It appears now that the 2006 Second Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature, which in the hopes of the big government crowd had much potential, will go out with a whimper. A couple of good things like tax credits to reimburse special insurance assessments came out of it (and one bad tax credit where essentially the state will pay people who don’t pay income taxes to have children) but its high level of success (ignoring the fact we had little need for it except for insurance assessment relief) is defined by the fact it did so little to injure the people.
But the legacy of it that big government lovers are trying to extract and popularize is along the theme that Louisiana is becoming like Washington, too “partisan.” For example, words of wisdom from Commissioner of Administration Jerry Luke LeBlanc: “I've been in some pretty heated standoffs but nothing based strictly on party politics like this. It does a disservice to the people of this state to have the Washington model of partisan politics so strong.”
Of course, uttering a statement like this shows exactly that LeBlanc has been in government too long, and it needs translation because all the way from the multi-degreed like me to those who may not have much formal education but a lot of common sense are not going to understand what he means if we look only at the surface of his remark – at least for those of us who don’t see government as the salvation for the great unwashed or as something that better knows what should be done for the people than the people themselves, as believe LeBlanc and his boss Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco.
13.12.06
Anti-business Blanco blames GOP for stalling giveaway
As House Republicans almost unanimously continue to prevent the state from busting its spending cap to accommodate massive new spending by Gov. Kathleen Blanco, this has gotten her dander up in reference to one of the requests, $300 million to prepare a site for a new manufacturer, if the firm chooses Louisiana over two others. “If we lose this business deal,” she said, “the blame will lie squarely in their laps.”
The sheer irony and hypocrisy of her statement is staggering, because for three years not only has Blanco not done as many as two things to help business in Louisiana – and that primarily would be existing business, not only going all out for a Pollyanna crapshoot that may never pan out – but she has championed measure after measure that would stifle economic development. Blanco has implemented only one measure designed to entice business into the state, the reduction of sales taxes on machinery and equipment purchased for manufacturing and corporate franchise taxes on borrowed capital – over eight years.
(Even as Blanco blames the Republican legislators, they have asked her to lobby her Democrat majority in the House to phase these taxes out immediately. She refuses to do so. Today, the House did vote to create a fund to contain up to $300 million for purposes of attracting that firm.)
Just some of the more recent and high-profile anti-business, and thereby anti-working man, actions of Blanco:
Backing a sick tax that would have raised the cost of health care in the state
Approving of a raise of the minimum wage (both legislatively and administratively) paid to state employees which would have a ripple effect on all employers
Making preliminary plans for the placing tolls on interstate highways, thereby raising transportation costs
Delaying flood control policy reform which discouraged commerce
Supporting a bill that would increase gas prices because of an ethanol-blend mandate
All would have or did increase costs on businesses and their employees, and note that, in every instance, her approach was one that championed bigger, less efficient government. Blanco also has been barely seen on a variety of bills to tighten ethics requirements, another set of things that would give business greater confidence to stay in or to locate to Louisiana.
Blanco has not been the most anti-business governor the state ever has seen, but it is ludicrous for her to claim that the failure to support legislation that favors one business not even in the state is a detriment to economic development when she has a past littered with instances of her refusal to reduce the size of government that would have helped the climate for all businesses in Louisiana.
The sheer irony and hypocrisy of her statement is staggering, because for three years not only has Blanco not done as many as two things to help business in Louisiana – and that primarily would be existing business, not only going all out for a Pollyanna crapshoot that may never pan out – but she has championed measure after measure that would stifle economic development. Blanco has implemented only one measure designed to entice business into the state, the reduction of sales taxes on machinery and equipment purchased for manufacturing and corporate franchise taxes on borrowed capital – over eight years.
(Even as Blanco blames the Republican legislators, they have asked her to lobby her Democrat majority in the House to phase these taxes out immediately. She refuses to do so. Today, the House did vote to create a fund to contain up to $300 million for purposes of attracting that firm.)
Just some of the more recent and high-profile anti-business, and thereby anti-working man, actions of Blanco:
All would have or did increase costs on businesses and their employees, and note that, in every instance, her approach was one that championed bigger, less efficient government. Blanco also has been barely seen on a variety of bills to tighten ethics requirements, another set of things that would give business greater confidence to stay in or to locate to Louisiana.
Blanco has not been the most anti-business governor the state ever has seen, but it is ludicrous for her to claim that the failure to support legislation that favors one business not even in the state is a detriment to economic development when she has a past littered with instances of her refusal to reduce the size of government that would have helped the climate for all businesses in Louisiana.
12.12.06
GOP needs to take offensive against self-destructing Blanco
As a result of yesterday’s legislative action, things were bad enough for Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco. Having pared down her agenda to just spending $400 million on the transportation backlog, $300 million for site preparation for a manufacturer who may or may not come to the state, and just $100 million for pay raises for select state and local employees, she could not get enough votes to override the state’s spending cap limitation currently allowing for $194 million because of intense, almost exclusively, Republican opposition. This made her look ineffective, another such episode gubernatorial opponents could use against her next year in her reelection bid.
