing rescuing.
Partisans on the left will attempt to obfuscate the root causes of the thinking behind the decisions, grounded in liberalism and populism, that created the situation of flooding around New Orleans by claiming the causes were nonpartisan, but do not be fooled for a minute by that tactic. Following the dictates of their ideology was necessary for the disaster to happen.
As a result, some have an interest in trying to widen the circle of blame because these Louisianans represent almost exclusively liberal and Democrat political interests. There’s occasionally a Republican like Sen. David Vitter who as a member of the House of Representatives should have been more forceful about steering money to flood control projects, or a Gov. Mike Foster who continued to allow political hacks to serve on the Orleans Levee District board. And, liberals are always quick to assert, Pres. George W. Bush is responsible for everything bad in the world, including hurricanes, but, more specifically here, it is argued that he didn’t pay enough attention to coastal restoration efforts.
But let us not ignore the causal chain to explain the lack of sufficient effort to prevent this flooding. It began at, and was driven by, Louisiana Democrats and liberals. At the state and local level, they were the ones who did not push their federal elected officials for more and better protection. They were the ones who refused to find money to pay for it. Their cohorts elected to federal office collected far more money per capita in Army Corps of Engineers projects than any other state yet typically spent only about 1 percent of that on flood control projects (and much more on dubious “economic development” projects).
They behaved this way because their ideology is all about taking as much money as possible earned by others (minimizing the use of their own resources as much as possible) and redistributing it in order to win votes and to accrue power. While all politicians face this temptation, at least true conservatives (typically Republicans) follow a philosophy that urges them to minimize government coercion to abscond with the people’s resources. With a much smaller pot of money to distribute, it’s much easier to follow the principle of deploying it where it is needed, not to use it as a leveling tool.
This situation is best described by the analogy of a drowning person with another standing by clutching a life preserver. No matter how the person got into the floundering situation, the other should toss the flotation device to save him. But just because it was through the victim’s own negligence that got him in deep water to begin with it does not follow that the other, who could have used much more forceful means to prevent him from placing himself at risk, bears as much or even a fraction of the blame for his predicament as the one needing rescuing.
Partisans on the left will attempt to obfuscate the root causes of the thinking behind the decisions, grounded in liberalism and populism, that created the situation of flooding around New Orleans by claiming the causes were nonpartisan, but do not be fooled for a minute by that tactic. Following the dictates of their ideology was necessary for the disaster to happen.
7.10.05
Stuck on stupid V: Whiners, ingrates, and opportunists
So the whining continues in Louisiana, that the state isn’t getting its handouts fast enough. After the hurricane disasters we’ve come to expect this from the likes of Gov. Kathleen Blanco and her minions such as Economic Development Secretary Michael Olivier, and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and other local elected officials, but now a portion of the business community has joined in.
I know this is impossible to expect, but before I hear any more moaning about how it’s unfair that, to date, the vast majority of monies coming from the generosity of the American taxpayer to help reconstruct the state have gone to out-of-state employers and their employees, see if any of the following apply to explain why that may be the case:
Did your state government make much of an effort to accomplish anything on its own instead of waiting for the federal government to take care of it and the state? In Mississippi, the state is paying unemployed oystermen to clean up debris – better than having them collect unemployment checks and complain about how out-of-staters were taking all the jobs.
Did you price yourself out of the market? Nagin implies there ought to a minimum wage of sorts around the $10 level. But what if the marketplace supports far less? What if it’s cheaper for the federal government (read, the spender of the American people’s money) to hire concerns who can bring in people cheaper than to pay local workers who insist on higher wages because they have used political clout to gain them?
