Vitter's opponents hope wishfully of his quick departure

One may wonder why so much is being made about Sen. David Vitter’s chances to “survive” in office. It’s a combination of frustration, wishful thinking, and vengeance that drives speculation that Vitter will resign his office.

Days ago Vitter apologized for his phone number being on a list released by an alleged purveyor of prostitution, and hinted of past marital problems that could have led to infidelity. But while the incident essentially ends forward progress to his political career, since he did apologize and asked forgiveness for past unspecified transgressions, unless further revelations demonstrate a lack of sincerity to it all, simply he is in no danger of losing enough public support to win reelection in 2010.

Yet a full-bore effort seems to be occurring on the basis of the fiction that somehow his position is imperiled, and it tells us something about those trying to give this credence. One doesn’t reach the U.S. Senate without making a few enemies and Vitter particularly is no exception.

Obviously, his ideological foes among Democrats and in the media see this as an opportunity to try to get rid of somebody who last week would have been considered invulnerable. But it’s a measure of desperation to float the idea that Republican Vitter goes and a deal is worked with Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco to appoint a Republican successor. That is absolute fantasy – Blanco never would give up the chance to put a Democrat in and give that person a leg up to win the special election, plus national Democrats with a razor-thin majority in the Senate would not hear of losing a chance to pad their slim lead. To speak of Vitter resigning now in support of this scenario without any additional bad news coming his way is absurd and a product of fevered imagination.

Joining these opponents are ideological friends of Vitter’s but who have clashed with him on a personal level, such as the name floated to replace him, Vitter’s erstwhile Congressional opponent and former Gov. Dave Treen. Marginalized within the GOP as Vitter ascended in power, they see the episode as a way to get back at him and to advance their own interests. However, they ignore the fact that, all things remaining equal, Vitter retains sufficient political capital to continue to win elections. Former supporters may vote against him in three years out of disgust for presumed past behavior, but there won’t be enough of them to keep him from winning and going against him out of a perception of weakness is a sucker’s bet at this juncture.

Definitely the long knives are out to get Vitter, but unless he hands a few more to his enemies, speculation on their part about his imminent departure is but wishful thinking.

Vitter likely secure, remains favorite for reelection

Republican Sen. David Vitter’s apology for his phone number turning up on a list of those revealed by a woman alleged to run a prostitution ring and his oblique confession to marital difficulties has touched off a lot of gum-flapping in Louisiana speculating on his political future. Much of it shows inferior judgment.

First, we have the musings of Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco, who feels the incident may have an impact on the state getting more resources to continue recovery from the hurricane disasters of 2005. She need not worry: the federal government will get upset when it finds out policy-makers are using such monies unwisely (which already has put Blanco herself into trouble) or if a policy-maker cannot be trusted to use his position of authority honestly (as indictments of Democrat Rep. William Jefferson indicate).

A few think Vitter should leave office, an argument of three parts. First, his stature will be reduced in the Senate by the incident. But history shows it takes more than just a sex scandal to reduce a senator’s power to insignificance. In what is no commonly referred to simply as “Chappaquiddick,” Democrat Sen. Edward Kennedy survived not just a potential sex scandal but charges he cowardly abandoned Mary Jo Kopechne in a submerged car where she drowned. The event happened almost 40 years ago but he has continued to be one of the most powerful senators and came close to winning the Democrat presidential nomination just seven years after.

Vitter apology caps political potential; may boost another's

Yesterday’s virtual admission by Sen. David Vitter that in fact he had engaged in unsavory, if not potentially illegal, behavior will have some political repercussions for himself and others.

Vitter’s volunteering that his phone number was on a list released by a woman being investigated for running a prostitution ring, along with his explanation behind the admission, tacitly admitted that he had committed marital infidelity of the possibly illegal kind. No doubt he preferred to control the timing and nature of what would be a news story by not waiting around for the curious to link the number to him.

