Recently I heard my new boss of bosses Louisiana State University President John Lombardi give the commencement speech at LSUS and was pretty good as far as those things go -- brief, to the point, and actually of some use to a graduate. If only he had brought comparable ability to his criticism of the idea of utilizing transportation-related revenues to fund only transportation-building expenses – both in the exposition of his argument and in its political consequences.
The idea initially broached previous to last year’s legislative session was projected to shift somewhere between $300-350 million from the state’s general fund (which represented about $8 billion in revenues this past budget year) to transportation needs – about the rate of one year growth of the general fund. Because of higher gas prices, the most recent estimate puts the amount at over $450 million.
Lombardi is perturbed at this idea of dedication of funds, which if accomplished would eat away at the $14 billion backlog in transportation needs in about 30 years, because he thinks it would take away funds from higher education. He notes that discretionary spending from the general fund (almost half of it) would bear all of the “reduction” and with education as a whole making up about half of that, higher education would lose a significant portion of funding.
16.1.08
Ethics proposals good start, but Jindal should go for more
Although Gov. Bobby Jindal called the report released by his ethics advisory panel a “good start” and that it was not “set in stone,” he should give serious consideration to pushing legislation that is at least as stringent as the recommendations, if not more so.
Especially valuable is the extension of disclosure requirements to all state Cabinet appointees and elected officials even at the local level (except for offices of municipalities of fewer that 5,000). The prevailing philosophy seems to be if you are elected or have a full-time state appointive job at the highest level you should be subject to annual disclosure requirements of income divided into five categories.
But it would be better to go a little further. All administrative (but not those solely designated as policy-making assistants) appointed full-time employees at the state level should be included. Legislation also should empower local governments to apply those same standards to their full-time, appointive administrative personnel.
Having such standards at the state level will be controversial but given the attention to the issue and that a large portion of the new Legislature committed to a similar agenda through Blueprint Louisiana’s pre-election efforts, if Jindal accepts these recommendations they ought to go through. Much more controversial is the extension to local officials, on which Jindal did not specifically campaign and was the reason a combined bill despite overwhelming legislative majorities got sidetracked last session.
Jindal has indicated he would support a separate local bill which makes political sense in that objections to it would not derail automatically a statewide version. Of course, that means it makes it easier to defeat a bill addressing local officials. When about a couple of dozen other states already have such laws covering local officials there’s no reason Louisiana shouldn’t as well, especially with the 5,000 population exception, and hopefully Jindal will push as strongly for this as for a law dealing with state offices.
Entering into state contracts by legislators and their families also will provoke serious opposition among some lawmakers. Some will argue it would discourage quality potential legislators from wanting to run, and might especially be constraining regarding lightly-populated areas where few providers of a service exist to contract with the state.
However a law like this already exists, dealing with hurricane recovery contracts and its presence hasn’t seemed to have damaged the state. Moreover, Jindal has justified a ban of this nature with a very compelling argument: elected office to serve the people is a privilege, not a right, and so one must choose whether to gain access to it by meeting certain requirements. If you want to serve but you have a potential conflict under such a law, you either must decline the opportunity, or change your career and/or job to do so. Nobody is being forced to run for public office at the expense of his ability to earn a living. This point Jindal must drive home again and again to overcome resistance.
Recommending reporting transactions electronically is long overdue. In today’s world of technology, there’s no reason a candidate or lobbyist cannot download simple software from the state, take a few minutes here and there to update transactions, and through the Internet send the report to the state. Under the option to report by paper still available, it is difficult and cumbersome to find out information about campaigns, contributors, and lobbying. Jindal has preached transparency will prevail under his administration: he needs to put great effort into getting this kind of legislation passed.
The board did not recommend a total ban on lobbyist-provided victuals, but that also is worth pursuing. Many other states do it, and there’s no real reason for lobbyists to be able to pay for these things. Why must lobbyists be able to buy meals and the like for officials? Do they have to lobby over the lunch hour? Why can’t they transact business during business hours and leave legislators in peace to eat?
Along with the other recommendations made, adopting these as well will maximize transparency and minimize the potential for corruption. These items must find their way onto Jindal’s special session call coming up within the next couple of weeks.
Especially valuable is the extension of disclosure requirements to all state Cabinet appointees and elected officials even at the local level (except for offices of municipalities of fewer that 5,000). The prevailing philosophy seems to be if you are elected or have a full-time state appointive job at the highest level you should be subject to annual disclosure requirements of income divided into five categories.
But it would be better to go a little further. All administrative (but not those solely designated as policy-making assistants) appointed full-time employees at the state level should be included. Legislation also should empower local governments to apply those same standards to their full-time, appointive administrative personnel.
Having such standards at the state level will be controversial but given the attention to the issue and that a large portion of the new Legislature committed to a similar agenda through Blueprint Louisiana’s pre-election efforts, if Jindal accepts these recommendations they ought to go through. Much more controversial is the extension to local officials, on which Jindal did not specifically campaign and was the reason a combined bill despite overwhelming legislative majorities got sidetracked last session.
Jindal has indicated he would support a separate local bill which makes political sense in that objections to it would not derail automatically a statewide version. Of course, that means it makes it easier to defeat a bill addressing local officials. When about a couple of dozen other states already have such laws covering local officials there’s no reason Louisiana shouldn’t as well, especially with the 5,000 population exception, and hopefully Jindal will push as strongly for this as for a law dealing with state offices.
