A not-so-new Zogby Interactive poll puts Republican state Treasurer John Kennedy up by six points over Democrat incumbent Sen. Mary Landrieu, with her treading in almost impossible waters to win reelection at 41 percent. It’s been out for over a month but only publicized today in conjunction with the release of other Senate contest polls by Zogby. Yet release of these somewhat stale results drew a swift response from the Landrieu campaign organization which raises a larger question about the viability of her effort.
The critique was a mixture of the valid, invalid, and hypocritical. Most of it concerned that the Zogby effort gathered voluntary Internet responses, rather than random contacts who then volunteered to participate. While the statement was long on criticisms of the Zogby method, it overstated them (to some degree the non-random/voluntarism problem can be mitigated by certain selection methods) and understated problems with its comparison group of random, presumably telephone polls (principally, the growing problem of voluntary nonresponse and non-random sampling due to the proliferation of cell phones as solitary lines for a household).
It also pointed out that Zogby had been paid last year by the Kennedy organization for a campaign, but failed to note that this one was independent. While insinuating that Zogby therefore would bias results to favor Kennedy, it failed to acknowledge the Landrieu campaign was ripe for the same charge with a poll down by a Democrat operative paid for by her campaign in May which showed her with a tremendous lead. Even that one and none yet done have put her over the presumed magical 50 percent line: any incumbent who cannot go over 50 percent conventional wisdom declares her to be in danger.
30.7.08
Despite LA investment success, UAL time bomb ticks on
So the many Louisiana state retirement funds (there are about 20 although the bulk of them are in four) are doing decently in return on investment during these turbulent market times. That’s great, but that’s not the real issue facing these funds.
This of course is the unfunded accrued liability (UAL) built up over decades, supposed to be dealt with by legislation (mandated by the Constitution) that requires there to be no such thing by 2029. That is, assets held by a fund must be expected through predicted investment returns to equal expected pension demands made on them by that date. That is not the case at all among the four largest funds, although the vast bulk of the $10.5 billion deficit lies in just two, the Louisiana State Employees Retirement Fund (a shade over $4 billion) and the Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana (a shade under $6 billion).
Statutorily, the state is to pay it off by a certain amount a year but that is subject to appropriation and so far that has fallen way behind. Currently, less than 70 percent of the two’s combined target annual payment is being hit and, worse, only a little more than half of the UAL is being covered by current payroll, meaning that if these rates continue in the few years preceding 2029 the state may be on the hook for billions of dollars of payments.
To compare, let’s say the state’s investments do great, a 10 percent annual return. In these two funds this year, such a return would have sliced only 20 percent off the UAL – and this is not counting the need for the use of those funds to pay current liabilities. In short, only the most sustained, fantastic investment performance could ever help grow the funds out of trouble.
This is why Gov. Bobby Jindal got the Legislature to go along with him in apportioning $60 million of the latest surplus to pay down UAL (this many years out estimated to reduce it by $240 million). And this is why, with talk of a billion dollar surplus ahead for the next fiscal year, they need to do it again and perhaps on a larger scale.
So it’s not really a matter of the citizenry being able to “rest easy.” By all means are upbeat investment reports welcome. But the state can’t afford to distract itself with them from the ticking time bomb that is the UAL, and should stay very concerned.
This of course is the unfunded accrued liability (UAL) built up over decades, supposed to be dealt with by legislation (mandated by the Constitution) that requires there to be no such thing by 2029. That is, assets held by a fund must be expected through predicted investment returns to equal expected pension demands made on them by that date. That is not the case at all among the four largest funds, although the vast bulk of the $10.5 billion deficit lies in just two, the Louisiana State Employees Retirement Fund (a shade over $4 billion) and the Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana (a shade under $6 billion).
Statutorily, the state is to pay it off by a certain amount a year but that is subject to appropriation and so far that has fallen way behind. Currently, less than 70 percent of the two’s combined target annual payment is being hit and, worse, only a little more than half of the UAL is being covered by current payroll, meaning that if these rates continue in the few years preceding 2029 the state may be on the hook for billions of dollars of payments.
