Both Caddo and Bossier Parishes are requesting on Sep. 30 that their citizens allow their taxes to be increased. In both cases, the people are better off keeping their money.
It doesn’t take much thought to reject the Caddo request. It is almost the same request made a couple of years ago rejected at the polls, but things have been changed since that may more efficiently use taxpayers’ dollars in funding juvenile justice in the parish – if given the time. State Rep. Mike Powell got passed a law that reorganizes operations in that area to a certain extent, and this needs to be given a couple of years trial before more costly solutions are tried.
Bossier presents a stronger case but ultimately its request deserves rejection as well. An analysis of the request and a stroll through the parish’s financial reports shows why.
To begin, note that the kinds of road improvements that comprise the request are the kind that would be nice and convenient to have, but are not crucial, at least relative to the most recent big road project of the parish, widening of Airline Drive. Yes, they probably would reduce traffic hassles for some, but they do not have the impact justifying almost tripling the current level of the tax.
In reality, the vast majority of the request actually is more a favor to Bossier City than the parish – lengthening of the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway to loop over to Highway 71, connecting a thruway to two parts of the city almost all of which would go through non-city jurisdiction. By that standard, it’s better to work out some deal with the city since it will mainly benefit it than to have parish taxpayers foot the bill.
(And the city has every incentive to cooperate, to gain control over where to site the extension given the presence of a federal wildlife refuge close by. Both the city and parish let that get by, causing a panicked reaction last spring by some city and parish officials who felt so insecure about the situation that they had circulated fliers asking residents to contact the federal government about this. Fortunately, a satisfactory solution to all parties for now was worked out.)
Especially when removing that from taxpayer considerations, the remainder of the requests easily may be accomplished given existing resources (which means renewing the tax at its existing assessed 1.99 mills level, not the requested 6.40 mills level). The parish is flush with over $5 million in its highway fund at the end of 2005 (so much so in fact, it transferred out nearly $4.5 million after collecting about $1.5 million above expenditures, mainly due to higher sales tax revenues and lower expenses, most of the excess going to the Airline Drive work which now is winding down, although $75,000 went to general government expenses). Economic trends give no indication that the fund will not see continued surpluses moved into it over the next few years.
And if other revenues were needed, the parish’s current financial health is such that no additional resources are necessary. Reviewing the highway fund for this year, through the first eight months of the year (that is, 75 percent of it) only 62.59 percent of the budget was spent. This shows that there is enough slack to be allocated for other purposes (however, governments typically spend up to their budgeted amounts because they want to make it appear that they need all the money they have available, so look for the fourth quarter to be a big spending quarter on roads in Bossier Parish).
As for the rest of the parish’s operations, results from 2005 showed strong revenue-over-expenditure growth expected in 2006, a condition likely to continue. Again, this leaves no reason to believe that the lesser improvements around which the increased request was formulated could not be financed in a pay-as-you-go situation, or even the entire package.
n short, the importance of the roads to the parish relative to its existing financial health does not justify extracting an extra $2 million or more a year out of property owners (in reality, just a handful of them given the homestead exemption). Bossier Parish voters need to turn this down, with the Police Jury coming back next year asking for a renewal of just 2 mills which is all they need if they want to pursue this agenda.
20.9.06
Going negative helps, hurts Shreveport mayoral hopefuls
There’s not been much negativity in the Shreveport mayor’s contest to date. That well may change in the closing days of the contest, but certain candidates will do better than others from it – if they pick the correct targets to demonize.
Polling consistently has shown that Republican former city attorney Jerry Jones essentially has secured a place in the general election runoff Nov. 7. Other Republican candidates that have the potential to do well, state Sen. Max Malone and former city economic developer Arlena Acree, might be tempted to sling some mud his way to capture some of his intended voters.
However, the problem is that while negative campaigning, or pointing out other candidates’ faults real or imagined, often is effective, all it can do is dislodge some votes from candidates and cannot guarantee that these freed votes will go to the one doing this campaigning. In other words, if Acree goes negative on Jones, she might be sending votes Malone’s way, and vice versa. To compound their difficulty, Jones has such a lead on the rest of the field at this point that he still probably has more than enough support to make the runoff despite any barrage of negative campaigning.
By contrast, former city spokeswoman and Democrat Liz Swaine has almost the opposite problem. Given her name recognition that produced benign feelings about her prior to the contest, her best strategy would have been to run a campaign as issueless as possible. Instead, by design or accident, she foolishly allowed her opponents to put her into the position of defending her employer Democrat Mayor Keith Hightower who in the past four years has made a number of decisions not well-received in Shreveport. Negative attacks on her only will compound her sinking status.
Worse for her, she has little to gain by adopting that strategy. For one thing, it would further erode the good feelings about her which has kept her as a viable candidate. Also, she has no good target on which to unleash an attack that would benefit her. Since Jones also holds a big lead over her she would waste resources attacking him. And she rests in a position where she cannot really attack the opponents closest to her that she must in order to get into a runoff with Jones, Democrats state Rep. Cedric Glover and former television executive Ed Bradley. This is because she is unlikely to peel off members of their mainly-black base; instead, successful attacks on her part would send Glover voters to Bradley and vice versa, with few coming her way.
