So let’s see, according to Gov. Kathleen Blanco, (1) you use your line item veto on state spending projects either if the spending is going to be restored or it’s connected to somebody facing legal woes, and (2) you veto bills when it’s uncertain whether local government revenue would decline to the benefit of ratepayers but you sign them when it’s certain local government revenues will increase at the expense of taxpayers.
That the larger message Blanco delivered in her series of veto and related messages concerning the most controversial bills of the session at her deadline to deal with them. It started with her poor explanation for the veto of HB 699 which would have introduced competition to the provision of cable television by granting telephone companies entrance into it by statewide franchise.
Why this was a good bill and refuting the specious arguments of its opponents has been addressed previously. Blanco wrote that she vetoed it because it was uncertain whether there would be a loss of revenue for local governments, causing the need for tax increases or service cuts.
She’s probably right, but for the wrong reason. Under the current local franchising agreement law, local governments can charge fees to ratepayers that get cable television which have nothing to do with its provision – in other words, a backdoor way of raising revenues on the back of ratepayers. HB 699 would not have permitted this although it would have apportioned monies from rates paid through the statewide franchise to local governments in relation to the number of subscribers. So, local government would lose the ability to impose stealth revenue fees – but that’s something good, not bad. Blanco shows who’s side she’s really on here – bigger (local) government, not their citizens.
Blanco also questioned (but, again, with no certainty) that the bill might violate laws dealing with local government property rights. Let’s say it did, that’s an easy one to solve – change the law if the HB 699 were found by the courts to do that. Maybe she forgets that (with the exception of a few local governments whose charters existed before the latest Constitution) the state has the last word on what powers local governments have in this area. And, in no way does HB 699 interfere with existing contracts – but even if it did, why not just offer the same statewide franchise to existing franchisees next year?
She seems concerned about hypothetical situations that could hurt (but, as noted above, actually would help many) taxpayers with HB 699, but with HB 1281, she just lets it go. This bill would steer tax dollars from state coffers to special interests in Jefferson Parish. Even with this certainty, she signed it, and then tried to have it both ways by arguing she had worked out a deal with Parish President Aaron Broussard essentially not to implement it and state Rep. and author of the controversial portion of the bill John Alario to change the new law next session.
Promises are nice, but what if Broussard doesn’t get reelected this fall? Or if Alario can’t get the bill to pass (assuming he genuinely tries to do so)? If Blanco really meant to short-circuit this favor, she would have vetoed the bill and not left its non-implementation to chance. Renovating historic structures in Baton Rouge wouldn’t be any less likely to happen if the ability to use tax increment financing was delayed a year. Instead, we must conclude either she is too trusting or trying to save face.
And, despite millions of dollars of funding going to local government who often don’t really need some project or to private organizations that have no accountability requirements and no real benefit to the entire state in their state-funded activities, she approved over 90 percent of such spending – and most of what she didn’t she admitted likely would be restored soon. Almost half of the rest of her vetoed spending was connected to someone who had legal troubles and who was getting bad press for it; little else did Blanco consider it worthy of a veto, almost none of it from $32 million of “special legislative projects.” Again, Blanco would rather cozy up to (big) local government and placate powerful political allies than direct resources to help the entire state.
Simply, Blanco’s explanation of her actions on these bills ring hollow. She loves big government, thinks it can solve all problems, and proved it with these actions and explanations of them.
12.7.06
Blanco decisions favor special interests, snub people
Gov. Kathleen Blanco made clear where her loyalties are with her actions of what bills to sign and to veto with the 2006 Legislative session – doing the bidding of special interests, certainly not on the behalf of the people.
On the one hand, she signed HB 1281, as well as HB 658. These bills allow special interests in Jefferson and Sabine Parishes to siphon off state money indefinitely and to receive favorable land deals. On the other hand, she vetoed HB 699 which would have brought more competition and lower prices to consumers for cable television; instead, she kowtowed to greedy cable television companies and to the voracious appetites of local government for more of the peoples’ money.