Did you forget that of the money coming into the state for reconstruction that hardly any of it is yours in the first place? Don’t forget about the Golden Rule: this money is a gift of the American taxpayers, 98.5 percent of whom are not Louisianans, and they, not you, decide how it will be spent. Thus it’s pathetic when Olivier complains that the federal government contracts to feed people with military MREs rather than use local caterers and restaurateurs. Has he bought so quickly and thoroughly into our particular and peculiar Louisiana liberalism/populism’s notion that the state government has first claim on all resources, regardless of who gives them, that he can’t understand that this money isn’t his government’s and, just maybe, the federal government is trying to be as parsimonious as possible with using the American people’s money?
Did you support politicians whose policies have been damaging to business in the state? Populist notions such as “profit equals theft” have sent too many people to the capital eager to pass laws extracting as much as they can from the business community, and to engineer other sweetheart deals where political connections rather than ability and doing the job to specification mattered, making for lazy enterprise. It has created a weaker business environment that frankly needs the help of outsiders in a crisis environment such as this. These attitudes are encapsulated in Blanco’s comment that Louisiana “needs” jobs from the federal spending. No; jobs aren’t given away, they are earned.
All this griping and buck-passing from local and state governments to the federal government just continues to encourage the rest of the nation to think Louisianans enjoy nothing more than looking gift horses in the mouth, biting hands that feed us, and brings to mind any other cliché arguing that we are ingrates and opportunists. Criticism is fine when warranted, but we don’t have a divine right to any of this assistance and we’re lucky we’re getting what we are, and this carping going on conveys the opposite impression. Maybe a little less time spent bellyaching might translate into more time devoted to getting the reconstruction job done.
I know this is impossible to expect, but before I hear any more moaning about how it’s unfair that, to date, the vast majority of monies coming from the generosity of the American taxpayer to help reconstruct the state have gone to out-of-state employers and their employees, see if any of the following apply to explain why that may be the case:
All this griping and buck-passing from local and state governments to the federal government just continues to encourage the rest of the nation to think Louisianans enjoy nothing more than looking gift horses in the mouth, biting hands that feed us, and brings to mind any other cliché arguing that we are ingrates and opportunists. Criticism is fine when warranted, but we don’t have a divine right to any of this assistance and we’re lucky we’re getting what we are, and this carping going on conveys the opposite impression. Maybe a little less time spent bellyaching might translate into more time devoted to getting the reconstruction job done.
5.10.05
Stuck on stupid IV: Louisiana looters still don't get it
How long will it take these people to get it? Various Louisiana elected officials of the liberal/populist school of thought bemoan the fact that the state isn’t getting what it “deserves,” when in fact it is they and their way of thinking that discourages the flow of monetary resources into the state.
From the indirect cash grant side, several take issue with winners of federal contracts mostly being from outside the state and that less money than they think should from these rebuilding contracts go into the pockets of Louisiana subcontractors and workers. Part of this has to do with the fact that, given the subpar economic conditions in the state largely created by inferior government policy which penalizes business and the more productive and contributing members of society, that Louisiana disproportionately has smaller firms less capable of winning these larger contracts.
But it also has to do with the greater expectation of a handout with lesser expectation of working epitomized by the power unions have in some industries in the state. We must never forget that the sole purpose of a union is to transfer as much money into the hands of its members in exchange for the least amount of work, regardless of the consequences to others.
It turns out that these contractors find it cheaper to bring in their own employees from out of state than to hire unionized employees in Louisiana to do the same work (and maybe do it better). As federal taxpayers, we must applaud this wise use of our resources.
But some of our elected officials can’t seem to get it through their heads that it’s the peoples’ money at stake, not theirs that they can toss to favored constituencies to get themselves reelected. Thus, you have the likes of Democrat state Rep. Juan LaFonta aghast that these contractors actually try to be efficient in their use of taxpayers’ money instead of spreading it around to those union members who have priced themselves out of the marketplace by their greed.
Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco seems to express this attitude too, asking Pres. George W. Bush to rescind his waiver of the ridiculous, archaic Davis-Bacon prevailing wage law. It only reinforces in the minds of the public and national policy-makers that Louisiana is infested by people who want to grab as much as possible of the nation’s cash to spend how they want to, using the recent disasters as an excuse.
