Young and energetic state Rep.Walker Hines has a good idea in HB 432 which would limit lobbyist emoluments for food and rink for legislators to $50 a day from the present (presumably) $150 per day. If only his HB 323 which would outlaw capital punishment was as well-substantiated and as clearly considered.
Democrat Hines thinks that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent. "We have to err on the side of life," he says, and is also anti-abortion. But clearly he does not know the research involving the death penalty because to err on the side of life, you must favor capital punishment simply because study after study for 40 years has shown it does deter murders at rate exceeding rate of commission of the sentence.
By definition, first-degree murder is a premeditated crime (leaving out the other two instances allowed under Louisiana law for imposition of capital punishment, aggravated rape of a child 13 or younger, and treason even though both also appear to assume premeditation). Human beings are assumed to be behaving rationally in premeditation is proven, so for that reason they respond to incentives and disincentives. Knowledge that plotting and executing a murder can cost you your life simply will deter some people, as these studies have demonstrated as many as 18 lives per execution.
19.3.08
Sessions downplayed coming clash of governing ideas
One observer muses how it was that Gov. Bobby Jindal experienced a good (not great) deal of success in getting through the agendas of his recent special sessions, wondering whether it was a good-natured granting of a “honeymoon” or fear of a popular mandate for Jindal and thereby his policies. The answer, as the upcoming regular session might show, is more the latter but the real lesson of the sessions’ results was legislative forces opposed to Jindal used the opportunity to conserve resources for future battles even as he did the possible and collected power potentially to oppose them down the line.
The relative ease of success by Jindal might tempt one, very mistakenly, to think his agenda, reform built along the lines of reducing the size of government and shifting its spending priorities to more productive, less redistributive purposes is shared by a majority of the Legislature. Even with conservative gains in last year’s elections, liberals and populists still have a majority in the Legislature as a whole, particularly in the Senate.
This is why Jindal picked his spots carefully and why ethics reform was made into a special session and first. After all, who is against cleaner government? In truth some, a few powerful, legislators are, but with the spotlight directly on the issue, with many new legislators sharing Jindal’s ideas on this, and with Jindal having shaped his campaign around this issue more than any other which was easy for the populace to understand, the regressive forces in the Legislature knew the best they could do was water down (which they did) such reform. But Jindal got enough victories to build on his political capital even as the regressive forces conserved theirs for battles down the road they have a chance to win.
Concerning his next opportunity, Jindal had gotten a bit lucky then having budget surpluses courtesy of federal government largesse in recovery spending. There were two types, nonrecurring that the Constitution limited in kinds of spending, and recurring. Craftily but also taking some risks, his administration got legislative leaders (who in part owed their positions to Jindal) to allow just two kinds of bills.
One was using the Constitution as cover for the nonrecurring expenses. Here, regressive forces had no option constitutionally but to follow in the broad parameters; politics as usual emerged only in dividing spending within the specified categories and really only in the case of capital expenditures. The other dealing with recurring funds was to take three measures already approved in the past in various forms – transference of transportation revenues to those kinds of capital projects, elimination of certain business taxes, and favorable tax treatment of some non-public school expenses by families – all of which had been watered down or foundered because of threats and vetoes by previous Gov. Kathleen Blanco, and to try to get them through.
In the first instance, legislators like spending so Jindal only suffered minor setbacks by reallocations of it. In the second, he had more compromises forced on him but the fact many veteran legislators had passed similar measures and new solons generally were more than less favorable in attitude towards them made it hard for them to outright oppose these measures. Clever planning again meant Jindal got most of what he wanted and in doing so preserved political capital.
Of course, the tactical defeats suffered by regressive forces were minor and simply that, tactical in nature. Nor will they be challenged that much in the regular session, at least according to Jindal’s budget, this acquiescence of which in part is by the administration’s design. One thing to date it has not done that good of a job on is explaining just what a fiscal mess Blanco left behind, and to a large degree this inherited situation hamstrings him in implementation of his agenda.
As a result there’s no reduction in government (although it doesn’t have to be left at this) and only minor shifting of priorities with just one contentious issue there, merit pay for teachers. For an example of this budget that features more reprogramming than a rethink, more money will be poured into workforce development, to which there is little opposition, but no broad-based tax relief which might face fierce opposition especially in the Senate.
Thus the real questions that remain to be answered are, is Jindal correct in being cautious initially rather than pushing ahead his agenda more aggressively, or is it that will Jindal offer any fundamental philosophical change in governing at all or will he just tinker at the margins with different spending priorities but no real reduction of government? Given the looming large deficits on the horizon, the cautious approach seems warranted but at the risk of missing an opportunity to drive home fundamental fiscal reform while his political capital his high and regressive forces, even if still potent, are on the defensive.
If so, the clash will come in the future, not this regular session. Unless it’s that Jindal loses or already has lost his taste for this fundamental reform, but it looks as if we won’t know that for sure until next year’s session.
The relative ease of success by Jindal might tempt one, very mistakenly, to think his agenda, reform built along the lines of reducing the size of government and shifting its spending priorities to more productive, less redistributive purposes is shared by a majority of the Legislature. Even with conservative gains in last year’s elections, liberals and populists still have a majority in the Legislature as a whole, particularly in the Senate.
This is why Jindal picked his spots carefully and why ethics reform was made into a special session and first. After all, who is against cleaner government? In truth some, a few powerful, legislators are, but with the spotlight directly on the issue, with many new legislators sharing Jindal’s ideas on this, and with Jindal having shaped his campaign around this issue more than any other which was easy for the populace to understand, the regressive forces in the Legislature knew the best they could do was water down (which they did) such reform. But Jindal got enough victories to build on his political capital even as the regressive forces conserved theirs for battles down the road they have a chance to win.
Concerning his next opportunity, Jindal had gotten a bit lucky then having budget surpluses courtesy of federal government largesse in recovery spending. There were two types, nonrecurring that the Constitution limited in kinds of spending, and recurring. Craftily but also taking some risks, his administration got legislative leaders (who in part owed their positions to Jindal) to allow just two kinds of bills.
One was using the Constitution as cover for the nonrecurring expenses. Here, regressive forces had no option constitutionally but to follow in the broad parameters; politics as usual emerged only in dividing spending within the specified categories and really only in the case of capital expenditures. The other dealing with recurring funds was to take three measures already approved in the past in various forms – transference of transportation revenues to those kinds of capital projects, elimination of certain business taxes, and favorable tax treatment of some non-public school expenses by families – all of which had been watered down or foundered because of threats and vetoes by previous Gov. Kathleen Blanco, and to try to get them through.
In the first instance, legislators like spending so Jindal only suffered minor setbacks by reallocations of it. In the second, he had more compromises forced on him but the fact many veteran legislators had passed similar measures and new solons generally were more than less favorable in attitude towards them made it hard for them to outright oppose these measures. Clever planning again meant Jindal got most of what he wanted and in doing so preserved political capital.
