No fancy plans required to ameliorate workforce needs

Gov. Bobby Jindal has made clear his primary emphasis in the regular session of the Legislature in 2008 is workforce development, identifying the problem needing solving as disconnection between the kinds of skills graduates have coming out of public secondary and tertiary institutions and what the economy demands. But to correct this, we need first to understand the true nature of the problem which many have failed to correctly grasp.

If one is to argue there is too many offerings for bachelors’ degrees and not enough for associates’ degrees or vocational training, to say it is because of the whims of higher education officials largely misses the point. Louisiana’s problem in this regard is not there are too many people getting bachelors’ degrees and beyond – far from it, as the state ranks among the lowest in terms of the proportion of its population with these degrees which are the backbone of any economy that wishes to develop.

Nor is it accurate to maintain that passing control of tuition from the providers who ought to know something of the costs of education delivery, the universities, to largely uninformed politicians would not improve the situation. Louisiana is the only state that is backwards enough to leave tuition decisions in the hands of the Legislature. In fact, it is this very politicization of education that has skewed education needs from workforce needs.

It was politics that gave Louisiana too many four-year institutions in the first place. Note that Illinois, with three times-plus the population of Louisiana, has just about as many four-year institutions (public and private) as does Louisiana, while it has more than four times the number of two-year schools. Simply, schools outside of areas of real need, often in smaller cities or too many in bigger cities, were allowed to exist and grow to grant bachelors’ degrees and graduate degrees, usually at the behest of area legislative delegations looking for prestige.

Unfortunately, the overbuilt nature of senior institutions just isn’t going to go away. Bluntly (and sorry if it hurts the feelings of my colleagues at these institutions, but they know the veracity of this statement), there’s no reason to have such institutions 60 miles from both Baton Rouge and New Orleans, or 70 miles from Shreveport, or historically black institutions within 10 miles of large institutions in New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Ruston. But that’s the situation the state must live with.

Thus, if the problem is too few two-year degrees or less offered relative to four-year degrees – which, again, are relatively too few in Louisiana already – the problem rests on the shoulders of the leaders of the four-year schools and their governing bodies only insofar to the extent that they themselves do not offer more in the way of associates’ degrees and certain certificate programs to meet this need.

Practically, this is the quickest and most effective way to use resources to close the education-workforce gap, not name-calling and suggestions that the dysfunctional legislative control of tuition continue. Besides removing legislative control over tuition, there’s no legislative solution needed here, just a willingness by the state’s education leaders to provide this kind of education where appropriate.

Blind spot on development imperils Jindal's agenda

To date, the talk of Gov. Bobby Jindal, and to some extent his actions, has been great on economic policy. He has said he wants to make Louisiana more business-friendly with the ultimate step being reduction, if not elimination, of income taxes both individual and corporate. He has started to back that up with the elimination of three nuisance taxes on business in the previous special session. But in all of this, he seems to have the same curious blind spot that did his predecessor in that, according to his premier budget, it’s necessary to prefer big game hunting than casting bread on the waters to achieve economic growth.

Jindal’s Secretary of Economic Development Stephen Moret is the point man on efforts to get $307.1 million of nonrecurring surplus funds dumped into a fund set aside to attract large employers which already has a $140 million balance. Both in practical and philosophical terms this allocation seems unwise and, in a related question, begs whether Moret is right for the job especially given his salary demands.

Moret claims the fund needs more money because other states are doing it, particularly large projects may need it, and the present balance could be gone after landing a project. It is possible that the increase could lure a project whose return to the state in terms of tax revenues could exceed the amount give up over the long haul, but, congruent to the theme of Jindal’s that proper priorities in spending will promote economic development, it’s hard to argue this is the right expenditure at this time.

Unbelievable good sense overtakes NW LA governments

Political watchers on both sides of the Red River were stunned by a series of announcements by local politicians that threatened to turn upside-down completely the political landscape of Caddo and Bossier Parishes and their principal cities Shreveport and Bossier City.

At a news conference jointly scheduled by leaders of the parish and city governments, not only did these officials promise sweeping new policies to be introduced, but an entirely new form of government that essentially would abolish their present forms. The conference, held at the Shreveport Convention Center, brought smiles to the operators of the city-owned facility who said the big crowd attending would assure that the Center would at least break even financially for the year.

