It is axiomatic that Louisiana has underachieved both for its citizens and in freeing its citizens to accomplish on their own because too often its politicians decide on the basis of their personal political fortunes rather than making good choices for the entire state and its people. A recent report reconfirms this awful tendency.
The U.S. Geological Survey’s Louisiana Water Science Center is preparing to issue recently-collected data about the status of water resources available in the state. They show most of the state’s aquifer and surface water capacity is adequate for immediate and short-run future needs. Additionally, if the need for more water came about, another USGS geologist stated that Louisiana has many untapped above-ground natural sources not yet being utilized.
But that’s not the conclusion Denmon Engineering seems to draw from the situation. This firm stands to profit from being at the forefront of building reservoirs across the state, as it has done already. It claims there won’t be enough water around in some locations without the reservoirs, despite what government scientists argue.
One such project Denmon is backing a controversial reservoir in Washington Parish – which the unpublished data show is now drawing less water from the Southern Hills aquifer than before. One of the authors of this idea is Democrat state Sen. Ben Nevers, who naturally disputes the scientific data on the question of future capacity.
Nevers is no stranger to having state money pumped into a project that duplicates and creates redundancy. In 2005, he and others managed to get a rural medicine residency program started at Bogalusa Medical Center. That replicates the already-existing program at W.O. Moss Regional in Lake Charles.
His political style perfectly illustrates why he and too many others who practice it have put this state into such trouble. Instead of sending money where real needs exist, fake ones are created in order to give politicians the chance to steer money to “fix” false problems, buying enough support to win reelection.
Too much money already has gone into the reservoir-building frenzy; money, for example that could have been spent on a $14 billion roads improvement backlog that would do far more for economic development (the other reason reservoir backers cite for their building) that chasing away private property owners, reconfiguring some land, and directing water into it at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Hopefully, the release of this data will help put a halt to this manifestation of a public policy philosophy that has served the state so ill.
5.4.07
GOP Breaux strategy based on voter frustration, not fear
Why are nearly daily announcements, ad campaigns preemptively launched, and lengthy analysis of Maryland resident’s John Breaux Louisiana citizenship dominating political discourse? One wrong answer is that opposition to the candidacy of Breaux by Republicans and conservatives indicates unusual trepidation of a Breaux candidacy and lack of confidence in GOP frontrunner Rep. Bobby Jindal.
Following analysis in this space, it is becoming generally accepted by observers of all political persuasions that a Breaux candidacy would constitute a tremendous risk for Democrats to take which at worst will leave them without an “official” candidate come October and almost certainly will go down in defeat given the fodder produced by a candidacy asking the state to play fast and loose with its own Constitution and an opposition more than able to publicize that. Thus, it is the last thing Breaux, Democrats, and the supporters of politics-as-usual want, protracted conflict reminding the voting public of this.
But, obviously, it is exactly what Jindal, Republicans, and reformists want to have happen. They will take any opportunity to remind the public, with an election still over six months away, of who Breaux is and that his and his allies’ very actions regarding his candidacy illustrate perfectly a major reason why Louisiana is so backwards compared to the rest of America (because good-old-boy politicians look first to taking care of their own interests and those of their allies through powerful government, throwing ethics and integrity out the window, while the liberties of other individuals are just an afterthought), to drive home another nail into the liberal/populist elite that have run roughshod over Louisiana for decades.
The ultimate payoff is if Breaux does run. His opponents are rapidly creating a condition where any such success in gaining ballot access will appear illegitimate, destroying any chance he has of winning. This is why, as I have counseled before, Breaux must move as quickly as possible to set the state for another Democrat’s candidacy, then exit immediately, to prevent continuing the long-term damage he will do to his Democrat/liberal/populist co-religionists.
A more sophisticated analysis of the situation reveals hammering on the Breaux qualification question occurs not out of fear, nor from poor strategy (that theory being don’t attack with a lead, as polls continue to show Jindal with a huge advantage in a hypothetical matchup with Breaux). Rather, proper understanding reveals that opponents of politics of the past in the state understand elements are converging rapidly in their favor and the opportunity exists to move the state forward farther than they believed before the troubled nature of the Breaux candidacy surfaced, as long as it continues to limp along. It is the lack of understanding of this by Breaux sympathizers which increases the magnitude of this opportunity.
Following analysis in this space, it is becoming generally accepted by observers of all political persuasions that a Breaux candidacy would constitute a tremendous risk for Democrats to take which at worst will leave them without an “official” candidate come October and almost certainly will go down in defeat given the fodder produced by a candidacy asking the state to play fast and loose with its own Constitution and an opposition more than able to publicize that. Thus, it is the last thing Breaux, Democrats, and the supporters of politics-as-usual want, protracted conflict reminding the voting public of this.