In reality, only Jones, Bradley, and Glover would benefit from a negative strategy. Jones could cement his chances of a runoff against a black Democrat by going after Swaine (but he really doesn’t need to do this, given his current position and Swaine’s decline), while Glover attacks on Bradley would pull the latter’s voters to him, and vice versa. So in these final few campaign days, look for a spirited skirmish across media that disproportionately attracts a black audience to see which black Democrat can pull himself into a runoff with Jones.
Polling consistently has shown that Republican former city attorney Jerry Jones essentially has secured a place in the general election runoff Nov. 7. Other Republican candidates that have the potential to do well, state Sen. Max Malone and former city economic developer Arlena Acree, might be tempted to sling some mud his way to capture some of his intended voters.
However, the problem is that while negative campaigning, or pointing out other candidates’ faults real or imagined, often is effective, all it can do is dislodge some votes from candidates and cannot guarantee that these freed votes will go to the one doing this campaigning. In other words, if Acree goes negative on Jones, she might be sending votes Malone’s way, and vice versa. To compound their difficulty, Jones has such a lead on the rest of the field at this point that he still probably has more than enough support to make the runoff despite any barrage of negative campaigning.
By contrast, former city spokeswoman and Democrat Liz Swaine has almost the opposite problem. Given her name recognition that produced benign feelings about her prior to the contest, her best strategy would have been to run a campaign as issueless as possible. Instead, by design or accident, she foolishly allowed her opponents to put her into the position of defending her employer Democrat Mayor Keith Hightower who in the past four years has made a number of decisions not well-received in Shreveport. Negative attacks on her only will compound her sinking status.
Worse for her, she has little to gain by adopting that strategy. For one thing, it would further erode the good feelings about her which has kept her as a viable candidate. Also, she has no good target on which to unleash an attack that would benefit her. Since Jones also holds a big lead over her she would waste resources attacking him. And she rests in a position where she cannot really attack the opponents closest to her that she must in order to get into a runoff with Jones, Democrats state Rep. Cedric Glover and former television executive Ed Bradley. This is because she is unlikely to peel off members of their mainly-black base; instead, successful attacks on her part would send Glover voters to Bradley and vice versa, with few coming her way.
In reality, only Jones, Bradley, and Glover would benefit from a negative strategy. Jones could cement his chances of a runoff against a black Democrat by going after Swaine (but he really doesn’t need to do this, given his current position and Swaine’s decline), while Glover attacks on Bradley would pull the latter’s voters to him, and vice versa. So in these final few campaign days, look for a spirited skirmish across media that disproportionately attracts a black audience to see which black Democrat can pull himself into a runoff with Jones.
19.9.06
Jones waits on Bradley, Glover for Shreveport mayor's runoff
We get a look at the “Between the Lines echo effect” again with another poll released by the Shreveport Times, confirming the trends articulated and predicted here last month.
Perhaps most notable about the results here is, frankly, just how poorly this poll is tapping into vote intentions. Undecided voters going up? Almost every candidate losing support? Combine these oddities with the fact that a couple of weeks out from the primary election a third of the electorate, with almost half of blacks, remain undecided, these results tell us either we are seeing a once-in-a-lifetime contest, or people just aren’t responding well to this polling.
(This explanation certainly is more valid than the one offered by the pollster, who claimed it was an artifact of “negative” campaigning. That guess defies much of what we know about the impact of political campaigns; typically, undecided respondents’ numbers drop, particularly this close to an election – and in one where there was little negative advertising up to the time of the polling. It was unusual to have a third undecided almost a month ago; it’s incredible to have even more undecided only days away from the contest. A far more plausible explanation is that many prior, older responses were given only on the basis of name recognition and did not indicate any real intention of future voting, which is especially apparent among black respondents. It’s only now, reflected in the results of this poll, that you are registering serious vote intentions.)
Let’s do assume for the moment that we do have a good poll (meaning the sample does in fact represent the views of the population polled; a standard in the industry is that one out of twenty times it won’t). If so, what was predicted in this space last month is coming to pass; specifically:
Republican former city attorney Jerry Jones is cruising to a spot in the general election runoff and is the favorite to win that, although that depends on his competition there.
State Sen. Max Malone, also a Republican, simply started campaigning too late. He will draw much more of the vote than what he is polling (2 percent), but not enough to make the runoff
As more people pay attention to the campaign and as more information comes out, Democrat former city spokeswoman Liz Swaine is going nowhere, if not losing ground. It’s almost lights out now for Swaine, because the results suggest she hasn’t made enough inroads with white voters to challenge for a runoff spot and she’s running out of them – fewer than a quarter are undecided.
Former city economic developer Arlena Acree was the only candidate other than Jones to make progress, but she appears to be making more headway among undecided whites than Swaine. But, like Swaine, it won’t be enough to put her in the runoff.
This is because the vast majority of undecided black voters will not break in either females’ direction. Instead, they will go for one of state Rep. Cedric Glover or former television executive Ed Bradley, Democrats both. Even if they each only took 20 percent each of that 46 percent black undecided, both would be close to 20 percent of the total vote and each might still edge out Swaine. If either can get at least two-thirds of the black undecided vote, Swaine has no chance.
So really there’s just one question left now over the next ten days: can either Glover or Bradley seize a majority of the black vote and thereby put himself in the runoff with Jones? The odds favor Glover succeeding in this quest, but Bradley’s not out of it. And if one of the black Democrats does get the upper hand, it likely makes Jones Shreveport’s next mayor.
