The rehabilitation of Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu continues apace. Despite the fact that her lifetime Congressional voting record is decidedly liberal, the 2008 campaign cannot start too early for her with her trying to create a fiction that she is a “centrist” senator.
Landrieu got the opportunity to co-lead the Senate’s centrist coalition in an ironic way. Even as Democrats like Landrieu but particularly those running for office in 2006 were claiming they had a centrist agenda, the party spurned perhaps its most centrist member of the Senate, Joseph Lieberman, forcing him to win reelection as an independent. Now officially not a Democrat, he had been the Democrat co-chairman of the group (and now is starting a related group), the position Landrieu now inherits.
In addition, Landrieu tries to hog more credit that she is entitled to have over legislation which has changed the royalty distribution for offshore oil extraction which will bring many new dollars to Louisiana. She had a hand in it, but neither was she the most important senator in its passage (that being the lead author of the bill that eventually passed, Republican Pete Domenici), but she wasn’t even the most helpful member of the Louisiana delegation in the process, that honor going to the lead author of the House version of the bill, Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal. Landrieu assisted, but let there be no doubt she was not in any way the main forces like Jindal and Domenici in getting it done.
Interestingly, one potential opponent (currently a Democrat but who knows in two years) state Treasurer John Kennedy already is stealing some of her thunder on this by promoting the idea that the relatively small initial additional royalties going into the fund expressly created to use the funds for coastal restoration be used to issue bonds backed by the fund to speed up restoration work. In essence, the new inflow of money would pay interest at first and then an increasingly-large amount of the principal as time passes and the royalties earnings grow much larger (because this applies only to new drilling). Kennedy’s idea is sound and should be pursued.
Nonetheless, she will inflate her reduced role in this matter day and night over the next two years, and anything else to blunt the fact that she has made many consequential votes out of step with Louisiana, and the country, over her decade in Washington. Quality challengers for her job will ensure in their campaigns that the public will know the mare Landrieu cannot paint moderate stripes on her liberal body and call herself a centrist zebra.
20.12.06
Defeated Democrats need to quit abusing judiciary
I’ve deliberately not commented on this particular news item because the whole thing has been ridiculous from the start, but a couple of whiney Democrats have gone to extraordinary efforts to keep it alive, so it’s time to bring some sense and perspective to it.
Last month, Republican Rep. Jim McCrery won yet another to term to Congress. But shortly thereafter, one of his defeated opponents, Patti Cox, sued to have the election invalidated and asked for something unprecedented in American politics, to rerun the election with McCrery disqualified. She based this on a claim that McCrery did not reside in the district, as he had sold his home and listed as his residence an address nearby where he stayed when in town.
While decentralized, the law is clear on determining residency and qualification for Congress, and the manner in which it may be protested. The U.S. Constitution requires that members of Congress live in the state they represent. Residency in Louisiana is defined as being an eligible elector. An eligible elector, by state law, is one who lives at an address for 30 days prior to an election. In terms of election qualification, someone who files for an office who is deemed to eligible to run at the time of qualification can be disqualified from running only if protested within seven working days of the filing deadline; otherwise, he may legally run. No one disputed McCrery’s residency at the proper time.
Thus, from the perspective of the state, McCrery has met all of the qualifications to run. Further, he has been duly elected. So now the only contestable matter is whether he is eligible to serve, something determined, according to the Constitution, by the body (in this case the House of Representatives) itself in which he is to serve which judges the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members.
Cox brought this case first to a state-created court, where it was properly rejected, and now the federal judiciary is correctly about to do the same thing. But now the other defeated Democrat from the race, Artis Cash, also has filed suit asking for him, the second-place finisher (40 points behind McCrery) be declared the winner because McCrery is not a resident because he has a driver’s license from another state.
Again, judicial relief is not afforded a plaintiff on this issue. At this point, unless they intervene before McCrery is sworn in for his next term, the only way McCrery can be removed from office is if the House voted to expel him (requiring a two-thirds vote). Further, the relief granted in that instance would be to schedule a new election, not to redo one or proclaim a winner from the old one.
These kinds of judicial actions merely clog up the courts, wasting precious judicial resources better used on other matters. Cox and Cash need to quit whining in courts and about their decisions and instead bring the action to the House, if they think they have a legitimate case.