But, obviously, it is exactly what Jindal, Republicans, and reformists want to have happen. They will take any opportunity to remind the public, with an election still over six months away, of who Breaux is and that his and his allies’ very actions regarding his candidacy illustrate perfectly a major reason why Louisiana is so backwards compared to the rest of America (because good-old-boy politicians look first to taking care of their own interests and those of their allies through powerful government, throwing ethics and integrity out the window, while the liberties of other individuals are just an afterthought), to drive home another nail into the liberal/populist elite that have run roughshod over Louisiana for decades.
The ultimate payoff is if Breaux does run. His opponents are rapidly creating a condition where any such success in gaining ballot access will appear illegitimate, destroying any chance he has of winning. This is why, as I have counseled before, Breaux must move as quickly as possible to set the state for another Democrat’s candidacy, then exit immediately, to prevent continuing the long-term damage he will do to his Democrat/liberal/populist co-religionists.
A more sophisticated analysis of the situation reveals hammering on the Breaux qualification question occurs not out of fear, nor from poor strategy (that theory being don’t attack with a lead, as polls continue to show Jindal with a huge advantage in a hypothetical matchup with Breaux). Rather, proper understanding reveals that opponents of politics of the past in the state understand elements are converging rapidly in their favor and the opportunity exists to move the state forward farther than they believed before the troubled nature of the Breaux candidacy surfaced, as long as it continues to limp along. It is the lack of understanding of this by Breaux sympathizers which increases the magnitude of this opportunity.
4.4.07
Fanciful Breaux candidacy thoughts still distract Democrats?
As John Breaux continues to dither with a decision whether to announce a run for Louisiana governor later this year, the reason for that may be turning away from an information search to determine whether he can qualify to run to allowing time for another viable Democrat to get a campaign organization together.
In a note to fellow Democrat Atty. Gen. Charles Foti who is preparing a (nonbinding) opinion on the question whether Breaux has been a “citizen” of the state for he past five years, state Rep. Ronnie Johns pointed out the absurdity of Breaux’s justification – being a partner in property ownership in the state – that has repeatedly appeared in this space: Breaux’s formulation would allow foreign nationals to run for governor. In addition, Johns pointed out that Breaux could not qualify for Louisiana resident hunting and fishing licenses (although the legal question involved is about “citizenship,” not “residency”).
Breaux allies also have floated the idea that he could get a declaratory judgment from the Louisiana judiciary about the matter. But Louisiana constitutional law expert Louisiana State University Dale Bennett Professor of Law John S. Baker, Jr. (who also has outlined the compelling argument that Breaux does not meet the citizenship requirement) asserted on the Moon Griffon radio program that such a case is too hypothetical for it to accept until qualifying produced actual plaintiffs and defendants – early September.
Surely Democrats must be aware of the bind they are putting themselves in with continued speculation about a Breaux candidacy. It is now abundantly apparent the tremendous twisting of the law and Constitution that would have to happen to have Breaux declared qualified – a matter that surely would go to the Louisiana Supreme Court which last year did not start its October term until the middle of the month (the election is Oct. 20). This naked power-grab attempt will further enrage Louisiana voters who already are showing little patience for old faces running for office like Breaux’s, ensuring his defeat. (This, of course, assumes he’s even on the ballot which, if the Louisiana judiciary does its job correctly, he would not be.)
If they are sensible, state Democrats will be using the Breaux circus as a diversion while they recruit a stronger candidate. It could be that Breaux is not out interviewing campaign staffers actually for his own, but for a friend such as Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu. In any event, the state should know for sure by about Apr. 17, when 180-day reports are due for campaign financial disclosure, whether state Democrats with Breaux are committing themselves to a suicidal course to lose the Governor’s Mansion and perhaps more.
In a note to fellow Democrat Atty. Gen. Charles Foti who is preparing a (nonbinding) opinion on the question whether Breaux has been a “citizen” of the state for he past five years, state Rep. Ronnie Johns pointed out the absurdity of Breaux’s justification – being a partner in property ownership in the state – that has repeatedly appeared in this space: Breaux’s formulation would allow foreign nationals to run for governor. In addition, Johns pointed out that Breaux could not qualify for Louisiana resident hunting and fishing licenses (although the legal question involved is about “citizenship,” not “residency”).
Breaux allies also have floated the idea that he could get a declaratory judgment from the Louisiana judiciary about the matter. But Louisiana constitutional law expert Louisiana State University Dale Bennett Professor of Law John S. Baker, Jr. (who also has outlined the compelling argument that Breaux does not meet the citizenship requirement) asserted on the Moon Griffon radio program that such a case is too hypothetical for it to accept until qualifying produced actual plaintiffs and defendants – early September.