This gets the conservative Republican into hot water for two reasons. The all-but-admission of infidelity will prompt a small portion of voters who place moral issues as primary in their voting calculus to cross him off their lists for reelection in 2010. Added to that, Vitter denied media reports prior to his election to the Senate that just such activity by him was occurring so now he appears to be a liar as well, another turn-off to such voters. (But at least he didn’t lie to a federal court as did the 42nd president.) This is because in 2002 news reports linked Vitter to another prostitute, although Vitter’s admission here did not address that allegation. However, Vitter did deny this then, so now his credibility on that past issue in light of recent revelations about that seems strained.

Teacher pay raises waste money without accountability

(link box still deosn't work: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-06-27-teacher-qualifications_N.htm?csp=34)

Soon Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco will sign off on huge pay raises for teachers that will put their typical salary around $7,000 more than the median household income in the state. It will do little or nothing to improve education in Louisiana because it does nothing to address the real problems with improving secondary education.

While advocates of the raises bleat improvement will occur, even a modicum of thought and logic destroys for the most part that assertion. By giving every existing teacher some kind of increase, it’s not going to make them better teachers just because they’re getting more money. The only possible way higher pay could increase teacher quality is in the future, fresh hires from education schools or more good veteran teachers moving into the state.

But neither of these possibilities for advancement is in any way guaranteed. In terms of new teachers, there is little evidence to suggest that the near-monopolistic providers of this labor, university education colleges, prepare students for more successful teaching. In other words, the method-heavy, content-light curricula requirements of states that these schools must follow seem to do little to encourage production of good future teachers.

Further, many states, with Louisiana being a prime example, do little to demand individual accountability from teachers. Failing to do so, such as in granting raises of roughly the same dimensions within a school district without subjecting those decisions to valid, empirical reviewing of a teacher’s performance and knowledge of subject area, means the most subpar teachers get about the same increases as the best – which provides no incentive for improving performance.

In Louisiana, that is perhaps the major reason why the state continues to lag behind, even far behind, almost every other state in outcomes. While the number of states demanding annual evaluations and/or subject knowledge testing of teachers is rising, Louisiana certifies mainly on the basis completing certain coursework resulting in education degrees and passing an exam and they are certified for life during good behavior with no requirement for review of current knowledge in their field.

Squeezing more money out of taxpayers with no guarantee of better performance may please teachers unions, but it doesn’t improve education in Louisiana. If the state is serious about overcoming perhaps its biggest obstacle to economic development, inferior education, these raises only waste money unless true individual teacher accountability measures are implemented.

Nagin governor run features unusual political calculus

http://www.995fm.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=135361?feed=135361&article=2353357 (headline link feature isn't working)


Why would New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin ever consider running for Louisiana Governor? Maybe because (and perhaps only in Louisiana) a black Democrat and Asian Republican working together can get the office they each really want – which isn’t the same one.

And that one would not be the governorship for Democrat Nagin. Surely he knows the only possible office he could win was one where black voters significantly outnumber whites, given the absolute mess he helped make of the Katrina hurricane disaster before, during, and (many still argue continuing) after. That electoral dynamic was the case in New Orleans last year, but definitely is not true regarding the entire state now.

No, the office Nagin really would be interested in is one of a few roughly in the same geographic area, is substantial, and is the only one coming open in the near future: the Second District Congressional seat. Given his indictment, current occupant Rep. William Jefferson will not last past the 2008 election, if he is not run out of the House sooner either through the Constitutional removal process or by succumbing to pressure to quit.

But making a statewide race a warmup to a contest whose constituency largely overlaps the same one encompassed by his present office, with plenty of chances to build (he would hope) positive name recognition seems wasteful of resources. It’s here where a putative opponent of Nagin’s, Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal, comes into play.

At one time there were good feelings between Nagin and Jindal – so much in fact that Jindal won Nagin’s endorsement for the 2003 governor’s contest. However, Jindal did not reciprocate during the mayor’s race so it would seem Nagin owes Jindal nothing even as Nagin’s entry into the race would benefit Jindal more than any other candidate.

