Creative chap that he is, Agriculture Secretary Bob Odom is combining two boondoggles into one to make potentially a bigger mess impressive even by Louisiana standards.
When we last left off the saga of the Lacassine sugar mill, essentially paid for by money diverted from boll weevil eradication funds that no expert expects will be run economically, Odom was touting a $60 million sale of the $45 million facility was in the works, while at the same time arranging to guarantee the lending out million of dollars to retrofit the mill to the Lake Charles Cane Cooperative’s limited liability company that was to enter into a lease-purchase agreement of it. At the same time, Odom was looking to find somebody to build an ethanol plant next door, perhaps encouraged by the new state law that could force sales of the product in gasoline at higher prices to consumers.
Turns out he’s found something to go into agreement for 80 percent (of $45 million, not $60 million) and to build the plant for another $50 million – an ex-cement maker from Colombia, Cemento Andino S.A. (note: the company historically has been referred to as “Cemento” or “Cementos,” probably because there are at least two other similarly-named companies in South America). It’s not very “ex-“, as it turns out – only last November did it get out of the business by selling off its assets for $192 million. It appears the firm never has operated a cane syrup mill, much less ever built and/or operated an ethanol plant.
Not to worry, an Odom flunky assures the world, he personally visited with company officials and the engineers they’ve hired and finds them competent. If his boss Odom on this issue didn’t have less credibility than a Katrina “blow-up-the-levees” conspiracy theorist, that might actually mean something.
The kicker to the deal is that the waste product that presumably would come from the mill may not be used in the plant (if it gets built, seeing as one firm with experience in the area already has backed out), or even any Louisiana product. The contract allows the ex-cement maker to import grains to use in the plant – this when Louisiana farmers continue to be nervous about foreign agricultural imports into the state making it harder and harder for them to stay competitive.
Another Odom hack says this provision increases the chances of the mill being profitable (although I thought the original purpose of it was to help out farmers with their transportation costs, not to turn a profit) and that the firm will bring needed expertise to running the mill (even though one might think cane farmers might know something about that) and investment capital for it (even though Odom has arranged for two different loans to go to the farmers’ LLC to provide that capital).
It’s a good thing it appears that no additional state money will go down the rathole on this one, with the only thing continuing to plunge here being Odom’s credibility as a public servant who uses the taxpayers’ resources wisely.
9.8.06
Black Shreveport mayoral candidates must campaign hard
The opening of election qualifying also signals the period in which people may register to vote and participate in those elections is fast drawing to a conclusion, which will be crucial for determining who Shreveport’s next mayor will be.
Given that voting occurs largely along racial lines in Shreveport and there is a very good chance that the general election runoff will features a black and white candidate, the racial balance among registered voters in the city holds the key to who could win. For many years, black registrations have been growing faster that white ones but, unlike trends of a year ago suggested that by now, they still have not caught up to whites – leaving a gap of 1,722 as of Jul. 28 (however, total nonwhites outnumber whites by about 2,500; these figures from the combined active and inactive rolls).
Considering also the fact that historically whites turn out at slightly higher rates than blacks (2.4 percent in the 2002 contest) and a white candidate would be favored provided that larger amounts of racial crossover votes don’t break to the advantage of the black candidate (in 1994, for example, at the rate of 14 percent of whites of 7 percent of blacks). This means a black candidate must find ways to stimulate his base.
It’s far too simplistic to claim, “the only thing that gets people to turn out is emotion,” as said one appointed official. As political scientists have long noted, the single most important factor influencing political participation is age – the older a person, the more likely he is to vote (unless he becomes infirm). This is because as people age, they become more aware of how politics can impact their lives, and they gain more and vested interests – how well their kids are schooled, city services for their property, priorities for spending taxes paid, etc.
At the same time, observing that you can’t increase voting “until you get at the demography” describes the symptoms but misses the underlying disease. This is because the next two most important factors in participation are levels of education and degree of political efficacy (the ability a person believes he has to make a difference in governing). Better educated people are more likely to understand the process and see how it affects their lives, and thus are more likely to vote. People with higher degrees of efficacy feel more confident that they can effect political change through acts like voting. (These things also are inter-related: better educated people are more likely to rank highly in feelings of efficacy.)
Both of these factors, unlike age, can be changed within individuals. One elected official partially got it when she noted that nonparticipation occurs because “people don't feel any connection to the results of the process” – a contributing factor to lower feelings of efficacy. This highlights the difficult nature black candidates will face in trying to mobilize a black constituency – as blacks have lower levels of educational attainment and, partially as a consequence, lower degrees of efficacy.
(Understanding the theory behind political participation provides a much more complete explanation as to why “voters, especially in the South, are disproportionately both older and much more likely to be female. [They are] much less likely to be young and male,” as stated by one practitioner. First, aside from the fact this is quite an overstatement – whites compared to blacks and females compared to males were different by less than four percentage points in self-reported turnout in 2004 – it also misunderstands and overstates what the South has to do with it all.)
(Actually, age turnout differences among the four regions of the country are not very different – about 25 percent from highest to lowest turnout categories by age in the Northeast and Midwest, and 30 percent in the South and West. The reason why the latter two are greater is because they have greater proportions on nonwhite populations – black in the South, Asian and Hispanic in the West. These minority populations also are less well-educated and disproportionately younger. Sex works into this in the South because the black male population is significantly less well-educated compared to the black female population, and is much more likely to be imprisoned which prevents one from casting a vote. In other words, it all comes back to education, essentially – the region itself doesn’t make a differences, it’s aggregate levels of education and proportion of young population, not that Southern youngsters and males are less likely to vote because they are from the South.)
For the purposes of a campaign, however, educational attainment is not something you can change overnight. So, for black mayoral candidates to succeed in the next three months, since you can’t make your base older or better educated, you have to go after the efficacy angle. Specifically, you must address two political attitudes connected to it, perceptions of closeness of the election, and the salience of the election. Giving convincing details about how important the election will be for that person, and how every vote will count, are the best tactics to mobilize a base beyond its typical electoral response.