This credibility problem continues with Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon’s companion legislation to Louisiana senators’ pork-laden win-the-lottery reconstruction bill, priced by the Congressional Budget Office at $241 billion. He complains that his Republican colleagues in the state delegation haven’t signed on to the bill, not even his Democrat colleague and looter Rep. William Jefferson.
Melancon shows he doesn’t get it when he moans, “All of a sudden, we have people in Washington who have a conscience about the federal deficit,” seeming to think that is the basis of criticism is the amount of money. If he had a clue, he would know that the problem is the bill to some degree amount to a laundry list of backdoor funding requests that really have nothing to do with the disasters (for example). Again, it makes Louisiana look like a bunch of looters using the catastrophes as an excuse; reconstruction requests to be successful must be realistic and must not tax the goodwill of the rest of the country and their elected representatives.
At least House Republicans from the state seem to understand what’s going on. If only an assortment of state Democrats could understand that you need to drop the attitude that they deserve special advantages, and that through respect of taxpayers rather than through raw redistribution politics is the appropriate way to govern. Maybe the latter has worked in this state all too long, but most of the rest of the country left that behind – and Louisiana – long ago.
From the indirect cash grant side, several take issue with winners of federal contracts mostly being from outside the state and that less money than they think should from these rebuilding contracts go into the pockets of Louisiana subcontractors and workers. Part of this has to do with the fact that, given the subpar economic conditions in the state largely created by inferior government policy which penalizes business and the more productive and contributing members of society, that Louisiana disproportionately has smaller firms less capable of winning these larger contracts.
But it also has to do with the greater expectation of a handout with lesser expectation of working epitomized by the power unions have in some industries in the state. We must never forget that the sole purpose of a union is to transfer as much money into the hands of its members in exchange for the least amount of work, regardless of the consequences to others.
It turns out that these contractors find it cheaper to bring in their own employees from out of state than to hire unionized employees in Louisiana to do the same work (and maybe do it better). As federal taxpayers, we must applaud this wise use of our resources.
But some of our elected officials can’t seem to get it through their heads that it’s the peoples’ money at stake, not theirs that they can toss to favored constituencies to get themselves reelected. Thus, you have the likes of Democrat state Rep. Juan LaFonta aghast that these contractors actually try to be efficient in their use of taxpayers’ money instead of spreading it around to those union members who have priced themselves out of the marketplace by their greed.
Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco seems to express this attitude too, asking Pres. George W. Bush to rescind his waiver of the ridiculous, archaic Davis-Bacon prevailing wage law. It only reinforces in the minds of the public and national policy-makers that Louisiana is infested by people who want to grab as much as possible of the nation’s cash to spend how they want to, using the recent disasters as an excuse.
This credibility problem continues with Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon’s companion legislation to Louisiana senators’ pork-laden win-the-lottery reconstruction bill, priced by the Congressional Budget Office at $241 billion. He complains that his Republican colleagues in the state delegation haven’t signed on to the bill, not even his Democrat colleague and looter Rep. William Jefferson.
Melancon shows he doesn’t get it when he moans, “All of a sudden, we have people in Washington who have a conscience about the federal deficit,” seeming to think that is the basis of criticism is the amount of money. If he had a clue, he would know that the problem is the bill to some degree amount to a laundry list of backdoor funding requests that really have nothing to do with the disasters (for example). Again, it makes Louisiana look like a bunch of looters using the catastrophes as an excuse; reconstruction requests to be successful must be realistic and must not tax the goodwill of the rest of the country and their elected representatives.
At least House Republicans from the state seem to understand what’s going on. If only an assortment of state Democrats could understand that you need to drop the attitude that they deserve special advantages, and that through respect of taxpayers rather than through raw redistribution politics is the appropriate way to govern. Maybe the latter has worked in this state all too long, but most of the rest of the country left that behind – and Louisiana – long ago.
4.10.05
No more majority-black congressional districts in Louisiana?