To compare, let’s say the state’s investments do great, a 10 percent annual return. In these two funds this year, such a return would have sliced only 20 percent off the UAL – and this is not counting the need for the use of those funds to pay current liabilities. In short, only the most sustained, fantastic investment performance could ever help grow the funds out of trouble.
This is why Gov. Bobby Jindal got the Legislature to go along with him in apportioning $60 million of the latest surplus to pay down UAL (this many years out estimated to reduce it by $240 million). And this is why, with talk of a billion dollar surplus ahead for the next fiscal year, they need to do it again and perhaps on a larger scale.
So it’s not really a matter of the citizenry being able to “rest easy.” By all means are upbeat investment reports welcome. But the state can’t afford to distract itself with them from the ticking time bomb that is the UAL, and should stay very concerned.
29.7.08
More sour grapes harvested over needed ethics changes
For many years, critics hounded the Louisiana Ethics Administration Program Board, saying it was an ineffective investigator and adjudicator of ethics standards for candidates and officials both elected and appointed in the state. Sweeping changes were made in the area of ethics over the past year, and suddenly a whole bunch of revisionism is coming down the pike that at its root is a vineyard full of sour grapes and resentment at ending power and privilege.
The latest attempt comes from the former administrator Gray Sexton, who quit last year when it became apparent the new legal standard taking effect shortly would require the holder of the post to work at it full-time and disclose any private clients. He claimed that move was a kind of political payback for his investigations of politicians. This joins assertions of similar motivations made by some of the 10 (out of 11) Board members who resigned in the past couple of months, in the wake of other legal changes that also required stricter financial disclosure from these inexpert political appointees and that the adjudicatory power of it was being passed over to trained civil servants. One longtime opponent of Gov. Bobby Jindal claimed he orchestrated all of this out of pique at receiving a fine for an inadvertent omission in a report which his campaign turned in itself and swiftly took blame. Sexton also criticized the creation of a higher standard for burden of proof to determine guilt of alleged violators.
It takes very little in the way of common sense and logic to doubt the seriousness of this interpretation. So Sexton thought there was some vendetta against him culminating in the Gov. Kathleen Blanco era? Maybe, but regardless what’s telling is the supposed leverage being used against him was simple disclosure and a desire to get him to focus his full energies on the job. Why would he consider that so injurious to himself that he had to resign over it (and the Board, who hired him, and he tried to get around that by a contractual arrangement which was scuttled by negative publicity)? Such a reaction on his, made over a year before the law was to go into effect, suggests either he actually didn’t take the job that seriously and was really more interested in his private practice, or that there were aspects about his private work that would have raised eyebrows in relation to his Board work.
The latest attempt comes from the former administrator Gray Sexton, who quit last year when it became apparent the new legal standard taking effect shortly would require the holder of the post to work at it full-time and disclose any private clients. He claimed that move was a kind of political payback for his investigations of politicians. This joins assertions of similar motivations made by some of the 10 (out of 11) Board members who resigned in the past couple of months, in the wake of other legal changes that also required stricter financial disclosure from these inexpert political appointees and that the adjudicatory power of it was being passed over to trained civil servants. One longtime opponent of Gov. Bobby Jindal claimed he orchestrated all of this out of pique at receiving a fine for an inadvertent omission in a report which his campaign turned in itself and swiftly took blame. Sexton also criticized the creation of a higher standard for burden of proof to determine guilt of alleged violators.
It takes very little in the way of common sense and logic to doubt the seriousness of this interpretation. So Sexton thought there was some vendetta against him culminating in the Gov. Kathleen Blanco era? Maybe, but regardless what’s telling is the supposed leverage being used against him was simple disclosure and a desire to get him to focus his full energies on the job. Why would he consider that so injurious to himself that he had to resign over it (and the Board, who hired him, and he tried to get around that by a contractual arrangement which was scuttled by negative publicity)? Such a reaction on his, made over a year before the law was to go into effect, suggests either he actually didn’t take the job that seriously and was really more interested in his private practice, or that there were aspects about his private work that would have raised eyebrows in relation to his Board work.
