A sad reality I face every day as a university professor is, in one way or another, providing feedback to students unprepared for college work that signals to them their plight. It’s unfortunate because, theoretically, students who meet our admissions standards ought to be prepared for college work – especially since a number of them will have received “scholarships” from the state indicating, at the very least, they should be capable of college work.
While many students wash out or have initial difficulty in college because their attitudes aren’t right, that many were not adequately prepared further vexes as a public policy problem because a high school diploma in Louisiana, requiring passage of a defined curriculum and exit exam, with a sufficient grade point average theoretically defines college preparedness. Yet if a significant number of those who pass the courses with the required GPA and the exam are unprepared, there is a disconnection in the system.
The purpose of the exit exam, the Graduate Exit Exam, is to provide a standard beyond internal evaluation at each school. Somebody strolling through Louisiana high schools would notice vast differences in the demands being made on students, so the GEE attempts to present a uniform assessment of performance statewide. Students must pass it to get a diploma.
However, some fault the GEE for providing incentive for the school to focus on teaching to pass it, which may detract from knowledge and skills acquisition needed to succeed in college. If that is the case, then one of two decisions or both of them must be made and implemented. One would be to shape the GEE more to a facsimile of a college entrance exam. This would require consultation between state secondary and university systems to make the exam both indicative of knowledge and skills desired to be imparted in high school and those useful to collegiate success.
The problem would be that this would limit the GEE’s ability to assess whether students capably had completed high school for those intending not to go to college. Hence, secondly, a GEE variant for these individuals must be developed. It could be set up so that for the 11th grade testing that the student would choose which track, collegiate or not, to pursue, with a different GEE for each. The difference would be that a TOPS award, the “scholarship” program, would come automatically with a passage of the “collegiate” GEE, but would not with the passage of the vocational-oriented GEE. But passage of either would suffice for a high school diploma.
This strategy would require some redesign of high school curricula. All such schools would have to offer a vocational track which the student would have to decide (say prior to entering the 11th grade) whether to pursue but the curriculum for which would be constructed to satisfy the “vocational” GEE requirements. The “collegiate” GEE then would then have as a dual purpose testing for the ability to succeed in college, much as the ACT test does currently.
With the proper design, students will have a better chance of succeeding in both high school and college (whether they will is a matter mostly up to them, and partly as a result of teacher quality, a subject best taken up at another time). At the very least, it would make less likely under-prepared consuming resources from which they cannot benefit in college at the expense of those who can.
21.2.07
Kennedy actions serving state and his political interests
Louisiana Treasurer John Kennedy has kept his streak going, rare until recently among statewide elected officials, of speaking and acting in a commonsensical manner the opposite of the special-interest-favoring, good-old-boy ethos predominant in the state. If he continues, he may present reformers of the conservative and/or Republican stripes next year the necessity of having to take a leap of faith.
Only last week, Kennedy, in his role of serving on special state committees, properly and publicly voiced displeasure at a plan to bring less accountability to the State Bond Commission and to engineer quietly a potentially far-reaching financial transaction. During this term as treasurer almost always, and sometimes with a lone voice, Kennedy has advocated sensible spending priorities and transparency in government.
These actions have led some to wonder, since the vast majority (but not all) of the good-old-boy crowd calls themselves Democrats, why Kennedy still identifies with that label, and further speculation runs rampant that Kennedy will switch to the Republicans and launch a bid challenging Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu in 2008. On the surface, this seems to be the optimal plan for Kennedy to achieve higher office, as he could present himself as the only other major candidate in that contest by taking away support another GOP candidate could get.
But it also raises an uncomfortable question for GOP supporters who would like nothing better than to get a Republican in and Landrieu out. Kennedy also ran for Senate in 2004, but in that contest his reformist tendencies were cloaked in left-wing rhetoric. That appeared to be a tactical decision on his part, thinking that eventual winner Sen. David Vitter would appeal to the right and Democrat Chris John would be boxed into the center by having a candidate like Kennedy come in from the left. It obviously didn’t work as Kennedy finished, if respectably, in third.