She also largely whiffed on line-item vetoes in the state’s operating budget. A handful of small items being refused hardly rids the budget of millions of dollars of unnecessary spending that should be the responsibility of local governments to fund on their own or represent outright gifts with no accountability to private organizations. Again, she would rather please politically-connected special interests than to be a proper steward of the people’s resources.
What does it take for this opportunist to put the people, not governments and special interests, first? Do they have to rise up in mass to articulate their disgust? That’s the impression left with a veto it seems Blanco unwillingly did cast, against HB 1028 which would have allowed state legislators to give themselves premium access to state insurance even if they are only part-timers.
It shouldn’t have to come to that, and these poor decisions give yet one more reason why Louisiana cannot wait until she leaves office.
On the one hand, she signed HB 1281, as well as HB 658. These bills allow special interests in Jefferson and Sabine Parishes to siphon off state money indefinitely and to receive favorable land deals. On the other hand, she vetoed HB 699 which would have brought more competition and lower prices to consumers for cable television; instead, she kowtowed to greedy cable television companies and to the voracious appetites of local government for more of the peoples’ money.
She also largely whiffed on line-item vetoes in the state’s operating budget. A handful of small items being refused hardly rids the budget of millions of dollars of unnecessary spending that should be the responsibility of local governments to fund on their own or represent outright gifts with no accountability to private organizations. Again, she would rather please politically-connected special interests than to be a proper steward of the people’s resources.
What does it take for this opportunist to put the people, not governments and special interests, first? Do they have to rise up in mass to articulate their disgust? That’s the impression left with a veto it seems Blanco unwillingly did cast, against HB 1028 which would have allowed state legislators to give themselves premium access to state insurance even if they are only part-timers.
It shouldn’t have to come to that, and these poor decisions give yet one more reason why Louisiana cannot wait until she leaves office.
11.7.06
Redistricting soon both possible, essential for Louisiana
After the U.S. Supreme Court recently affirmed that states could reapportion themselves at any time, Louisiana has a strong case to do so with its Legislature as a result of the hurricane disasters of 2005 which has caused the state’s population to lose at present as many as 300,000 people and has dramatically shifted population patterns within it.
On the one hand, for representative democracy to actually be so, equiproportionality must exist among these districts, or else rotten burroughs spoil things. On the other hand, the statistical basis on which to do so is fleeting unless the state commits a good chunk of change to carrying out some kind of census.
While some may contend the wide variances in district populations must be tolerated until the next federal census and the 2011 election cycle, there is some middle ground here. The need is obvious; for example, turnout in the 2006 primary in New Orleans’ flood-ravaged District E was nearly half that of the 2002 primary turnout, down about 20 percent, even with heroic get-out-the-vote efforts funded by state taxpayers.
The state should proceed by petitioning to the Department of Justice that the state use registered voters as the basis on which to reapportion during the 2007 session for that election cycle only, based upon the Court’s 1966 ruling in Burns v. Richardson. There, the court allowed Hawai’i to do just this until the 1970 census information became available because of a large transient population. In this instance, citizen displacement and the influx of a transient population because of the hurricanes should merit similar treatment.
If pre-clearance is granted by Justice, the new districts could be in place by next July at minimal expense. That’s still about two months before qualifying, leaving plenty of time for campaigning in the new districts.
Whether political considerations will allow this to happen is another matter. But fairness to the citizenry dictates that the state makes the effort to ensure that all voices get heard equally, justifying the redistricting.
On the one hand, for representative democracy to actually be so, equiproportionality must exist among these districts, or else rotten burroughs spoil things. On the other hand, the statistical basis on which to do so is fleeting unless the state commits a good chunk of change to carrying out some kind of census.
