It’s a half-year to Christmas, but the Louisiana House of Representatives constructed a Christmas tree bill in an attempt to save the essence of one bill that might end up bringing down another good idea – a rescue needed only because of stupid spending priorities.
SB 98 started out as a bill to fund the New Opportunities Waiver program. This would create a stable funding mechanism these transfer payments to people who have serious disabilities yet are able to live outside of institutions. It would end up saving money for the state because institutionalization of these folks is more expensive and almost always paid by the state because the costs of care entirely strips most families of their assets and essentially makes them wards of the state. Currently, nearly 15,000 individuals remain on a waiting list for an opportunity to get a waiver.
But while the House was in session, over in the Senate the Finance Committee postponed action on HB 722, which would ensure that any funds collected from transportation-related taxes and fees would be spent only on transportation capital items (86 percent priority highway projects). This would free up almost $320 million a year to tackle a roads backlog relatively even greater than the NOW backlog of $14 billion and at the rate of growth of revenues statewide by next year the $370 million cost would be made up.
21.6.07
Artists, non-payers get real tax benefits, but not most filers
Finally, the Louisiana Legislature meaningful tax reduction legislation that will bring down marginal rates – but only if you’re an “artist” or you don’t pay state income taxes at all.
Sitting on $3.5 billion in surplus, while the Gov. Kathleen Blanco administration and Legislature have found funding for over a thousand new jobs (and giving raises to vacant positions) as the state’s population shrinks, to increase reimbursements for health care institutions even as the dictates of quality and efficiency signal the need to move away from sending money to institutions and basing it on people instead, to throw more money at teachers without any mechanism to ensure they’ll actually do a better or even competent job, and $45 million in projects steered to local governments or nonprofit organizations that have nothing to do with state needs, they were unable to cough up even 10 percent of that surplus for tax reduction (and if the Senate and its chief opponent of tax reduction Sen. Robert Adley have their way, it’ll be less than five percent).
That reduction involved only deductions, not lowering rates which would provide more than a pittance. But one segment of the population got its state taxes lowered to zero for the first $50,000 in earnings – painters, photographers, sculptors, composers, singers, instrumentalists, actors, directors, mimes, dancers, fashion designers, writers of fiction and creative nonfiction, screenwriters and media professionals – with additional partial breaks at higher levels: half from $50,000 to $100,000 would be excluded, 25 percent of their next $400,000 of income would be excluded, and 10 percent from there on up.
Sitting on $3.5 billion in surplus, while the Gov. Kathleen Blanco administration and Legislature have found funding for over a thousand new jobs (and giving raises to vacant positions) as the state’s population shrinks, to increase reimbursements for health care institutions even as the dictates of quality and efficiency signal the need to move away from sending money to institutions and basing it on people instead, to throw more money at teachers without any mechanism to ensure they’ll actually do a better or even competent job, and $45 million in projects steered to local governments or nonprofit organizations that have nothing to do with state needs, they were unable to cough up even 10 percent of that surplus for tax reduction (and if the Senate and its chief opponent of tax reduction Sen. Robert Adley have their way, it’ll be less than five percent).
That reduction involved only deductions, not lowering rates which would provide more than a pittance. But one segment of the population got its state taxes lowered to zero for the first $50,000 in earnings – painters, photographers, sculptors, composers, singers, instrumentalists, actors, directors, mimes, dancers, fashion designers, writers of fiction and creative nonfiction, screenwriters and media professionals – with additional partial breaks at higher levels: half from $50,000 to $100,000 would be excluded, 25 percent of their next $400,000 of income would be excluded, and 10 percent from there on up.
20.6.07
Democrat budget preserves party at state's expense
When, as predicted, enough Louisiana Republican House members caved in to allow full funding of the dramatic spending increases in Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s record state budget, it allowed state Democrats to pursue their vision for the future of the state – one primarily based on their own partisan considerations at the expense of the people of the state.
Over the next week or so, Democrats will ram home a budget over 10 percent larger than last year’s, chock full of spending increases that will eat up more than 90 percent of the recovery/oil economic bubble on which the state floats, of which about a third concerns recurring expenditures. There were several motivations as to why Democrats took this path, including their core belief that government knows better than people how to spend their own money, to reward special interests, and to attempt to lavish goodies on constituencies in order to assist reelection chances in this fall’s elections.
But the main reason was to make governing more difficult for the next governor, since chances are slim that a real Democrat will be elected (their best hope is a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat who would govern more as a conservative). They know Rep. Bobby Jindal is a big favorite to win, that Jindal would be the first genuine conservative to hold that office, and that he will force many necessary changes on the dysfunctional state government that run counter to the interests of liberalism and populism.
They also know that their power slowly is slipping away. They stand a good chance of losing the House this fall, and four successful years (including reapportionment) of conservative governance from Jindal probably would mean entire Legislative control passing to the Republicans for the foreseeable future. It is this possibility that mainly drives their budgetary decisions this session.
In this current budget, Democrats seek to set up a firewall of spending that will be politically difficult to reduce by a future governor, even as revenue rate of increase begin to decline faster than this spending rate will increase. Their ace in the hole is potential large new commitments for the Road Home program caused by Blanco’s mismanaging; if the state must next year ask the federal government for a bailout, the Democrat-controlled Congress which also has a vested interest in delaying the state’s ascendancy into Republican control can deny that and try to plunge the state into a fiscal crisis, further tarnishing the next administration even if it had nothing to do with creating the situation.