Surely Democrats must be aware of the bind they are putting themselves in with continued speculation about a Breaux candidacy. It is now abundantly apparent the tremendous twisting of the law and Constitution that would have to happen to have Breaux declared qualified – a matter that surely would go to the Louisiana Supreme Court which last year did not start its October term until the middle of the month (the election is Oct. 20). This naked power-grab attempt will further enrage Louisiana voters who already are showing little patience for old faces running for office like Breaux’s, ensuring his defeat. (This, of course, assumes he’s even on the ballot which, if the Louisiana judiciary does its job correctly, he would not be.)
If they are sensible, state Democrats will be using the Breaux circus as a diversion while they recruit a stronger candidate. It could be that Breaux is not out interviewing campaign staffers actually for his own, but for a friend such as Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu. In any event, the state should know for sure by about Apr. 17, when 180-day reports are due for campaign financial disclosure, whether state Democrats with Breaux are committing themselves to a suicidal course to lose the Governor’s Mansion and perhaps more.
3.4.07
Vitter correctly predicts judicial partisanship, Breaux loss
Regarding the upcoming governor’s race, Sen. David Vitter made two noteworthy statements: that the Louisiana Supreme Court will allow ex-resident John Breaux to run for governor if he tries to qualify, and that regardless Rep. Bobby Jindal will win. These comments deserve further examination.
If Breaux has the audacity to run, there will be a challenge about Sep. 10 to his candidacy. It will appear in the 19th District in Baton Rouge and a decision will be made around the Sep. 16 at best. Also at best, the inevitable appeal will be heard around Sep. 20 at the First Circuit, and the inevitable appeal to that to the Louisiana Supreme Court. However, the Court’s September session will have occurred by then. Even if it expedites, it will not be until the first week of October that the Court would hear any appeal, and an indeterminate number of days would pass before an opinion is issued. The election is Oct. 20.
But Vitter probably is correct about the Court approving of a Breaux candidacy. That’s because, reviewing the composition of the Court, there are five identifiable sympathizers with the notion of a Breaux candidacy and if you need to know one thing about the Louisiana judiciary, whose judges are elected, if it involves a political matter, that its judiciary can be as partisan as any other branch of government.
Yet Vitter also is correct about Jindal winning, in some part because of the tremendous stink that declaring Breaux as a “citizen” of Louisiana form the past five years would raise. Many would recognize this as a sham, as a naked political assertion of power by a dying machine born to place politics above the good of the state trying to preserve its power and privilege. After all, the basis by which Breaux has claimed he has been a “citizen” of Louisiana is so open-ended that any non-American who owns property in Louisiana and hardly sets foot in the state could qualify.
(To emphasize this point, the GOP should find a sympathetic somebody who matches Breaux’s “citizenship” claims as closely as possible, and have him qualify for governor, then contest his candidacy, publicizing it all along and seeing what the Democrats, media, and other willing allies of them have to say about this person, culminating in what the Court has to say about this candidacy. In case he makes the ballot, he could withdraw if he likes.)
Even with willing media accomplices trying to spin any favorable, obviously political decision about a Breaux candidacy, enough of the Louisiana voting public will be sickened by this arrogant display of exactly what good-old-boy attitude has afflicted the state for so many decades to prevent a Breaux victory, likely making Jindal the beneficiary. Which is why the state GOP should be rooting for this suicidal strategy by its opponents.
If Breaux has the audacity to run, there will be a challenge about Sep. 10 to his candidacy. It will appear in the 19th District in Baton Rouge and a decision will be made around the Sep. 16 at best. Also at best, the inevitable appeal will be heard around Sep. 20 at the First Circuit, and the inevitable appeal to that to the Louisiana Supreme Court. However, the Court’s September session will have occurred by then. Even if it expedites, it will not be until the first week of October that the Court would hear any appeal, and an indeterminate number of days would pass before an opinion is issued. The election is Oct. 20.
But Vitter probably is correct about the Court approving of a Breaux candidacy. That’s because, reviewing the composition of the Court, there are five identifiable sympathizers with the notion of a Breaux candidacy and if you need to know one thing about the Louisiana judiciary, whose judges are elected, if it involves a political matter, that its judiciary can be as partisan as any other branch of government.
Yet Vitter also is correct about Jindal winning, in some part because of the tremendous stink that declaring Breaux as a “citizen” of Louisiana form the past five years would raise. Many would recognize this as a sham, as a naked political assertion of power by a dying machine born to place politics above the good of the state trying to preserve its power and privilege. After all, the basis by which Breaux has claimed he has been a “citizen” of Louisiana is so open-ended that any non-American who owns property in Louisiana and hardly sets foot in the state could qualify.
(To emphasize this point, the GOP should find a sympathetic somebody who matches Breaux’s “citizenship” claims as closely as possible, and have him qualify for governor, then contest his candidacy, publicizing it all along and seeing what the Democrats, media, and other willing allies of them have to say about this person, culminating in what the Court has to say about this candidacy. In case he makes the ballot, he could withdraw if he likes.)