Perhaps most notable about the results here is, frankly, just how poorly this poll is tapping into vote intentions. Undecided voters going up? Almost every candidate losing support? Combine these oddities with the fact that a couple of weeks out from the primary election a third of the electorate, with almost half of blacks, remain undecided, these results tell us either we are seeing a once-in-a-lifetime contest, or people just aren’t responding well to this polling.
(This explanation certainly is more valid than the one offered by the pollster, who claimed it was an artifact of “negative” campaigning. That guess defies much of what we know about the impact of political campaigns; typically, undecided respondents’ numbers drop, particularly this close to an election – and in one where there was little negative advertising up to the time of the polling. It was unusual to have a third undecided almost a month ago; it’s incredible to have even more undecided only days away from the contest. A far more plausible explanation is that many prior, older responses were given only on the basis of name recognition and did not indicate any real intention of future voting, which is especially apparent among black respondents. It’s only now, reflected in the results of this poll, that you are registering serious vote intentions.)
Let’s do assume for the moment that we do have a good poll (meaning the sample does in fact represent the views of the population polled; a standard in the industry is that one out of twenty times it won’t). If so, what was predicted in this space last month is coming to pass; specifically:
So really there’s just one question left now over the next ten days: can either Glover or Bradley seize a majority of the black vote and thereby put himself in the runoff with Jones? The odds favor Glover succeeding in this quest, but Bradley’s not out of it. And if one of the black Democrats does get the upper hand, it likely makes Jones Shreveport’s next mayor.
18.9.06
LA property owners better off with amendment passages
The three constitutional amendments designed to define better the expropriation powers of Louisiana government, numbers 4, 5 and 6, have drawn criticism from various quarters. Nevertheless, with criticisms ranging from the thin to absurd, they deserve passage on Sep. 30.
Some of the critiques do have merit, if only in an improbable, hypothetical sense. Lawyer Paul Hurd has argued that the expropriation amendments create a Trojan horse situation that actually could increase government power in this area. Hurd envisions scenarios apocalyptic even by Louisiana hyper-politicized standards where an unseemly coalition of political elites could manipulate the process.
However, he probably misjudges the checks and balances involved. The judiciary would have to be corrupt all the way to the top (or wishes to engage in unfettered activism as in the Louisiana Supreme Court’s recent majority decision to ignore the Constitution regarding pardons and convicted felons running for office), but that’s no different from the present arrangement. And the public may well have its own say in these decisions, having to vote on bond issuances to fund these projects. That a justification that something fits an exempted prohibited category improves upon the current situation, where now basically this step is skipped because anything qualifies.
(Note also that the text of some of these amendments in large came from language provided by the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that has provided some outstanding work in the protection of liberty for many years; this group defended property owners in the Connecticut case that opened the floodgates for government usurpation of private property last year. A measure endorsed by this organization provides a lot reassurance that this measure will do what it is intended.)
This increased difficulty actually brings complaints from others. Despite its many exceptions, they claim it will impede government in sponsoring recovery from the hurricane disasters of 2005 and would cause “confusion.”
But this attitude belies a faith in government and a belief that government from the bench rather than by its majoritarian institutions is best. The exact problem caused by the current arrangement is that the power to decide whether any expropriation could occur rests in the hands of judges. These changes would limit the kinds of expropriation to occur – change brought about by the majoritarian branches and the people directly through their votes – so that the matter of expropriation becomes one defined mostly by the people where judges must justify exceptions, rather than putting the burden on opponents of expropriation to show any request without limitations would have deleterious effects.
It is much better to have the people remove most expropriation instances from consideration, limiting the scope of judicial activism on this matter, than to decline setting standards leaving it wide open for judicial mischief. This “confusion” objected to by opponents to the rest of the state is seen as vital safeguards ensuring liberty; purposes clearly qualifying as a genuine societal need will not be affected. What will be affected is the agenda of those who believe government should direct economic activity; now, one tool to do so will be removed from their collectivist arsenal.
While these amendments are not entirely perfect (for example, allowing expropriation for projects like convention centers which usually are a waste of taxpayer dollars: see this example), they do strengthen liberty in Louisiana, and therefore must be approved.
Some of the critiques do have merit, if only in an improbable, hypothetical sense. Lawyer Paul Hurd has argued that the expropriation amendments create a Trojan horse situation that actually could increase government power in this area. Hurd envisions scenarios apocalyptic even by Louisiana hyper-politicized standards where an unseemly coalition of political elites could manipulate the process.
However, he probably misjudges the checks and balances involved. The judiciary would have to be corrupt all the way to the top (or wishes to engage in unfettered activism as in the Louisiana Supreme Court’s recent majority decision to ignore the Constitution regarding pardons and convicted felons running for office), but that’s no different from the present arrangement. And the public may well have its own say in these decisions, having to vote on bond issuances to fund these projects. That a justification that something fits an exempted prohibited category improves upon the current situation, where now basically this step is skipped because anything qualifies.
(Note also that the text of some of these amendments in large came from language provided by the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that has provided some outstanding work in the protection of liberty for many years; this group defended property owners in the Connecticut case that opened the floodgates for government usurpation of private property last year. A measure endorsed by this organization provides a lot reassurance that this measure will do what it is intended.)
This increased difficulty actually brings complaints from others. Despite its many exceptions, they claim it will impede government in sponsoring recovery from the hurricane disasters of 2005 and would cause “confusion.”
