There are several myths about aspects of Bossier City’s budget propagated by some of its officials but especially by Bossier City press secretary wannabes. Let’s look at them:
Bossier City’s riverfront development fund is called the “riverboat gaming trust fund.” One media lapdog incorrectly calls it this, but there actually are two separate accounts, their real names being the Riverboat Gaming Capital Project (into which the money from gambling revenues goes and from which money for capital projects gets derived) and the Riverboat Trust Fund (transferred from the other and serves as the vehicle to disburse for other expenses).
Bossier City is asking for a “fee for service” increase for its waste collection (much actually contracted to Shreveport) and Emergency Medical Services. A “fee for service” arrangement is one where a user of a city service is billed proportionally for the provision of a specific amount of a good or service. For example, past a minimum charge water costs are billed by amount of water used and thus are a fee for service.
But a flat fee charged regardless of amount of use of that service, or even if it is used at all, takes on the characteristics of a tax. For waste collection and EMS, all homeowners (and even others) are billed simply because they can be, regardless of whether they actually use the service. These are not genuine fee for service arrangements. If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, guess what it is?
Bossier City has spent money on necessary things so it is justified in hiking fees. Unfortunately, the entire City Council and the mayor in his previous job as city chief administrative officer chose to spend over $21 million on the Louisiana Boardwalk parking garage, a structure that could easily have been provided by the developers.
As recent reports shows, the sales tax boost from the Boardwalk is microscopic compared to this amount and the fallout for existing Bossier businesses already is being felt with the closure of Pierre Bossier Mall’s long-standing Bennigans franchise. This is reflected in the sales tax estimated take in the 2006 budget of a rise of just 4 percent (which the budget itself calls “optimistic”), essentially the inflation rate.
Or how about the $56.5 million for the CenturyTel Center? It lost money in both 2004 and 2005 (although this year’s loss was aggravated by its use as an emergency shelter) and only an extraordinarily optimistic, likely unattainable, 21 percent projected boost in revenues projects any net gain from it in 2006. Why doesn’t the city sell it and make much more a year off banking the interest?
Had the city use of this interest and that derived from the money blown on the garage, the dip into the trust fund would be about two-thirds less. Ego and a misguided view that government can plan economic growth now cause Bossier City elected officials to demand that the citizenry make up for their mistakes.
Bossier City is asking for these increases because the costs of providing these services have increased. The 2006 budget shows that these requests are almost totally unrelated to the intended expenditures of these funds.
Waste collection costs are about the same as they have been, just located in different parts of the budget (the item being grass cutting and street sweeping). But note that while these activities have everything to do with waste creation, they have nothing to do with waste collection.
The fire department budget projected cost increase is about $1 million less than the total the projected EMS hike would bring in. This is because the only significant cost increase in public safety in general since 2004 has been in retirement contributions that a series of unfavorable actions in other parts of Louisiana government has forced upon the city. Only perhaps 10 percent of any increased costs can be tied directly to EMS service expansion since 2004. Spiraling retirement costs are the real, barely-mentioned reason for the increase.
In truth, these increases were proposed because the city could get away with grabbing more revenue this way the easiest, not because of any significant cost increases in the underlying activities they are supposed to be tied to.
Bossier City residents should agree with the increases. They showed why they shouldn’t with their reactions at the Nov. 1 Council meeting. As I have warned, city politicians better remember the 1997 lesson courtesy of Bossier Parish voters, who shot down an EMS increase at the polls (an event that at least one media sycophant seems to have forgotten). And they seemed to get the point by delaying action on the budget.
Bossier City politicians and their media bootlickers who do not admit these are myths are disingenuous and irresponsible. Now that’s something that isn’t a myth. They’re simply stuck on stupid.
16.11.05
Sparring over borrowing mirrors shifting political fortunes
Perhaps notable out of the conflict over the fate of HB 157 was the political maneuvering for future power in the state.
This idea behind the bill originally in part would have allowed the state to borrow in the short-term to fund continuing operations of both state and local governments. By the time it reached bill form, it was only to provide loans to local governments for debt, capital improvements, and business. By the time the House Appropriations Committee finished with it, this looked to be its final resting place.
While opponents had various concerns about it, it seemed that they coalesced behind the arguments made by Treasurer John Kennedy, who after the meeting disputed the Gov. Kathleen Blanco-backed measure at several turns. For example, when Commissioner of Administration Jerry Luke LeBlanc contended the state lending this money out would not really affect its credit rating negatively, Kennedy insisted that it would.