28.7.08
Obama-connected group increases LA vote fraud chances
The political left continues to press its campaign to make elections in Louisiana turn out its way by legally questionable means. One prong of the strategy is to flood registrars in key areas with bogus registrations, hoping to overwhelm the system to allow the maximum number to seep through. Another is to rely upon “friendly” officials that wink at the practice and countenance the seepage. The final prong is to challenge and resist by every means possible efforts of diligent officials to prevent these activities from succeeding.
The later is exemplified by Project Vote’s recent complaint that Secretary of State Jay Dardenne is being too stringent is removing registrants that also are registered in other states, claiming the process is too inexact. This is nonsense: officials can drop from voting rolls the names of people who are registered in multiple states, but only after sending the voter two mailings: one giving voters 30 days to show by fax or letter that they are not registered in another state, and a second notice giving the individual 21 days to appear at a parish registrar of voters office to challenge their removal from the rolls. The process complies with federal voter registration laws and has been approved by the U.S. Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act.
Nonetheless, this is typical of Project Vote’s history of frivolous and annoyance lawsuits. By bringing these, at the back end of the process the group wishes to discourage vigilant enforcement of the law. The organization also has a colorful history of lawlessness with its operatives on many occasions at the receiving end of fraud complaints. On voter projects it affiliates with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a radical leftist organization with which Sen. Barack Obama began cutting his political eye teeth early in his career and who assisted him in his election campaigns, returning favors of Obama who trained ACORN leaders and assisted Project Vote in its early days.
The presumptive nominee for the Democrats for president will be unable to use the fruits of his past labor to win Louisiana for him as he trails badly in polls statewide. But the “crisis strategy” endorsed by the organization can produce votes for Sen. Mary Landrieu in her reelection bid and for Democrat congressional candidates. And, unfortunately, to a point this strategy has succeeded – the cleanup to the rolls will take effect only after the November elections.
This will make it difficult to counter fraud. Louisiana election law makes it difficult to successfully safeguard the process without a lot of resources applied to the task by interests outside of the government. Parties or candidates would have to have trained poll watchers with superior information at each precinct, also during early voting, in order to have any chance of spotting invalid voting (and the problems in success here are multiplied when absentee voting is involved).
Many believe Landrieu’s extremely close initial senatorial win came courtesy of fraud. It would be a shame if other contests this fall were influenced by illegal activities the prospects of which are enhanced by groups such as the former beneficiary of Obama’s political activity.
The later is exemplified by Project Vote’s recent complaint that Secretary of State Jay Dardenne is being too stringent is removing registrants that also are registered in other states, claiming the process is too inexact. This is nonsense: officials can drop from voting rolls the names of people who are registered in multiple states, but only after sending the voter two mailings: one giving voters 30 days to show by fax or letter that they are not registered in another state, and a second notice giving the individual 21 days to appear at a parish registrar of voters office to challenge their removal from the rolls. The process complies with federal voter registration laws and has been approved by the U.S. Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act.
Nonetheless, this is typical of Project Vote’s history of frivolous and annoyance lawsuits. By bringing these, at the back end of the process the group wishes to discourage vigilant enforcement of the law. The organization also has a colorful history of lawlessness with its operatives on many occasions at the receiving end of fraud complaints. On voter projects it affiliates with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a radical leftist organization with which Sen. Barack Obama began cutting his political eye teeth early in his career and who assisted him in his election campaigns, returning favors of Obama who trained ACORN leaders and assisted Project Vote in its early days.
The presumptive nominee for the Democrats for president will be unable to use the fruits of his past labor to win Louisiana for him as he trails badly in polls statewide. But the “crisis strategy” endorsed by the organization can produce votes for Sen. Mary Landrieu in her reelection bid and for Democrat congressional candidates. And, unfortunately, to a point this strategy has succeeded – the cleanup to the rolls will take effect only after the November elections.
This will make it difficult to counter fraud. Louisiana election law makes it difficult to successfully safeguard the process without a lot of resources applied to the task by interests outside of the government. Parties or candidates would have to have trained poll watchers with superior information at each precinct, also during early voting, in order to have any chance of spotting invalid voting (and the problems in success here are multiplied when absentee voting is involved).
Many believe Landrieu’s extremely close initial senatorial win came courtesy of fraud. It would be a shame if other contests this fall were influenced by illegal activities the prospects of which are enhanced by groups such as the former beneficiary of Obama’s political activity.