Of course, the tactical defeats suffered by regressive forces were minor and simply that, tactical in nature. Nor will they be challenged that much in the regular session, at least according to Jindal’s budget, this acquiescence of which in part is by the administration’s design. One thing to date it has not done that good of a job on is explaining just what a fiscal mess Blanco left behind, and to a large degree this inherited situation hamstrings him in implementation of his agenda.
As a result there’s no reduction in government (although it doesn’t have to be left at this) and only minor shifting of priorities with just one contentious issue there, merit pay for teachers. For an example of this budget that features more reprogramming than a rethink, more money will be poured into workforce development, to which there is little opposition, but no broad-based tax relief which might face fierce opposition especially in the Senate.
Thus the real questions that remain to be answered are, is Jindal correct in being cautious initially rather than pushing ahead his agenda more aggressively, or is it that will Jindal offer any fundamental philosophical change in governing at all or will he just tinker at the margins with different spending priorities but no real reduction of government? Given the looming large deficits on the horizon, the cautious approach seems warranted but at the risk of missing an opportunity to drive home fundamental fiscal reform while his political capital his high and regressive forces, even if still potent, are on the defensive.
If so, the clash will come in the future, not this regular session. Unless it’s that Jindal loses or already has lost his taste for this fundamental reform, but it looks as if we won’t know that for sure until next year’s session.
18.3.08
Senate contest still impacts NW LA political scene
Ripple effects from the state Senate District 37 contest in northwest Louisiana in the latter part of last year continue to impact the political environment.
A ghost of the region’s political past – a recent specter – arose a little too unexpectedly for some Bossier Parish Police Jury members when it was discovered that, very quietly, Parish Administrator and member Bill Altimus had hired former state Rep. Billy Montgomery to work on special projects for the parish.
This is perfectly within Altimus’ purview, even though the scope of Montgomery’s duties are unimpressive and altogether probably do not merit much of salary or even a full-time job. Even as juror Rick Avery argued it was a job that needed filling for two years, it begged the question – which got delivered by juror Brad Cummings – why suddenly the job got filled when Montgomery became available, or as Cummings astutely observed, “If Billy Wayne would have won the Senate race we would not be talking about this today.”
Maybe Montgomery would be an excellent front man to shake some hands at ceremonial occasions, to look at some financial statements once a year, to shuffle some paperwork on various parish initiatives, and to hang around a few meetings where seldom does anything happen where the parish needs quick notification if at all. But it’s unlikely whatever he’s getting paid is worth it to the parish taxpayer considering the alternative uses of those funds and who else in parish government or how else and at what cost it could perform those tasks. (Although not long after his hiring Montgomery suffered a health setback, so regardless of whether he is on the parish taxpayers' dime hopefully he'll soon recover.)
Regardless that the sheepish Jury mainly fell in line and agreed with Altimus’ decision, this make-work patronage payoff smacks more of politics than of good sense – something voters need to remember when the jury and especially if Altimus runs for reelection in 2011. Maybe Republicans already have made a statement; in the election last month, Altimus was the only candidate to the Republican Parish Executive Committee not to be elected, narrowly – one wonders whether enough GOP voters knew of this hire and decided to withhold their vote from him because of it.
That dynamic of knowing something disappointing about a candidate also may have been in play regarding another candidate from that Senate contest of last fall. Running for the third time in four years for a legislative office, Barrow Peacock came much closer this time but still missed out by almost 400 votes to former Shreveport City Councilman Thomas Carmody in the special election to fill the state House District 6 vacancy.
There wasn’t a whole lot of difference between the two Republicans in terms of issue preferences, although Carmody was the more experienced in office compared to the never-elected Peacock. This lack of ideological distinguishing may have made Peacock’s behavior during the general election runoff phase of his previous election a decisive factor.
Peacock’s hopes there died in the primary, leaving the longtime liberal Democrat but new Republican Montgomery up against now-state Sen. B.L. “Buddy” Shaw, a conservative Republican former member of the state House. As a response, another defeated conservative Republican candidate Jay Murrell not only immediately publicly endorsed Shaw, but also sent around a note to backers urging them to vote for Shaw in the runoff.
Murrell, returning to private life, had nothing to gain except seeing a man who paralleled his beliefs win. But Peacock curiously made no endorsement. Shaw clearly was the more conservative of the two candidates, and at age 74 he may well not return to the Senate after this term. A Peacock endorsement and work on Shaw’s behalf would have set up the man younger by half excellently to run in 2011 as the older’s heir apparent and he quite legitimately could have gained great credit for helping Shaw in his ultimate win.
Instead, the impression Peacock gave by his remaining mum was he was putting aside principle by angling for Montgomery’s support by not opposing him in the hopes of winning Montgomery’s support for a political bid some years later. If so, he made two costly errors in assumption – that Montgomery would win and that if he didn’t that the more informed voters who understood he hadn’t endorsed Shaw would be forgetful or forgiving by the time Peacock was to run again.
But Shaw won no thanks to Peacock and then he ran again just a couple of months later. This makes Peacock now a three-time loser after spending more personal funds than perhaps any candidate in state history who did not win a legislative seat. It really has taken a lot of luster off his electability to area conservatives and Republicans and threatens to turn him into a white, male, Republican, bigger-campaign-spending version of state Rep. Barbara Norton.
However, she did win an office on her seventh try. Peacock only can hope, if he tries yet again, that his luck is even as good.
A ghost of the region’s political past – a recent specter – arose a little too unexpectedly for some Bossier Parish Police Jury members when it was discovered that, very quietly, Parish Administrator and member Bill Altimus had hired former state Rep. Billy Montgomery to work on special projects for the parish.
This is perfectly within Altimus’ purview, even though the scope of Montgomery’s duties are unimpressive and altogether probably do not merit much of salary or even a full-time job. Even as juror Rick Avery argued it was a job that needed filling for two years, it begged the question – which got delivered by juror Brad Cummings – why suddenly the job got filled when Montgomery became available, or as Cummings astutely observed, “If Billy Wayne would have won the Senate race we would not be talking about this today.”
Maybe Montgomery would be an excellent front man to shake some hands at ceremonial occasions, to look at some financial statements once a year, to shuffle some paperwork on various parish initiatives, and to hang around a few meetings where seldom does anything happen where the parish needs quick notification if at all. But it’s unlikely whatever he’s getting paid is worth it to the parish taxpayer considering the alternative uses of those funds and who else in parish government or how else and at what cost it could perform those tasks. (Although not long after his hiring Montgomery suffered a health setback, so regardless of whether he is on the parish taxpayers' dime hopefully he'll soon recover.)
Regardless that the sheepish Jury mainly fell in line and agreed with Altimus’ decision, this make-work patronage payoff smacks more of politics than of good sense – something voters need to remember when the jury and especially if Altimus runs for reelection in 2011. Maybe Republicans already have made a statement; in the election last month, Altimus was the only candidate to the Republican Parish Executive Committee not to be elected, narrowly – one wonders whether enough GOP voters knew of this hire and decided to withhold their vote from him because of it.