Last month, Republican Rep. Jim McCrery won yet another to term to Congress. But shortly thereafter, one of his defeated opponents, Patti Cox, sued to have the election invalidated and asked for something unprecedented in American politics, to rerun the election with McCrery disqualified. She based this on a claim that McCrery did not reside in the district, as he had sold his home and listed as his residence an address nearby where he stayed when in town.
While decentralized, the law is clear on determining residency and qualification for Congress, and the manner in which it may be protested. The U.S. Constitution requires that members of Congress live in the state they represent. Residency in Louisiana is defined as being an eligible elector. An eligible elector, by state law, is one who lives at an address for 30 days prior to an election. In terms of election qualification, someone who files for an office who is deemed to eligible to run at the time of qualification can be disqualified from running only if protested within seven working days of the filing deadline; otherwise, he may legally run. No one disputed McCrery’s residency at the proper time.
Thus, from the perspective of the state, McCrery has met all of the qualifications to run. Further, he has been duly elected. So now the only contestable matter is whether he is eligible to serve, something determined, according to the Constitution, by the body (in this case the House of Representatives) itself in which he is to serve which judges the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members.
Cox brought this case first to a state-created court, where it was properly rejected, and now the federal judiciary is correctly about to do the same thing. But now the other defeated Democrat from the race, Artis Cash, also has filed suit asking for him, the second-place finisher (40 points behind McCrery) be declared the winner because McCrery is not a resident because he has a driver’s license from another state.
Again, judicial relief is not afforded a plaintiff on this issue. At this point, unless they intervene before McCrery is sworn in for his next term, the only way McCrery can be removed from office is if the House voted to expel him (requiring a two-thirds vote). Further, the relief granted in that instance would be to schedule a new election, not to redo one or proclaim a winner from the old one.
These kinds of judicial actions merely clog up the courts, wasting precious judicial resources better used on other matters. Cox and Cash need to quit whining in courts and about their decisions and instead bring the action to the House, if they think they have a legitimate case.
19.12.06
Big media template of special session ignores reality
If a smattering of nattering about the recent special session of the Louisiana Legislature is any indication, either the state’s traditional media doesn’t get it about the partisan and political implications of it, or doesn’t want to.
After the session produced little of consequence, media analysis looked for who were the winners and who were the losers. It’s difficult not to conclude that Gov. Kathleen Blanco lost big in the session, able to get only one consequential, albeit short term in its policy impact, meaningful piece of her agenda through – insurance relief via tax credits for ratepayers saddled with extra costs due to the huge losses incurred by the state-owned property insurer. (Another measure set up a fund, but did not actually put money into it, to attract a foreign steel manufacturer, which may never get used.) And in going down in flames, she managed to drag legislative Democrats with her who were unwise enough to tie themselves to the populist/liberal agenda she espoused of showering money out like Carnival throws.
But to fail to see the potential large political gain legislative Republicans can realize out of the session reveals a myopic political analysis. For example we have the claims that “Rather than heroes of fiscal prudence, Republicans really came off more as partisan obstructionists” – an argument sustainable only if one didn’t really keep up with what actually happened at the session, or could not really understand the GOP agenda.
Perhaps it’s liberal political ideology espoused by the state’s old media that puts blinders on them when it comes to its dissemination of opinion about Republicans, but a more sophisticated and accurate understanding of the legislative conflict is this: (1) Republicans wanted tax relief for all taxpayers, (2) they refused to spend beyond the state’s constitutionally-imposed cap on expenditures, (3) they agreed with some of the Democrats’ agenda that included paying down state debt and the transportation infrastructure backlog and pay raises but insisted on tackling the issue of bloated state government in tandem, (4) Democrats refused to cut spending in bloated areas to allow for additional spending in others.
So, it is impossible to conclude that GOP “obstructionism” was to blame for little being done in these areas. If anything, it was Democrat obstructionism, because Blanco and her party are so wedded to big government that they could not bear to part with one cent of spending. (And they already know where much of the wasted spending is, for example.) Ironically, big media themselves seem to have consensus that there is unnecessary spending in state government, as one would gather from the scathing attacks they have on some facet of it from time to time, yet in relation to this session they seem to have forgotten that in their zeal to prevent the GOP from getting any credit.