27.7.08
Bossier needs flexibility for downscaled Cyber Command
For months we’ve heard excited talk from the local political class about the potential permanent coming of the Air Force’s Cyber Command, a new division of the service that would administratively consolidate functions dealing with cyberwarfare, to join a couple of others at Barksdale Air Force Base. Fueling it has been the establishment of the provisional command there, which in other situations almost always has meant the permanent command locates at that base.
Salivating local boosters on both sides of the river had thrown around figures such as thousands of jobs created and over $100 million in economic impact. In order to land it, local Bossier government has pumped in $50 million, a figure the state has matched plus $7 million, to build the Cyber Innovation Center that would serve as an incubator for businesses connected to the command and this is trumpeted as a shot in the arm of the local economy like none else since … well, Barksdale itself.
But the one thing nobody, at least publicly, seems to be talking about is what if rather than the whole only a part, or even none, of the command’s functions end up at Barksdale?
Salivating local boosters on both sides of the river had thrown around figures such as thousands of jobs created and over $100 million in economic impact. In order to land it, local Bossier government has pumped in $50 million, a figure the state has matched plus $7 million, to build the Cyber Innovation Center that would serve as an incubator for businesses connected to the command and this is trumpeted as a shot in the arm of the local economy like none else since … well, Barksdale itself.
But the one thing nobody, at least publicly, seems to be talking about is what if rather than the whole only a part, or even none, of the command’s functions end up at Barksdale?
24.7.08
Edwards, Brown penalty reductions set bad examples
Requests have been forwarded to Pres. George W. Bush to commute the sentence of Prisoner #03128-095, formerly known as ex-Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards, and to pardon the former Prisoner #03312-095, now known as ex-Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Brown. For different reasons, neither is a good idea.
Some high-profile individuals, including past political opponents of Edwards’, have argued that because of his advanced age Edwards ought to be let go early, or at the very least be let out 18 months early when, at the beginning of 2010, he becomes eligible for parole. I’m sure it’s tough on an elderly dude and his family for him to be in prison, but it’s not a reason good enough to spring him prematurely.
I guess Edwards wasn’t thinking about those hardships when he was performing the crime that got him convicted of influence peddling. And the precedent that would be set would not be in the public interest: if you can hang on long enough before and after being caught instead of reforming your ways and/or not committing that abuse of the public trust so as to be elderly when convicted, you can cheat paying back your debt to society.
While Brown’s crimes were less serious, which actually came about during an investigation of more serious crimes for which he escaped conviction, he asks for a full pardon so legally if was as if the crime never existed. Brown has bent over backwards to convince the world the crime didn’t exist, even going so far as to writing a book about his situation.
However, that evidence certainly did not convince multiple courts that he was persecuted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including the U.S. Supreme Court who twice turned down appeals by him. Therefore, in order for Brown really to have proof of his innocence rejected so often, there would have to be a fix in not just with the federal government and its prosecutors, but with the entire U.S. judiciary by his cosmology. If he really believes this, next thing you know he’ll be talking about his alien abduction.
If Brown showed some repentance, instead of falsely asserting his innocence, some thought to grant his request might be in order. But to pardon him would send the message that, no matter how phantom your innocence may be, if you squawk long and loud enough you can get, in essence, declared innocent, inviting more such antics by elected officials seeing this example.
For the public good, Bush needs to throw both requests into the shredder.
Some high-profile individuals, including past political opponents of Edwards’, have argued that because of his advanced age Edwards ought to be let go early, or at the very least be let out 18 months early when, at the beginning of 2010, he becomes eligible for parole. I’m sure it’s tough on an elderly dude and his family for him to be in prison, but it’s not a reason good enough to spring him prematurely.
I guess Edwards wasn’t thinking about those hardships when he was performing the crime that got him convicted of influence peddling. And the precedent that would be set would not be in the public interest: if you can hang on long enough before and after being caught instead of reforming your ways and/or not committing that abuse of the public trust so as to be elderly when convicted, you can cheat paying back your debt to society.
While Brown’s crimes were less serious, which actually came about during an investigation of more serious crimes for which he escaped conviction, he asks for a full pardon so legally if was as if the crime never existed. Brown has bent over backwards to convince the world the crime didn’t exist, even going so far as to writing a book about his situation.