We’re now starting to get an idea of the impact that the recent hurricanes will have on Louisiana, particularly in terms of Congressional representation. It may mean it’s like déjà vu all over again.
Estimates prior to the disasters had the state at the precipice of losing a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives after 2010. There’s no more guesswork now – it’s gone. Louisiana had the third weakest population growth of all states from 2000-03, the weakest of the sunbelt states, at 0.6 percent far below America’s 3.3 percent.
However, more importantly is how the partisan balance gets affected by all of this. It looks as if the Democrat base of poor blacks will be disproportionately reduced, as some of the more industrious of the bunch find better opportunity in their new locales, while some of the less motivated will not want to spend resources to return since they can just as easily can live off government assistance, perhaps even more lucratively, where they sit right now.
No doubt this dynamic explains U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson’s prediction that as 2010 approaches New Orleans will only contain a population of 35-40 percent black. At his predicted level of 375,000 in the city, that means he thinks at the high end of his guess that less than half of the roughly 323,000 blacks living in the city will return.
If 173,000 blacks disappear from the area, this has tremendous partisan consequences. That means one-eighth of the state’s black population goes away, and their proportion of the overall population falls to 27 percent. That would be enough to have a majority-black House district, but one that would have to be drawn in a very convoluted fashion. Orleans as a whole could only make up about half such a district, and it would have to draw in about 225,000 other blacks to make the majority black district.
There’s only one way to accomplish that – draw a crazy-looking district that snakes through parts of Orleans Parish, runs up Interstate 10, dipping into certain parts of Jefferson Parish, which then curls around the edges of Baton Rouge to gulp in its northern part, somehow avoiding as many whites as possible. It’s the only way to get a large enough number of blacks.
Yet I’m not sure it can even be done. Recall the Louisiana redistricting cases of the 1990s where the U.S. Supreme Court declared such bizarre-shaped districts drawn almost exclusively to form a majority-minority district were unconstitutional. Almost certainly such a district would run afoul of this jurisprudence, so even a legislature of majority Democrats and/or a Democrat governor may not wish to dare the Court.
That being the case, this means the state would have no majority-black districts – a situation sure to draw immense criticism from blacks and especially Democrats, with blacks spread out among all districts leading to an anticipated Republican sweep of all six remaining House seats. The political firestorm over this will make Katrina and Rita look like nothing.
Estimates prior to the disasters had the state at the precipice of losing a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives after 2010. There’s no more guesswork now – it’s gone. Louisiana had the third weakest population growth of all states from 2000-03, the weakest of the sunbelt states, at 0.6 percent far below America’s 3.3 percent.
However, more importantly is how the partisan balance gets affected by all of this. It looks as if the Democrat base of poor blacks will be disproportionately reduced, as some of the more industrious of the bunch find better opportunity in their new locales, while some of the less motivated will not want to spend resources to return since they can just as easily can live off government assistance, perhaps even more lucratively, where they sit right now.
No doubt this dynamic explains U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson’s prediction that as 2010 approaches New Orleans will only contain a population of 35-40 percent black. At his predicted level of 375,000 in the city, that means he thinks at the high end of his guess that less than half of the roughly 323,000 blacks living in the city will return.
If 173,000 blacks disappear from the area, this has tremendous partisan consequences. That means one-eighth of the state’s black population goes away, and their proportion of the overall population falls to 27 percent. That would be enough to have a majority-black House district, but one that would have to be drawn in a very convoluted fashion. Orleans as a whole could only make up about half such a district, and it would have to draw in about 225,000 other blacks to make the majority black district.
There’s only one way to accomplish that – draw a crazy-looking district that snakes through parts of Orleans Parish, runs up Interstate 10, dipping into certain parts of Jefferson Parish, which then curls around the edges of Baton Rouge to gulp in its northern part, somehow avoiding as many whites as possible. It’s the only way to get a large enough number of blacks.
