You’ll have to ask Board of Elementary and Secondary Education member Chas Roemer whether he reads this space, but, regardless, he’s making a lot of sense that is targeting him as a politician to watch for Louisiana’s future.
In the area of education reform and improvement, Roemer has been the brightest spot statewide. He was the most prominent elected official to criticize the new state high school curriculum that threatens to produce a “dummy diploma” for too many of the state’s students. Now, not surprisingly given his former position as a charter school official, he has expressed strong public support for them.
Better, in statements made in conjunction with the Louisiana Charter School Conference, Roemer explained the political challenge to improving Louisiana’s educational system. Reiterating what has appeared in this space, Roemer said, “Charter schools are now a threat to a jobs program called public education …. It’s old-school politics and it will be a formidable opponent …. [causing reformers to battle] a system that does not work and those who want to protect it.”
Commendable about Roemer’s words is he doesn’t shy away from naming who are the opponents – teacher unions, representatives of local educational establishments, and some politicians – and their motives for opposing reforms such as charter schools, which have demonstrated in Louisiana better educational outcomes for students who often start from worse initial positions. Only by understanding who are the obstacles to better performance and their self-serving motives can the political effort be made to neutralize their influence, so Roemer bravely takes that extra needed step here for success.
In response sniffs the head apologist for the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, Stephen Monaghan, who insists union opposition to charter schools is not for ideological reasons then contradicts himself with this ideological appeal: “If Mr. Roemer’s idea is to lower the wages for educators, to deprive them of benefits, then we are definitely going to oppose those kinds of initiatives.” Note well the worldview here: to unions, education is all about jacking up wages and benefits to teachers as high as possible and has nothing to do with equipping children to contribute to their and their society’s well-being.
That’s the mindset Roemer and reformers must fight to prevail over parochial interests that damage the common good on this issue. Let’s also hope that Roemer takes the next logical step and supports efforts for greater teacher accountability such as regular subject area testing of knowledge in the areas in which a teacher is certified and teaches. No doubt Roemer is aware that this very issue was a great setback for his father as governor, so it is more than appropriate that he becomes the first state official with the foresight and guts to publicly get behind this effort.
It’s refreshing to see Roemer’s candor and willingness to speak with its attendant political risks because it’s the right thing to do. If he keeps up this style as a politician, his political career could eclipse his father’s.
10.9.09
Remarks show reform must address teacher competency
Perhaps the reason why little progress has been seen in educational improvement in Louisiana’s elementary and secondary schools over the past couple of years is that the area of potential positive change that now must be addressed is the quality of the teachers themselves. At least that’s what one is forced to conclude when reviewing the stubbornness and stupidity of the remarks of a union leader of Louisiana teachers.
In conjunction with a meeting of the Louisiana Charter Schools Conference, Tom Tate, lobbyist for the Louisiana Association of Educators, opined “Their success is yet to be determined,” then really stepped out on the limb by adding, “By and large they have not been successful.” Teachers unions oppose charter schools because they allow for reduced union interference in delivering education, are less likely to protect low-performing or incompetent teachers, and encourage and reward greater efficiency in delivering education.
Sawing off the limb is accomplished upon referencing a Stanford University study of Louisiana charter schools that revealed charter school students, after four years and beyond, showed gains in math and reading compared to their counterparts in traditional public schools. The study also said black students who attend charter schools, as well as students classified as living in poverty, did significantly better in math and reading than did their counterparts in traditional public schools.
You would think this would be enough for an opponent to concede on the issue, but apparently not. Additionally, it must be kept in mind that schools made into charters represented the worst performers. Therefore, when comparing charter results to those of regular schools, they are two distinct populations so gains in the black sub-population of charter students are even more impressive because they likely have socioeconomic characteristics that create more roadblocks for success than the students from other public schools.
This makes a lie of the frequent teacher union excuse that there’s little teachers can do with underperforming students given what they have to work with. Statistics continue to show that charter schools simply do a better job, likely because they attract better teachers given personnel policies that aren’t afraid to award merit and discourage the slackers or incompetent – despite (or perhaps because) not many of them are unionized – and they provide a better administrative structure for the purposes of educating.
Continued obstinacy in the face of these facts proves teachers’ union would rather sacrifice quality education in favor of excising the greatest amount of resources from taxpayers for the least amount of quality work. It also lays bare that their representatives can’t think critically well about education issues. This and the fact they have opposed consistently the idea of regular subject area merit testing of teachers leads one to believe that shielding intellectually incompetent teachers from termination has become the main impact that unions have on the quality of education.
In conjunction with a meeting of the Louisiana Charter Schools Conference, Tom Tate, lobbyist for the Louisiana Association of Educators, opined “Their success is yet to be determined,” then really stepped out on the limb by adding, “By and large they have not been successful.” Teachers unions oppose charter schools because they allow for reduced union interference in delivering education, are less likely to protect low-performing or incompetent teachers, and encourage and reward greater efficiency in delivering education.
Sawing off the limb is accomplished upon referencing a Stanford University study of Louisiana charter schools that revealed charter school students, after four years and beyond, showed gains in math and reading compared to their counterparts in traditional public schools. The study also said black students who attend charter schools, as well as students classified as living in poverty, did significantly better in math and reading than did their counterparts in traditional public schools.
You would think this would be enough for an opponent to concede on the issue, but apparently not. Additionally, it must be kept in mind that schools made into charters represented the worst performers. Therefore, when comparing charter results to those of regular schools, they are two distinct populations so gains in the black sub-population of charter students are even more impressive because they likely have socioeconomic characteristics that create more roadblocks for success than the students from other public schools.
This makes a lie of the frequent teacher union excuse that there’s little teachers can do with underperforming students given what they have to work with. Statistics continue to show that charter schools simply do a better job, likely because they attract better teachers given personnel policies that aren’t afraid to award merit and discourage the slackers or incompetent – despite (or perhaps because) not many of them are unionized – and they provide a better administrative structure for the purposes of educating.
Continued obstinacy in the face of these facts proves teachers’ union would rather sacrifice quality education in favor of excising the greatest amount of resources from taxpayers for the least amount of quality work. It also lays bare that their representatives can’t think critically well about education issues. This and the fact they have opposed consistently the idea of regular subject area merit testing of teachers leads one to believe that shielding intellectually incompetent teachers from termination has become the main impact that unions have on the quality of education.