If Kennedy does have eyes on this office with this path, he will need to keep hewing to this line. The GOP may not be entirely convinced that he has put away his liberalism and other long-time Republicans such as (if he doesn’t win this year’s governor’s race) state Sen. Walter Boasso could be tempted to tackle Landrieu. A penchant for Kennedy publicizing every opportunity for contrasting his views against the populist majority of the state’s officeholders’ would be as much to promote good policy as to prove his trustworthiness to Louisiana Republicans.
Only last week, Kennedy, in his role of serving on special state committees, properly and publicly voiced displeasure at a plan to bring less accountability to the State Bond Commission and to engineer quietly a potentially far-reaching financial transaction. During this term as treasurer almost always, and sometimes with a lone voice, Kennedy has advocated sensible spending priorities and transparency in government.
These actions have led some to wonder, since the vast majority (but not all) of the good-old-boy crowd calls themselves Democrats, why Kennedy still identifies with that label, and further speculation runs rampant that Kennedy will switch to the Republicans and launch a bid challenging Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu in 2008. On the surface, this seems to be the optimal plan for Kennedy to achieve higher office, as he could present himself as the only other major candidate in that contest by taking away support another GOP candidate could get.
But it also raises an uncomfortable question for GOP supporters who would like nothing better than to get a Republican in and Landrieu out. Kennedy also ran for Senate in 2004, but in that contest his reformist tendencies were cloaked in left-wing rhetoric. That appeared to be a tactical decision on his part, thinking that eventual winner Sen. David Vitter would appeal to the right and Democrat Chris John would be boxed into the center by having a candidate like Kennedy come in from the left. It obviously didn’t work as Kennedy finished, if respectably, in third.
If Kennedy does have eyes on this office with this path, he will need to keep hewing to this line. The GOP may not be entirely convinced that he has put away his liberalism and other long-time Republicans such as (if he doesn’t win this year’s governor’s race) state Sen. Walter Boasso could be tempted to tackle Landrieu. A penchant for Kennedy publicizing every opportunity for contrasting his views against the populist majority of the state’s officeholders’ would be as much to promote good policy as to prove his trustworthiness to Louisiana Republicans.
20.2.07
Breaux entry unlikely to prevent GOP gubernatorial win
As Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s reelection chances continue to wallow, some Louisiana Democrats continue to hope some miraculous candidate on their side emerges to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Now they have increased hope latched onto Democrat former Sen. John Breaux as a potential savior. Should this happen, it would change the dynamics of the contest, but it’s not likely to change the results.
There are several reasons why Republican current candidate Rep. Bobby Jindal should be favored if it ever came down to this matchup in the general election runoff. First, Jindal has a tremendous head start in fundraising. Breaux has many connections and if Blanco bowed out a process could begin of defunding her campaign account and trying to move it over to his, but Breaux will not outspend Jindal in this contest by any significant amount, if at all.
Second, Breaux has been gone from the electoral scene and state for a couple of years, working in a profession wounded by recent unethical behavior by some lobbyists, an issue so important that apparently it was of some influence in determining the outcome of the 2006 elections. Jindal has been politically active and essentially campaigning for the past two years
Finally, Breaux is much more vulnerable on issues that Democrats might wish. It’s not hard to envision Jindal and other major Republican candidate state Sen. Walter Boasso hammering Breaux on a number of things – plenty of past votes showing how liberal Breaux has been in Washington, questioning how Breaux’s 32 years in office did not produce stronger levees, why only now Breaux has come out in favor of reform of Louisiana’s inefficient indigent health care system while Jindal has advocated it for a decade, etc. GOP candidates will have plenty of money to explain Breaux’s warts, something none others in their position have had since Breaux’s first attempt at the Senate.
The campaign theme would be very simple: in 32 years, as Louisiana fell further and further behind on almost every policy metric – economic growth, health care, education – where was John Breaux? What did he ever do to try to prevent this collapse, much less anything successful? What one thing did he ever do for the state, period?
Expect much of this exposure of Breaux to come at the hands of Boasso, for Breaux’s candidacy would eat much more into his support than Jindal’s. This would be a bonus to Jindal, who mainly could sit on the sidelines while one of his strongest opponents chips away at the strength of the other.