This idea behind the bill originally in part would have allowed the state to borrow in the short-term to fund continuing operations of both state and local governments. By the time it reached bill form, it was only to provide loans to local governments for debt, capital improvements, and business. By the time the House Appropriations Committee finished with it, this looked to be its final resting place.
While opponents had various concerns about it, it seemed that they coalesced behind the arguments made by Treasurer John Kennedy, who after the meeting disputed the Gov. Kathleen Blanco-backed measure at several turns. For example, when Commissioner of Administration Jerry Luke LeBlanc contended the state lending this money out would not really affect its credit rating negatively, Kennedy insisted that it would.
15.11.05
In tough times, legislators must tighten their own belts
The sacred and the profane were on display in the travel records attendant to requested per diem and travel expense payments to legislators in the post-hurricane disaster environment. They payments were $113 per day until October when it went up a couple of bucks. (Meaning it averages $14.25 an hour for an eight-hour day, if they even worked that much, averaging the two months’ rates.) Per diems were around $100,000, and travel about another $50,000 on top of that.
Some applause must be given to Reps. Gary Beard and William Daniel for their refusal to accept any per diem (which might have been problematic for Daniel in any event given his recent employment by the Baton Rouge metro government). Also, the House gets credit for voluntarily giving back $1 million to state government and will absorb the costs of the special session, with Speaker Joe Salter’s blessing.
(In fact, Rep. Peppi Bruneau poked fun at the Senate’s not reciprocating by proposing an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill to reduce expenditures, where the Senate could fill in a blank with the amount of money they planned on returning when they dealt with this bill. Before it came to a vote, he withdrew it.)
But jeers must go out to the likes of Salter, House Speaker Pro Tem Yvonne Dorsey, and Rep. Bryant Hammett, who billed taxpayers the per diem for a helicopter ride. Salter and Sen. Pres. Don Hines also created special committees left and right that allowed claiming of per diems; perhaps a little more prudence and efficiency in creating and scheduling these might have saved taxpayers’ money.
This matter becoming public knowledge got under the skin of Rep. Cedric Richmond, who on a point of personal privilege right after passing the appropriations bill, complained how reports such as this continued to make the Legislature look bad by fueling perceptions of lax ethical behavior. He challenged the Legislature to stop acting defensively about these kinds of reports.
Of course, Richmond is following Louisiana elected officials’ tired gambit of shooting the messenger rather than changing its behavior. Even if things had been done more efficiently and travel taken more judiciously, the savings might only be $50,000. Still, every little bit helps and the symbolism is important when the public in many ways is being asked to curb their appetites for government service provision even as their taxes don’t go down and some crawl their ways back from near-destitution after the disasters.
Some applause must be given to Reps. Gary Beard and William Daniel for their refusal to accept any per diem (which might have been problematic for Daniel in any event given his recent employment by the Baton Rouge metro government). Also, the House gets credit for voluntarily giving back $1 million to state government and will absorb the costs of the special session, with Speaker Joe Salter’s blessing.
(In fact, Rep. Peppi Bruneau poked fun at the Senate’s not reciprocating by proposing an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill to reduce expenditures, where the Senate could fill in a blank with the amount of money they planned on returning when they dealt with this bill. Before it came to a vote, he withdrew it.)
But jeers must go out to the likes of Salter, House Speaker Pro Tem Yvonne Dorsey, and Rep. Bryant Hammett, who billed taxpayers the per diem for a helicopter ride. Salter and Sen. Pres. Don Hines also created special committees left and right that allowed claiming of per diems; perhaps a little more prudence and efficiency in creating and scheduling these might have saved taxpayers’ money.
This matter becoming public knowledge got under the skin of Rep. Cedric Richmond, who on a point of personal privilege right after passing the appropriations bill, complained how reports such as this continued to make the Legislature look bad by fueling perceptions of lax ethical behavior. He challenged the Legislature to stop acting defensively about these kinds of reports.
Of course, Richmond is following Louisiana elected officials’ tired gambit of shooting the messenger rather than changing its behavior. Even if things had been done more efficiently and travel taken more judiciously, the savings might only be $50,000. Still, every little bit helps and the symbolism is important when the public in many ways is being asked to curb their appetites for government service provision even as their taxes don’t go down and some crawl their ways back from near-destitution after the disasters.
14.11.05
Better for state to pay now than to pay more later
By Saturday, the state brought itself from $305 million to only $117 million in the hole with budget maneuvering. By Sunday, more of the same brought the total down to $94 million. The problem is, to plug the hole this way the price down the road might be higher.