But then she had to open her mouth and make herself look worse, handing them an even better issue. “No tax breaks are going out until we finish our business,” she announced, meaning, appropriate to her entire reign, that her vision of spending, whether it really makes any sense, gets priority over returning the peoples’ money to them.
Republicans U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal, state Sen. Walter Boasso, and even other potential 2007 candidates of all partisan stripes must have pinched themselves to make sure they weren’t dreaming when they heard of these remarks. It’s easy already to envision them hammering home the message to voters that Blanco opposed tax reduction of all kinds, with the state supposedly sitting on a huge surplus, when it was within her grasp as a childish retort to the sensible view that more time was needed to formulate plans and to monitor the state’s fiscal situation.
From the least to most, the pay raises involve recurring funds, and the false economy created by billions of dollars of federal rebuilding money may support that for couple of years, even more. But unless structural changes occur in the state’s fiscal policy, when that money goes away, the additional expenditures may not be sustainable.
And what changes are those? Precisely the tax cuts Blanco refuses to give. This is a golden opportunity to jumpstart the economy with the recovery money supporting the temporary loss of tax revenue that comes from tax cuts before the economic growth they spur kicks in.
The same applies to the site money. More than throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at some firm, more attractive would be tax cuts that would attract better quality new employees from out of state, help new employees in state, and would reduce the tax liability of the company.
Finally, the transportation backlog is the most worthy of the three requests, but Republicans are absolutely correct in slowing this down because there is no guarantee if approved the money would spent in a rational fashion. Instead, given the state’s history, it is likely to be spent for primarily political reasons, rather than according to genuine need in helping Louisiana’s overall transportation goals. Once they sign over a $400 million check, the minority Republicans cannot control the process to ensure more rationality in passing out roads monies.
Note that Blanco’s declaration also gives legislative Republicans an issue by which to hold legislative Democrats’ feet to the fire. Already, House committees have passed along tax cut legislation. House Republicans need to agitate to bring them to a vote. If the House leadership, controlled by Democrats aligned with Blanco, refuses to bring them to votes or defeats them in votes, this becomes a campaign issue for Republican candidates for seats across the state in 2007. That looming reality may get enough Democrats on board to get the tax cuts through, and put pressure on the Senate to do likewise – leaving Blanco in the position to swallow popular bills she opposed, or to veto the greatest tax relief in the state’s history.
Going on the offensive one more way would help the GOP, and state as a whole. Republicans should sponsor legislation to remove $50 million from the state’s recently-created disaster fund (as was promised by Blanco after the end of hurricane season if nothing happened for insurance extra premium charge rebate checks, because it’s been previously appropriated and not subject to the cap), add it to the $194 million, and then appropriate it all out to roads projects in the current priority order they are listed in the unfunded portion of the current capital budget. This way they can show they mean to tackle a pressing problem, but in a responsible fashion. Then they should press for passage of legislation also already approved by committee to pay back the extra charge through tax credits.
The session continues to backfire on Blanco, to the benefit of the state. Republicans need to keep the pressure on to make both the practical and (to them) political dividends even greater.
But then she had to open her mouth and make herself look worse, handing them an even better issue. “No tax breaks are going out until we finish our business,” she announced, meaning, appropriate to her entire reign, that her vision of spending, whether it really makes any sense, gets priority over returning the peoples’ money to them.
Republicans U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal, state Sen. Walter Boasso, and even other potential 2007 candidates of all partisan stripes must have pinched themselves to make sure they weren’t dreaming when they heard of these remarks. It’s easy already to envision them hammering home the message to voters that Blanco opposed tax reduction of all kinds, with the state supposedly sitting on a huge surplus, when it was within her grasp as a childish retort to the sensible view that more time was needed to formulate plans and to monitor the state’s fiscal situation.
From the least to most, the pay raises involve recurring funds, and the false economy created by billions of dollars of federal rebuilding money may support that for couple of years, even more. But unless structural changes occur in the state’s fiscal policy, when that money goes away, the additional expenditures may not be sustainable.
And what changes are those? Precisely the tax cuts Blanco refuses to give. This is a golden opportunity to jumpstart the economy with the recovery money supporting the temporary loss of tax revenue that comes from tax cuts before the economic growth they spur kicks in.
The same applies to the site money. More than throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at some firm, more attractive would be tax cuts that would attract better quality new employees from out of state, help new employees in state, and would reduce the tax liability of the company.
Finally, the transportation backlog is the most worthy of the three requests, but Republicans are absolutely correct in slowing this down because there is no guarantee if approved the money would spent in a rational fashion. Instead, given the state’s history, it is likely to be spent for primarily political reasons, rather than according to genuine need in helping Louisiana’s overall transportation goals. Once they sign over a $400 million check, the minority Republicans cannot control the process to ensure more rationality in passing out roads monies.