A Blanco withdrawal and Breaux entry would cripple Boasso’s chances, and about wipe out any small chance Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell would have to win. Almost certainly Breaux and Jindal would tangle in the runoff. But the fact is, Breaux is not well-positioned for a political resurrection in a climate where then state is slowly turning against good-old-boy politicians (especially of the kind associated with Prisoner #03128-095). The overall dynamic will not change – the GOP, Jindal specifically, would remain favored to win the office.
There are several reasons why Republican current candidate Rep. Bobby Jindal should be favored if it ever came down to this matchup in the general election runoff. First, Jindal has a tremendous head start in fundraising. Breaux has many connections and if Blanco bowed out a process could begin of defunding her campaign account and trying to move it over to his, but Breaux will not outspend Jindal in this contest by any significant amount, if at all.
Second, Breaux has been gone from the electoral scene and state for a couple of years, working in a profession wounded by recent unethical behavior by some lobbyists, an issue so important that apparently it was of some influence in determining the outcome of the 2006 elections. Jindal has been politically active and essentially campaigning for the past two years
Finally, Breaux is much more vulnerable on issues that Democrats might wish. It’s not hard to envision Jindal and other major Republican candidate state Sen. Walter Boasso hammering Breaux on a number of things – plenty of past votes showing how liberal Breaux has been in Washington, questioning how Breaux’s 32 years in office did not produce stronger levees, why only now Breaux has come out in favor of reform of Louisiana’s inefficient indigent health care system while Jindal has advocated it for a decade, etc. GOP candidates will have plenty of money to explain Breaux’s warts, something none others in their position have had since Breaux’s first attempt at the Senate.
The campaign theme would be very simple: in 32 years, as Louisiana fell further and further behind on almost every policy metric – economic growth, health care, education – where was John Breaux? What did he ever do to try to prevent this collapse, much less anything successful? What one thing did he ever do for the state, period?
Expect much of this exposure of Breaux to come at the hands of Boasso, for Breaux’s candidacy would eat much more into his support than Jindal’s. This would be a bonus to Jindal, who mainly could sit on the sidelines while one of his strongest opponents chips away at the strength of the other.
A Blanco withdrawal and Breaux entry would cripple Boasso’s chances, and about wipe out any small chance Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell would have to win. Almost certainly Breaux and Jindal would tangle in the runoff. But the fact is, Breaux is not well-positioned for a political resurrection in a climate where then state is slowly turning against good-old-boy politicians (especially of the kind associated with Prisoner #03128-095). The overall dynamic will not change – the GOP, Jindal specifically, would remain favored to win the office.
19.2.07
Processing tax chance may cost LA development projects
Even though it’s about eight months away, the uncertainty concerning the outcome of Louisiana’s governor’s election may claim economic development prizes badly needed by the state.
Louisiana is in the running for the nation’s first new oil refinery in about three decades, a proposed joint venture between Kuwait and an American company, although it has not yet been decided whether the idea will be pursued and both Texas and New Mexico also are in the running should it happen. The state also is competing with Alabama for a steel manufacturing plant which could provide hundreds of million of dollars worth of jobs and revenues. Obviously, the German firm will decide on the location that will maximize its profits.
But placing Louisiana at a competitive disadvantage for the steel facility is energy prices, which are significantly higher than those likely to be charged at the site in Alabama. The supplier would be Entergy, which has higher costs because of older equipment. More modern equipment including oil-burning generators would reduce the cost of electricity production to a more-competitive position.
Louisiana is in the running for the nation’s first new oil refinery in about three decades, a proposed joint venture between Kuwait and an American company, although it has not yet been decided whether the idea will be pursued and both Texas and New Mexico also are in the running should it happen. The state also is competing with Alabama for a steel manufacturing plant which could provide hundreds of million of dollars worth of jobs and revenues. Obviously, the German firm will decide on the location that will maximize its profits.
But placing Louisiana at a competitive disadvantage for the steel facility is energy prices, which are significantly higher than those likely to be charged at the site in Alabama. The supplier would be Entergy, which has higher costs because of older equipment. More modern equipment including oil-burning generators would reduce the cost of electricity production to a more-competitive position.
