I guess I should have stayed pessimistic instead of looking for a silver lining earlier today. Snatching death from the jaws of life, the Louisiana Legislature managed to kill meaningful ethics reform this afternoon.
HB 730 would have required, at a very minimum, every elected official in the state and then some except for some smallest jurisdictions to report for themselves and from immediate family members some broad categories of income in a process that likely would take 10 minutes to complete – done by state and local elected officials in almost 20 states already. After both houses basically unanimously agreed to versions that were not very different from each other, and three conferees from each chamber agreed on one compromise version, the House rejected the report and the Senate then refused to consider it.
Being so close to agreement, it’s hard to believe it would founder at the last minute. The official excuse given was that, from the House’s perspective, the conference’s stripping application to local elected office – even though both the entire Senate and House had agreed to that – made the bill unpalatable enough.
Removing that procedure in conference appears to have come from conferee Democrat Senate Pres. Don Hines, as a kind of final “up yours” to the state of Louisiana before he is term-limited into a long overdue retirement. Author Democrat state Rep. Michael Jackson told the House he thought the Senate wouldn’t pass the conference version, therefore, even though it had previously, and just enough House members thought they would just as soon, as Jackson said, throw the baby out with the bathwater, in a narrow vote.
It seems so very odd that something the chambers had agreed upon without really any dissent should, on the final day of the session, suddenly become a deal breaker. Why did it out of the blue become a problem? And why would the House prefer to go with no loaf than half a loaf? Wouldn’t reporting requirements on legislators even without local officials be better than none?
Apparently not, and this surface logical disconnect fuels the notion that the fix was in all of the time, at least for enough legislators to cause its failure. Enough of them may have wanted to get a vote in showing they “cared” about higher ethical standards, but then House members could turn around and say they essentially killed the bill because it didn’t “do enough” by removal of the local official provision, while Senators got a free ride. Everybody’s for ethics reform, on the record – and yet there’s no change whatsoever.
This ridiculous ending only adds more tarnish to an already underachieving session – but (again straining to see a silver lining) maybe will cause even more disenchantment among the Louisiana people to elect candidates this fall that will bring about real reform in the near future.
28.6.07
Session represents another missed opportunity
As the 2007 regular session of the Louisiana Legislature comes to a close, one gets a sick feeling that an opportunity of historical significance was missed by it, one that could have accelerated the state away from policy that for decades has retarded the state’s growth and quality of life. Still, there is a silver lining.
Simply put, Louisiana’s state government is too big and intrusive which dampens economic growth as well as personal freedom in the process. Ultimately, the people must blame themselves to some degree because we in aggregate continue to put economic illiterates such as Gov. Kathleen Blanco and a Democrat majority into office. As if we needed one more example of this, take Blanco’s comment yesterday: “It's important for the public to know that a tax break is like the Legislature's spending money, only it disappears.”
Only an economic ignoramus or willingly deceitful politician would make a statement so at odds with economic theory. Has Blanco never heard of the Grace Report, which shows government wastes a third of the money coming into it? Or of the Laffer Curve, which demonstrates that the more money kept in the private sector, to a certain point (and with Louisiana’s high tax per capita collection rate, it’s definitely on the suboptimized part of the curve) the greater government revenues will be through economic growth?
I’ll lay it out very simply so maybe even Blanco can get it through her head, finally: tax breaks create wealth that (generally, unless there is a low-tax environment to begin with) does not “disappear” but instead strengthens the economy which in turn creates a more stable financial footing for government. Spending by government even on necessary things (like needed infrastructure) is where about a third of the people’s money disappears in waste.
Unfortunately, Blanco and the Democrat-controlled Legislature were in charge and so the most tax relief that anybody looks to be getting will be about half of taxpayers will get about a one percent return of their money taken by the state, despite a record surplus that comprised over 10 percent of the budget for a state growing smaller. Further, spending on recurring commitments will hamstring future elected officials in being able to provide the necessary downsizing of government to create better quality of life.
At least there appears to be one bright spot. With the public in a hostile mood about Louisiana state politicians (evidenced by Blanco’s bowing out of reelection opportunities, current out-party Republicans picking up open positions in special elections, and anybody seen as an incumbent of any kind having a hard time in special elections), some meaningful ethics reform actually seems to have come out of the session. That (unless something dramatic happens before the end of the day) it seems to have beaten long odds shows those legislators running for election in the fall are scared of the public’s antipathy towards the lack of quality of their service. It probably won’t be enough to return many of them to office, however.