Instead, their argument is too simplistic by ignoring the spending reduction request of the Republicans and instead they mistakenly tie the refusal to spend past constitutional limits to wanting tax cuts, an idea claimed to deserve “more deliberate analysis of their long-term effect: Will the state's economy continue to support recurring salary boosts and tax breaks?”
While accurate in calling for studying finances to support permanent salary increases, advocating that much time is needed at all to investigate the effects of tax breaks makes one wonder where have these authors been for the last three decades. To summarize succinctly what we have learned theoretically and empirically (even if this is resisted by some in the academy and politics who prefer to postulate on the basis of ideology rather than fact): tax cuts cause economic growth, and economic growth translates into higher government revenues. (And certainly you cannot argue that Louisiana is on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, given its higher level of marginal tax rates and other hidden taxes such as fees and overregulation.)
In short, there is no debate here: tax breaks only will benefit the state. But notice simultaneously the lack of understanding and knowledge of those who would express such a sentiment when they write, “Will the state’s economy continue to support … tax breaks.” They have it completely backwards: it is tax breaks that support the state’s economy, not the reverse.
With these in mind, we can understand the template into which the media is trying to cram the events of the special session: (1) Democrat ideas were hasty but not bad in theory, (2) Republicans ideas were hasty but might be worthwhile to pursue, (3) Republicans blocked Democrats in order to gain acceptance of their questionable ideas, (4) Republicans therefore obstructed progress. (Recall that in the liberal ethos to which the state media generally subscribes that “progress” is equated with “government action.”)
Contrast this simplistic summation to a more sophisticated, realistic analysis (partially restating from above): (1) Democrats wanted to spend more that the people, courtesy of the constitutional amendment they passed, thought wise, (2) Republicans wanted to stay under that cap, (3) Republicans wanted to shift spending to areas of higher priority and to promote economic growth by reducing government interference in people’s activities, (4) Democrats wanted to keep spending according to existing, sub-optimal priorities and to maintain the present size of government, (5) Democrats refused to allow legislation through that violated their desire of dysfunctional spending and love of big government.
Far from fulfilling the template of “obstructionism,” if next year during elections GOP leaders articulate the more accurate rendering of the session to voters, even a less-sophisticated electorate that typifies Louisiana will understand and will electorally grant rewards upon it while visiting punishment to the Democrats. Which if this happens, I suspect, the big, old, traditional media in Louisiana once again will misunderstand.
After the session produced little of consequence, media analysis looked for who were the winners and who were the losers. It’s difficult not to conclude that Gov. Kathleen Blanco lost big in the session, able to get only one consequential, albeit short term in its policy impact, meaningful piece of her agenda through – insurance relief via tax credits for ratepayers saddled with extra costs due to the huge losses incurred by the state-owned property insurer. (Another measure set up a fund, but did not actually put money into it, to attract a foreign steel manufacturer, which may never get used.) And in going down in flames, she managed to drag legislative Democrats with her who were unwise enough to tie themselves to the populist/liberal agenda she espoused of showering money out like Carnival throws.
But to fail to see the potential large political gain legislative Republicans can realize out of the session reveals a myopic political analysis. For example we have the claims that “Rather than heroes of fiscal prudence, Republicans really came off more as partisan obstructionists” – an argument sustainable only if one didn’t really keep up with what actually happened at the session, or could not really understand the GOP agenda.
Perhaps it’s liberal political ideology espoused by the state’s old media that puts blinders on them when it comes to its dissemination of opinion about Republicans, but a more sophisticated and accurate understanding of the legislative conflict is this: (1) Republicans wanted tax relief for all taxpayers, (2) they refused to spend beyond the state’s constitutionally-imposed cap on expenditures, (3) they agreed with some of the Democrats’ agenda that included paying down state debt and the transportation infrastructure backlog and pay raises but insisted on tackling the issue of bloated state government in tandem, (4) Democrats refused to cut spending in bloated areas to allow for additional spending in others.