17.2.07
Welcome hospital plan defeat reveals interesting dynamics
The state got a good, unexpected Carnival throw last week from the Louisiana House of Representatives when it failed to muster a majority to allow funding for any aspect of a new Louisiana State University hospital in New Orleans.
Constructing a replacement for the ravaged existing facility got caught in the crossfire of three issues. First, the mail balloting of this ensued when the Legislature’s Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget overrode a Louisiana Recovery Authority decision to send forward only $74 million to plan and buy land for it, instead approving $300 million that could have started the building of it. Second, given the surplus of hospital beds in the metropolitan New Orleans area, there is great questioning whether such a facility on the scale it has been conceptualized is needed. Third, supporting the grandiose version was seen as validating the present indigent care system while refusing to redesign health care in any meaningful way in the state, holding onto the inferior money-given-to-the-institution rather than money-follows-the-person concept.
The 50-37 defeat provides an interesting window on the political scene because it was unexpected. First, it shows the GOP really is getting organized, as most of the votes against the plan came from near-unanimity on its members’ parts, rebelling against the committee comprised almost totally of Democrats (indeed, of the few Republicans on it of over 20 members, only state Rep. Steve Scalise can be considered taxpayer-friendly).
Second, it lays bare the politicized nature of higher education governance in the state, since those shocked at the failure of it to pass including Gov. Kathleen Blanco blamed the Louisiana State University system, represented by its Board of Supervisors, for not “lobbying enough” for the measure to pass. A very unfortunate fact of life in Louisiana is academic institutions, because of a political culture that overemphasizes special interests and underemphasizes merit, are unusually influenced by political decisions, in this case because the indigent care system in the state largely was put into the hands of the LSU system.
Third, it demonstrates the weakened nature of Blanco and the politics of post-hurricane recovery. She easily could have tried to cajole some people to vote in support – in fact, it was really no-shows that prevented passage who with a simple gubernatorial reminder well might have had the motion carry. However, the LRA largely is her tool, so she had disincentive to lobby for a decision that countered its. But also, during this election year with the stakes so high and her political capital running so low, she will want to save her efforts for matters that have a wider and/or more visible impact on a large portion of the Louisiana population.
However it happened, it constitutes an entirely welcome development and buys more time for sharper thinkers and public concern to build to engineer true health care redesign.
Constructing a replacement for the ravaged existing facility got caught in the crossfire of three issues. First, the mail balloting of this ensued when the Legislature’s Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget overrode a Louisiana Recovery Authority decision to send forward only $74 million to plan and buy land for it, instead approving $300 million that could have started the building of it. Second, given the surplus of hospital beds in the metropolitan New Orleans area, there is great questioning whether such a facility on the scale it has been conceptualized is needed. Third, supporting the grandiose version was seen as validating the present indigent care system while refusing to redesign health care in any meaningful way in the state, holding onto the inferior money-given-to-the-institution rather than money-follows-the-person concept.
The 50-37 defeat provides an interesting window on the political scene because it was unexpected. First, it shows the GOP really is getting organized, as most of the votes against the plan came from near-unanimity on its members’ parts, rebelling against the committee comprised almost totally of Democrats (indeed, of the few Republicans on it of over 20 members, only state Rep. Steve Scalise can be considered taxpayer-friendly).
Second, it lays bare the politicized nature of higher education governance in the state, since those shocked at the failure of it to pass including Gov. Kathleen Blanco blamed the Louisiana State University system, represented by its Board of Supervisors, for not “lobbying enough” for the measure to pass. A very unfortunate fact of life in Louisiana is academic institutions, because of a political culture that overemphasizes special interests and underemphasizes merit, are unusually influenced by political decisions, in this case because the indigent care system in the state largely was put into the hands of the LSU system.
Third, it demonstrates the weakened nature of Blanco and the politics of post-hurricane recovery. She easily could have tried to cajole some people to vote in support – in fact, it was really no-shows that prevented passage who with a simple gubernatorial reminder well might have had the motion carry. However, the LRA largely is her tool, so she had disincentive to lobby for a decision that countered its. But also, during this election year with the stakes so high and her political capital running so low, she will want to save her efforts for matters that have a wider and/or more visible impact on a large portion of the Louisiana population.