Even with willing media accomplices trying to spin any favorable, obviously political decision about a Breaux candidacy, enough of the Louisiana voting public will be sickened by this arrogant display of exactly what good-old-boy attitude has afflicted the state for so many decades to prevent a Breaux victory, likely making Jindal the beneficiary. Which is why the state GOP should be rooting for this suicidal strategy by its opponents.
2.4.07
Vitter smartly, Landrieu recklessly deals with troop issue
It is important to understand what was supported and what was not when last week the U.S. Senate voted on (a different version than did the House on) H.R. 1591 – especially since some of the senators doing the voting aren’t exactly conceptually clear on it.
The bill has three parts to it. First, it authorizes about $100 billion for war-related expenditures which best estimates show will be needed by the middle of May for current operations to remain unaffected. (The war on terror currently is being financed by supplemental appropriations like this, not through the regular budget process.) Second, it authorizes another $22 billion or so for matters entirely unrelated to prosecution of the war, including around $800 million to waive state and local government matches in Louisiana for some kinds of federal aid and $1.3 billion due to a programmatic shift of funding for flood control projects. Finally, it sets a deadline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Louisiana’s senators provide a contrast in proper understanding and wisdom concerning this bill. Republican Sen. David Vitter voted against it, even as he supported the reauthorization and the extra funding parts of it. (The non-war-related funds are highly questionable for approval now: federal government monies pumped into Louisiana have created revenue for governments far beyond what the matching requirement is, other funds given by the federal government without strings more than make up for it as well, and the flood control money will be granted later in the year during the normal budget process as there is no urgency for it now given reconstruction timelines.)
Vitter did so because he realizes that a forced withdrawal policy is tantamount to following the Democrats’ foreign policy in regards to the war – waving the white flag of surrender unconditionally. A set deadline encourages America’s enemies to wait it out, then after American departure do their best to dismantle America’s closest Arab ally, Iraq – the strategy followed in America’s major self-inflicted wound of the 20th century, the Vietnam Conflict. To allow defeat in this theater will create a worse situation than ever for America in the region. Vitter also knew that Pres. George W. Bush surely would veto the bill as it stands precisely because of this reason, so it was a grand waste of time to even consider moving it forward.
By contrast, Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu shows no such sophistication in her vote for the measure. Wringing more money more quickly out of the federal government for Louisiana might be appealing to her, but it is reckless and irresponsible for her to do so at the cost of the country’s security. She demonstrated no grasp of this simple fact, that the vote showed those voting against it were for victory, and those like her voting for it were for defeat.
Even if, as is highly likely, the Democrat-controlled Congress is forced by veto threat or reality to send a bill to Bush without the deadline within the next 45 days for which she votes, Landrieu repeatedly on this issue has shown a serious error in judgment that once again calls into question her fitness to serve as Louisiana’s senator.
The bill has three parts to it. First, it authorizes about $100 billion for war-related expenditures which best estimates show will be needed by the middle of May for current operations to remain unaffected. (The war on terror currently is being financed by supplemental appropriations like this, not through the regular budget process.) Second, it authorizes another $22 billion or so for matters entirely unrelated to prosecution of the war, including around $800 million to waive state and local government matches in Louisiana for some kinds of federal aid and $1.3 billion due to a programmatic shift of funding for flood control projects. Finally, it sets a deadline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Louisiana’s senators provide a contrast in proper understanding and wisdom concerning this bill. Republican Sen. David Vitter voted against it, even as he supported the reauthorization and the extra funding parts of it. (The non-war-related funds are highly questionable for approval now: federal government monies pumped into Louisiana have created revenue for governments far beyond what the matching requirement is, other funds given by the federal government without strings more than make up for it as well, and the flood control money will be granted later in the year during the normal budget process as there is no urgency for it now given reconstruction timelines.)
Vitter did so because he realizes that a forced withdrawal policy is tantamount to following the Democrats’ foreign policy in regards to the war – waving the white flag of surrender unconditionally. A set deadline encourages America’s enemies to wait it out, then after American departure do their best to dismantle America’s closest Arab ally, Iraq – the strategy followed in America’s major self-inflicted wound of the 20th century, the Vietnam Conflict. To allow defeat in this theater will create a worse situation than ever for America in the region. Vitter also knew that Pres. George W. Bush surely would veto the bill as it stands precisely because of this reason, so it was a grand waste of time to even consider moving it forward.
By contrast, Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu shows no such sophistication in her vote for the measure. Wringing more money more quickly out of the federal government for Louisiana might be appealing to her, but it is reckless and irresponsible for her to do so at the cost of the country’s security. She demonstrated no grasp of this simple fact, that the vote showed those voting against it were for victory, and those like her voting for it were for defeat.