The numbers may not be as favorable for a black candidate as they may have appeared a year ago, but the recipe for victory still is the same – get out the vote.
Given that voting occurs largely along racial lines in Shreveport and there is a very good chance that the general election runoff will features a black and white candidate, the racial balance among registered voters in the city holds the key to who could win. For many years, black registrations have been growing faster that white ones but, unlike trends of a year ago suggested that by now, they still have not caught up to whites – leaving a gap of 1,722 as of Jul. 28 (however, total nonwhites outnumber whites by about 2,500; these figures from the combined active and inactive rolls).
Considering also the fact that historically whites turn out at slightly higher rates than blacks (2.4 percent in the 2002 contest) and a white candidate would be favored provided that larger amounts of racial crossover votes don’t break to the advantage of the black candidate (in 1994, for example, at the rate of 14 percent of whites of 7 percent of blacks). This means a black candidate must find ways to stimulate his base.
It’s far too simplistic to claim, “the only thing that gets people to turn out is emotion,” as said one appointed official. As political scientists have long noted, the single most important factor influencing political participation is age – the older a person, the more likely he is to vote (unless he becomes infirm). This is because as people age, they become more aware of how politics can impact their lives, and they gain more and vested interests – how well their kids are schooled, city services for their property, priorities for spending taxes paid, etc.
At the same time, observing that you can’t increase voting “until you get at the demography” describes the symptoms but misses the underlying disease. This is because the next two most important factors in participation are levels of education and degree of political efficacy (the ability a person believes he has to make a difference in governing). Better educated people are more likely to understand the process and see how it affects their lives, and thus are more likely to vote. People with higher degrees of efficacy feel more confident that they can effect political change through acts like voting. (These things also are inter-related: better educated people are more likely to rank highly in feelings of efficacy.)
Both of these factors, unlike age, can be changed within individuals. One elected official partially got it when she noted that nonparticipation occurs because “people don't feel any connection to the results of the process” – a contributing factor to lower feelings of efficacy. This highlights the difficult nature black candidates will face in trying to mobilize a black constituency – as blacks have lower levels of educational attainment and, partially as a consequence, lower degrees of efficacy.
(Understanding the theory behind political participation provides a much more complete explanation as to why “voters, especially in the South, are disproportionately both older and much more likely to be female. [They are] much less likely to be young and male,” as stated by one practitioner. First, aside from the fact this is quite an overstatement – whites compared to blacks and females compared to males were different by less than four percentage points in self-reported turnout in 2004 – it also misunderstands and overstates what the South has to do with it all.)
(Actually, age turnout differences among the four regions of the country are not very different – about 25 percent from highest to lowest turnout categories by age in the Northeast and Midwest, and 30 percent in the South and West. The reason why the latter two are greater is because they have greater proportions on nonwhite populations – black in the South, Asian and Hispanic in the West. These minority populations also are less well-educated and disproportionately younger. Sex works into this in the South because the black male population is significantly less well-educated compared to the black female population, and is much more likely to be imprisoned which prevents one from casting a vote. In other words, it all comes back to education, essentially – the region itself doesn’t make a differences, it’s aggregate levels of education and proportion of young population, not that Southern youngsters and males are less likely to vote because they are from the South.)
For the purposes of a campaign, however, educational attainment is not something you can change overnight. So, for black mayoral candidates to succeed in the next three months, since you can’t make your base older or better educated, you have to go after the efficacy angle. Specifically, you must address two political attitudes connected to it, perceptions of closeness of the election, and the salience of the election. Giving convincing details about how important the election will be for that person, and how every vote will count, are the best tactics to mobilize a base beyond its typical electoral response.
The numbers may not be as favorable for a black candidate as they may have appeared a year ago, but the recipe for victory still is the same – get out the vote.
8.8.06
Can the GOP actually win the Second District?
State Sen. Derrick Shepherd’s entry into the Second Congressional District contest held by embattled incumbent Rep. William Jefferson could spark a wave that would cause the unthinkable to happen – the district’s residents sending a Republican to Washington in November.
This district – in (pre-disaster) population terms about 80 percent Orleans Parish (minus small portions of Lakeview and the West Bank) plus an eastern chunk of Jefferson Parish on both sides of the Mississippi – from the present to any of its past incarnations (basically when it was just New Orleans) never has been competitive for a Republican. And even in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the numbers are decisively against Republicans. But a relatively recent scenario exists that could provide a blueprint for a GOP win.
In 1994, long-time incumbent and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Democrat Rep. Dan Rostenkowski fell prey to scandal, later going to prison on corruption charges. His indictments came only months before his reelection, after he had secured a place in the general election as the Democrat nominee. What normally would have turned out to be a Republican sacrificial lamb, political novice and former Army officer Michael Flanagan, defeated Rostenkowski as a result. (Just how aberrant this was became evident in 1996, when Flanagan lost big to now-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, now himself embattled by corruption charges; if any two states can compete with Louisiana in the area of big-time corruption, they’re Illinois and New Jersey.)
If Shepherd’s entry presages other heavyweights jumping in, such as New Orleans Constable and former city councilman Lambert Bossiere, Jr. and state Rep. Karen Carter, things could get very interesting. They have every incentive to join because open seats in Congress don’t happen often and history shows that once somebody gets into this district’s seat, typically they can stay there a long time. Such a chance may not come for the rest of their political lifetimes.
Even if Jefferson doesn’t resign or withdraw from running for reelection under the weight of the federal investigation into his financial activities, his precarious position (possibly made even greater by a likely indictment), ambitious politicians may see him as vulnerable as if he weren’t running. But this perception could cause a tremendous backfire for Democrat fortunes.
Every Democrat candidate that enters the race while Jefferson stays in it takes votes from him and (to a lesser degree) any other Democrat, but if only one credible Republican is in it, he gains relatively because votes will not be taken from him and there is a point of diminishing returns for Jefferson losing votes; there is a certain core that will stick with Jefferson even if he and Prisoner 28213-034 were found to be best buddies. Thus, we can envision the district’s vote as three distinct portions: the largest being the Jefferson do-or-die crowd, the next bunch being anti-Jefferson but preferring a Democrat, and the smallest being a solid Republican vote that would turn out for a credible Republican.