But this attitude belies a faith in government and a belief that government from the bench rather than by its majoritarian institutions is best. The exact problem caused by the current arrangement is that the power to decide whether any expropriation could occur rests in the hands of judges. These changes would limit the kinds of expropriation to occur – change brought about by the majoritarian branches and the people directly through their votes – so that the matter of expropriation becomes one defined mostly by the people where judges must justify exceptions, rather than putting the burden on opponents of expropriation to show any request without limitations would have deleterious effects.
It is much better to have the people remove most expropriation instances from consideration, limiting the scope of judicial activism on this matter, than to decline setting standards leaving it wide open for judicial mischief. This “confusion” objected to by opponents to the rest of the state is seen as vital safeguards ensuring liberty; purposes clearly qualifying as a genuine societal need will not be affected. What will be affected is the agenda of those who believe government should direct economic activity; now, one tool to do so will be removed from their collectivist arsenal.
While these amendments are not entirely perfect (for example, allowing expropriation for projects like convention centers which usually are a waste of taxpayer dollars: see this example), they do strengthen liberty in Louisiana, and therefore must be approved.
17.9.06
Louisiana can do better than "follow-the-leader" Blanco
In Louisiana politics there are leaders and then, well, there’s Gov. Kathleen Blanco. Once again, the barn door has closed and she’s off chasing a horse, this time one connected rationality in the state budgeting process.
One of the more irrational features of the process is typically the capital outlay bill having more spending in it than is constitutionally allowed. Fiscal year 2007 is no exception and Blanco’s staff recently released the list of projects that made the cut, that can be funded with the money available (this being one way in which the Legislature allows the governor to push it around, by letting her office make in essence the final decision on what gets funded).
With the releasing of the list, her staff took the opportunity to tout how they chose to segregate requests into different categories, and then choosing on the basis of priority (defined by them) within categories. It’s a small step that might produce funded projects more on merit and less on politics, in contrast to attempts last year at this time.
However, the idea itself is nothing new as the person who oversees the next step of the process, the authorizing of bond sales to cover the costs, state Treasurer John Kennedy, last year suggested that the body responsible for this, the Bond Commission, be able to do essentially the same. He offered this idea to the Commission in the post-disaster environment where dollars were more precious than ever – and the plan got incinerated by the Commission, controlled by a majority of Blanco, her appointee, and legislative loyalists.
Maybe Kennedy should try again as it seems he would get a much better reception this time. But the episode is yet another example revealing Blanco’s base political instincts – a blend of liberalism and populism where politics, not principle, guides most decision-making, where governing is done primarily on behalf of supportive constituencies with the rest of the state’s citizens represent mere afterthought. Only when the citizenry voice sufficient complaint does Blanco change course more to their liking.
We’ve seen it time and time again – her resistance to flood control reform that resulted in millions being spent on an extra special session, her not wanting to provide a partial bailout of homeowner’s insurance premiums triggered by failures of state administration that she now seems to favor, and then this. Wouldn’t Louisiana be better off by having a governor who naturally leads by putting the people ahead of cronies, instead of having to drag Blanco along to accomplish the same?
One of the more irrational features of the process is typically the capital outlay bill having more spending in it than is constitutionally allowed. Fiscal year 2007 is no exception and Blanco’s staff recently released the list of projects that made the cut, that can be funded with the money available (this being one way in which the Legislature allows the governor to push it around, by letting her office make in essence the final decision on what gets funded).
With the releasing of the list, her staff took the opportunity to tout how they chose to segregate requests into different categories, and then choosing on the basis of priority (defined by them) within categories. It’s a small step that might produce funded projects more on merit and less on politics, in contrast to attempts last year at this time.
However, the idea itself is nothing new as the person who oversees the next step of the process, the authorizing of bond sales to cover the costs, state Treasurer John Kennedy, last year suggested that the body responsible for this, the Bond Commission, be able to do essentially the same. He offered this idea to the Commission in the post-disaster environment where dollars were more precious than ever – and the plan got incinerated by the Commission, controlled by a majority of Blanco, her appointee, and legislative loyalists.
Maybe Kennedy should try again as it seems he would get a much better reception this time. But the episode is yet another example revealing Blanco’s base political instincts – a blend of liberalism and populism where politics, not principle, guides most decision-making, where governing is done primarily on behalf of supportive constituencies with the rest of the state’s citizens represent mere afterthought. Only when the citizenry voice sufficient complaint does Blanco change course more to their liking.
We’ve seen it time and time again – her resistance to flood control reform that resulted in millions being spent on an extra special session, her not wanting to provide a partial bailout of homeowner’s insurance premiums triggered by failures of state administration that she now seems to favor, and then this. Wouldn’t Louisiana be better off by having a governor who naturally leads by putting the people ahead of cronies, instead of having to drag Blanco along to accomplish the same?
13.9.06
Landrieu needs to demonstrate effectiveness on oil bill
We’ve heard enough claims from Sen. Mary Landrieu about her presumed contributions to Louisiana. The stalled oil extraction bill in Congress offers her a perfect opportunity to show, after a decade in the Senate, that she really does have some influence and that she can do something for the state other than raise the taxes of its citizens, vote against qualified nominees to the judiciary, try to squelch the economy with oppressive labor regulation, detract from flood control efforts, and subverting elections.