That dynamic of knowing something disappointing about a candidate also may have been in play regarding another candidate from that Senate contest of last fall. Running for the third time in four years for a legislative office, Barrow Peacock came much closer this time but still missed out by almost 400 votes to former Shreveport City Councilman Thomas Carmody in the special election to fill the state House District 6 vacancy.
There wasn’t a whole lot of difference between the two Republicans in terms of issue preferences, although Carmody was the more experienced in office compared to the never-elected Peacock. This lack of ideological distinguishing may have made Peacock’s behavior during the general election runoff phase of his previous election a decisive factor.
Peacock’s hopes there died in the primary, leaving the longtime liberal Democrat but new Republican Montgomery up against now-state Sen. B.L. “Buddy” Shaw, a conservative Republican former member of the state House. As a response, another defeated conservative Republican candidate Jay Murrell not only immediately publicly endorsed Shaw, but also sent around a note to backers urging them to vote for Shaw in the runoff.
Murrell, returning to private life, had nothing to gain except seeing a man who paralleled his beliefs win. But Peacock curiously made no endorsement. Shaw clearly was the more conservative of the two candidates, and at age 74 he may well not return to the Senate after this term. A Peacock endorsement and work on Shaw’s behalf would have set up the man younger by half excellently to run in 2011 as the older’s heir apparent and he quite legitimately could have gained great credit for helping Shaw in his ultimate win.
Instead, the impression Peacock gave by his remaining mum was he was putting aside principle by angling for Montgomery’s support by not opposing him in the hopes of winning Montgomery’s support for a political bid some years later. If so, he made two costly errors in assumption – that Montgomery would win and that if he didn’t that the more informed voters who understood he hadn’t endorsed Shaw would be forgetful or forgiving by the time Peacock was to run again.
But Shaw won no thanks to Peacock and then he ran again just a couple of months later. This makes Peacock now a three-time loser after spending more personal funds than perhaps any candidate in state history who did not win a legislative seat. It really has taken a lot of luster off his electability to area conservatives and Republicans and threatens to turn him into a white, male, Republican, bigger-campaign-spending version of state Rep. Barbara Norton.
However, she did win an office on her seventh try. Peacock only can hope, if he tries yet again, that his luck is even as good.
17.3.08
LA Democrats whistle in wind to obscure racial strife
As the contest for the 6th Congressional District continues into its next phase, the main question about it isn’t so much whether Democrats can win it, but how much of a rift its outcome will cause within the party.
National Democrats have wanted to assist state Rep. Don Cazayoux because, according to their official story and code word, he is a “moderate.” That isn’t really the case, as the legislative scorecards from the Louisiana Legislature Log shows with Cazayoux scoring (lower scores indicating more liberal/populist leanings) in 2005 a 44, in 2006 a 30, and in 2007 a 10, so he’s definitely a mainstream liberal. What national Democrats really mean is that Cazayoux, unlike his runoff opponent state Rep. Michael Jackson, is white and therefore has the potential to fool enough white voters, typically conservative in that district, into thinking he’s not ideologically liberal.
Once again, this attitude exposes the ugly racist secret of Democrats. If you’re black, they love to have your votes, but you need not apply to hold office unless there are too many black voters in your district to prevent it. This is because, unfortunately, most of the time being a black Democrat candidate makes it impossible to hide the fact you also are a political liberal, and Democrat leaders know they cannot win elections in Louisiana and much of the rest of the country if they are honest about what policies they prefer. So by putting a white face on their candidate and then obscuring his record, they hope to put one over on enough of a district’s voters.
This also explains why the party decided to open its primaries for federal offices to no party (independent) registrants as well whereas Republicans made theirs a true closed primary (only registered Republicans can participate in theirs). Using the 6th District as an example, whites now have only a plurality in registration among Democrats, leading blacks by about 2,000. But among other party registrants (the vast majority of which are independents), whites outnumber blacks three to one. If closed entirely, using the rough standard that white candidates get 80 percent of the white vote, black candidates get 90 percent of the vote, and blacks vote at 90 percent of the rate of whites, black candidates win Democrat nominations in that district, all else held equal. But throw in some portion of independent voters and a white candidate may have the upper hand.
But Louisiana’s black Democrats are getting restless on their party’s plantation. One such indicator came by the challenge by Opelousas Mayor Don Cravins, who felt slighted by the party when he ran competitively for the 7th District seat four years ago, for the state party’s chairmanship this weekend. He lost both times, but in doing so served notice that blacks were not going to want to remain second-class citizens among Democrats. And powerbroker Cleo Fields in the 6th also had made veiled comments that if national Democrats came in trying to assist successfully Cazayoux to the nomination, that his political machine would discourage black participation in the general election.
This strife only can help the chances of presumptive GOP nominee Louis “Woody” Jenkins, regardless of who he faces from the Democrats. So the talk from Democrats that they could win the district actually is more to paper over the turmoil within the party, in the hopes they can jawbone their way to placating blacks and getting their preferred white candidate into the fall election, than a true summary of any Democrat’s chances in that election.
National Democrats have wanted to assist state Rep. Don Cazayoux because, according to their official story and code word, he is a “moderate.” That isn’t really the case, as the legislative scorecards from the Louisiana Legislature Log shows with Cazayoux scoring (lower scores indicating more liberal/populist leanings) in 2005 a 44, in 2006 a 30, and in 2007 a 10, so he’s definitely a mainstream liberal. What national Democrats really mean is that Cazayoux, unlike his runoff opponent state Rep. Michael Jackson, is white and therefore has the potential to fool enough white voters, typically conservative in that district, into thinking he’s not ideologically liberal.
Once again, this attitude exposes the ugly racist secret of Democrats. If you’re black, they love to have your votes, but you need not apply to hold office unless there are too many black voters in your district to prevent it. This is because, unfortunately, most of the time being a black Democrat candidate makes it impossible to hide the fact you also are a political liberal, and Democrat leaders know they cannot win elections in Louisiana and much of the rest of the country if they are honest about what policies they prefer. So by putting a white face on their candidate and then obscuring his record, they hope to put one over on enough of a district’s voters.
This also explains why the party decided to open its primaries for federal offices to no party (independent) registrants as well whereas Republicans made theirs a true closed primary (only registered Republicans can participate in theirs). Using the 6th District as an example, whites now have only a plurality in registration among Democrats, leading blacks by about 2,000. But among other party registrants (the vast majority of which are independents), whites outnumber blacks three to one. If closed entirely, using the rough standard that white candidates get 80 percent of the white vote, black candidates get 90 percent of the vote, and blacks vote at 90 percent of the rate of whites, black candidates win Democrat nominations in that district, all else held equal. But throw in some portion of independent voters and a white candidate may have the upper hand.