Fortunately for the GOP, there is a quality Republican running, Joe Lavigne, but for him to have any chance of winning he would need electoral good luck – and that may happen. With enough quality Democrats running, they might divide up the anti-Jefferson vote enough so that Jefferson and Lavigne could get put in the general election runoff. Then the anti-Jefferson voters would face a choice, perhaps terrible to some of them – vote for somebody they think is a crook, or vote for a Republican. Depending on what happens to Jefferson and/or his intransigence, things might set up for a Lavigne victory.
Of course, this situation differs from the Illinois example above because there it was two white politicians going after it in an overwhelmingly majority white district. This fall, the scenario presented here would feature a white Republican versus black Democrat in a heavily black district, damaging Lavigne’s chances given a history of black voters being less likely to cross over to vote for white candidates than the opposite. Still, the Second District has the potential to deliver a stunning surprise just after Thanksgiving Day.
This district – in (pre-disaster) population terms about 80 percent Orleans Parish (minus small portions of Lakeview and the West Bank) plus an eastern chunk of Jefferson Parish on both sides of the Mississippi – from the present to any of its past incarnations (basically when it was just New Orleans) never has been competitive for a Republican. And even in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the numbers are decisively against Republicans. But a relatively recent scenario exists that could provide a blueprint for a GOP win.
In 1994, long-time incumbent and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Democrat Rep. Dan Rostenkowski fell prey to scandal, later going to prison on corruption charges. His indictments came only months before his reelection, after he had secured a place in the general election as the Democrat nominee. What normally would have turned out to be a Republican sacrificial lamb, political novice and former Army officer Michael Flanagan, defeated Rostenkowski as a result. (Just how aberrant this was became evident in 1996, when Flanagan lost big to now-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, now himself embattled by corruption charges; if any two states can compete with Louisiana in the area of big-time corruption, they’re Illinois and New Jersey.)
If Shepherd’s entry presages other heavyweights jumping in, such as New Orleans Constable and former city councilman Lambert Bossiere, Jr. and state Rep. Karen Carter, things could get very interesting. They have every incentive to join because open seats in Congress don’t happen often and history shows that once somebody gets into this district’s seat, typically they can stay there a long time. Such a chance may not come for the rest of their political lifetimes.
Even if Jefferson doesn’t resign or withdraw from running for reelection under the weight of the federal investigation into his financial activities, his precarious position (possibly made even greater by a likely indictment), ambitious politicians may see him as vulnerable as if he weren’t running. But this perception could cause a tremendous backfire for Democrat fortunes.
Every Democrat candidate that enters the race while Jefferson stays in it takes votes from him and (to a lesser degree) any other Democrat, but if only one credible Republican is in it, he gains relatively because votes will not be taken from him and there is a point of diminishing returns for Jefferson losing votes; there is a certain core that will stick with Jefferson even if he and Prisoner 28213-034 were found to be best buddies. Thus, we can envision the district’s vote as three distinct portions: the largest being the Jefferson do-or-die crowd, the next bunch being anti-Jefferson but preferring a Democrat, and the smallest being a solid Republican vote that would turn out for a credible Republican.
Fortunately for the GOP, there is a quality Republican running, Joe Lavigne, but for him to have any chance of winning he would need electoral good luck – and that may happen. With enough quality Democrats running, they might divide up the anti-Jefferson vote enough so that Jefferson and Lavigne could get put in the general election runoff. Then the anti-Jefferson voters would face a choice, perhaps terrible to some of them – vote for somebody they think is a crook, or vote for a Republican. Depending on what happens to Jefferson and/or his intransigence, things might set up for a Lavigne victory.
Of course, this situation differs from the Illinois example above because there it was two white politicians going after it in an overwhelmingly majority white district. This fall, the scenario presented here would feature a white Republican versus black Democrat in a heavily black district, damaging Lavigne’s chances given a history of black voters being less likely to cross over to vote for white candidates than the opposite. Still, the Second District has the potential to deliver a stunning surprise just after Thanksgiving Day.
7.8.06
Landrieu vote shows she remains liberal Democrat puppet
The following statement appears in the website biography of Sen. Mary Landrieu: “A moderate Democrat, she is known as an independent voice willing to cross party lines to support legislation that is right for Louisiana.” Her actions on recent votes on the minimum wage increase and a limited repeal of the estate death tax reveals this statement to be a lie.
Landrieu has been a consistent supporter of a hike in the economically-insipid minimum wage, but previously has shown more sense than most Democrats when it comes to repeal of the estate tax. That is the particularly immoral absconding of assets governments participate in when somebody dies and leaves too many of them to heirs, which has the practical effect of suppressing economic activity just like the minimum wage.
In fact, last month Landrieu proposed legislation that attempted to create compromise between Republicans who wanted to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent (it is scheduled to go back to its full 55 percent level in 2011 otherwise) and Democrats fanatically opposed to the idea. In fact, it was so highly considered by Republicans that they made it a major portion of their bill to repeal permanently the tax.
However, the Republicans combined in that bill this idea with the suboptimal increase in the minimum wage – as bad as a drag on the economy that would be Republican leaders felt repeal of the death tax would more than compensate for those negatives, if it were the only way to get the repeal made permanent. One would think that this gave Landrieu the perfect opportunity to get both her wants into law – a bill with the increase in the minimum wage that she has supported, and containing much of her language in regards to the estate tax.
But, guess what? The Democrat leadership in the Senate is so obsessed with warring on America’s most productive citizens, the ones who contribute most to society, the people who die leaving large estates almost always because of their skill in producing economic development and greater wealth for all, that this party of special interests decided it would rather punish these people than to transfer wealth to a small group of people to whom they have paid enormous lip service on the minimum wage issue. In short, the Democrats do not really mean what they say concerning their rhetoric about increasing the minimum wage – it’s just a way to buy votes that they’ll easily cast aside when it infringes on their insane desire to engage in class warfare.