Even if, as is highly likely, the Democrat-controlled Congress is forced by veto threat or reality to send a bill to Bush without the deadline within the next 45 days for which she votes, Landrieu repeatedly on this issue has shown a serious error in judgment that once again calls into question her fitness to serve as Louisiana’s senator.
31.3.07
Anti-politics-as-usual trend reconfirmed by more results
And the trend continues: candidates tainted with the perception of being “politics as usual” are going to have a hard time winning office in Louisiana this year.
The special elections for two state House seats are congruent with results of previous such legislative contests. District 4 had two ex-politicians face off, but the one who prevailed has the least connection to past politics. Democrat Patrick Williams served just a term as a Caddo Parish commissioner before choosing to run for and fail to gain this seat in 2003. His decisively defeated opponent Democrat Larry Ferdinand, by contrast, has served almost continuously in government for 30 years, first as a Shreveport city councilman, then working for the city, and most recently working for the state.
More to this point was the results of the District 94 contest, where political newcomer Republican Nick Lorusso bested fellow GOP member Jeb Bruneau. The latter is the son of the present seat-holder Peppi Bruneau, and that relationship appears to have been a major factor in Lorusso’s triumph.
The elder Bruneau resigned weeks ago in order to trigger a special election to have a winner seated right as the Apr. 30 regular session of the Legislature began. Lorusso, and others, charged it was an effort to have an election when a smaller portion of casual voters would participate and, with attention spans lower among the electorate rather than during a regular election, the Bruneau machine would get working and the Bruneau name would carry greater weight as a factor in making a vote decision to the assistance of the younger Bruneau.
Instead, this early resignation became an issue and looks to have backfired if that were the intent – but a risk perhaps the Bruneau’s were willing to take. Peppi is an astute politician and may have figured anti-incumbent or anything that smacked of an incumbent sentiment in October would make a special election a better bet for his son. If so, he underestimated the swelling of power of this sentiment that looks ready to intensify as the year moves along to the benefit of legislative newcomers and disproportionately against Democrats.
The special elections for two state House seats are congruent with results of previous such legislative contests. District 4 had two ex-politicians face off, but the one who prevailed has the least connection to past politics. Democrat Patrick Williams served just a term as a Caddo Parish commissioner before choosing to run for and fail to gain this seat in 2003. His decisively defeated opponent Democrat Larry Ferdinand, by contrast, has served almost continuously in government for 30 years, first as a Shreveport city councilman, then working for the city, and most recently working for the state.
More to this point was the results of the District 94 contest, where political newcomer Republican Nick Lorusso bested fellow GOP member Jeb Bruneau. The latter is the son of the present seat-holder Peppi Bruneau, and that relationship appears to have been a major factor in Lorusso’s triumph.
The elder Bruneau resigned weeks ago in order to trigger a special election to have a winner seated right as the Apr. 30 regular session of the Legislature began. Lorusso, and others, charged it was an effort to have an election when a smaller portion of casual voters would participate and, with attention spans lower among the electorate rather than during a regular election, the Bruneau machine would get working and the Bruneau name would carry greater weight as a factor in making a vote decision to the assistance of the younger Bruneau.
Instead, this early resignation became an issue and looks to have backfired if that were the intent – but a risk perhaps the Bruneau’s were willing to take. Peppi is an astute politician and may have figured anti-incumbent or anything that smacked of an incumbent sentiment in October would make a special election a better bet for his son. If so, he underestimated the swelling of power of this sentiment that looks ready to intensify as the year moves along to the benefit of legislative newcomers and disproportionately against Democrats.
29.3.07
Election politics driving inferior building code policy options
For readers who have been in a recent coma, yes, it is an election year in Louisiana and, yes, that means a lot of pandering by politicians will go on even if it results in counterproductive policy. One need look no further for such an example as with deliberations made by the Louisiana House’s Commerce Committee.
The panel met recently to consider the implementation of Act 12 of the 2005 First Extraordinary Session, which established a uniform building code statewide. There is at least one outstanding issue of great importance, the extra costs into the thousands of dollars that new construction has to face for inspection to meet the code, and the obvious solution there is to make following the codes voluntary to some degree, where the incentive would be paying more now to have lower insurance rates later.
Another fix would be to vastly increase the number of inspectors, which are far and few between licensed in a monopoly fashion by the International Code Council. If there’s talk of really bringing costs down, this is the place to really start with government providing incentives for individuals to get the training, or, if the sector fails to ramp up quickly and cost efficiently enough, to empower other organizations to provide it and change the law to allow them to inspect. (Presently, the law allows for just an affidavit saying a structure meets code, meaning these high costs can be avoided, but there is talk of getting rid of that provision.)
