Lucky again, Melancon may need more to keep seat

Now lucky twice, depending upon the political environment over the next two years, U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon may still need some luck to survive past a second term in the House of Representatives.

Democrat Melancon, of course, got lucky initially with infighting among Republicans and with the candidates’ vote distributions in 2004. He barely made the general election runoff against Republican Billy Tauzin III by narrowly besting Republican state Sen. Craig Romero, and then scraped out a win against Tauzin in large part to Romero’s bitter negative ads against Tauzin.

In his first term, Melancon set the stage for his reelection by voting more conservative than liberal in the most “deviant” Republican district in the country – no district held by a Democrat after the 2004 elections had a higher proportion of voters for Pres. George W. Bush than Melancon’s Louisiana Third District at 58 percent. But to repeat, he needed fortune to smile on him, in the form of a crippled GOP candidate, national political trends, and the weather to secure a second term.

While Melancon no doubt deplores Hurricane Katrina’s destruction, his political career got a boost by it. It helped depopulate and decimate two decidedly Republican parishes in the district, Plaquemines and St. Bernard. Almost two-thirds of their residents voted for Bush in 2004, but by election day 2006 it was estimated that the former still was short over half of its population and the latter over three-quarters. Assuming displaced people were proportionate across the political spectrum, a GOP opponent of Melancon’s could be expected to have lost (adjusted for turnout) almost 14,000 votes. (The remainder of the district largely escaped depopulation.)

National trends helped Melancon too, as a portion of the electorate was turned off by the GOP as a whole and Democrats were electorally astute enough not to publicize their own agenda which is far to the left of the preferences of the American people in general, and certainly specifically to Melancon’s constituents. But what sealed the deal was the flawed Romero as his main opponent, trying again which was the whole purpose of his scorched earth campaign against Tauzin two years ago as he thought Melancon would be easier to defeat in the future. However, some hard feelings remained against Romero by voters and, especially in a year where it was playing defensively, the GOP leadership recalling how he sabotaged Tauzin’s otherwise near-certain win was in no hurry to commit many resources to his campaign.

Lucky a second time, Melancon probably will need more in two years, and could get it. Even if he continues with casting enough conservative votes to reassure some district voters, and tries to position himself as a centrist between the Republicans and the much more radical Democrat House leadership, already he is making votes that can come back to haunt him. A shrewd 2008 opponent will bring up his support of Rep. Steny Hoyer, one of the most liberal members of Congress, for Democrat (therefore Majority) Leader and that next year he will vote to install as Speaker of the House another hard leftist, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, both of whose agenda runs squarely against Americans’ and the Third District’s, best interests. Further, nomination for the presidency by the Democrats of their frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton would bring such approbation on Melancon that he and a number of others of his party likely would be swept out of office regardless of what they do.

Still, maybe national Democrats will fail to nominate Clinton and even give a more moderate party member the slot, returnees to Plaquemines and St. Bernard may be slow in coming, and perhaps the Republicans will not nominate a quality challenger (state Sen. Walter Boasso probably could beat Melancon right now, but he well may have eyes on higher office). If so, Melancon may continue to be the biggest anomaly in the state among its national officeholders.

Nothing new with sugar mill deal; still bad for taxpayers

Old wine in a new bottle isn’t going to do the trick. The proposed sugar mill at Bunkie is still a bad deal no matter how it gets rewrapped, and the State Bond Commission must reject it tomorrow.

The Commission must give approval because half of the deal involves the state issuing the bonds to build the facility. That is a new aspect of the deal, as private investors are anticipated to put up money for the other half and supporters tout that this improves the risk to the state regarding the deal. In fact, it and other changes to the dynamics surrounding the deal have done nothing to make it an enterprise for which taxpayers should bear responsibility.

Beginning with the financing issue, the private sector will touch the deal only if at least half of the risk is borne by the state. Translation: it’s going to fail to pay back construction costs, and it’s worth only half of the $135 million (up $50 million in estimated costs over the past couple of years) cost to build, so when it goes into default, the private financial backers essentially will repossess all of it despite backing just half of it. Meaning: at best taxpayers must subsidize a money-losing operation for the foreseeable future; at worst, they throw away $67.5 million for nothing.

Legislature, LSU system should listen to Regents

Another, not inconsiderable, factor has entered into the debate about Louisiana health care redesign – the state Board of Regents, significant because it governs budgets and academic affairs concerning the LSU system which runs the charity hospital system in the state. Yet another waits to be heard from.