Note that Blanco’s declaration also gives legislative Republicans an issue by which to hold legislative Democrats’ feet to the fire. Already, House committees have passed along tax cut legislation. House Republicans need to agitate to bring them to a vote. If the House leadership, controlled by Democrats aligned with Blanco, refuses to bring them to votes or defeats them in votes, this becomes a campaign issue for Republican candidates for seats across the state in 2007. That looming reality may get enough Democrats on board to get the tax cuts through, and put pressure on the Senate to do likewise – leaving Blanco in the position to swallow popular bills she opposed, or to veto the greatest tax relief in the state’s history.
Going on the offensive one more way would help the GOP, and state as a whole. Republicans should sponsor legislation to remove $50 million from the state’s recently-created disaster fund (as was promised by Blanco after the end of hurricane season if nothing happened for insurance extra premium charge rebate checks, because it’s been previously appropriated and not subject to the cap), add it to the $194 million, and then appropriate it all out to roads projects in the current priority order they are listed in the unfunded portion of the current capital budget. This way they can show they mean to tackle a pressing problem, but in a responsible fashion. Then they should press for passage of legislation also already approved by committee to pay back the extra charge through tax credits.
The session continues to backfire on Blanco, to the benefit of the state. Republicans need to keep the pressure on to make both the practical and (to them) political dividends even greater.
11.12.06
Fiscal conservatives hold line, deal Blanco reelection blow
Fiscal conservatives in the Louisiana rebelled against Gov. Kathleen Blanco, politics as usual, and the prevailing liberal/populist ethos historically in the state by defeating a resolution to increase state spending over its Constitutional cap. Only two Republicans – Hollis Downs and Tom McVea – and independent Joel Robideaux voted for it, while Democrats Jeff Arnold and Alex Heaton votes against it making the final tally 59-40 in favor, but two-thirds of seats were required to pass (I think; with three seats unfilled, the House has been unclear whether it is total seats or the seated membership).
The hypocrisy of many of the supporters of the resolution was staggering. As an example of the use of non-recurring funds, they argued it was important to reduce the backlog of transportation projects, talking about how the cost of roads presently was rising 1.5 percent a month – when they frittered away hundreds of millions of dollars in past years on building unneeded reservoirs that could have gone to roads. As an example of the use of recurring funds, supporters argued the cap needed to be relaxed to fund raises for teachers. Yet in 2005, Republicans offered such a pay raise as an amendment to the operating budget – and it was voted down by many of the same House members then who claimed they were all for it this day.
The difference is one of priorities. Tax cuts to those who actually pay them, pay raises, money for roads, and (as required by law) reduction of the unfunded accrued liability are considered by the House majority to be less important than to keep money flowing to fund a bloated state bureaucracy, or to favored constituencies, or to pet projects that should not be a matter of state funding. More often they will do things like pass sick taxes onto the people rather than look for efficiencies in program operation because they put special interests ahead of minimal government that empowers people. The only time they rise in support of the things they articulated approval for today is when they think there’s enough money to take care of these things they usually think less important.
This leaves the state spending limit at (now estimated to be) $194 million, and there’s been talk of diverting $50 million from the newly-created disaster fund to add on to that. Some spending then can get done and, if the supporters of today are genuine, they’ll funnel that money to roads or the unfunded accrued liabilities. But unless the Blanco Administration and its legislative allies can figure out a way to switch about a dozen House members’ opinions in the next six days, that’s all. And if not, this will represent, at the philosophical level, a defeat of the old convoluted prioritization and, at a political level, a blow to Blanco’s reelection efforts.
The hypocrisy of many of the supporters of the resolution was staggering. As an example of the use of non-recurring funds, they argued it was important to reduce the backlog of transportation projects, talking about how the cost of roads presently was rising 1.5 percent a month – when they frittered away hundreds of millions of dollars in past years on building unneeded reservoirs that could have gone to roads. As an example of the use of recurring funds, supporters argued the cap needed to be relaxed to fund raises for teachers. Yet in 2005, Republicans offered such a pay raise as an amendment to the operating budget – and it was voted down by many of the same House members then who claimed they were all for it this day.
The difference is one of priorities. Tax cuts to those who actually pay them, pay raises, money for roads, and (as required by law) reduction of the unfunded accrued liability are considered by the House majority to be less important than to keep money flowing to fund a bloated state bureaucracy, or to favored constituencies, or to pet projects that should not be a matter of state funding. More often they will do things like pass sick taxes onto the people rather than look for efficiencies in program operation because they put special interests ahead of minimal government that empowers people. The only time they rise in support of the things they articulated approval for today is when they think there’s enough money to take care of these things they usually think less important.
This leaves the state spending limit at (now estimated to be) $194 million, and there’s been talk of diverting $50 million from the newly-created disaster fund to add on to that. Some spending then can get done and, if the supporters of today are genuine, they’ll funnel that money to roads or the unfunded accrued liabilities. But unless the Blanco Administration and its legislative allies can figure out a way to switch about a dozen House members’ opinions in the next six days, that’s all. And if not, this will represent, at the philosophical level, a defeat of the old convoluted prioritization and, at a political level, a blow to Blanco’s reelection efforts.
House GOP sensibility wins on politics and principle
In Congress, Republicans lost their majorities last month because they strayed from the conservative principles that resonate with the majority of Americans. In Louisiana, House Republicans appear determined to attempt to gain a majority by not making the same mistake.