Obviously, this provided a test for Landrieu’s presumed independence. If she really meant that she was not a puppet of the liberal Democrat leadership, if she really wanted to stand up for Louisiana, on the cloture motion regarding the bill (as Democrat leaders were going to launch a filibuster on it in order to prevent it from coming to a vote because a majority if the Senate favored it; to break an attempted filibuster 60 votes rather than a majority are needed) she would have voted in favor of this motion to limit debate, to allow a vote on a bill she had expressed so much support of in different forms.
Of course, she voted against it because we must never forget that Landrieu will say one thing to get elected, to make the people of Louisiana think she is with them, but when she gets to Washington she’ll vote more often against the state’s – and country’s – interest than with it. All concerned citizens need to pay heed to her behavior in relation to this incident. She is no “independent voice,” she does not “cross party lines to support legislation that is right for Louisiana,” she just follows her liberal instincts to empower her Democrat cronies, to the detriment of the citizenry.
Landrieu has been a consistent supporter of a hike in the economically-insipid minimum wage, but previously has shown more sense than most Democrats when it comes to repeal of the estate tax. That is the particularly immoral absconding of assets governments participate in when somebody dies and leaves too many of them to heirs, which has the practical effect of suppressing economic activity just like the minimum wage.
In fact, last month Landrieu proposed legislation that attempted to create compromise between Republicans who wanted to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent (it is scheduled to go back to its full 55 percent level in 2011 otherwise) and Democrats fanatically opposed to the idea. In fact, it was so highly considered by Republicans that they made it a major portion of their bill to repeal permanently the tax.
However, the Republicans combined in that bill this idea with the suboptimal increase in the minimum wage – as bad as a drag on the economy that would be Republican leaders felt repeal of the death tax would more than compensate for those negatives, if it were the only way to get the repeal made permanent. One would think that this gave Landrieu the perfect opportunity to get both her wants into law – a bill with the increase in the minimum wage that she has supported, and containing much of her language in regards to the estate tax.
But, guess what? The Democrat leadership in the Senate is so obsessed with warring on America’s most productive citizens, the ones who contribute most to society, the people who die leaving large estates almost always because of their skill in producing economic development and greater wealth for all, that this party of special interests decided it would rather punish these people than to transfer wealth to a small group of people to whom they have paid enormous lip service on the minimum wage issue. In short, the Democrats do not really mean what they say concerning their rhetoric about increasing the minimum wage – it’s just a way to buy votes that they’ll easily cast aside when it infringes on their insane desire to engage in class warfare.
Obviously, this provided a test for Landrieu’s presumed independence. If she really meant that she was not a puppet of the liberal Democrat leadership, if she really wanted to stand up for Louisiana, on the cloture motion regarding the bill (as Democrat leaders were going to launch a filibuster on it in order to prevent it from coming to a vote because a majority if the Senate favored it; to break an attempted filibuster 60 votes rather than a majority are needed) she would have voted in favor of this motion to limit debate, to allow a vote on a bill she had expressed so much support of in different forms.
Of course, she voted against it because we must never forget that Landrieu will say one thing to get elected, to make the people of Louisiana think she is with them, but when she gets to Washington she’ll vote more often against the state’s – and country’s – interest than with it. All concerned citizens need to pay heed to her behavior in relation to this incident. She is no “independent voice,” she does not “cross party lines to support legislation that is right for Louisiana,” she just follows her liberal instincts to empower her Democrat cronies, to the detriment of the citizenry.
6.8.06
Blanco closes barn door, chases budget reform horse
Gov. Kathleen Blanco must really think the recent political fallout of her reaffirming that she is a card-carrying member of Louisiana’s politics-as-usual crowd was bad, for she sent her Commissioner of Administration Jerry Luke LeBlanc to spin a dubious line to the media with yet another close-the-barn-door-after-the-horse-gets-out promise. News flash: it’s still not convincing anybody.
Last month, as the due date whether to cast line-item vetoes on the state’s operating budget drew near, critics raised their voices against a number of items destined to assist non-profit organizations in matters that appeared best left to the private sector to fund, and also other items for local governments that should have been so low on the state’s priority list as to be microscopic. What particularly raised their ire is that Blanco had promised such items would be removed from state funding with her bureaucratic box-shuffling that eliminated the so-called Urban and Rural Funds, yet here many of that type were still stuffed in the budget.
The solution, many argued, was for Blanco to use her line item veto on these. Pressured, Blanco politically blundered by saying other state elected executives should take responsibility for identifying such items, especially Treasurer John Kennedy. He happily did, almost immediately sending her a lit of tens of millions of dollars of items to axe.
Blanco, of course, had no intention of cutting much of anything on the basis of real needs for the state. We must not forget that Blanco conceives of the state budget first and foremost as a political tool to reward certain constituencies that she believes can keep her in power, and not really as device to ensure that the state only spends on things that are really necessary to the benefit of all, as well as reducing those total expenditures to allow more money to stay in the hands of owners of it, the people.
Only this attitude can explain the entire chain of events. Blanco went ahead and vetoed some very politically easy items, much of which she said would be restored, amounting to just a fraction of Kennedy’s recommendations. At the same time, she issued an executive order asking for basic data and reports on the items for non-public entities. LeBlanc’s latest appearance was to hype this bandage over a gaping wound, and trying to shift attention to the Legislature by requesting the order be passed into law.
This “accountability measure,” naturally, is no such thing at all, consisting of maybe 10 minutes work to prepare the first report and 5 minutes worth of copying each month or quarter it’s due. “Accountability” is useless when money is being spent for spurious reasons in the first place; her order will do nothing to stop money from being wasted and its only purpose is to distract the public from Blanco’s real failure of leadership on this issue.
If Blanco really meant it, if she truly were serious about budgetary reform, she would have issued a very different executive order much earlier in the year, setting out criteria by which any budgetary item not going to a government entity would be graded, criteria based upon how critical a need was to the entire state. She then would have put her money where her mouth was and vetoed any item that did not rank highly enough on the criteria. In fact, she even allowed the Legislature to flout her request not to put items in categories that tried to disguise their true nature, taking no action to negate that.