But instead of these commonsensical solutions, some legislators are going off on tangents that threaten to exacerbate the insurance crisis in Louisiana. In a nutshell, insurance prices are too high in Louisiana because of too much government regulation. Reducing government interference will encourage policy-writers, which will lower prices. (And there’s always a Department of Insurance to oversee them.)
Instead, some politicians like committee chairman Gil Pinac are saying the state should force insurers to give discounts, and others like state Rep. Billy Chandler complain that “It is time for the insurance companies to come up with a plan . . . to give a reduction in high rates.” What Chandler seems to indicate that he doesn’t know is the code went into effect only on Jan. 1 of this year, so there are few if any structures even built under the code that are occupied yet; how can companies make these kinds of decisions with such a vacuum of information?
Even a plan to have government give tax credits to those living in approved structures isn’t optimal. This would take money away from other priorities and involve government in something that the private sector perfectly can properly price by itself.
All of these proposals are impatient responses attributable to a desire to look for fall elections. Instead of thinking clearly on the issue, legislators want to be able to crow during their reelection campaigns that they got people tax credits, or forced rates down, when the sensible, optimal thing to do would be to give the private sector time to fully understand the differing levels of risk and their histories under the new code, to then price things properly. That ability will meet interference by and ultimately produce higher prices from elected officials trying to insert more government into the process.
The panel met recently to consider the implementation of Act 12 of the 2005 First Extraordinary Session, which established a uniform building code statewide. There is at least one outstanding issue of great importance, the extra costs into the thousands of dollars that new construction has to face for inspection to meet the code, and the obvious solution there is to make following the codes voluntary to some degree, where the incentive would be paying more now to have lower insurance rates later.
Another fix would be to vastly increase the number of inspectors, which are far and few between licensed in a monopoly fashion by the International Code Council. If there’s talk of really bringing costs down, this is the place to really start with government providing incentives for individuals to get the training, or, if the sector fails to ramp up quickly and cost efficiently enough, to empower other organizations to provide it and change the law to allow them to inspect. (Presently, the law allows for just an affidavit saying a structure meets code, meaning these high costs can be avoided, but there is talk of getting rid of that provision.)
But instead of these commonsensical solutions, some legislators are going off on tangents that threaten to exacerbate the insurance crisis in Louisiana. In a nutshell, insurance prices are too high in Louisiana because of too much government regulation. Reducing government interference will encourage policy-writers, which will lower prices. (And there’s always a Department of Insurance to oversee them.)
Instead, some politicians like committee chairman Gil Pinac are saying the state should force insurers to give discounts, and others like state Rep. Billy Chandler complain that “It is time for the insurance companies to come up with a plan . . . to give a reduction in high rates.” What Chandler seems to indicate that he doesn’t know is the code went into effect only on Jan. 1 of this year, so there are few if any structures even built under the code that are occupied yet; how can companies make these kinds of decisions with such a vacuum of information?
Even a plan to have government give tax credits to those living in approved structures isn’t optimal. This would take money away from other priorities and involve government in something that the private sector perfectly can properly price by itself.
All of these proposals are impatient responses attributable to a desire to look for fall elections. Instead of thinking clearly on the issue, legislators want to be able to crow during their reelection campaigns that they got people tax credits, or forced rates down, when the sensible, optimal thing to do would be to give the private sector time to fully understand the differing levels of risk and their histories under the new code, to then price things properly. That ability will meet interference by and ultimately produce higher prices from elected officials trying to insert more government into the process.
28.3.07
Foti miscalculation may harm Democrats' chances further
It appears that Louisiana Atty. Gen. Charles Foti will accept an invitation at least to review the question of whether former senator and Louisiana resident John Breaux has continued to be a “citizen” of the state. In doing so, an if we take Breaux at his word that a negative decision will dissuade him from attempting the race, Foti either can bring the state Democrats back from the brink of the political abyss, or perhaps plunge them in further.
Perhaps Breaux should be listening to fellow Democrat state Sen. Noble Ellington, who has realized among others that a Breaux candidacy would be a very poor gamble for the party’s fortunes. Despite wishful thinking on the part by Democrats, the legal odds rest very much against Breaux being declared a “citizen” of the state for he past five years as required by the state Constitution for governor, for that optimistic view rests on an interpretation that would permit even non-U.S. citizens to qualify. Democrats risk having no candidate capable of winning on the ballot at all come Oct. 20, so prudence dictates finding somebody whose qualification chances are certain.
But the political problems are perhaps even more insurmountable. A challenge to Breaux’s candidacy would drag on, even expedited, close to the election date itself, covering his candidacy in unflattering connotations, with months of prior unfavorable publicity by two, perhaps three, well-financed Republican challengers. While Breaux would be vulnerable on many fronts, his most glaring weakness would be he could not fend off accusations that he was part of a good-old-boy network trying to preserve its power by twisting the Constitution out of shape. This would be political disaster to all Democrats running at all levels, validating the suspicion of many state voters that Louisiana Democrats are too corrupt to be entrusted with running the state’s government.