While some may contend the wide variances in district populations must be tolerated until the next federal census and the 2011 election cycle, there is some middle ground here. The need is obvious; for example, turnout in the 2006 primary in New Orleans’ flood-ravaged District E was nearly half that of the 2002 primary turnout, down about 20 percent, even with heroic get-out-the-vote efforts funded by state taxpayers.
The state should proceed by petitioning to the Department of Justice that the state use registered voters as the basis on which to reapportion during the 2007 session for that election cycle only, based upon the Court’s 1966 ruling in Burns v. Richardson. There, the court allowed Hawai’i to do just this until the 1970 census information became available because of a large transient population. In this instance, citizen displacement and the influx of a transient population because of the hurricanes should merit similar treatment.
If pre-clearance is granted by Justice, the new districts could be in place by next July at minimal expense. That’s still about two months before qualifying, leaving plenty of time for campaigning in the new districts.
Whether political considerations will allow this to happen is another matter. But fairness to the citizenry dictates that the state makes the effort to ensure that all voices get heard equally, justifying the redistricting.
10.7.06
Blanco has chance to walk the walk with line-item vetoes
So Gov. Kathleen Blanco starts getting some political heat about her saying one thing, getting rid of budget categories that steered state money to local requests at the whim of legislators with her permission, then doing another, permitting he same kind of items back into the budget and saying she had no real plans to scrutinize them any more than in the past. Then she turns it up so more on herself by blaming the situation on state Treasurer John Kennedy, who noted that he has no formal power in the area, but who then accepted her invitation to come up with a list of line-item vetoes.
The biggest project on the $9.2 million list is the $500,000 going to the Louisiana Leadership Institute, the child of state Sen. Cleo Fields to steer money into his district for “a nonprofit organization providing programs and services to build leadership, improve academic skills, increase self-esteem and inspire motivation in Baton Rouge area students.” Apparently, fielding a prize-winning marching band is one strategy to boost this self-esteem: the group’s band won the “Battle of the High School Marching Bands” last November in Carson, CA, winning money to buy new uniforms and instruments even as tens of thousands of taxpayer’s dollars were spent to send the band there while the state struggled to recover from the hurricane disasters. (Meanwhile, third place Monroe’s Carroll High School didn’t get anything extra from the state.)
Fields was somewhat upset by Kennedy’s recommendation, acknowledging that maybe he ought to find non-governmental sources of funding if there was going to be some much capriciousness in the process. It’s rather interesting that Fields only now has come to some realization that he ought to wean the organization off of taxpayer dollars, since he’s been doing the opposite for many years – the group got $75,000 in 2001, $200,000 in 2002, $300,000 in 2003, $500,000 in 2004 and 2005, and the $500,000 this year plus two other separate line items worth an additional $200,000.
This item is an excellent example of what ought not be in the budget. If the state thinks sending bands to California is a service it ought to be performing, then either it should create a program in state government to do this so that this can face legislative and/or bureaucratic scrutiny, or it should create a competitive grant program to have nonprofit organizations accomplish this. Earmarking money straight out of the general fund with next to no oversight on its use is just bad public policy.
If this is indicative of the other 200 items listed by Kennedy, vetoing the entire contents of his list would show that Blanco just doesn’t talk the talk, but walks the walk when it comes to making Louisiana government more efficient – especially when the state remains a supplicant to the federal government for disaster-recovery funding.
The biggest project on the $9.2 million list is the $500,000 going to the Louisiana Leadership Institute, the child of state Sen. Cleo Fields to steer money into his district for “a nonprofit organization providing programs and services to build leadership, improve academic skills, increase self-esteem and inspire motivation in Baton Rouge area students.” Apparently, fielding a prize-winning marching band is one strategy to boost this self-esteem: the group’s band won the “Battle of the High School Marching Bands” last November in Carson, CA, winning money to buy new uniforms and instruments even as tens of thousands of taxpayer’s dollars were spent to send the band there while the state struggled to recover from the hurricane disasters. (Meanwhile, third place Monroe’s Carroll High School didn’t get anything extra from the state.)