Depending upon the severity of the downturn and of the negligence concerning the Road Home, a Republican governor and potentially Republican House would face hard choices that could raise enough ire among the voting public to delay, if not reverse, the party’s electoral gains, Democrats today are hoping. Sweeter still would be if this could lead to the demise of Jindal’s political career, Jindal seen by national Democrats as a major threat on the national stage because of his ideology and the symbolism he brings that thoroughly discredits Democrats’ bankrupt liberal ideology.
Make no mistake about the end result of this Democrat-controlled budget process. What will come out of it reflects more the will and needs of the future of state and national Democrats that it does those of the people of Louisiana.
Over the next week or so, Democrats will ram home a budget over 10 percent larger than last year’s, chock full of spending increases that will eat up more than 90 percent of the recovery/oil economic bubble on which the state floats, of which about a third concerns recurring expenditures. There were several motivations as to why Democrats took this path, including their core belief that government knows better than people how to spend their own money, to reward special interests, and to attempt to lavish goodies on constituencies in order to assist reelection chances in this fall’s elections.
But the main reason was to make governing more difficult for the next governor, since chances are slim that a real Democrat will be elected (their best hope is a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat who would govern more as a conservative). They know Rep. Bobby Jindal is a big favorite to win, that Jindal would be the first genuine conservative to hold that office, and that he will force many necessary changes on the dysfunctional state government that run counter to the interests of liberalism and populism.
They also know that their power slowly is slipping away. They stand a good chance of losing the House this fall, and four successful years (including reapportionment) of conservative governance from Jindal probably would mean entire Legislative control passing to the Republicans for the foreseeable future. It is this possibility that mainly drives their budgetary decisions this session.
In this current budget, Democrats seek to set up a firewall of spending that will be politically difficult to reduce by a future governor, even as revenue rate of increase begin to decline faster than this spending rate will increase. Their ace in the hole is potential large new commitments for the Road Home program caused by Blanco’s mismanaging; if the state must next year ask the federal government for a bailout, the Democrat-controlled Congress which also has a vested interest in delaying the state’s ascendancy into Republican control can deny that and try to plunge the state into a fiscal crisis, further tarnishing the next administration even if it had nothing to do with creating the situation.
Depending upon the severity of the downturn and of the negligence concerning the Road Home, a Republican governor and potentially Republican House would face hard choices that could raise enough ire among the voting public to delay, if not reverse, the party’s electoral gains, Democrats today are hoping. Sweeter still would be if this could lead to the demise of Jindal’s political career, Jindal seen by national Democrats as a major threat on the national stage because of his ideology and the symbolism he brings that thoroughly discredits Democrats’ bankrupt liberal ideology.
Make no mistake about the end result of this Democrat-controlled budget process. What will come out of it reflects more the will and needs of the future of state and national Democrats that it does those of the people of Louisiana.
18.6.07
Turncoat Republicans ready to defeat party on budget
Round 3 of the budget tussle between Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco and the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives in the Louisiana Legislature and Republicans went to the latter, contrary to Round 2 but like Round 1. However, the numbers and recent history seem to indicate the match will go to the reckless, free-spending Blanco.
Unable to stop the majority Democrats from passing a bloated budget born of a surplus exceeding $3.5 billion dollars that gives almost none of that money back to its owners the people and creates costly, unsustainable new commitments, Republicans have tried to use various means where two-thirds votes are involved (they have 42 of 105 members plus an independent who usually votes with them) to force some compromise out of the Blanco Administration. Their first tactic involved trying to prevent enabling legislation for bond sales to go through unless tax cuts were increased and recurring spending decreased.
But after two votes, it became clear enough liberal Republicans and Republicans-in-name-only would cause this strategy to fail, so then they moved to the tactic of trying to veto the state government from exceeding the Constitutional spending cap to the tune of $1.9 billion, offering an $827 million excess instead. The state’s spending cannot grow faster than the private sector economy unless two-thirds of legislators in each house approve.
Today, the GOP offered an amendment to exceed the cap by $827 million, defeated 42-61 – almost a straight party-line vote except that Democrat state Reps. Troy Hebert and John Smith and recent convert Republican state Rep. William Daniel IV and economic liberal Republican Hollis Downs crossed up their parties and recent converts Republican state Reps. Neal Heaton and Billy Montgomery were absent. That move obviously failed, but then it succeeded when a Democrat motion to bust the cap by the higher figure failed 68-36.
On this one only Heaton was absent, while the previous defectors did so again except for Smith who on this stayed loyal to his party this time and was joined by Montgomery who, now present, abandoned his new party. In addition, unreliable Republicans state Reps. Dale Erdey, Donald Ray Kennard, Tank Powell, and Bodi White crossed along with independent Joel Robideaux.
Unfortunately for Republicans, this puts Blanco and the Democrats on the brink of victory. The absent new Republican Heaton and liberal Republican state Rep. Tom McVea initially voted in Round 1 with Blanco, and Democrat Hebert may wilt under pressure. Put the squeeze on these three and any two (assuming everybody shows up and votes as they did previously) bring victory to Blanco. With almost a two-thirds majority in the Senate to Democrats, winning the House is tantamount to Blanco getting it all.
