Gov. Bobby Jindal took a bit of a risk in endorsing one Republican candidate, businessman Lee Domingue, over two others, Laurinda Calogne and Dan Claitor, in the special election for the District 16 Senate seat occurring this Saturday, while any payoff seems small.
Typically, there are three reasons why a high-level elected official endorses someone lower down: because the preferred candidates’ issue preferences are distinctly different from the others and can prove definitively helpful for that policy-maker’s future agenda, the policy-maker wants to have a way to demonstrate political power, or because of a strong personal relationship between the two. Only one of these would seen even to come close to explaining Jindal’s action here.
Frankly, in policy terms, the three candidates don’t differ much. All would be reliable voters for a conservative agenda that Jindal backs. Further, while Jindal has said he is friendly with Domingue, usually there has to be a pretty strong bond between individuals for an endorsement to be made unless is for a comparable office for partisan reasons. For example, former Rep. Jim McCrery made just one such endorsement for the entire 20 years of his service – for his college roommate running for the Caddo Parish Commission. (For the record, that candidate lost.)
The reason why elected officials almost always shy away from these kinds of support is by its nature any endorsement is risky when coming from somebody already with power. If the favored candidate were to lose, not only would this be considered a negative reflection on the political strength of the higher official, but chances are the winner would harbor a grudge against him and be much less reliable of a supporter in the future had there been no intervention. This payoff must be really high and/or the victory of the desired candidate pretty certain for the official to go out on a limb like that, especially as an endorsement carries more weight in a low-stimulus contest like this legislative special election race.
It’s possible that Jindal has inside information that Domingue is expected to win, and perhaps even has given tacit support to him all along, so he may not see endorsement as a risk. Even so, if somebody looks likely to win, why alienate others if he really doesn’t need the help to win unless you really want to prove a point? One never knows when, down the road, political help might be needed by a vanquished candidate and this endorsement makes this far less likely.
There could be another explanation, but it seems pretty unlikely: Domingue contributed $3,500 to past Jindal campaigns, and others in his family $115,000, to Jindal since 2006 while the others contributed nothing. But other candidates for other state and local office from legislative on down have given big sums to Jindal and he never got involved in those contests. If one could “buy” a Jindal endorsement this way he’d have been making them left and right and it would be known so Domingue’s opponents could have made their own before qualifying. In any event, this would not be a good political strategy for Jindal to be known for auctioning off an endorsement, so it’s got to be something other than this.
Perhaps friendship had something to do with it, and don’t put it past Jindal to send as a friendly subtle warning to potential candidates that a donation to his campaign might be some good insurance, at the least, to prevent an endorsement for your opponent (and also note that Jindal technically lives in this district, so I suppose he has every right as a constituent to voice an opinion), but the main motive here seems to be a demonstration of power. If so, there is some risk here. Should Domingue pick up an absolutely majority on Saturday, Jindal probably can claim some small credit and a little additional political capital. However, if he heads to a runoff in April, while it may bring Jindal on this account no loss it likely brings him no gain, either, and an elimination of Domingue now or defeat in April will harm Jindal’s standing.
Obviously, Jindal is not going to comment on these types of motivations so we’ll never know for sure how much of a role these considerations played in his decision-making, but it is even more obvious that this unusual and unexpected move represents a real potential risk for Jindal the payoff for which may not be commensurate.
4.3.09
Study confirms wastefulness of LA film tax credits
Always looking out to justify its existence, the Louisiana’s Department of Economic Development commissioned and has released a report blowing some more sunshine up the skirts of taxpayers in the guise of the state’s corporate welfare program for motion picture development.
This report, which follows one done for the state a few years ago, throws out all sorts of seemingly-impressive numbers for 2007 that the state gets for the $115.1 million given to producers of movies: $429.2 million in “direct in-state spending” (almost half of which were wages at an average of around $32,000 annually per job) which translates into $763 million in “economic benefit.” It also directly pays $14.6 million in tax revenues.
Of course, that means that the taxpayers are still on the hook for $100.5 million. And that’s the part LED hopes you gloss over: the credits never pay for themselves in terms of actual return for the state. This was noted back in 2004 when Louisiana’s own Legislative Fiscal Office prepared a report which, ironically, is still considered one of the seminal works and is used often to point out that these kinds of tax credit programs, where producers can write off portions of in-state expenditures on Louisiana income taxes (or, more likely, sell these credits to brokers to resell them to high-income entities within the state), cost far more in revenue than they bring to state tax coffers.
3.3.09
Sheep, sophists deny veracity of Jindal remarks
It is an indicator about how much the world has turned upside down when Gov. Bobby Jindal delivers a tepid but insightful response to a well-done but absolutely moronic address by Pres. Barack Obama, and it’s the latter who earns accolades. This attitude already is doing significant damage to the country and that will not go unnoticed by the public.
Jindal’s remarks, if not well-delivered, were spot on. They hewed to what every valid theory about human economic behavior tell us, confirmed statistically throughout history: government that governs the least governs the best, that government cannot tax and spend its way to prosperity, and only by empowering people instead of government can prosperity be attained.
By contrast, Obama’s polished bromides not only revealed a stupidity about optimal economic policy, but were false and misleading. Aside from errors of historical fact, Obama advocated for an incredible surge in spending that he insisted would not significantly increase debt because of tax increases, a stance even his liberal allies questioned afterwards and when the first of his budget proposals began to filter out. Meanwhile, Americans voted with their resources and in the past week have taken $1 trillion out of the markets because they know these ideas will kill growth for the next months or years.
To summarize, Jindal told it like it was and many in the chattering classes tried to knock his effort not only in style, but in content despite the veracity of his message. By contrast, Obama’s polemic reminds one of the old joke, “how do you know when a lawyer is lying – when his mouth is moving,” yet not just gets a pass, but some actually think his ideas have merit. As market performance shows, and as anybody in a pension plan, with an IRA, or with a 401(k) or equivalent can tell, the notion that Obama and Democrats know how to deal adequately with the economy is pure rubbish.