In essence, in a move described as possible only because of the timing involved, the budget got an infusion of $188 million extra because on Oct. 28 the Revenue Estimating Conference bumped down expected revenues and bumped up estimates of nonrecurring revenues. Since the Budget Stabilization Fund receives for disbursement non-recurring funds and as state revenues go down the proportion of nonrecurring funds which may be utilized grows larger, the money has become available.
Instead of chunking a quarter, as has been traditional, of the derived $252 million 2004-05 surplus into the fund, all of it went in. With the $303 million in nonrecurring revenues dumped into the Fund, this had the effect of pushing past the 4 percent limit of total state revenues now derived for 2005-06 by that “extra” (so to speak) 75 percent of the surplus which normally would have been spent on capital projects. But it’s the operating budget now that’s the priority.
In essence, in a move described as possible only because of the timing involved, the budget got an infusion of $188 million extra because on Oct. 28 the Revenue Estimating Conference bumped down expected revenues and bumped up estimates of nonrecurring revenues. Since the Budget Stabilization Fund receives for disbursement non-recurring funds and as state revenues go down the proportion of nonrecurring funds which may be utilized grows larger, the money has become available.
Instead of chunking a quarter, as has been traditional, of the derived $252 million 2004-05 surplus into the fund, all of it went in. With the $303 million in nonrecurring revenues dumped into the Fund, this had the effect of pushing past the 4 percent limit of total state revenues now derived for 2005-06 by that “extra” (so to speak) 75 percent of the surplus which normally would have been spent on capital projects. But it’s the operating budget now that’s the priority.
13.11.05
GOP primary date change endorsement unlikely to solve dilemma
Eight months later, the Louisiana State Republican Central Committee has endorsed the idea of moving up the GOP presidential preference primary to the second Saturday in February (third if the second happens to be Samedi Gras). Realizing all along that state Democrats would have to go along with this, because they have the legislative majority, the move may make more sense now since pressure by other states’ Democrats on the national party appears to have had the effect of forcing a compromise on the question of the temporal ordering of the selection of delegates to the national convention, perhaps encouraging Louisiana Democrats to go along with a date change.
The apparent decision to allow a few states to hold caucuses between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary seems to have quelled dissatisfaction among many state Democratic Parties. They resented the privileged position of the two states because they got much more of the attention (and spending by the campaigns) of the candidates.
While such fomenting has not surfaced among their Republican brethren in other states, this spring the Legislature took a look at the question of Louisiana’s place in the selection lineup which was particularly disadvantageously behind the southern regional primary when most southern states held their caucuses and primaries. It led to little campaigning for Louisiana’s sparse number of delegates and to high state costs ($10 per voter) to hold the elections.
But moving up a date may not really solve anything. Between now and nomination season, two legislative years remain, giving other states plenty of opportunity to move up their dates, too, stealing some of Louisiana’s thunder. And the southern regional primary may still loom in 2008 in early March which would discourage much in the way of resources coming to Louisiana.
That is, if “mini-Tuesday” doesn’t steal “super-Tuesday’s” thunder. Several states are committed or have talked about putting their selection after New Hampshire on the second Tuesday in February, including southern states such as Alabama and North Carolina. If that were to transpire, Louisiana is back to where it started.
If the state really wants to beat the front-loading of selection at its own game, it would be wise to accept the Democrats’ presumed plan and to schedule in a caucus after Iowa and before New Hampshire’s primary, as some states have indicated they would. Otherwise, because Louisiana is not a large state (even smaller after the recent hurricane disasters) and is not looking to team up with others, it’s likely to be largely overlooked by the candidates and unlikely to draw much more significant participation for the money spent.
The apparent decision to allow a few states to hold caucuses between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary seems to have quelled dissatisfaction among many state Democratic Parties. They resented the privileged position of the two states because they got much more of the attention (and spending by the campaigns) of the candidates.
While such fomenting has not surfaced among their Republican brethren in other states, this spring the Legislature took a look at the question of Louisiana’s place in the selection lineup which was particularly disadvantageously behind the southern regional primary when most southern states held their caucuses and primaries. It led to little campaigning for Louisiana’s sparse number of delegates and to high state costs ($10 per voter) to hold the elections.
But moving up a date may not really solve anything. Between now and nomination season, two legislative years remain, giving other states plenty of opportunity to move up their dates, too, stealing some of Louisiana’s thunder. And the southern regional primary may still loom in 2008 in early March which would discourage much in the way of resources coming to Louisiana.
That is, if “mini-Tuesday” doesn’t steal “super-Tuesday’s” thunder. Several states are committed or have talked about putting their selection after New Hampshire on the second Tuesday in February, including southern states such as Alabama and North Carolina. If that were to transpire, Louisiana is back to where it started.