But Louisiana’s black Democrats are getting restless on their party’s plantation. One such indicator came by the challenge by Opelousas Mayor Don Cravins, who felt slighted by the party when he ran competitively for the 7th District seat four years ago, for the state party’s chairmanship this weekend. He lost both times, but in doing so served notice that blacks were not going to want to remain second-class citizens among Democrats. And powerbroker Cleo Fields in the 6th also had made veiled comments that if national Democrats came in trying to assist successfully Cazayoux to the nomination, that his political machine would discourage black participation in the general election.
This strife only can help the chances of presumptive GOP nominee Louis “Woody” Jenkins, regardless of who he faces from the Democrats. So the talk from Democrats that they could win the district actually is more to paper over the turmoil within the party, in the hopes they can jawbone their way to placating blacks and getting their preferred white candidate into the fall election, than a true summary of any Democrat’s chances in that election.
16.3.08
Jindal must alter present budget to create future tax cuts
Job done for Gov. Bobby Jindal with the 2008 Second Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature, which disposed in its entirety $1.088 billion in nonrecurring surplus funds, and about $23 million of surplus recurring funds. When he argued he “batted 1.000” for this session he called he wasn’t far off from the truth.
It wasn’t quite that high because Jindal did have to swallow an extra $3 million or so of recurring spending on tax breaks for school uniforms and books for any student to get his $20 million break on private school tuition and home schooling expenses, he had to accept that money from transportation revenues could be diverted from transportation infrastructure expenses in time of budgetary need, and put up with a minor redirection of one-time expenditures to lower-priority rural roads from pressing unfunded accrued liabilities needs, but overall he got most of what he wanted.
With that settled, it’s time for Jindal to revisit the biggest weakness of his contemplated 2008-09 budget since apparently the only tax cuts coming were three enacted during this special session, all aimed at business. None are forthcoming for anybody in the regular session, but that’s understandable given the Gov. Kathleen Blanco Administration created budgetary problems in overspending and finding ways to shift funds around essentially allowing one-time revenues to back commitments to permanent expenditures.
Still, Jindal must do a better job is setting the stage for future tax cuts. The biggest problem his administration faces is the trickling away of federal disaster recovery expenditure begins after this year and this will cause, it predicts, in the state’s general fund deficits over the next four years in the $1.2 to $1.9 billion range. Dedicated funds and other revenues such as from the federal government can make a dent in this but it a good chuck of change even by government standards. While the shift of priorities in the Jindal plan will spur some revenue growth, it’s not going to be enough with those numbers to offer any tax relief.
Thus, Jindal needs to set up now conditions that could allow for at least some in his final year in office, and the best way to do so is to pump up the cushion know as the Budget Stabilization Fund, or colloquially the “Rainy Day Fund.” The state may pull a third of the balance from it every other year if a continuing operations deficit is forecast. After the special session that deposited a little more into it, the funds has around three-quarters of a billion dollars.
But more can be added, up to four percent of total state revenue receipts for the previous year, which would indicate about $1.2 billion or adding around $450 million. And as it is, Jindal’s budget would seem to have around $437 million available, about $307 million designated for a fund, already containing $140 million, to attract large employers which would be better used to improve conditions for all through tax relief, another $60 million to fund nursing homes already blessed with an overgenerous payment scheme, and about $70 million to give yet another raise to teachers whose performance simply does not merit any pay increase.
If Jindal would commit that to the Fund, with interest it would be over $1.2 billion for next fiscal year, meaning he could shave off over $400 billion to close out a deficit. Perhaps by the next year, his third, his restructuring may have closed the deficit gap considerably, and by his fourth he could offer a tax cut to further stimulate revenues going forward.
Simply, the three planned expenditures above are not needed and certainly if those funds could be used to create a tax cut three years from now that is a far superior use of them. The Jindal Administration needs to revisit these decisions and do a better job in this budget to set up a tax cut during this term.
It wasn’t quite that high because Jindal did have to swallow an extra $3 million or so of recurring spending on tax breaks for school uniforms and books for any student to get his $20 million break on private school tuition and home schooling expenses, he had to accept that money from transportation revenues could be diverted from transportation infrastructure expenses in time of budgetary need, and put up with a minor redirection of one-time expenditures to lower-priority rural roads from pressing unfunded accrued liabilities needs, but overall he got most of what he wanted.
With that settled, it’s time for Jindal to revisit the biggest weakness of his contemplated 2008-09 budget since apparently the only tax cuts coming were three enacted during this special session, all aimed at business. None are forthcoming for anybody in the regular session, but that’s understandable given the Gov. Kathleen Blanco Administration created budgetary problems in overspending and finding ways to shift funds around essentially allowing one-time revenues to back commitments to permanent expenditures.
Still, Jindal must do a better job is setting the stage for future tax cuts. The biggest problem his administration faces is the trickling away of federal disaster recovery expenditure begins after this year and this will cause, it predicts, in the state’s general fund deficits over the next four years in the $1.2 to $1.9 billion range. Dedicated funds and other revenues such as from the federal government can make a dent in this but it a good chuck of change even by government standards. While the shift of priorities in the Jindal plan will spur some revenue growth, it’s not going to be enough with those numbers to offer any tax relief.
Thus, Jindal needs to set up now conditions that could allow for at least some in his final year in office, and the best way to do so is to pump up the cushion know as the Budget Stabilization Fund, or colloquially the “Rainy Day Fund.” The state may pull a third of the balance from it every other year if a continuing operations deficit is forecast. After the special session that deposited a little more into it, the funds has around three-quarters of a billion dollars.
But more can be added, up to four percent of total state revenue receipts for the previous year, which would indicate about $1.2 billion or adding around $450 million. And as it is, Jindal’s budget would seem to have around $437 million available, about $307 million designated for a fund, already containing $140 million, to attract large employers which would be better used to improve conditions for all through tax relief, another $60 million to fund nursing homes already blessed with an overgenerous payment scheme, and about $70 million to give yet another raise to teachers whose performance simply does not merit any pay increase.
If Jindal would commit that to the Fund, with interest it would be over $1.2 billion for next fiscal year, meaning he could shave off over $400 billion to close out a deficit. Perhaps by the next year, his third, his restructuring may have closed the deficit gap considerably, and by his fourth he could offer a tax cut to further stimulate revenues going forward.
Simply, the three planned expenditures above are not needed and certainly if those funds could be used to create a tax cut three years from now that is a far superior use of them. The Jindal Administration needs to revisit these decisions and do a better job in this budget to set up a tax cut during this term.
13.3.08
Session results showing reform attitude unentrenched
As Gov. Bobby Jindal is discovering, you can lead a legislator to decent legislation, but you just can’t make him pass it. Conniptions gushing from the Louisiana Legislature over the past few days hammer home this point.