Fields was somewhat upset by Kennedy’s recommendation, acknowledging that maybe he ought to find non-governmental sources of funding if there was going to be some much capriciousness in the process. It’s rather interesting that Fields only now has come to some realization that he ought to wean the organization off of taxpayer dollars, since he’s been doing the opposite for many years – the group got $75,000 in 2001, $200,000 in 2002, $300,000 in 2003, $500,000 in 2004 and 2005, and the $500,000 this year plus two other separate line items worth an additional $200,000.
This item is an excellent example of what ought not be in the budget. If the state thinks sending bands to California is a service it ought to be performing, then either it should create a program in state government to do this so that this can face legislative and/or bureaucratic scrutiny, or it should create a competitive grant program to have nonprofit organizations accomplish this. Earmarking money straight out of the general fund with next to no oversight on its use is just bad public policy.
If this is indicative of the other 200 items listed by Kennedy, vetoing the entire contents of his list would show that Blanco just doesn’t talk the talk, but walks the walk when it comes to making Louisiana government more efficient – especially when the state remains a supplicant to the federal government for disaster-recovery funding.
7.7.06
Without better explanation, Blanco must veto HB 1281
Even though Gov. Kathleen Blanco yesterday signed the unusual bill noted previously, HB 658, there still is time to undo its at least some of its potentially negative effects to Louisiana’s taxpayers.
Originally, the bill was intended to transfer the failing Hodges Garden facility to the state, which now hopefully the state would close barring the appearance of some miraculous condition that could cause its financial resurrection or actually fulfill some need of the public which seems unlikely. The transfer certainly assists the present owner of the land in question. But a last-minute change to it added another questionable provision that could give a big assist to other private interests.
State Rep. John Alario presented the bill on the last day of the session. Even though he wasn’t its author (Speaker Joe Salter was, in whose district is Hodges Gardens), he got appointed to the conference committee and by the time it got out of conference the bill was more Alario’s than anybody else’s. The provision he got added constituted a swap of land between the state and an entity known as TCW/Firewall Ventures I, LLC, and then the bill instructs the state to turn around and give the land to Jefferson Parish.
Originally, the bill was intended to transfer the failing Hodges Garden facility to the state, which now hopefully the state would close barring the appearance of some miraculous condition that could cause its financial resurrection or actually fulfill some need of the public which seems unlikely. The transfer certainly assists the present owner of the land in question. But a last-minute change to it added another questionable provision that could give a big assist to other private interests.
State Rep. John Alario presented the bill on the last day of the session. Even though he wasn’t its author (Speaker Joe Salter was, in whose district is Hodges Gardens), he got appointed to the conference committee and by the time it got out of conference the bill was more Alario’s than anybody else’s. The provision he got added constituted a swap of land between the state and an entity known as TCW/Firewall Ventures I, LLC, and then the bill instructs the state to turn around and give the land to Jefferson Parish.
6.7.06
Interesting stories lie behind golf course favoritism bill
Finally, the implications of the recent legislative session’s HB 1281 are receiving mainstream media notice, but that still does not reveal the entire backstory.
While the bill does many things, most notably it creates an unprecedented situation in Louisiana by creating a tax increment financing district mainly to help an existing business, not to generate new enterprises. This is the notorious Tournament Players Championship course which receives a state subsidy; if not enough rounds of golf booked a certain way are sold, the state must make up the difference.
In essence, it creates a bit of a shell game. The state contractually may owe the course money that it would have to carve out of operating revenues. This bill would create a district empowered to pay off those expenses, as well as others, for the course. The catch is the money would come directly into the district, as the bill would allow funds to bypass those which otherwise would go into state sales tax collections.
While the bill does many things, most notably it creates an unprecedented situation in Louisiana by creating a tax increment financing district mainly to help an existing business, not to generate new enterprises. This is the notorious Tournament Players Championship course which receives a state subsidy; if not enough rounds of golf booked a certain way are sold, the state must make up the difference.