Yet I’m not sure it can even be done. Recall the Louisiana redistricting cases of the 1990s where the U.S. Supreme Court declared such bizarre-shaped districts drawn almost exclusively to form a majority-minority district were unconstitutional. Almost certainly such a district would run afoul of this jurisprudence, so even a legislature of majority Democrats and/or a Democrat governor may not wish to dare the Court.
That being the case, this means the state would have no majority-black districts – a situation sure to draw immense criticism from blacks and especially Democrats, with blacks spread out among all districts leading to an anticipated Republican sweep of all six remaining House seats. The political firestorm over this will make Katrina and Rita look like nothing.
3.10.05
What BRAC recommendations? Katrina will save Louisiana jobs!
If at first you don't succeed ...
Right before the wicked sisters Katrina and Rita struck, rejoicing all around, from city, state and national elected officials occurred when the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) spared New Orleans part of planned activities (thus jobs) cuts as part of its task to align resources and military needs. But it really didn't serve as that much of a consolation prize for the state.
The original proposal would have closed the Naval Support Activities center in Algiers entirely by taking some things out of state entirely (Navy) and moving other activities (Marines) to the Belle Chasse Naval Air Station-Joint Reserve Base. Instead, the Algiers center stays open and the Marines are intended to stay put. Further, the Algiers facility will be reshaped in the hope of attracting new federal clients.
But, when all is said and done, from the state’s perspective it has lost with certainty almost 1,000 “jobs” (actually, military personnel for the most part). In addition, it has given away $92.3 million to have been pumped into the area economy by the expansion that would have occurred at Belle Chasse to suit the transfer of around 1,500 Marines, instead promising to spend in the neighborhood of $65 million in bonds (perhaps up to $100 million) to rebuild the Algiers facility and hoping to find the private sector willing to pitch in around another $100-135 million for the project. If all goes right, that means the state will forgo possibly as much as $200 million to save 200 jobs for sure and to hope to attract a few hundred, maybe a couple of thousand jobs sometime in the next several years.
These million-dollar jobs might turn out to be one-sixth that price if the state can talk the federal government into letting the Navy jobs stay and that actually was part of the state’s request. But only slight hope remains that BRAC would come back and change its mind on that account. Further, none of the “federal city” plan even is certain to happen. BRAC gave the state a Sep. 30, 2008 deadline to have funding in place for the conversion. The state says it will not proceed on the project unless it has tenants lined up. If it doesn’t, the Marine transfer happens anyway.
Economically speaking, the private sector continues to send a loud and clear message by its reluctance to locate in Louisiana in tandem with its showing no compunction to cut back work forces in the state (leading to ferocious spin control from the state), so the only reason we could expect the federal government to be any more bullish on locating activities in the state would be for political reasons. As it is, the “federal city” is in a district held by a Democrat whose state has a Democrat governor. Only its freshman Republican senator could get much in the way of political mileage out of this, but so would its senior Democrat senator (provided she can win reelection in 2008). The only nearby Republican House member also is a freshman.
In short, the facility, even with tens of millions of state dollars pumped into it, may employ only a fraction of the jobs lost. Even with the state putting in as much as $100 million and refusing another almost $100 million shot into the economy, even with a couple of thousand jobs created (making the total loss only a thousand) these are pretty expensive jobs indeed. And, they won’t be coming our way for many years while the thousand gone leave soon.
And all of this was prior to damage of facilities as a result of the hurricanes but, worse, the long-term consequences of which in terms of lost area population and productive capacity and future hurricane risk could doom any relocations to make the concept a reality.
But, wait ... riding to the rescue in both the Republican senator's bill and the Democrat senator's bill (yes, Sens. David Vitter and Mary Landrieu proposed basically the same bill) is the federal government and the generosity of the taxpayers who support it, in the form of giving the state for the porject $160 million! This is pork barreling at its finest. BRAC said the state had to pay to even have a chance at these jobs, and now its senators want to shift the costs away from it entirely and have it ahead $60 million – a nice consolation prize if those jobs don’t show up.