In its second special session of the year devoted on this occasion to fiscal matters, the House adjusted Jindal’s desired spending priorities by shaving money off of assistance to higher education, paying down the state’s unfunded accrued liabilities when it could be done for less than 24 cents on the dollar, and by slicing money from bridge repair, in order to send it to rural roads desires that otherwise are not part of the state’s plan for transportation. Jindal apparently had to swallow these redirections for needed rural legislator votes to raise the state’s spending cap.
(A review of the Constitution lends credence to the belief that these nonrecurring expenses could not be used for one-time tax rebate relief. Given the ambiguity, it would be wise to amend the Constitution to allow precisely that. Even if it generally is not a good idea, the option still should be available.)
Then the Senate tacked on some (relatively) small extra expenses in order for Jindal’s proposal to allow tax deductions for private school tuition and home schooling to pass, making expenses of textbooks and school uniforms deductible for any family with children in any school. This was on top of the Senate already forcing Jindal not only to phase in his plan to redirect transportation revenues to transportation-only capital expenditures in order to eat away at a $14 billion backlog of transportation needs, but also in containing a trigger that would shunt these revenues into the general fund to be spent on any purpose if otherwise a deficit was estimated.
It could have been worse as complaints were had that the $137 million of the $1.088 billion nonrecurring fund surplus that were not dedicated to a specific highway project (not including bridges) would be decided by the Jindal Administration and there were moves to take some of that money and dedicate it to other projects not involving transportation. Naturally, this sentiment reflects legislative hypocrisy in that it fully is within the power of legislators to decide this on their own, but for political reasons they default that choice to the governor.
Additionally, the removal of the $30 million shows the same old mentality that has made the state an inefficient user of the people’s money: deciding state spending priorities more on the basis of politics than genuine statewide needs. This shortcoming could fixed if the state would lower taxes, declare itself out of the business of financing local government needs, and then invite local governments to raise taxes to fund their own projects.
If this is the only damage to Jindal’s plans – and it appears it will be – then the session like the previous one largely will be a qualified success. Still, the fact that legislators let politics in the areas of spending priorities interfere with better uses of those funds shows just how much work reformers have in getting the state to spend the people’s resources in the wisest possible fashion and in repudiating the idea that government exists primarily to enable cooperative activities rather than to redistribute wealth.
In its second special session of the year devoted on this occasion to fiscal matters, the House adjusted Jindal’s desired spending priorities by shaving money off of assistance to higher education, paying down the state’s unfunded accrued liabilities when it could be done for less than 24 cents on the dollar, and by slicing money from bridge repair, in order to send it to rural roads desires that otherwise are not part of the state’s plan for transportation. Jindal apparently had to swallow these redirections for needed rural legislator votes to raise the state’s spending cap.
(A review of the Constitution lends credence to the belief that these nonrecurring expenses could not be used for one-time tax rebate relief. Given the ambiguity, it would be wise to amend the Constitution to allow precisely that. Even if it generally is not a good idea, the option still should be available.)
Then the Senate tacked on some (relatively) small extra expenses in order for Jindal’s proposal to allow tax deductions for private school tuition and home schooling to pass, making expenses of textbooks and school uniforms deductible for any family with children in any school. This was on top of the Senate already forcing Jindal not only to phase in his plan to redirect transportation revenues to transportation-only capital expenditures in order to eat away at a $14 billion backlog of transportation needs, but also in containing a trigger that would shunt these revenues into the general fund to be spent on any purpose if otherwise a deficit was estimated.
It could have been worse as complaints were had that the $137 million of the $1.088 billion nonrecurring fund surplus that were not dedicated to a specific highway project (not including bridges) would be decided by the Jindal Administration and there were moves to take some of that money and dedicate it to other projects not involving transportation. Naturally, this sentiment reflects legislative hypocrisy in that it fully is within the power of legislators to decide this on their own, but for political reasons they default that choice to the governor.
Additionally, the removal of the $30 million shows the same old mentality that has made the state an inefficient user of the people’s money: deciding state spending priorities more on the basis of politics than genuine statewide needs. This shortcoming could fixed if the state would lower taxes, declare itself out of the business of financing local government needs, and then invite local governments to raise taxes to fund their own projects.
If this is the only damage to Jindal’s plans – and it appears it will be – then the session like the previous one largely will be a qualified success. Still, the fact that legislators let politics in the areas of spending priorities interfere with better uses of those funds shows just how much work reformers have in getting the state to spend the people’s resources in the wisest possible fashion and in repudiating the idea that government exists primarily to enable cooperative activities rather than to redistribute wealth.
12.3.08
Vitter situation differs from Spitzer's; resignation unneeded
Some Louisiana Democrats and some media are trying to use calls for former Democrat New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer to resign (which he did) stemming from the revelations that he employed high-priced prostitutes to argue once again that Sen. David Vitter should resign from his post, almost a year after Republican Vitter acknowledged that he had committed a “serious sin” when his phone number was discovered among records of an alleged prostitution ring. Unless one is an absolutist about moral behavior for politicians, such a demand lacks logic and/or smacks of the politics of convenience.
State Democrat Executive Director and failed candidate for his party’s central committee Chris Whittington said that if Republican governors called upon Spitzer to resign, so should Vitter – an obvious shot not only at Vitter but a subtler one at Gov. Bobby Jindal since he sits on the executive committee that makes those statements. To review, Vitter said his behavior occurred several years ago, prior to his current position, on rare occasions, has never admitted to fornication, and never had been charged with any crime. Spitzer also has not been charged with a crime, has not admitted to fornicating, although his behavior has apparently been occurring for years, prior to and during his reign as governor, right up until at least a month ago.
If one believes elected officials must not have even a hint of scandal surrounding them, then one could argue both Vitter and Spitzer should resign – as well as the likes of Democrats Sen. Mary Landrieu and Rep. William Jefferson for crimes, respectively, alleged and indicted. But beyond this, frankly, absurdly moralistic view that assigns guilt without legal proof and fails to distinguish between policy-making and governance, a reasonable moral view shows big differences, and not just because Vitter appears to be a repented sinner and Spitzer isn’t.
Spitzer as governor is not just a policy-maker, but implementer as head of his state’s executive branch. As part of that, he must take care to see that the laws are faithfully executed and done so impartially and evenly. If he demonstrates that he personally is willing to bend the laws, or to act hypocritically and selectively in their execution, it calls into question his fitness to lead the state. (Worse, as attorney general prior to his becoming governor he also was in charge of enforcing these very laws.) Such behavior which demonstrates certain undesirable qualities directly impacts on how the state will be run, with the likelihood that those qualities get translated into practice. Resignation excises a practitioner of these qualities demonstrated to be ill for the polity.
Vitter, by contrast as a legislator, only makes law. If we are to judge fitness for office, the criterion here is the quality of those laws, or to put it differently, the prudence in his policy-making. You can have rascals in personal behavior in office but if they confine themselves to making policy, absent an absolutist position it’s hard to argue there is a moral basis that they are unfit to serve in office (which does not mean there isn’t a political basis to disqualify them: voters offended by their behavior and/or policy-making can throw them out of office at the next opportunity).