So, once again, it seems Republicans insufficiently committed to sensible government spending and to the people will foist bad policy on Louisiana.
Unable to stop the majority Democrats from passing a bloated budget born of a surplus exceeding $3.5 billion dollars that gives almost none of that money back to its owners the people and creates costly, unsustainable new commitments, Republicans have tried to use various means where two-thirds votes are involved (they have 42 of 105 members plus an independent who usually votes with them) to force some compromise out of the Blanco Administration. Their first tactic involved trying to prevent enabling legislation for bond sales to go through unless tax cuts were increased and recurring spending decreased.
But after two votes, it became clear enough liberal Republicans and Republicans-in-name-only would cause this strategy to fail, so then they moved to the tactic of trying to veto the state government from exceeding the Constitutional spending cap to the tune of $1.9 billion, offering an $827 million excess instead. The state’s spending cannot grow faster than the private sector economy unless two-thirds of legislators in each house approve.
Today, the GOP offered an amendment to exceed the cap by $827 million, defeated 42-61 – almost a straight party-line vote except that Democrat state Reps. Troy Hebert and John Smith and recent convert Republican state Rep. William Daniel IV and economic liberal Republican Hollis Downs crossed up their parties and recent converts Republican state Reps. Neal Heaton and Billy Montgomery were absent. That move obviously failed, but then it succeeded when a Democrat motion to bust the cap by the higher figure failed 68-36.
On this one only Heaton was absent, while the previous defectors did so again except for Smith who on this stayed loyal to his party this time and was joined by Montgomery who, now present, abandoned his new party. In addition, unreliable Republicans state Reps. Dale Erdey, Donald Ray Kennard, Tank Powell, and Bodi White crossed along with independent Joel Robideaux.
Unfortunately for Republicans, this puts Blanco and the Democrats on the brink of victory. The absent new Republican Heaton and liberal Republican state Rep. Tom McVea initially voted in Round 1 with Blanco, and Democrat Hebert may wilt under pressure. Put the squeeze on these three and any two (assuming everybody shows up and votes as they did previously) bring victory to Blanco. With almost a two-thirds majority in the Senate to Democrats, winning the House is tantamount to Blanco getting it all.
So, once again, it seems Republicans insufficiently committed to sensible government spending and to the people will foist bad policy on Louisiana.
Federal govt hopefully will save LA from wasteful building
Courtesy of a Democrat-led Legislature and governor, Louisiana is frittering away its opportunity to accomplish meaningful indigent health care reform that will increase quality at decreased costs to taxpayers. Once again, the federal government may have to step in to prevent this foolishness from happening.
It isn’t so much the vague SB 1, which will make its way to the House floor later this week, that is compelling the state to retain its antiquated money-goes-to-the-institution indigent health care system, as that bill is written to allow but not mandate the continuance of a system that no other state in the Union thinks is good. Sure, it’s a bad bill because it gives the appearance of reform where there is none and because it’s a vessel to discourage moves towards a more efficient money-follows-the-person system that produced better quality care. But worse is how it is designed to be combined with other bad decisions to keep putting vested interests ahead of those of the indigent and of taxpayers.
It’s worse what the House did with SCR 76 which authorizes the building of a palatial new “Big Charity” hospital in New Orleans, an edifice which would far exceed the needs of that of a hospital whose mission primarily is to educate. Many supporters say a consultant study required to determine the size showing a larger hospital, one at $1.5 billion that may cost double what was first envisioned, justifies the grandiose version.
But the study they cite was commissioned by the Gov. Kathleen Blanco Administration which all along has plumped for a big hospital in order to justify continuance of the charity hospital system, as a state-run indigent care system provides more avenues for patronage and increases the size of government and its power – specifically the Louisiana State University system which runs it. Further, it based that conclusion on the assumption that the charity hospital system would continue; otherwise, the complex will be much too large and wasteful.
This gets more convoluted and ludicrous: with a large hospital as a “sunk” cost, the state will argue that it will be too expensive to forgo its two-tiered system, justifying its continuance. The two concepts work hand-in-hand: the larger hospital only can be justified under the current system, but then continuance of the current system is justified by saying such a large hospital would make changing that system more costly.
Most (but not all, those mostly being the usual liberal and RINO) Republicans saw through this nonsense and voted against SCR 76 (mirroring somewhat the previous Senate outcome). They joined with Democrat Treasurer John Kennedy in noting that system reform should come first, and then a hospital built to fit that. Waiting even a year would not be a big deal for, as Kennedy as noted, quick renovation of parts of the old Big Charity could keep adequate care going for years (especially given the reduced population being served in the area). Nor would this imperil any deal with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to build the new facility next to a new VA hospital where some parts would be shared; decisions on land acquisition and the joint operations can continue as the size question is answered.
But that would reduce the power and privilege enjoyed by government, especially of the LSU system and the hospitals in the system, and so the Democrats could not have that. Passage of both chambers means this kind of legislative instrument goes into effect, but there are two chances for the federal government to step in and essentially negate this wasteful decision. First, the VA may select a site that would not work for this health care castle, and already has given indications that it might do that. Secondly and more crucially, since federal recovery funds would be used in the building of it, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would have to give its permission for their expenditure on this – and accordingly to Republican Sen. David Vitter, an opponent of the larger version, that agency doesn’t look too kindly on this notion.