In essence, it creates a bit of a shell game. The state contractually may owe the course money that it would have to carve out of operating revenues. This bill would create a district empowered to pay off those expenses, as well as others, for the course. The catch is the money would come directly into the district, as the bill would allow funds to bypass those which otherwise would go into state sales tax collections.
5.7.06
Jindal says he's not decided, but he will and will win
Of course U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal is going to give the required answer to speculation about his running for Louisiana governor in 2007, that for now he’s concentrating on his Congressional job and taking care of important federal issues for the state. Jindal has only participated in electoral politics as a candidate for three years, but, as everybody knows, he’s s fast learner.
Everybody also knows that, barring incredible circumstances, Republican Jindal will stand for governor next year. Even as he said he presently hasn’t made up his mind about it, the things he said in a recent neighborhood group meeting in Shreveport (and even the fact he trecked way out of his district to speak at a meeting comprising of typical citizens) shows he knows that, given any opportunity, not only will he run, he’ll win.
One reason is because he is right on so many issues. While his 2003 opponent and likely opposition next year incumbent Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco paid no attention to a bill from the recent legislative session that would have given preferential insurance access to the state’s part-time legislators and seemed likely to sign until, she claimed, an outcry of the citizenry pushed her to veto it, Jindal knew from the start it was bad bill and didn’t need to be awakened and goaded by the public to oppose it. Had Jindal won in 2003, that bill never would have gone anywhere in the legislature, if it ever even got introduced.
Everybody also knows that, barring incredible circumstances, Republican Jindal will stand for governor next year. Even as he said he presently hasn’t made up his mind about it, the things he said in a recent neighborhood group meeting in Shreveport (and even the fact he trecked way out of his district to speak at a meeting comprising of typical citizens) shows he knows that, given any opportunity, not only will he run, he’ll win.
One reason is because he is right on so many issues. While his 2003 opponent and likely opposition next year incumbent Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco paid no attention to a bill from the recent legislative session that would have given preferential insurance access to the state’s part-time legislators and seemed likely to sign until, she claimed, an outcry of the citizenry pushed her to veto it, Jindal knew from the start it was bad bill and didn’t need to be awakened and goaded by the public to oppose it. Had Jindal won in 2003, that bill never would have gone anywhere in the legislature, if it ever even got introduced.
4.7.06
Independence Day, 2006
This column publishes every Sunday through Thursday after noon (sometimes even before; maybe even after sundown on busy days) U.S. Central Time except whenever a significant national holiday falls on the Monday through Friday associated with the otherwise-usual publication on the previous day (unless it is Independence Day or Christmas when it is the day on which the holiday is observed by the U.S. government). In my opinion, there are six of these: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas.
With Tuesday, Jul. 4 being Independence Day, I invite you to explore the link above.
With Tuesday, Jul. 4 being Independence Day, I invite you to explore the link above.
3.7.06
McCrery, Boustany should fend off announced challengers
Hope springs eternal, and it’s always nice to see optimism springing from longshot candidates for office, but that doesn’t change the fact that such announced Congressional hopefuls to date for Louisiana this fall have a better chance of winning the lottery than a seat in the House of Representatives.
A month ago, Democrat the Rev. Artis Cash announced his bid for the 4th District seat held by the incumbent Republican Rep. Jim McCrery. Cash is best known for his accusations that racism lies behind some actions of Shreveport police and city government, as well as personal financial problems. Added to his checkered past, this creates a virtual impossibility for Cash to win against McCrery, against whom even any well-known, less-controversial Democrat politician would have a hard time defeating. Ever since the election after the 1992 redistricting (which threw him into a race against another sitting congressman), McCrery has cruised to victory and remains very popular in the district.