So, it is impossible to conclude that GOP “obstructionism” was to blame for little being done in these areas. If anything, it was Democrat obstructionism, because Blanco and her party are so wedded to big government that they could not bear to part with one cent of spending. (And they already know where much of the wasted spending is, for example.) Ironically, big media themselves seem to have consensus that there is unnecessary spending in state government, as one would gather from the scathing attacks they have on some facet of it from time to time, yet in relation to this session they seem to have forgotten that in their zeal to prevent the GOP from getting any credit.
Instead, their argument is too simplistic by ignoring the spending reduction request of the Republicans and instead they mistakenly tie the refusal to spend past constitutional limits to wanting tax cuts, an idea claimed to deserve “more deliberate analysis of their long-term effect: Will the state's economy continue to support recurring salary boosts and tax breaks?”
While accurate in calling for studying finances to support permanent salary increases, advocating that much time is needed at all to investigate the effects of tax breaks makes one wonder where have these authors been for the last three decades. To summarize succinctly what we have learned theoretically and empirically (even if this is resisted by some in the academy and politics who prefer to postulate on the basis of ideology rather than fact): tax cuts cause economic growth, and economic growth translates into higher government revenues. (And certainly you cannot argue that Louisiana is on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, given its higher level of marginal tax rates and other hidden taxes such as fees and overregulation.)
In short, there is no debate here: tax breaks only will benefit the state. But notice simultaneously the lack of understanding and knowledge of those who would express such a sentiment when they write, “Will the state’s economy continue to support … tax breaks.” They have it completely backwards: it is tax breaks that support the state’s economy, not the reverse.
With these in mind, we can understand the template into which the media is trying to cram the events of the special session: (1) Democrat ideas were hasty but not bad in theory, (2) Republicans ideas were hasty but might be worthwhile to pursue, (3) Republicans blocked Democrats in order to gain acceptance of their questionable ideas, (4) Republicans therefore obstructed progress. (Recall that in the liberal ethos to which the state media generally subscribes that “progress” is equated with “government action.”)
Contrast this simplistic summation to a more sophisticated, realistic analysis (partially restating from above): (1) Democrats wanted to spend more that the people, courtesy of the constitutional amendment they passed, thought wise, (2) Republicans wanted to stay under that cap, (3) Republicans wanted to shift spending to areas of higher priority and to promote economic growth by reducing government interference in people’s activities, (4) Democrats wanted to keep spending according to existing, sub-optimal priorities and to maintain the present size of government, (5) Democrats refused to allow legislation through that violated their desire of dysfunctional spending and love of big government.
Far from fulfilling the template of “obstructionism,” if next year during elections GOP leaders articulate the more accurate rendering of the session to voters, even a less-sophisticated electorate that typifies Louisiana will understand and will electorally grant rewards upon it while visiting punishment to the Democrats. Which if this happens, I suspect, the big, old, traditional media in Louisiana once again will misunderstand.
18.12.06
Emergence of partisan politics good for Louisiana
The media template regarding the recent special session of the Louisiana Legislature is that it brought partisanship to a new level, and which may stay at that level forever more. Assuming this accurately predicts the future, will this be positive for the state?
Some, particularly legislators who are long in the tooth, don’t think so, arguing flexibility becomes decreased. Such a view entirely misses the point because a major problem in why Louisiana government has been so dysfunctional, in terms of producing policy outcomes that don’t rank the state at the bottom of almost all indicators of quality, is because too much flexibility has been afforded individual legislators.
Politics in Louisiana traditionally have been “personalistic,” meaning the exercise of power derives more from the efforts of individuals for individualistic goals than from any collective source with more holistic goals. Another way of putting this is policy-making is skewed towards a confluence of individual agendas as opposed to any agenda-setting and promulgation by collective institutions, along a collectively agreed-upon program.
It is no accident that in this environment the only powerful institutions in the state are built around the individual, the executive elective offices, particularly the governor. Even though, in a comparative sense with other states, Louisiana’s governor in terms of formal powers at best rests in the middle of the pack, the office’s influence gets magnified by its superior ability to exert personalistic power, as opposed to a collective institution such as the Legislature which is weakened by this reliance on personalistic power.
The central problem with this kind of culture is it is far less capable of promoting and implementing a policy agenda focused on the holistic needs of the state born of a political culture that vests more authority into institutions. It also is no accident that a weaker Legislature has gone hand-in-hand with a weaker set of political parties, probably the weakest in America, at the state level in Louisiana. Parties are the primary agent around which legislative power can be collected and utilized.