Yesterday, a whole raft of free-spending proposals, five in all, by Gov. Kathleen Blanco rubber-stamped by the House Ways and Means Committee (composed of all but two Democrats, one of whom recently switched parties in a bid to try to win a Senate seat later this year) were supposed to hit the floor after debate of HCR 6, the resolution that would have busted the state’s spending cap over $2.4 billion. It would take a two-thirds vote to enable this.
Instead, when the House met, rules were suspended to introduce a new bill which would allow for a tax credit rather than rebate of excess premiums paid by home insurance policyholders in order to prop up the state-run property insurer. The body adjourned, allowed that new piece of legislation to be heard in Ways and Means which rubber-stamped it, then reconvened to close itself for the day after introducing five other resolutions identical to HCR6.
The tactic is to produce vessels in which to allow the spending ceiling to increase for any of the five items already approved and waiting – if the Blanco Administration has the muscle to get any of them through. At this point it does not, hence the quick creation and disposition of HB 120 engineering the insurance tax credit which does not have to adhere to the spending cap as it is a credit and not a return of taxpayers’ monies.
The only other Blanco proposal that appears to have enough support is creating a fund to reward a company potentially building a large steel plant in St. James Parish. But Republicans indicated they believed the incentives provided would be no higher than the current cap, now estimated to be $155 million. With 41 of 105 votes and described to be nearly unanimous in opposing raising the cap, if they stay firm, these are the only two measures with any chance of passing.
If so, this turn of events would produce a stinging defeat for Blanco and cause a backfire of her agenda behind the agenda of the session she called, distributing goodies to buy votes for her reelection attempt next year. Instead, Blanco will appear as ineffective and cannot use the turn of events to raise political capital: how can she campaign against fiscal conservatism in a state well-known for lacking that precise quality?
At the same time, House Republicans will have shown they have the will to impose fiscal discipline in government, and that with any surplus they are interested in solving long-term problems repeatedly ignored by Blanco and Democrats, such as the unfunded accrued liability in retirement accounts the amount of which has grown to nearly half the size of a year’s budget. Such a preference will resonate with voters tired of short-term political considerations taking primacy in budgetary decisions.
Better, the GOP announced they were all for much of the Blanco agenda that promised in part selective tax cuts – but only in the fiscally-prudent manner of cutting spending elsewhere. If they are smart, they will come back in the spring’s regular session with some proposals to do this. Tax cuts alone would be a good idea, and in the ensuing few months the state will be on more solid footing with a better idea of what’s ahead to afford these in the short run (as there will be a lag effect to the increased revenues that will result from tax cuts).
Staying committed to this course of action by the GOP legislators not only is good for the state in the long run, but for their party’s political fortunes as well, as voters will respond positively to this kind of agenda next fall.
Yesterday, a whole raft of free-spending proposals, five in all, by Gov. Kathleen Blanco rubber-stamped by the House Ways and Means Committee (composed of all but two Democrats, one of whom recently switched parties in a bid to try to win a Senate seat later this year) were supposed to hit the floor after debate of HCR 6, the resolution that would have busted the state’s spending cap over $2.4 billion. It would take a two-thirds vote to enable this.
Instead, when the House met, rules were suspended to introduce a new bill which would allow for a tax credit rather than rebate of excess premiums paid by home insurance policyholders in order to prop up the state-run property insurer. The body adjourned, allowed that new piece of legislation to be heard in Ways and Means which rubber-stamped it, then reconvened to close itself for the day after introducing five other resolutions identical to HCR6.
The tactic is to produce vessels in which to allow the spending ceiling to increase for any of the five items already approved and waiting – if the Blanco Administration has the muscle to get any of them through. At this point it does not, hence the quick creation and disposition of HB 120 engineering the insurance tax credit which does not have to adhere to the spending cap as it is a credit and not a return of taxpayers’ monies.
The only other Blanco proposal that appears to have enough support is creating a fund to reward a company potentially building a large steel plant in St. James Parish. But Republicans indicated they believed the incentives provided would be no higher than the current cap, now estimated to be $155 million. With 41 of 105 votes and described to be nearly unanimous in opposing raising the cap, if they stay firm, these are the only two measures with any chance of passing.
If so, this turn of events would produce a stinging defeat for Blanco and cause a backfire of her agenda behind the agenda of the session she called, distributing goodies to buy votes for her reelection attempt next year. Instead, Blanco will appear as ineffective and cannot use the turn of events to raise political capital: how can she campaign against fiscal conservatism in a state well-known for lacking that precise quality?
At the same time, House Republicans will have shown they have the will to impose fiscal discipline in government, and that with any surplus they are interested in solving long-term problems repeatedly ignored by Blanco and Democrats, such as the unfunded accrued liability in retirement accounts the amount of which has grown to nearly half the size of a year’s budget. Such a preference will resonate with voters tired of short-term political considerations taking primacy in budgetary decisions.