Fortunately, while the American people often can be taken in by glib sophists, over time reality has a habit of waking people up. It’s already beginning to set in, and hopefully we won’t need Carter hangover misery index numbers to drive home the point, with its concomitant losses of economic resources and personal freedom stolen by a government whose ideological tunnel vision will not permit unleashing individuals to improve life for everybody, but instead which rapaciously demands for itself resources in its quest to remake society in its twisted image.
Jindal’s message warns about this (even concerning his criticism about spending on monitoring volcanic activity which, if it is so meritorious, why wasn’t this done in the Democrat Congress the past two years and in the Obama budget instead of imbecilic spending on “green” initiatives based on junk science, larger welfare payments, etc.?) and it is a message that will resonate increasingly as the know-nothings who now run government further shatter the hopes and dreams of the people. The fatcats who lord over the people at present may disparage Jindal’s remarks now, but in years to come his (and others’) prescience will be recognized by the people who will pull these oppressors down from their perches into the dustbin of history that they so richly deserve.
If things continue as they are at present, history will vindicate Jindal’s sentiments, while Obama’s will be dismissed as part of a period of national insanity. Because in the end, substance trumps style and long ago liberals like Obama intellectually disarmed themselves for which no amount of smooth talking can compensate. That there are so many lemmings out there that cannot understand the difference, or provocateurs who want to create a crisis situation to enhance their own power and prestige, is to their everlasting discredit.
Jindal’s remarks, if not well-delivered, were spot on. They hewed to what every valid theory about human economic behavior tell us, confirmed statistically throughout history: government that governs the least governs the best, that government cannot tax and spend its way to prosperity, and only by empowering people instead of government can prosperity be attained.
By contrast, Obama’s polished bromides not only revealed a stupidity about optimal economic policy, but were false and misleading. Aside from errors of historical fact, Obama advocated for an incredible surge in spending that he insisted would not significantly increase debt because of tax increases, a stance even his liberal allies questioned afterwards and when the first of his budget proposals began to filter out. Meanwhile, Americans voted with their resources and in the past week have taken $1 trillion out of the markets because they know these ideas will kill growth for the next months or years.
To summarize, Jindal told it like it was and many in the chattering classes tried to knock his effort not only in style, but in content despite the veracity of his message. By contrast, Obama’s polemic reminds one of the old joke, “how do you know when a lawyer is lying – when his mouth is moving,” yet not just gets a pass, but some actually think his ideas have merit. As market performance shows, and as anybody in a pension plan, with an IRA, or with a 401(k) or equivalent can tell, the notion that Obama and Democrats know how to deal adequately with the economy is pure rubbish.
Fortunately, while the American people often can be taken in by glib sophists, over time reality has a habit of waking people up. It’s already beginning to set in, and hopefully we won’t need Carter hangover misery index numbers to drive home the point, with its concomitant losses of economic resources and personal freedom stolen by a government whose ideological tunnel vision will not permit unleashing individuals to improve life for everybody, but instead which rapaciously demands for itself resources in its quest to remake society in its twisted image.
Jindal’s message warns about this (even concerning his criticism about spending on monitoring volcanic activity which, if it is so meritorious, why wasn’t this done in the Democrat Congress the past two years and in the Obama budget instead of imbecilic spending on “green” initiatives based on junk science, larger welfare payments, etc.?) and it is a message that will resonate increasingly as the know-nothings who now run government further shatter the hopes and dreams of the people. The fatcats who lord over the people at present may disparage Jindal’s remarks now, but in years to come his (and others’) prescience will be recognized by the people who will pull these oppressors down from their perches into the dustbin of history that they so richly deserve.
If things continue as they are at present, history will vindicate Jindal’s sentiments, while Obama’s will be dismissed as part of a period of national insanity. Because in the end, substance trumps style and long ago liberals like Obama intellectually disarmed themselves for which no amount of smooth talking can compensate. That there are so many lemmings out there that cannot understand the difference, or provocateurs who want to create a crisis situation to enhance their own power and prestige, is to their everlasting discredit.
2.3.09
Policy change would benefit merchants, public, disabled
Rights in conflict always pose public policy and juridical problems. But in the case that unnecessary ambiguity exacerbates the conflict, government can reduce this.
Twice in the past year northwest Louisiana commercial establishments have encountered controversy over the appropriateness of service dogs on premises. Recently, another such incident occured in Baton Rouge. Unfortunately, current nationally-defined disability law is the source of misunderstandings in this realm.
The Americans with Disabilities Act allows service animals (almost always dogs, but other animals can be used if they are “individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability” where the animal must perform an act that the disabled person cannot) into almost any public place (if the animal does not compromise the essential function of the business; for example, they can be excluded from zoos because they may carry diseases to zoo animals). The problem is, the law does not define what constitutes “training” nor does the owner typically have to provide any documentation concerning that training or his “disability.”
To ask about the latter is considered discriminatory and while many organizations provide high-quality training and include identification cards, vests, and the like, and states may have certification programs, none of this documentation is required to allow admittance to the animal; simple assertion by the owner is enough. Not even state or local health regulations supersede the initial contact: while dogs in general may be prohibited from entry because of health concerns, service dogs cannot be unless after entry they create a health hazard (such as licking foodstuffs) or other disturbance to the nature of the business in which subsequently the dog can be prohibited and the owner invited to stay in the business without the dog.
This vagueness and bias greatly in the favor of the “disabled” person has produced two regrettable trends that not only produce confusion and needless conflict, but also cast negativity upon the disabled using service animals in general. One is that some places like pet stores offer to “train” dogs to be service animals in a matter of hours. Frankly, this is almost legalized fraud. For adequately dealing with the demands of most disabilities and for public conveyance of an animal, qualified dogs take months or even years to train.
Worse, many of these places claim they can take your own dog and train it this way. The fact is, reputable organizations (one example being Canine Companions for Independence) are highly selective in the dogs they take, judging them on strength, intelligence, sociability, and discipline – and most dogs wash out because of the exacting standards. Hardly any pets meet these standards. The few dogs that make the cut are recertified by their training organizations on a regular basis.