Without parties, and the necessary partisanship that makes them effective, rather than an impetus existing to draw individual legislators together around a holistic agenda, instead the Legislature dissolves into a number of princes representing fiefdoms with much less emphasis of acting first towards the good of the state, than making their districts their primary focus. The most visible example of this inanity is the capital outlay process and budget. There, legislators more often fight over money to fund certain projects to aid their districts than take a more reasoned, collective view over the kinds of items that really would benefit the state as a whole. It’s why things like needless reservoirs and horse barns get funded while the TIMED highway program designed to impact the entire state drags on years behind schedule.
Part of the “bring home the bacon” emphasis is the fault of voters. Like it or not, Louisiana suffers from one of the least sophisticated electorates which disproportionately evaluates candidates not on the basis of their issue preferences, but on how well they come across, or on what favors members of it feel have come their way from the candidate. The ideological thinking necessary to promote voting on the basis of issues, on the basis of an agenda that must include general principles applied to decisions affecting the entire state, will happen only as the Louisiana public increases its overall level of educational attainment and quality.
But this doesn’t means that political elites such as legislators and party officials can’t invigorate the process by taking the lead in shaping institutions that will encourage thinking in ideological terms, that will lend themselves to formation of a holistic agenda, thereby demanding partisanship from them. Simply, partisan parties provide clear policy choices for voters, shifting thinking from “what’s good for me” to “what’s good for the state, which in general is good for me?” It works the other way as well; increasing use of ideological discourse in Louisiana politics from its elected officials signals they are attentive to this growing preference in the electorate.
Additionally, the personalistic nature of Louisiana’s political culture has encouraged its tolerance of big, intrusive government. It prompts thinking about politics in zero-sum terms (“I have to fight for a piece of the pie for my district”) as opposed to non-zero-sum terms (“How can we make the state better for all concerned?). The latter attitude gets legislators away from trying to grow government (because the more it grows the more each of them personally can get a piece of it) towards reducing its size and power, because that empowers people, which is to the benefit of all. (This does not mean that a political ideology such as liberalism does not want there to be powerful government, just that the countervailing force of conservatism has the opportunity to resist creation of such a government, whereas the other view gives up on this by default.)
“Partisan” politics is a welcome innovation to Louisiana. The idea-driven politics that would lie behind a strengthening of collective institutions both informal (parties) and formal (the Legislature) would make for more efficient policy implementation, or at least would reduce politics based on personality where the transient coalitions must be built issue-by-issue more geared to reelection than to statesmanship. Given that the personalistic model has produced such dismal policy outcomes, theoretical arguments aside, the mere fact the partisan model offers something quite different alone should be enough to think any such transformation cannot happen too quickly.
Some, particularly legislators who are long in the tooth, don’t think so, arguing flexibility becomes decreased. Such a view entirely misses the point because a major problem in why Louisiana government has been so dysfunctional, in terms of producing policy outcomes that don’t rank the state at the bottom of almost all indicators of quality, is because too much flexibility has been afforded individual legislators.
Politics in Louisiana traditionally have been “personalistic,” meaning the exercise of power derives more from the efforts of individuals for individualistic goals than from any collective source with more holistic goals. Another way of putting this is policy-making is skewed towards a confluence of individual agendas as opposed to any agenda-setting and promulgation by collective institutions, along a collectively agreed-upon program.
It is no accident that in this environment the only powerful institutions in the state are built around the individual, the executive elective offices, particularly the governor. Even though, in a comparative sense with other states, Louisiana’s governor in terms of formal powers at best rests in the middle of the pack, the office’s influence gets magnified by its superior ability to exert personalistic power, as opposed to a collective institution such as the Legislature which is weakened by this reliance on personalistic power.
The central problem with this kind of culture is it is far less capable of promoting and implementing a policy agenda focused on the holistic needs of the state born of a political culture that vests more authority into institutions. It also is no accident that a weaker Legislature has gone hand-in-hand with a weaker set of political parties, probably the weakest in America, at the state level in Louisiana. Parties are the primary agent around which legislative power can be collected and utilized.