Better, the GOP announced they were all for much of the Blanco agenda that promised in part selective tax cuts – but only in the fiscally-prudent manner of cutting spending elsewhere. If they are smart, they will come back in the spring’s regular session with some proposals to do this. Tax cuts alone would be a good idea, and in the ensuing few months the state will be on more solid footing with a better idea of what’s ahead to afford these in the short run (as there will be a lag effect to the increased revenues that will result from tax cuts).
Staying committed to this course of action by the GOP legislators not only is good for the state in the long run, but for their party’s political fortunes as well, as voters will respond positively to this kind of agenda next fall.
9.12.06
Elections deliver bad news to state, national Democrats
Voters sent state politicians conflicting messages Saturday by Baton Rougeans sending a political newcomer to the state Senate over a veteran Louisiana House member, while denizens of the U.S. Second District reelected a legally embattled U.S. House member – but the signal was all clear to Democrats: bad.
Despite being the subject of an ongoing corruption investigation, Rep. William Jefferson was reelected to Congress. No doubt the two major factors of this was the peculiar Orleans-area insistence on thumbing its nose at the rest of the country, in this case manifested by many black voters believing Jefferson was being set up for posing too much of a challenge to “the man” (whoever or whatever that is) and “retaliating” by pressing the button for him, and by others who were supporters of unsuccessful opponents of Jefferson who, frankly, wanted a damaged incumbent in office in case he is indicted and resigns, creating another chance for their favorite to get in that office.
But the gesticulation of defiance also ended up giving the sanctimonious national Democrats a black eye. Jefferson is perhaps the most visible of the many ethical problems congressional Democrats have, reminding an electorate temporarily distracted from this fact long enough to vote in sufficient numbers for enough Democrat candidates last month. Jefferson’s reelection exposes the sham status of the national Democrats, and will embarrass them with a likely indictment and lengthy trial all the way through the 2008 elections.
So, the apparently unethical Democrat gets reelected, but a clean GOP incumbent met with defeat by another Republican. State Rep. William Daniel IV lost heavily to physician Bill Cassidy in the latter’s first run for office, for Senate District 16. On the issues, the candidates didn’t differ much, so the main factor in Daniel’s defeat here had to be his violation in spirit of term limits.
Daniel is preparing to conclude his third term in the state House. But the three-consecutive term limit in the state Constitution applies just to a lawmaker’s present chamber. In anticipation of a future political career, Daniel switched from Democrat to Republican last year, got an early break when past occupant of the seat Jay Dardenne was elected as Secretary of State in this year’s special election, and ran for it.
But so did Cassidy and, again, while it was perfectly legal for Daniel to run for the Senate, apparently a good portion of voters must have held it against his desire to stay in the Legislature more than 12 years. As long as this sentiment is not particular to that portion of Baton Rouge comprising the district, this could be a sign of big trouble to other term-limited legislators who are thinking of a similar switch.
And being that term-limited Democrats outnumber Republicans 40-24, it’s likely that of those others who try to extend their careers they disproportionately will be Democrats so this trend could hurt the state party fortunes as well the damage being done to the national party’s image by Jefferson’s triumph.
Despite being the subject of an ongoing corruption investigation, Rep. William Jefferson was reelected to Congress. No doubt the two major factors of this was the peculiar Orleans-area insistence on thumbing its nose at the rest of the country, in this case manifested by many black voters believing Jefferson was being set up for posing too much of a challenge to “the man” (whoever or whatever that is) and “retaliating” by pressing the button for him, and by others who were supporters of unsuccessful opponents of Jefferson who, frankly, wanted a damaged incumbent in office in case he is indicted and resigns, creating another chance for their favorite to get in that office.
But the gesticulation of defiance also ended up giving the sanctimonious national Democrats a black eye. Jefferson is perhaps the most visible of the many ethical problems congressional Democrats have, reminding an electorate temporarily distracted from this fact long enough to vote in sufficient numbers for enough Democrat candidates last month. Jefferson’s reelection exposes the sham status of the national Democrats, and will embarrass them with a likely indictment and lengthy trial all the way through the 2008 elections.
So, the apparently unethical Democrat gets reelected, but a clean GOP incumbent met with defeat by another Republican. State Rep. William Daniel IV lost heavily to physician Bill Cassidy in the latter’s first run for office, for Senate District 16. On the issues, the candidates didn’t differ much, so the main factor in Daniel’s defeat here had to be his violation in spirit of term limits.
Daniel is preparing to conclude his third term in the state House. But the three-consecutive term limit in the state Constitution applies just to a lawmaker’s present chamber. In anticipation of a future political career, Daniel switched from Democrat to Republican last year, got an early break when past occupant of the seat Jay Dardenne was elected as Secretary of State in this year’s special election, and ran for it.
But so did Cassidy and, again, while it was perfectly legal for Daniel to run for the Senate, apparently a good portion of voters must have held it against his desire to stay in the Legislature more than 12 years. As long as this sentiment is not particular to that portion of Baton Rouge comprising the district, this could be a sign of big trouble to other term-limited legislators who are thinking of a similar switch.
And being that term-limited Democrats outnumber Republicans 40-24, it’s likely that of those others who try to extend their careers they disproportionately will be Democrats so this trend could hurt the state party fortunes as well the damage being done to the national party’s image by Jefferson’s triumph.