Legally, Spitzer has not been demonstrated as a known practitioner of hypocrisy and selectivity in execution since he has not admitted to any behavior corroborating that (and, personally, were he or Vitter ever to be proven legally to have committed a serious crime, then my view is serious lawbreakers should resign from office as a matter of moral fitness), so we cannot argue resignation was necessary on that basis alone – even if the fact that he did appears to be a tacit admission. However, it is another aspect of Spitzer’s behavior that elevates his behavior to such a suspicious level that resignation without legal knowledge he has engaged in behavior detrimental to the state made it entirely appropriate.
Just as in the affair of former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, what many either don’t realize or are trying to obscure for political reasons is the real problem in their behavior is not the sexual behavior presumed involved, but of the activities surrounding it that showed real disregard for the law if not its actual breaking. McGreevey’s real troubles came because he tried to bend rules to give somebody he claimed was his homosexual lover a government job, and ultimately this guy sued him for sexual harassment.
In Spitzer’s case, it seems federal surveillance showing Spitzer utilizing prostitution services is just the first shoe that dropped. The federal case seems to be more focused on illegal activity Spitzer may have engaged in to hide the transfers of money apparently necessary to finance his assumed sexual libertine lifestyle. This behavior directly affects the public trust and Vitter never has come close to being accused of doing anything like this.
Vitter is no less as effective a policy-maker as a result of his admission and never will be charged or proven as a serious lawbreaker over his matter. On that basis, his resignation would serve no purpose. But Spitzer, as the chief executive officer of New York, faces certain indictment regarding alleged behavior that drastically reduced his ability to effectively discharge the duties of his office in leading the state. For the good of the state, as a practical matter his resignation was appropriate and desirable to prevent a crisis in governing. Those who care to inform themselves about these cases and still maintain they are similar and should end similarly cloud their judgment with a lack of critical thinking and/or political motives.
State Democrat Executive Director and failed candidate for his party’s central committee Chris Whittington said that if Republican governors called upon Spitzer to resign, so should Vitter – an obvious shot not only at Vitter but a subtler one at Gov. Bobby Jindal since he sits on the executive committee that makes those statements. To review, Vitter said his behavior occurred several years ago, prior to his current position, on rare occasions, has never admitted to fornication, and never had been charged with any crime. Spitzer also has not been charged with a crime, has not admitted to fornicating, although his behavior has apparently been occurring for years, prior to and during his reign as governor, right up until at least a month ago.
If one believes elected officials must not have even a hint of scandal surrounding them, then one could argue both Vitter and Spitzer should resign – as well as the likes of Democrats Sen. Mary Landrieu and Rep. William Jefferson for crimes, respectively, alleged and indicted. But beyond this, frankly, absurdly moralistic view that assigns guilt without legal proof and fails to distinguish between policy-making and governance, a reasonable moral view shows big differences, and not just because Vitter appears to be a repented sinner and Spitzer isn’t.
Spitzer as governor is not just a policy-maker, but implementer as head of his state’s executive branch. As part of that, he must take care to see that the laws are faithfully executed and done so impartially and evenly. If he demonstrates that he personally is willing to bend the laws, or to act hypocritically and selectively in their execution, it calls into question his fitness to lead the state. (Worse, as attorney general prior to his becoming governor he also was in charge of enforcing these very laws.) Such behavior which demonstrates certain undesirable qualities directly impacts on how the state will be run, with the likelihood that those qualities get translated into practice. Resignation excises a practitioner of these qualities demonstrated to be ill for the polity.
Vitter, by contrast as a legislator, only makes law. If we are to judge fitness for office, the criterion here is the quality of those laws, or to put it differently, the prudence in his policy-making. You can have rascals in personal behavior in office but if they confine themselves to making policy, absent an absolutist position it’s hard to argue there is a moral basis that they are unfit to serve in office (which does not mean there isn’t a political basis to disqualify them: voters offended by their behavior and/or policy-making can throw them out of office at the next opportunity).
Legally, Spitzer has not been demonstrated as a known practitioner of hypocrisy and selectivity in execution since he has not admitted to any behavior corroborating that (and, personally, were he or Vitter ever to be proven legally to have committed a serious crime, then my view is serious lawbreakers should resign from office as a matter of moral fitness), so we cannot argue resignation was necessary on that basis alone – even if the fact that he did appears to be a tacit admission. However, it is another aspect of Spitzer’s behavior that elevates his behavior to such a suspicious level that resignation without legal knowledge he has engaged in behavior detrimental to the state made it entirely appropriate.
Just as in the affair of former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, what many either don’t realize or are trying to obscure for political reasons is the real problem in their behavior is not the sexual behavior presumed involved, but of the activities surrounding it that showed real disregard for the law if not its actual breaking. McGreevey’s real troubles came because he tried to bend rules to give somebody he claimed was his homosexual lover a government job, and ultimately this guy sued him for sexual harassment.
In Spitzer’s case, it seems federal surveillance showing Spitzer utilizing prostitution services is just the first shoe that dropped. The federal case seems to be more focused on illegal activity Spitzer may have engaged in to hide the transfers of money apparently necessary to finance his assumed sexual libertine lifestyle. This behavior directly affects the public trust and Vitter never has come close to being accused of doing anything like this.
Vitter is no less as effective a policy-maker as a result of his admission and never will be charged or proven as a serious lawbreaker over his matter. On that basis, his resignation would serve no purpose. But Spitzer, as the chief executive officer of New York, faces certain indictment regarding alleged behavior that drastically reduced his ability to effectively discharge the duties of his office in leading the state. For the good of the state, as a practical matter his resignation was appropriate and desirable to prevent a crisis in governing. Those who care to inform themselves about these cases and still maintain they are similar and should end similarly cloud their judgment with a lack of critical thinking and/or political motives.
10.3.08
Vote against cap beach then, for it now principled
Fifteen months ago it was Republicans in the Louisiana House of Representatives that complained about having, and eventually obstructed, a two-thirds override vote to allow the state by a Democrat governor to spend beyond its constitutional cap. Nine months ago they did the same, that time unsuccessfully. Now many are arguing to bust the cap in order for the state to spend a shade over a billion dollars on nonrecurring items supported by the Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration, which have led some, including Democrat lawmakers, to accuse them of inconsistency. But such an accusation is entirely disingenuous and ignores the facts relevant to each situation.
In December, 2006, then-Gov. Democrat Kathleen Blanco called a special session on the heels of the latest Revenue Estimating Conference report that declared substantial nonrecurring and recurring surpluses; the former may be spent only on a narrow range of items that are capital/one-time in nature while the latter may be spent on any purpose. Her call provided for spending in both categories. Even though the call contained some worthy nonrecurring items similar to what Jindal has proposed for the current session, Republicans feared that since the cap breach could not be tied to a specific set of proposals that Blanco could shove through expenditures on recurring items they thought unwise. With over a third of the House’s membership Republican and most holding fast, the resolution never succeeded and Blanco’s spending never materialized.