Because of the way Blanco handled it, in panic mode realizing she was taking a public drubbing over the controversy, it demonstrates she never considered such an alternative nor ever meant to enforce her articulated reform measure. Rather, she reacted to pervasive, negative public opinion she never anticipated to actions she really endorsed with a feel-good, do-nothing act. This dog-and-pony show fools no one, and putting the useless order into law will just serve to waste more taxpayer dollars.
Last month, as the due date whether to cast line-item vetoes on the state’s operating budget drew near, critics raised their voices against a number of items destined to assist non-profit organizations in matters that appeared best left to the private sector to fund, and also other items for local governments that should have been so low on the state’s priority list as to be microscopic. What particularly raised their ire is that Blanco had promised such items would be removed from state funding with her bureaucratic box-shuffling that eliminated the so-called Urban and Rural Funds, yet here many of that type were still stuffed in the budget.
The solution, many argued, was for Blanco to use her line item veto on these. Pressured, Blanco politically blundered by saying other state elected executives should take responsibility for identifying such items, especially Treasurer John Kennedy. He happily did, almost immediately sending her a lit of tens of millions of dollars of items to axe.
Blanco, of course, had no intention of cutting much of anything on the basis of real needs for the state. We must not forget that Blanco conceives of the state budget first and foremost as a political tool to reward certain constituencies that she believes can keep her in power, and not really as device to ensure that the state only spends on things that are really necessary to the benefit of all, as well as reducing those total expenditures to allow more money to stay in the hands of owners of it, the people.
Only this attitude can explain the entire chain of events. Blanco went ahead and vetoed some very politically easy items, much of which she said would be restored, amounting to just a fraction of Kennedy’s recommendations. At the same time, she issued an executive order asking for basic data and reports on the items for non-public entities. LeBlanc’s latest appearance was to hype this bandage over a gaping wound, and trying to shift attention to the Legislature by requesting the order be passed into law.
This “accountability measure,” naturally, is no such thing at all, consisting of maybe 10 minutes work to prepare the first report and 5 minutes worth of copying each month or quarter it’s due. “Accountability” is useless when money is being spent for spurious reasons in the first place; her order will do nothing to stop money from being wasted and its only purpose is to distract the public from Blanco’s real failure of leadership on this issue.
If Blanco really meant it, if she truly were serious about budgetary reform, she would have issued a very different executive order much earlier in the year, setting out criteria by which any budgetary item not going to a government entity would be graded, criteria based upon how critical a need was to the entire state. She then would have put her money where her mouth was and vetoed any item that did not rank highly enough on the criteria. In fact, she even allowed the Legislature to flout her request not to put items in categories that tried to disguise their true nature, taking no action to negate that.
Because of the way Blanco handled it, in panic mode realizing she was taking a public drubbing over the controversy, it demonstrates she never considered such an alternative nor ever meant to enforce her articulated reform measure. Rather, she reacted to pervasive, negative public opinion she never anticipated to actions she really endorsed with a feel-good, do-nothing act. This dog-and-pony show fools no one, and putting the useless order into law will just serve to waste more taxpayer dollars.
3.8.06
Suit likely portends challenge to education improvement
The latest attempt by the American Civil Liberties Union to ram its agenda (which, we should never forget, has little to do with what the Constitution actually means or says) down the American peoples’ throat comes in Louisiana with its suit to try to prevent the Livingston Parish School Board from implementing single-sex classes at two of its junior highs.
Having found a pliant family with a female student ready to enunciate the script, a couple of years ago this suit might have succeeded. But the U.S. Department of Education is on the cusp of issuing new regulations that clearly would permit the activities pursued by the Board.
Actually, none of this is new – over 200 such programs exist nationwide, so it seems odd that the state ACLU would challenge this. The basis of the suit they claim is that the Livingston Parish plan is mandatory, which is not authorized by the new regulations. They claim so on the basis that the student allegedly was told she could not transfer from her school, one of the two designated as single-sex, which has been denied by the district.
This seems to indicate the real motive of the ACLU here; if there wasn’t some larger legal point here, perhaps to try to invalidate the new regulations, why doesn’t the student simply make the request and then get transferred? Add to this the fact that there is no way a trial will come before the start of the school year, now less than a week away, so it seems like the ACLU is waiting for a program to operate under the new regulations and having its client deliberately avoiding the remedy as part of a larger challenge. That is indicated by the ACLU’s bringing into the debate wholly unrelated writings to the achievement issue by supporters of single-sex education.
Single-sex classes are a good option. The Department of Education has compiled an exhaustive list of research which indicates there are academic benefits from it. It is regrettable that the ACLU may end up costing taxpayer dollars in Livingston Parish in pursuit of its intolerant, uninformed agenda (for example), but it will be money well spent if it improves the quality of education there and across the country.
Having found a pliant family with a female student ready to enunciate the script, a couple of years ago this suit might have succeeded. But the U.S. Department of Education is on the cusp of issuing new regulations that clearly would permit the activities pursued by the Board.
Actually, none of this is new – over 200 such programs exist nationwide, so it seems odd that the state ACLU would challenge this. The basis of the suit they claim is that the Livingston Parish plan is mandatory, which is not authorized by the new regulations. They claim so on the basis that the student allegedly was told she could not transfer from her school, one of the two designated as single-sex, which has been denied by the district.
This seems to indicate the real motive of the ACLU here; if there wasn’t some larger legal point here, perhaps to try to invalidate the new regulations, why doesn’t the student simply make the request and then get transferred? Add to this the fact that there is no way a trial will come before the start of the school year, now less than a week away, so it seems like the ACLU is waiting for a program to operate under the new regulations and having its client deliberately avoiding the remedy as part of a larger challenge. That is indicated by the ACLU’s bringing into the debate wholly unrelated writings to the achievement issue by supporters of single-sex education.
Single-sex classes are a good option. The Department of Education has compiled an exhaustive list of research which indicates there are academic benefits from it. It is regrettable that the ACLU may end up costing taxpayer dollars in Livingston Parish in pursuit of its intolerant, uninformed agenda (for example), but it will be money well spent if it improves the quality of education there and across the country.