At present, Congress cannot agree upon two versions of legislation that promises to increase U.S energy independence dramatically, a byproduct of which would provide money to Louisiana for coastal protection. The House bill, authored by Rep. Bobby Jindal, would be much more generous to the states and more likely to allow for production of more oil. The Senate, however, seems resolute in letting out a more modest version. Senate Democrats are the driving force behind the intransigence.
At present, Congress cannot agree upon two versions of legislation that promises to increase U.S energy independence dramatically, a byproduct of which would provide money to Louisiana for coastal protection. The House bill, authored by Rep. Bobby Jindal, would be much more generous to the states and more likely to allow for production of more oil. The Senate, however, seems resolute in letting out a more modest version. Senate Democrats are the driving force behind the intransigence.
We must understand one root cause of these Democrats’ opposition to the superior House version, H.R. 4761, stems from their devotion to an environmentalist agenda born of a distrust of free markets. The U.S. is the only oil producing country in the world that restricts drilling off its shores, despite the almost nonexistent environmental damage that oil spills, much less the normal drilling activities, do; 85 percent currently is off-limits. That tightens supply, driving up prices.
Landrieu should argue with her colleagues that not only would opening these areas (East and West coasts plus Florida) drive down prices to consumers, states could benefit because they will keep a much higher proportion of revenues generated 100 miles out that currently (with Louisiana reaping the greatest gains). If they followed Louisiana’s lead, that money could be used for coastal restoration. Thus, more drilling would help, rather than harm, the environment.
Senate Democrats also oppose it because it would reduce potential monies coming into the federal treasury relative to the Senate version (especially since Jindal’s bill applies retroactively in the royalty payments). They love big government and the control it has over people’s lives so much that they cannot stand to give away anything in their quest to fund it.
12.9.06
Better ideas needed to pay off LA insurance debt
In an apparent reversal from her view at the end of the last legislative session, Gov. Kathleen Blanco appears like she’s closing the barn door on another escaped horse, ready to chase after it. That option may be the best of a bad deal for Louisiana.
Whether through bad luck (because it had existed for such a short period of time and had not been able to build up reserves) or because its rates were kept artificially low, or both, the state-owned insurer of last resort, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation took a beating over the 2005 hurricane disasters, running up a deficit of $825 million that had to be financed by debt to pay off claims. Current law mandates that assessments to cover this, if they don’t come out of the pockets of Citizens policyholders, come out of the pockets of every home policyholder in the state. (For an excellent explanation of how this came about, read this from state Rep. Tim Burns.)
At the conclusion of the 2006 session, some lawmakers moved to take $50 million out the newly-created state fund for emergency operations to lighten the burden of the payers a little. Blanco’s legislative leaders negated that tactic, although a provision did get in place to remove as much as that amount from the fund if it’s unspent by the end of the fiscal year.
But now it seems Blanco may be changing her mind, after various other ideas to deal with the payback have been floated such as creating a risk pool to draw from (which is substantially the situation as it now exists) to using federal recovery money (Blanco’s crew says recovery needs are too great to do that) to getting into a compact with other states to spread out the risk and payback (which other lower-risk states would laugh at). In effect, it will slightly reduce the hit for almost everybody but will otherwise punish a few.
This is because, like it or not, in some way almost every state resident pays for insurance. Owners of mortgaged property must pay it; renters pay it as part of their rent. Only those who own homes free and clear and are crazy enough not to insure the property were going to avoid paying under present law.
Taking any projected state surplus (and it’s uncertain that there will be a surplus yet) and using it to pay off part of the debt is a kind of fee placed on the citizenry because, otherwise, these funds could have been returned to them or used to provide other services (hopefully, needed ones in an efficient manner). It also avoids the real question of responsibility, which ultimately lies with those who chose to live in high-risk areas but paid below-market rates.
That Citizens’ rates have shot up reflects only the future expected risk, now perhaps better adjusted to reality, of the properties it insures. Unfortunately, that doesn’t address its past sins of artificially low rates, which otherwise will be born disproportionately by other state residents and policyholders.
Unless the state begins to think creatively about this. For example, the state could plow into this cause some nonrecurring capital outlay surplus-recognized money (they are, after all, building houses) instead of building reservoirs that do nothing for economic development. Or maybe build fewer livestock barns? Do these things and a lot of the debt could be paid off in just a few years without any assessments to unrelated parties.
Yes, and given it’s Blanco, her fellow Democrats in charge of the Legislature, and just a general surplus of good-old-boy types in state government, I’d have a greater chance of flapping my arms and flying to the moon that this occurring. Get out your wallets, Louisiana, one way or another you’re about to pay up for another populist mistake.
Whether through bad luck (because it had existed for such a short period of time and had not been able to build up reserves) or because its rates were kept artificially low, or both, the state-owned insurer of last resort, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation took a beating over the 2005 hurricane disasters, running up a deficit of $825 million that had to be financed by debt to pay off claims. Current law mandates that assessments to cover this, if they don’t come out of the pockets of Citizens policyholders, come out of the pockets of every home policyholder in the state. (For an excellent explanation of how this came about, read this from state Rep. Tim Burns.)
At the conclusion of the 2006 session, some lawmakers moved to take $50 million out the newly-created state fund for emergency operations to lighten the burden of the payers a little. Blanco’s legislative leaders negated that tactic, although a provision did get in place to remove as much as that amount from the fund if it’s unspent by the end of the fiscal year.