Those people permitted to be given one of these dogs also must qualify. For example, someone who claims disability because of “anxiety” probably could not legally use a service animal because there is no specific “task” or set of them that the animal helps that person perform. Qualifying individuals also spend days or weeks in training in all aspects of service dogs so that the dogs are used properly without their training dissolving (dogs being dogs it can disappear rapidly through poor technique applied by the owners). The humans also face recertification by the organizations and additional training if necessary.
High-quality trained and superior dogs are necessary because anything otherwise makes them far likelier to cause disruptions. Owners themselves must be knowledgeable. So with dogs ill-suited for their roles and owners who don’t know what their doing, perhaps who know even less about the law itself, combined with merchants’ confusion, these create a recipe for potentially disastrous relations. In turn, each such incident raises the animus of the public against the disabled using service animals, unfairly besmirching responsible human team members.
Local governments can only alleviate the situation somewhat given the legal primacy of the ADA and its ambiguity. But one thing they can do is require licenses for any service animal team on the basis of health and safety that would involve testing owners on their knowledge of the ADA and when it applies relevant to service animals. While legally it could not prevent the use of these animals without it, this would increase levels of education that might avoid inappropriate or illegal uses of animals and potential conflict (licenses automatically could be granted to those who get animals from reputable trainers, such as members of Assistance Dogs International).
In the granting of business licenses, part of that also could require testing on the ADA so proprietors (responsible for training their employees) are aware of when animals legally may be used and when they may be denied. This can be legally required and enforced.
As the ADA has expanded through regulatory and judicial arenas, conflicts over the rights of the disabled and those in public purveyance only can increase. Especially since Louisiana aspires to be a tourist destination, it would be wise for local governments to take these proactive steps.
Twice in the past year northwest Louisiana commercial establishments have encountered controversy over the appropriateness of service dogs on premises. Recently, another such incident occured in Baton Rouge. Unfortunately, current nationally-defined disability law is the source of misunderstandings in this realm.
The Americans with Disabilities Act allows service animals (almost always dogs, but other animals can be used if they are “individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability” where the animal must perform an act that the disabled person cannot) into almost any public place (if the animal does not compromise the essential function of the business; for example, they can be excluded from zoos because they may carry diseases to zoo animals). The problem is, the law does not define what constitutes “training” nor does the owner typically have to provide any documentation concerning that training or his “disability.”
To ask about the latter is considered discriminatory and while many organizations provide high-quality training and include identification cards, vests, and the like, and states may have certification programs, none of this documentation is required to allow admittance to the animal; simple assertion by the owner is enough. Not even state or local health regulations supersede the initial contact: while dogs in general may be prohibited from entry because of health concerns, service dogs cannot be unless after entry they create a health hazard (such as licking foodstuffs) or other disturbance to the nature of the business in which subsequently the dog can be prohibited and the owner invited to stay in the business without the dog.
This vagueness and bias greatly in the favor of the “disabled” person has produced two regrettable trends that not only produce confusion and needless conflict, but also cast negativity upon the disabled using service animals in general. One is that some places like pet stores offer to “train” dogs to be service animals in a matter of hours. Frankly, this is almost legalized fraud. For adequately dealing with the demands of most disabilities and for public conveyance of an animal, qualified dogs take months or even years to train.
Worse, many of these places claim they can take your own dog and train it this way. The fact is, reputable organizations (one example being Canine Companions for Independence) are highly selective in the dogs they take, judging them on strength, intelligence, sociability, and discipline – and most dogs wash out because of the exacting standards. Hardly any pets meet these standards. The few dogs that make the cut are recertified by their training organizations on a regular basis.
Those people permitted to be given one of these dogs also must qualify. For example, someone who claims disability because of “anxiety” probably could not legally use a service animal because there is no specific “task” or set of them that the animal helps that person perform. Qualifying individuals also spend days or weeks in training in all aspects of service dogs so that the dogs are used properly without their training dissolving (dogs being dogs it can disappear rapidly through poor technique applied by the owners). The humans also face recertification by the organizations and additional training if necessary.
High-quality trained and superior dogs are necessary because anything otherwise makes them far likelier to cause disruptions. Owners themselves must be knowledgeable. So with dogs ill-suited for their roles and owners who don’t know what their doing, perhaps who know even less about the law itself, combined with merchants’ confusion, these create a recipe for potentially disastrous relations. In turn, each such incident raises the animus of the public against the disabled using service animals, unfairly besmirching responsible human team members.
Local governments can only alleviate the situation somewhat given the legal primacy of the ADA and its ambiguity. But one thing they can do is require licenses for any service animal team on the basis of health and safety that would involve testing owners on their knowledge of the ADA and when it applies relevant to service animals. While legally it could not prevent the use of these animals without it, this would increase levels of education that might avoid inappropriate or illegal uses of animals and potential conflict (licenses automatically could be granted to those who get animals from reputable trainers, such as members of Assistance Dogs International).
In the granting of business licenses, part of that also could require testing on the ADA so proprietors (responsible for training their employees) are aware of when animals legally may be used and when they may be denied. This can be legally required and enforced.
As the ADA has expanded through regulatory and judicial arenas, conflicts over the rights of the disabled and those in public purveyance only can increase. Especially since Louisiana aspires to be a tourist destination, it would be wise for local governments to take these proactive steps.
1.3.09
Vitter shadow challengers for now banking only on hope
Whisper campaigns to encourage Republicans to run against Sen. David Vitter in the 2010 primary probably will come to naught considering Vitter and the present objects of these desires.
Tony Perkins, former state legislator and for the past few years the head of the Family Research Council, admitted the job had been suggested to him. Similarly, former member of the U.S. House John Cooksey gave his assent to have people begin fundraising on his behalf for pursuit of the office. For over a year, Sec. of State Jay Dardenne has done nothing to discourage speculation that he will run for the office as well. All of this has come about because of Vitter’s admission last year of a “serious sin” that appears related to a prostitution ring which has led some to believe Vitter now is vulnerable to a successful challenge.