In a field of floundering Democrats already, Nagin would pull mostly black votes from them, dashing the already slim hopes that either state Sen. Walter Boasso or Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell have of making a general election runoff, or even of being able to create one by denying Jindal more than half of the primary vote. Indeed, Nagin might outpace the others to get into a runoff if there is one, a race he cannot win. Either way, election of Jindal becomes an even surer thing.

So why do Jindal another favor by entering? Because a Nagin run at governor would be more than a primer for a congressional run: it also could be a way to get a sympathetic governor into office that could provide useful for Nagin’s political ambitions. Neither Boasso nor Campbell is fond of the way politics are done in New Orleans. Ideologically nor is Jindal, but if Nagin assists him in this way, Jindal, already looking pretty good, upon election might be willing to open up more state aid to New Orleans, which will make Nagin look better and give him something to run on for Congress. Further, Jindal may help behind the scenes a Nagin House candidacy and gets an ally in Congress if Nagin can win, neutralizing what almost surely much more hostile potential occupants of that seat.


Jindal and Nagin may never have spoken to each other about this, but don’t bet against the two of them separately computing the political calculus along these lines on this one.

ACLU anti-religion agenda on parade again in LA case

You can be sure of three things in life – death, taxes, and the American Civil Liberties Union will go out of its way to manufacture offense and use this tactic to try to rewrite the Constitution the way it thinks it should read. Thus, we get the ACLU suing various St. Tammany Parish governments over a display of a religious icon in Slidell City Court.

The ACLU sued after the Court refused to remove the display, an eastern Orthodox rendition of Jesus holding up what appears to be the New Testament with the inscription, “To Know Peace, Obey These Laws.” It only took them about a decade to decide there was something wrong with the display and already seem to be on the defensive when their spokesman asserted, “We did not file this lawsuit because the ACLU is anti-religion” (yeah, right).

Fortunately, the indispensable Alliance Defense Fund is on the job with one of Louisiana’s underappreciated gems Mike Johnson defending pro bono, so taxpayers won’t spend a penny on this nonsense. How it will turn out is anybody’s guess.

No doubt this is the kind of case likely to head eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court which is only slightly more conservative in the past couple of years even with a couple of recent Pres. George W. Bush appointees sitting on it. Further, not much in the way of religious expression has been ruled upon by the Court recently, the most recent being the asinine “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” prank which the Court tailored narrowly along the lines of free speech that meant their ruling against that speech basically did not touch the question of religious expression.

Hopefully the Court will see through the ACLU’s blather that the icon conveys the impression that only Christians will receive justice (the figure is not even identified as Christ, and surely the ACLU knows that secular law is not the same as that from the Bible and law enforcement and judges are sworn to uphold the former). But it may be a couple of years or more before a final decision somewhere in the federal judiciary is rendered.

Independence Day, 2007

This column publishes every Sunday through Thursday after noon (sometimes even before; maybe even after sundown on busy days) U.S. Central Time except whenever a significant national holiday falls on the Monday through Friday associated with the otherwise-usual publication on the previous day (unless it is Independence Day or Christmas when it is the day on which the holiday is observed by the U.S. government). In my opinion, there are six of these: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas.

With Wednesday, Jul. 4 being Independence Day, I invite you to explore the link above.

Govt immobilism not bad, but not likely next year in LA

One review of the recently completed regular session of the Louisiana Legislature ponders the part increased partisan behavior in the chambers played, and will play in the future, in legislating. The author muses that the “all-or-nothing approach portends a new era of hard-core divisiveness along party lines that Republicans seem to want, perhaps anticipating a GOP takeover of at least the House of Representatives and, very likely, the Governor's Mansion. But what happens to [likely top job winner] Gov. [Bobby] Jindal when the Democrats, who next year will likely hold a lot more House seats than the GOP currently holds, decide to respond in kind?”