Entering into state contracts by legislators and their families also will provoke serious opposition among some lawmakers. Some will argue it would discourage quality potential legislators from wanting to run, and might especially be constraining regarding lightly-populated areas where few providers of a service exist to contract with the state.
However a law like this already exists, dealing with hurricane recovery contracts and its presence hasn’t seemed to have damaged the state. Moreover, Jindal has justified a ban of this nature with a very compelling argument: elected office to serve the people is a privilege, not a right, and so one must choose whether to gain access to it by meeting certain requirements. If you want to serve but you have a potential conflict under such a law, you either must decline the opportunity, or change your career and/or job to do so. Nobody is being forced to run for public office at the expense of his ability to earn a living. This point Jindal must drive home again and again to overcome resistance.
Recommending reporting transactions electronically is long overdue. In today’s world of technology, there’s no reason a candidate or lobbyist cannot download simple software from the state, take a few minutes here and there to update transactions, and through the Internet send the report to the state. Under the option to report by paper still available, it is difficult and cumbersome to find out information about campaigns, contributors, and lobbying. Jindal has preached transparency will prevail under his administration: he needs to put great effort into getting this kind of legislation passed.
The board did not recommend a total ban on lobbyist-provided victuals, but that also is worth pursuing. Many other states do it, and there’s no real reason for lobbyists to be able to pay for these things. Why must lobbyists be able to buy meals and the like for officials? Do they have to lobby over the lunch hour? Why can’t they transact business during business hours and leave legislators in peace to eat?
Along with the other recommendations made, adopting these as well will maximize transparency and minimize the potential for corruption. These items must find their way onto Jindal’s special session call coming up within the next couple of weeks.
15.1.08
Jindal puts money where mouth is, at least as a start
The right way to do things by executive fiat Gov. Bobby Jindal delivered today in executive orders that force beginning next year from Louisiana cabinet members financial disclosure and compels their resignation henceforth if indicted, public listing by state website of what entities get state contracts and grants and for what purposes, and freezing hiring in most parts of Louisiana government (excepting essentially the Legislature and judiciary) and requiring the responsible officers to demonstrate the savings achieved (but also allowing them to ask for exceptions to be made) at risk of losing their salaries.
Hopefully, these actions will begin to put to rest the fiction, embraced by some in the state despite so much overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that we don’t know what Jindal is going to do as governor and/or he’s being too vague with his agenda. As of his first full day in office, he’s doing exactly the specific things he generally promised way before, during, and after his campaign – bringing more transparency and efficiency to government.
Now it is only the first day, these aren’t that far-reaching of policy changes, and the true cynics included in the deluded described above will say they are for show. But the fact is he did these things that could have been done just as easily by the likes of former Gov. Kathleen Blanco. Yet she chose not to take even these easy, elementary steps while Jindal delivered.
The wrong way to do things by executive power, by great contrast, comes as a suggestion from former Gov. Dave Treen – to commute the sentence of felon ex-Gov. Edwin Edwards. To do so would signal that if you are slick enough to avoid being caught until and/or commit felonies in your later years against the people of the state from a position of their trust, you’ll get a reduced sentence. That’s a message hopefully Pres. George W. Bush will not want to send despite pleadings potentially from his father and Treen. Unlike Jindal’s approach, that won’t reduce the temptation for public officials to do mischief in the state.
Jindal’s off to a good start that, especially with the contracts and grants order that will show exactly what organizations are getting what, will anger members of the existing power structure in the state who have shuttled in the shadows money to certain beneficiaries of these contracts and grants. Let’s hope he keeps it up.
Hopefully, these actions will begin to put to rest the fiction, embraced by some in the state despite so much overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that we don’t know what Jindal is going to do as governor and/or he’s being too vague with his agenda. As of his first full day in office, he’s doing exactly the specific things he generally promised way before, during, and after his campaign – bringing more transparency and efficiency to government.
Now it is only the first day, these aren’t that far-reaching of policy changes, and the true cynics included in the deluded described above will say they are for show. But the fact is he did these things that could have been done just as easily by the likes of former Gov. Kathleen Blanco. Yet she chose not to take even these easy, elementary steps while Jindal delivered.
The wrong way to do things by executive power, by great contrast, comes as a suggestion from former Gov. Dave Treen – to commute the sentence of felon ex-Gov. Edwin Edwards. To do so would signal that if you are slick enough to avoid being caught until and/or commit felonies in your later years against the people of the state from a position of their trust, you’ll get a reduced sentence. That’s a message hopefully Pres. George W. Bush will not want to send despite pleadings potentially from his father and Treen. Unlike Jindal’s approach, that won’t reduce the temptation for public officials to do mischief in the state.
Jindal’s off to a good start that, especially with the contracts and grants order that will show exactly what organizations are getting what, will anger members of the existing power structure in the state who have shuttled in the shadows money to certain beneficiaries of these contracts and grants. Let’s hope he keeps it up.
14.1.08
New LA Gov. Jindal means business in several ways
At 12:07 PM today, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal took the oath of office. At 12:08, the website for that office had changed. The guy means business.
It wasn’t the only indicator of change to come, at least according to Jindal’s inaugural address. I lost count after a dozen of the times the word “change” or a conjugation of it was used. Other new governors have said it before. But Jindal, the first ethnic minority and first lifelong Republican elected to the office, had a bite in his rhetoric concerning its invocation.