However, that evidence certainly did not convince multiple courts that he was persecuted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including the U.S. Supreme Court who twice turned down appeals by him. Therefore, in order for Brown really to have proof of his innocence rejected so often, there would have to be a fix in not just with the federal government and its prosecutors, but with the entire U.S. judiciary by his cosmology. If he really believes this, next thing you know he’ll be talking about his alien abduction.
If Brown showed some repentance, instead of falsely asserting his innocence, some thought to grant his request might be in order. But to pardon him would send the message that, no matter how phantom your innocence may be, if you squawk long and loud enough you can get, in essence, declared innocent, inviting more such antics by elected officials seeing this example.
For the public good, Bush needs to throw both requests into the shredder.
23.7.08
LA Fourth District race may affect redistricting options
With an almost certain retreat of the Sixth District from Democrat back into Republican hands, the outcome of the Fourth District race for the U.S. House of Representatives may have an impact on redistricting in Louisiana after the 2010 Census.
While one commentator argues that the result of the census, which almost assuredly will result in the loss of a congressional seat due to depopulation courtesy of the hurricane disasters of 2005, will cause the Fourth which is centered around Shreveport to gobble up the Fifth, centered around Monroe, this view places too much emphasis on regionalism and discounts the factors of partisanship and race. Perhaps almost 20 years ago, when there were almost no Republicans in the state Legislature and a Democrat-turned Republican governor ruled the state its north-south division might have mattered.
But it will not in the future. One of the outcomes of 1990 redistricting was two majority-black districts, one of which was tortuously drawn and coexisted in north Louisiana with another. Not surprisingly, the racially-gerrymandered district was tossed out by the U.S. Supreme Court, bringing the lines largely present today. With just one majority-black district now present around Orleans, black legislators will fiercely protect it even though that is the area which lost the vast majority of population, not the least by threatening voting rights lawsuits.
Republicans will cooperate because geography suggests the easiest district to erase while creating a sufficiently non-convoluted majority black district is the Third, the home of the only other white Democrat, Rep. Charlie Melancon. As trends go, by then Republicans are likely to have a state House majority plus sufficiently large representation in the state Senate, and Gov. Bobby Jindal, to control the process with black Democrats. Now that partisanship matters (just another example is the letter from Republican leader state Rep. Jane Smith praising Jindal for line item vetoes after he was roundly criticized by Democrats, support which never would have been publicly revealed even a decade ago when the GOP was too small), it will be the driving force of redistricting.
Thus, the desire will be strong to retain the Fifth as is with current Republican Rep. Rodney Alexander cruising to reelection now and probably then, too. But the contest to succeed retiring Fourth District Republican Rep. Jim McCrery has a competitive Democrat running which could put the seat into that party’s column this year and in 2010. That would make the Fourth an eligible target along with the Third.
Still, given the coveting of a majority-black district somewhere around Orleans, the geography works about better to eliminate the Third. But what if Melancon, sensing his district will get carved up by 2012, decides to run for Senate in 2010 against incumbent David Vitter? Regardless of what happens, a Republican is more likely to win there perhaps by 2012 making the Fourth the only held by a white Democrat. Then geographical information systems will have to work overtime to fold that district into others while keeping a majority-black Second.
So it may well be true that the outcome of this year’s Fourth District contest will eventually affect representation in the area of the Fifth. But only if certain other things happen that are tied to partisanship, not to regionalism.
While one commentator argues that the result of the census, which almost assuredly will result in the loss of a congressional seat due to depopulation courtesy of the hurricane disasters of 2005, will cause the Fourth which is centered around Shreveport to gobble up the Fifth, centered around Monroe, this view places too much emphasis on regionalism and discounts the factors of partisanship and race. Perhaps almost 20 years ago, when there were almost no Republicans in the state Legislature and a Democrat-turned Republican governor ruled the state its north-south division might have mattered.