9.9.09
Real health reform more than shedding charity hospitals
Perhaps its members have been reading this space regularly, or maybe they actually derived it independently, but Louisiana’s Commission on Streamlining Government looks set to recommend that there be a radical overhaul of indigent health care delivery that will encourage and challenge both the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration and the Pres. Barack Obama Administration. But whether it’s enough to constitute true reform is another matter.
At the end of last year Jindal said plans were being made to fundamentally remake the indigent care system by removing government from the provider of care to managing that provision. Testimony in front of the committee reaffirmed that directional change, which would broaden Medicaid eligibility to families at 130 percent of poverty, essentially insuring everybody who wished to be in the state, and giving them their choice of what hospital to attend. It is believed that market forces then would push existing charity hospitals out of business.
Apparently unmentioned, however, was the exact funding mechanism of the insurance provision. The testimony sounded like it was a simple expansion of Medicaid coverage. If so, this is a mistake and represents backing away from the idea of instead of employing the current fee-for-service arrangement rather that funds dedicated to indigent care be given as vouchers to eligible recipients that then may be used to purchase health care insurance in the open market (similar to Republican plans at the national level). The present arrangement is what contributes to the leakage of money from it, so nothing would be done to improve efficiency by only an expansion. Further, because government sets Medicaid reimbursement rates but cannot compel providers to accept them, there’s no guarantee there would be enough quality provision, whereas insurers can negotiate better rates (because of their greater efficiency) with providers to ensure enough of it.
It’s possible that the greater privatization part quietly has been dropped as a bow to national politics where Democrats seem determined to ram through legislation that does not reform but merely expands in coverage and in costs the present inefficient system with increased regulation. Such a structuring makes it almost impossible for the federal government to deny the state the request essentially to fund the expansion, since it so closely tracks the goals of Democrats.
While this may look politically good for Jindal – provision of more of a good by government to more people without any extra direct cost to the Louisiana taxpayer – it is not true reform and is not a real solution to spiraling costs paid by government and thereby must be avoided like the plague. However, given the current hostile climate in Washington to genuine health care reform, whether the Obama Administration would fund what would be changeover costs (because much would be saved within a few years) to a plan ideologically opposed to his in a tough state budget environment is another matter.
Regardless, either would threaten the existing charity system which brings other challenges to Jindal. Political opponents who invest political careers, power, and privilege in the billion-dollar system will fight anything that threatens these. Also, Jindal himself has backed the building of a large new charity hospital in New Orleans that, while more realistic in size than its initial conceptualization prior to his taking office, still is too big for its intended purpose. And if it becomes primarily a teaching hospital rather than having its main mission as providing care as a result of this new direction, it becomes more outsized than ever and provides better argumentation for the opposing replacement plan to Jindal’s, rebuilding the existing facility damaged by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 – something duly noted here and by the Commission.
Of course, the Commission must approve of this recommendation followed by the Legislature, so there’s a long ways to go. Still, since a budget crisis is upon the state, Jindal never will have a better opportunity to make fundamental, not just marginal, reform. He needs to go for the homer – his original idea of vouchers – rather than let it get washed away by Democrats whose power far exceeds their legitimacy within the public at present. As doctors are instructed, first do no harm, and to make bigger the existing system without real reform will do more harm than by doing nothing at all.
At the end of last year Jindal said plans were being made to fundamentally remake the indigent care system by removing government from the provider of care to managing that provision. Testimony in front of the committee reaffirmed that directional change, which would broaden Medicaid eligibility to families at 130 percent of poverty, essentially insuring everybody who wished to be in the state, and giving them their choice of what hospital to attend. It is believed that market forces then would push existing charity hospitals out of business.
Apparently unmentioned, however, was the exact funding mechanism of the insurance provision. The testimony sounded like it was a simple expansion of Medicaid coverage. If so, this is a mistake and represents backing away from the idea of instead of employing the current fee-for-service arrangement rather that funds dedicated to indigent care be given as vouchers to eligible recipients that then may be used to purchase health care insurance in the open market (similar to Republican plans at the national level). The present arrangement is what contributes to the leakage of money from it, so nothing would be done to improve efficiency by only an expansion. Further, because government sets Medicaid reimbursement rates but cannot compel providers to accept them, there’s no guarantee there would be enough quality provision, whereas insurers can negotiate better rates (because of their greater efficiency) with providers to ensure enough of it.
It’s possible that the greater privatization part quietly has been dropped as a bow to national politics where Democrats seem determined to ram through legislation that does not reform but merely expands in coverage and in costs the present inefficient system with increased regulation. Such a structuring makes it almost impossible for the federal government to deny the state the request essentially to fund the expansion, since it so closely tracks the goals of Democrats.
While this may look politically good for Jindal – provision of more of a good by government to more people without any extra direct cost to the Louisiana taxpayer – it is not true reform and is not a real solution to spiraling costs paid by government and thereby must be avoided like the plague. However, given the current hostile climate in Washington to genuine health care reform, whether the Obama Administration would fund what would be changeover costs (because much would be saved within a few years) to a plan ideologically opposed to his in a tough state budget environment is another matter.
Regardless, either would threaten the existing charity system which brings other challenges to Jindal. Political opponents who invest political careers, power, and privilege in the billion-dollar system will fight anything that threatens these. Also, Jindal himself has backed the building of a large new charity hospital in New Orleans that, while more realistic in size than its initial conceptualization prior to his taking office, still is too big for its intended purpose. And if it becomes primarily a teaching hospital rather than having its main mission as providing care as a result of this new direction, it becomes more outsized than ever and provides better argumentation for the opposing replacement plan to Jindal’s, rebuilding the existing facility damaged by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 – something duly noted here and by the Commission.
Of course, the Commission must approve of this recommendation followed by the Legislature, so there’s a long ways to go. Still, since a budget crisis is upon the state, Jindal never will have a better opportunity to make fundamental, not just marginal, reform. He needs to go for the homer – his original idea of vouchers – rather than let it get washed away by Democrats whose power far exceeds their legitimacy within the public at present. As doctors are instructed, first do no harm, and to make bigger the existing system without real reform will do more harm than by doing nothing at all.