Perhaps more realistic would be the chances of Democrat Mike Stagg against 7th District Republican incumbent Rep. Charles Boustany. Until Boustany won two years ago, except for a brief interlude caused by the party-switching of former Rep. Jimmy Hayes, the area comprising this district always had been represented by a Democrat. Freshmen representatives also are the most vulnerable, and Stagg even has a little experience running a campaign for a high office as he sought the governorship in 2003.
However, his campaign was, to say the least, underwhelming as he finished with about two-fifths of a vote per precinct in the state. This does not deter him, for now he says he’s ready to run a more focused campaign. He cites the example of the late Sen. Paul Wellstone from Minnesota in his initial 1990 campaign, where Democrat Wellstone was outspent seven-to-one by incumbent Republican Rudy Boschwitz but who won regardless.
I hate to burst any illusions, but Stagg’s situation and Wellstone’s are very different. Wellstone had run competitively in 1982 in a statewide contest, and for the next eight years built a network of activists statewide. He also won a party primary giving him the entire state party machine to help him; no comparable help exists for a Democrat in this contest. And, unlike Louisiana, Minnesota has a rich tradition of political independence (perhaps even better exemplified by Jesse Ventura’s successful independent candidacy for governor a few years later) that provides much more for support for political underdogs/outsiders.
Stagg’s only chance of winning outside of incredible bad fortune for Boustany is to mount a serious campaign with resources. All indications are that he expects not to do that, so both he and Cash should expect not to win. On the other side of the coin, McCrery looks unbeatable against any challenger, and it’s going to take a well-funded, well-connected Democrat to get more than 40 percent of the vote against Boustany.
A month ago, Democrat the Rev. Artis Cash announced his bid for the 4th District seat held by the incumbent Republican Rep. Jim McCrery. Cash is best known for his accusations that racism lies behind some actions of Shreveport police and city government, as well as personal financial problems. Added to his checkered past, this creates a virtual impossibility for Cash to win against McCrery, against whom even any well-known, less-controversial Democrat politician would have a hard time defeating. Ever since the election after the 1992 redistricting (which threw him into a race against another sitting congressman), McCrery has cruised to victory and remains very popular in the district.
Perhaps more realistic would be the chances of Democrat Mike Stagg against 7th District Republican incumbent Rep. Charles Boustany. Until Boustany won two years ago, except for a brief interlude caused by the party-switching of former Rep. Jimmy Hayes, the area comprising this district always had been represented by a Democrat. Freshmen representatives also are the most vulnerable, and Stagg even has a little experience running a campaign for a high office as he sought the governorship in 2003.
However, his campaign was, to say the least, underwhelming as he finished with about two-fifths of a vote per precinct in the state. This does not deter him, for now he says he’s ready to run a more focused campaign. He cites the example of the late Sen. Paul Wellstone from Minnesota in his initial 1990 campaign, where Democrat Wellstone was outspent seven-to-one by incumbent Republican Rudy Boschwitz but who won regardless.
I hate to burst any illusions, but Stagg’s situation and Wellstone’s are very different. Wellstone had run competitively in 1982 in a statewide contest, and for the next eight years built a network of activists statewide. He also won a party primary giving him the entire state party machine to help him; no comparable help exists for a Democrat in this contest. And, unlike Louisiana, Minnesota has a rich tradition of political independence (perhaps even better exemplified by Jesse Ventura’s successful independent candidacy for governor a few years later) that provides much more for support for political underdogs/outsiders.
Stagg’s only chance of winning outside of incredible bad fortune for Boustany is to mount a serious campaign with resources. All indications are that he expects not to do that, so both he and Cash should expect not to win. On the other side of the coin, McCrery looks unbeatable against any challenger, and it’s going to take a well-funded, well-connected Democrat to get more than 40 percent of the vote against Boustany.
2.7.06
LA-supported political correctness causing suffering
While the concept of political correctness contributes far more snickers about than brings any serious debate to public policy, sometimes we get another reminder about how the trendy liberalism it represents has real-world consequences that brings misery to people’s lives.