This appears to be wishful thinking on at least some people’s behalf. The whole premise to the vulnerability thesis is that the widespread perception that Vitter cavorted with call girls will make enough supporters ignore everything else about Vitter’s service as senator and base their vote on that. For the fact is, on nearly every issue Vitter has faithfully and genuinely reflected the preferences of anywhere from slim to large majorities in the state, and with a large campaign budget (he’s got plenty) he can make sure in any campaign that his record will not be ignored.
Further, Vitter has the advantage of incumbency. He can point to an actual record as senator, one favorably viewed by a majority of the state, whereas these unannounced challengers can only speak of hypothetical acts or doings from their own legislative careers largely unrelated to those of a senator. This is especially relevant given these would be primary challenges where these purported opponents could not claim to be any more, and may be not even as, conservative as Vitter. Nor can they claim a special “outsider” status as a merit badge against the “establishment,” as in Pres. Barack Obama’s America Vitter already is about as outsider as one can get.
And each of these three names has its own negatives. Perkins failed in a previous Senate bid and having been out of state for awhile may be seen as too much of a Washington insider and Louisiana outsider. Cooksey also lost a Senate try and comes from the sparsest-populated area of the state having been out of the public eye for seven years. Dardenne is considered by many conservative Republicans to have gone too easily with the tax-and-spend winds when he was in the state Senate.
But the problem all will face is that the only issue that they really can distinguish themselves positively from Vitter on presumably is “character,” and, given Vitter’s record and experience, that’s not enough to make them more electable than Vitter against a Democrat opponent. They know that, and this is why all are being coy about a candidacy. The measured approach they are taking is that a swell of enthusiasm and/or fundraising will provide a definitive positive signal to run. If they especially don’t get substantial commitments financially, they’ll stay on the sidelines.
As long as Vitter has no problem raising money and there’s no apparent congruent reaction accompanying any other shadow candidate, when actual qualification comes Vitter’s not going to face a quality challenger in the GOP primary.
Tony Perkins, former state legislator and for the past few years the head of the Family Research Council, admitted the job had been suggested to him. Similarly, former member of the U.S. House John Cooksey gave his assent to have people begin fundraising on his behalf for pursuit of the office. For over a year, Sec. of State Jay Dardenne has done nothing to discourage speculation that he will run for the office as well. All of this has come about because of Vitter’s admission last year of a “serious sin” that appears related to a prostitution ring which has led some to believe Vitter now is vulnerable to a successful challenge.
This appears to be wishful thinking on at least some people’s behalf. The whole premise to the vulnerability thesis is that the widespread perception that Vitter cavorted with call girls will make enough supporters ignore everything else about Vitter’s service as senator and base their vote on that. For the fact is, on nearly every issue Vitter has faithfully and genuinely reflected the preferences of anywhere from slim to large majorities in the state, and with a large campaign budget (he’s got plenty) he can make sure in any campaign that his record will not be ignored.
Further, Vitter has the advantage of incumbency. He can point to an actual record as senator, one favorably viewed by a majority of the state, whereas these unannounced challengers can only speak of hypothetical acts or doings from their own legislative careers largely unrelated to those of a senator. This is especially relevant given these would be primary challenges where these purported opponents could not claim to be any more, and may be not even as, conservative as Vitter. Nor can they claim a special “outsider” status as a merit badge against the “establishment,” as in Pres. Barack Obama’s America Vitter already is about as outsider as one can get.
And each of these three names has its own negatives. Perkins failed in a previous Senate bid and having been out of state for awhile may be seen as too much of a Washington insider and Louisiana outsider. Cooksey also lost a Senate try and comes from the sparsest-populated area of the state having been out of the public eye for seven years. Dardenne is considered by many conservative Republicans to have gone too easily with the tax-and-spend winds when he was in the state Senate.
But the problem all will face is that the only issue that they really can distinguish themselves positively from Vitter on presumably is “character,” and, given Vitter’s record and experience, that’s not enough to make them more electable than Vitter against a Democrat opponent. They know that, and this is why all are being coy about a candidacy. The measured approach they are taking is that a swell of enthusiasm and/or fundraising will provide a definitive positive signal to run. If they especially don’t get substantial commitments financially, they’ll stay on the sidelines.
As long as Vitter has no problem raising money and there’s no apparent congruent reaction accompanying any other shadow candidate, when actual qualification comes Vitter’s not going to face a quality challenger in the GOP primary.
26.2.09
Democrats, some pundits confused about Jindal refusal
There seems to be confusion not just in the offices of Democrat politicians, but among pundits (and in the press) in understanding just what is the impact of Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal’s rejection of about $98 million of federal funds courtesy of the recently passed federal spending law. Proper understanding of it all is essential to judging Jindal’s intent and motive behind the refusal.
As detailed elsewhere, Jindal refused the funds he said because they could create an enduring additional claim on state funds beyond the next two years when that federal funding ran out. He has hinted elsewhere that philosophical differences about increased business taxation lay at the root of his rejecting, implying additionally a difference in the meaning of unemployment assistance (that it was a backdoor way to undo welfare reform) also was a concern. This is because in order to implement the expanded version of unemployment benefits called for under the bill, which would allow part-timers and some who voluntarily left work and could refuse to look for it to claim benefits, Louisiana law would have to change.
Proving she had not read the bill (meaning being a member of the vast majority in her party before voting for it), Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu at first said such a legal change could be accomplished by a law with a sunset provision, i.e. with a termination date that would require a new law to continue it. Then she backed away from that misstatement and her office admitted the new law forbade such state responses where a legal change was necessary, but said the state could then repeal a legal change after the money ran out. This is disingenuous; Democrats know once benefits are granted, the constituencies that receive them or who politically profit from them (in this case, liberal Democrats) make it difficult if not impossible to reverse them. Bad for them, Jindal knows it, too.