But it will not in the future. One of the outcomes of 1990 redistricting was two majority-black districts, one of which was tortuously drawn and coexisted in north Louisiana with another. Not surprisingly, the racially-gerrymandered district was tossed out by the U.S. Supreme Court, bringing the lines largely present today. With just one majority-black district now present around Orleans, black legislators will fiercely protect it even though that is the area which lost the vast majority of population, not the least by threatening voting rights lawsuits.
Republicans will cooperate because geography suggests the easiest district to erase while creating a sufficiently non-convoluted majority black district is the Third, the home of the only other white Democrat, Rep. Charlie Melancon. As trends go, by then Republicans are likely to have a state House majority plus sufficiently large representation in the state Senate, and Gov. Bobby Jindal, to control the process with black Democrats. Now that partisanship matters (just another example is the letter from Republican leader state Rep. Jane Smith praising Jindal for line item vetoes after he was roundly criticized by Democrats, support which never would have been publicly revealed even a decade ago when the GOP was too small), it will be the driving force of redistricting.
Thus, the desire will be strong to retain the Fifth as is with current Republican Rep. Rodney Alexander cruising to reelection now and probably then, too. But the contest to succeed retiring Fourth District Republican Rep. Jim McCrery has a competitive Democrat running which could put the seat into that party’s column this year and in 2010. That would make the Fourth an eligible target along with the Third.
Still, given the coveting of a majority-black district somewhere around Orleans, the geography works about better to eliminate the Third. But what if Melancon, sensing his district will get carved up by 2012, decides to run for Senate in 2010 against incumbent David Vitter? Regardless of what happens, a Republican is more likely to win there perhaps by 2012 making the Fourth the only held by a white Democrat. Then geographical information systems will have to work overtime to fold that district into others while keeping a majority-black Second.
So it may well be true that the outcome of this year’s Fourth District contest will eventually affect representation in the area of the Fifth. But only if certain other things happen that are tied to partisanship, not to regionalism.
22.7.08
Suffering political damage, Nubian Queen takes on more
I suppose if anybody were looking for a nickname for state Sen. Yvonne Dorsey, she helpfully provided one: the Nubian Queen. That’s what she said she could be called after it was revealed in a childish letter she sent to her chamber colleagues she had called Gov. Bobby Jindal “Maharajah.”
Her Democrat comrades aren’t touching this one with a pole of any length, refusing comments about it or insisting they didn’t endorse any “racial slur.” In private, they must be fuming equally about Dorsey’s rhetoric, which also included calling Jindal a “blatant liar” (maybe) or “asinine” (definitely not, if referring to decisions to veto wasteful spending and an asinine legislator pay raise), and the fact the letter got made public because part of the liberal Democrat gambit is to accuse those against their redistributive policies to be “racists” (since redistribution is supposed to make up for the “racism” in society and government) and the remark of hers makes it easier to see what a joke that strategy is.
Particularly ironic, which Dorsey seemed too moronic to grasp, was in her calling Jindal “one more one-term governor.” This coming from a woman who won her first term in the Senate by exactly nine votes while Jindal steamrolled his gubernatorial opposition much like he did her policy preferences, such as his vetoing her request for taxpayers to foot the bill for a hot-air balloon festival for unspecified expenses and by making her work for a living with a real job by his veto of the raise (and preventing a massive hike in her retirement benefits taxpayers would dole out to her that she is eligible for despite her service only being part-time).
Jindal says he takes none of this personally. But that’s exactly how Dorsey takes it, and there is the crux of the matter. Unscrupulous politicians like Dorsey just want to suck money out of hard working Louisianans in order to support their lifestyles, either in payment of salary or by promising redistribution of resources to political supporters. Dorsey knows she barely scraped into her privileged lifestyle (after having served in the House of Representatives) and the shame she brought on herself through voting for the pay raise and her inability to deliver on her one earmark makes her even more vulnerable to fail in her reelection bid.
Idiots like Dorsey are a dime a dozen in politics but, but survival of the fittest also applies. Maybe some of her liberal pals in the Legislature have the same constipated views as she does but they had enough sense to keep their mouths shut and pens capped. Perhaps the single biggest political loser after Jindal vetoed the raise, besides cheerleader House Speaker Jim Tucker, was its author state Sen. Ann Duplessis, who herself narrowly twice has won her seat. After this incident, the Nubian Queen looks set to join her in that dishonor.
