Finally, almost a month later, Gov. Bobby Jindal jumped on the train spawned by state Sen. Buddy Shaw’s SB 87 which would provide a tax cut for middle-class households to the tune of $302 million a year. The wonder is why he didn’t leap early into the engine cab rather than catch onto the caboose, and what prompted him to do so?
Despite information showing excess state funds beyond what Jindal’s 2008-09 budget had anticipated, despite the House cutting spending that would have partially offset the “cost” of the cut, despite legislative criticism of some of Jindal’s spending plans, the most Jindal ever committed to on this bill was after initial opposition he agreed he would sign in it if commensurate cuts were made. Meanwhile, others perceived that in allowing a poison pill amendment that altered the bill to make it wipe out individual, estate, and trust income taxes over 10 years that would give Jindal an excuse not to sign it, Jindal really wanted to kill it.
This line of behavior, given Jindal’s stated desire to reduce the size of government and his goal of reducing or eliminating income taxes in the future, could lead only to two assumptions about Jindal’s thinking on the matter. One was Jindal had very serious concerns about looming budget deficits and the use of “one-time” money (generated from non-recurring sources like federal grants, even if they would be considered “recurring” under the state’s definition for budgeting purposes) to fund recurring commitments and even given his enthusiasm for tax relief he felt he simply could not do it.
However, Jindal never tried to make a public case to justify his opposition on these grounds, which either was a sign of poor political skill or implied the other potential motive, that Jindal really didn’t care about delivering tax cuts when he had a decent chance to do so. Whatever the reason, Jindal today announced his support for the original bill with only one change, beginning implementation in tax/budget year 2009 rather than 2008.
What changed Jindal’s mind? Was it irreversible momentum that made him go against his better judgment about the budget and/or skepticism about tax cuts? Did further review satisfy him that a 2009 start would not be imperiling state finances? Or was there some kind of deal made? (Maybe some of all of the above?)
If a deal is involved with the House and/or Senate, likely it would involve either or both of two things. One is with the issue of earmarks slipped into the state’s operating budget that Jindal promised to review very stringently, the other is legislator pay raises to among the highest in the nation and the highest in the South despite this being a part-time job in a state that underperforms in almost every way, which one might presume Jindal would oppose on the principle of smaller government.
The House and Senate may have threatened Jindal to send the amended bill through and dare him to veto it unless they got these kinds of concessions. If they did and Jindal blinked, in a few weeks he unenthusiastically will pursue these ends. Thus the people would suffer unwise spending if so in addition to Jindal’s squandering of political capital. But if he shows zeal with his veto pen, nothing may have been brokered.
Regardless, Jindal took a big hit to his reputation on his issue. In order for him to reassure a number of conservatives and reformers that heretofore have supported him, in the future he may have to be act more boldly more quickly than he had planned on their agendas.
14.5.08
New public records exemption approach needs action
While it’s agreed by the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration and reformers that there ought to be more transparency in the governor’s office, finding the right way to do has been elusive and demands a new approach.
Right now, over five dozen agencies that got folded into the office remains exempt from public records requests. The problem is the original law that established the general concept of exemption simply said the governor’s office was exempt, and over the decades various reorganizations have stuffed more and more agencies and functions into it.
One approach, passed out of committee in the House, HB 1100 by state Rep. Wayne Waddell, would specify a select few positions in the governor’s office. However, the bill leaves too much ambiguity regarding the relationships of those officials to others who work for them and interrelate with them. For example, argued executive counsel Jimmy Faircloth, would a communication from a secretary in a covered position to one that was not count? No doubt meaningful and appropriate lines eventually could be figured out, but at the cost of a great deal of inefficiency and even court challenges.
Another, supported by the Administration, represented by SB 629 by Sen. Mike Walsworth which awaits the full Senate, specifies many exceptions although many fewer than currently exist. But the problem there is that in most cases they were chosen because some part, no matter how minor, of their duties logically would fall under an exception but the remainder of their duties which should not be exempt would be.
The problem is these bills focus on the jobs and positions, not on the actual content of the communications which is an approach many other states use. The ideal bill, which as yet doesn’t exist, would offer a very few blanket exemptions – governor, chief of staff, executive counsel, and others whose jobs routinely handle sensitive information like the inspector general and Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. Otherwise, for all other communications, categories based on content should be defined legally and exactly, leaving no room for ambiguity but at the same time not covering under the umbrella things that have no justification for being there.