If the state really wants to beat the front-loading of selection at its own game, it would be wise to accept the Democrats’ presumed plan and to schedule in a caucus after Iowa and before New Hampshire’s primary, as some states have indicated they would. Otherwise, because Louisiana is not a large state (even smaller after the recent hurricane disasters) and is not looking to team up with others, it’s likely to be largely overlooked by the candidates and unlikely to draw much more significant participation for the money spent.
10.11.05
Black Caucus puts politics ahead of practicality
Let’s be honest about why the Legislative Black Caucus has filed suit against Gov. Kathleen Blanco: it’s not about the Constitution, as some like Sen. Cleo Fields, the group’s lawyer say (how many cases has he tried, being a professional politician since age 23?). It’s that they don’t like the idea of government growing smaller, taking fewer resources from the majority of people, and redistributing those resources to a small group of people who overwhelmingly vote for, in large part, members of the caucus.
Blanco made cuts up to 10 percent in some areas as appeared to be permitted by the language of 2005’s operating budget bill (HB1, Act 16). Traditionally, anything outside of just a very few areas that was more than 5 percent had to garner to approval of the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget.
By acting unilaterally, Blanco could immediately cut these budgets. Further, the Legislature has the option of ratifying these cuts, so the whole point could be moot. This suit is quixotic and detracts from getting on with the business of doing what’s necessary to puts the state’s fiscal house in order.
But it does serve one purpose: to highlight how the Legislature consistently hands over, and apparently has for years, power to the governor in this and other areas. Constitutionally, the Louisiana governor doesn’t have a lot of power. What greater power she has is due to the Legislature’s willingness to hand it over. This provision in the 2005 budget bill is a perfect example: how many who voted on it really knew what it meant, or even knew it was in there?
Blanco ally Sen. Francis Heitmeier, who is chairman of the committee that deals with the bill, summed it up when he said in next year's budget bill the Legislature simply should excise this provision. If the Legislature finally will start standing up for itself, this would be then place to start – in the 2006 regular session. This is the proper response to reconcile a political dispute between branches of government, rather than bring yet another branch to try to accomplish the stealth agenda of a group whose views on the matter are outside of the majority.
Blanco made cuts up to 10 percent in some areas as appeared to be permitted by the language of 2005’s operating budget bill (HB1, Act 16). Traditionally, anything outside of just a very few areas that was more than 5 percent had to garner to approval of the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget.
By acting unilaterally, Blanco could immediately cut these budgets. Further, the Legislature has the option of ratifying these cuts, so the whole point could be moot. This suit is quixotic and detracts from getting on with the business of doing what’s necessary to puts the state’s fiscal house in order.
But it does serve one purpose: to highlight how the Legislature consistently hands over, and apparently has for years, power to the governor in this and other areas. Constitutionally, the Louisiana governor doesn’t have a lot of power. What greater power she has is due to the Legislature’s willingness to hand it over. This provision in the 2005 budget bill is a perfect example: how many who voted on it really knew what it meant, or even knew it was in there?
Blanco ally Sen. Francis Heitmeier, who is chairman of the committee that deals with the bill, summed it up when he said in next year's budget bill the Legislature simply should excise this provision. If the Legislature finally will start standing up for itself, this would be then place to start – in the 2006 regular session. This is the proper response to reconcile a political dispute between branches of government, rather than bring yet another branch to try to accomplish the stealth agenda of a group whose views on the matter are outside of the majority.
9.11.05
Liberal wackos remind Landrieu, us who she really is
With her supporters disproportionately having fled the state, Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu can’t catch a break as one of the fringe elements that increasingly make up her remaining base of support holds her feet to the liberal fire.
A group called Advocates for Environmental Human Rights occupied her Washington office’s conference room and demanded to see her, accusing her of supporting laxity in environmental regulations in her bill to loot the rest of the country to reconstruct Louisiana after the hurricane disasters. Landrieu eventually briefly complied, and the group proclaimed its stunt as effective.
These wackos really represent no one in the mainstream and hardly anybody outside of it. They get their funding from liberal foundations such as Mitchell Kapor and Ford, and are best known for trying to bring in front of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights alleged harm done residents of Mossville, LA, using the tired and discredited argument of “environmental racism” (the idea that those who may pollute deliberately set up operations to inflict impermissible pollution on racial minorities).
A group called Advocates for Environmental Human Rights occupied her Washington office’s conference room and demanded to see her, accusing her of supporting laxity in environmental regulations in her bill to loot the rest of the country to reconstruct Louisiana after the hurricane disasters. Landrieu eventually briefly complied, and the group proclaimed its stunt as effective.