As the state is being nudged, somewhat forcefully, by the federal government to restructure its archaic, inefficient, institution-heavy system of health care for the indigent, the LSU Board of Supervisors has fought the idea of eliminating the charity system. In most of the hospitals, care is below comparable community standards, programs are fragmented, and patients are forced to travel long distances to access care. The federal government wishes the state to move to a model where money follows the patient, meaning any hospital can provide indigent care at adequate reimbursement rates but which likely would mean the state government exiting ownership and operation of a majority of those public facilities.

But the Supervisors don’t want to follow this sensible path, despite a recommendation from the Regents that they do so because trying to run an indigent health care system the Regents claim dilutes LSU’s ability to pursue its primary function regarding these hospitals, medical education. In response, the Supervisors say the Regents have no authority over the hospitals and they are doing a good job running things. However, the Regents are correct – anything administrative that distracts from medical education cannot be a good thing, and the Regents do have the right to oversee that. (This dispute wouldn’t exist if Louisiana didn’t have such a convoluted system governing higher education – just like with the charity system, no other state in the union does things this way.)

That answer masks the real reason the LSU system wishes to keep as many of the hospitals as it can: money, in the form of reimbursements for indigent care – although if you asked some of the individual facilities, they might wish to free of the system, because typically surpluses a hospital makes from reimbursements exceeding costs get redirected back into the system. The more charity business the system can do, the more potentially it could redirect funds.

Of course, two could play this game if the Supervisors defy the Regents on this. For budgeting, the Regents could start cutting funds going to medical education, denying the system the extra funding, in essence, since these funds would have to be spent on medical education at that institution. But, ultimately, the single biggest factor, the state Legislature, would be the one that will have set policy and budgets for higher education as well as indigent care.

Which is why the following needs to be done by the Legislature, acknowledging that the Regents are correct on this issue:

Keep LSU Medical Center Shreveport, E.A. Conway (Monroe), Medical Center of Louisiana New Orleans (better known as “Big Charity”), University Medical Center (Lafayette), and W.O. Moss (Lake Charles) in a system run by LSU

Divest the state of all others (including cancelling any plans to build a new facility in Baton Rouge to replace the aged Earl K. Long facility)

Realign medical education so that each advanced program is taught at just one of these five institutions

Rebuild Big Charity but on a smaller scale than currently envisioned, to take into account the reality of a much smaller population base to be served

After this realignment, immediately start redirecting health care dollars for the indigent to the patients themselves, usable at any private or public facility that meets the records management criterion of the health care redesign panel

Naturally, this obviously more efficient means of providing indigent health care requires political will focused on better care for fewer dollars, not in sharing the wealth – a quality Louisiana government historically has had in short supply.

Jindal likely, but Boasso possibly, gubernatorial winner

You don’t say, U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal is actually leaning towards running for governor! Not only does he command substantial leads in polls for that 2007 race, but being in the minority in the House for the next two years might not appeal to him as well (even if the GOP likely will recapture Congress in 2008 absent more self-destruction, and that may not even matter if national Democrats commit political suicide with the nomination of Sen. Hillary Clinton for president), making it virtually certain he will do so.

But, understatement aside, the dynamics of the contest could get very interesting. Incumbent Gov. Kathleen Blanco seems sacred and bound to try again, and, despite political minimal life-support levels of popularity, she has every reason to believe that she would be the most competitive Democrat. Her problem is she presently is a definite underdog to Jindal and, under certain circumstances, might not even make the general election runoff.

Fellow Republican state Sen. Walter Boasso’s gubernatorial aspirations rest upon the right combination of events. He must realize that, under most circumstances, regardless of the amount of his personal wealth he spent on a statewide campaign, Jindal is just too popular to be taken out. Like Jindal’s, Boasso’s record in office is necessarily short but, even as Boasso is more conservative than liberal, there are some votes he’s taken that conservatives will not forget and they will prefer Jindal. That means in a Blanco-Boasso-Jindal matchup, Boasso is likely to get squeezed out in the nonpartisan blanket primary, which is why he would be smarter to try for the House or Senate in 2008, where, depending on what happens in the next two years, he might even be the favorite against Democrats Sen. Mary Landrieu or Rep. Charlie Melancon.