Jindal did not just say he wanted to make government work more efficiently, but that “incompetence is not a synonym for government.” He didn’t just say he would work to see honesty prevail in government, but that the state needed to “win a war on corruption.” Government, he said, needed to alter the way it does things in order to catch up with the state’s hard-working people. These were a declaration of war relative to some of the good old boy politicians and their allies who have a vested interest precisely in not seeing such change occur.
He also made clear big changes in economic development policy were forthcoming. He briefly mentioned realigning curricula to meet a 21st century economy, and of a government efficient enough to help but knows “when to get out of the way” – another direct challenge to the good old boys who are more interested in using government to redistribute power and wealth to themselves and their political clients.
To the opponents who camouflage their ill will towards this agenda by asking for detailed plans about how he wants to do all of this stuff yesterday so they start planning how to stop it, he did give a small preview of coming attractions – the promised ethics special session will start Feb. 10 (somebody in the press was asleep and not thinking when it reported the session would be on the 5th – Mardi Gras). And he closed in a way demonstrating a sense of urgency, remarking “We can, we must, and we will change.”
When almost a dozen years ago I began to see Jindal’s name bandied about and how he was discussed as some sort of boy wonder, followed by his rapid administrative rise in state and federal government, I was amused by reaction to him the tone of coverage about him was on the order of “Bobby Jindal is here to save us all in Louisiana.” In a small way, Jindal in a related sense believes that, but only to the extent that he sees himself as the most important cog in a gear made up of the entire state to lead the revolution he and many want that he without their help can’t do: “Join us in our cause. Make everything not just a job but a cause.”
That rhetoric is really going to make some existing power brokers in this state nervous. Let the Jindal era begin.
It wasn’t the only indicator of change to come, at least according to Jindal’s inaugural address. I lost count after a dozen of the times the word “change” or a conjugation of it was used. Other new governors have said it before. But Jindal, the first ethnic minority and first lifelong Republican elected to the office, had a bite in his rhetoric concerning its invocation.
Jindal did not just say he wanted to make government work more efficiently, but that “incompetence is not a synonym for government.” He didn’t just say he would work to see honesty prevail in government, but that the state needed to “win a war on corruption.” Government, he said, needed to alter the way it does things in order to catch up with the state’s hard-working people. These were a declaration of war relative to some of the good old boy politicians and their allies who have a vested interest precisely in not seeing such change occur.
He also made clear big changes in economic development policy were forthcoming. He briefly mentioned realigning curricula to meet a 21st century economy, and of a government efficient enough to help but knows “when to get out of the way” – another direct challenge to the good old boys who are more interested in using government to redistribute power and wealth to themselves and their political clients.
To the opponents who camouflage their ill will towards this agenda by asking for detailed plans about how he wants to do all of this stuff yesterday so they start planning how to stop it, he did give a small preview of coming attractions – the promised ethics special session will start Feb. 10 (somebody in the press was asleep and not thinking when it reported the session would be on the 5th – Mardi Gras). And he closed in a way demonstrating a sense of urgency, remarking “We can, we must, and we will change.”
When almost a dozen years ago I began to see Jindal’s name bandied about and how he was discussed as some sort of boy wonder, followed by his rapid administrative rise in state and federal government, I was amused by reaction to him the tone of coverage about him was on the order of “Bobby Jindal is here to save us all in Louisiana.” In a small way, Jindal in a related sense believes that, but only to the extent that he sees himself as the most important cog in a gear made up of the entire state to lead the revolution he and many want that he without their help can’t do: “Join us in our cause. Make everything not just a job but a cause.”
That rhetoric is really going to make some existing power brokers in this state nervous. Let the Jindal era begin.
13.1.08
Jindal not letting opponents goad him into miscues
Tomorrow Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal assumes that position, and in a couple of weeks he will reveal his call for the first special session of the Legislature he has promised. But this hasn’t been soon enough for a skeptical political class and his political opponents who keep pestering anybody who’ll listen how they think Jindal’s ideas about what he’ll do are too vague/not specific enough.
This befuddlement is caused by equal parts of their reluctance to accept that Jindal promises revolutionary developments because these run counter to their worldview concerning politics, and confusion over the difference between what Jindal says he’s going to try to do and how he’s going to try to do it. The former is crystal clear and already as a public service to these lost individuals already I have spelled out what Jindal has said on this. And in his latest interview on the subject, once again Jindal reiterated what he wants to do.
About the latter, I don’t know. And we’re not going to find out during his inaugural address tomorrow, and we won’t probably until the call itself actually comes out for the first presumed session on ethics and the second on spending issues. In fact, probably nobody except Jindal himself really knows these things and only he and his closest advisors will know prior to the calls and not long prior to the regular session – by design.
What Jindal does not want to happen by releasing a lot of details early is to allow opposition to form early with plenty of opportunity to resist his proposed policies – because there will be strident opposition to some of them. The more far-reaching elements of ethics reform (such as prohibitions on legislators and their families doing business with the state, lobbyist interactions, and the scope of coverage to local offices), the idea of tying all transportation-related revenues to transportation spending only, and changing the philosophy of the health care system from money-goes-to-the-institution to money-follows-the-person among others will generate significant resistance from the retrograde politicians and interests who like the state the way it is.