Just such a Louisiana example is afforded by the almost-unheard of decision by the world’s largest retailer, WalMart, to close a store, in Homer. The town, and all of Claiborne Parish, is suffering through economic decline.
But it didn’t have to be this way. Over a decade ago, a consortium offered to build a uranium enrichment plan near Homer. Many jobs and a tremendous economic boost would have developed by its citing in the area.
Instead, a few activists decided to stoke the fears of area residents in service of their political agenda. They declared that to locate the plant there (which, by its nature would involve hazardous, radioactive material) would cause “environmental racism,” the silly notion that firms which could engage in environmental despoliation of one kind or the other intentionally would locate their firms in areas with higher proportions of racial minorities.
Studies have consistently affirmed that there is no evidence of this. Companies locate for a number of reasons, but not because they disregard the lives of non-whites. But, unfortunately, with the political administration of Pres. Bill Clinton, a then-Democratic Congress, and a compliant, activist judiciary, facts and logic were cast aside in the pursuit of a political agenda and federal laws and judicial actions were used by these activists and needlessly-scared residents to force away eventually the plant.
And now who suffers? Just as in another Louisiana case involving claims of “environmental racism,” it’s the residents themselves who have suffered. Claiborne Parish may well be much better off economically had the plant been built.
Almost a decade had passed, but the nonsense continues. Louisiana’s Department of Environmental Quality may have changed the name from the “Office of Environmental Justice” to its Community/Industrial Relations Group within its Division of Environmental Assistance, but one of its jobs remains the pursuit of the invalid “environmental justice” notion. It’s under the umbrella of the department’s Environmental Services Program whose activities as a whole are being funded to the tune of over $15 million in 2006-07.
Gov. Kathleen Blanco isn’t in the position to stop the waste of taxpayers’ money squandered by this politically-correct mission in this budget because its activities are not put in a separate line, but she and the Legislature have the elimination of this stupidity to work on in 2007.
Just such a Louisiana example is afforded by the almost-unheard of decision by the world’s largest retailer, WalMart, to close a store, in Homer. The town, and all of Claiborne Parish, is suffering through economic decline.
But it didn’t have to be this way. Over a decade ago, a consortium offered to build a uranium enrichment plan near Homer. Many jobs and a tremendous economic boost would have developed by its citing in the area.
Instead, a few activists decided to stoke the fears of area residents in service of their political agenda. They declared that to locate the plant there (which, by its nature would involve hazardous, radioactive material) would cause “environmental racism,” the silly notion that firms which could engage in environmental despoliation of one kind or the other intentionally would locate their firms in areas with higher proportions of racial minorities.
Studies have consistently affirmed that there is no evidence of this. Companies locate for a number of reasons, but not because they disregard the lives of non-whites. But, unfortunately, with the political administration of Pres. Bill Clinton, a then-Democratic Congress, and a compliant, activist judiciary, facts and logic were cast aside in the pursuit of a political agenda and federal laws and judicial actions were used by these activists and needlessly-scared residents to force away eventually the plant.
And now who suffers? Just as in another Louisiana case involving claims of “environmental racism,” it’s the residents themselves who have suffered. Claiborne Parish may well be much better off economically had the plant been built.
Almost a decade had passed, but the nonsense continues. Louisiana’s Department of Environmental Quality may have changed the name from the “Office of Environmental Justice” to its Community/Industrial Relations Group within its Division of Environmental Assistance, but one of its jobs remains the pursuit of the invalid “environmental justice” notion. It’s under the umbrella of the department’s Environmental Services Program whose activities as a whole are being funded to the tune of over $15 million in 2006-07.
Gov. Kathleen Blanco isn’t in the position to stop the waste of taxpayers’ money squandered by this politically-correct mission in this budget because its activities are not put in a separate line, but she and the Legislature have the elimination of this stupidity to work on in 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)