Yet in the final analysis, this session fits squarely into the pattern seen in Louisiana state government over the past few decades – squandering yet another opportunity to keep the rest of the world from passing us by. And perhaps the ultimate silver lining is that maybe now the Louisiana electorate will be further incensed by this behavior to make the changes necessary to improve the state in those fall elections.
Simply put, Louisiana’s state government is too big and intrusive which dampens economic growth as well as personal freedom in the process. Ultimately, the people must blame themselves to some degree because we in aggregate continue to put economic illiterates such as Gov. Kathleen Blanco and a Democrat majority into office. As if we needed one more example of this, take Blanco’s comment yesterday: “It's important for the public to know that a tax break is like the Legislature's spending money, only it disappears.”
Only an economic ignoramus or willingly deceitful politician would make a statement so at odds with economic theory. Has Blanco never heard of the Grace Report, which shows government wastes a third of the money coming into it? Or of the Laffer Curve, which demonstrates that the more money kept in the private sector, to a certain point (and with Louisiana’s high tax per capita collection rate, it’s definitely on the suboptimized part of the curve) the greater government revenues will be through economic growth?
I’ll lay it out very simply so maybe even Blanco can get it through her head, finally: tax breaks create wealth that (generally, unless there is a low-tax environment to begin with) does not “disappear” but instead strengthens the economy which in turn creates a more stable financial footing for government. Spending by government even on necessary things (like needed infrastructure) is where about a third of the people’s money disappears in waste.
Unfortunately, Blanco and the Democrat-controlled Legislature were in charge and so the most tax relief that anybody looks to be getting will be about half of taxpayers will get about a one percent return of their money taken by the state, despite a record surplus that comprised over 10 percent of the budget for a state growing smaller. Further, spending on recurring commitments will hamstring future elected officials in being able to provide the necessary downsizing of government to create better quality of life.
At least there appears to be one bright spot. With the public in a hostile mood about Louisiana state politicians (evidenced by Blanco’s bowing out of reelection opportunities, current out-party Republicans picking up open positions in special elections, and anybody seen as an incumbent of any kind having a hard time in special elections), some meaningful ethics reform actually seems to have come out of the session. That (unless something dramatic happens before the end of the day) it seems to have beaten long odds shows those legislators running for election in the fall are scared of the public’s antipathy towards the lack of quality of their service. It probably won’t be enough to return many of them to office, however.
Yet in the final analysis, this session fits squarely into the pattern seen in Louisiana state government over the past few decades – squandering yet another opportunity to keep the rest of the world from passing us by. And perhaps the ultimate silver lining is that maybe now the Louisiana electorate will be further incensed by this behavior to make the changes necessary to improve the state in those fall elections.
27.6.07
Stuck on stupid XXV: Parents told childish Blanco "no"
For most people, when they were young and came into a (relative) financial windfall, be it from gifts or from some kind of labor, their parents instructed them not to go out and blow it on candy or whatever, but to save it. That way, we were instructed, you could invest it and have it grow and ready for the future when you really might need it, instead of spending it on some transitory pleasure.
By contrast, Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s parents must have told her something quite the opposite, if we understand correctly the analogy she tried to use to disparage those who support tax cuts from a huge Louisiana surplus: “I think they're like a bunch of spoiled children, and we're on vacation, kind of, and they think mom and daddy can buy them every single toy and balloon in the whole place. And, you know, parents have to say no after a time.” It indicates just how absolutely, totally clueless she is and has been about good public policy that would improve the quality of life that she personally has retarded in this state for the past four years.
Only Blanco, and her Democrat majority allies in the state Legislature, would conceive of investing in the people of Louisiana as something that should be denied. Only this backwards-thinking mob would think you “invest” in economic development by taking money owned by the people in the first place and instead of letting it stay with the best investment around, the productive capacity of the people and the marketplace, you abscond with it and shovel it into growing government such as by creating more bureaucratic jobs in a state with declining population and funneling tens of millions of dollars to dubious projects.
Of course, this nonsense proceeds from their liberal viewpoint but also has a more immediate precipitant: like spoiled brats, they put themselves first before anybody else because this spending also serves the goal of trying to get themselves elected or reelected and puts their political opponents in a future bind – and to top it off they’re doing it using somebody else’s resources. Only immature children would try to justify this by ignorantly calling it the opposite, or thinking they can twist words trying to fool grownups with this explanation.