8.9.09
LA must find will to follow through with privatization
Louisiana’s temporary Commission on Streamlining Government has fomented some good ideas about privatization of state government functions. The next step is to make sure that political considerations do not sabotage the savings that could result.
In its most recent meeting, state departments offered to it assessments about areas in which privatization may save money. At least several million dollars a year were identified, and a more vigorous effort might reveal much more. Encouraging also was the stated realization that the reform did not apply universally as a panacea to bloated state expenditures, that some areas simply could or would not produce savings by its application.
But the state must avoid the political problem of using privatization as a substitute for creating priorities and funding on the basis of necessity of function. Institution of privatization cannot occur then followed by a declaration that the process of saving had run its course. This only makes government operation more efficient; it doesn’t eliminate expenditures tied to activities that government really has no need to be performing in the first place. The latter must be dealt with in addition to the former.
Also critical, the state must not let anti-privatization bias short-circuit this effort. Often within government there arises a prejudice against privatization because it is assumed that only government can perform a certain task because it may have been the first entity to do so and/or it has been doing it for a long time. Government well may be the first to do something because, at the time, the activity cost more than it would produce in benefits and/or it required large start-up costs the private sector was unwilling to absorb.
However, times change and as the economy has a whole continues to differentiate and technology advances, what functions in the past seemed like money-losers and/or too costly to get off the ground today attract competition within the private sector. Thus, the Commission must review every function of government and simply not assume that just because government does it and/or has been doing it for a long time, it doesn’t mean it can’t be done more efficiently by the private sector.
Another political challenge comes from an approach which often is a red herring, assertion that the mission-critical nature of an activity means that only government can do it to ensure that it gets done in a quality way. Certainly, there are some functions in government where this is true, such as in the more intense activities of public safety. However, most of what government does simply is not so critical that the search for profits by a private contractor would interfere in making sure the job got done right, but instead would add efficiency to make the function be performed better. For example, does anybody seriously think that if the contract-letting and monitoring functions of Shreveport’s Department of Community Development had themselves been contracted out that a private concern, knowing slackness would expose it to losing the contract and criminal charges, would have been so lax as to allow the corruption rife in that agency to have existed?
Finally, politicians who believe government is there primarily to redistribute wealth and parasitical organizations that agree with this, such as labor unions, will resist it. It means lesser amounts of money can be taken from the people for redistribution from the perspective of the politicians, and from the union view less money transferred to workers because the rate of unionization is much higher in government than in the private sector. For the latter, privatization eliminates unionized jobs and replaces them with fewer non-unionized positions, weakening unions power. Overcoming the resistance of these parochial interests that have no desire to save money for all at their particular expenses might prove problematic.
Nevertheless, it is quite refreshing to see privatization taken more seriously than it ever has been by state leaders. Yet that’s the easy part; the difficult part will be to overcome special interest objections and whether the political will exists too see it all through will be the ultimate test of the seriousness of state government on this issue
In its most recent meeting, state departments offered to it assessments about areas in which privatization may save money. At least several million dollars a year were identified, and a more vigorous effort might reveal much more. Encouraging also was the stated realization that the reform did not apply universally as a panacea to bloated state expenditures, that some areas simply could or would not produce savings by its application.
But the state must avoid the political problem of using privatization as a substitute for creating priorities and funding on the basis of necessity of function. Institution of privatization cannot occur then followed by a declaration that the process of saving had run its course. This only makes government operation more efficient; it doesn’t eliminate expenditures tied to activities that government really has no need to be performing in the first place. The latter must be dealt with in addition to the former.
Also critical, the state must not let anti-privatization bias short-circuit this effort. Often within government there arises a prejudice against privatization because it is assumed that only government can perform a certain task because it may have been the first entity to do so and/or it has been doing it for a long time. Government well may be the first to do something because, at the time, the activity cost more than it would produce in benefits and/or it required large start-up costs the private sector was unwilling to absorb.
However, times change and as the economy has a whole continues to differentiate and technology advances, what functions in the past seemed like money-losers and/or too costly to get off the ground today attract competition within the private sector. Thus, the Commission must review every function of government and simply not assume that just because government does it and/or has been doing it for a long time, it doesn’t mean it can’t be done more efficiently by the private sector.
Another political challenge comes from an approach which often is a red herring, assertion that the mission-critical nature of an activity means that only government can do it to ensure that it gets done in a quality way. Certainly, there are some functions in government where this is true, such as in the more intense activities of public safety. However, most of what government does simply is not so critical that the search for profits by a private contractor would interfere in making sure the job got done right, but instead would add efficiency to make the function be performed better. For example, does anybody seriously think that if the contract-letting and monitoring functions of Shreveport’s Department of Community Development had themselves been contracted out that a private concern, knowing slackness would expose it to losing the contract and criminal charges, would have been so lax as to allow the corruption rife in that agency to have existed?
Finally, politicians who believe government is there primarily to redistribute wealth and parasitical organizations that agree with this, such as labor unions, will resist it. It means lesser amounts of money can be taken from the people for redistribution from the perspective of the politicians, and from the union view less money transferred to workers because the rate of unionization is much higher in government than in the private sector. For the latter, privatization eliminates unionized jobs and replaces them with fewer non-unionized positions, weakening unions power. Overcoming the resistance of these parochial interests that have no desire to save money for all at their particular expenses might prove problematic.
Nevertheless, it is quite refreshing to see privatization taken more seriously than it ever has been by state leaders. Yet that’s the easy part; the difficult part will be to overcome special interest objections and whether the political will exists too see it all through will be the ultimate test of the seriousness of state government on this issue
7.9.09
History, dynamics confirm Vitter's favored position
Befitting its name, this space seeks to go beyond what the media reports to give readers additional insights, clarifications, and corrections into what is reported as news. A recent article about the burgeoning U.S. Senate race in Louisiana provides grist for the mill of purpose on this account.