However it happened, it constitutes an entirely welcome development and buys more time for sharper thinkers and public concern to build to engineer true health care redesign.
15.2.07
Melancon plays game with complaints that ring hollow
You don’t win a couple of terms in Congress without being a good politician, and Rep. Charlie Melancon is proving he is by his recent “attacks” on U.S. House leadership.
Democrat Melancon has expressed irritation at his party’s majority leadership, saying that it has not followed through on promises to do “more” for the state in wake on the 2005 hurricane disasters, It’s hard to know what more could be done with about $60 billion thrown at the state in the past 18 months by the federal government, but that’s Melancon’s argument as he says there needs to be additional loan forgiveness and brokering of disputes concerning distribution of federal money.
Even so, Democrat leaders say they will try to address such concerns. But, being realistic, nothing is going to happen here. Simply, Democrat representatives from the rest of the country are not going to give away money to Louisiana unless, liberals as they are, they see a political payoff. They survey the situation in the state, where a Democrat governor stands little chance of winning reelection and will drag the party’s statewide fortunes down with her, and see there is not much to be gained from trying to boost Democrat fortunes in the state. They might tinker at the margins, but because there is no national political payoff from transferring money from American taxpayers (money they can use for their own purposes) to Louisiana, they won’t do it.
Melancon realizes this, and thus must make it appear that he is “fighting” for state interests, hence the source of his complaints. It’s a game where symbolism trumps substance and one that he knows and the Washington Democrats know must be played to try to build an image that he does not, as is the actual case, have beliefs that run counter to the majority in his district, so they play it. He must in order to continue to fool Third District voters in what might be a very challenging 2008 election cycle.
While by this tactic Melancon tries to craft an image that his is a not a liberal Democrat, by no objective means isn’t he. In his first year, he managed to score a 61 on the American Conservative Union scale, slightly conservative, but on others’ scorecards, those of the Americans for Tax Reform, the Citizens Against Government Waste, and the National Taxpayers’ Union, he got a 17, 27, and 29. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action confirms, where the scale is reversed; they gave him an 80 in 2005. In that year alone, among other things, Melancon voted against cutting taxes and reducing the size of the budget, reform of the United Nations, tort reform, increasing U.S. energy independence, reducing the deficit, and more stringent border control.
But Melancon will play the game to boost his reelection chances, trying to unlink himself to the very liberal leadership of the House which he supported in its establishment only last month and whose measures in other areas he continues to support. It’s the only way he can try to obscure his liberal voting record, but it won’t fool an informed citizenry.
Democrat Melancon has expressed irritation at his party’s majority leadership, saying that it has not followed through on promises to do “more” for the state in wake on the 2005 hurricane disasters, It’s hard to know what more could be done with about $60 billion thrown at the state in the past 18 months by the federal government, but that’s Melancon’s argument as he says there needs to be additional loan forgiveness and brokering of disputes concerning distribution of federal money.
Even so, Democrat leaders say they will try to address such concerns. But, being realistic, nothing is going to happen here. Simply, Democrat representatives from the rest of the country are not going to give away money to Louisiana unless, liberals as they are, they see a political payoff. They survey the situation in the state, where a Democrat governor stands little chance of winning reelection and will drag the party’s statewide fortunes down with her, and see there is not much to be gained from trying to boost Democrat fortunes in the state. They might tinker at the margins, but because there is no national political payoff from transferring money from American taxpayers (money they can use for their own purposes) to Louisiana, they won’t do it.
Melancon realizes this, and thus must make it appear that he is “fighting” for state interests, hence the source of his complaints. It’s a game where symbolism trumps substance and one that he knows and the Washington Democrats know must be played to try to build an image that he does not, as is the actual case, have beliefs that run counter to the majority in his district, so they play it. He must in order to continue to fool Third District voters in what might be a very challenging 2008 election cycle.