But some pundits have seized upon another portion of the law to create an erroneous impression of what could happen next. It permits the reception of funds regardless of a governor’s if within 45 days of offer a state legislature votes by concurrent resolution (a majority of each house in Louisiana) to accept it. They mistakenly believe that then the money could be spent for its intended purpose.
This shows a lack of understanding of what the grant system is and its relationship to the law. The grant system is a modified principal-agent system that can get very complicated because federal and/or state laws apply in differing areas, sometimes simultaneously. Typically, the federal government will promise states a certain amount of money if they perform a certain task over which they, not the federal government, have authority. The federal government in these instances cannot create a mandate on states to perform such an action, and this section of the new law is no exception in its language that statutory change of state law must occur for funds to be transferred to it for this purpose (in that transfer is prohibited unless state law allows for its use as intended in the federal law).
And Louisiana law prohibits this use. R.S. 23:1601 appears as the relevant statute, which instructs that benefit ineligibility occurs when someone leaves “employment from a base period or subsequent employer without good cause attributable to a substantial change made to the employment by the employer,” and except for narrowly defined situations unrelated to the new federal law, someone who does not actively seek work on a weekly basis also is ineligible. This law must be changed in order to accept the money.
Laws in Louisiana cannot be changed by concurrent resolutions. The most important distinction is that the governor must sign legislation, or if vetoed this must be overridden by a two-thirds vote of each chamber. Therefore, the legislature could pass as many concurrent resolutions as it wants on the matter, but the federal law itself prohibits the state receiving the money unless the state law itself has changed. This is known by legislators and explains why none have called for such a measure since Jindal announced his refusal.
Yet this understanding eluded the grasp of some writers, which led one who supported Jindal’s move to lament how he could be sidestepped by the Legislature, while another who has been visibly jaundiced against Jindal ever since Jindal became a force to be reckoned with Louisiana politics thundered about how Jindal was using this as a political stunt that would not accomplish anything. Besides the question of grants and the law, neither also correctly understands Jindal’s intent and motive (and further make the questionable assumption that the Legislature would pass this: such a resolution would be favored to get out of the state Senate, but the partisan and ideological composition of the House would make it a crapshoot to succeed there).
That section in the federal law would apply only in the instances where a state already may permit this kind of eligibility (or perhaps where citizen initiative could get it on the books fast enough) that could prevent a governor against the idea from formally rejecting funds if a favorable legislature will go against him. For those states that do not permit this by law, it stands as an incentive to change it. But with his veto power, Jindal’s not going to let it happen in Louisiana.
No, Jindal is not doing this to tilt at windmills and/or accrue political credit from his Republican base. He is doing it because he can and he believes in it. Thankfully, he’s done his homework on this and thereby the state will be better off for his wise decision.
As detailed elsewhere, Jindal refused the funds he said because they could create an enduring additional claim on state funds beyond the next two years when that federal funding ran out. He has hinted elsewhere that philosophical differences about increased business taxation lay at the root of his rejecting, implying additionally a difference in the meaning of unemployment assistance (that it was a backdoor way to undo welfare reform) also was a concern. This is because in order to implement the expanded version of unemployment benefits called for under the bill, which would allow part-timers and some who voluntarily left work and could refuse to look for it to claim benefits, Louisiana law would have to change.
Proving she had not read the bill (meaning being a member of the vast majority in her party before voting for it), Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu at first said such a legal change could be accomplished by a law with a sunset provision, i.e. with a termination date that would require a new law to continue it. Then she backed away from that misstatement and her office admitted the new law forbade such state responses where a legal change was necessary, but said the state could then repeal a legal change after the money ran out. This is disingenuous; Democrats know once benefits are granted, the constituencies that receive them or who politically profit from them (in this case, liberal Democrats) make it difficult if not impossible to reverse them. Bad for them, Jindal knows it, too.
But some pundits have seized upon another portion of the law to create an erroneous impression of what could happen next. It permits the reception of funds regardless of a governor’s if within 45 days of offer a state legislature votes by concurrent resolution (a majority of each house in Louisiana) to accept it. They mistakenly believe that then the money could be spent for its intended purpose.
This shows a lack of understanding of what the grant system is and its relationship to the law. The grant system is a modified principal-agent system that can get very complicated because federal and/or state laws apply in differing areas, sometimes simultaneously. Typically, the federal government will promise states a certain amount of money if they perform a certain task over which they, not the federal government, have authority. The federal government in these instances cannot create a mandate on states to perform such an action, and this section of the new law is no exception in its language that statutory change of state law must occur for funds to be transferred to it for this purpose (in that transfer is prohibited unless state law allows for its use as intended in the federal law).
And Louisiana law prohibits this use. R.S. 23:1601 appears as the relevant statute, which instructs that benefit ineligibility occurs when someone leaves “employment from a base period or subsequent employer without good cause attributable to a substantial change made to the employment by the employer,” and except for narrowly defined situations unrelated to the new federal law, someone who does not actively seek work on a weekly basis also is ineligible. This law must be changed in order to accept the money.
Laws in Louisiana cannot be changed by concurrent resolutions. The most important distinction is that the governor must sign legislation, or if vetoed this must be overridden by a two-thirds vote of each chamber. Therefore, the legislature could pass as many concurrent resolutions as it wants on the matter, but the federal law itself prohibits the state receiving the money unless the state law itself has changed. This is known by legislators and explains why none have called for such a measure since Jindal announced his refusal.
Yet this understanding eluded the grasp of some writers, which led one who supported Jindal’s move to lament how he could be sidestepped by the Legislature, while another who has been visibly jaundiced against Jindal ever since Jindal became a force to be reckoned with Louisiana politics thundered about how Jindal was using this as a political stunt that would not accomplish anything. Besides the question of grants and the law, neither also correctly understands Jindal’s intent and motive (and further make the questionable assumption that the Legislature would pass this: such a resolution would be favored to get out of the state Senate, but the partisan and ideological composition of the House would make it a crapshoot to succeed there).
