The good news for gubernatorial candidate Democrat state Sen. Walter Boasso is that his support for the job leapt 150 percent in the past couple of months. The bad news is that 2.5 times nothing is still nothing and five-sixths of everything for his main competitor leaves him very much on the defensive in this contest.
Boasso’s poll puts him at 21 percent in the race after a $1.3 million advertising blitz. Problem is that trails frontrunner Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal who barely has spent any money at all and who just formally started his campaign by 31 points who went from 62 percent, according to the released results. That still would give Jindal the outright win.
Curiously, the over-time comparison of results had undecided voters increase by half to 21 percent, bringing that figure up from its unusually low level five months prior to the contest. This likely represents soft supporters for Jindal, who recognized his name and little else and gave previous support on that basis, detached by Boasso’s media blitz. That’s not good news at all for the recent returnee to the Democrats because this result shows the floor for Jindal support is right around the majority mark.
Besides the fact that Boasso spent big and could not even reduce his gap to Jindal who spent little by half, and that Jindal still has a majority, news for him will get worse if New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin launches a quixotic campaign for the office. The poll under-sampled blacks (who are most likely to vote for Democrat Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell, who the poll showed losing a third of his small support, under the current lineup) and thus overstated Boasso’s support somewhat, but if Nagin actually gets in, by these numbers Boasso will lose the most and almost guarantee his inability to make a general election runoff, if Jindal even lets it come to that.
So while there’s good short-term news in the poll for Boasso, with little to cheer about previously, the long-term picture still remains grim for him or anybody else other than Jindal for this fall.
18.7.07
Vitter annoys media by not cooperating with their agenda
If a recent editorial by the Shreveport Times and other offerings are any indication, the media feel the pain of betrayal at the hands of Sen. David Vitter. But it’s a different betrayal than what some in the public may feel about his moral lapse.
Earlier this week Vitter essentially reiterated an apology for a “serious sin” that remained unnamed but highly likely is related to the presence of his phone number on a list provided by s suspected escort service operator. In general this annoyed the liberal media, most of who never have liked the conservative Republican Vitter and would like to see him out of office. They sensed this was a moment of vulnerability for him and his refusal to deal any more with the matter made them keenly aware his possible departure from office was slipping from their grasp. And they are not happy about it.
This reaction also highlights another attitude all too prevalent in today’s media – that the media somehow are the “guardians” of the public trust and for Vitter not to give them information that could help them live up to this self-assumed, erroneous view of themselves (as well as use that information to boost audience and run him out of office) they think cheats them and disserves the American public. Such egotism shows how far out of touch they are with the real world.
Earlier this week Vitter essentially reiterated an apology for a “serious sin” that remained unnamed but highly likely is related to the presence of his phone number on a list provided by s suspected escort service operator. In general this annoyed the liberal media, most of who never have liked the conservative Republican Vitter and would like to see him out of office. They sensed this was a moment of vulnerability for him and his refusal to deal any more with the matter made them keenly aware his possible departure from office was slipping from their grasp. And they are not happy about it.
This reaction also highlights another attitude all too prevalent in today’s media – that the media somehow are the “guardians” of the public trust and for Vitter not to give them information that could help them live up to this self-assumed, erroneous view of themselves (as well as use that information to boost audience and run him out of office) they think cheats them and disserves the American public. Such egotism shows how far out of touch they are with the real world.
17.7.07
Contrived sideshows unlikely to slow Jindal juggernaut
Both those presumably for and against Rep. Bobby Jindal in his quest to become governor of Louisiana tried to rain on his parade yesterday; that is, his formal campaign kickoff. But it’s unlikely to have any significant impact on its final outcome.
One could argue (as members of a group, of which I was formerly associated, rather unconvincingly did) that the slightly earlier news conference staged by Sen. David Vitter to some degree did upstage Jindal’s highly publicized announcement. Vitter had promised a statement about his apology last week for his phone number showing up in the records of an alleged leader of a prostitution ring, which contained little else other than what he had said last week, and delivered it about an hour before Jindal’s start.
While it might have been a slight show of defiance from Vitter to the man who most assuredly will become the undisputed leader of the state GOP to eclipse him, more likely Vitter did so in order to create further distraction from his situation.