So it may be that the federal government once again may have to rescue Louisiana from its own follies. Let’s hope it does.
It isn’t so much the vague SB 1, which will make its way to the House floor later this week, that is compelling the state to retain its antiquated money-goes-to-the-institution indigent health care system, as that bill is written to allow but not mandate the continuance of a system that no other state in the Union thinks is good. Sure, it’s a bad bill because it gives the appearance of reform where there is none and because it’s a vessel to discourage moves towards a more efficient money-follows-the-person system that produced better quality care. But worse is how it is designed to be combined with other bad decisions to keep putting vested interests ahead of those of the indigent and of taxpayers.
It’s worse what the House did with SCR 76 which authorizes the building of a palatial new “Big Charity” hospital in New Orleans, an edifice which would far exceed the needs of that of a hospital whose mission primarily is to educate. Many supporters say a consultant study required to determine the size showing a larger hospital, one at $1.5 billion that may cost double what was first envisioned, justifies the grandiose version.
But the study they cite was commissioned by the Gov. Kathleen Blanco Administration which all along has plumped for a big hospital in order to justify continuance of the charity hospital system, as a state-run indigent care system provides more avenues for patronage and increases the size of government and its power – specifically the Louisiana State University system which runs it. Further, it based that conclusion on the assumption that the charity hospital system would continue; otherwise, the complex will be much too large and wasteful.
This gets more convoluted and ludicrous: with a large hospital as a “sunk” cost, the state will argue that it will be too expensive to forgo its two-tiered system, justifying its continuance. The two concepts work hand-in-hand: the larger hospital only can be justified under the current system, but then continuance of the current system is justified by saying such a large hospital would make changing that system more costly.
Most (but not all, those mostly being the usual liberal and RINO) Republicans saw through this nonsense and voted against SCR 76 (mirroring somewhat the previous Senate outcome). They joined with Democrat Treasurer John Kennedy in noting that system reform should come first, and then a hospital built to fit that. Waiting even a year would not be a big deal for, as Kennedy as noted, quick renovation of parts of the old Big Charity could keep adequate care going for years (especially given the reduced population being served in the area). Nor would this imperil any deal with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to build the new facility next to a new VA hospital where some parts would be shared; decisions on land acquisition and the joint operations can continue as the size question is answered.
But that would reduce the power and privilege enjoyed by government, especially of the LSU system and the hospitals in the system, and so the Democrats could not have that. Passage of both chambers means this kind of legislative instrument goes into effect, but there are two chances for the federal government to step in and essentially negate this wasteful decision. First, the VA may select a site that would not work for this health care castle, and already has given indications that it might do that. Secondly and more crucially, since federal recovery funds would be used in the building of it, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would have to give its permission for their expenditure on this – and accordingly to Republican Sen. David Vitter, an opponent of the larger version, that agency doesn’t look too kindly on this notion.
So it may be that the federal government once again may have to rescue Louisiana from its own follies. Let’s hope it does.
17.6.07
Budget train wreck better than Blanco intended course
While some may disparage the emergence of a “train wreck” over a portion of Louisiana’s budget to be decided in the next couple of weeks, given certain circumstances, that may be the most desirable option.
The “train wreck” is the scenario where House Republicans stay mostly solid in their opposition to raising the state spending cap, increases pegged by the Constitution matching the growth of the private-sector economy, which would slash $1.9 billion from the Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco budget. The cap can be raised only by a two-thirds vote and over half of the GOP members, about two-thirds of the total needed, have pledged to block that raising unless significant tax cuts and reductions in proposed spending increases occur.
Granted, the GOP is absolutely correct in its assessment. Blanco and her Democrat legislative allies willfully are ignoring economic indicators and common sense as well as economic theory in plunging ahead. The Republicans’ problem is that they don’t have the votes to stop the bill, HB 1, that spends too much because that requires only a majority to pass. Under a politicized interpretation of the definition of the cap, passage of that bill will not exceed it.
But implementation of the supplemental bill, HB 765, in essence will be stopped without raising the cap, which a majority of Republicans say they can live with delaying that spending until after fall elections – the “train wreck.” Most of the items in that bill have widespread support and would be helpful to the state – highways, coastal restoration, technology, and general capital outlay items being among the biggest in cost – but of the items, really only one has any potential sense of urgency to it, $447 million in funds to bail out the shortfall in the mismanaged Road Home program (which really comprise funds given to the state by the federal government).
Even this, however, is not that urgent. The program will be paying out for well over the next year, and the federal government has given signs that it will make up a good portion of the shortfall which would be several times what the state is offering in its recycled funds. The federal government could put up some funds and then tell the state it’s on its own, and the state can use those funds through the rest of the year.
The best scenario for the state would be for Democrats to accept the Republican position. The worst would be to allow all the spending contemplated in HB 1 and HB 765. If the only compromise that comes about is the spending just in HB 1 and delaying HB 765 items until 2008 – the train wreck – that’s better than the worst scenario if the best one can’t be attained.