Perhaps Breaux should be listening to fellow Democrat state Sen. Noble Ellington, who has realized among others that a Breaux candidacy would be a very poor gamble for the party’s fortunes. Despite wishful thinking on the part by Democrats, the legal odds rest very much against Breaux being declared a “citizen” of the state for he past five years as required by the state Constitution for governor, for that optimistic view rests on an interpretation that would permit even non-U.S. citizens to qualify. Democrats risk having no candidate capable of winning on the ballot at all come Oct. 20, so prudence dictates finding somebody whose qualification chances are certain.
But the political problems are perhaps even more insurmountable. A challenge to Breaux’s candidacy would drag on, even expedited, close to the election date itself, covering his candidacy in unflattering connotations, with months of prior unfavorable publicity by two, perhaps three, well-financed Republican challengers. While Breaux would be vulnerable on many fronts, his most glaring weakness would be he could not fend off accusations that he was part of a good-old-boy network trying to preserve its power by twisting the Constitution out of shape. This would be political disaster to all Democrats running at all levels, validating the suspicion of many state voters that Louisiana Democrats are too corrupt to be entrusted with running the state’s government.
27.3.07
Bad personnel decisions to cost Caddo, Bossier citizens
As area local governments have demonstrated with some recent decisions they’ve made, there’s a wrong way to do things and, well, there’s a wrong way to do things.
In the past this space questioned Caddo Parish’s hiring of a lobbyist at a high salary who already had little time to commit to parish work, in part because she was employed by Bossier Parish also at a high full-time salary. Particularly noteworthy was the fact that in the three years Bossier Parish had her on the payroll, apparently only about 20 percent of the money paid to her actually was spent on lobbying activities for the parish (and apparently none at all in 2006). This led to the conclusion that the smart, constituent-driven decision for both parishes would be one of (1) each paying her considerably less, (2) each paying somebody else less to do a full-time job, or (3) dispense with the position and use those resources more efficiently among existing personnel to conduct lobbying.
One could try to make an argument that such a high salary for not much work would be justified – as one consistent defender of Bossier governments wrote – by paying a lobbyist $60,000 a year to get $3.9 million in federal projects (it is claimed, without independent verification). One could, but shouldn’t if one thought critically about the issue, knew something about lobbying, and could perceive the logical absurdity behind this thought.
Academic research shows that, except in the case of the very upper tier of lobbyists (typically ex-Congressmen, ex-staffers, or a few exceptionally talented individuals), there’s essentially no relation between lobbyist characteristics (including pay) and results (which themselves are hard to measure in any event). More intuitively, there’s no reason to believe that there’s not an individual out there who could have been paid, say, $30,000 a year who could not have done as well, or even have a parish pay $10,000 in expenses spread out over one or more employees to engage in this activity – and they might have had better results, which would seem very likely given little effort was made for the $60,000 in the case of Bossier last year.
Consider as well the absurdity of the statement that parish taxpayers had to pay $60,000 to get $3.9 million. With that logic, why doesn’t Bossier Parish pay $180,000 in lobbying expenses and – presto! – $11.7 million will come rolling in and it could stop trying to soak taxpayers and start turning shovels on the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway extension tomorrow?
(Alas, for the remainder of the year area voters should be prepared to suffer more of this drivel for at least one area candidate for office looks like he’ll make this exact argument for his election. It’ll go like this: “Elect term-limited state Rep. Billy Montgomery to the state Senate because he brought X projects worth $Y to his district.” The flaw in the logic is the same – that Montgomery was totally responsible, even if he wasn’t, for getting these projects so without him District 9 would have been left destitute these past 20 years. But there’s absolutely no reason to assume somebody else other than Montgomery wouldn’t have then, and couldn’t in the future, do as good of a – or a better – job of this. In fact, I think there's someone better.)
You might think Shreveport would learn from these instances that it’s all about priorities and being good stewards of the taxpayers’ monies. Instead, it seems new Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover is as stuck on stupid.
While Glover is breaking all records in hiring personal staffers, in numbers of them and therefore salaries paid out, one job he specifically eliminated was that of city grant-writer. In great contrast the nebulous nature and indifferent results that lobbying provides, the results from grant-writing are tangible and direct.
A mayor has the right to put whomever he pleases into unclassified positions which this one was, including discharging a holdover from a previous administration. But making this a very curious decision was rather than put someone else into the job, he dispensed with it. Very likely this happened because a mayor only has a limited pool of salary money to pay out and, already having hired allies into these other jobs he created, there’s not enough to go around to keep a position into which apparently an suitable ally could not be hired.
Good grant writers, unlike most lobbyists, directly translate their work into funds because the grant process is mostly by merit infused with some politics, with lobbying being opposite. Unless one or more of Glover’s new assistants can start cranking out decent grant applications, this decision will cost a city whose financial picture currently looks bleaker rather than brighter in the future.