But now it seems Blanco may be changing her mind, after various other ideas to deal with the payback have been floated such as creating a risk pool to draw from (which is substantially the situation as it now exists) to using federal recovery money (Blanco’s crew says recovery needs are too great to do that) to getting into a compact with other states to spread out the risk and payback (which other lower-risk states would laugh at). In effect, it will slightly reduce the hit for almost everybody but will otherwise punish a few.
This is because, like it or not, in some way almost every state resident pays for insurance. Owners of mortgaged property must pay it; renters pay it as part of their rent. Only those who own homes free and clear and are crazy enough not to insure the property were going to avoid paying under present law.
Taking any projected state surplus (and it’s uncertain that there will be a surplus yet) and using it to pay off part of the debt is a kind of fee placed on the citizenry because, otherwise, these funds could have been returned to them or used to provide other services (hopefully, needed ones in an efficient manner). It also avoids the real question of responsibility, which ultimately lies with those who chose to live in high-risk areas but paid below-market rates.
That Citizens’ rates have shot up reflects only the future expected risk, now perhaps better adjusted to reality, of the properties it insures. Unfortunately, that doesn’t address its past sins of artificially low rates, which otherwise will be born disproportionately by other state residents and policyholders.
Unless the state begins to think creatively about this. For example, the state could plow into this cause some nonrecurring capital outlay surplus-recognized money (they are, after all, building houses) instead of building reservoirs that do nothing for economic development. Or maybe build fewer livestock barns? Do these things and a lot of the debt could be paid off in just a few years without any assessments to unrelated parties.
Yes, and given it’s Blanco, her fellow Democrats in charge of the Legislature, and just a general surplus of good-old-boy types in state government, I’d have a greater chance of flapping my arms and flying to the moon that this occurring. Get out your wallets, Louisiana, one way or another you’re about to pay up for another populist mistake.
11.9.06
Louisiana blogosphere having impact on political news?
I’m a bit surprised that “old media” journalist Jeremy Alford didn’t go to the horse’s mouth when he wrote his latest piece wondering whether “new media” bloggers were having an impact on Louisiana political reporting – me (he admitted in a rare moment of weakness when truly bored that he reads this space sometimes). I write one (as one might gather, reading it right now) and I’m a political scientist and, as it turns out, I’m familiar with the work my colleagues in the profession that assess this very issue, on a theoretical level. But that’s why I started this enterprise, trying to fill in the gaps left by the mainstream media (that’s why it’s called “Between the Lines”), so I’ll fulfill my end here and now.
The payoff question is whether blogs make any significant difference in information disseminated about Louisiana politics. The generally accepted theory is that blogging, given that any single blog is read by only a tiny portion of the population (for example, I average about 92 hits a posting day here and almost as many on the mirror of this blog at PoliticsLa, and have a mailing list of just little over a dozen, meaning about 175 direct readers a typical posting day), follows a two-step communication process. In this instance, they are read by elites (disproportionately, as I can tell by posted comments, e-mail messages, and the names on my mailing list) who actively engage in politics, who then fan that information out.
In fact, it becomes circular to some degree because much of what is blogged about comes initially from mainstream media reports – it’s just that the blogs may give a different opinion on it or alert readers to a story’s connection with others. Rarely do they provide original information of which the media is totally unaware or which it might be unwilling to disseminate.
The payoff question is whether blogs make any significant difference in information disseminated about Louisiana politics. The generally accepted theory is that blogging, given that any single blog is read by only a tiny portion of the population (for example, I average about 92 hits a posting day here and almost as many on the mirror of this blog at PoliticsLa, and have a mailing list of just little over a dozen, meaning about 175 direct readers a typical posting day), follows a two-step communication process. In this instance, they are read by elites (disproportionately, as I can tell by posted comments, e-mail messages, and the names on my mailing list) who actively engage in politics, who then fan that information out.
In fact, it becomes circular to some degree because much of what is blogged about comes initially from mainstream media reports – it’s just that the blogs may give a different opinion on it or alert readers to a story’s connection with others. Rarely do they provide original information of which the media is totally unaware or which it might be unwilling to disseminate.
10.9.06
State to pay needless fines to make politicians look good
Once again, Louisiana elected officials have played politics to cover up for their incompetence. Once again, Louisiana citizens will have to pay for their mistakes.
These officials cry foul that the federal government isn’t allowing for the state to have enough time to “audit” bills sent by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Never mind that FEMA has granted multiple extensions to the state. Never mind that other affected states were quite satisfied with FEMA’s paperwork and paid their bills on time. They avoided all penalties; Louisiana is facing daily fines that may well cost millions of dollars before it gets it act together.
The excuse is that Louisiana wants to make sure the money is being spent “wisely.” The state acceded to the standard regime that the federal government will pay for the bulk of acceptable recovery costs for the hurricane disasters of 2005, but which means the state must chip in some as well. What this action covers up is that if Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco and the Democrat-run legislature had been more interested in serving the state that playing politics to begin with, payment and any potential auditing could have been accomplished long ago.