The New Orleans Times-Picayune published a piece in which the author asserts Republican incumbent Sen. David Vitter has a good advantage in his reelection bid over Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon in part because 2010 will not feature a presidential election and historically the party that held the White House would lose seats in midterm elections. While this particularly is true in the House (violated only 3 times since the beginning of the Civil War although twice in the last decade of midterm elections), it is not particularly the case with Senate seats where in the post-World War II period it has been little more than a crapshoot barely favoring the out-party (for a simple discussion of the theory behind it all, see here). So this factor only slightly favors Vitter, if at all.
A colleague of mine also joins the consensus surrounding the likelihood of Vitter’s reelection, but adds a disclaimer that working against Vitter was that, historically, the Louisiana electorate has favored “conservative” Democrats for the Senate and Republicans for the presidency. That statement might have been true a decade ago, but it was Vitter himself with his 2004 election that broke the mold and has signaled that era likely is finished.
Perhaps more historically relevant is that Louisiana has a penchant for reelecting its incumbent senators who want another term. The last time is did not happen was in Huey Long’s election in 1932, in the middle of the Great Depression. Finally, it is doubtful whether Melancon can be called “conservative.” Certainly his American Conservative Union voting scorecard does not support that label: at an average of 46.22 (where 100 means a perfect conservative voting record) for his lifetime, and 12 for 2008, means at best he can call himself moderate or, more accurately, leaning liberal. Therefore, this factor works decisively in the favor of Vitter.
The only way Melancon has a chance to win by his own doing is by conning enough voters into thinking he leans more to the right than he does, that he shows some independence from the liberal Democrat leadership, and he is more trustworthy than Vitter. But he largely already has disarmed himself in trying to make himself appear more conservative than he really is. At present, the two biggest issues of the upcoming contest nationwide are government spending and health care. On the former, Melancon already has sunk himself with slavish support for any request made by Democrats – even as he claims to be a fiscal conservative. On the latter, Melancon to date has tried to walk a tightrope, so far voting in the main against current Democrat proposals – but even there left himself exposed by casting a procedural vote that allowed a Democrat proposal that would in effect publicly fund abortion to advance. If Vitter hammers home these actions, Melancon has no defense.
Nor does Melancon have a convincing argument concerning putative independence. Since 2008, he has voted with Democrat House leaders about 90 percent of the time, and with Democrat Pres. Barack Obama 84 percent of the time. And, given the actions listed above, reminding voters of them can effectively counteract any of the few deviations Melancon could try to cherry-pick as examples of his presumed “independence.”
In fact Melancon essentially surrendered the trust issue as well. He will try to capitalize on references to Vitter’s involvement in a prostitution ring almost a decade ago, although Vitter never has been charged with or proven to have committed any improprieties, nor did any of that have any connection to doing his job as an elected official. However, Vitter can point out Melancon cannot be trusted on something that does relate to his job, that he says one thing (that he’s a fiscal conservative) but does another (votes for the biggest budget-busting, most redistributive supplemental spending bill in the country’s history, among other things) – plus that the Democrat plays fast and loose with taxpayer dollars by taking junkets. Simply, there’s no opening for Melancon to make any inroads given the dynamics of this contest.
With over a year to go, plenty can happen that could produce situations for Melancon to exploit and thus make the election closer – or conversely that Vitter could use to really blow it open. Unless something unusual happens, or unless Vitter draws a competitive opponent for the Republican nomination who campaigns with reckless abandon (not likely), it is still Vitter’s race to lose.
The New Orleans Times-Picayune published a piece in which the author asserts Republican incumbent Sen. David Vitter has a good advantage in his reelection bid over Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon in part because 2010 will not feature a presidential election and historically the party that held the White House would lose seats in midterm elections. While this particularly is true in the House (violated only 3 times since the beginning of the Civil War although twice in the last decade of midterm elections), it is not particularly the case with Senate seats where in the post-World War II period it has been little more than a crapshoot barely favoring the out-party (for a simple discussion of the theory behind it all, see here). So this factor only slightly favors Vitter, if at all.
A colleague of mine also joins the consensus surrounding the likelihood of Vitter’s reelection, but adds a disclaimer that working against Vitter was that, historically, the Louisiana electorate has favored “conservative” Democrats for the Senate and Republicans for the presidency. That statement might have been true a decade ago, but it was Vitter himself with his 2004 election that broke the mold and has signaled that era likely is finished.
Perhaps more historically relevant is that Louisiana has a penchant for reelecting its incumbent senators who want another term. The last time is did not happen was in Huey Long’s election in 1932, in the middle of the Great Depression. Finally, it is doubtful whether Melancon can be called “conservative.” Certainly his American Conservative Union voting scorecard does not support that label: at an average of 46.22 (where 100 means a perfect conservative voting record) for his lifetime, and 12 for 2008, means at best he can call himself moderate or, more accurately, leaning liberal. Therefore, this factor works decisively in the favor of Vitter.
The only way Melancon has a chance to win by his own doing is by conning enough voters into thinking he leans more to the right than he does, that he shows some independence from the liberal Democrat leadership, and he is more trustworthy than Vitter. But he largely already has disarmed himself in trying to make himself appear more conservative than he really is. At present, the two biggest issues of the upcoming contest nationwide are government spending and health care. On the former, Melancon already has sunk himself with slavish support for any request made by Democrats – even as he claims to be a fiscal conservative. On the latter, Melancon to date has tried to walk a tightrope, so far voting in the main against current Democrat proposals – but even there left himself exposed by casting a procedural vote that allowed a Democrat proposal that would in effect publicly fund abortion to advance. If Vitter hammers home these actions, Melancon has no defense.
Nor does Melancon have a convincing argument concerning putative independence. Since 2008, he has voted with Democrat House leaders about 90 percent of the time, and with Democrat Pres. Barack Obama 84 percent of the time. And, given the actions listed above, reminding voters of them can effectively counteract any of the few deviations Melancon could try to cherry-pick as examples of his presumed “independence.”
In fact Melancon essentially surrendered the trust issue as well. He will try to capitalize on references to Vitter’s involvement in a prostitution ring almost a decade ago, although Vitter never has been charged with or proven to have committed any improprieties, nor did any of that have any connection to doing his job as an elected official. However, Vitter can point out Melancon cannot be trusted on something that does relate to his job, that he says one thing (that he’s a fiscal conservative) but does another (votes for the biggest budget-busting, most redistributive supplemental spending bill in the country’s history, among other things) – plus that the Democrat plays fast and loose with taxpayer dollars by taking junkets. Simply, there’s no opening for Melancon to make any inroads given the dynamics of this contest.