Either of these instruments can be amended into these forms, and should be, in order to reach a goal that theoretically everybody wishes to attain.
Right now, over five dozen agencies that got folded into the office remains exempt from public records requests. The problem is the original law that established the general concept of exemption simply said the governor’s office was exempt, and over the decades various reorganizations have stuffed more and more agencies and functions into it.
One approach, passed out of committee in the House, HB 1100 by state Rep. Wayne Waddell, would specify a select few positions in the governor’s office. However, the bill leaves too much ambiguity regarding the relationships of those officials to others who work for them and interrelate with them. For example, argued executive counsel Jimmy Faircloth, would a communication from a secretary in a covered position to one that was not count? No doubt meaningful and appropriate lines eventually could be figured out, but at the cost of a great deal of inefficiency and even court challenges.
Another, supported by the Administration, represented by SB 629 by Sen. Mike Walsworth which awaits the full Senate, specifies many exceptions although many fewer than currently exist. But the problem there is that in most cases they were chosen because some part, no matter how minor, of their duties logically would fall under an exception but the remainder of their duties which should not be exempt would be.
The problem is these bills focus on the jobs and positions, not on the actual content of the communications which is an approach many other states use. The ideal bill, which as yet doesn’t exist, would offer a very few blanket exemptions – governor, chief of staff, executive counsel, and others whose jobs routinely handle sensitive information like the inspector general and Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. Otherwise, for all other communications, categories based on content should be defined legally and exactly, leaving no room for ambiguity but at the same time not covering under the umbrella things that have no justification for being there.
Either of these instruments can be amended into these forms, and should be, in order to reach a goal that theoretically everybody wishes to attain.
13.5.08
Arguments of opponents to capital outlay reform "fluff"
So does it or doesn’t it? While most of the Louisiana Senate agreed SB 808 by state Sen. Rob Marionneaux improves the current capital outlay process for the state and thereby passed, a few senators did not and voted against it. Let’s figure this out.
The bill makes several changes. It allows a rise in the $200 million cap on capital expenditures by the rate of inflation. It requires at least 75 percent to be spent on state projects and on those that aren’t in most cases the local of nongovernmental must come up with 25 percent of the funding on its own. It collapses the categorization system into a five-year plan set by law. It pushes back the change date from Nov. 1 to Dec. 15. These aren’t controversial provisions.
Two, however, were. One is that the proposed law retains the present law’s absence of a cap on the total amount of that could be put into the bill. Theoretically, the five-year plan submitted by the governor would include a little over $1 billion. But nothing under either present or the proposed law would prevent the Legislature from putting in more requested amounts than the cap, whether the annual limit now or the proposed five-year plan limit. As a result, presently the Legislature loads up the bill and passes it, leaving in the hands essentially of the governor (because the State Bond Commission gives formal assent to selling the debt per project and the governor’s appointees and allies have a majority on it) to decide what gets funded.
The other is that the proposed law seeks to change how feasibility is determined. The present standard is documentation submitted to the Office of Facility and Planning Control in the Division of Administration in the governor’s office alone suffices. The bill mandates that objective standards are to be developed and employed to assign a ranking to each project which is now not done.
State Sen. Robert Adley was the vocal critic of the lack of a cap on requests. Adley, who had a competing bill that was almost identical to this one and who amended it to reflect the bill prior to SB 808 (it is a substitute) in committee, wanted to put one of 140 percent and have the final list going before the Commission to be approved by legislative committees. Together, these would give much less flexibility to the administration in championing projects.
When his amendment that would have done these things failed by one vote, Adley sulked and declared he wouldn’t vote for the bill almost like his because it had too much “fluff” and wasn’t real reform. Of course, through his pouting Adley neglected to mention something that completely negated his argument: it is solely up to the Legislature to choose whether to fund projects. The Legislature chooses to load up the capital outlay bill and hands the selection power to the governor. Further, Adley’s idea of having committees approve a slate of projects after the governor’s signature violates the idea of separation of powers by first giving the governor the list and then approving whatever he approves again. If the Legislature really wants to control the process, all it must do is send $200 million worth of projects and leave the governor only with the options of vetoing the entire bill or exercising line item vetoes – both which the Legislature could reverse. Adley is trying to legislate willpower into the Legislature through dubious constitutional means.