In June, 2007 during the regular session it was a different story, in somewhat of a different way. The last stand made by the GOP legislators came not on the resolution to break the cap, but on the bill that would authorize borrowing for the capital outlay budget, also requiring a two-thirds majority which really had nothing to do with the cap. That vote was used as a bargaining chip to get Blanco to reduce spending on nonrecurring items. It failed, as she got it and the GOP put up no effort to block the resolution concerning the spending cap. As a result, much more dollars representing recurring commitments were voted into law, creating a budgetary headache for the state that the Jindal Administration will start dealing with during the regular session.
In March, 2008, Jindal’s legislative allies propose only dealing with the nonrecurring revenues, even if the call, loaded with the nonrecurring items, is broad enough to encompass the recurring surplus. Still, any popping of the cap by resolution would apply only to the nearly-past 2007-08 budget which runs until Jun. 30. So as long as legislative leaders are careful in their bills wordings and watchful to prevent anything that would spend money that is recurring in this present budget year from going anywhere, this means a vote lifting the cap will support only the one-time priorities identified by the administration.
Thus, one’s views on various spending cap scenarios past and present do not rely solely upon the attitude “where you stand depends on where you sit,” as one backwoods Democrat populist mistakenly put it. If you believe the state should spend money on prudent one-off purposes such as strengthening under-funded pensions, building needed roads and ports, and providing for coastal restoration, but don’t believe most if any new recurring commitments should be made, then a vote against cap-busting in 2006 is consistent with a vote for it in 2008. In other words, there is no irony in that those who were against it then but who now are for it are not necessarily acting out of convenience, but out of principle.
In December, 2006, then-Gov. Democrat Kathleen Blanco called a special session on the heels of the latest Revenue Estimating Conference report that declared substantial nonrecurring and recurring surpluses; the former may be spent only on a narrow range of items that are capital/one-time in nature while the latter may be spent on any purpose. Her call provided for spending in both categories. Even though the call contained some worthy nonrecurring items similar to what Jindal has proposed for the current session, Republicans feared that since the cap breach could not be tied to a specific set of proposals that Blanco could shove through expenditures on recurring items they thought unwise. With over a third of the House’s membership Republican and most holding fast, the resolution never succeeded and Blanco’s spending never materialized.
In June, 2007 during the regular session it was a different story, in somewhat of a different way. The last stand made by the GOP legislators came not on the resolution to break the cap, but on the bill that would authorize borrowing for the capital outlay budget, also requiring a two-thirds majority which really had nothing to do with the cap. That vote was used as a bargaining chip to get Blanco to reduce spending on nonrecurring items. It failed, as she got it and the GOP put up no effort to block the resolution concerning the spending cap. As a result, much more dollars representing recurring commitments were voted into law, creating a budgetary headache for the state that the Jindal Administration will start dealing with during the regular session.
In March, 2008, Jindal’s legislative allies propose only dealing with the nonrecurring revenues, even if the call, loaded with the nonrecurring items, is broad enough to encompass the recurring surplus. Still, any popping of the cap by resolution would apply only to the nearly-past 2007-08 budget which runs until Jun. 30. So as long as legislative leaders are careful in their bills wordings and watchful to prevent anything that would spend money that is recurring in this present budget year from going anywhere, this means a vote lifting the cap will support only the one-time priorities identified by the administration.
Thus, one’s views on various spending cap scenarios past and present do not rely solely upon the attitude “where you stand depends on where you sit,” as one backwoods Democrat populist mistakenly put it. If you believe the state should spend money on prudent one-off purposes such as strengthening under-funded pensions, building needed roads and ports, and providing for coastal restoration, but don’t believe most if any new recurring commitments should be made, then a vote against cap-busting in 2006 is consistent with a vote for it in 2008. In other words, there is no irony in that those who were against it then but who now are for it are not necessarily acting out of convenience, but out of principle.
9.3.08
Jindal plans for nonrecurring surplus best for growth
As the special session on the (mostly nonrecurring) surplus begins in the Louisiana Legislature, it is worth noting that the call could allow for a variety of uses of the funds. Gov. Bobby Jindal is going to push for a largely sensible set of mostly spending priorities. But there are two other alternative uses which should be explored theoretically before deciding to spend it on nonrecurring items.
First, not politically popular but not a bad idea would be instead of putting the Constitutionally required portion (in this instance, $73 million) into the Budget Stabilization Fund (i.e., the “rainy day fund”), to put it all, over a billion dollars, there. The Jindal Administration has warned that budget shortfalls are a distinct possibility after next year, so the money could be sequestered and used in, say (according to law), two of the next four years, plus it would generate a healthy amount of interest, perhaps $100 million, over that span.
However, the risk in doing this is that it may provide a false sense of security to lawmakers in the future, encouraging them to make up deficits with it instead of making different spending choices. Even the Jindal Administration is not immune from falling into this trap; for example, in the regular budget coming during the regular session $60 million is added to nursing home reimbursement when in fact simple changes in those standards to approximate other states’ rules would save Louisiana nearly $100 million a year.
The other option, again focusing only on the nonrecurring funds, would be to distribute the billion or so dollars as one-time rebates to taxpayers. (Since these are not recurring monies, they cannot be used for a permanent cut in taxes such as by reducing marginal rates.) By itself, this idea has considerable appeal – if government has taken too much of the people’s money to finance current activities, then why not give it back to its rightful owners?
But in a larger context, it’s not as good of an idea. First, if the purpose of letting people keep more of what they earn (besides its inherent morality) is to promote economic growth, that is accomplished through supply-side activities – working, saving, and investing – not through demand-side priming; typically, a “bonus” of the kind a rebate is does not stimulate these activities but is spent in ways that don’t encourage productivity or wealth creation. Second, while a largely ineffective idea of promoting economic growth at the national level, they are even less effective when isolated to the state level.
Nonetheless, this is still a good idea even if not nearly as effective as cuts in marginal tax rates – until you compare the small good that would come from that with the larger good being served where the proposed spending is to go. Addressing about three percent of total roads needs, saving $297.5 million in unfunded pension costs before 2029 (about a fortieth of the outstanding balance), and making a down payment of $300 million on coastal restoration when at least $10 billion more will be needed (fortunately for the state, much coming from the federal government) – in the long run, these uses among others will provide greater economic development benefits than a one-off rebate.
If proponents of giving the people’s money back to them are serious about the issue of greater economic development during this session, they will talk about using the almost billion dollars in declared recurring surplus funds most of which is intended to be dealt with (except for cutting business taxes and tax deductions for tuition and other education expenses) during the regular session – legislation doing so permitted by the call. Economic realities suggest that the spending priorities for the nonrecurring funds advanced by the Jindal Administration will lead to better economic growth than the alternatives of “saving” it all or giving it all back as a “bonus” to taxpayers.