7.12.06
Can Jefferson use dynamics, like Nagin, to win reelection?
Voters in Louisiana’s Second District will hit the polls Saturday as one of the two last U.S. House races to be decided this election cycle. It may also be the next House race contested in the country as well, for incumbent Rep. William Jefferson stands a good chance of winning it.
Even as Jefferson led the field in the primary, his underwhelming total of about three-tenths of the electorate reflected poorly on an incumbent, but understandably given his being in the crosshairs of a corruption investigation. While some of his supporters make ridiculous excuses for him, and while he promises to explain all after the election, the fact remains about $90,000 in marked bills related to a sting operation was found in Jefferson’s residence, after a government witness testified Jefferson accepted that marked money as a bribe.
In these political corruption cases, authorities walk a fine line in deciding whether to return an indictment prior to an election involving a targeted official knowing an indictment almost certainly would mean that politician’s defeat. In this case, if it’s coming, they decided the will of the people in determining his fitness for office given the information already released would suffice. Also complicating the fact is the government may be waiting on the resolution of certain constitutional questions before it indicts, so it know what it can do. Lack of indictment to this point does not mean suspicion against Jefferson is spurious and was manufactured.
But it does mean that Jefferson, who almost certainly would have resigned had he been indicted, may continue in office by winning this election. Reviewing the dynamics, it’s not hard to draw parallels between this contest and the New Orleans mayor’s election earlier this year. There, you had a contest between two Democrats, one black, one white, where black voter suspicions about the Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu allowed Mayor Ray Nagin on mostly monoracial voting in a majority black city to win reelection.
Now equate Jefferson with Nagin and Landrieu with Jefferson’s general election runoff opponent (of course, bleaching her and changing some of her parts) state Rep. Karen Carter. Nagin was embattled by his underwhelming performance during the Hurricane Katrina disaster of 2005, with many in the black community feeling that Landrieu (backed in large part by whites and reformists) was trying to take advantage of the chaotic aftermath of the storm to win election to make New Orleans, in terms of policy, more a vanilla than chocolate city.
As Jefferson’s opponent (and keeping in mind the district’s dynamics are somewhat different than the city’s), Carter, like Landrieu from a prominent political family, also is drawing support more from whites who are less likely to believe Jefferson is fit to serve than blacks and government reformers also have lined up behind her (even though she, like Landrieu, has never backed a reform agenda at all). Embattled for different reasons, racial solidarity for many still is a driving factor in supporting Jefferson as Carter’s basis of support among whites makes her seem more “suspicious.”
Yet what well could put Jefferson over the top is the lack of indictment, and the almost sure resignation that would follow if he still occupies the office, that in essence would reopen the seat to challengers if Jefferson wins this time around. Most prominently, the Jefferson Parish West Bank political organization of state Sen. Derrick Shepherd, who finished third in the primary, could provide enough muscle to send Jefferson to victory especially since this election standing alone on the ballot will magnify the mobilization fortitude of political groups (including Jefferson’s Progressive Democrats and Carter’s BOLD). Jefferson Parish could be vital to a Jefferson win, given the bad publicity Carter has received there.
In the end, the contest will hinge on how prevalent perceptions within the black community are that Jefferson is being persecuted for his race, and on the willingness of political opportunists to put that opportunism aside and advise followers to vote their consciences.
Even as Jefferson led the field in the primary, his underwhelming total of about three-tenths of the electorate reflected poorly on an incumbent, but understandably given his being in the crosshairs of a corruption investigation. While some of his supporters make ridiculous excuses for him, and while he promises to explain all after the election, the fact remains about $90,000 in marked bills related to a sting operation was found in Jefferson’s residence, after a government witness testified Jefferson accepted that marked money as a bribe.
In these political corruption cases, authorities walk a fine line in deciding whether to return an indictment prior to an election involving a targeted official knowing an indictment almost certainly would mean that politician’s defeat. In this case, if it’s coming, they decided the will of the people in determining his fitness for office given the information already released would suffice. Also complicating the fact is the government may be waiting on the resolution of certain constitutional questions before it indicts, so it know what it can do. Lack of indictment to this point does not mean suspicion against Jefferson is spurious and was manufactured.
But it does mean that Jefferson, who almost certainly would have resigned had he been indicted, may continue in office by winning this election. Reviewing the dynamics, it’s not hard to draw parallels between this contest and the New Orleans mayor’s election earlier this year. There, you had a contest between two Democrats, one black, one white, where black voter suspicions about the Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu allowed Mayor Ray Nagin on mostly monoracial voting in a majority black city to win reelection.
Now equate Jefferson with Nagin and Landrieu with Jefferson’s general election runoff opponent (of course, bleaching her and changing some of her parts) state Rep. Karen Carter. Nagin was embattled by his underwhelming performance during the Hurricane Katrina disaster of 2005, with many in the black community feeling that Landrieu (backed in large part by whites and reformists) was trying to take advantage of the chaotic aftermath of the storm to win election to make New Orleans, in terms of policy, more a vanilla than chocolate city.