State Sen. Troy Hebert voiced the other main objection, that the feasibility studies now made formal into the administration’s role will skew the process in its favor. Again notable is what is left out here: the Legislature is under no compulsion to give any weight in its capital outlay decisions to the results of the studies. It can appropriate for any project it wants (subject to the new 25/25 rule and ceiling), as long as it there was a feasibility study submitted for it (constitutionally they must be listed in order of priority but higher priorities aren’t forced into the budget over lower). Besides, the rules promulgated for analyzing the projects are themselves subject to review by committees of each chamber before implementation. Again, it’s just a matter of legislative willpower if it wants to assert its authority in this matter.
Analysis shows that if there’s any fluff in on this issue, it’s in the arguments of Adley and Hebert. SB 808 is a welcome change and deserves to become law.
The bill makes several changes. It allows a rise in the $200 million cap on capital expenditures by the rate of inflation. It requires at least 75 percent to be spent on state projects and on those that aren’t in most cases the local of nongovernmental must come up with 25 percent of the funding on its own. It collapses the categorization system into a five-year plan set by law. It pushes back the change date from Nov. 1 to Dec. 15. These aren’t controversial provisions.
Two, however, were. One is that the proposed law retains the present law’s absence of a cap on the total amount of that could be put into the bill. Theoretically, the five-year plan submitted by the governor would include a little over $1 billion. But nothing under either present or the proposed law would prevent the Legislature from putting in more requested amounts than the cap, whether the annual limit now or the proposed five-year plan limit. As a result, presently the Legislature loads up the bill and passes it, leaving in the hands essentially of the governor (because the State Bond Commission gives formal assent to selling the debt per project and the governor’s appointees and allies have a majority on it) to decide what gets funded.
The other is that the proposed law seeks to change how feasibility is determined. The present standard is documentation submitted to the Office of Facility and Planning Control in the Division of Administration in the governor’s office alone suffices. The bill mandates that objective standards are to be developed and employed to assign a ranking to each project which is now not done.
State Sen. Robert Adley was the vocal critic of the lack of a cap on requests. Adley, who had a competing bill that was almost identical to this one and who amended it to reflect the bill prior to SB 808 (it is a substitute) in committee, wanted to put one of 140 percent and have the final list going before the Commission to be approved by legislative committees. Together, these would give much less flexibility to the administration in championing projects.
When his amendment that would have done these things failed by one vote, Adley sulked and declared he wouldn’t vote for the bill almost like his because it had too much “fluff” and wasn’t real reform. Of course, through his pouting Adley neglected to mention something that completely negated his argument: it is solely up to the Legislature to choose whether to fund projects. The Legislature chooses to load up the capital outlay bill and hands the selection power to the governor. Further, Adley’s idea of having committees approve a slate of projects after the governor’s signature violates the idea of separation of powers by first giving the governor the list and then approving whatever he approves again. If the Legislature really wants to control the process, all it must do is send $200 million worth of projects and leave the governor only with the options of vetoing the entire bill or exercising line item vetoes – both which the Legislature could reverse. Adley is trying to legislate willpower into the Legislature through dubious constitutional means.
State Sen. Troy Hebert voiced the other main objection, that the feasibility studies now made formal into the administration’s role will skew the process in its favor. Again notable is what is left out here: the Legislature is under no compulsion to give any weight in its capital outlay decisions to the results of the studies. It can appropriate for any project it wants (subject to the new 25/25 rule and ceiling), as long as it there was a feasibility study submitted for it (constitutionally they must be listed in order of priority but higher priorities aren’t forced into the budget over lower). Besides, the rules promulgated for analyzing the projects are themselves subject to review by committees of each chamber before implementation. Again, it’s just a matter of legislative willpower if it wants to assert its authority in this matter.
Analysis shows that if there’s any fluff in on this issue, it’s in the arguments of Adley and Hebert. SB 808 is a welcome change and deserves to become law.
12.5.08
Tax, budget cut jockeying may allow Jindal comeback
The drama continues concerning the earthquake-like effects of SB 87 by state Sen. Buddy Shaw which has turned into a needless political chess game causing anxiety both for elected officials and taxpayers. However, particularly for the state and Gov. Bobby Jindal a successful resolution presents itself.