Naturally, we see very clearly how the Blanco lexicon equates “tax cuts” with “spending” and “spending” with “investment,” and how this reflects the exact antithesis of the real world. We realize this because we are the parents, and long ago we told the childish perpetrator of this ridiculous attitude and philosophy “no” when it came to her reelection.
By contrast, Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s parents must have told her something quite the opposite, if we understand correctly the analogy she tried to use to disparage those who support tax cuts from a huge Louisiana surplus: “I think they're like a bunch of spoiled children, and we're on vacation, kind of, and they think mom and daddy can buy them every single toy and balloon in the whole place. And, you know, parents have to say no after a time.” It indicates just how absolutely, totally clueless she is and has been about good public policy that would improve the quality of life that she personally has retarded in this state for the past four years.
Only Blanco, and her Democrat majority allies in the state Legislature, would conceive of investing in the people of Louisiana as something that should be denied. Only this backwards-thinking mob would think you “invest” in economic development by taking money owned by the people in the first place and instead of letting it stay with the best investment around, the productive capacity of the people and the marketplace, you abscond with it and shovel it into growing government such as by creating more bureaucratic jobs in a state with declining population and funneling tens of millions of dollars to dubious projects.
Of course, this nonsense proceeds from their liberal viewpoint but also has a more immediate precipitant: like spoiled brats, they put themselves first before anybody else because this spending also serves the goal of trying to get themselves elected or reelected and puts their political opponents in a future bind – and to top it off they’re doing it using somebody else’s resources. Only immature children would try to justify this by ignorantly calling it the opposite, or thinking they can twist words trying to fool grownups with this explanation.
Naturally, we see very clearly how the Blanco lexicon equates “tax cuts” with “spending” and “spending” with “investment,” and how this reflects the exact antithesis of the real world. We realize this because we are the parents, and long ago we told the childish perpetrator of this ridiculous attitude and philosophy “no” when it came to her reelection.
26.6.07
Next governor must save LA from new hospital stupidity
Gov. Kathleen Blanco set the state on an unwise collision course with the federal government regarding the new Big Charity hospital in New Orleans. Let’s hope it’s a decision that doesn’t cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in wasted spending.
Over the weekend, Blanco’s allies in the Louisiana Legislature confirmed that the state was going to forgo federal money, at least about $225 million, to build the new facility, because it would involve too much “red tape” – created by the state’s own intransigence. The bureaucracy involved came as a result of the federal government’s questioning the scope of the planned new facility whose price tag has doubled within the past year.
In large part that happened because of different concepts in how the provision of indigent care was to occur. All parties want the new Medical Center of Louisiana – New Orleans facility to provide medical education capacity and specialized health care services. But others want to go beyond that just that, all relating to their different views on how indigent health care should be delivered in the state.
Every other state in the union follows a strategy of money-follows-the-person for indigent health care, but Louisiana insists on a money-goes-to-the-institution strategy which limits patient choice, reduces quality of care, and costs more. Even so, many political elites and special interests in the state want the latter because it brings more money into state government, increases the number of people on the state payroll, and gives them more power and privilege as a result – much more than they care about efficiency and outcomes.
Blanco’s team suggested building a large facility because it has no intention to switching to a more efficient system with improved outcomes – and even conjured a study assuming the state stuck with the existing system to try to justify the decision. If the switch was made, the hundred or more extra beds under Blanco’s plan would become superfluous – as suggested by the federal government last week in its note announcing postponement in turning over the money the state has qualified for purposes such as this.
So Blanco read the writing on the wall – reform or the money wasn’t forthcoming – and stubbornly gave up the money. This became politically possible when Blanco ally Sen. Mary Landrieu extracted a promise from Democrats in Washington that the federal government would commit substantial aid to Blanco’s mishandled Road Home Program if the state coughed up $1 billion towards the potential $5 billion shortfall. Having cobbled together over $600 million of federal money that technically had become state funds, and a small amount of genuine state funds, Blanco realized the $225 million for the hospital could be used for this purpose as well.
This still left money short for the complex, so now the state will borrow it in future years. In essence, the state would have had to come up with the $225 million one way or another for the Road Home bailout anyway so now the only extra cost to the state will be on interest for the borrowed money (which the state could not have done for the bailout because borrowing can be done only for capital outlay). It’s a politically neat solution.