With over a year to go, plenty can happen that could produce situations for Melancon to exploit and thus make the election closer – or conversely that Vitter could use to really blow it open. Unless something unusual happens, or unless Vitter draws a competitive opponent for the Republican nomination who campaigns with reckless abandon (not likely), it is still Vitter’s race to lose.
6.9.09
Study shows why megafund needs no replenishment
Louisiana has allowed itself to be fooled again and again over acquiescence to industrial policy, and taxpayers may be asked again to throw away more good money after bad on corporate welfare that costs more than the benefits it brings the state as a whole.
In the past few years under previous gubernatorial administrations, funds were created to bribe companies to locate operations in Louisiana. These funds, instead of tackling the diseases that discourage capital formation, entrepreneurship, and commerce in the state such as higher taxation, over-regulation, unwillingness to do what is needed to enhance improvement of education, etc., masking the diseases as a form of compensation to firms to deal with these shortcomings.
Tax credits for movie making marked the first substantial foray into this dangerous territory but now unfortunately the state has bought whole hog into this ideology which is the outstanding weakness of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s tenure by his failure to prevent it. This past year saw major expenditures to salve several concerns entering the state. Combining those expenditures from film tax credits, the Rapid Response Fund, and the Mega-Project Development Fund (which was altered this year to make it easier for petitioners to qualify for it to justify its existence) are likely to go over $400 million of the people’s money for this past fiscal year, transferred to a small group of mostly large corporations.
In the past few years under previous gubernatorial administrations, funds were created to bribe companies to locate operations in Louisiana. These funds, instead of tackling the diseases that discourage capital formation, entrepreneurship, and commerce in the state such as higher taxation, over-regulation, unwillingness to do what is needed to enhance improvement of education, etc., masking the diseases as a form of compensation to firms to deal with these shortcomings.
Tax credits for movie making marked the first substantial foray into this dangerous territory but now unfortunately the state has bought whole hog into this ideology which is the outstanding weakness of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s tenure by his failure to prevent it. This past year saw major expenditures to salve several concerns entering the state. Combining those expenditures from film tax credits, the Rapid Response Fund, and the Mega-Project Development Fund (which was altered this year to make it easier for petitioners to qualify for it to justify its existence) are likely to go over $400 million of the people’s money for this past fiscal year, transferred to a small group of mostly large corporations.
3.9.09
Tying state pay to performance brings double benefit
Gov. Bobby Jindal and advocates of more efficient government in Louisiana can get two-for-one if the State Civil Service Commission follows through with revisions to its pay scales by the end of this year.
As the magnitude of Louisiana’s projected budget deficits for the next few years became clearer this past year, talk emerged about saving money through a more rational application of existing compensation rules. Presently, almost every classified employee receives a flat four percent raise annually if money is available because almost all are rated as satisfactory, while almost none are discharged to unsatisfactory performance. It has been recommended that pay increases be more closely correlated to gradations in performance and that evaluation be conducted utilizing more realistic standards.
This system of greater validity and flexibility might have avoided the need not to give any raises at all, as its current incarnation made it essentially an all-or-nothing proposition. Besides saving money, this debate also triggered reform proposals that would tie performance more closely to salary increases, the results of which were revealed by State Civil Service Director Sharon Templet.
Of the five, the best of them is the most complicated, where performance and market rates determine amounts. Unfortunately, its complexity likely will prove too confusing too employees and thereby reduce its motivational appeal for better output. Any of the other four plans, which would create at least three gradation and/or offer bonuses, would be an improvement over the current regime, as long as unsatisfactory performers get no raise, satisfactory-only-rated employees a very minimal one, and other gradations tied to higher evaluation levels are significantly different in their larger proportions given.
Happily, there may be another benefit to the implementation of one of these plans, which would go into effect next July 1. Frankly, a non-trivial portion of the roughly 62,000 classified employees in the state (about two-thirds of the total full-time equivalent state employees) know they will get little under the new system as for years, possibly their entire careers, they have eked out as little effort as possible to barely maintain adequacy while being assured of a fat four percent jump every year. Now that their raises, if any, would more faithfully reflect the amount of effort they are willing, or perhaps even only able, to put out, those who are advanced in their careers will not stick around – especially since they will be able to retire at nearly their entire current pay level, as potential state pensions for them are determined largely by their current salary level which wouldn’t go up much.
In short, this will encourage early retirements of the least capable employees and assist with another cost-savings idea, broached by Treasurer John Kennedy, of using attrition to cut as a goal of 5,000 jobs each over the next three years. Implement this new performance plan, and there will be no problem in meeting this aspiration. This is because the large majority of employees are in a retirement system that pays on the three consecutive designated by an employee as their base for calculation of their pension – usually their last three years prior to retirement because their pay is the almost always highest in this period. Bring on a new system, and a wave of retirements will hit the state bureaucracy cresting in June, 2011. All 15,000 would suggest a savings of around $600 million a year from then on (although it would aggravate the unfunded accrued liability situation of the pension fund.)
In the end, more rational use of fewer funds with better service will result from implementation of a new plan along the suggested lines. The Commission needs to act affirmatively on this and Jindal to approve it as soon as possible.
As the magnitude of Louisiana’s projected budget deficits for the next few years became clearer this past year, talk emerged about saving money through a more rational application of existing compensation rules. Presently, almost every classified employee receives a flat four percent raise annually if money is available because almost all are rated as satisfactory, while almost none are discharged to unsatisfactory performance. It has been recommended that pay increases be more closely correlated to gradations in performance and that evaluation be conducted utilizing more realistic standards.
This system of greater validity and flexibility might have avoided the need not to give any raises at all, as its current incarnation made it essentially an all-or-nothing proposition. Besides saving money, this debate also triggered reform proposals that would tie performance more closely to salary increases, the results of which were revealed by State Civil Service Director Sharon Templet.