Instead, because (by way of examples) politicians didn’t want to disrupt existing political fiefdoms regarding flood control, or because they spent so much time weakening ballot security, or because they spent a ludicrously long interval coming up with a workable housing reimbursement plan, and on and on, that Louisiana was months behind other affected states. There was wasted so much time and effort on these things which could have left plenty of time to audit (which in any event is not possible under federal law yet was tolerated and even facilitated by FEMA) and to allocate the money for the bills long ago, not in a rushed fashion towards the end of June.
Even more laughable, the state claims this is necessary to avoid the possibility of paying for “$300 hammers.” Incredulous, because of the hypocrisy behind it all: this was the same state that, for example, blew $375 per voter, ten times the normal cost, on an “outreach” program that it was not required to do but chose to do because Democrats thought it could gain them electoral advantage in New Orleans elections, and, potentially, in future elections. Or that it gives away nearly $100 million a year which a simple realigning of health care expenditures would save? As wasteful as the federal government can be, to have Louisiana officials complain about waste when they sanction it themselves gives us a new way to understand the concept of “pot, meet kettle.”
They don’t even understand how it all works in an attempt to explain away their bungling. State Rep. John Alario, intimately involved in money matters as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, attempts to cover up for it by saying “I’m sure our treasurer invested the money we set aside for paying these bills. It will be interesting to see how much we’ve earned on our money. Hopefully, it will offset what FEMA is charging us.”
But it can’t by federal law. As John Hill reported: “[I]t is specifically illegal for states to earn money off federal grants. The federal hurricane funds are ‘draw-down funds,’ which means the money stays in the federal treasury until the state has spent it; the money passes through in electronic format rather quickly.”
Besides, what was stopping the state from paying the bills up front, and then after the audit, requesting reimbursement? If it were serious about the enterprise, that’s how it would have been handled.
In short, given the past history of the state’s elected officials and its bureaucratic performance, and their obvious lack of understanding of the whole process, it’s hard to take serious the state’s claim it’s trying to be thrifty. Making much more sense is this whole operation is a smokescreen to make its politicians look good, to disguise the fact they’ve once again failed their constituents and are making the citizenry pay for their stupidity.
These officials cry foul that the federal government isn’t allowing for the state to have enough time to “audit” bills sent by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Never mind that FEMA has granted multiple extensions to the state. Never mind that other affected states were quite satisfied with FEMA’s paperwork and paid their bills on time. They avoided all penalties; Louisiana is facing daily fines that may well cost millions of dollars before it gets it act together.
The excuse is that Louisiana wants to make sure the money is being spent “wisely.” The state acceded to the standard regime that the federal government will pay for the bulk of acceptable recovery costs for the hurricane disasters of 2005, but which means the state must chip in some as well. What this action covers up is that if Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco and the Democrat-run legislature had been more interested in serving the state that playing politics to begin with, payment and any potential auditing could have been accomplished long ago.
Instead, because (by way of examples) politicians didn’t want to disrupt existing political fiefdoms regarding flood control, or because they spent so much time weakening ballot security, or because they spent a ludicrously long interval coming up with a workable housing reimbursement plan, and on and on, that Louisiana was months behind other affected states. There was wasted so much time and effort on these things which could have left plenty of time to audit (which in any event is not possible under federal law yet was tolerated and even facilitated by FEMA) and to allocate the money for the bills long ago, not in a rushed fashion towards the end of June.
Even more laughable, the state claims this is necessary to avoid the possibility of paying for “$300 hammers.” Incredulous, because of the hypocrisy behind it all: this was the same state that, for example, blew $375 per voter, ten times the normal cost, on an “outreach” program that it was not required to do but chose to do because Democrats thought it could gain them electoral advantage in New Orleans elections, and, potentially, in future elections. Or that it gives away nearly $100 million a year which a simple realigning of health care expenditures would save? As wasteful as the federal government can be, to have Louisiana officials complain about waste when they sanction it themselves gives us a new way to understand the concept of “pot, meet kettle.”
They don’t even understand how it all works in an attempt to explain away their bungling. State Rep. John Alario, intimately involved in money matters as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, attempts to cover up for it by saying “I’m sure our treasurer invested the money we set aside for paying these bills. It will be interesting to see how much we’ve earned on our money. Hopefully, it will offset what FEMA is charging us.”
But it can’t by federal law. As John Hill reported: “[I]t is specifically illegal for states to earn money off federal grants. The federal hurricane funds are ‘draw-down funds,’ which means the money stays in the federal treasury until the state has spent it; the money passes through in electronic format rather quickly.”
Besides, what was stopping the state from paying the bills up front, and then after the audit, requesting reimbursement? If it were serious about the enterprise, that’s how it would have been handled.
In short, given the past history of the state’s elected officials and its bureaucratic performance, and their obvious lack of understanding of the whole process, it’s hard to take serious the state’s claim it’s trying to be thrifty. Making much more sense is this whole operation is a smokescreen to make its politicians look good, to disguise the fact they’ve once again failed their constituents and are making the citizenry pay for their stupidity.
9.9.06
Talk now is cheap; next year Jindal will best Blanco
Tentative discussions have begun on who will run for governor of Louisiana next year. Chatter is fine, but it’s unlikely to change the basic scenario: Republican U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal defeating Democrat incumbent Gov. Kathleen Blanco in a general election runoff.