The “train wreck” is the scenario where House Republicans stay mostly solid in their opposition to raising the state spending cap, increases pegged by the Constitution matching the growth of the private-sector economy, which would slash $1.9 billion from the Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco budget. The cap can be raised only by a two-thirds vote and over half of the GOP members, about two-thirds of the total needed, have pledged to block that raising unless significant tax cuts and reductions in proposed spending increases occur.
Granted, the GOP is absolutely correct in its assessment. Blanco and her Democrat legislative allies willfully are ignoring economic indicators and common sense as well as economic theory in plunging ahead. The Republicans’ problem is that they don’t have the votes to stop the bill, HB 1, that spends too much because that requires only a majority to pass. Under a politicized interpretation of the definition of the cap, passage of that bill will not exceed it.
But implementation of the supplemental bill, HB 765, in essence will be stopped without raising the cap, which a majority of Republicans say they can live with delaying that spending until after fall elections – the “train wreck.” Most of the items in that bill have widespread support and would be helpful to the state – highways, coastal restoration, technology, and general capital outlay items being among the biggest in cost – but of the items, really only one has any potential sense of urgency to it, $447 million in funds to bail out the shortfall in the mismanaged Road Home program (which really comprise funds given to the state by the federal government).
Even this, however, is not that urgent. The program will be paying out for well over the next year, and the federal government has given signs that it will make up a good portion of the shortfall which would be several times what the state is offering in its recycled funds. The federal government could put up some funds and then tell the state it’s on its own, and the state can use those funds through the rest of the year.
The best scenario for the state would be for Democrats to accept the Republican position. The worst would be to allow all the spending contemplated in HB 1 and HB 765. If the only compromise that comes about is the spending just in HB 1 and delaying HB 765 items until 2008 – the train wreck – that’s better than the worst scenario if the best one can’t be attained.
14.6.07
Procedural maneuvers keep sane budget hopes alive
When the Gov. Kathleen Blanco Administration got the advantage on Louisiana House Republicans last week on HB 3, it seemed curious why they didn’t press their advantage. Now we see it is part of a more complicated strategy demonstrating House Republicans still have fight in them to bring more sane spending practices to the state.
HB 3 is the enabling bill to bond out capital outlay projects listed in HB 2, but requires a two-thirds vote. Enough of the minority House Republicans have voted against it to keep it from passing. But last week it appeared enough defections among them would occur to allow Democrat Blanco’s House Democrat leadership to ram it through – and they did, but only after some delay as negotiations continued concerning the GOP’s next tactic.
As now revealed publicly, this reverted to the one they pulled off in last year’s special session, regarding the state’s spending cap. The Constitution allows spending by state government in a year to grow only as fast as the economy; spending beyond that requires the two-thirds vote which enough Republicans can block, and did months ago.
HB 3 is the enabling bill to bond out capital outlay projects listed in HB 2, but requires a two-thirds vote. Enough of the minority House Republicans have voted against it to keep it from passing. But last week it appeared enough defections among them would occur to allow Democrat Blanco’s House Democrat leadership to ram it through – and they did, but only after some delay as negotiations continued concerning the GOP’s next tactic.
As now revealed publicly, this reverted to the one they pulled off in last year’s special session, regarding the state’s spending cap. The Constitution allows spending by state government in a year to grow only as fast as the economy; spending beyond that requires the two-thirds vote which enough Republicans can block, and did months ago.
13.6.07
Blanco budget blather erroneous, unconvincing
If Gov. Kathleen Blanco ever taught English composition before her political career, it doesn’t show in her latest press release defending her budget now in front of the Legislature. This document shows she clearly doesn’t know what words mean and she uses them in ways that don’t support her attempted message.
Take the word “significant,” where she argues “I have asked the Legislature to adopt significant tax relief for our citizens.” While her roughly $150 million in proposed tax cuts, many not directly to citizens, could sound like a lot, it represents barely more than a half percent of the entire budget – insignificant.
How about the word “balanced,” where she states “I believe the people deserve a balanced package that includes the tax relief we all want, while making the bold investments that will lift up Louisiana.” But the portion of tax cuts in her budget represented less than 5 percent of the overall surplus, and the new recurring commitments are about a third of that total – terribly imbalanced on the spending side.
Or the word “investment,” which Blanco uses to buttress her “balanced” claim in referring to the free spending of her budget, lumping both one-time and recurring expenditures as “investments.” Some of those, especially of the one-time variety such as transportation needs, you could call “investments” because they have a good chance of producing long-term beneficial results (with the notable exception of funds to attract jobs). But other, mainly recurring, expenses such as creation of a thousand or so new jobs in a state whose population is shrinking and giving raises to them and to public school teachers without any individual accountability just throws good money after bad.
One additional demonstration that casts doubt on whether Blanco even understands what she writes is her passage “These investments will allow us to provide even greater tax relief in the future, as we decrease dependency on state programs and increase the quality of life for all of our citizens.” In other words, she asserts that the state has to spend first and therefore be the engine of economic growth in order for the citizens to have their monies returned to them only sometime down the road.
This simply is ludicrous and reflective of her core liberalism. People, not government, drive economic growth so the more money that they can keep the more reliably produced is that growth, so tax cuts must come prior. Further, she is entirely oblivious to the fact that her desire to make large increases in recurring expenditures in many cases will increase dependency not so directly on state programs, but the state itself, an inefficient use of resources that will sap growth.