That section in the federal law would apply only in the instances where a state already may permit this kind of eligibility (or perhaps where citizen initiative could get it on the books fast enough) that could prevent a governor against the idea from formally rejecting funds if a favorable legislature will go against him. For those states that do not permit this by law, it stands as an incentive to change it. But with his veto power, Jindal’s not going to let it happen in Louisiana.
No, Jindal is not doing this to tilt at windmills and/or accrue political credit from his Republican base. He is doing it because he can and he believes in it. Thankfully, he’s done his homework on this and thereby the state will be better off for his wise decision.
24.2.09
Uninspiring Jindal delivered competent, needed message
Gov. Bobby Jindal turned in a forensically lackluster performance with his first shot at a truly nationwide audience but where mattered more he did well with a tough hand.
Tapped to give the official Republican response to Pres. Barack Obama’s first primetime nationwide speech, using mostly his own words, without the pomp of the House of Representatives chamber and contrasted to a consummate speaker whose message is echoed uncritically by the media and often unchallenged by his Jindal’s own party. It was a tall order and Jindal didn’t hit a home run by any means.
Still, the message wasn’t bad. It is difficult to introduce much in the way of deep philosophy in a span of 10 minutes with 50 minutes of Obama’s ground to cover and Jindal refrained from his usual machine-gun delivery which may have caused him to come off as uninspiring, but the text was solid. He emphasized Republican willingness to work with Democrats but when principles clashed they would not hesitate to oppose, with that principle being Democrats were more trusting of government to provide solutions to American’s problems than in Americans themselves. Empowering government, not people, was not the way to go, he reminded.
He did draw upon some Louisiana experiences such as how taxes were cut here while Obama promised to raise them (and he correctly noted it was a collective, bipartisan effort last year and did not give himself undue credit for it), and made an intriguing connection between ethics reform and the rushed spending bill that became law last week, implying that Democrats’ bludgeoning the bill through without any Republican input or even chance to review it in its entirety was an kind of ethical lapse. This shows Jindal still will rely heavily on the cachet of those reforms as a selling point for him and his party.
He also obliquely disputed some of Obama’s less credible statements, such as when Obama insisted there was no pork in the spending bill, Jindal refuted that with examples. He echoed Obama on a very few occasions, such as with charter school support.
It wasn’t an inspiring performance but was competent. And lest anyone think it would diminish his stature as a leading Republican for national influence, recall that at the 1988 Democrat convention the prime speaking slot was mangled into a dull spectacle by a young Southern governor that led some to predict he had no future on the national stage. That butcher was Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton.
Tapped to give the official Republican response to Pres. Barack Obama’s first primetime nationwide speech, using mostly his own words, without the pomp of the House of Representatives chamber and contrasted to a consummate speaker whose message is echoed uncritically by the media and often unchallenged by his Jindal’s own party. It was a tall order and Jindal didn’t hit a home run by any means.
Still, the message wasn’t bad. It is difficult to introduce much in the way of deep philosophy in a span of 10 minutes with 50 minutes of Obama’s ground to cover and Jindal refrained from his usual machine-gun delivery which may have caused him to come off as uninspiring, but the text was solid. He emphasized Republican willingness to work with Democrats but when principles clashed they would not hesitate to oppose, with that principle being Democrats were more trusting of government to provide solutions to American’s problems than in Americans themselves. Empowering government, not people, was not the way to go, he reminded.
He did draw upon some Louisiana experiences such as how taxes were cut here while Obama promised to raise them (and he correctly noted it was a collective, bipartisan effort last year and did not give himself undue credit for it), and made an intriguing connection between ethics reform and the rushed spending bill that became law last week, implying that Democrats’ bludgeoning the bill through without any Republican input or even chance to review it in its entirety was an kind of ethical lapse. This shows Jindal still will rely heavily on the cachet of those reforms as a selling point for him and his party.
He also obliquely disputed some of Obama’s less credible statements, such as when Obama insisted there was no pork in the spending bill, Jindal refuted that with examples. He echoed Obama on a very few occasions, such as with charter school support.
It wasn’t an inspiring performance but was competent. And lest anyone think it would diminish his stature as a leading Republican for national influence, recall that at the 1988 Democrat convention the prime speaking slot was mangled into a dull spectacle by a young Southern governor that led some to predict he had no future on the national stage. That butcher was Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton.
Conservative critics of Jindal may forget larger perspective
Gov. Bobby Jindal will give the official Republican response to Pres. Barack Obama’s speech tonight, in part because he has become a favorite of conservative standard-bearers both formerly inside (ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich) and outside (talk show host Rush Limbaugh) of the GOP. But some Louisiana conservatives have grown to dislike Jindal, so it’s instructive to understand why many leading national lights of conservatism find Jindal so compelling, while some lesser but local lights of it don’t.
Jindal’s record is his record regardless of who you are, and all concerned are familiar with it over the past year:
His first action upon assuming the governorship was minor reductions in personnel and spending of state government. Later, critics would say this didn’t do a whole lot and that numbers of personnel employed by the state actually went up, even though the full-time equivalent number of positions over which the state spent its non-federal revenues Jindal actually did reduce in his initial budget.
Jindal’s record is his record regardless of who you are, and all concerned are familiar with it over the past year:
23.2.09
Grade inflation report sends signal to LA policy-makers
A new publication by the invaluable American Council for Trustees and Alumni hopefully will start a necessary debate on grading policies in Louisiana universities, especially as Gov. Bobby Jindal has indicated his desire to see university performance used as a benchmark for their funding.
ACTA notes grade inflation increasingly is becoming a problem in universities, something I have observed anecdotally in my 22 years of college teaching. Particularly resonant is the expectation that a ‘C’ no longer is viewed as average work, but as substandard. I have seen this taken to ridiculous lengths (more than one instructor I have known regularly gave 80-90 percent of classes grades of ‘A’) but it reaches travesty when, as the report notes, one institution has to tell its instructors to give no more than 35 percent of a class ‘A’ grades (my personal average is in the 12 percent range).