2.8.06
Market, not government, will solve insurance woes
At least some questions were answered when the Legislature’s insurance committees met to investigate the possibilities that a major insurer in Louisiana meant to break the law or to leave the state:
The threat of Allstate leaving was not wholly conjured up by present Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon as a campaign stunt to may him look like the champion of insurance coverage for Louisianans. Apparently, there’s been talk about it for months, although he may have overemphasized and exaggerated it in a fit of electioneering zeal.
What does the Department of Insurance do with its time? Apparently, not much when it comes to something like this. Donelon’s deputy Chad Brown said this issue of Allstate’s wanting to remove wind and hail coverage from south Louisiana policies that also did not have auto coverage attached was first broached at the beginning of the year, although he maintained it was more hypothetical than anything else until the past couple of months. One would think in those past couple of months, before Donelon corralled the media and went public that much greater progress could have been made in trying to find a solution that did not include Allstate’s exit option.
The committee meetings themselves were not entirely a campaign stunt. The head of the Senate version, state Sen. James David Cain, is opposing Donelon in the fall and having plenty of good media coverage and an opportunity to look like the champion of insurance coverage for Louisianans probably did not discourage him from this between-session endeavor. Frankly, little new information came out of the three-hour exercise, but what small amount there was may have been worth the couple of thousand bucks in legislator per diems and travel expenses coughed up by taxpayers as a result.
Legislators remain weaklings and lack control over their own fates and actions. At least that’s what one may gather from Cain’s House chairman counterpart, state Rep. Karen Carter, who argued against Cain’s call for a special session devoted to insurance matters because “[f]or us to come into a special session for two to three weeks … and get wined and dined without an agenda is not wise.” In other words, she fears that lobbyists would exercise Svengali-like powers over her and other legislators, to the state’s extreme detriment.
At least one member of the committee is a hypocrite when it comes to the impact of large entities’ actions on the people. State Sen. Don Cravins bitterly complained that Allstate’s decision-making in regards to claim financing that as a result “the citizens of Louisiana have to pay for your mistake?” Cravins, resigning his seat at the end of the year, better hope nobody decides to tally up the millions, even billions of dollars Louisianans have had to pay as a result of his and his colleagues’ mistakes made in Louisiana’s spending priorities that they happily authorize year after year.
The question remaining, however, is the big one ostensibly why the meetings were called, whether Louisiana is going to want to keep boxing itself in and creating its own crisis. There are two reasons this “crisis” has happened: (1) the true risk-return ratio for insurance in the state has been underestimated on the risk side and (2) there is an inflexible law on the books, which no other state has, which fundamentally distorts the ratio by forcing insurers to offer coverage without an easy exit option for removing that kind of coverage while being able to write other kids of policies in the state.
Casting aside more dramatic and long-term scenarios, the state should, and can right now, do this: invite Allstate to jack up its rates as high as it would like to cover the risk its sees added that is making it want to drop wind and hail coverage. As part of its job, the Insurance Rating Commission will make sure the request represents a reasonable predicted profit level and that it doesn’t engage in collusion with other companies (who also may be invited to raise rates) to create the opposite problem, artificially high rates. If so, then competition will keep a lid on rates.
The lid, however, will be higher, perhaps significantly, than in the past. That’s good. This will have the effect of increasing rates paid by the state insurer, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (it must price its insurance at least 10 percent higher than a basket of the rates of the largest private insurers) which will mean its policyholders will pay for more of their own claims and state ratepayers and taxpayers will have to pay less (because Citizens must pass on excess costs either to private insurer policyholders or to taxpayers to pay interest on bonds sold to cover costs of claims). That’s only fair, and will shore up Citizens much faster than anticipated.
Some people will whine about this as a result, about how they now can’t afford to insure or buy a certain property. That’s unfortunate to them, but entirely fair because they should expect to pay for the preponderance of the costs of their insurance and not try to shift the burden to those who choose to live in less-risky areas, or who don’t have to pay for any insurance.
The thing not to do is what Allstate proposes, subsidize their business by creating a state-run risk pool where taxpayers would bail out insurers who do make mistakes. Instead, let the insurer try to make up for the mistake by raising rates – which of course will cause it some harm by losing business to smarter, lower-cost providers, but that’s what it deserves for making poor decisions, instead of forcing the consequences on taxpayers.
You don’t need special sessions, or summits, or anything fancy to address the insurance “crisis” described here, which is neither an emergency nor difficult to manage, if Louisiana (rather against its historical populism) lets the free market (as best it can in a regulated industry) reign. Most public policies’ optimal solutions come from government getting out of the way as much as it should, and this certainly is one such instance.
The question remaining, however, is the big one ostensibly why the meetings were called, whether Louisiana is going to want to keep boxing itself in and creating its own crisis. There are two reasons this “crisis” has happened: (1) the true risk-return ratio for insurance in the state has been underestimated on the risk side and (2) there is an inflexible law on the books, which no other state has, which fundamentally distorts the ratio by forcing insurers to offer coverage without an easy exit option for removing that kind of coverage while being able to write other kids of policies in the state.
Casting aside more dramatic and long-term scenarios, the state should, and can right now, do this: invite Allstate to jack up its rates as high as it would like to cover the risk its sees added that is making it want to drop wind and hail coverage. As part of its job, the Insurance Rating Commission will make sure the request represents a reasonable predicted profit level and that it doesn’t engage in collusion with other companies (who also may be invited to raise rates) to create the opposite problem, artificially high rates. If so, then competition will keep a lid on rates.
The lid, however, will be higher, perhaps significantly, than in the past. That’s good. This will have the effect of increasing rates paid by the state insurer, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (it must price its insurance at least 10 percent higher than a basket of the rates of the largest private insurers) which will mean its policyholders will pay for more of their own claims and state ratepayers and taxpayers will have to pay less (because Citizens must pass on excess costs either to private insurer policyholders or to taxpayers to pay interest on bonds sold to cover costs of claims). That’s only fair, and will shore up Citizens much faster than anticipated.