It’s no sign that Jindal is not “inclusive” enough – rest assured he’ll be looking to form winning coalitions in the new Legislature once he announced specific intended course of action, although that never will be “inclusive” enough to those who lose these public policy battles to him, and they will bray long and loud about that. It does indicate that Jindal knows he’s the one that can call the tune and he’ll call it at the point he thinks will maximize support and minimize the ability of opponents to counter.
By not being goaded into releasing policy details too early, already Jindal is showing he has the potential to push his agenda effectively. Opponents resent this, and supporters on this account must realize patience is a virtue.
This befuddlement is caused by equal parts of their reluctance to accept that Jindal promises revolutionary developments because these run counter to their worldview concerning politics, and confusion over the difference between what Jindal says he’s going to try to do and how he’s going to try to do it. The former is crystal clear and already as a public service to these lost individuals already I have spelled out what Jindal has said on this. And in his latest interview on the subject, once again Jindal reiterated what he wants to do.
About the latter, I don’t know. And we’re not going to find out during his inaugural address tomorrow, and we won’t probably until the call itself actually comes out for the first presumed session on ethics and the second on spending issues. In fact, probably nobody except Jindal himself really knows these things and only he and his closest advisors will know prior to the calls and not long prior to the regular session – by design.
What Jindal does not want to happen by releasing a lot of details early is to allow opposition to form early with plenty of opportunity to resist his proposed policies – because there will be strident opposition to some of them. The more far-reaching elements of ethics reform (such as prohibitions on legislators and their families doing business with the state, lobbyist interactions, and the scope of coverage to local offices), the idea of tying all transportation-related revenues to transportation spending only, and changing the philosophy of the health care system from money-goes-to-the-institution to money-follows-the-person among others will generate significant resistance from the retrograde politicians and interests who like the state the way it is.
It’s no sign that Jindal is not “inclusive” enough – rest assured he’ll be looking to form winning coalitions in the new Legislature once he announced specific intended course of action, although that never will be “inclusive” enough to those who lose these public policy battles to him, and they will bray long and loud about that. It does indicate that Jindal knows he’s the one that can call the tune and he’ll call it at the point he thinks will maximize support and minimize the ability of opponents to counter.
By not being goaded into releasing policy details too early, already Jindal is showing he has the potential to push his agenda effectively. Opponents resent this, and supporters on this account must realize patience is a virtue.
10.1.08
New-found Democrat ethics interest denotes opportunism
Welcome aboard to ethics reform, Louisiana Democrats – it’s about time you joined the party after obstructing it all these years. For the past decade, a debate whose pro-reform side almost exclusively featured Republicans has obtained so much momentum on that side of the issue it seems on it Democrat legislative leaders now feel compelled to paint stripes on their figurative horses and call themselves zebras.
State Reps. Don Cazayoux (now running for Congress) and Eric LaFleur (in a few days to become a senator) asserted in fact they weren’t latecomers to the effort, giving as an example a (weak) 2005 special session bill to disclose hurricane contract work by elected officials and their relatives. Selective memories have they: the pair fought against strong provisions in bills on this subject both in committee and on the floor.
At least state Reps. Gary Smith and Michael Jackson are hat and cattle when they speak of ethics reform. During last year’s debate about Jackson’s HB 730 which attempted to do much of what incoming Gov. Bobby Jindal wants in regards to ethics reform, Smith spoke in favor of greater coverage of the bill. But when Smith claims “Democrats over the last few years led the charge on ethics reform,” he convenient forgets then that his now-ally on the issue Cazayoux spoke against what Smith had argued, and that it was (then-)Democrat senators Pres. Don Hines and Robert Adley who made parliamentary maneuvers to kill Jackson’s bill.
Even on a matter as simple as allocating tickets to events to legislators, who can forget it was Democrats like state Sen. Rob Marionneaux who in 2004 bleated about how it was being blown all out of proportion by the media, who then authored a resolution to confine them to the gallery in the Senate? And then the next year when Republicans put forward a bill to ban that (which Democrats are now supporting), Democrats (and some Republicans) scuttled it?
The fact of the matter is, all the way back to Reconstruction Democrats have enjoyed healthy majorities in the Legislature and controlled the governor’s mansion for all but 14 of those years. If they ever had been serious about ethics reform on the scale Jindal has proposed, they would have been passed it into law long ago. Among the majority in the party, there’s no genuine enthusiasm for it. Instead, recognize the statements of Cazayoux and most other Democrats reek of political opportunism as they see the relevancy of their party in the state policy-making policy slip away against the growing Republican/reform tide hurtling across Louisiana.
State Reps. Don Cazayoux (now running for Congress) and Eric LaFleur (in a few days to become a senator) asserted in fact they weren’t latecomers to the effort, giving as an example a (weak) 2005 special session bill to disclose hurricane contract work by elected officials and their relatives. Selective memories have they: the pair fought against strong provisions in bills on this subject both in committee and on the floor.
At least state Reps. Gary Smith and Michael Jackson are hat and cattle when they speak of ethics reform. During last year’s debate about Jackson’s HB 730 which attempted to do much of what incoming Gov. Bobby Jindal wants in regards to ethics reform, Smith spoke in favor of greater coverage of the bill. But when Smith claims “Democrats over the last few years led the charge on ethics reform,” he convenient forgets then that his now-ally on the issue Cazayoux spoke against what Smith had argued, and that it was (then-)Democrat senators Pres. Don Hines and Robert Adley who made parliamentary maneuvers to kill Jackson’s bill.