As Jefferson’s opponent (and keeping in mind the district’s dynamics are somewhat different than the city’s), Carter, like Landrieu from a prominent political family, also is drawing support more from whites who are less likely to believe Jefferson is fit to serve than blacks and government reformers also have lined up behind her (even though she, like Landrieu, has never backed a reform agenda at all). Embattled for different reasons, racial solidarity for many still is a driving factor in supporting Jefferson as Carter’s basis of support among whites makes her seem more “suspicious.”
Yet what well could put Jefferson over the top is the lack of indictment, and the almost sure resignation that would follow if he still occupies the office, that in essence would reopen the seat to challengers if Jefferson wins this time around. Most prominently, the Jefferson Parish West Bank political organization of state Sen. Derrick Shepherd, who finished third in the primary, could provide enough muscle to send Jefferson to victory especially since this election standing alone on the ballot will magnify the mobilization fortitude of political groups (including Jefferson’s Progressive Democrats and Carter’s BOLD). Jefferson Parish could be vital to a Jefferson win, given the bad publicity Carter has received there.
In the end, the contest will hinge on how prevalent perceptions within the black community are that Jefferson is being persecuted for his race, and on the willingness of political opportunists to put that opportunism aside and advise followers to vote their consciences.
6.12.06
Blanco possibly forced to choose between royalties, session
The plot thickens as a harmonic convergence of political forces prepares to clash over the looming special session of the Louisiana Legislature, with reverberations all the way from Washington, D.C.
Many politicians and pundits continue to criticize having the session, with varying complaints about its being too broad and/or too little time available, that it rushes on matters that can wait, its matters open for discussion deserve more debate prior to a session, and it is highly uncoordinated. Some actively are trying to get the thing adjourned immediately, while others have done things to make the idea of a session less attractive, but the surest way to stop it is to get Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco to call it off herself.
This Blanco would be loath to do. Her fondest wish is to have the session turn into an orgy of gift-giving in various forms (tax cuts, rebates, salary increase, etc.) regardless of the long-term implications to state finances still shaky over the long run because of the hurricane disasters of 2005, in order to boost her reelection chances next year. Acceptable to her would be a session where at least some of this happens. Even having an immediate adjournment would not hurt her politically, it just wouldn’t help. But the only harm that could come to her now politically would be calling it off, an admission that she erred, compounded if the Legislature came back to the regular session in April and proceeded to do all of these things.
5.12.06
Poker with real dollars being played over session limits
Hardball politics went on display at the meeting of Louisiana’s Revenue Estimating Conference, producing results with implications concerning this year’s special session and next year’s elections.
At the meeting, which establishes limits of money to spend by the state, there are two kinds of funds considered. Non-recurring funds are those (in essence) left over from previous years considered a bonus and can be spent on public works projects or debt reduction of various kinds. Recurring funds are predicted to come in future years and may be spent for any purpose. Unless additional funds were recognized in this meeting, the only way the upcoming special session could spend money would be by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. All four members of the panel must agree on the limits.
Consensus was there on $1.6 billion in recurring revenue, meaning these monies are available for things like tax relief, insurance rebates, and operating expenses of state government. But Sen. Pres. Don Hines refused to go along with the others in allowing $827 million from being recognized as nonrecurring expenses, which could reduce a backlog of authorized transportation spending, paying off state pension debt, or projects across the state.
At the meeting, which establishes limits of money to spend by the state, there are two kinds of funds considered. Non-recurring funds are those (in essence) left over from previous years considered a bonus and can be spent on public works projects or debt reduction of various kinds. Recurring funds are predicted to come in future years and may be spent for any purpose. Unless additional funds were recognized in this meeting, the only way the upcoming special session could spend money would be by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. All four members of the panel must agree on the limits.
Consensus was there on $1.6 billion in recurring revenue, meaning these monies are available for things like tax relief, insurance rebates, and operating expenses of state government. But Sen. Pres. Don Hines refused to go along with the others in allowing $827 million from being recognized as nonrecurring expenses, which could reduce a backlog of authorized transportation spending, paying off state pension debt, or projects across the state.
3.12.06
GOP, Hines can damage Blanco session reelection ploy
Gov. Kathleen Blanco raised the stakes in her battle to jumpstart her reelection campaign by calling for a special session of the Legislature Dec. 8-21, putting the ball squarely in the court of legislative Republicans and Senate Pres. Don Hines, whose next moves may seriously damage Blanco’s hopes to serve past 2007.
The short session involves as much material as a regular fiscal session would, including changing laws to restructure homeowner insurance provision by the state, changing laws to ease state tax burdens by allowing again certain exemptions wiped out by the infamous Stelly Plan, accelerating dinosaur-speed tax breaks on business timidly brought into being by Blanco, tax credits galore such as for transportation by sugar farmers, pay raises for multitudes such as public safety personnel and school workers, and infusions to reduce transportation backlogs and unfunded accrued liabilities in state pension plans. In other words, spending huge sums from a presumed large state revenue surplus that may evaporate when rebuilding from the 2005 hurricane disasters abates, much on operating expenses, to give some goodies to a large portion of the Louisiana public.