Without parties, and the necessary partisanship that makes them effective, rather than an impetus existing to draw individual legislators together around a holistic agenda, instead the Legislature dissolves into a number of princes representing fiefdoms with much less emphasis of acting first towards the good of the state, than making their districts their primary focus. The most visible example of this inanity is the capital outlay process and budget. There, legislators more often fight over money to fund certain projects to aid their districts than take a more reasoned, collective view over the kinds of items that really would benefit the state as a whole. It’s why things like needless reservoirs and horse barns get funded while the TIMED highway program designed to impact the entire state drags on years behind schedule.
Part of the “bring home the bacon” emphasis is the fault of voters. Like it or not, Louisiana suffers from one of the least sophisticated electorates which disproportionately evaluates candidates not on the basis of their issue preferences, but on how well they come across, or on what favors members of it feel have come their way from the candidate. The ideological thinking necessary to promote voting on the basis of issues, on the basis of an agenda that must include general principles applied to decisions affecting the entire state, will happen only as the Louisiana public increases its overall level of educational attainment and quality.
But this doesn’t means that political elites such as legislators and party officials can’t invigorate the process by taking the lead in shaping institutions that will encourage thinking in ideological terms, that will lend themselves to formation of a holistic agenda, thereby demanding partisanship from them. Simply, partisan parties provide clear policy choices for voters, shifting thinking from “what’s good for me” to “what’s good for the state, which in general is good for me?” It works the other way as well; increasing use of ideological discourse in Louisiana politics from its elected officials signals they are attentive to this growing preference in the electorate.
Additionally, the personalistic nature of Louisiana’s political culture has encouraged its tolerance of big, intrusive government. It prompts thinking about politics in zero-sum terms (“I have to fight for a piece of the pie for my district”) as opposed to non-zero-sum terms (“How can we make the state better for all concerned?). The latter attitude gets legislators away from trying to grow government (because the more it grows the more each of them personally can get a piece of it) towards reducing its size and power, because that empowers people, which is to the benefit of all. (This does not mean that a political ideology such as liberalism does not want there to be powerful government, just that the countervailing force of conservatism has the opportunity to resist creation of such a government, whereas the other view gives up on this by default.)
“Partisan” politics is a welcome innovation to Louisiana. The idea-driven politics that would lie behind a strengthening of collective institutions both informal (parties) and formal (the Legislature) would make for more efficient policy implementation, or at least would reduce politics based on personality where the transient coalitions must be built issue-by-issue more geared to reelection than to statesmanship. Given that the personalistic model has produced such dismal policy outcomes, theoretical arguments aside, the mere fact the partisan model offers something quite different alone should be enough to think any such transformation cannot happen too quickly.
17.12.06
Session shows gulf between parties' attitudes about your money
All one needs to know about the differences between Democrats and Republicans in Louisiana is to review what happened in the final hour of the recently-concluded special session of the Legislature.
HB 59, having passed the House, was brought up in the Senate. Originally, the bill was provide a child tax credit although Democrats had shot down a Republican attempt by state Rep. John LaBruzzo to make the credit apply only to heads of households who actually paid taxes. Therefore, since the bill also had the purpose of redistributing wealth from producers of it to consumers of it, Democrats favored it.
But then state Sen. Robert Adley (ironically, a Democrat) got an amendment added in committee that swung the bill back into a posture of mainly providing assistance to taxpayers, that would restore many popular tax deductions presently applicable to federal income taxes but which were taken away three years ago from state income taxes. These were measures that Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Democrats had favored and had introduced into the House earlier in the session.
HB 59, having passed the House, was brought up in the Senate. Originally, the bill was provide a child tax credit although Democrats had shot down a Republican attempt by state Rep. John LaBruzzo to make the credit apply only to heads of households who actually paid taxes. Therefore, since the bill also had the purpose of redistributing wealth from producers of it to consumers of it, Democrats favored it.
But then state Sen. Robert Adley (ironically, a Democrat) got an amendment added in committee that swung the bill back into a posture of mainly providing assistance to taxpayers, that would restore many popular tax deductions presently applicable to federal income taxes but which were taken away three years ago from state income taxes. These were measures that Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Democrats had favored and had introduced into the House earlier in the session.
13.12.06
Principled GOP, instransigent Democrats equal "partisan" session
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)