In the past this space questioned Caddo Parish’s hiring of a lobbyist at a high salary who already had little time to commit to parish work, in part because she was employed by Bossier Parish also at a high full-time salary. Particularly noteworthy was the fact that in the three years Bossier Parish had her on the payroll, apparently only about 20 percent of the money paid to her actually was spent on lobbying activities for the parish (and apparently none at all in 2006). This led to the conclusion that the smart, constituent-driven decision for both parishes would be one of (1) each paying her considerably less, (2) each paying somebody else less to do a full-time job, or (3) dispense with the position and use those resources more efficiently among existing personnel to conduct lobbying.
One could try to make an argument that such a high salary for not much work would be justified – as one consistent defender of Bossier governments wrote – by paying a lobbyist $60,000 a year to get $3.9 million in federal projects (it is claimed, without independent verification). One could, but shouldn’t if one thought critically about the issue, knew something about lobbying, and could perceive the logical absurdity behind this thought.
Academic research shows that, except in the case of the very upper tier of lobbyists (typically ex-Congressmen, ex-staffers, or a few exceptionally talented individuals), there’s essentially no relation between lobbyist characteristics (including pay) and results (which themselves are hard to measure in any event). More intuitively, there’s no reason to believe that there’s not an individual out there who could have been paid, say, $30,000 a year who could not have done as well, or even have a parish pay $10,000 in expenses spread out over one or more employees to engage in this activity – and they might have had better results, which would seem very likely given little effort was made for the $60,000 in the case of Bossier last year.
Consider as well the absurdity of the statement that parish taxpayers had to pay $60,000 to get $3.9 million. With that logic, why doesn’t Bossier Parish pay $180,000 in lobbying expenses and – presto! – $11.7 million will come rolling in and it could stop trying to soak taxpayers and start turning shovels on the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway extension tomorrow?
(Alas, for the remainder of the year area voters should be prepared to suffer more of this drivel for at least one area candidate for office looks like he’ll make this exact argument for his election. It’ll go like this: “Elect term-limited state Rep. Billy Montgomery to the state Senate because he brought X projects worth $Y to his district.” The flaw in the logic is the same – that Montgomery was totally responsible, even if he wasn’t, for getting these projects so without him District 9 would have been left destitute these past 20 years. But there’s absolutely no reason to assume somebody else other than Montgomery wouldn’t have then, and couldn’t in the future, do as good of a – or a better – job of this. In fact, I think there's someone better.)
You might think Shreveport would learn from these instances that it’s all about priorities and being good stewards of the taxpayers’ monies. Instead, it seems new Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover is as stuck on stupid.
While Glover is breaking all records in hiring personal staffers, in numbers of them and therefore salaries paid out, one job he specifically eliminated was that of city grant-writer. In great contrast the nebulous nature and indifferent results that lobbying provides, the results from grant-writing are tangible and direct.
A mayor has the right to put whomever he pleases into unclassified positions which this one was, including discharging a holdover from a previous administration. But making this a very curious decision was rather than put someone else into the job, he dispensed with it. Very likely this happened because a mayor only has a limited pool of salary money to pay out and, already having hired allies into these other jobs he created, there’s not enough to go around to keep a position into which apparently an suitable ally could not be hired.
Good grant writers, unlike most lobbyists, directly translate their work into funds because the grant process is mostly by merit infused with some politics, with lobbying being opposite. Unless one or more of Glover’s new assistants can start cranking out decent grant applications, this decision will cost a city whose financial picture currently looks bleaker rather than brighter in the future.
26.3.07
"Partisan" Democrat code for opposition to their policies
Befitting the name of this space, I will use my advanced education in political science to translate for readers what some members of the Louisiana Legislature mean when they say certain things. But, if readers want a summary of what it all means without this detailed explanation, they merely need to read the last quote from the previous posting.
When asked whether partisan behavior, meaning whether factions will form largely along partisan groupings in the 2007 Louisiana Legislature to contest things, will continue to increase in incidence, a number of such individuals replied:
1. Democrat House Speaker Pro-Tem Yvonne Dorsey, said “I would like to think that the partisan politics would take a backseat to some of the pressing issues we need to deal with. We should focus on those policy issues that really need to be addressed just like the governor has done in her executive budget.”
When asked whether partisan behavior, meaning whether factions will form largely along partisan groupings in the 2007 Louisiana Legislature to contest things, will continue to increase in incidence, a number of such individuals replied:
1. Democrat House Speaker Pro-Tem Yvonne Dorsey, said “I would like to think that the partisan politics would take a backseat to some of the pressing issues we need to deal with. We should focus on those policy issues that really need to be addressed just like the governor has done in her executive budget.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)