Some people will whine about this as a result, about how they now can’t afford to insure or buy a certain property. That’s unfortunate to them, but entirely fair because they should expect to pay for the preponderance of the costs of their insurance and not try to shift the burden to those who choose to live in less-risky areas, or who don’t have to pay for any insurance.
The thing not to do is what Allstate proposes, subsidize their business by creating a state-run risk pool where taxpayers would bail out insurers who do make mistakes. Instead, let the insurer try to make up for the mistake by raising rates – which of course will cause it some harm by losing business to smarter, lower-cost providers, but that’s what it deserves for making poor decisions, instead of forcing the consequences on taxpayers.
You don’t need special sessions, or summits, or anything fancy to address the insurance “crisis” described here, which is neither an emergency nor difficult to manage, if Louisiana (rather against its historical populism) lets the free market (as best it can in a regulated industry) reign. Most public policies’ optimal solutions come from government getting out of the way as much as it should, and this certainly is one such instance.
1.8.06
Bossier City must just say no to kick its spendaholicism
A few years ago, when it was learned that Bossier City not only would spend some $20 million on infrastructure for the nascent Louisiana Boardwalk (then “Riverwalk”) but even more on a parking garage the developers easily could have built with their own resources, no doubt this encouraged a number of private interests to see the city as a slot machine ready to pay off. The city called the tune, and now it’s paying the fiddler.
The fiddler would be Linc Coleman of U.L. Coleman Properties, who is trying not one but two tactics to get Bossier City to grace his firm’s project, a 50-townhome, 266-apartment development in a plot basically caddy-corner to the CenturyTel Center. This some city officials desperately want to provide political cover for another huge monetary mistake they made years ago, the Center itself.
The money-losing arena cost $56.5 million (almost double the amount the public initially was told) and was supposed to set off an economic development boom around it, according to some selling the project in the late 1990s. The whimper that resulted only has produced one new restaurant which has since closed, and one new watersports retailer which relocated from elsewhere. Having a residential project in the area might help save face a little bit for Bossier City politicians who favored the arena, much less provide some economic development.
The fiddler would be Linc Coleman of U.L. Coleman Properties, who is trying not one but two tactics to get Bossier City to grace his firm’s project, a 50-townhome, 266-apartment development in a plot basically caddy-corner to the CenturyTel Center. This some city officials desperately want to provide political cover for another huge monetary mistake they made years ago, the Center itself.
The money-losing arena cost $56.5 million (almost double the amount the public initially was told) and was supposed to set off an economic development boom around it, according to some selling the project in the late 1990s. The whimper that resulted only has produced one new restaurant which has since closed, and one new watersports retailer which relocated from elsewhere. Having a residential project in the area might help save face a little bit for Bossier City politicians who favored the arena, much less provide some economic development.
31.7.06
Unions spread propaganda, not facts, concerning study
Is it any wonder that Louisiana’s system of public education is so dismal when representatives of the state's teachers unions continue to demonstrate that they are more interested in fattening their members' own wallets without any improvement in performance than they are in educating children?
That was the impression left by the leaders of the state’s two largest unions, Steve Monaghan, president of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, and Carol Davis, president of the Louisiana Association of Educators, in comments about a U.S. Department of Education study that when scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress are adjusted for socioeconomics, race, and other characteristics, public school students do as well or better in some categories as students in private schools.
In the context of this study, both criticized the recently-announced Opportunity Scholarships for Kids, a $100 million voucher program for low-income students. But, in striving for maximal propaganda points against bringing accountability to teachers, they are their own worst advertisements for the deficiencies in education that unions sponsor, by their own demonstrated ignorance of their criticisms.
That was the impression left by the leaders of the state’s two largest unions, Steve Monaghan, president of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, and Carol Davis, president of the Louisiana Association of Educators, in comments about a U.S. Department of Education study that when scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress are adjusted for socioeconomics, race, and other characteristics, public school students do as well or better in some categories as students in private schools.
In the context of this study, both criticized the recently-announced Opportunity Scholarships for Kids, a $100 million voucher program for low-income students. But, in striving for maximal propaganda points against bringing accountability to teachers, they are their own worst advertisements for the deficiencies in education that unions sponsor, by their own demonstrated ignorance of their criticisms.
30.7.06
On budget, Blanco talks one game, plays another
Does it ever stop with the Gov. Kathleen Blanco Administration, this trying to explain away its obvious love of big government and politics as usual? The day after state Treasurer John Kennedy criticized in a speech her spending priorities, Commissioner of Administration Jerry Luke LeBlanc felt compelled and/or ordered to respond – weakly and ineffectually.
“When the revenue picture wasn't as bad as predicted, we didn't go back to the way things were in terms of spending,” LeBlanc claimed, directly contradicting reality as observed by the biggest source of revenue for the state’s biggest area of expenditure, the federal government in health care. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt sternly warned that Louisiana was going to have to change its ways of doing health care, hinting federal dollars might not be forthcoming unless it happened, and as a result a chastened Blanco announced yet another panel to address the system as a result.
Leavitt probably said that because the 2006 budget showed little real changes at all in terms of health care spending priorities. To use just one example, an incredibly easy fix that could have happened, the state spends about $100 million more per year than it has to simply because it over-allocates Medicaid money to nursing homes instead of using resources to fund less expensive and probably more effective community-based care. In fact, the state went backwards in the Legislature by making it harder to change the formula that sends too much money to nursing homes by enshrining it into law this session. Blanco was MIA in shaping this policy.
LeBlanc also tries to buttress this claim by giving his version of where “new” revenues were spent. He chose some revealing categories. One was a pay raise to teachers that did not ask for any accountability and, given typical performance in the state, was undeserved. (The proper way to do it would be to institute teacher testing throughout the state, and then apportion raises based upon performance on this test and in the classroom.) Another was to “rescue” the higher education system when in fact its problems are not monetary, but structural; simply, the state has too many senior colleges and in the wrong places, especially in light of the hurricane disasters (why rebuild duplicative Southern University – New Orleans at all)?