The new form of government would make the two parishes and all their municipalities federative in nature, which some power retained by each unit but with larger decisions made by an elected assembly with representatives from each unit. “All our governments have concluded that local government is too fragmented and by working all together, we can provide more and better services to the public for reduced costs,” said Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover. “I’ve been an elected politician all my adult life,” he noted, and he said the cost savings by eliminating the number of area elected officials to one-fifth the current amount and including the elimination of his job “would be a fitting end to my political career.”

Jindal address plays safe, leaves guessing for future

If you’re looking for radical change coming from Gov. Bobby Jindal this legislative session, you can’t find much of it in from his State of the State address prior to the opening of the 2008 Regular Session. That doesn’t mean it won’t eventually happen, while it does indicate Jindal’s strategy of caution for his first year in office amid potentially hard fiscal times for the state in the near future.

Jindal’s campaign last year promised three broad things: reducing the size and spending of government, empowering people rather than special interests, and shifting spending priorities. What he plans, according to things like his budget, to serve up this session is little of the first, some of the second, and more of the third – but you couldn’t tell from his speech which concentrated on priorities only, and the uncontroversial items at that.

Best exemplifying shifting priorities is the signature item intended by Jindal, workforce development, more perestroika than anything else the most radical change of which is dismantling the state’s Department of Labor into a more decentralized system, and some changes to education delivery. But nothing was heard concerning related items already released by his administration that are much more controversial, such as merit pay for teachers and pumping over $300 million into a fund to entice large-scale employers.

Some glimpses or far-reaching change did sparkle throughout his message. Using education as an example, Jindal discussed things such as a “teachers’ bill of rights” and laws to increase penalties against teacher assault. But mostly he touched on technocratic issues, making government work better, and not much on announced policy changes that would shift power to people, such as increased access to private schools that also will improve public education through competition.

So Jindal mostly played it safe in his address, championing popular items or saying he would make government work better which nobody is against. This continues the debate about Jindal the leader: will he truly lead the state in a different direction, or just do a better job in directing the state to a place not very different from what we have now? While factors such as looming future deficits as federal recovery money peters out and fixing spending difficulties introduced by former Gov. Kathleen Blanco do constrain what Jindal can do, on its surface this address seems to indicate the latter.

With that in mind, in keeping with my habit of grading these efforts, I’ll give him a B-. But for that grade to go any higher in future years, or even to prevent it going lower, we’ll need to hear more about empowering people and reduction of government even if he can get government working better. Because when government takes resources from the people and uses them in places it shouldn’t be, how well it does that is entirely a moot point.

Jindal agenda success brings slanted media pieces

The Gov. Bobby Jindal express tries to crank itself up again for the regular session after he pretty much got what he wanted in two prior special sessions. On its eve, we also got a reminder that there are still a number of people opposed to his conservative, reformist agenda who are desperate enough to try to create a non-story to slow it down.

A journalist who has shown past animosity towards Jindal (as well as to those who dare criticize the media) reported that a freshly-approved expenditure would benefit the business of a contributor who not only gave Jindal the maximum $5,000 contribution in his campaign, but whose companies in which he had an interest did so, as well as apparently several of his relatives who gave smaller amounts, or who gave to an organization associated with the state Republican Party which expended some funds on behalf of Jindal. The state Legislature appropriated $14 million to go to port expansion in Terrebone Parish. The donations were both legal and perfectly transparent, and the appropriation was deliberated and passed in full public view as well.

Yet the article insinuates differently, using itself as a vehicle to trot out some tiresome Jindal opponents. One discussing the contributions and appropriations, state Sen. Joe McPherson like a trained seal barks, “You’re talking about legal corruption.” As if McPherson is in any position to talk – scan through his campaign finance records all the way back to his initial 1999 run for office and one will find the nursing home operator has substantial contributions from that industry, people in that industry, and from people in and the medical industry as whole (before Jindal became governor McPherson had been chairman of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee), with labor unions finishing a strong second in contributions to him. (Of course, the article mentions none of this, nor of the $9,000 state Democrats gave him in 2007.) If McPherson finds this evidence enough to argue Jindal in involved in a form of corruption, then McPherson himself is awash in corruption.

Then there are those who opposition to Jindal has them cast aside objectivity. This incident is “a smoking gun” sniffs one, and another calls it “legalized bribery,” ignoring the facts behind the series of events: the idea of the expansion started two years ago under former Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco and was spearheaded by someone who hardly was a supporter of the Republican Jindal, Democrat state Sen. Reggie Dupre. It was virtually complete by the time Jindal was in any position to exert any influence on it at all. Not only that, but if the deal seemed shady in any way, the entire Legislature could have killed it; instead, it approved it overwhelmingly.