These wackos really represent no one in the mainstream and hardly anybody outside of it. They get their funding from liberal foundations such as Mitchell Kapor and Ford, and are best known for trying to bring in front of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights alleged harm done residents of Mossville, LA, using the tired and discredited argument of “environmental racism” (the idea that those who may pollute deliberately set up operations to inflict impermissible pollution on racial minorities).
8.11.05
Fiscal situation demands sanity from higher education
The hurricane disasters present Louisiana with an opportunity to reshape higher education in the state in a way that will bring sanity to the system.
There are two problems with the way higher education is structured in Louisiana. First, there are too many four-year institutions and not enough two-year schools. For example (considering only public schools), Illinois, with a population of about 12.5 million has 15 four-year schools and 48 community colleges. Louisiana, with about 4.5 million, has 14 four-year schools and 9 community colleges. Isn’t there some imbalance and inefficiency here?
The other is that, as a vestige of discrimination, a separate track of schools was dedicated to only black students (while others, until the last 40 years, were shunning blacks) and has operated even in the shadow of other universities when all long ago were mandated to accept students of any race. Four of the five schools – only one of Louisiana’s few community colleges, Southern University Shreveport, in this system is the only one not almost next door to another institution doing the same thing – are essentially duplicative.
State leaders steadfastly have refused to accept that the state is overbuilt in four year institutions and tolerates having duplicative institutions side-by-side (Grambling and Louisiana Tech, Southern – Baton Rouge and LSU, and Southern – New Orleans and UNO, and the LSU Agriculture and Law schools and Southern’s versions) are within about five miles or less of each other. Just a comparison of state figures tells the tale – including vocational/technical schools Illinois averages 4,110 students per school, Louisiana’s is nearly half that at 2,357 per school.
Currently, Southern РNew Orleans and Delgado and Nu̱ez Community Colleges are unable to open if not largely gutted by the disasters. SUNO particularly has been wracked by them with an estimate of $500 billion to rebuild Рwhile UNO, with largely the same programs and which weathered the flooding much better, exists two miles to the west down Leon C. Simon. Why rebuild SUNO at all?
Far cheaper would be to allow SUNO professors to take presently open faculty positions at UNO when available, figure out a way to combine the community colleges into one, give generous severance packages to leftover SUNO and community college faculty and administrators, and reassign wherever possible classified employees to other nearby state institutions. Let’s face it, these schools serve mostly Orleanians and those down in the parish (St. Bernard) which will be reduced in large numbers for the next few years, so there’s no reason to waste resources on them.
But the rest of the state needs to step up to save money, too. Duplicative programs that still exist after the rebalancing of the 1990s at the pairs of schools mentioned above also should be reduced if not eliminated.
Alumni of these institutions might pout, legislators from their districts might fulminate, some students from them might complain – but with hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion dollars of budgetary deficits and capital expenditures to be stretched thin from rebuilding over the coming years, realigning Louisiana higher education in a way that makes sense is now positively overdue.
There are two problems with the way higher education is structured in Louisiana. First, there are too many four-year institutions and not enough two-year schools. For example (considering only public schools), Illinois, with a population of about 12.5 million has 15 four-year schools and 48 community colleges. Louisiana, with about 4.5 million, has 14 four-year schools and 9 community colleges. Isn’t there some imbalance and inefficiency here?
The other is that, as a vestige of discrimination, a separate track of schools was dedicated to only black students (while others, until the last 40 years, were shunning blacks) and has operated even in the shadow of other universities when all long ago were mandated to accept students of any race. Four of the five schools – only one of Louisiana’s few community colleges, Southern University Shreveport, in this system is the only one not almost next door to another institution doing the same thing – are essentially duplicative.
State leaders steadfastly have refused to accept that the state is overbuilt in four year institutions and tolerates having duplicative institutions side-by-side (Grambling and Louisiana Tech, Southern – Baton Rouge and LSU, and Southern – New Orleans and UNO, and the LSU Agriculture and Law schools and Southern’s versions) are within about five miles or less of each other. Just a comparison of state figures tells the tale – including vocational/technical schools Illinois averages 4,110 students per school, Louisiana’s is nearly half that at 2,357 per school.
Currently, Southern РNew Orleans and Delgado and Nu̱ez Community Colleges are unable to open if not largely gutted by the disasters. SUNO particularly has been wracked by them with an estimate of $500 billion to rebuild Рwhile UNO, with largely the same programs and which weathered the flooding much better, exists two miles to the west down Leon C. Simon. Why rebuild SUNO at all?