Except that, first of all, the extra beds are wasteful, either because they can be done without under an efficient new system, or because they will prop up the existing inefficient system. Second, the state’s act of defiance will not go unnoticed in another part of the government which still can cost the state plenty. All along, the assumption has been the new facility will be built next to a new Veterans Administration hospital which would share some facilities, saving both money. But the federal government has been making noises that this arrangement may no longer suit it, and the state’s decision here well may solidify a decision to go separate ways, jacking up costs to the state even more.
However, one hope remains. The Legislature classified the borrowing as future, meaning it can be altered in future capital outlay budgets and the whole amount, now believed to be $1.5 billion, is not yet in the budget. This means the next administration will have the final say – and you can bet a Gov. Bobby Jindal is not going to go along with this plan. So, just as political tides and fortunes put the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time to create this boondoggle, they may reverse to alter eventually the big mistake Blanco and her cronies are making on this issue – to the delight of the indigent and taxpayers statewide.
Over the weekend, Blanco’s allies in the Louisiana Legislature confirmed that the state was going to forgo federal money, at least about $225 million, to build the new facility, because it would involve too much “red tape” – created by the state’s own intransigence. The bureaucracy involved came as a result of the federal government’s questioning the scope of the planned new facility whose price tag has doubled within the past year.
In large part that happened because of different concepts in how the provision of indigent care was to occur. All parties want the new Medical Center of Louisiana – New Orleans facility to provide medical education capacity and specialized health care services. But others want to go beyond that just that, all relating to their different views on how indigent health care should be delivered in the state.
Every other state in the union follows a strategy of money-follows-the-person for indigent health care, but Louisiana insists on a money-goes-to-the-institution strategy which limits patient choice, reduces quality of care, and costs more. Even so, many political elites and special interests in the state want the latter because it brings more money into state government, increases the number of people on the state payroll, and gives them more power and privilege as a result – much more than they care about efficiency and outcomes.
Blanco’s team suggested building a large facility because it has no intention to switching to a more efficient system with improved outcomes – and even conjured a study assuming the state stuck with the existing system to try to justify the decision. If the switch was made, the hundred or more extra beds under Blanco’s plan would become superfluous – as suggested by the federal government last week in its note announcing postponement in turning over the money the state has qualified for purposes such as this.
So Blanco read the writing on the wall – reform or the money wasn’t forthcoming – and stubbornly gave up the money. This became politically possible when Blanco ally Sen. Mary Landrieu extracted a promise from Democrats in Washington that the federal government would commit substantial aid to Blanco’s mishandled Road Home Program if the state coughed up $1 billion towards the potential $5 billion shortfall. Having cobbled together over $600 million of federal money that technically had become state funds, and a small amount of genuine state funds, Blanco realized the $225 million for the hospital could be used for this purpose as well.
This still left money short for the complex, so now the state will borrow it in future years. In essence, the state would have had to come up with the $225 million one way or another for the Road Home bailout anyway so now the only extra cost to the state will be on interest for the borrowed money (which the state could not have done for the bailout because borrowing can be done only for capital outlay). It’s a politically neat solution.
Except that, first of all, the extra beds are wasteful, either because they can be done without under an efficient new system, or because they will prop up the existing inefficient system. Second, the state’s act of defiance will not go unnoticed in another part of the government which still can cost the state plenty. All along, the assumption has been the new facility will be built next to a new Veterans Administration hospital which would share some facilities, saving both money. But the federal government has been making noises that this arrangement may no longer suit it, and the state’s decision here well may solidify a decision to go separate ways, jacking up costs to the state even more.
However, one hope remains. The Legislature classified the borrowing as future, meaning it can be altered in future capital outlay budgets and the whole amount, now believed to be $1.5 billion, is not yet in the budget. This means the next administration will have the final say – and you can bet a Gov. Bobby Jindal is not going to go along with this plan. So, just as political tides and fortunes put the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time to create this boondoggle, they may reverse to alter eventually the big mistake Blanco and her cronies are making on this issue – to the delight of the indigent and taxpayers statewide.
24.6.07
NW LA delegation has some I-49 funding explaining to do
Over the past few days, behind the scenes occurred a great example of the minute machinations with major consequences that go on with legislation in front of the Louisiana Legislature – almost totally obscured from public understanding. You want to bet that at least a few legislators involved are not going to want these events to have to be explained as they run for election this fall?
The much-discussed HB 765 which spent basically one-time funds and some federal funds refunded to Louisiana was discussed in front of the House Friday. In this bill, $150 million had been set aside for highway construction.