First, not politically popular but not a bad idea would be instead of putting the Constitutionally required portion (in this instance, $73 million) into the Budget Stabilization Fund (i.e., the “rainy day fund”), to put it all, over a billion dollars, there. The Jindal Administration has warned that budget shortfalls are a distinct possibility after next year, so the money could be sequestered and used in, say (according to law), two of the next four years, plus it would generate a healthy amount of interest, perhaps $100 million, over that span.
However, the risk in doing this is that it may provide a false sense of security to lawmakers in the future, encouraging them to make up deficits with it instead of making different spending choices. Even the Jindal Administration is not immune from falling into this trap; for example, in the regular budget coming during the regular session $60 million is added to nursing home reimbursement when in fact simple changes in those standards to approximate other states’ rules would save Louisiana nearly $100 million a year.
The other option, again focusing only on the nonrecurring funds, would be to distribute the billion or so dollars as one-time rebates to taxpayers. (Since these are not recurring monies, they cannot be used for a permanent cut in taxes such as by reducing marginal rates.) By itself, this idea has considerable appeal – if government has taken too much of the people’s money to finance current activities, then why not give it back to its rightful owners?
But in a larger context, it’s not as good of an idea. First, if the purpose of letting people keep more of what they earn (besides its inherent morality) is to promote economic growth, that is accomplished through supply-side activities – working, saving, and investing – not through demand-side priming; typically, a “bonus” of the kind a rebate is does not stimulate these activities but is spent in ways that don’t encourage productivity or wealth creation. Second, while a largely ineffective idea of promoting economic growth at the national level, they are even less effective when isolated to the state level.
Nonetheless, this is still a good idea even if not nearly as effective as cuts in marginal tax rates – until you compare the small good that would come from that with the larger good being served where the proposed spending is to go. Addressing about three percent of total roads needs, saving $297.5 million in unfunded pension costs before 2029 (about a fortieth of the outstanding balance), and making a down payment of $300 million on coastal restoration when at least $10 billion more will be needed (fortunately for the state, much coming from the federal government) – in the long run, these uses among others will provide greater economic development benefits than a one-off rebate.
If proponents of giving the people’s money back to them are serious about the issue of greater economic development during this session, they will talk about using the almost billion dollars in declared recurring surplus funds most of which is intended to be dealt with (except for cutting business taxes and tax deductions for tuition and other education expenses) during the regular session – legislation doing so permitted by the call. Economic realities suggest that the spending priorities for the nonrecurring funds advanced by the Jindal Administration will lead to better economic growth than the alternatives of “saving” it all or giving it all back as a “bonus” to taxpayers.
After primaries, Scalise, Jenkins still favorites to win
All four party primaries for the 1st and 6th House Districts in Louisiana could have been settled without an April runoff. Instead, some close calls mean each district still will have elections then.
Concerning the First, the only real question was whether state Sen. Steve Scalise could be stopped and, given just a pair of token candidates in the Democratic primary, thereby forcing any balloting at all in the district next month. Whoever wins the GOP primary will win the district, and Scalise seemed the only candidate that could win outright. As it was, he came close but got forced into a runoff picking up only 48 percent of the vote. State Rep. Tim Burns beat out Slidell Mayor Ben Morris largely on his ability to finish second on the south shore and win on the north shore, even in St. Tammany Parish. But Scalise’s close third places on the north shore and crushing south shore wins will make it almost impossible to beat him in April.
Two subplots engaged in the Sixth. On the Republican side, whether former state Rep. Louis “Woody” Jenkins could win outright was answered when he missed it by 84 votes, pending provisional ballots. Jenkins consistently rolled up half the vote in every parish and it will be interesting to see in runner-up Laurinda Calongne will contest the runoff as odds are incredibly stacked against her that she could win. Unless she is hoping for a miracle, expect a withdrawal, but that means a contest still will happen in this district in April.
This is because as for the Democrats, state Rep. Don Cazayoux proved the strongest with 35 percent and will face in April state Rep. Michael Jackson who got 27 percent. The crucial margin for Cazayoux may have come from non-Democrats who are permitted to vote in this party’s primaries, as whites who register as no party (independent) typically vote at substantially higher rates than blacks of the same registration.
Whether that will translate into a victory remains to be seen. Black candidates picked up 46 percent of the vote and the next highest white candidate former gubernatorial staffer Andy Kopplin got most of his votes in East Baton Rouge. From Pointe Coupee, Cazayoux might not inspire enough passion among those voters while Jackson is sure to sweep up black votes regardless, especially in his home East Baton Rouge.
The larger implications are that Scalise almost certainly will be the new congressman from the First, while Jenkins will be almost as certain a winner in the Sixth should Jackson be able to overtake Cazayoux. If that doesn’t happen, Jenkins’ chances of winning drop to slightly better than even.
Concerning the First, the only real question was whether state Sen. Steve Scalise could be stopped and, given just a pair of token candidates in the Democratic primary, thereby forcing any balloting at all in the district next month. Whoever wins the GOP primary will win the district, and Scalise seemed the only candidate that could win outright. As it was, he came close but got forced into a runoff picking up only 48 percent of the vote. State Rep. Tim Burns beat out Slidell Mayor Ben Morris largely on his ability to finish second on the south shore and win on the north shore, even in St. Tammany Parish. But Scalise’s close third places on the north shore and crushing south shore wins will make it almost impossible to beat him in April.
Two subplots engaged in the Sixth. On the Republican side, whether former state Rep. Louis “Woody” Jenkins could win outright was answered when he missed it by 84 votes, pending provisional ballots. Jenkins consistently rolled up half the vote in every parish and it will be interesting to see in runner-up Laurinda Calongne will contest the runoff as odds are incredibly stacked against her that she could win. Unless she is hoping for a miracle, expect a withdrawal, but that means a contest still will happen in this district in April.
This is because as for the Democrats, state Rep. Don Cazayoux proved the strongest with 35 percent and will face in April state Rep. Michael Jackson who got 27 percent. The crucial margin for Cazayoux may have come from non-Democrats who are permitted to vote in this party’s primaries, as whites who register as no party (independent) typically vote at substantially higher rates than blacks of the same registration.
Whether that will translate into a victory remains to be seen. Black candidates picked up 46 percent of the vote and the next highest white candidate former gubernatorial staffer Andy Kopplin got most of his votes in East Baton Rouge. From Pointe Coupee, Cazayoux might not inspire enough passion among those voters while Jackson is sure to sweep up black votes regardless, especially in his home East Baton Rouge.
The larger implications are that Scalise almost certainly will be the new congressman from the First, while Jenkins will be almost as certain a winner in the Sixth should Jackson be able to overtake Cazayoux. If that doesn’t happen, Jenkins’ chances of winning drop to slightly better than even.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)