Far cheaper would be to allow SUNO professors to take presently open faculty positions at UNO when available, figure out a way to combine the community colleges into one, give generous severance packages to leftover SUNO and community college faculty and administrators, and reassign wherever possible classified employees to other nearby state institutions. Let’s face it, these schools serve mostly Orleanians and those down in the parish (St. Bernard) which will be reduced in large numbers for the next few years, so there’s no reason to waste resources on them.
But the rest of the state needs to step up to save money, too. Duplicative programs that still exist after the rebalancing of the 1990s at the pairs of schools mentioned above also should be reduced if not eliminated.
Alumni of these institutions might pout, legislators from their districts might fulminate, some students from them might complain – but with hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion dollars of budgetary deficits and capital expenditures to be stretched thin from rebuilding over the coming years, realigning Louisiana higher education in a way that makes sense is now positively overdue.
7.11.05
Mrs. Robertson goes to Government Plaza; short stay likely
When Pres. George Bush picked Dan Quayle to become his vice presidential running mate, most observers got caught off guard. Part of the reason was Bush’s trying to find an energetic partner yet one who would be loyal and not overshadow him; some observers hinted it was because other higher-profile candidates each had a serious flaw in the mind of Bush so, in essence, he picked a “lowest common denominator” candidate that none of his advisers really had any objections to.
Shreveport City Council’s picking of Cynthia “Cindy” Norton Robertson to fill the remainder of former City Council District D’s occupant Mike Gibson echoes strongly of this historical incident – except, by early indications, Quayle was much more politically astute and informed. And this probably was the intent of the Council majority of Democrats.
The dynamic of the 2006 city elections and the desire of black officials to control the Council hovered in the background during this process. Democrats would love to grab this Republican-dominated seat in 2006 but would have to pick one of their own with considerable political skills who could use the short incumbency to maximal advantage. Short of that, black council members wanted to put a fourth black Democrat on the council to control it until the end of 2006. Also in the background: the Council had to act expeditiously or Gov. Kathleen Blanco would make the choice for it
The depleted Council featured three black Democrats, a white Democrat (Monty Walford), and two white Republicans. Its first choice, nominating local lawyer and Democrat activist Hersy Jones, attempted to implement the plan for a black majority on the Council but Walford joined the Republicans to prevent the four-vote majority needed. Flummoxed, the black Democrats abruptly halted the meeting and eventually decided to reconvene several days later.
At that meeting, another motion to appoint Jones failed 3-3. After the nomination of three others by other council members did not garner more than two votes each, including those of a former Republican city councilman who said he would not run in 2006 and of a high-profile white Democrat who might have had the best chance of holding the seat in 2006, the black contingent nominated and confirmed the white Democrat Robertson with Walford’s vote.
This train of events shows the divisions within the Democrats who could not agree on a candidate viable in 2006. Simply, the Democrats on the Council wanted a political lightweight not affiliated with Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower. And it seems they got exactly that with Robertson.
When asked why so few women had served on the Council (itself less than three decades of age), Robertson said “I guess people just don't give women a chance.” I guess she didn’t know that the Council almost always has had at least one female on it and one of them, Hazel Beard, went on to become mayor. Nor perhaps did she know only one woman tried to run in 2002 (but losing by a mere 76 votes) which might suggest the lack of women on it is because female candidates don’t give themselves enough credit to run, not the fault of voters, who can’t put women on it who don’t run for it.
She seems even less aware about the realities of campaigning and the coalition-building and voter-informing that comes with it. She said she would have been a candidate in 2006 even if Gibson had not left and still is, but added she has no plans to start fundraising for next year’s election, instead hoping voters will judge her on her accomplishments, not political advertising.
I hate to burst her bubble, but that is extremely unlikely to happen. Even as an incumbent, short of committing a crime she’ll be lucky if even 10 percent of the district knows who she is without any media (and you can’t walk to electioneer a district of 24,000 people even if you didn’t have a full-time job even if you started today). She should note that it cost Gibson nearly $35,000 just in 2002 to win the seat then. And, given the fact that she is in a historically-Republican district where by election day Republicans and Democrats will be about even in registration totals, with more than half of those Democrats white, she already has a steep uphill battle to win a term on her own.
While it never is bad to have a political novice in city elective office, Robertson shows all the signs of having a quick stay, so she had best use her short time in her seat wisely.
Shreveport City Council’s picking of Cynthia “Cindy” Norton Robertson to fill the remainder of former City Council District D’s occupant Mike Gibson echoes strongly of this historical incident – except, by early indications, Quayle was much more politically astute and informed. And this probably was the intent of the Council majority of Democrats.