Finally, a related point of contention is that current laws – because of First Amendment rights as the article does point out – allow the kinds of donations made to Jindal, McPherson, and others, it’s implied that they are intentionally made too obscure and mentions legislation defeated during the first special session would have made it easier to identify sources of contributions (even as the article negates its own premise in that it is publicizing these supposedly obscure donations). What it doesn’t say is that Jindal backed that legislation but too many legislators (stating mainly by reason of complexity in administering) were against it.

It bears repeating – nothing that has happened here is illegal, immoral, or unethical. Contributions were received legally with full disclosure and an open public policy process (which largely did not involve Jindal) full of checks and balances did its job. So why is this a story?

Because it’s an opportunity for Jindal’s opponents to try to erode his political capital by making appear something that he is not, presumably as the public would be less likely to support him and, thus, other elements of his agenda. Jindal has said (at least in the long run) he will remake Louisiana, reducing the size and spending of government, empowering people rather than special interests, and shifting spending priorities. Some want him to fail because this runs counter to their political liberalism and/or his success in this agenda will make him a future national leader and he can bring that agenda with him. In order to stop him, even the most capricious charges will be directly or indirectly brought against him.

(Contrast this with the Louisiana media’s treatment of far more compelling stories of potential corruption, liberal Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu’s tainted campaign donation incident or her apparent campaign-cash-for-earmark episode. Despite very suspicious timing and evidence on both accounts, it took the national media to break the story and only belatedly did the Louisiana media hop on board.)

This is an article that better deserved placement on the opinion pages than in the newshole. But don’t expect it to be the last of its kind, either, as long as Jindal is governor and continues to enjoy success.

Legislature must reaffirm commitment to cable choice

Cox Cable sure picked some good timing to announce a rate increase, just days before the Louisiana Legislature opens its regular session with a couple of bills on tap to break the near-monopoly cable companies have on the provision of cable services.

HB 869 by state Rep. Jeff Arnold and SB 422 by Sen. Ann Duplessis would allow the granting of cable franchises through the state and bypass most obligations and obstinacy heaped upon competitors to cable companies by local governments. By reserving the power to grant franchises to local governments, it has discouraged competition because of the start-up costs a local government can impose including fees that simply transfer money from cable consumers into the accounts of local governments for no other reason that local governments can do that. Having the state franchise providers can prevent discriminatory costs that have the effect of allowing cable companies to monopolize the service.

A similar bill was attempted in 2006 and passed the Legislature. But among her most stupid moves, former Gov. Kathleen Blanco vetoed the bill. Election year 2007 seemed to stymie the bill’s chances, but it’s no surprise that New Orleans-area legislators Arnold and Duplessis are leading the charge in 2008 because New Orleans suffered a 43 percent increase in cable rates (courtesy of Cox Cable) over the past eight years, well past the rate of inflation.

Cable companies may respond that such rate increases have come as a result of expansion of service to individual household, i.e. more channels. But the most prominent point about these bills would be they would encourage other providers (as already are able to in many states) to come and provide on-demand service, where instead of being locked into a limited set of packages which is the cable company strategy, consumers can pick and choose which specific channels they want to have without having to pay for many they don’t want.

These bills can expect severe resistance from cable companies and local governments – both extreme hypocrites on this matter. Cable companies successfully fought for providing phone service at the state level, yet they want to prevent phone (and other companies) from doing the same with cable. Further, they are aided and abetted by local government who can refuse to grant franchises to any other competitors and do so unless huge concessions are involved, because they see allowing cable companies to be monopoly providers as a conduit to pass money from consumers to their own treasuries.

If not for Blanco’s stupidity, consumers already would have been enjoying lower prices and better quality. It’s imperative that one of these bills in pretty much the form they currently exist be passed and sent to a pro-competition Gov. Bobby Jindal finally to help out Louisiana telecommunications consumers.

Hesitation welcome signal for health care redesign

Health care redesign into an efficient, sensible system for indigent care finally may be on the way in Louisiana, signaled by the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration’s desire to review specifications for a new Medical Center of Louisiana – New Orleans (temporarily renamed “LSU Interim Hospital”) rebuilt hospital.

During his gubernatorial campaign last fall, one of the more prominent themes involved delivering health care in a more efficient manner – a crucial task since indigent health care costs are at about a billion dollars a year so better use of these resources could provide crucial cost savings as a predicted period of leaner state budgets loom. Yet barely a peep has been issued from Jindal concerning this issue since – until his Secretary of Health and Hospitals Alan Levine testified in front of a Senate panel yesterday.