Even on a matter as simple as allocating tickets to events to legislators, who can forget it was Democrats like state Sen. Rob Marionneaux who in 2004 bleated about how it was being blown all out of proportion by the media, who then authored a resolution to confine them to the gallery in the Senate? And then the next year when Republicans put forward a bill to ban that (which Democrats are now supporting), Democrats (and some Republicans) scuttled it?
The fact of the matter is, all the way back to Reconstruction Democrats have enjoyed healthy majorities in the Legislature and controlled the governor’s mansion for all but 14 of those years. If they ever had been serious about ethics reform on the scale Jindal has proposed, they would have been passed it into law long ago. Among the majority in the party, there’s no genuine enthusiasm for it. Instead, recognize the statements of Cazayoux and most other Democrats reek of political opportunism as they see the relevancy of their party in the state policy-making policy slip away against the growing Republican/reform tide hurtling across Louisiana.
9.1.08
Landrieu unconvincing defending ethics lapse charges
Struggling on the policy front where she has been voting against the majority of Louisianans on a number of issues, the last thing Sen. Mary Landrieu needed to secure her reelection this fall was an apparent pattern of scandal. But the latest publicity surrounding an alleged earmark-for-contribution episode has made her appear to be a serial violator of campaign finance law, her defense of which makes her look even worse.
At is issue is a contract Landrieu foisted upon the District of Columbia school system to provide a specific kind of learning software onto its schools. Four days before formal approval of the $2 million, but after having met with Landrieu on the matter, at her office’s suggestion the company’s founder held a fundraiser among employees and friends that raised $30,000 for her 2002 reelection bid and more than $50,000 more would find its way to her from among his associates. Eventually, the company would receive over $8 million from the federal government for contracts nationwide including $700,000 for Louisiana.
On the surface, this looks like a trade which the nonpartisan Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington claims is illegal and wants legal investigations conducted on it. That’s bad enough, but Landrieu has made matters worse for herself by the way in which she has tried to explain it.
Landrieu’s office asserts that there couldn’t be any connection because the item in the appropriations bill that by her place on the relevant committee she was able to include was done months before the fundraiser. But that argument is entirely specious if corruption was in play: the idea was not to include it but to get it passed. Timeline: the item is stalled in the Senate, the company owner meets with Landrieu, her staff suggests a fundraiser, the fundraiser is held (which eventually would lead those affiliated with the company to donate enough for it to become one of the 20 highest sources of campaign funds for Landrieu in her two terms), and the bill with the earmark is passed out shortly thereafter.
It also tries to address the allegation by saying the software program ultimately proved helpful (which is somewhat disputed). But this logic is akin to the ends justifying the means: it’s as if Landrieu was saying, “So what if the deal was shady, it worked.” These “explanations,” if you can call them that, just beg more questions about her role and thought process.
Which is why the watchdog group is calling for an investigation which puts Landrieu in a no-win situation of her own making. Having it could exonerate her, but at the same time it would consistently remind voters during an election season that she may have ethical problems, if not actually having broken the law.
Further, having it or repeated calls for it would compound the fallout the campaign finance matter on which she ran afoul months ago regarding recently incarcerated Democrat fundraiser Norman Hsu, who appeared to have steered illegal donations her way. Democrat Landrieu ignored the issue at first then finally issued denials that she knew of any illegal activities taking place and promised to divest the contributions. Adding to this festering was the appointment last year to her staff of Stephanie Leger who was investigated as part of the Jack Abramhoff lobbying scandal (Leger’s work history with the Abramhoff organization goes unnoted in her biography on the Landrieu senate web site).
Together, all of this adds up to create a plausible picture of a politician who plays fast and loose with the law. (And one who doesn’t even bring home the bacon despite all of that: Louisiana got less than 10 percent of the questioned earmarks.) That’s not the thing Landrieu wants to convey in a state ready to embark on major ethics reform when polls show she is well short of reelection, if not behind announced Republican challenger state Treasurer John Kennedy, yet she seems to be doing her best to do exactly that.
At is issue is a contract Landrieu foisted upon the District of Columbia school system to provide a specific kind of learning software onto its schools. Four days before formal approval of the $2 million, but after having met with Landrieu on the matter, at her office’s suggestion the company’s founder held a fundraiser among employees and friends that raised $30,000 for her 2002 reelection bid and more than $50,000 more would find its way to her from among his associates. Eventually, the company would receive over $8 million from the federal government for contracts nationwide including $700,000 for Louisiana.
On the surface, this looks like a trade which the nonpartisan Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington claims is illegal and wants legal investigations conducted on it. That’s bad enough, but Landrieu has made matters worse for herself by the way in which she has tried to explain it.
Landrieu’s office asserts that there couldn’t be any connection because the item in the appropriations bill that by her place on the relevant committee she was able to include was done months before the fundraiser. But that argument is entirely specious if corruption was in play: the idea was not to include it but to get it passed. Timeline: the item is stalled in the Senate, the company owner meets with Landrieu, her staff suggests a fundraiser, the fundraiser is held (which eventually would lead those affiliated with the company to donate enough for it to become one of the 20 highest sources of campaign funds for Landrieu in her two terms), and the bill with the earmark is passed out shortly thereafter.