Let’s put it this way, if Blanco decides to launch a post-political career as an investment adviser who will “invest” your money in a “balanced” way to give you “significant” returns sometime down the road, don’t walk away from her, run.
Take the word “significant,” where she argues “I have asked the Legislature to adopt significant tax relief for our citizens.” While her roughly $150 million in proposed tax cuts, many not directly to citizens, could sound like a lot, it represents barely more than a half percent of the entire budget – insignificant.
How about the word “balanced,” where she states “I believe the people deserve a balanced package that includes the tax relief we all want, while making the bold investments that will lift up Louisiana.” But the portion of tax cuts in her budget represented less than 5 percent of the overall surplus, and the new recurring commitments are about a third of that total – terribly imbalanced on the spending side.
Or the word “investment,” which Blanco uses to buttress her “balanced” claim in referring to the free spending of her budget, lumping both one-time and recurring expenditures as “investments.” Some of those, especially of the one-time variety such as transportation needs, you could call “investments” because they have a good chance of producing long-term beneficial results (with the notable exception of funds to attract jobs). But other, mainly recurring, expenses such as creation of a thousand or so new jobs in a state whose population is shrinking and giving raises to them and to public school teachers without any individual accountability just throws good money after bad.
One additional demonstration that casts doubt on whether Blanco even understands what she writes is her passage “These investments will allow us to provide even greater tax relief in the future, as we decrease dependency on state programs and increase the quality of life for all of our citizens.” In other words, she asserts that the state has to spend first and therefore be the engine of economic growth in order for the citizens to have their monies returned to them only sometime down the road.
This simply is ludicrous and reflective of her core liberalism. People, not government, drive economic growth so the more money that they can keep the more reliably produced is that growth, so tax cuts must come prior. Further, she is entirely oblivious to the fact that her desire to make large increases in recurring expenditures in many cases will increase dependency not so directly on state programs, but the state itself, an inefficient use of resources that will sap growth.
Let’s put it this way, if Blanco decides to launch a post-political career as an investment adviser who will “invest” your money in a “balanced” way to give you “significant” returns sometime down the road, don’t walk away from her, run.
12.6.07
Grinding axes detracts from providing real solutions
You know vested interests that have run this state into the ground are scared when they try to take advantage of a non-story created an opportunist to try to score cheap political points to distract the public from a threat to their power and privilege.
Originally on New Orleans’ WWL liberal Garland Robinette’s radio talk show, and then on this area’s balanced Pat Culverhouse program, local demographer and for-hire political consultant Elliott Stonecipher asserted that Republican state Rep. Mike Powell, his daughter Rachel, and Republican state Senate candidate Jay Murrell had done unpaid work for former Shreveport mayoral candidate Jerry Jones. The reporting he questioned according to state campaign finance records is one for $12,344.75 paid on Jun. 6, 2006 to CPL Media Marketing, run by former Shreveport Journal editor Carl Liberto.
But Liberto confirms that Rachel Powell was employed by him for this work. And did Stonecipher witness this transaction he claims was fradulent? No, he just “knew” of it. Jones himself can’t verify it, either. Not only does he say all three individuals including Rachel Powell were present when he discussed the matter, but obviously he knew it was for CPL because that’s how he reported it on his form. And it’s entirely reasonable that Rachel Powell, a recent college graduate relatively inexperienced in this field, would be accompanied by her father and family friend Murrell for assistance, as well as that Mike Powell and Murrell themselves provided advice to Jones (as they have many times for many Republican candidates in Caddo Parish) during his campaign. There’s simply nothing untoward about any of this.
Despite this, now Democrat state Sen. Robert Adley says he wants the matter referred to the Louisiana Board of Ethics regarding Mike Powell, who also serves as the Louisiana Republican Party’s counsel. One must wonder on what basis Adley can file a complaint about Mike Powell under the ethics law – after all, the Jones campaign would be the one on the hook for misreporting. Is Adley actually claiming Mike Powell took a bribe, money out of his daughter’s and Liberto’s pockets for some unfathomable purpose despite all evidence to the contrary?
So why did this non-story hit Gannett newspapers, and now, a year after the expenditure took place? The answer to the first question is it serves the varied interests of the reporter, John Hill, Stonecipher, and Adley (as a proxy for area and statewide Democrat interests).
Stonecipher (who in essence is accusing Mike Powell of some undefined ethical lapse) himself had a conflict with Powell when Powell served on the Caddo Parish School Board, concerning a friend of Stonecipher’s employed by the Board alleged to have behaved unethically the act of which may have involved Stonecipher (of which a caller to the Culverhouse show reminded the audience); thus, potentially motivating his wild remarks on this matter. Further, Stonecipher has a publicity-seeking tendency, often reflected in his remarks to the media about politics that, to those unlike Stonecipher who are formally trained in the area such as me, sometimes come across as goofy, if not outright counter-factual. Getting your name out in the compliant media, even if you don’t really know what you’re talking about, can’t be bad for his business – especially when you try to settle an old score and can impugn the reputation of one of your competitors (the liberal Democrat Liberto) in the process.