Part of the problem is attitudinal, both on the part of faculty members and students. Some of the former simply are lenient in the way they view grading, but in recent years probably more pressure has come from the latter. Particular to Louisiana, the Tuition Opportunity Program for Students that pays for in-state college tuition, one part of which is graduating with a decently-high grade point average which pressures high school teaches to inflate grades, builds up unrealistic expectations of grades for some students given their actual abilities that then carries over to college. Part of it also might be the larger creeping entitlement mentality found increasingly pervasively in the student population which dissociates performance from ability and links it to desire, which pressures college faculty members into giving higher grades.
Attitudes of the “clients” are difficult to change in the short term, but policy change short of quotas can deal effectively with this problem. Faculty members who respect standards and understand that a fair by firm grading policy can promote more and better learning may be able to resist blandishments by students to devalue the system, but when it hits their pocketbooks it may become an entirely different matter. For example, where I teach roughly 30 to 40 percent of the evaluation of a faculty member’s performance is done solely on scores on student evaluations, and research continually reaffirms that students who think they will get higher grades rate instructors more highly. These evaluations are used to dole out pay raises (which actually don’t come very often) so every incentive is created for instructors to inflate grades to improve evaluation scores in the hopes of bigger raises.
An example of what could be done to minimize these incentives is each discipline graduating students in a major field of study should have (where possible, and for most it is) administered a subject area test to its graduates who would be required to take it for graduation (but not have to attain any certain score on it). Then disciplines could be graded on how well prepared their graduates are and an overall university score developed for use in funding decisions. This creates rewards for rigor and excellence that the institution will want to enforce. (It also will create an extra expenditure, but those costs could be reasonably restricted by capping at five students per major test taking with those chosen by lottery.)
Therefore, if Jindal pursues his agenda of tying college funding to things like graduation rates, which obviously increase as do grades, he will have to recognize that as long as Louisiana public universities do not address the causes of grade inflation through policies that neither encourage it nor allow for pressure to produce it, that effort will not create more and better graduates that he sees as instrumental to economic development.
ACTA notes grade inflation increasingly is becoming a problem in universities, something I have observed anecdotally in my 22 years of college teaching. Particularly resonant is the expectation that a ‘C’ no longer is viewed as average work, but as substandard. I have seen this taken to ridiculous lengths (more than one instructor I have known regularly gave 80-90 percent of classes grades of ‘A’) but it reaches travesty when, as the report notes, one institution has to tell its instructors to give no more than 35 percent of a class ‘A’ grades (my personal average is in the 12 percent range).
Part of the problem is attitudinal, both on the part of faculty members and students. Some of the former simply are lenient in the way they view grading, but in recent years probably more pressure has come from the latter. Particular to Louisiana, the Tuition Opportunity Program for Students that pays for in-state college tuition, one part of which is graduating with a decently-high grade point average which pressures high school teaches to inflate grades, builds up unrealistic expectations of grades for some students given their actual abilities that then carries over to college. Part of it also might be the larger creeping entitlement mentality found increasingly pervasively in the student population which dissociates performance from ability and links it to desire, which pressures college faculty members into giving higher grades.
Attitudes of the “clients” are difficult to change in the short term, but policy change short of quotas can deal effectively with this problem. Faculty members who respect standards and understand that a fair by firm grading policy can promote more and better learning may be able to resist blandishments by students to devalue the system, but when it hits their pocketbooks it may become an entirely different matter. For example, where I teach roughly 30 to 40 percent of the evaluation of a faculty member’s performance is done solely on scores on student evaluations, and research continually reaffirms that students who think they will get higher grades rate instructors more highly. These evaluations are used to dole out pay raises (which actually don’t come very often) so every incentive is created for instructors to inflate grades to improve evaluation scores in the hopes of bigger raises.
An example of what could be done to minimize these incentives is each discipline graduating students in a major field of study should have (where possible, and for most it is) administered a subject area test to its graduates who would be required to take it for graduation (but not have to attain any certain score on it). Then disciplines could be graded on how well prepared their graduates are and an overall university score developed for use in funding decisions. This creates rewards for rigor and excellence that the institution will want to enforce. (It also will create an extra expenditure, but those costs could be reasonably restricted by capping at five students per major test taking with those chosen by lottery.)
Therefore, if Jindal pursues his agenda of tying college funding to things like graduation rates, which obviously increase as do grades, he will have to recognize that as long as Louisiana public universities do not address the causes of grade inflation through policies that neither encourage it nor allow for pressure to produce it, that effort will not create more and better graduates that he sees as instrumental to economic development.
22.2.09
Jindal shows astuteness, critics obtuseness, on spending
In case you didn’t already know, comments made by some state elected officials about Gov. Bobby Jindal’s refusal to accept some federal dollars courtesy of the recently-passed spending package confirmed that there is no IQ test required to run for their offices, but ideological rigidity is more than welcome.
Jindal turned back over $98 million which would have gone to paying benefits to people who quit their jobs for various reasons and to part-time workers. He said he did so for purely fiscal reasons, because the federal subsidy would halt after two years and if the state changed its laws to allow this it would then be on the hook for paying this extra amount. This legally would require a tax increase on business, which funds unemployment insurance. It also reduced the work length requirement to three months, making it much easier for people to game the system.
What he tried to delicately avoid in this argument is there is a policy component to it all. Changing the law to alter the eligibility for these funds would connote a policy change, because unemployment insurance payment throughout its history has made no distinction about the reason for leaving a job, only if it was not instigated by a full-time, long-time worker. In other words, this part of the law (as well as many other parts) is an attempt to undo welfare reform, which over a decade ago ended the practice of lifetime supplementary benefits for those that did not earn income, and for Louisiana to change the law to fit it would endorse this unraveling. While Jindal may not want to admit that his resistance is based upon the idea that able-bodied people should not be paid not to work, that is its practical import.