If so, it seemed hardly to work as the media were there in force and brazenly insistent on his spilling his guts, like those who attend stock car races solely for the purpose of hoping to catch a glimpse of fatal crashes.
No doubt their journalistic twins waited for, or even possibly some actually at the Vitter sideshow then scurried over to, the Jindal announcement and almost immediately asked how Jindal would treat Vitter and his revelations. Jindal coolly said he had said everything he wanted to about that and minimized the media’s story plans by reminding them this was his campaign and about the future of state government.
16.7.07
Selective outrage shows what LA Dems really think
One has to laugh at the selective outrage and post-modern hypocrisy shown by the Louisiana Democrat Party in its online petition for Republican Sen. David Vitter to resign – but in the process also to realize what it tells us about them.
Last week, Vitter issued an apology for an unspecified “sin” after his phone number turned up on a list connected to an alleged brothel operator in Washington, D.C. Previously politically invulnerable, Vitter’s enemies piled on him that is unlikely to remove him from office one way or the other for a long time.
That reality isn’t keeping state Democrats from trying with this petition which presents a reason for him to resign as being “hypocritical.” Funny thing is, though, that the very selectivity of its outrage demonstrates the hypocrisy of the party itself in revealing their hypocritical view of what “hypocrisy” is.
Vitter has admitted to no crime nor does it appear he is prosecutable for any crime, much less one of dealing with corrupt activities while in office. He confesses error in his personal life and promises to do (and apparently has done) better. Yet Democrat Rep. William Jefferson is indicted for corrupt activities while in office and I don’t see any calls from his state party for his resignation. Nor when former Democrat Gov. Prisoner 03128-095 was known as the “Silver Zipper” for his activities did we see his party ask for his resignation.
The reason, of course, is that Democrats know they are seen as the anti-moral party. It particularly enrages them that some Republicans get elected by stressing morality in both personal and public behavior and/or try to encourage it in public policy and then every once-in-awhile one of them is found not to have lived up to those articulated standards in private life. As far as Republicans go, that somehow then disqualifies them from serving in office.
Well, let me pose this question for my Democrat friends: is not better to aim high and occasionally miss than to aim low and never miss? Who would you rather have in office, someone who ethically promises much and delivers almost always, or someone who promises little and maybe can’t even do that?
More to the point, if a Democrat who never stressed moral behavior in campaigns or legislation gets in a similar situation as Vitter, is he not just as culpable and would we not demand true repentance on his part? After all, marriage vows are not contingent on your party affiliation (something Democrats seem to have forgotten in the case of Democrat Pres. Bill Clinton who went even farther by committing illegal acts to prevent investigation of the matter).
Or by the resignation call for Vitter by state Democrats on the basis of being “hypocritical” show that they believe not stressing values in campaigns and legislation inoculates one from any evaluation of yourself in moral terms, i.e. you can behave immorally if you don’t stress these things? Maybe that’s why Democrats often promote the idea that government should not encourage “conventional” morality so we are as free as we want to act badly without taking personal responsibility for that?
In the end, there are going to be former supporters of Vitter who feel betrayed because in moments of weakness (apparently now long past) Vitter failed to practice what he preached – values these people place primacy in not only in their own lives but in how they evaluate a politician. Their outrage is deserved and justified. But while marital fidelity and related moral precepts are meaningful values in these people’s lives, to the state Democrats they are merely political issues they try to use for personal gain. The political impact of the petition will be nil; the real message of the effort will be the demonstration that this is how state Democrats see moral “values.”
Last week, Vitter issued an apology for an unspecified “sin” after his phone number turned up on a list connected to an alleged brothel operator in Washington, D.C. Previously politically invulnerable, Vitter’s enemies piled on him that is unlikely to remove him from office one way or the other for a long time.
That reality isn’t keeping state Democrats from trying with this petition which presents a reason for him to resign as being “hypocritical.” Funny thing is, though, that the very selectivity of its outrage demonstrates the hypocrisy of the party itself in revealing their hypocritical view of what “hypocrisy” is.