The dynamic of the 2006 city elections and the desire of black officials to control the Council hovered in the background during this process. Democrats would love to grab this Republican-dominated seat in 2006 but would have to pick one of their own with considerable political skills who could use the short incumbency to maximal advantage. Short of that, black council members wanted to put a fourth black Democrat on the council to control it until the end of 2006. Also in the background: the Council had to act expeditiously or Gov. Kathleen Blanco would make the choice for it
The depleted Council featured three black Democrats, a white Democrat (Monty Walford), and two white Republicans. Its first choice, nominating local lawyer and Democrat activist Hersy Jones, attempted to implement the plan for a black majority on the Council but Walford joined the Republicans to prevent the four-vote majority needed. Flummoxed, the black Democrats abruptly halted the meeting and eventually decided to reconvene several days later.
At that meeting, another motion to appoint Jones failed 3-3. After the nomination of three others by other council members did not garner more than two votes each, including those of a former Republican city councilman who said he would not run in 2006 and of a high-profile white Democrat who might have had the best chance of holding the seat in 2006, the black contingent nominated and confirmed the white Democrat Robertson with Walford’s vote.
This train of events shows the divisions within the Democrats who could not agree on a candidate viable in 2006. Simply, the Democrats on the Council wanted a political lightweight not affiliated with Shreveport Mayor Keith Hightower. And it seems they got exactly that with Robertson.
When asked why so few women had served on the Council (itself less than three decades of age), Robertson said “I guess people just don't give women a chance.” I guess she didn’t know that the Council almost always has had at least one female on it and one of them, Hazel Beard, went on to become mayor. Nor perhaps did she know only one woman tried to run in 2002 (but losing by a mere 76 votes) which might suggest the lack of women on it is because female candidates don’t give themselves enough credit to run, not the fault of voters, who can’t put women on it who don’t run for it.
She seems even less aware about the realities of campaigning and the coalition-building and voter-informing that comes with it. She said she would have been a candidate in 2006 even if Gibson had not left and still is, but added she has no plans to start fundraising for next year’s election, instead hoping voters will judge her on her accomplishments, not political advertising.
I hate to burst her bubble, but that is extremely unlikely to happen. Even as an incumbent, short of committing a crime she’ll be lucky if even 10 percent of the district knows who she is without any media (and you can’t walk to electioneer a district of 24,000 people even if you didn’t have a full-time job even if you started today). She should note that it cost Gibson nearly $35,000 just in 2002 to win the seat then. And, given the fact that she is in a historically-Republican district where by election day Republicans and Democrats will be about even in registration totals, with more than half of those Democrats white, she already has a steep uphill battle to win a term on her own.
While it never is bad to have a political novice in city elective office, Robertson shows all the signs of having a quick stay, so she had best use her short time in her seat wisely.
6.11.05
Has clueless Blanco caught fiscal reform religion?
When it comes to the state’s response to the fiscal challenges presented by the recent hurricane disasters, can elite and popular opinion bludgeon Gov. Kathleen Blanco into doing the right thing?
While within Blanco beats the heart of a liberal ideologue (save on social issues), throughout her governorship history has shown when her ideological opponents make enough of a ruckus she often caves in to them. Such seemed to be the genesis of her Saturday night massacre of a number of state agencies budgets, after mainly Republican legislators put the heat on her calling for her during the special session to throw her weight behind large budget cuts.
At first, it appeared that she would make cuts only up to 5 percent in most parts of government, some inquiring mind on her staff brought up language from Act 16 of this year’s regular session, the appropriations bill for the budget which, in the interpretation the administration sought from Attorney General Charles Foti, allowed her to cut up to 10 percent.
Legislators have cried foul over this, disagreeing with the ruling and saying their Joint Legislative Committee of the Budget statutorily needed to review this (although this language has been in the appropriations bill at least for almost a decade, and none of them ever bothered to find a definitive answer for this?). But Blanco bulldozed ahead and not only expanded the total reductions since the disasters to about a half-billion dollars, or about halfway to closing the deficit at present (although it will go higher), she made some good choices, particularly in choking closed the grant programs in the Office of Urban Affairs and the Office of Rural Development within the Office of the Governor – better known as the Urban and Rural (slush) Funds which are capital outlay gifts from the regular budget to individual legislators’ districts.