However, Democrat Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell has said it is fairly certain he will run for governor as well. While his simplistic populist agenda would be rejected by the majority of Louisiana voters, it would peel a number of them off Blanco’s column. If that happened, Boasso would stand a decent chance with Jindal of acing Blanco out of the runoff, and then, with Democrats and leftists more comfortable supporting him than Jindal, a Boasso-Jindal runoff would be a toss-up.

Yet this is a big gamble for Boasso. The only way it would work is with that combination. It may not even work if Blanco did bow out, because another liberal Democrat of stature who could (unlike Campbell) claim he was really a moderate has said he will run if Blanco does not, lobbyist and former U.S. representative Chris John. He probably would siphon off voters for Boasso that Blanco would have lost, meaning even with Campbell in the contest a Jindal-John runoff is most likely (which still is likely to go to Jindal, given his much higher profile than John’s over the past few years and that he is closer to Louisianans’ issue preferences than John).

In short, Jindal is almost a sure thing to make the runoff, and nearly as certain to win it, at this point. Only Boasso would have a chance to defeat him. But Boasso would have to get just the right help from the Democrats, and that’s a risky thing to count on especially when a U.S. House or Senate seat seems more within his grasp.

Veterans Day, 2006

In honor of Veterans Day, please access the link above to learn more about how Veterans Day came about.

Race mattered in 2006 Caddo-area elections

As it did in the instance of the Shreveport mayor’s contest, race played a role, although subdued, in other voting in and around Caddo Parish on Nov. 7.

Shreveport mayor-elect Cedric Glover’s impressive turnout train almost carried City Council District B candidate Sheva Sims into the station. In that district, the Sep. 30 election brought incumbent Monty Walford a lead of 42-30 percent on a white turnout exceeding black turnout by about 7 percent, negating the 331 black voter advantage of whites in the district, total turnout being 32.23 percent.

But in the general election, overall turnout jumped to 40.15 percent, lagging overall city turnout a fraction. While we don’t have the official turnout statistics yet by race, the 8 point gap achieved by whites over blacks in the primary was approximately halved in the general election and we can assume the same happened in amount to the District B almost 7 point gap. Given the existing margin in favor of black voters, that should have drawn the candidates even, and the historic pattern of 15 percent of whites voting for black candidates in a white vs. black matchup, against about half that the other way around, should have given Sims the win.

Black solidarity, higher turnout keys to Glover win

Turnout and racial solidarity won the Shreveport mayor’s race for black Democrat state Rep. Cedric Glover over white Republican Jerry Jones.

Heading into the contest, if one took registration numbers by race (whites with about a 1,500 lead), turnout statistics from the primary election (whites 48 percent, blacks 40 percent), and historic crossover voting in a white Republican vs. black Democrat matchup (7 percent of blacks vote for the Republican, 15 percent of whites vote for the Democrat), Jones would have won this race 51-49 percent.

But both turnout and crossover statistics changed dramatically in Glover’s favor. The fact that total turnout increased almost 10 percent over the primary election, in an environment where it seemed reduced turnout was more likely, indicates Glover’s camp did an outstanding job in getting out the vote, even as Jones seems to have incrementally increased his numbers there as well. In 13 almost all-black precincts, turnout increased by an average of 10.8 percent, while in 4 almost non-black precincts it increased just 7.6 percent.

This time, most amendments worthy of passage

Whereas in the Sep. 30 round of constitutional amendments only a few items were hotly debated on their merits, the Nov. 7 round facing Louisiana voters features much dissension among many.

Right off the bat, #1 draws protests that another exception concerning the homestead exemption complicates the process and reduces revenue for local governments. The same kinds of criticisms get registered against #3 and #4.

However, this is permissible if the proportionate good outweighs the reduction in revenue and in two cases that occurs. For #1, the disabled often have lives whose expenses would be unimaginable to people blessed with all of their natural abilities, so the small savings afforded to them by locking in their taxes regardless of increases in value of their homesteads is proper. With #4, the ability to tax moving vehicles as property is unwieldy and probably costs more in enforcement than it’s worth for all but extortionist rates. The argument in both cases that this reduces government revenues is spurious; local governments could ask voters to increase their property taxes in both instances if it were serious about making up such “lost” revenue.

But in the case of #3, its defeat is appropriate. The benefits it would bestow would help just three facilities (in writing off medical equipment for certain hospitals narrowly defined) to the point it seems tailor-made for them. The proportionate good is too small to justify passing these.