Of the five, the best of them is the most complicated, where performance and market rates determine amounts. Unfortunately, its complexity likely will prove too confusing too employees and thereby reduce its motivational appeal for better output. Any of the other four plans, which would create at least three gradation and/or offer bonuses, would be an improvement over the current regime, as long as unsatisfactory performers get no raise, satisfactory-only-rated employees a very minimal one, and other gradations tied to higher evaluation levels are significantly different in their larger proportions given.
Happily, there may be another benefit to the implementation of one of these plans, which would go into effect next July 1. Frankly, a non-trivial portion of the roughly 62,000 classified employees in the state (about two-thirds of the total full-time equivalent state employees) know they will get little under the new system as for years, possibly their entire careers, they have eked out as little effort as possible to barely maintain adequacy while being assured of a fat four percent jump every year. Now that their raises, if any, would more faithfully reflect the amount of effort they are willing, or perhaps even only able, to put out, those who are advanced in their careers will not stick around – especially since they will be able to retire at nearly their entire current pay level, as potential state pensions for them are determined largely by their current salary level which wouldn’t go up much.
In short, this will encourage early retirements of the least capable employees and assist with another cost-savings idea, broached by Treasurer John Kennedy, of using attrition to cut as a goal of 5,000 jobs each over the next three years. Implement this new performance plan, and there will be no problem in meeting this aspiration. This is because the large majority of employees are in a retirement system that pays on the three consecutive designated by an employee as their base for calculation of their pension – usually their last three years prior to retirement because their pay is the almost always highest in this period. Bring on a new system, and a wave of retirements will hit the state bureaucracy cresting in June, 2011. All 15,000 would suggest a savings of around $600 million a year from then on (although it would aggravate the unfunded accrued liability situation of the pension fund.)
In the end, more rational use of fewer funds with better service will result from implementation of a new plan along the suggested lines. The Commission needs to act affirmatively on this and Jindal to approve it as soon as possible.
2.9.09
Glover's see no evil approach merits his job termination
Take Mayor Cedric Glover, subtract a hundred pounds or so, change the hair color and style, take off the glasses, and whitewash him, as because they already share the same attitude that allows corruption into Shreveport’s Department of Community Development, you wouldn’t be able to tell that former mayor Keith Hightower isn’t still in office.
Glover’s administration was stung by arrests of city employees made this week – so much so he has gone into seclusion from the media – who are accused of turning a blind eye that allowed contractors to be paid taxpayer money fraudulently, perhaps as much as $1.5 million and maybe much more. A grant program designed to pay contractors to improve residences of those on public assistance was abused by four contractors with the assistance of three city inspectors, with funds going to the four for substandard work and simply for no work performed, it is alleged.
Naturally, Glover said he hadn’t known about any of this, nor did the director of the department Bonnie Moore, until brought to their attention by investigators – despite the fact that some of the people supposed to be helped by the program realized what was going on and eventually that alerted Caddo Sheriff Steve Prator who opened the investigation. Even then, Prator described the city’s cooperation into the matter as lacking.
Regardless, this is no excuse for Glover. This department has been a chronic trouble spot, both in the area of paying out funds and inspections of property. In 2005, under Hightower and Moore, it was discovered that some associates of Hightower’s were getting what appeared to be favorable treatment on loans administered by the department. Instead of an investigation, Hightower and Moore stopped the program. Meanwhile, sloppy record keeping (also blamed for the lending controversy) in code enforcement essentially had ground that activity to a halt, costing the city millions of dollars in uncollected fines and in payment of maintenance of adjudicated property.
Glover ignored that history, retained Moore when he took over City Hall, and at least tried to beef up code enforcement and adjudication. Turns out he’s back to square zero on that, because with the arrest of the city inspectors for now there are no city employees to do any inspecting. If guilty as they are charged, one must wonder just how many other corrupt activities in this area have gone unnoticed, and for how many years.
Now there’s this. As an evidence of how badly managed the department is, some of the arrested contractors are that only in name – they have no license, which can be determined in a matter of seconds here. (Another name a couple of them have is “ex-con,” another red flag gone unnoticed.) Only the most inattentive and/or reckless management would fail to check that the contracts they are letting actually go to operators with state licenses.
If all of this happened in a place that values competence, Moore would have the sense to resign or Glover would have the gumption to fire her and either way make massive changes to the agency. Instead, among the last words he has spoken to the media he defended her. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that, if Glover is not going to take seriously this matter, the person that’s going to get fired is him in 2010.
Glover’s administration was stung by arrests of city employees made this week – so much so he has gone into seclusion from the media – who are accused of turning a blind eye that allowed contractors to be paid taxpayer money fraudulently, perhaps as much as $1.5 million and maybe much more. A grant program designed to pay contractors to improve residences of those on public assistance was abused by four contractors with the assistance of three city inspectors, with funds going to the four for substandard work and simply for no work performed, it is alleged.
Naturally, Glover said he hadn’t known about any of this, nor did the director of the department Bonnie Moore, until brought to their attention by investigators – despite the fact that some of the people supposed to be helped by the program realized what was going on and eventually that alerted Caddo Sheriff Steve Prator who opened the investigation. Even then, Prator described the city’s cooperation into the matter as lacking.
Regardless, this is no excuse for Glover. This department has been a chronic trouble spot, both in the area of paying out funds and inspections of property. In 2005, under Hightower and Moore, it was discovered that some associates of Hightower’s were getting what appeared to be favorable treatment on loans administered by the department. Instead of an investigation, Hightower and Moore stopped the program. Meanwhile, sloppy record keeping (also blamed for the lending controversy) in code enforcement essentially had ground that activity to a halt, costing the city millions of dollars in uncollected fines and in payment of maintenance of adjudicated property.
Glover ignored that history, retained Moore when he took over City Hall, and at least tried to beef up code enforcement and adjudication. Turns out he’s back to square zero on that, because with the arrest of the city inspectors for now there are no city employees to do any inspecting. If guilty as they are charged, one must wonder just how many other corrupt activities in this area have gone unnoticed, and for how many years.
Now there’s this. As an evidence of how badly managed the department is, some of the arrested contractors are that only in name – they have no license, which can be determined in a matter of seconds here. (Another name a couple of them have is “ex-con,” another red flag gone unnoticed.) Only the most inattentive and/or reckless management would fail to check that the contracts they are letting actually go to operators with state licenses.