It also tries to address the allegation by saying the software program ultimately proved helpful (which is somewhat disputed). But this logic is akin to the ends justifying the means: it’s as if Landrieu was saying, “So what if the deal was shady, it worked.” These “explanations,” if you can call them that, just beg more questions about her role and thought process.
Which is why the watchdog group is calling for an investigation which puts Landrieu in a no-win situation of her own making. Having it could exonerate her, but at the same time it would consistently remind voters during an election season that she may have ethical problems, if not actually having broken the law.
Further, having it or repeated calls for it would compound the fallout the campaign finance matter on which she ran afoul months ago regarding recently incarcerated Democrat fundraiser Norman Hsu, who appeared to have steered illegal donations her way. Democrat Landrieu ignored the issue at first then finally issued denials that she knew of any illegal activities taking place and promised to divest the contributions. Adding to this festering was the appointment last year to her staff of Stephanie Leger who was investigated as part of the Jack Abramhoff lobbying scandal (Leger’s work history with the Abramhoff organization goes unnoted in her biography on the Landrieu senate web site).
Together, all of this adds up to create a plausible picture of a politician who plays fast and loose with the law. (And one who doesn’t even bring home the bacon despite all of that: Louisiana got less than 10 percent of the questioned earmarks.) That’s not the thing Landrieu wants to convey in a state ready to embark on major ethics reform when polls show she is well short of reelection, if not behind announced Republican challenger state Treasurer John Kennedy, yet she seems to be doing her best to do exactly that.
8.1.08
Election dynamics favor Carmody in special election
Of those that matter for the House District 6 special election next month, the field is probably set with former Shreveport city councilman Thomas Carmody and becoming-perennial candidate Barrow Peacock, both Republicans. Two other potentially viable candidates, current City Councilman Monty Walford and recent state attorney general candidate Royal Alexander appear to have opted out. Democrat Walford probably took a look at the heavily Republican district that doesn’t much overlap his present one and thought discretion was the better part of valor, while Republican Alexander probably concluded his recent expensive campaign was too much too quickly.
Another Democrat that could run is Caddo Parish School Board Member Charlotte Crawley. However, she would suffer from the same political problems as Walford and therefore has little chance of winning.
Carmody has been out of office a year and built up much goodwill among local Republicans for his service there as perhaps the leading fiscal conservative. (A few, however, might blame him for being the deciding vote in a 2002 redistricting plan that enabled Democrats to get a council majority, although others argue with the numbers going the way they were it was the best deal possible.) He won two impressive victories but his council district covers only about half of this state district.
Peacock ran for this seat in 2003 but was drubbed by resigning seat-holder Mike Powell. His 2007 Senate District 37 run encompassed most of the area, including the Bossier City portion, but again he failed to make the general election runoff. In addition, many Republican activists were distressed by his failure to publicly endorse eventual winner last fall state Sen.-elect B.L. “Buddy” Shaw over state Rep. Billy Montgomery who had switched to the GOP but whose voting record was much less conservative than had been Shaw’s when he had been a state House member from 1996-2004.
While Carmody has the advantages of electoral success, proven money-raising ability, and GOP goodwill, Peacock has the advantages of having run in the Bossier portion of the district twice, having run more recently (Carmody’s only serious-contested contest occurred in 1998), and can raise a lot of money very quickly. (Peacock’s campaigns have been enormously self-funded; in his latest bid – pending campaign finance reports due soon – he spent over $300,000 of which well over $200,000 was his own money which was probably more than any single legislative candidate in the state spent.)
But what gives Carmody the edge is that this special election, in tandem with presidential preference primaries, will disproportionately attract party activists. Especially after Peacock seemed to thumb his nose at the GOP with the failure to endorse Shaw and never having been much of a favorite of theirs anyway, Carmody will be their choice. Peacock can expect little enthusiasm from Democrats having spent much to craft a solidly conservative image of himself in last year’s campaign and if Crawley runs that is moot, so his best shot would be to pour his own resources into getting Bossier voters out. However, given the dynamics of this race, it’s not likely to be enough.
Another Democrat that could run is Caddo Parish School Board Member Charlotte Crawley. However, she would suffer from the same political problems as Walford and therefore has little chance of winning.
Carmody has been out of office a year and built up much goodwill among local Republicans for his service there as perhaps the leading fiscal conservative. (A few, however, might blame him for being the deciding vote in a 2002 redistricting plan that enabled Democrats to get a council majority, although others argue with the numbers going the way they were it was the best deal possible.) He won two impressive victories but his council district covers only about half of this state district.
Peacock ran for this seat in 2003 but was drubbed by resigning seat-holder Mike Powell. His 2007 Senate District 37 run encompassed most of the area, including the Bossier City portion, but again he failed to make the general election runoff. In addition, many Republican activists were distressed by his failure to publicly endorse eventual winner last fall state Sen.-elect B.L. “Buddy” Shaw over state Rep. Billy Montgomery who had switched to the GOP but whose voting record was much less conservative than had been Shaw’s when he had been a state House member from 1996-2004.
While Carmody has the advantages of electoral success, proven money-raising ability, and GOP goodwill, Peacock has the advantages of having run in the Bossier portion of the district twice, having run more recently (Carmody’s only serious-contested contest occurred in 1998), and can raise a lot of money very quickly. (Peacock’s campaigns have been enormously self-funded; in his latest bid – pending campaign finance reports due soon – he spent over $300,000 of which well over $200,000 was his own money which was probably more than any single legislative candidate in the state spent.)