On the floor, Shreveport state Rep. Roy Burrell (with Shreveport Rep. Ernest Baylor) offered an amendment to direct $60 million of that to the construction of I-49 and an environmental impact study of the route of it going through Shreveport. He must have meant it to be for the proposed I-49 north route covering mostly existing U.S. 71 and may have thought the study funding request made that obvious. Without objection it was done.
But not long afterward, Bossier state Rep. Billy Montgomery (also endorsed by others including area Reps. Wayne Waddell, Jim Morris, and Jane Smith) offered another amendment that said of the $150 million, $100 million could be spent only on interstate projects on the Highway Priority Program list – which apparently didn’t include I-49. This also was adopted without objection.
Of course, there’s a conflict here. Backing out $100 million from $150 million left only $50 million for the $60 million proposal for “I-49” and the study. And apparently House rules would give precedence to the temporally later amendment when such a conflict exists. In other words, the Montgomery amendment vetoed in essence the Burrell amendment.
Then today, that got corrected in amendments 16-20 made in the Senate Finance Committee of whom its members include area state Sens. Sherri Smith Cheek and Lydia Jackson. The $100 million amount was reduced to $90 million, clearing up the conflict and it was made more specific in regards to allocating the money to I-49 north work.
This leads to some interesting questions:
Was Burrell’s and Baylor’s poor wording a mistake on their part?
If so, why wasn’t it corrected by the later amendment, or one by them?
Why would Montgomery et. al.’s amendment seem to sabotage something the northwest Louisiana delegation has given considerable lip service to, funding of I-49 (Smith even told a constituent that the reason she bailed out on GOP resistance to increase spending was to secure this money)?
Again, was this simply a mistake or was another agenda at work? (Perhaps the language was offered by the non-northwest members who signed on while the northwest members were interested in the other part of the amendment, getting state funding for a proposed Air Force cyber command consolidation at Barksdale Air Force Base – meaning they fell for a trap.)
The crisis for I-49 north funding has passed but the questions remain. In their published comments, both Montgomery and Smith seemed unaware that the amendment had canceled the money going to “I-49,” so it seems inattentiveness on their part was to blame. (Montgomery also ripped another area legislator, Rep. Mike Powell, for not voting for the bill and, in essence, the $60 million mistake he had created.) Montgomery has been there 20 years and Smith 8 and don’t seem to have it down yet. No doubt their opponents thins fall will remind area voters of that.
The much-discussed HB 765 which spent basically one-time funds and some federal funds refunded to Louisiana was discussed in front of the House Friday. In this bill, $150 million had been set aside for highway construction.
On the floor, Shreveport state Rep. Roy Burrell (with Shreveport Rep. Ernest Baylor) offered an amendment to direct $60 million of that to the construction of I-49 and an environmental impact study of the route of it going through Shreveport. He must have meant it to be for the proposed I-49 north route covering mostly existing U.S. 71 and may have thought the study funding request made that obvious. Without objection it was done.
But not long afterward, Bossier state Rep. Billy Montgomery (also endorsed by others including area Reps. Wayne Waddell, Jim Morris, and Jane Smith) offered another amendment that said of the $150 million, $100 million could be spent only on interstate projects on the Highway Priority Program list – which apparently didn’t include I-49. This also was adopted without objection.
Of course, there’s a conflict here. Backing out $100 million from $150 million left only $50 million for the $60 million proposal for “I-49” and the study. And apparently House rules would give precedence to the temporally later amendment when such a conflict exists. In other words, the Montgomery amendment vetoed in essence the Burrell amendment.
Then today, that got corrected in amendments 16-20 made in the Senate Finance Committee of whom its members include area state Sens. Sherri Smith Cheek and Lydia Jackson. The $100 million amount was reduced to $90 million, clearing up the conflict and it was made more specific in regards to allocating the money to I-49 north work.
This leads to some interesting questions:
The crisis for I-49 north funding has passed but the questions remain. In their published comments, both Montgomery and Smith seemed unaware that the amendment had canceled the money going to “I-49,” so it seems inattentiveness on their part was to blame. (Montgomery also ripped another area legislator, Rep. Mike Powell, for not voting for the bill and, in essence, the $60 million mistake he had created.) Montgomery has been there 20 years and Smith 8 and don’t seem to have it down yet. No doubt their opponents thins fall will remind area voters of that.
22.6.07
Strange budgeting may cost disabled, roads, citizenry
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)