Vitter has admitted to no crime nor does it appear he is prosecutable for any crime, much less one of dealing with corrupt activities while in office. He confesses error in his personal life and promises to do (and apparently has done) better. Yet Democrat Rep. William Jefferson is indicted for corrupt activities while in office and I don’t see any calls from his state party for his resignation. Nor when former Democrat Gov. Prisoner 03128-095 was known as the “Silver Zipper” for his activities did we see his party ask for his resignation.
The reason, of course, is that Democrats know they are seen as the anti-moral party. It particularly enrages them that some Republicans get elected by stressing morality in both personal and public behavior and/or try to encourage it in public policy and then every once-in-awhile one of them is found not to have lived up to those articulated standards in private life. As far as Republicans go, that somehow then disqualifies them from serving in office.
Well, let me pose this question for my Democrat friends: is not better to aim high and occasionally miss than to aim low and never miss? Who would you rather have in office, someone who ethically promises much and delivers almost always, or someone who promises little and maybe can’t even do that?
More to the point, if a Democrat who never stressed moral behavior in campaigns or legislation gets in a similar situation as Vitter, is he not just as culpable and would we not demand true repentance on his part? After all, marriage vows are not contingent on your party affiliation (something Democrats seem to have forgotten in the case of Democrat Pres. Bill Clinton who went even farther by committing illegal acts to prevent investigation of the matter).
Or by the resignation call for Vitter by state Democrats on the basis of being “hypocritical” show that they believe not stressing values in campaigns and legislation inoculates one from any evaluation of yourself in moral terms, i.e. you can behave immorally if you don’t stress these things? Maybe that’s why Democrats often promote the idea that government should not encourage “conventional” morality so we are as free as we want to act badly without taking personal responsibility for that?
In the end, there are going to be former supporters of Vitter who feel betrayed because in moments of weakness (apparently now long past) Vitter failed to practice what he preached – values these people place primacy in not only in their own lives but in how they evaluate a politician. Their outrage is deserved and justified. But while marital fidelity and related moral precepts are meaningful values in these people’s lives, to the state Democrats they are merely political issues they try to use for personal gain. The political impact of the petition will be nil; the real message of the effort will be the demonstration that this is how state Democrats see moral “values.”
15.7.07
LeBlanc cannot defend poor Blanco budget choices
So Louisiana Commissioner of Administration Jerry Luke LeBlanc challenged critics of the Blanco administration's financial decisions to supply a list of better ways to use state general revenue and surplus funds? Coming right up; he isn’t going to like being reminded of the Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s administrations shortcomings in this regard.
First, he says the huge increase in state spending – around $32 billion when everything is thrown in, more than double a decade ago – is skewed because a quarter of that is in federal funds related to disaster recovery spending. But that view misses the point that, on a comparative basis, state spending already was too high to begin with. And Blanco just made it worse, epitomized by spending, in a state whose population is declining, not only to continue to fund vacant state positions, but to give these “ghosts” pay raises and create almost 1,200 new jobs on top of them.
Second, he brushed aside criticism that the state budget contained tens of millions of dollars in local projects and/or ones of dubious statewide interest by asserting he has resisted this idea and tried to stop it. That’s hard to take seriously: if Blanco really wanted to stop those kinds of items from popping up, she would use her line-item veto them. The fact is, neither LeBlanc nor Blanco wanted to stop the practice because it serves their political and ideological interests.
Third, LeBlanc argued of a lack of perspective, that huge, even “historic” amounts had been budgeted by Blanco to address long-standing needs. Certainly $600 million against a $14 billion backlog in roads (a portion he did not define of which he dismissed as “the magic wish list”) is a lot and a record sum. But if Blanco were serious about these needs, she would have put into a place a mechanism to make sure the backlog was kept at a minimum. Instead, her administration argued against the likes of HB 722 which could have started sending annually at least $300 million a year for transportation needs.
The way that bill would have worked, it would have removed money going now into the general fund from transportation-related revenue sources, meaning there’s that much less to spend on recurring commitments. But considering that the state is overpaying about $100 million a year in long-term health care costs, refuses to reform indigent health care to make it more cost efficient, and has wasted hundreds of million on building lakes, among many poor uses of funds, this would not be a problem – and the Blanco Administration did nothing to stop or solve for these. Again, it’s not “you have to say enough is enough,” it’s a simple matter of political will: this reordering of priorities doesn’t occur because the Blanco Administration has other political goals in mind which involved making government bigger.