But what LeBlanc failed to explain is that so much of the budget was built upon-one time federal money, based upon questionable assumptions. Certain revenues booms in the state have occurred precisely because of all the one-time money being pumped into the state economy, yet indefinite spending has been authorized such as the raises. Blanco simply shut her eyes to this, knowing her reelection opportunity was next year while the consequences of her actions may not become obvious until afterwards.
LeBlanc also tried to defend against the most cutting argument of Kennedy’s, that the budget contained much too much pork-barrel spending. His clever response: “one person's pork may be critical to someone else,” and cited as an example a program that provides hunting events for the disabled. Personally, I’m certainly glad the organization wants to provide an event.
But why does the state have to help pay for it? And if LeBlanc really were serious about helping the disabled in the state, that money would have been allocated, for example, to the New Opportunities Waiver program, designed to provide basic care for the severely disabled, which still has over 11,000 slots still unfunded. If this is an example of how Blanco and LeBlanc create “priorities” in the budget process, it demonstrates that politics and publicity are their main criteria, not actual need.
However, “pork” is not a problem anyway, LeBlanc claims, since the governor has instituted procedures “that ensure accountability for the people's money.” Of course, LeBlanc and Blanco have missed the entire point. I’d love it if next year I could con a state legislator into slipping into the budget the state giving me some money, and I’d be happy to fill out all the reports it wants telling it what I did with it. But, that does nothing at all to gauge how necessary the purpose of spending that money was to the welfare of the state.
The point is, LeBlanc and his employer Blanco have done nothing to institute any system of intelligent priority creation in the spending of this money. While that is something the appropriating authority the Legislature ought to do itself, as governor Blanco has the authority and responsibility to rid the budget of items simply not worthy of being there. She has utterly failed to do anything of the sort (in fact, using political criteria there as well), and now LeBlanc is desperately trying to obscure this fact.
LeBlanc can talk until he’s blue in the face but nothing he has said to date changes the salient facts: the Blanco Administration is not serious about fiscal policy change in this state, it sanctions the use of taxpayers dollars for political purposes far removed from the real needs of the state, what priorities it has are geared more towards satisfying certain political constituencies and enhancing Blanco’s reelection chances than these real needs, and it has no intentions, save federal or electoral pressures, of altering this behavior. LeBlanc needs to understand that the people of this state expect actions, not words, if this administration genuinely is to bring real fiscal benefits to Louisiana.
“When the revenue picture wasn't as bad as predicted, we didn't go back to the way things were in terms of spending,” LeBlanc claimed, directly contradicting reality as observed by the biggest source of revenue for the state’s biggest area of expenditure, the federal government in health care. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt sternly warned that Louisiana was going to have to change its ways of doing health care, hinting federal dollars might not be forthcoming unless it happened, and as a result a chastened Blanco announced yet another panel to address the system as a result.
Leavitt probably said that because the 2006 budget showed little real changes at all in terms of health care spending priorities. To use just one example, an incredibly easy fix that could have happened, the state spends about $100 million more per year than it has to simply because it over-allocates Medicaid money to nursing homes instead of using resources to fund less expensive and probably more effective community-based care. In fact, the state went backwards in the Legislature by making it harder to change the formula that sends too much money to nursing homes by enshrining it into law this session. Blanco was MIA in shaping this policy.
LeBlanc also tries to buttress this claim by giving his version of where “new” revenues were spent. He chose some revealing categories. One was a pay raise to teachers that did not ask for any accountability and, given typical performance in the state, was undeserved. (The proper way to do it would be to institute teacher testing throughout the state, and then apportion raises based upon performance on this test and in the classroom.) Another was to “rescue” the higher education system when in fact its problems are not monetary, but structural; simply, the state has too many senior colleges and in the wrong places, especially in light of the hurricane disasters (why rebuild duplicative Southern University – New Orleans at all)?
But what LeBlanc failed to explain is that so much of the budget was built upon-one time federal money, based upon questionable assumptions. Certain revenues booms in the state have occurred precisely because of all the one-time money being pumped into the state economy, yet indefinite spending has been authorized such as the raises. Blanco simply shut her eyes to this, knowing her reelection opportunity was next year while the consequences of her actions may not become obvious until afterwards.
LeBlanc also tried to defend against the most cutting argument of Kennedy’s, that the budget contained much too much pork-barrel spending. His clever response: “one person's pork may be critical to someone else,” and cited as an example a program that provides hunting events for the disabled. Personally, I’m certainly glad the organization wants to provide an event.
But why does the state have to help pay for it? And if LeBlanc really were serious about helping the disabled in the state, that money would have been allocated, for example, to the New Opportunities Waiver program, designed to provide basic care for the severely disabled, which still has over 11,000 slots still unfunded. If this is an example of how Blanco and LeBlanc create “priorities” in the budget process, it demonstrates that politics and publicity are their main criteria, not actual need.
However, “pork” is not a problem anyway, LeBlanc claims, since the governor has instituted procedures “that ensure accountability for the people's money.” Of course, LeBlanc and Blanco have missed the entire point. I’d love it if next year I could con a state legislator into slipping into the budget the state giving me some money, and I’d be happy to fill out all the reports it wants telling it what I did with it. But, that does nothing at all to gauge how necessary the purpose of spending that money was to the welfare of the state.
The point is, LeBlanc and his employer Blanco have done nothing to institute any system of intelligent priority creation in the spending of this money. While that is something the appropriating authority the Legislature ought to do itself, as governor Blanco has the authority and responsibility to rid the budget of items simply not worthy of being there. She has utterly failed to do anything of the sort (in fact, using political criteria there as well), and now LeBlanc is desperately trying to obscure this fact.
LeBlanc can talk until he’s blue in the face but nothing he has said to date changes the salient facts: the Blanco Administration is not serious about fiscal policy change in this state, it sanctions the use of taxpayers dollars for political purposes far removed from the real needs of the state, what priorities it has are geared more towards satisfying certain political constituencies and enhancing Blanco’s reelection chances than these real needs, and it has no intentions, save federal or electoral pressures, of altering this behavior. LeBlanc needs to understand that the people of this state expect actions, not words, if this administration genuinely is to bring real fiscal benefits to Louisiana.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)