With the project less attractive than ever before, these senators are using Katrina as an excuse to make it happen anyway. And it’s another reason, besides their miserable performance before, during, and after Katrina and Rita’s vicissitudes, why Louisiana politicians’ credibility continues to erode faster than an Orleans Parish levee.
Right before the wicked sisters Katrina and Rita struck, rejoicing all around, from city, state and national elected officials occurred when the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) spared New Orleans part of planned activities (thus jobs) cuts as part of its task to align resources and military needs. But it really didn't serve as that much of a consolation prize for the state.
The original proposal would have closed the Naval Support Activities center in Algiers entirely by taking some things out of state entirely (Navy) and moving other activities (Marines) to the Belle Chasse Naval Air Station-Joint Reserve Base. Instead, the Algiers center stays open and the Marines are intended to stay put. Further, the Algiers facility will be reshaped in the hope of attracting new federal clients.
But, when all is said and done, from the state’s perspective it has lost with certainty almost 1,000 “jobs” (actually, military personnel for the most part). In addition, it has given away $92.3 million to have been pumped into the area economy by the expansion that would have occurred at Belle Chasse to suit the transfer of around 1,500 Marines, instead promising to spend in the neighborhood of $65 million in bonds (perhaps up to $100 million) to rebuild the Algiers facility and hoping to find the private sector willing to pitch in around another $100-135 million for the project. If all goes right, that means the state will forgo possibly as much as $200 million to save 200 jobs for sure and to hope to attract a few hundred, maybe a couple of thousand jobs sometime in the next several years.
These million-dollar jobs might turn out to be one-sixth that price if the state can talk the federal government into letting the Navy jobs stay and that actually was part of the state’s request. But only slight hope remains that BRAC would come back and change its mind on that account. Further, none of the “federal city” plan even is certain to happen. BRAC gave the state a Sep. 30, 2008 deadline to have funding in place for the conversion. The state says it will not proceed on the project unless it has tenants lined up. If it doesn’t, the Marine transfer happens anyway.
Economically speaking, the private sector continues to send a loud and clear message by its reluctance to locate in Louisiana in tandem with its showing no compunction to cut back work forces in the state (leading to ferocious spin control from the state), so the only reason we could expect the federal government to be any more bullish on locating activities in the state would be for political reasons. As it is, the “federal city” is in a district held by a Democrat whose state has a Democrat governor. Only its freshman Republican senator could get much in the way of political mileage out of this, but so would its senior Democrat senator (provided she can win reelection in 2008). The only nearby Republican House member also is a freshman.
In short, the facility, even with tens of millions of state dollars pumped into it, may employ only a fraction of the jobs lost. Even with the state putting in as much as $100 million and refusing another almost $100 million shot into the economy, even with a couple of thousand jobs created (making the total loss only a thousand) these are pretty expensive jobs indeed. And, they won’t be coming our way for many years while the thousand gone leave soon.
And all of this was prior to damage of facilities as a result of the hurricanes but, worse, the long-term consequences of which in terms of lost area population and productive capacity and future hurricane risk could doom any relocations to make the concept a reality.
But, wait ... riding to the rescue in both the Republican senator's bill and the Democrat senator's bill (yes, Sens. David Vitter and Mary Landrieu proposed basically the same bill) is the federal government and the generosity of the taxpayers who support it, in the form of giving the state for the porject $160 million! This is pork barreling at its finest. BRAC said the state had to pay to even have a chance at these jobs, and now its senators want to shift the costs away from it entirely and have it ahead $60 million – a nice consolation prize if those jobs don’t show up.
With the project less attractive than ever before, these senators are using Katrina as an excuse to make it happen anyway. And it’s another reason, besides their miserable performance before, during, and after Katrina and Rita’s vicissitudes, why Louisiana politicians’ credibility continues to erode faster than an Orleans Parish levee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)