Fourth, in terms of the foolishly forgone option of giving tax cuts greater than the roughly one half of one percent of the entire budget that Blanco has allowed, LeBlanc seemed wedded to the tired, disproven idea that reducing the size of government takings from the people have a negative impact on future state revenues. As demonstrated historically time and time again, tax cuts lead to economic development that increases funding to government naturally since the economy grows. This, however, runs counter to the Blanco Administration’s belief that it is government that knows best what to do with the people’s money to develop the state economically.
Finally, this attitude is reflected further in LeBlanc’s of claims plowing money into high-profile areas that will help the economy grow, such as in secondary education. But this will turn out to be just good money chasing bad if not done correctly, and Blanco’s approach – throw money at teachers without asking for accountability from them in their job performances – leaves little confidence that there will be any real improvement in education quality in the state.
Nice try, but for those who know something about this latest budget and understand behind it its liberal/populist precepts, proven bankrupt both logically and historically, LeBlanc’s rhetorical defense of the Blanco’s Administration throwing away a great opportunity fools no one.
First, he says the huge increase in state spending – around $32 billion when everything is thrown in, more than double a decade ago – is skewed because a quarter of that is in federal funds related to disaster recovery spending. But that view misses the point that, on a comparative basis, state spending already was too high to begin with. And Blanco just made it worse, epitomized by spending, in a state whose population is declining, not only to continue to fund vacant state positions, but to give these “ghosts” pay raises and create almost 1,200 new jobs on top of them.
Second, he brushed aside criticism that the state budget contained tens of millions of dollars in local projects and/or ones of dubious statewide interest by asserting he has resisted this idea and tried to stop it. That’s hard to take seriously: if Blanco really wanted to stop those kinds of items from popping up, she would use her line-item veto them. The fact is, neither LeBlanc nor Blanco wanted to stop the practice because it serves their political and ideological interests.
Third, LeBlanc argued of a lack of perspective, that huge, even “historic” amounts had been budgeted by Blanco to address long-standing needs. Certainly $600 million against a $14 billion backlog in roads (a portion he did not define of which he dismissed as “the magic wish list”) is a lot and a record sum. But if Blanco were serious about these needs, she would have put into a place a mechanism to make sure the backlog was kept at a minimum. Instead, her administration argued against the likes of HB 722 which could have started sending annually at least $300 million a year for transportation needs.
The way that bill would have worked, it would have removed money going now into the general fund from transportation-related revenue sources, meaning there’s that much less to spend on recurring commitments. But considering that the state is overpaying about $100 million a year in long-term health care costs, refuses to reform indigent health care to make it more cost efficient, and has wasted hundreds of million on building lakes, among many poor uses of funds, this would not be a problem – and the Blanco Administration did nothing to stop or solve for these. Again, it’s not “you have to say enough is enough,” it’s a simple matter of political will: this reordering of priorities doesn’t occur because the Blanco Administration has other political goals in mind which involved making government bigger.
Fourth, in terms of the foolishly forgone option of giving tax cuts greater than the roughly one half of one percent of the entire budget that Blanco has allowed, LeBlanc seemed wedded to the tired, disproven idea that reducing the size of government takings from the people have a negative impact on future state revenues. As demonstrated historically time and time again, tax cuts lead to economic development that increases funding to government naturally since the economy grows. This, however, runs counter to the Blanco Administration’s belief that it is government that knows best what to do with the people’s money to develop the state economically.
Finally, this attitude is reflected further in LeBlanc’s of claims plowing money into high-profile areas that will help the economy grow, such as in secondary education. But this will turn out to be just good money chasing bad if not done correctly, and Blanco’s approach – throw money at teachers without asking for accountability from them in their job performances – leaves little confidence that there will be any real improvement in education quality in the state.
Nice try, but for those who know something about this latest budget and understand behind it its liberal/populist precepts, proven bankrupt both logically and historically, LeBlanc’s rhetorical defense of the Blanco’s Administration throwing away a great opportunity fools no one.
12.7.07
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.
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.
11.7.07
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.
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.
10.7.07
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.
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.
9.7.07
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.
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.
8.7.07
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)