While by this tactic Melancon tries to craft an image that his is a not a liberal Democrat, by no objective means isn’t he. In his first year, he managed to score a 61 on the American Conservative Union scale, slightly conservative, but on others’ scorecards, those of the Americans for Tax Reform, the Citizens Against Government Waste, and the National Taxpayers’ Union, he got a 17, 27, and 29. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action confirms, where the scale is reversed; they gave him an 80 in 2005. In that year alone, among other things, Melancon voted against cutting taxes and reducing the size of the budget, reform of the United Nations, tort reform, increasing U.S. energy independence, reducing the deficit, and more stringent border control.
But Melancon will play the game to boost his reelection chances, trying to unlink himself to the very liberal leadership of the House which he supported in its establishment only last month and whose measures in other areas he continues to support. It’s the only way he can try to obscure his liberal voting record, but it won’t fool an informed citizenry.
14.2.07
Jindal insurance bill needs additional strengthening
A luxury opinion columnists have but politicians don’t is, not to be flippant, they do not have to adopt ideas contradictory to their basic ideological principles to get elected. We can advance our ideas in the purity of intellectual contemplation, without worrying how well they go down with voters. By contrast, electoral appeal may cause politicians to promote things with more of an eye to getting elected rather than to the principle of the idea.
That may be the situation that Rep. Bobby Jindal finds himself with his proposed Multiple Peril Insurance Act which would expand coverage of the National Flood Insurance Program. The bill would add wind coverage to existing coverage, add payment of living expenses due to displacement, and raise coverage limits.
Unfortunately, the concept of the NFIP has been problematic from the start. Essentially, it encourages building in high-risk areas and discourages the private sector from entering this business. But until the hurricane disasters of 2005, it had not been a problem to the U.S. taxpayer because premiums going into the program had paid for claims.
13.2.07
Realities to create long Saints goodbye
It’s debatable the odds of which occurring are worse: Gov. Kathleen Blanco getting herself reelected or the New Orleans Saints sticking around after the team’s subsidy from the state runs out after 2010. Blanco apparently is willing to bite the bullet, despite meaning the state will fork over nearly $90 million to the team, even after she has criticized the deal, and not exercise the state’s option to get out of paying all but $20 million of that after the upcoming season.
Until Hurricane Katrina blew through area and out some levees, the big sticking point in negotiations was infrastructure. Owner Tom Benson has argued facilities disallowed realization of a greater revenue stream for the team, but the state was reluctant to meet his main demand, a new stadium which he argued would allow for more revenue-generating amenities like luxury boxes.
But after the disaster, the dynamic has changed from infrastructure to whether the market has enough capacity to make the team profitable enough not to relocate to greener pastures, or even to be profitable. The cold, hard facts are when the 2006 census estimates come out, the New Orleans-Metairie MSA’s population will fall to about a million, below that of Buffalo’s and Jacksonville’s to make it the second-smallest National Football League market, ahead only of Green Bay – and practically it will be the smallest, since the Packers already play some home games in Milwaukee.
With over a dozen MSAs with larger populations without a team, it’s hard to argue that New Orleans presents the best deal for the Saints – especially without subsidies that pay for Drew Brees’ contract. With all the most updated facilities around, there simply may be no way to keep the time in a market that, if anything, will shrink and is disproportionately poorer in terms of business entertainment dollars than even its size would indicate.
After the team’s magnificent run to the National Football Conference championship game this year, the pressure will intensify for the state to offer incentives for the team to stay. This must be resisted because in the post-disaster environment, both natural and man-made by the ravages of liberal populism, every dollar will count and the state must spend wisely. Enjoy Saints football the next few seasons because, barring radical economic changes (or NFL insistence on their staying put), it’s not likely Louisianans will enjoy their presence much longer.
Until Hurricane Katrina blew through area and out some levees, the big sticking point in negotiations was infrastructure. Owner Tom Benson has argued facilities disallowed realization of a greater revenue stream for the team, but the state was reluctant to meet his main demand, a new stadium which he argued would allow for more revenue-generating amenities like luxury boxes.
But after the disaster, the dynamic has changed from infrastructure to whether the market has enough capacity to make the team profitable enough not to relocate to greener pastures, or even to be profitable. The cold, hard facts are when the 2006 census estimates come out, the New Orleans-Metairie MSA’s population will fall to about a million, below that of Buffalo’s and Jacksonville’s to make it the second-smallest National Football League market, ahead only of Green Bay – and practically it will be the smallest, since the Packers already play some home games in Milwaukee.