Levine indicated skepticism at former Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s plan to build a grandiose new “Big Charity” in his refusal to move forward immediately with that plan. Blanco had envisioned this replacement facility for the one damaged by Hurricane Katrina and was one of the cornerstones for the plan that essentially retained Louisiana’s inefficient indigent care system, unique among the states, that primarily funnels to a handful of large, state-run institutions money for this care. This contrasts with the approach gaining acceptance in the rest of the country, where public money follows the person who then, guided by program rules, seeks out appropriate care at any eligible institution, private or public.

This approach, favored by the federal government, was rejected by the state which led to the federal government balking at providing $225 million for costs towards the hospital. Blanco then found a way to leverage other federal dollars into allowing the state to put up this money itself. But in doing so, she left the expenditure of it up to her successor Jindal who favors the alternative approach.

Blanco and her allies ideologically prefer the existing charity hospital approach because it keeps money in the hands of state government, as they believe big government knows best how to make health care decisions for individuals plus this arrangement provides more jobs to distribute. By building as big as possible a new Big Charity, it would commit the state to continue with this system in order to make sure its beds would be filled. The most enthusiastic partner in this attempt is the Louisiana State University system which runs the charity hospital system and thereby gains the resources and patronage opportunities from it.

Levine’s statement that a review may take a couple of months probably indicates the Jindal Administration is going to reject the palatial version of Big Charity, opening the gates for a money-follows-the-person system to be instituted. Since the indigent won’t be herded into state-run hospitals for care, there would be less need for large facilities. Reformers have argued that the LSU-run hospitals should really be focusing more on teaching in a more centralized fashion, and LSU’s dream of a huge facility was dealt a blow when its longtime partner in providing charity services Tulane University stated it believed a smaller hospital was more justified with current medical practice trends.

Jindal has not moved aggressively on health care reform simply because it may be the single most daunting task on his docket, requiring intermediate steps such as scaling down the hospital request. In the short run the transition also will cost money, and with an anticipated budgetary crunch ahead, he may be thinking a second term would be the time to start it. But aligning the hospital size with such a plan would create impetus for reform down the road, just as Blanco tried to do the same to prevent reform. Expect Levine near the end of the session in June to announce the Administration wants to move in the direction of a smaller, more sensible, facility.

Plenty of reasons why Jindal wouldn't take VP nod

Enough already with the “Jindal for Vice President” talk. Political liberals and unthinking desperate conservatives may wish it to happen, but Lousiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is too smart and too caught up in his present job to make it a reality this election cycle.

Jindal’s 36 and been governor for a little more than two months. While he’s gotten a lot out of two special sessions, and there are risks in not striking while the iron is hot, he must know his upside his far higher to be wasted on a quest which politically will bring him little.

Some conservatives stump for him on a ticket with waiting GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain because he is an archetypical and young conservative contrasted with McCain’s moderate sympathies and McCain would be the oldest ever inaugurated to a first term as president. It also might counterbalance with a member on the Republican slate of an ethnic minority group (even as Jindal himself never advertises that fact) a Democratic ticket that could have such a person, or a female, or both on it.

But taking a vice presidential nomination not only has no upside now for Jindal, it damages his long-term political potential. If the GOP wins, Jindal is relegated to at least four years of nothing. He’ll have little opportunity to display governing skills while other conservative politicians will rack up these credentials. If the GOP loses, he will be criticized for being too ambitious and not enough of a “savior” for the party, and immediately make him a target of others who share future national ambitions – even if he outshines McCain during the campaign.

Additionally, Jindal running now would be like uprooting a productive plant before it reaches maturity. With at least four years as governor, Jindal has ample opportunity to demonstrate governing skill and the superiority of conservative ideology through the actions he takes if he implements a conservative agenda. This is why liberals already are working overtime with unconvincing arguments to discredit him precisely because he can effectively demonstrate the bankruptcy of their ideas.

Add to this that Jindal seems passionately involved in turning around Louisiana – which promises a massive amount of political capital if he has some measurable success – that will be a longer-term project in any event, and there’s just no way Jindal is going to assent to such a placement. Finally, the few individuals who used successfully the vice presidency to get to the White House were themselves distinguished politicians of extended service, so if Jindal has higher ambitions he knows that spot now really does him no political good.