Her Democrat comrades aren’t touching this one with a pole of any length, refusing comments about it or insisting they didn’t endorse any “racial slur.” In private, they must be fuming equally about Dorsey’s rhetoric, which also included calling Jindal a “blatant liar” (maybe) or “asinine” (definitely not, if referring to decisions to veto wasteful spending and an asinine legislator pay raise), and the fact the letter got made public because part of the liberal Democrat gambit is to accuse those against their redistributive policies to be “racists” (since redistribution is supposed to make up for the “racism” in society and government) and the remark of hers makes it easier to see what a joke that strategy is.
Particularly ironic, which Dorsey seemed too moronic to grasp, was in her calling Jindal “one more one-term governor.” This coming from a woman who won her first term in the Senate by exactly nine votes while Jindal steamrolled his gubernatorial opposition much like he did her policy preferences, such as his vetoing her request for taxpayers to foot the bill for a hot-air balloon festival for unspecified expenses and by making her work for a living with a real job by his veto of the raise (and preventing a massive hike in her retirement benefits taxpayers would dole out to her that she is eligible for despite her service only being part-time).
Jindal says he takes none of this personally. But that’s exactly how Dorsey takes it, and there is the crux of the matter. Unscrupulous politicians like Dorsey just want to suck money out of hard working Louisianans in order to support their lifestyles, either in payment of salary or by promising redistribution of resources to political supporters. Dorsey knows she barely scraped into her privileged lifestyle (after having served in the House of Representatives) and the shame she brought on herself through voting for the pay raise and her inability to deliver on her one earmark makes her even more vulnerable to fail in her reelection bid.
Idiots like Dorsey are a dime a dozen in politics but, but survival of the fittest also applies. Maybe some of her liberal pals in the Legislature have the same constipated views as she does but they had enough sense to keep their mouths shut and pens capped. Perhaps the single biggest political loser after Jindal vetoed the raise, besides cheerleader House Speaker Jim Tucker, was its author state Sen. Ann Duplessis, who herself narrowly twice has won her seat. After this incident, the Nubian Queen looks set to join her in that dishonor.
21.7.08
Legislator sour grapes, or did Jindal really set them up?
Act I in the drama of the tussle between majoritarian branches of government in Louisiana was Gov. Bobby Jindal’s veto of a pay raise to full-time status of part-time legislators. Act II was his line-item vetoes of appropriations bills that in almost every case slashed budget spending that was local and/or questionable in nature. Act III, the finale, came when the Senate vetoed the veto session to undo any of this. Jindal clearly triumphs, but it doesn’t mean he can avoid the hypocritical sour grapes of legislators.
The loudest complaints came from those whose projects clearly violated the standards Jindal had promulgated about these items, and have been discussed elsewhere. Another set of complaints have come from those who said that the smaller portion of vetoed items, dealing with specific appropriations for local governments, were done with little guidance.
On the surface, this would appear to have merit. No detailed guidelines were issued regarding these items as Jindal did with nongovernmental organizations in his Apr. 30 missive. But a nanosecond’s worth of thought dismisses this charge as just more politics.
The loudest complaints came from those whose projects clearly violated the standards Jindal had promulgated about these items, and have been discussed elsewhere. Another set of complaints have come from those who said that the smaller portion of vetoed items, dealing with specific appropriations for local governments, were done with little guidance.
On the surface, this would appear to have merit. No detailed guidelines were issued regarding these items as Jindal did with nongovernmental organizations in his Apr. 30 missive. But a nanosecond’s worth of thought dismisses this charge as just more politics.
20.7.08
Thrice lucky, fortune looks to abandon Melancon in 2010
The accidental congressman, Rep. Charlie Melancon, earned a free ride back to the House of Representatives. Good for him, as it’s likely to be his last term
Democrat Melancon won narrowly back in 2004 only because of internecine warfare between Republican candidates and was the district that year with the highest percentage of the vote for Pres. George W. Bush (57) that elected a Democrat. He got lucky again in 2006 when former state Sen. Craig Romero, the Republican who had waged the scorched earth campaign against Melancon’s GOP opponent in the general election runoff even after his elimination, was Melancon’s main opponent and given the ill will Romero had generated because of his 2004 actions, an unfavorable election cycle for Republicans, and hurricane displacement effects, Melancon won reelection.