Hill, who I have known for over 15 years, is in the business of selling newspapers and who, in my opinion, in that time span regrettably has become more partisan in tone, probably saw this as something worthy of reporting – particularly because it is election season and one of the names involved, Murrell, is newly running for office. That’s where Adley comes in.
Adley is part of the good-old-boy elective structure of Bossier Parish, comprised of Democrats and Republicans-In-Name-Only – of whom the latter’s electoral leader and Adley ally, state Rep. Billy Montgomery, is an opponent of Murrell’s for the Senate. (Powell is unlikely to face any serious opposition for reelection this fall.) This band fears Montgomery’s loss, even more Murrell’s winning so anything, no matter how trumped up, that casts even indirect negative aspersions on Murrell those of Adley’s ilk will pursue. (Adley also may do this to distract voters from his attempts as a Senate leader this legislative session to defeat meaningful tax reductions – in a committee meeting he called the reduction of income tax rates “irresponsible” – despite a record state surplus).
There’s just no credibility to any of this, and Adley knows this (or obviously he’s not very bright). Opponents of Powell and Murrell want to manufacture an issue and to try to keep it alive, given the Board’s schedule, into September – a month before elections. It’s these kinds of things which reaffirm my own personal support for Murrell – we need to move away from petty, obfuscating, baseless political tactics and start talking real solutions that those of Adley’s stripes who are long on rhetoric have failed to provide for so many years.
Originally on New Orleans’ WWL liberal Garland Robinette’s radio talk show, and then on this area’s balanced Pat Culverhouse program, local demographer and for-hire political consultant Elliott Stonecipher asserted that Republican state Rep. Mike Powell, his daughter Rachel, and Republican state Senate candidate Jay Murrell had done unpaid work for former Shreveport mayoral candidate Jerry Jones. The reporting he questioned according to state campaign finance records is one for $12,344.75 paid on Jun. 6, 2006 to CPL Media Marketing, run by former Shreveport Journal editor Carl Liberto.
But Liberto confirms that Rachel Powell was employed by him for this work. And did Stonecipher witness this transaction he claims was fradulent? No, he just “knew” of it. Jones himself can’t verify it, either. Not only does he say all three individuals including Rachel Powell were present when he discussed the matter, but obviously he knew it was for CPL because that’s how he reported it on his form. And it’s entirely reasonable that Rachel Powell, a recent college graduate relatively inexperienced in this field, would be accompanied by her father and family friend Murrell for assistance, as well as that Mike Powell and Murrell themselves provided advice to Jones (as they have many times for many Republican candidates in Caddo Parish) during his campaign. There’s simply nothing untoward about any of this.
Despite this, now Democrat state Sen. Robert Adley says he wants the matter referred to the Louisiana Board of Ethics regarding Mike Powell, who also serves as the Louisiana Republican Party’s counsel. One must wonder on what basis Adley can file a complaint about Mike Powell under the ethics law – after all, the Jones campaign would be the one on the hook for misreporting. Is Adley actually claiming Mike Powell took a bribe, money out of his daughter’s and Liberto’s pockets for some unfathomable purpose despite all evidence to the contrary?
So why did this non-story hit Gannett newspapers, and now, a year after the expenditure took place? The answer to the first question is it serves the varied interests of the reporter, John Hill, Stonecipher, and Adley (as a proxy for area and statewide Democrat interests).
Stonecipher (who in essence is accusing Mike Powell of some undefined ethical lapse) himself had a conflict with Powell when Powell served on the Caddo Parish School Board, concerning a friend of Stonecipher’s employed by the Board alleged to have behaved unethically the act of which may have involved Stonecipher (of which a caller to the Culverhouse show reminded the audience); thus, potentially motivating his wild remarks on this matter. Further, Stonecipher has a publicity-seeking tendency, often reflected in his remarks to the media about politics that, to those unlike Stonecipher who are formally trained in the area such as me, sometimes come across as goofy, if not outright counter-factual. Getting your name out in the compliant media, even if you don’t really know what you’re talking about, can’t be bad for his business – especially when you try to settle an old score and can impugn the reputation of one of your competitors (the liberal Democrat Liberto) in the process.
Hill, who I have known for over 15 years, is in the business of selling newspapers and who, in my opinion, in that time span regrettably has become more partisan in tone, probably saw this as something worthy of reporting – particularly because it is election season and one of the names involved, Murrell, is newly running for office. That’s where Adley comes in.
Adley is part of the good-old-boy elective structure of Bossier Parish, comprised of Democrats and Republicans-In-Name-Only – of whom the latter’s electoral leader and Adley ally, state Rep. Billy Montgomery, is an opponent of Murrell’s for the Senate. (Powell is unlikely to face any serious opposition for reelection this fall.) This band fears Montgomery’s loss, even more Murrell’s winning so anything, no matter how trumped up, that casts even indirect negative aspersions on Murrell those of Adley’s ilk will pursue. (Adley also may do this to distract voters from his attempts as a Senate leader this legislative session to defeat meaningful tax reductions – in a committee meeting he called the reduction of income tax rates “irresponsible” – despite a record state surplus).