But what gives Carmody the edge is that this special election, in tandem with presidential preference primaries, will disproportionately attract party activists. Especially after Peacock seemed to thumb his nose at the GOP with the failure to endorse Shaw and never having been much of a favorite of theirs anyway, Carmody will be their choice. Peacock can expect little enthusiasm from Democrats having spent much to craft a solidly conservative image of himself in last year’s campaign and if Crawley runs that is moot, so his best shot would be to pour his own resources into getting Bossier voters out. However, given the dynamics of this race, it’s not likely to be enough.
7.1.08
Blanco legacy attempt: silk purses out of sows' ears
With one week to go with the lamentable term of Gov. Kathleen Blanco, her comments about that tenure reveal that she doesn’t really need to pen a political autobiography to explain all. One aphorism describing her and one statement she made really sums it all up. They are, in order, “you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear,” and that she should have spent (state) money on a public relations campaign to change perceptions of her in the wake of the 2005 hurricane disasters.
The two link to explain why she was utterly the wrong choice to lead the state and did so poorly. In her heart, Blanco loves big government. She thinks its purpose is to do things, to correct problems real and imagined, the latter of which obviously don’t need government arrogation of power from the people in order to intervene into, and the former of which in most cases government does less efficiently and effectively than if individuals are left to their own devices to grapple.
This view of hers entirely misunderstands the human condition and human nature. Government should exist to enable individuals to pursue their own ends, interfering as little as possible with human lives because in the end down this path almost everybody in society is better off both in terms of autonomy and in accrual of resources. Simply, minimal government involvement to redistribute power and wealth for most people optimizes their individual abilities to accrue these on their own in an efficient way most beneficial to society as a whole, while for a small bunch of people they are no worse off than under alternative, increased levels of government intervention.
An excellent example concerns one issue Blanco wishes remembrance for and asserts she did good things with, economic development. She acted as if a big game hunter, trying to use the resources of government to bag hefty trophies. For the rest of her life, airlines, hotels, headwaiters, and the like will send her an avalanche of Christmas cards for all the business she brought them as she traipsed around on taxpayers’ money believing she could talk businesses, while dangling baubles such as special incentives in front of it, into coming to the state.
Meanwhile, existing business in the state was contracting for the very reasons Blanco was almost always unconvincing in her arguments to these presumed economic saviors who time and again refused to come to the state as non-government job growth stagnated: Louisiana has an unfriendly business climate because it taxes too much, regulates too much, educates inefficiently, and plays too fast and loose with governmental ethics. These problems were caused by too much and too much acquiescence to big government: you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear — no matter how much PR through government largesse you apply.
From Blanco we did not get meaningful tax cuts (just a small one for some businesses followed by a huge health care tax hike that she had to get repealed) and/or reductions in government spending (spending continued to increase even as population declined). Instead, we got Blanco blaming all sorts of imaginary forces and concepts – storms, FEMA, Bush, Republicans, Nagin, partisanship – for her lack of progress in economic development and in a host of other policy areas. Who she really needed to blame was herself for her flawed political ideology but since she had neither the intelligence nor wisdom to understand the theoretical bankruptcy of her liberalism, she had to find excuses instead.
Throughout her gubernatorial career Blanco has believed PR could solve her problems (within a day of Katrina-triggered floods she was communicating with staffers about what actions she should take to make herself look better). With her book plans, it appears that attitude will continue. If so, do not expect it to explicate the central insight that she should draw from her four years as the state’s chief executive – her worldview that promoted big government preordained her to failure, something that no amount of PR can change.
The two link to explain why she was utterly the wrong choice to lead the state and did so poorly. In her heart, Blanco loves big government. She thinks its purpose is to do things, to correct problems real and imagined, the latter of which obviously don’t need government arrogation of power from the people in order to intervene into, and the former of which in most cases government does less efficiently and effectively than if individuals are left to their own devices to grapple.
This view of hers entirely misunderstands the human condition and human nature. Government should exist to enable individuals to pursue their own ends, interfering as little as possible with human lives because in the end down this path almost everybody in society is better off both in terms of autonomy and in accrual of resources. Simply, minimal government involvement to redistribute power and wealth for most people optimizes their individual abilities to accrue these on their own in an efficient way most beneficial to society as a whole, while for a small bunch of people they are no worse off than under alternative, increased levels of government intervention.
An excellent example concerns one issue Blanco wishes remembrance for and asserts she did good things with, economic development. She acted as if a big game hunter, trying to use the resources of government to bag hefty trophies. For the rest of her life, airlines, hotels, headwaiters, and the like will send her an avalanche of Christmas cards for all the business she brought them as she traipsed around on taxpayers’ money believing she could talk businesses, while dangling baubles such as special incentives in front of it, into coming to the state.
Meanwhile, existing business in the state was contracting for the very reasons Blanco was almost always unconvincing in her arguments to these presumed economic saviors who time and again refused to come to the state as non-government job growth stagnated: Louisiana has an unfriendly business climate because it taxes too much, regulates too much, educates inefficiently, and plays too fast and loose with governmental ethics. These problems were caused by too much and too much acquiescence to big government: you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear — no matter how much PR through government largesse you apply.