It would be flattering, and Jindal’s governorship could go sour which could mean he’d never get such a chance again, but Jindal won’t go for this plan. So people are just wasting their breath bringing it up.

Capital outlay reform may come at cost of bad priorities

It’s good to see that Louisiana elected officials concur with my assessment about an unglamorous, but very necessary reform of its capital budgeting process. Several, almost identical, bills have been introduced for the regular session to do so, but it’s the almost imperceptible differences that will make for interesting confrontations, may signal a transformation of power relations in state government, and could test the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration’s views on the role of the governor and Legislature and in policy.

In brief, the current process allows for many more projects than for which funding exists for them, because it allows legislators to claim they got goodies for their districts into the capital outlay budget and can blame the governor for not letting them through if they don’t get funding. This is because the governor may veto a very few, but if that doesn’t bring down the overall spending to the authorized spending, the administration working with the State Bond Commission technically decides what gets funded, with a majority of the composition of the latter normally controlled by the governor.

So the administration has three areas in which it may, in essence, veto requests. But it also has a way to forward requests, because the process by law begins with requests from the administration in the enabling legislation. Legislators then add to it but generally do not reject the governor’s initial requests. What is eventually decided on for funding gets money, and everything else goes back into limbo in part or in whole subject to the whims of the next annual capital budget process.

Bills HB 582, by House Speaker Jim Tucker, and SB 1, by state Sen. Robert Adley, among others seek to change this process so that enough gets funded for one year, and other items that miss the cut legally get put into a waiting list of one to four years, or perhaps could be funded in the present year if there’s a combination of gubernatorial line item vetoes or disapproval of the Commission. Tucker, of course, is a Jindal ally and floor leader, so we can assume his bill pasts muster with the administration.

Adley has been trying to get a version of his bill through for a couple of years now and when asked about it, Jindal’s lead official in his administration Commissioner of Administration Angéle Davis said “I think there are some components in Adley's bill that make sense,” she demonstrated an incredible mastery of understatement, for the bills are virtually identical in wording and differ in only one major respect: Adley’s is a constitutional amendment while Tucker’s is statutory.

In both cases, a funding plan must be established for all periods which would be binding, thereby limiting the governor’s choices without legislative intervention to pick and choose. However, it goes into effect only after this session.

Jindal’s apparent acquiescence shows he is willing to put his money where his mouth is in terms of reform. Whether legislators will go along with it is another matter and it may all come down to a fight over the official current capital priorities. Under present law, Jindal can change these by Apr. 7 and part of the deal may be to keep largely intact old priorities (already approved by reelected legislators and benefiting their districts) in order to get their support on the new process. (This implies Tucker’s approach, requiring only a simple majority, may work better than Adley’s, needing two-thirds votes and then citizen approval.)

This could lead to an interesting battle, given that the priorities under previous Gov. Kathleen Blanco leave something to be desired, such as an over-built new charity hospital for New Orleans. It may create a bad situation for Jindal aiming for reform but having to countenance bad policy to achieve it.

Decision protects Louisiana blanket primary system

Louisiana’s election system for state and local elections dodged a bullet when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Washington state’s similar system did not violate political parties’ right of association.

Washington had tried to implement a system that differed from Louisiana’s in two ways, that even if a primary election occurred where candidates regardless of party affiliation all ran together it was not said to “nominate” candidates, and that a general election would be conducted even if one candidate secured an absolute majority of the vote. Last fall during oral arguments, some justices expressed skepticism that any difference between this and a nomination was cosmetic, thereby validating political parties’ arguments that the law infringed upon their ability to control their own nominations.

But the Court ruled, drawing conclusions that might make political scientists wince, that voters were smart enough to understand a nomination as not intended and could readily distinguish between a stated partisan preference and the issue preferences of a candidate. Therefore, if it was the will of the people not to allow parties to make nomination in essence, there was nothing constitutionally wrong with the law and the Court was very reluctant to overturn the popular will on this important matter.

This definitively provides constitutional cover for Louisiana’s nonpartisan blanket primary system. In essence, the court has said that the presence of party labels does not automatically mean a nomination is taking place, a point on which it had been unclear.

Unfortunately, this system muddles political choice because the vast majority of voters do not care to distinguish issue preferences from other aspects about a candidate, often conflating partisanship and ideology. This reduces accountability of elected officials and obscures responsibility in advancing a program. Nevertheless, absent some great groundswell of popular revulsion of it, it looks like it’s here to stay.