But before we can conclude that Blanco has caught the religion of fiscal discipline, we must note that she has yet to rule out a raid on the Budget Stabilization Fund and seems even more enthusiastic about the use of debt to fund current operations in the short term. And her apparent cluelessness on the differences between government and business borrowing erodes this confidence still more:
Blanco countered that borrowing money is just what businesses have to do when they get into a desperate situation outside their control. "Every business that is in trouble is happy to borrow some quick money. It is not very different from what we are experiencing," she said.
For one thing, if businesses are truly in a “desperate situation outside their control,” that implies it would be reckless to borrow money since, because these businesses cannot control the situation, by definition there is no plan that can bring about profitability, so why throw good money after bad? Also, if borrowed debt cannot turn around the situation, it is only the owners of the business (and, to a lesser extent if at all, the business’ creditors) who get hurt. Borrowing to fund expenses rather than assets of a sort leaves future taxpayers with nothing more except promissory notes to fulfill, which hurts the entire state. Finally, businesses don’t have to borrow to stay afloat, they can cut back operations, something even easier for government to do because it faces no marketplace where better competitors could drive it out of business because it cut services.
Hopefully, this fiction of hers one way or the other will get vanquished from her mind and she’ll concentrate on a combination of cuts and the presently available funds constitutionally from the Budget Stabilization Fund (one-third its balance). In fact, legislators may dare her to demonstrate her lurch towards fiscal sanity.
Normally a Blanco ally, state Sen. Francis Heitmeier, the Joint Committee chairman, asserts “Whatever cuts [Blanco] make[s] will be on the table as to whether we as a Legislature decide to keep them, enhance them, borrow money and fund them or restore them.” Maybe so, but then Blanco will have the chance to wield her veto pen, and will if she truly has caught fiscal reform religion.
While within Blanco beats the heart of a liberal ideologue (save on social issues), throughout her governorship history has shown when her ideological opponents make enough of a ruckus she often caves in to them. Such seemed to be the genesis of her Saturday night massacre of a number of state agencies budgets, after mainly Republican legislators put the heat on her calling for her during the special session to throw her weight behind large budget cuts.
At first, it appeared that she would make cuts only up to 5 percent in most parts of government, some inquiring mind on her staff brought up language from Act 16 of this year’s regular session, the appropriations bill for the budget which, in the interpretation the administration sought from Attorney General Charles Foti, allowed her to cut up to 10 percent.
Legislators have cried foul over this, disagreeing with the ruling and saying their Joint Legislative Committee of the Budget statutorily needed to review this (although this language has been in the appropriations bill at least for almost a decade, and none of them ever bothered to find a definitive answer for this?). But Blanco bulldozed ahead and not only expanded the total reductions since the disasters to about a half-billion dollars, or about halfway to closing the deficit at present (although it will go higher), she made some good choices, particularly in choking closed the grant programs in the Office of Urban Affairs and the Office of Rural Development within the Office of the Governor – better known as the Urban and Rural (slush) Funds which are capital outlay gifts from the regular budget to individual legislators’ districts.
But before we can conclude that Blanco has caught the religion of fiscal discipline, we must note that she has yet to rule out a raid on the Budget Stabilization Fund and seems even more enthusiastic about the use of debt to fund current operations in the short term. And her apparent cluelessness on the differences between government and business borrowing erodes this confidence still more:
Blanco countered that borrowing money is just what businesses have to do when they get into a desperate situation outside their control. "Every business that is in trouble is happy to borrow some quick money. It is not very different from what we are experiencing," she said.
For one thing, if businesses are truly in a “desperate situation outside their control,” that implies it would be reckless to borrow money since, because these businesses cannot control the situation, by definition there is no plan that can bring about profitability, so why throw good money after bad? Also, if borrowed debt cannot turn around the situation, it is only the owners of the business (and, to a lesser extent if at all, the business’ creditors) who get hurt. Borrowing to fund expenses rather than assets of a sort leaves future taxpayers with nothing more except promissory notes to fulfill, which hurts the entire state. Finally, businesses don’t have to borrow to stay afloat, they can cut back operations, something even easier for government to do because it faces no marketplace where better competitors could drive it out of business because it cut services.
Hopefully, this fiction of hers one way or the other will get vanquished from her mind and she’ll concentrate on a combination of cuts and the presently available funds constitutionally from the Budget Stabilization Fund (one-third its balance). In fact, legislators may dare her to demonstrate her lurch towards fiscal sanity.
Normally a Blanco ally, state Sen. Francis Heitmeier, the Joint Committee chairman, asserts “Whatever cuts [Blanco] make[s] will be on the table as to whether we as a Legislature decide to keep them, enhance them, borrow money and fund them or restore them.” Maybe so, but then Blanco will have the chance to wield her veto pen, and will if she truly has caught fiscal reform religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)