From Blanco we did not get meaningful tax cuts (just a small one for some businesses followed by a huge health care tax hike that she had to get repealed) and/or reductions in government spending (spending continued to increase even as population declined). Instead, we got Blanco blaming all sorts of imaginary forces and concepts – storms, FEMA, Bush, Republicans, Nagin, partisanship – for her lack of progress in economic development and in a host of other policy areas. Who she really needed to blame was herself for her flawed political ideology but since she had neither the intelligence nor wisdom to understand the theoretical bankruptcy of her liberalism, she had to find excuses instead.
Throughout her gubernatorial career Blanco has believed PR could solve her problems (within a day of Katrina-triggered floods she was communicating with staffers about what actions she should take to make herself look better). With her book plans, it appears that attitude will continue. If so, do not expect it to explicate the central insight that she should draw from her four years as the state’s chief executive – her worldview that promoted big government preordained her to failure, something that no amount of PR can change.
6.1.08
Baker departure would create more congressional chaos
From the sounds of it, the dean of Louisiana’s congressional delegation may not be in office much longer (you don’t volunteer that you may resign office early to take a new job without being serious about it, and even if you don’t come to terms with that position it sure sounds like you’re willing to field others). With the almost-certain departure of Rep. Richard Baker, more chaos infiltrates the Louisiana political scene.
With the resignation of Rep. Bobby Jindal to become governor, retirement of Rep. Jim McCrery, looming departure willing or otherwise of indicated Rep. William Jefferson, and sketchy reelection chances of Sen. Mary Landrieu, Baker’s departure would finish a wholesale revolution in national elective posts in the state. After the 2006 elections, the state’s delegation had about seven-eights of a century of service. By the beginning of 2009, it could be reduced by 75 percent. To put it into perspective, the new dean of the delegation, Rep. Rodney Alexander, at six years of service may constitute two-sevenths of the total amount of experience of the state’s congressional figures.
Such losses of seniority could reduce the amount of capital appropriations courtesy of the federal government coming to the state, and should become a campaign tool for Landrieu, in office for 11 years now. Expect her to remind voters that her defeat would cause the loss of seniority of the (at present, but maybe not given 2008 presidential contest dynamics) majority party for the state; whether that would prove convincing in any significant way is another matter.
As in the case of the 4th District of McCrery which has very similar demographics, the 6th favors a Republican although a certain Democrat candidate with good fortune could win the spot. In the Sixth, that person could be state Rep. Don Cazayoux who has a centrist voting record. But just like with the Fourth, any chance that Democrats might have to take the seat might go up in flames from intra-party strife – and it is more likely to happen here.
This is because the Sixth features a politician who has tasted a Congressional seat before, has run statewide well enough to get into a runoff for governor, and will be forced out of his state legislative office in about a week – state Sen. Cleo Fields. Having been in political office most of his adult life, Fields is itching to return to his biggest stage and would be at worst even money to win the Democrat nomination under the new closed primary system. The only thing holding him back is knowledge that the odds would be heavily against him in the general election regardless of the GOP opponent.
But you can’t win if you don’t play, and, even if he didn’t, Fields might want to show Baton Rouge-area Democrats he’s still the boss even if not in office by winning the nomination. Former Baker aide Paul Sawyer says he will run on the Republican side if the congressman leaves, but one can be sure others will take a stab on both sides of the aisle for a rare chance at an open seat.
With the resignation of Rep. Bobby Jindal to become governor, retirement of Rep. Jim McCrery, looming departure willing or otherwise of indicated Rep. William Jefferson, and sketchy reelection chances of Sen. Mary Landrieu, Baker’s departure would finish a wholesale revolution in national elective posts in the state. After the 2006 elections, the state’s delegation had about seven-eights of a century of service. By the beginning of 2009, it could be reduced by 75 percent. To put it into perspective, the new dean of the delegation, Rep. Rodney Alexander, at six years of service may constitute two-sevenths of the total amount of experience of the state’s congressional figures.
Such losses of seniority could reduce the amount of capital appropriations courtesy of the federal government coming to the state, and should become a campaign tool for Landrieu, in office for 11 years now. Expect her to remind voters that her defeat would cause the loss of seniority of the (at present, but maybe not given 2008 presidential contest dynamics) majority party for the state; whether that would prove convincing in any significant way is another matter.
As in the case of the 4th District of McCrery which has very similar demographics, the 6th favors a Republican although a certain Democrat candidate with good fortune could win the spot. In the Sixth, that person could be state Rep. Don Cazayoux who has a centrist voting record. But just like with the Fourth, any chance that Democrats might have to take the seat might go up in flames from intra-party strife – and it is more likely to happen here.
This is because the Sixth features a politician who has tasted a Congressional seat before, has run statewide well enough to get into a runoff for governor, and will be forced out of his state legislative office in about a week – state Sen. Cleo Fields. Having been in political office most of his adult life, Fields is itching to return to his biggest stage and would be at worst even money to win the Democrat nomination under the new closed primary system. The only thing holding him back is knowledge that the odds would be heavily against him in the general election regardless of the GOP opponent.
But you can’t win if you don’t play, and, even if he didn’t, Fields might want to show Baton Rouge-area Democrats he’s still the boss even if not in office by winning the nomination. Former Baker aide Paul Sawyer says he will run on the Republican side if the congressman leaves, but one can be sure others will take a stab on both sides of the aisle for a rare chance at an open seat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)