If all of this happened in a place that values competence, Moore would have the sense to resign or Glover would have the gumption to fire her and either way make massive changes to the agency. Instead, among the last words he has spoken to the media he defended her. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that, if Glover is not going to take seriously this matter, the person that’s going to get fired is him in 2010.
1.9.09
Union decries innovation, supports continued mediocrity
You can make all of the procedural and administrative changes you like to how is delivered elementary and secondary education in Louisiana, but until reform comes to personnel and local administration only incremental improvement at best can be expected, as recent comments by a union representative claiming to represent teachers demonstrate.
Louisiana appears strongly to be in the running for funding from a federal government program, one of perhaps a dozen states that will split among them $4.4 billion that go to states that adopt standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace, turn around low-performing schools, build data systems that measure student success, and recruit and reward effective teachers and principals. State Superintendant Paul Pastorek has said as many as 500 schools could benefit from the estimated $200 million the state could receive.
Some notes of caution were expressed by a spokesman for state school boards, who wondered whether this could mean institution of programs initially paid for by the state but then costs shifted onto districts. Pastorek insisted that any planning in this regard would look at this question. While it would be unfair to give districts with schools needing help a complete pass on the extra costs of improvement – after all, in the final analysis they are problems of their own makings – the state should provide a mechanism by which to heavily subsidize whatever efforts get established past the start-up phase.
But the reaction by the Louisiana Association of Educators to the possible windfall was puerile, if not infantile. ““When you really get down to it, it is the privatization of public schools using public dollars,” said Tom Tate, a lobbyist for the union. “We are just opposed to that.”
So what? Of course, it’s not even really clear what this objection is all about. Spoken in the context of state takeovers of schools, it appears this refers to the frequent practice of the state taking possession of failing local schools and converting them into charter schools. But this is not privatization; the schools still remain public, except they are contracted to non-government entities to run.
And what does that matter anyway? If this method provides a better education to students (as it appears to do), what in the world is wrong with it? That a union brays against supporting initiatives to improve education yet again speaks volumes about the central truth concerning these collectivities: they care nothing about children’s education, only about transferring as much of taxpayers’ dollars as possible to presumed teacher clients encouraged to put forth the least amount of effort in doing their jobs, aiming everything towards the lowest common denominator. They fear charter schools because of these institutions’ increased accountability mechanisms that demand more from teachers, pay more according to ability than longevity, and provide less cover for lazy and incompetent teachers.
It’s this bad attitude that is allowed to fester among the aggregate of state public school teachers (even as many individually recognize it and object to it while maintaining their own pursuits of excellence) and is most responsible for the substandard education being delivered in Louisiana. Only by instituting programs such as rigorous and frequent testing of teachers for subject area competence can accountability be established to squash this thinking. In the meantime, Pastorek and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education need to ignore these defenders of privilege and mediocrity, by pressing on to procure this federal assistance, and to employ it in whatever way necessary to achieve the opposite of their opponents’ loathsome agenda.
Louisiana appears strongly to be in the running for funding from a federal government program, one of perhaps a dozen states that will split among them $4.4 billion that go to states that adopt standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace, turn around low-performing schools, build data systems that measure student success, and recruit and reward effective teachers and principals. State Superintendant Paul Pastorek has said as many as 500 schools could benefit from the estimated $200 million the state could receive.
Some notes of caution were expressed by a spokesman for state school boards, who wondered whether this could mean institution of programs initially paid for by the state but then costs shifted onto districts. Pastorek insisted that any planning in this regard would look at this question. While it would be unfair to give districts with schools needing help a complete pass on the extra costs of improvement – after all, in the final analysis they are problems of their own makings – the state should provide a mechanism by which to heavily subsidize whatever efforts get established past the start-up phase.
But the reaction by the Louisiana Association of Educators to the possible windfall was puerile, if not infantile. ““When you really get down to it, it is the privatization of public schools using public dollars,” said Tom Tate, a lobbyist for the union. “We are just opposed to that.”
So what? Of course, it’s not even really clear what this objection is all about. Spoken in the context of state takeovers of schools, it appears this refers to the frequent practice of the state taking possession of failing local schools and converting them into charter schools. But this is not privatization; the schools still remain public, except they are contracted to non-government entities to run.
And what does that matter anyway? If this method provides a better education to students (as it appears to do), what in the world is wrong with it? That a union brays against supporting initiatives to improve education yet again speaks volumes about the central truth concerning these collectivities: they care nothing about children’s education, only about transferring as much of taxpayers’ dollars as possible to presumed teacher clients encouraged to put forth the least amount of effort in doing their jobs, aiming everything towards the lowest common denominator. They fear charter schools because of these institutions’ increased accountability mechanisms that demand more from teachers, pay more according to ability than longevity, and provide less cover for lazy and incompetent teachers.
It’s this bad attitude that is allowed to fester among the aggregate of state public school teachers (even as many individually recognize it and object to it while maintaining their own pursuits of excellence) and is most responsible for the substandard education being delivered in Louisiana. Only by instituting programs such as rigorous and frequent testing of teachers for subject area competence can accountability be established to squash this thinking. In the meantime, Pastorek and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education need to ignore these defenders of privilege and mediocrity, by pressing on to procure this federal assistance, and to employ it in whatever way necessary to achieve the opposite of their opponents’ loathsome agenda.
31.8.09
Special election outcome warns of danger to Democrats
As usual, lessons present themselves after the results of a special election in a competitive Louisiana legislative district, this time from the Senate District 20 contest necessitated by the early departure of Reggie Dupre. The district, held by Democrats since the elimination of opposition to them after the Civil War by 1900, was won by about 10 percent by Democrat Norby Chabert over Republican Brent Callais.
First, more proof came from this that Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal doesn’t have much in the way of coattails in these kinds of elections. Jindal endorsed Callais, a former Lafourche Parish councilman, but it wasn’t enough. This followed another failed candidacy of a Jindal endorsee earlier this year. Jindal is popular in the state and thereby an endorsement can’t hurt, but so far they don’t seem to help, either. This points to a difficulty in translating a statewide consensus about a politician onto a local contest.