Other names are mentioned, but in the end they either will be smart enough not to run or even if they did it wouldn’t change anything. Democrat State Rep. Cedric Richmond may talk about how blacks are disappointed enough in Blanco to support a run by the likes of him, but he knows he’s a relatively little-known figure outside New Orleans with next to no racial crossover appeal. Besides, in the shrunken New Orleans that will lose legislative districts in the 2011 reapportionment, for him to have any political future in that coming legiscide he needs to have an elective office as a result of the 2007 elections, and for now his current seat is safe.
Republican State Sen. Walter Boasso has only been in politics three years and in the statewide spotlight just a matter of months. Dummies don’t get to head large corporations and CEO Boasso can see the last thing he needs is to oppose a juggernaut like Jindal in Boasso's current politically unseasoned condition when so many other appealing alternatives exist. He can confirm his safe seat reelection in 2007 and, if impatient, can take a free shot at the U.S. Third District if current Rep. Charlie Melancon manages to hang on this year in 2008 whose Democrats may well put at the top of the ticket a guaranteed vote-getter for Republican candidates everywhere – or perhaps even aim higher at the seat of the lite version of this person, Sen. Mary Landrieu. If patient, he waits one or two state election cycles with plenty of time to establish himself as the Republican heir-apparent to the governorship.
Marginalized in the state Senate, Democrat Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell successfully but narrowly escaped to his current position. However, surely he knows the swap that he calls for of income (both personal and corporate) and severance taxes for a processing tax on oil flowing into the state neither is practical nor would enough voters trust the state legislature to follow through on it. Populism may live on more vigorously in Louisiana than anywhere else, but you simply cannot win a statewide race now based on it, especially when you have opponents like Jindal with far more credible platforms. Campbell will need to save his funds to try to hold onto his PSC seat the year after.
However, Campbell is proving an irritant for Blanco because his rhetoric, even if he doesn’t run, tempts her to veer even more sharply to the left to squeeze him out. This literally plays right into Jindal’s hands, who couldn’t quite convince enough voters last time that Blanco was a liberal in moderate’s clothing. Her tenure in office has opened a number of eyes on that account, and her dismal performance during and after Louisiana’s hurricane disasters of 2005 did so even more. Add to that her winning margin against Jindal in 2003 basically has left the state courtesy of the disasters, and with opinion of her down a more than a dozen points in the past 15 months well below the 50 percent positive rating that connotes any chance of winning reelection at all, says she’s in deep trouble.
Blanco said she is running and has nowhere to go but down if she doesn’t so she’ll want to go out swinging. Jindal says he hasn’t decided yet, meaning he’s only 99.44 percent sure that he will. Unless weird things happen, nobody else will matter by this time next year, and Jindal will just have to avoid doing anything stupid to become the youngest governor since … Huey P. Long.
Other names are mentioned, but in the end they either will be smart enough not to run or even if they did it wouldn’t change anything. Democrat State Rep. Cedric Richmond may talk about how blacks are disappointed enough in Blanco to support a run by the likes of him, but he knows he’s a relatively little-known figure outside New Orleans with next to no racial crossover appeal. Besides, in the shrunken New Orleans that will lose legislative districts in the 2011 reapportionment, for him to have any political future in that coming legiscide he needs to have an elective office as a result of the 2007 elections, and for now his current seat is safe.
Republican State Sen. Walter Boasso has only been in politics three years and in the statewide spotlight just a matter of months. Dummies don’t get to head large corporations and CEO Boasso can see the last thing he needs is to oppose a juggernaut like Jindal in Boasso's current politically unseasoned condition when so many other appealing alternatives exist. He can confirm his safe seat reelection in 2007 and, if impatient, can take a free shot at the U.S. Third District if current Rep. Charlie Melancon manages to hang on this year in 2008 whose Democrats may well put at the top of the ticket a guaranteed vote-getter for Republican candidates everywhere – or perhaps even aim higher at the seat of the lite version of this person, Sen. Mary Landrieu. If patient, he waits one or two state election cycles with plenty of time to establish himself as the Republican heir-apparent to the governorship.
Marginalized in the state Senate, Democrat Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell successfully but narrowly escaped to his current position. However, surely he knows the swap that he calls for of income (both personal and corporate) and severance taxes for a processing tax on oil flowing into the state neither is practical nor would enough voters trust the state legislature to follow through on it. Populism may live on more vigorously in Louisiana than anywhere else, but you simply cannot win a statewide race now based on it, especially when you have opponents like Jindal with far more credible platforms. Campbell will need to save his funds to try to hold onto his PSC seat the year after.
However, Campbell is proving an irritant for Blanco because his rhetoric, even if he doesn’t run, tempts her to veer even more sharply to the left to squeeze him out. This literally plays right into Jindal’s hands, who couldn’t quite convince enough voters last time that Blanco was a liberal in moderate’s clothing. Her tenure in office has opened a number of eyes on that account, and her dismal performance during and after Louisiana’s hurricane disasters of 2005 did so even more. Add to that her winning margin against Jindal in 2003 basically has left the state courtesy of the disasters, and with opinion of her down a more than a dozen points in the past 15 months well below the 50 percent positive rating that connotes any chance of winning reelection at all, says she’s in deep trouble.
Blanco said she is running and has nowhere to go but down if she doesn’t so she’ll want to go out swinging. Jindal says he hasn’t decided yet, meaning he’s only 99.44 percent sure that he will. Unless weird things happen, nobody else will matter by this time next year, and Jindal will just have to avoid doing anything stupid to become the youngest governor since … Huey P. Long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)