This statement ignores a couple of important considerations. First, it doesn’t seem to acknowledge that there were very valid and important reasons why House Republicans did what they could, which turned out not to be much, to slow down the ill-advised budget-making going on by state Democrats. Little was done in reversing the state government’s decades-old disastrous affair with populism and liberalism and one has to give the GOP credit for standing up at least and registering significant, if ineffective, opposition. To sit idly by and watch an accident that can be prevented is a disservice to your constituents and the state, and even a shirking of moral duty, and if it takes a partisan, conflictual approach to prevent it, this is to be applauded.

Unfortunately, many commentators and, worse, politicians in this state don’t have a genuine understanding of the theory behind the republican, tri-partite system of significant separation of powers that is the model for the federal and state governments in the U.S. It is designed to be largely immobilized when lack of consensus exists, under the notion that possessing sufficient majorities to get things done shows that a majority of interests feels it has protected it members enough from government power against their interests. Roughly speaking (and only roughly because we know this is not always true), if enough people think it’s the right thing to do, it probably is, and thus in our system of government it gets done.

Further, these unfortunates then lament the times when government isn’t “doing” things, failing to understand that failure to make policy in certain areas is a sign of the polity’s health, that the lack of necessary consensus around a policy area is a warning sign that something risky that could injure a significant portion of the polity may occur. So if the Legislature grinds to a halt with a Republican House, Democrat Senate, and GOP governor, fine, because the path its been going on has not been a salutary one in any event and doing nothing is better than continuing on it.

But, and secondly, it’s not likely to come to this. Consider that, as weak of a governor as Kathleen Blanco was, she still managed considerable success with her generally overall harmful budget priorities by using the powers formal and informal of her office. Now envision Jindal in her position, swept, as all indicators seem to point, into office with a massive mandate, pulling with him a GOP House majority and a couple of pickups in the Senate, and imagine what he will be able to do.

While a putative GOP majority in the House will be slender, and the Senate still firmly in Democrat hands, do not forget that the governor’s major power hits far closer to home to the populist liberals that will almost exclusively comprise Democrats than it does the reformer conservatives that will make up the vast majority of Republicans: the ability to control spending. While Republicans are not averse to throwing some money around, their fundamentally different ideological view that government is to redistribute the people’s resources only in the last resort gives a governor reduced leverage of threat to use vetoes to control their behavior.

However, the entire worldview of Democrats rests on government getting as much of the people’s resources as possible and then redistributing it to their favorite groups and causes. This gives the governor’s decisions on spending much more prominence in their political worlds. And it’s a safe bet that Jindal will not hesitate at all in the use of this power to make enough Democrat opponents knuckle under, at least in his first session.

By its nature, government has the potential to do far more harm than good so a stalemated government is not at all undesirable. Yet given current political trends this is unlikely to occur next year in any event in Louisiana.

Blanco likely to emphasize politics in veto choices

Is there really much doubt that Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco will veto few, if any, tax break bills passed by the Louisiana Legislature that go into effect before or after Dec. 31, 2007? Because for her it is all about a “legacy” first, her party’s fortunes second, and the state’s fiscal health last.

In the waning days, even hours, of the just-concluded regular session, a number of bills were passed grating tax breaks that would take effect only after Blanco was out of office. Why don’t they take effect for 2007, if they are so laudable? Because Blanco decreed that she would wield a veto pen to prevent more being taken than $150 million in tax cuts, out of a budgetary surplus of $3.5 billion in a budget that ended up spending about $32 billion. She later averred that she would accept about $180 million and the best estimate that exists for the actual amount applied for this year is $189 million.