Second, while (in percentage terms) Callais produced the second-best showing ever by a Republican in the district, at only 20 percent GOP registration, even with white Democrats an even-money bet to defect in elections, it’s a lot to overcome as a Republican. The quick-and-dirty rule of thumb that argues half of white Democrats vote for Republicans and all Republicans do would give a GOP candidate about 42 percent in that district under typical circumstances, and Callais actually beat that by a bit. That in the primary Democrat candidates got over two-thirds of the district’s vote underscores the task for a Republican.
However, it is a competitive district and one that the GOP could pick off. In my research on voting behavior in Louisiana legislative elections, I have discovered the “8:3 rule” which states that if the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in a district exceeds this ratio, a Democrat wins most of the time, but if it does not, a Republican does. The numbers put this district right at that ratio, so why did it tip the way of Democrats this time?
Well, third, while Callais tried to link Chabert to national political forces, most principally pointing to Chabert’s past support of Pres. Barack Obama, as another challenger there wasn’t much that could be used against Chabert other than this. Had he been elected to office before, other pieces of evidence demonstrating Chabert’s support of unpopular policies or people might have been available – something which may be present for a potential rematch in 2011.
Fourth, personalistic factors loom large in Louisiana local politics and perhaps nowhere more than in the bayou country. The Chabert name still carries a lot of cachet around the district, with one of them serving in the Senate from 1980-96. That Norby Chabert could ace out sitting state Rep. Damon Baldone for the Democrat vote in the primary speaks to that, as well as that Baldone may have been seen as tied more closely to national Democrats because of votes he had taken in the House.
Fifth, this being a special election may have played to the Chabert name and difficulty in connecting Chabert to national Democrats. In these less-stimulating kinds of contests, voters that show up typically are more interested and informed about politics, as well as there being fewer cues present on which to base voting behavior. Thus, more voters more likely would have recognized some distance between the rookie candidate Chabert and national Democrats, blunting the effectiveness of that strategy of Callais’, and the Chabert name would be an extra and exaggerated relevant cue received favorably by many.
In short, while national political forces favored Callais, demographics, timing, and name recognition favored Chabert. But take away the timing and name, and maybe even just the latter, and Callais may well have won. Knowledge of this gives clues to future performances and electoral tactics.
All in all, if Democrats nationally continue to self-destruct, if Louisiana Republicans can campaign starkly on their policy differences, even if Louisiana legislative Democrats intentionally cast some high-profile conservative votes in the next two years, it may not be enough to stave off the public’s recognition that if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. State-level Democrat candidates, especially incumbents, may be such fleabags by then that enough of the public will ignore whatever attempts to present themselves as conservatives.
If so, they will lose in districts like this one. Thus, the proper way to interpret this result is that unless the policy outcomes for Democrats change in the next couple of years and Republican candidates hold them accountable for their actions and associations, contests in Louisiana that shouldn’t be close for Democrats will be, and the majority of them that typically are close are not going to go their way.
First, more proof came from this that Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal doesn’t have much in the way of coattails in these kinds of elections. Jindal endorsed Callais, a former Lafourche Parish councilman, but it wasn’t enough. This followed another failed candidacy of a Jindal endorsee earlier this year. Jindal is popular in the state and thereby an endorsement can’t hurt, but so far they don’t seem to help, either. This points to a difficulty in translating a statewide consensus about a politician onto a local contest.
Second, while (in percentage terms) Callais produced the second-best showing ever by a Republican in the district, at only 20 percent GOP registration, even with white Democrats an even-money bet to defect in elections, it’s a lot to overcome as a Republican. The quick-and-dirty rule of thumb that argues half of white Democrats vote for Republicans and all Republicans do would give a GOP candidate about 42 percent in that district under typical circumstances, and Callais actually beat that by a bit. That in the primary Democrat candidates got over two-thirds of the district’s vote underscores the task for a Republican.
However, it is a competitive district and one that the GOP could pick off. In my research on voting behavior in Louisiana legislative elections, I have discovered the “8:3 rule” which states that if the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in a district exceeds this ratio, a Democrat wins most of the time, but if it does not, a Republican does. The numbers put this district right at that ratio, so why did it tip the way of Democrats this time?
Well, third, while Callais tried to link Chabert to national political forces, most principally pointing to Chabert’s past support of Pres. Barack Obama, as another challenger there wasn’t much that could be used against Chabert other than this. Had he been elected to office before, other pieces of evidence demonstrating Chabert’s support of unpopular policies or people might have been available – something which may be present for a potential rematch in 2011.
Fourth, personalistic factors loom large in Louisiana local politics and perhaps nowhere more than in the bayou country. The Chabert name still carries a lot of cachet around the district, with one of them serving in the Senate from 1980-96. That Norby Chabert could ace out sitting state Rep. Damon Baldone for the Democrat vote in the primary speaks to that, as well as that Baldone may have been seen as tied more closely to national Democrats because of votes he had taken in the House.
Fifth, this being a special election may have played to the Chabert name and difficulty in connecting Chabert to national Democrats. In these less-stimulating kinds of contests, voters that show up typically are more interested and informed about politics, as well as there being fewer cues present on which to base voting behavior. Thus, more voters more likely would have recognized some distance between the rookie candidate Chabert and national Democrats, blunting the effectiveness of that strategy of Callais’, and the Chabert name would be an extra and exaggerated relevant cue received favorably by many.
In short, while national political forces favored Callais, demographics, timing, and name recognition favored Chabert. But take away the timing and name, and maybe even just the latter, and Callais may well have won. Knowledge of this gives clues to future performances and electoral tactics.
All in all, if Democrats nationally continue to self-destruct, if Louisiana Republicans can campaign starkly on their policy differences, even if Louisiana legislative Democrats intentionally cast some high-profile conservative votes in the next two years, it may not be enough to stave off the public’s recognition that if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. State-level Democrat candidates, especially incumbents, may be such fleabags by then that enough of the public will ignore whatever attempts to present themselves as conservatives.
If so, they will lose in districts like this one. Thus, the proper way to interpret this result is that unless the policy outcomes for Democrats change in the next couple of years and Republican candidates hold them accountable for their actions and associations, contests in Louisiana that shouldn’t be close for Democrats will be, and the majority of them that typically are close are not going to go their way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)