Parsing through the requests, no real coherence exists to it, or any contemplation of these measures’ long term impacts seems clear, with just one idea holding it all together – trying to get as many votes as possible for Blanco next year. But, she may find, the Legislature may not feel so cooperative in this endeavor.
She had the ill fortune, also in large part governed by reelection calculations, to oppose Hines on the issue of whether to commit state money to guarantee a loan to build a sugar mill at Bunkie. Prevailing, Hines now has come out full against the idea of the session. More importantly, Hines can subvert the entire basis of the session by his vote, scheduled Tuesday morning, against declaring about $1.5 billion in surplus revenue that the Legislature could spend at the Revenue Estimating Conference meeting as available.
If Hines makes that move, then the spending could occur only with a two-thirds concurrence of each house of the Legislature (which explains item #6 in the call). Having just $331 million to blow may not be enough to entice members to do much of anything unless it’s related to spending for their own districts which, if anything, would hurt Blanco’s reelection chances if her nominal opponents point out she called a session that turned into a pork barrel festival. Thus, Blanco is hoping the siren song of much greater revenues out there would be enough to get two-thirds to want to work on the bigger items that could make her look better to voters.
Here, others against Blanco for different reasons could take up the opening Hines can provide to make the whole session a fiasco for Blanco. Republicans in particular have been critical of the session’s transparent reelection boost, rather than its representing any serious (given the time frame involved, therefore limited agenda to it) attempt to address looming state issues. Given that they control over a third of the seats in both chambers, with a few to spare, when House Republicans conference tomorrow, they could issue a statement that they oppose any efforts to raise the expenditure limit.
If they did so, followed by Hines scuttling the declaration of extra revenue (because he and his three Conference counterparts unanimously must approve of any increases), Blanco would be left with two bad choices, call the session only to see the GOP block any raising of the limit and watch it degenerate into a pork-fest, or to cancel it to avoid this. Either action makes her look weak and unable to govern, not what she needs heading into an election year. She could save her reputation only if she could twist enough legislative arms to get that two-thirds vote, in each chamber.
Starting tomorrow, some real tests of political will go on display. We’ll see who blinks, and if it’s Blanco, the state will be better off.
The short session involves as much material as a regular fiscal session would, including changing laws to restructure homeowner insurance provision by the state, changing laws to ease state tax burdens by allowing again certain exemptions wiped out by the infamous Stelly Plan, accelerating dinosaur-speed tax breaks on business timidly brought into being by Blanco, tax credits galore such as for transportation by sugar farmers, pay raises for multitudes such as public safety personnel and school workers, and infusions to reduce transportation backlogs and unfunded accrued liabilities in state pension plans. In other words, spending huge sums from a presumed large state revenue surplus that may evaporate when rebuilding from the 2005 hurricane disasters abates, much on operating expenses, to give some goodies to a large portion of the Louisiana public.
Parsing through the requests, no real coherence exists to it, or any contemplation of these measures’ long term impacts seems clear, with just one idea holding it all together – trying to get as many votes as possible for Blanco next year. But, she may find, the Legislature may not feel so cooperative in this endeavor.
She had the ill fortune, also in large part governed by reelection calculations, to oppose Hines on the issue of whether to commit state money to guarantee a loan to build a sugar mill at Bunkie. Prevailing, Hines now has come out full against the idea of the session. More importantly, Hines can subvert the entire basis of the session by his vote, scheduled Tuesday morning, against declaring about $1.5 billion in surplus revenue that the Legislature could spend at the Revenue Estimating Conference meeting as available.
If Hines makes that move, then the spending could occur only with a two-thirds concurrence of each house of the Legislature (which explains item #6 in the call). Having just $331 million to blow may not be enough to entice members to do much of anything unless it’s related to spending for their own districts which, if anything, would hurt Blanco’s reelection chances if her nominal opponents point out she called a session that turned into a pork barrel festival. Thus, Blanco is hoping the siren song of much greater revenues out there would be enough to get two-thirds to want to work on the bigger items that could make her look better to voters.
Here, others against Blanco for different reasons could take up the opening Hines can provide to make the whole session a fiasco for Blanco. Republicans in particular have been critical of the session’s transparent reelection boost, rather than its representing any serious (given the time frame involved, therefore limited agenda to it) attempt to address looming state issues. Given that they control over a third of the seats in both chambers, with a few to spare, when House Republicans conference tomorrow, they could issue a statement that they oppose any efforts to raise the expenditure limit.
If they did so, followed by Hines scuttling the declaration of extra revenue (because he and his three Conference counterparts unanimously must approve of any increases), Blanco would be left with two bad choices, call the session only to see the GOP block any raising of the limit and watch it degenerate into a pork-fest, or to cancel it to avoid this. Either action makes her look weak and unable to govern, not what she needs heading into an election year. She could save her reputation only if she could twist enough legislative arms to get that two-thirds vote, in each chamber.
Starting tomorrow, some real tests of political will go on display. We’ll see who blinks, and if it’s Blanco, the state will be better off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)