But including all tax cuts puts the amount closer to $500 million. If she vetoes none, this implies she expects state revenues to grow by $300 million or so above and beyond inflationary increases at current service levels. It may or may not happen. While tax cuts to a certain point generally eventually provide more government revenue, targeted tax cuts such as these are less effective and it does take time for the economy, spurred by the cuts, to grow. This is why Blanco needed not to spend so much of the surplus on recurring items of dubious need.

Without a great deal of certainty that such revenue increases will materialize (and at this point the best guess is that they are not likely to do so), the prudent thing for Blanco to do would be to disallow them in order to prevent a future fiscal crisis hampering the state’s next governor and legislators. However, she has three incentives to disregard that course of action.

First, to be charitable, Blanco has had a dismal record as governor. She faltered badly in handling the 2005 hurricane disasters and their aftermath, and more generally has done little to improve Louisiana’s quality of life. Going out with a bunch of tax cutting to her credit will raise people’s opinion of her and might cause historians to look more kindly on her reign of error.

Second, the overwhelming favorite to succeed her is Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal and it is at least an even-money proposition that the state House of Representatives will get captured by the GOP. Making a state government mainly led for the first time ever after Reconstruction by Republicans deal with any fiscal crisis that would occur – ironically caused by the party that previously monopolized power, the Democrats – would damage politically the GOP in the state, something about which Blanco will not shed many tears.

Third, and most obvious, Blanco believes in some of the items given her political liberalism. Chief among these is a measure making the state give money to tax filers of lower incomes who don’t even owe any state income taxes.

Blanco’s inability to accept she is at the root of many policy failures in the state, her past partisan posturing as well as her insistence that others, not her, are to blame for problems during her governorship that will cause an inordinate focusing on a “legacy,” are disturbing indicators that her veto decisions at least in part will be made on these kinds of political considerations, and not primarily on the basis of what is good for the state’s fiscal picture after she has left office.

Having, eating cake describes Legislature ethics bill kill

I guess I should have stayed pessimistic instead of looking for a silver lining earlier today. Snatching death from the jaws of life, the Louisiana Legislature managed to kill meaningful ethics reform this afternoon.

HB 730 would have required, at a very minimum, every elected official in the state and then some except for some smallest jurisdictions to report for themselves and from immediate family members some broad categories of income in a process that likely would take 10 minutes to complete – done by state and local elected officials in almost 20 states already. After both houses basically unanimously agreed to versions that were not very different from each other, and three conferees from each chamber agreed on one compromise version, the House rejected the report and the Senate then refused to consider it.

Being so close to agreement, it’s hard to believe it would founder at the last minute. The official excuse given was that, from the House’s perspective, the conference’s stripping application to local elected office – even though both the entire Senate and House had agreed to that – made the bill unpalatable enough.

Removing that procedure in conference appears to have come from conferee Democrat Senate Pres. Don Hines, as a kind of final “up yours” to the state of Louisiana before he is term-limited into a long overdue retirement. Author Democrat state Rep. Michael Jackson told the House he thought the Senate wouldn’t pass the conference version, therefore, even though it had previously, and just enough House members thought they would just as soon, as Jackson said, throw the baby out with the bathwater, in a narrow vote.

It seems so very odd that something the chambers had agreed upon without really any dissent should, on the final day of the session, suddenly become a deal breaker. Why did it out of the blue become a problem? And why would the House prefer to go with no loaf than half a loaf? Wouldn’t reporting requirements on legislators even without local officials be better than none?

Apparently not, and this surface logical disconnect fuels the notion that the fix was in all of the time, at least for enough legislators to cause its failure. Enough of them may have wanted to get a vote in showing they “cared” about higher ethical standards, but then House members could turn around and say they essentially killed the bill because it didn’t “do enough” by removal of the local official provision, while Senators got a free ride. Everybody’s for ethics reform, on the record – and yet there’s no change whatsoever.

This ridiculous ending only adds more tarnish to an already underachieving session – but (again straining to see a silver lining) maybe will cause even more disenchantment among the Louisiana people to elect candidates this fall that will bring about real reform in the near future.