Then the dunderhead chorus piped up:
Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu incredulously equated the entire flawed spending bill with the interests of the state, noted Republican opposition to it, and then stated, “Those interests don’t always line up. It puts the governor at risk of sending mixed messages.… Louisiana should be very aggressive in going to get this money.” State Sen. Lydia Jackson couldn’t grasp grant procedures in opining, “How do we tell Washington that we don’t want this money but that we want other sources of federal aid?” State Sen. Robert Adley got confused about the entire grant philosophy when he argued, “Our issue is that it is tax money that has been sent there by the taxpayers of Louisiana and we should get our fair share.”
Let’s deal with this ignorance one remark at a time, using Jindal’s statement on the matter as a starting point: “The federal government, Congress, it’s their right to go and say, ‘We will give you these dollars if you make these changes.’ It’s also our right to say, ‘We don’t think this change is good for Louisiana.’ ” And in this case, he is absolutely right about the undesirability of this particular change, so not only does Landrieu creates a false dichotomy when he equates the spending as in the state’s interest and only partisan considerations triggering opposition, he is exactly wrong in not admitting the long-term impact of the law will be to harm the state. There are no mixed messages here at all: rejecting much of the bill (if Jindal had been really bold he would have included other rejections like extension of unemployment benefits and increased amounts that only will delay recovery by creating incentives not to work) is in the best interests of the state and Landrieu appears entirely confused about this.
Jackson’s comment shows, despite years in elective office, that she has no idea how all of this works. Jindal’s statement speaks equally to her denseness as well in that states legally are perfectly free to refuse federal money, an obtuseness on her part born of her liberal political ideology that demands the maximal spending of money by government because in its removal of resources from the people and redistribution by government of them it gives politicians like her more power and privilege. In other words, the statement reflects such a narrow-mindedness that she cannot consider for one moment why government should refuse spending money (unless perhaps it’s on something necessary like national defense which doesn’t transfer money to a preferred constituency).
Adley, also a veteran legislator, shows more philosophical then procedural vapidity concerning the grant process but betrays the same liberal mentality that it is government’s primary job to take money from some and give it to others. A “fair share” exists only when it benefits all citizens equally, but that’s clearly not the case with the rejected funds which would have gone from the broader, working population that pays most taxes to a small segment that would choose not to work and thereby pay little in taxes. There is no “fairness” to that arrangement at all. Even more disturbingly, Adley seems to promote the idea that a state should accept funds regardless of their purpose without some examination of the policy behind it. For example, just because it was there would Adley accept increased federal funding devoted to abortion if the federal government mandated that it go to more killings of the unborn?
Sadly, too many of our elected officials in Louisiana display such sub-par mental acuity in evaluating important issues of the day. Unable to think critically, they fall back upon simplistic ideology. Happily, Jindal can think for himself. He is to be applauded for making the right call, and let us hope he is as vigilant regarding all aspects of this injurious new law.
Jindal turned back over $98 million which would have gone to paying benefits to people who quit their jobs for various reasons and to part-time workers. He said he did so for purely fiscal reasons, because the federal subsidy would halt after two years and if the state changed its laws to allow this it would then be on the hook for paying this extra amount. This legally would require a tax increase on business, which funds unemployment insurance. It also reduced the work length requirement to three months, making it much easier for people to game the system.
What he tried to delicately avoid in this argument is there is a policy component to it all. Changing the law to alter the eligibility for these funds would connote a policy change, because unemployment insurance payment throughout its history has made no distinction about the reason for leaving a job, only if it was not instigated by a full-time, long-time worker. In other words, this part of the law (as well as many other parts) is an attempt to undo welfare reform, which over a decade ago ended the practice of lifetime supplementary benefits for those that did not earn income, and for Louisiana to change the law to fit it would endorse this unraveling. While Jindal may not want to admit that his resistance is based upon the idea that able-bodied people should not be paid not to work, that is its practical import.
Then the dunderhead chorus piped up:
Let’s deal with this ignorance one remark at a time, using Jindal’s statement on the matter as a starting point: “The federal government, Congress, it’s their right to go and say, ‘We will give you these dollars if you make these changes.’ It’s also our right to say, ‘We don’t think this change is good for Louisiana.’ ” And in this case, he is absolutely right about the undesirability of this particular change, so not only does Landrieu creates a false dichotomy when he equates the spending as in the state’s interest and only partisan considerations triggering opposition, he is exactly wrong in not admitting the long-term impact of the law will be to harm the state. There are no mixed messages here at all: rejecting much of the bill (if Jindal had been really bold he would have included other rejections like extension of unemployment benefits and increased amounts that only will delay recovery by creating incentives not to work) is in the best interests of the state and Landrieu appears entirely confused about this.
Jackson’s comment shows, despite years in elective office, that she has no idea how all of this works. Jindal’s statement speaks equally to her denseness as well in that states legally are perfectly free to refuse federal money, an obtuseness on her part born of her liberal political ideology that demands the maximal spending of money by government because in its removal of resources from the people and redistribution by government of them it gives politicians like her more power and privilege. In other words, the statement reflects such a narrow-mindedness that she cannot consider for one moment why government should refuse spending money (unless perhaps it’s on something necessary like national defense which doesn’t transfer money to a preferred constituency).
Adley, also a veteran legislator, shows more philosophical then procedural vapidity concerning the grant process but betrays the same liberal mentality that it is government’s primary job to take money from some and give it to others. A “fair share” exists only when it benefits all citizens equally, but that’s clearly not the case with the rejected funds which would have gone from the broader, working population that pays most taxes to a small segment that would choose not to work and thereby pay little in taxes. There is no “fairness” to that arrangement at all. Even more disturbingly, Adley seems to promote the idea that a state should accept funds regardless of their purpose without some examination of the policy behind it. For example, just because it was there would Adley accept increased federal funding devoted to abortion if the federal government mandated that it go to more killings of the unborn?
Sadly, too many of our elected officials in Louisiana display such sub-par mental acuity in evaluating important issues of the day. Unable to think critically, they fall back upon simplistic ideology. Happily, Jindal can think for himself. He is to be applauded for making the right call, and let us hope he is as vigilant regarding all aspects of this injurious new law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)