With over a dozen MSAs with larger populations without a team, it’s hard to argue that New Orleans presents the best deal for the Saints – especially without subsidies that pay for Drew Brees’ contract. With all the most updated facilities around, there simply may be no way to keep the time in a market that, if anything, will shrink and is disproportionately poorer in terms of business entertainment dollars than even its size would indicate.
After the team’s magnificent run to the National Football Conference championship game this year, the pressure will intensify for the state to offer incentives for the team to stay. This must be resisted because in the post-disaster environment, both natural and man-made by the ravages of liberal populism, every dollar will count and the state must spend wisely. Enjoy Saints football the next few seasons because, barring radical economic changes (or NFL insistence on their staying put), it’s not likely Louisianans will enjoy their presence much longer.
12.2.07
Overpaying Bossier, Caddo Parishes need to watch expenses
It seems that Caddo Parish recently hired Susie Morgan to be the first lobbyist at the federal level for the parish, following the lead of Bossier Parish which did so three years ago. According to her employer the Bossier Police Jury, they seem pleased at her performance. Whether this translated into a wise use of taxpayer dollars is a wholly different story.
In 2004, Bossier Parish started off Morgan, then a lawyer with a Shreveport firm, at $40,000 a year. In 2006, it reports paying her $60,000 annually. Caddo Parish plans on giving her $4,000 a month up to $55,000 a year (including expenses).
(Although she is reported to live in Washington, her actual employer, as of July, 2005, is a New Orleans firm, Phelps Dunbar, and campaign contribution records give her residence as being in New Orleans. A past supporter of Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu’s, $3,500 of hers found its way into Landrieu’s campaign fund for New Orleans mayor; safe to say Morgan will not be representing the city of New Orleans any time soon after incumbent Ray Nagin was reelected.)
11.2.07
"Shortchange" complaint properly analyzed has little merit
A favorite sport of Louisiana politicians these days is complaining how the state has been allegedly “shortchanged” by the federal government in terms of disaster relief funds. A review of the facts makes this a tenuous argument at best, and any minor disparity can be explained by these and legitimate concerns about the state’s fitness to make wise spending decisions.
One point of contention has been in the majority of cases over the past couple of decades, the federal government has waived the 25 percent state match requirement on federal disaster monies going into a state. While Pres. George W. Bush waived 15 percent of that, the fact that 10 percent still is asked for has raised eyebrows particularly as it concerns the most expensive natural disaster ever.
But what observers forget is that because it is by far the state that ever has had the most federal money pumped into it for this cause (subtracting out federal insurance payouts, the figure is around $42 billion presently; contrast that with the second-most expensive, Hurricane Andrew and Florida in 1992, where subtracting out insurance proceeds the amount came to only $11 billion). At present (because only a small portion of this figure is subject to the state match) the state estimates the reduced requirement is costing the state $400 million.
Well, at present the state is sitting on a huge budget surplus – precisely because of all the federal money pouring into the state. In other words, so much money is coming in that the state is taking in more, probably much more, than $400 million in taxes and excises due to the economic activity of rebuilding the federal money has spurred (after all, Louisiana is balking about paying less than one percent of the total federal money it has received). Yet state politicians, receiving an incredible gift both in terms of rebuilding funds and in fattening state coffers, still moan.
Another grievance has developed around the fact that only 54 percent of community development block grant funds, a major portion of the total funds remitted for disaster response, has gone to Louisiana where by the number of structures damaged the state suffered three-quarters of the total. But there’s nothing that could be done about that because that is a legal requirement. (Sen. Mary Landrieu is authoring legislation to change that.)
Any other disparity in funding can be explained by an unfortunate fact of life, but one that Louisiana politicians refuse to mention precisely because it reflects poorly on them. Simply, of all the states affected by the 2005 hurricane disasters, by far Louisiana traditionally has shown itself to be the most irresponsible in fiscal matters. In the past decade, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas have elected conservative reformists who have done a far better job of making proper priorities and steering spending more towards their states’ peoples’ benefit and away from taking care of special interests first. Louisiana, by contrast, has remained stuck on stupid by electing majorities who prefer to grow big government and shower rewards on favored constituencies.