Now in 2008, Melancon convinced enough political activists in the district that he had enough of a moderate image that he would be tough to topple in a year where the GOP is likely to have to expend resources in other places to defend their seats, and drew no opponents. In large part this was constructed with his initial two years of votes, where, according to the American Conservative Union’s scorecard, he racked up moderately conservative scores of 61 and 76.
Note that this was a period of Republican control of the chamber where he treaded lightly to burnish his credentials for reelection to a district which ideologically he really didn’t represent. But when his Democrats took over in 2007, the real Melancon showed up. Last year the ACU scored him at 36, solidly liberal, with Melancon’s votes including to increase the minimum wage, against the Iraq “surge” that is bringing the war to a successful conclusion, against religious freedom in hiring practices, against earmark reform, to delay construction of the Mexican border fence, to allow more union coercion in workplace elections, to allow wasteful expansion of the Children’s Insurance Program and new taxes to fund it (twice), and against expanding domestic energy production.
It’s a very vulnerable record, but luck was yet again on his side. But that looks to change in 2010. At that time, Melancon probably will abandon his seat to make a run for the Senate against Sen. David Vitter that, while it is not a longshot, in which he will be a definite underdog.
Taking this gamble to leave his seat in 2010 he must because there probably won’t be a House seat for him in 2012. With Louisiana sure to lose a House seat in redistricting, at the top of the list for disappearance will be his Third District, as a Republican-led state government aided by Democrat black legislators who wish to preserve the Second District (around New Orleans) and make other seats more competitive for blacks see his as their natural target.
So he either takes a less than even-money Senate shot at Vitter in 2010, or he almost certainly is out of a job in 2012 if getting even reelected to the House in 2010. Either way, it looks like Melancon’s luck finally may run out.
Democrat Melancon won narrowly back in 2004 only because of internecine warfare between Republican candidates and was the district that year with the highest percentage of the vote for Pres. George W. Bush (57) that elected a Democrat. He got lucky again in 2006 when former state Sen. Craig Romero, the Republican who had waged the scorched earth campaign against Melancon’s GOP opponent in the general election runoff even after his elimination, was Melancon’s main opponent and given the ill will Romero had generated because of his 2004 actions, an unfavorable election cycle for Republicans, and hurricane displacement effects, Melancon won reelection.
Now in 2008, Melancon convinced enough political activists in the district that he had enough of a moderate image that he would be tough to topple in a year where the GOP is likely to have to expend resources in other places to defend their seats, and drew no opponents. In large part this was constructed with his initial two years of votes, where, according to the American Conservative Union’s scorecard, he racked up moderately conservative scores of 61 and 76.
Note that this was a period of Republican control of the chamber where he treaded lightly to burnish his credentials for reelection to a district which ideologically he really didn’t represent. But when his Democrats took over in 2007, the real Melancon showed up. Last year the ACU scored him at 36, solidly liberal, with Melancon’s votes including to increase the minimum wage, against the Iraq “surge” that is bringing the war to a successful conclusion, against religious freedom in hiring practices, against earmark reform, to delay construction of the Mexican border fence, to allow more union coercion in workplace elections, to allow wasteful expansion of the Children’s Insurance Program and new taxes to fund it (twice), and against expanding domestic energy production.
It’s a very vulnerable record, but luck was yet again on his side. But that looks to change in 2010. At that time, Melancon probably will abandon his seat to make a run for the Senate against Sen. David Vitter that, while it is not a longshot, in which he will be a definite underdog.
Taking this gamble to leave his seat in 2010 he must because there probably won’t be a House seat for him in 2012. With Louisiana sure to lose a House seat in redistricting, at the top of the list for disappearance will be his Third District, as a Republican-led state government aided by Democrat black legislators who wish to preserve the Second District (around New Orleans) and make other seats more competitive for blacks see his as their natural target.
So he either takes a less than even-money Senate shot at Vitter in 2010, or he almost certainly is out of a job in 2012 if getting even reelected to the House in 2010. Either way, it looks like Melancon’s luck finally may run out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)