There’s just no credibility to any of this, and Adley knows this (or obviously he’s not very bright). Opponents of Powell and Murrell want to manufacture an issue and to try to keep it alive, given the Board’s schedule, into September – a month before elections. It’s these kinds of things which reaffirm my own personal support for Murrell – we need to move away from petty, obfuscating, baseless political tactics and start talking real solutions that those of Adley’s stripes who are long on rhetoric have failed to provide for so many years.
11.6.07
Electoral, public pressure needed to pry open records
It’s like pulling teeth when it comes to getting information from the Legislature about nongovernmental entities it funds with Louisiana taxpayer dollars. This year looking to be $7 million worth, almost all of these groups have nothing to do with public policy or improving the quality of life for the state. As one insider put it referring to one particular organization slated for $300,000, the group is “a typical [legislator] pass-through to friends.”
Only last year, under heavy public pressure, did Gov. Kathleen Blanco start requesting any minimal information at all about these amendments, the legislator requesters of which generally are known to only a few individuals. The Legislature then grudgingly followed. But that seems to be as far as the at least the House of Representatives will go. A request by a newspaper to find out who was requesting what – which are forms sent by representatives to the Appropriations Committee – was turned down by the body’s appropriate officer, Clerk Butch Speer.
Speer argued that in his opinion, based upon LA Const. Art. III, Section 8, as interpreted by the LA First Circuit Court of Appeals in Copsey v. Baer, 91-0912 (Dec. 27, 1991) 539 So.2d 685 (La. App. 1st Cir.), that the information was “internal communications of legislators with their staff” because it was “background information provided by legislators to their staff” and thus exempt. Whether this assertion actually comports with case law is another matter.
The Constitution’s connection to Speer’s claim is tenuous, the relevant passage being, “No member shall be questioned elsewhere for any speech in either house.” The court case and opinion in question that apparently expands this passage to cover this instance I don’t have access to at this time, but a helpful summary I found on its surface gives Speer some support: “legislative work files related to two bills from prior sessions of the Louisiana legislature were privileged from public records disclosure under the legislative privileges and immunities clause of the Louisiana Constitution, Article III, § 8,” and the opinion states that “demand for legislative files in this case calls for an inquiry into the motivations behind the preparation and introduction of legislative instruments into the Louisiana Legislature….”
Without knowing more (and not being a lawyer much less one with expertise in this area), it seems to me that Speer’s interpretation is challengeable. But it’s not necessary to pursue judicial solutions to this problem when two political solutions exist that can change the situation almost immediately.
One would be for the Senate to get on the stick and pass HB 266 by state Rep. Blade Morrish. This bill would legally require the provision of the information in question. The bill sailed through both House committee and the chamber itself without any opposition, landing in the Senate Finance Committee almost a month ago – which has sat on it ever since. Don’t count on any movement unless there is a great public outcry.
But even quicker would be if Blanco would come out and announce she would line-item veto any spending of this nature whose sponsor does not publicly identify himself. This has even less chance of happening than the passage of HB 266 – and is one more reason why the citizenry should elect Rep. Bobby Jindal as governor this fall, as he has served notice that he won’t put up with this nonsense.
Only last year, under heavy public pressure, did Gov. Kathleen Blanco start requesting any minimal information at all about these amendments, the legislator requesters of which generally are known to only a few individuals. The Legislature then grudgingly followed. But that seems to be as far as the at least the House of Representatives will go. A request by a newspaper to find out who was requesting what – which are forms sent by representatives to the Appropriations Committee – was turned down by the body’s appropriate officer, Clerk Butch Speer.
Speer argued that in his opinion, based upon LA Const. Art. III, Section 8, as interpreted by the LA First Circuit Court of Appeals in Copsey v. Baer, 91-0912 (Dec. 27, 1991) 539 So.2d 685 (La. App. 1st Cir.), that the information was “internal communications of legislators with their staff” because it was “background information provided by legislators to their staff” and thus exempt. Whether this assertion actually comports with case law is another matter.
The Constitution’s connection to Speer’s claim is tenuous, the relevant passage being, “No member shall be questioned elsewhere for any speech in either house.” The court case and opinion in question that apparently expands this passage to cover this instance I don’t have access to at this time, but a helpful summary I found on its surface gives Speer some support: “legislative work files related to two bills from prior sessions of the Louisiana legislature were privileged from public records disclosure under the legislative privileges and immunities clause of the Louisiana Constitution, Article III, § 8,” and the opinion states that “demand for legislative files in this case calls for an inquiry into the motivations behind the preparation and introduction of legislative instruments into the Louisiana Legislature….”
Without knowing more (and not being a lawyer much less one with expertise in this area), it seems to me that Speer’s interpretation is challengeable. But it’s not necessary to pursue judicial solutions to this problem when two political solutions exist that can change the situation almost immediately.
One would be for the Senate to get on the stick and pass HB 266 by state Rep. Blade Morrish. This bill would legally require the provision of the information in question. The bill sailed through both House committee and the chamber itself without any opposition, landing in the Senate Finance Committee almost a month ago – which has sat on it ever since. Don’t count on any movement unless there is a great public outcry.
But even quicker would be if Blanco would come out and announce she would line-item veto any spending of this nature whose sponsor does not publicly identify himself. This has even less chance of happening than the passage of HB 266 – and is one more reason why the citizenry should elect Rep. Bobby Jindal as governor this fall, as he has served notice that he won’t put up with this nonsense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)