Certainly, liberal Democrats are not going to admit this about themselves, and even conservative Republican politicians for the most part shy away from pointing this out because of a desire for comity and in case they engage in some future big spending themselves which could get this turned against them (one of the few who does not hesitate is Rep. Tom Tancredo, now running for president). But anybody who has eyes, ears, and a brain can figure out the big government lovers who haunt Louisiana are going to do a poorer job of disaster relief (Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s Road Home, anyone?) than more responsible politicians in other states.
Which is why the federal response that Louisiana should spend the money it has first, such as the tremendous backlog sitting in the Road Home program, before asking for more is entirely appropriate. Like it or not, reality is the inferior liberal ideology pursued by Democrat Blanco and a Democrat-controlled legislature make them bad bets on which to loosen the reins in this situation. Until Louisiana demonstrates a more responsible attitude and competent ability towards use of the people’s money, common sense and prudence dictates close monitoring such as this is necessary.
One point of contention has been in the majority of cases over the past couple of decades, the federal government has waived the 25 percent state match requirement on federal disaster monies going into a state. While Pres. George W. Bush waived 15 percent of that, the fact that 10 percent still is asked for has raised eyebrows particularly as it concerns the most expensive natural disaster ever.
But what observers forget is that because it is by far the state that ever has had the most federal money pumped into it for this cause (subtracting out federal insurance payouts, the figure is around $42 billion presently; contrast that with the second-most expensive, Hurricane Andrew and Florida in 1992, where subtracting out insurance proceeds the amount came to only $11 billion). At present (because only a small portion of this figure is subject to the state match) the state estimates the reduced requirement is costing the state $400 million.
Well, at present the state is sitting on a huge budget surplus – precisely because of all the federal money pouring into the state. In other words, so much money is coming in that the state is taking in more, probably much more, than $400 million in taxes and excises due to the economic activity of rebuilding the federal money has spurred (after all, Louisiana is balking about paying less than one percent of the total federal money it has received). Yet state politicians, receiving an incredible gift both in terms of rebuilding funds and in fattening state coffers, still moan.
Another grievance has developed around the fact that only 54 percent of community development block grant funds, a major portion of the total funds remitted for disaster response, has gone to Louisiana where by the number of structures damaged the state suffered three-quarters of the total. But there’s nothing that could be done about that because that is a legal requirement. (Sen. Mary Landrieu is authoring legislation to change that.)
Any other disparity in funding can be explained by an unfortunate fact of life, but one that Louisiana politicians refuse to mention precisely because it reflects poorly on them. Simply, of all the states affected by the 2005 hurricane disasters, by far Louisiana traditionally has shown itself to be the most irresponsible in fiscal matters. In the past decade, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas have elected conservative reformists who have done a far better job of making proper priorities and steering spending more towards their states’ peoples’ benefit and away from taking care of special interests first. Louisiana, by contrast, has remained stuck on stupid by electing majorities who prefer to grow big government and shower rewards on favored constituencies.
Certainly, liberal Democrats are not going to admit this about themselves, and even conservative Republican politicians for the most part shy away from pointing this out because of a desire for comity and in case they engage in some future big spending themselves which could get this turned against them (one of the few who does not hesitate is Rep. Tom Tancredo, now running for president). But anybody who has eyes, ears, and a brain can figure out the big government lovers who haunt Louisiana are going to do a poorer job of disaster relief (Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s Road Home, anyone?) than more responsible politicians in other states.
Which is why the federal response that Louisiana should spend the money it has first, such as the tremendous backlog sitting in the Road Home program, before asking for more is entirely appropriate. Like it or not, reality is the inferior liberal ideology pursued by Democrat Blanco and a Democrat-controlled legislature make them bad bets on which to loosen the reins in this situation. Until Louisiana demonstrates a more responsible attitude and competent ability towards use of the people’s money, common sense and prudence dictates close monitoring such as this is necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)