Efficiency in government is the standard used against #6 and #8. Proponents claim the former would fragment judicial systems, while the latter would fragment the East Baton Rouge school system. Again, both arguments are wanting. For the former, more specialized courts actually would increase efficiency in case-flow management and, in regards to claims they might become places for more patronage, voters can see to that by their judicious choices in electing officious judges to those positions. For the latter, this kind of maneuver (allowing the city of Central to set up its own school district) is precisely the medicine to reinvigorate the sadly-underperforming East Baton Rouge school district to shape up, while at the same time affording Central residents the chance for increase quality of schooling of their children (is this not similar to the philosophy behind the situation of New Orleans schools, split among straight-up local public, charter, and state-run institutions?)

Finally, while much fuss is made by some about #2, it amounts to simple bookkeeping. If by its passage, which would allow parishes to keep up to $100,000 more a year from severance taxes, indexed by inflation, the state feels it will lose too much money ($3 million which equates to – gasp! – a little more than one ten-thousandth of last year’s state spending), it can adjust revenue-sharing formulas to the parishes by that much. First principles are if government’s going to confiscate your money, better that it be done at lower rather than higher levels justifies voting for this amendment.

Jones' philosophy gives him edge over Glover

Come election day, Democrat Rep. Cedric Glover is likely to lose to Republican former city attorney Jerry Jones in the Shreveport mayor’s race. To date, both candidates have shied away from making overtly partisan appeals but inescapably their partisanship acts as a shorthand for their policy preferences, in word and deed.

Glover cannot escape the fact that, in his elective political career, overall he has supported more government spending and power rather than less. Jones, although without an elective office to his name, consistently has articulated a vision of less intrusive government that is present less to redistribute resources than it is to create a structure by which individuals may maximize their talents and creative energies for the good of the entire community. Glover wishes to empower government; Jones wishes to empower people.

Jones’ view likely will prove to be the winning issue. Already, the realities of registration statistics (about 1,500 more whites than blacks), monoracial voting (historically in black Democrat vs. white Republican matchups, about 86 percent of whites vote for the white candidate, and around 93 percent of blacks vote for the black candidate in Shreveport mayoral contests), and a historical turnout differential of about 3 percent lower black to white, Glover has a lot of ground to make up (especially since black turnout in the primary was even lower than historical figures, only a shade over 40 percent, while white turnout was at 48 percent.).

Glover has been trying to cast the contest as much as he can in “brick-and-mortar, filling potholes, fighting crime” rhetoric, but Jones has done the same and promoted the smaller government vision (plus selectively reminded voters of Glover’s electoral record). The difference could come if Glover could articulate a vision along the lines of Jones, but he doesn’t have the material nor core beliefs to do so. It’s the only way he could bridge the gap, and that’s why he won’t.

And, if Jones succeeds, he deserves a tremendous amount of credit for taking the chance and prognosticating correctly. A couple of years ago, it seemed as if a black voting majority would be present in Shreveport by Oct., 2006, which would be enough for the turnout propensity that favored whites and the monoracial pattern which favored blacks to cancel, meaning a white candidate had a tough row to hoe. Then, the disproportionate black displacement of the metropolitan New Orleans area from Hurricane Katrina added some unanticipated black voters to the Caddo voting rolls. Regardless, Jones had the vision and wherewithal to forge ahead, and it looks like it will pay off in four years of a white, Republican mayor in a city with a black, Democrat plurality.

Blanco lawsuit political ploy costing state plenty

No doubt Louisiana taxpayers will be thrilled to know the state already has thrown away at least $580,000 on the nuisance suit brought by Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco against the federal government’s Minerals Management Service. The suit was to delay oil lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico until a revised environmental impact study was done, until a settlement was reached where the federal government said it would do such a study again.

Which, of course, brings Louisiana nothing. The real reason Blanco took this route was to make it appear that she had the ability to bring the state a greater share of royalty monies from oil extraction offshore of Louisiana. But, in reality, the action has no bearing on that topic which is a political sore spot with Blanco, especially since the extremely likely competitor for her job next year, Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal, with others, is closing in on bringing those extra funds to the state, leaving Blanco out in the cold.

So now the Blanco Administration has shifted its rhetoric. It claims as a result of a “proper” study that the federal government will owe some mitigation money. Whether that is the case is, at best, debatable; at worst, unlikely. The simple fact is the activity of drilling and extracting offshore has nothing to do with the onshore environment of the state. Activities related to lease usage may have an impact, but not the actual activity itself.