The bill as originally envisioned would have changed income tax brackets back to those of five years ago which would create a middle-class tax break of $500 or $1,000 per taxpaying household. Instead, it was amended in a Senate committee to eliminate all individual income taxes over ten years, with rates decreasing by a tenth every year. Many “supporters” of the amended bill in reality wanted to make it such a poison pill that either the Legislature would defeat it or Jindal would veto it – and by all indications Jindal seemed willing to cooperate in this.
Jindal’s story kept changing on it. First, his Administration said it was against it. Then it said it would sign it if cuts elsewhere in the budget to compensate for it would be made. Then the bill got amended, and not long afterwards the Revenue Estimating Conference declared an $824 million surplus a portion of which easily could “pay” for the cut, yet Jindal announced all of that surplus should go to substitute for “one-time” money – meaning he didn’t think it should be used for offsetting the cut, whether in the bill’s original form.
Yesterday, the House committee responsible for suggesting cuts to the governor’s budget did some of that -- $120 million which almost exclusively targeted education and health care which it said was using these “one-time” dollars. But more egregiously, it shifted other money around to fund about 140 local projects to the tune of around $15 million, even though Jindal had said that he was going to line-item veto projects of which many appeared to be of the kind that were added.
Today, debate in another House committee on SB 87 should have commenced. Yet today it got postponed for more research – which presumably had been going on since Friday’s surplus announcement – into options and feasibility.
An expensive game of chicken may be going on here. House members may be bargaining with Jindal, saying they will put the bill into a form he seems willing to sign – the latest rumor being phasing in the cut over four years – keeping the new surplus in essence unspent to allay Jindal’s stated fears of using “one-time” bucks on recurring expenses which was the rationale for cutting the $120 million and maybe even restoring that, so long as Jindal doesn’t touch most of the newly-added spending (no doubt the leadership would allow for a few symbolic strikes of the veto pen). If Jindal doesn’t deal, then they send the bill through as is and dare him to veto it and the negative political repercussions that could result from a governor who said his goal was to get rid for the individual income tax doing exactly the opposite.
But if this is what is going on and Jindal is smart and sincere in his tax-cutting desires, he can use this to turn the tables. He can tell the Legislature (the House would be carrying the Senate’s water on this deal, making the deal on its behalf as well for its senatorial projects) that unless they give him the original SB 87 that he will sign to make everybody look good and trim most of the added spending, he’ll sign the amended version and then kill off all those earmarks, plus a lot more of what they may value in other places, in the name of savings to “afford” the cut. That would dare the Legislature to try to overturn the line item vetoes (it never has) or to kill the tax cut on its own and bring the negative attention onto itself.
Ever since Jindal let the tax cut issue get out of his control by refusing to endorse it, his rhetoric about tax cuts and “one-time” money has been used against him. This bold stroke would put him back in control and it would take equal boldness for the Legislature to try to oppose, such as keeping those $120 million in cuts and calling what they may think is a bluff. But after the House’s words of caution about “one-time” money it can’t suddenly go out on a spending spree to compensate, and Jindal will then be sitting nearly a billion bucks that can be used (through debt reduction thus lower service payments and other means) to compensate for the tax cut in either form (both would cost about the same for the first year, but then obviously the amended version would escalate much more afterwards).
The scenario may offer Jindal a way out of the mess he created for himself and with successful enforcement of budget discipline through his veto pen and a tax cut presented way ahead of schedule, he’ll come out looking really good – besides, of course, doing prodigious service to the people of the state. We’ll just have to see if this is the opportunity presented, and what transpires.
The bill as originally envisioned would have changed income tax brackets back to those of five years ago which would create a middle-class tax break of $500 or $1,000 per taxpaying household. Instead, it was amended in a Senate committee to eliminate all individual income taxes over ten years, with rates decreasing by a tenth every year. Many “supporters” of the amended bill in reality wanted to make it such a poison pill that either the Legislature would defeat it or Jindal would veto it – and by all indications Jindal seemed willing to cooperate in this.
Jindal’s story kept changing on it. First, his Administration said it was against it. Then it said it would sign it if cuts elsewhere in the budget to compensate for it would be made. Then the bill got amended, and not long afterwards the Revenue Estimating Conference declared an $824 million surplus a portion of which easily could “pay” for the cut, yet Jindal announced all of that surplus should go to substitute for “one-time” money – meaning he didn’t think it should be used for offsetting the cut, whether in the bill’s original form.
Yesterday, the House committee responsible for suggesting cuts to the governor’s budget did some of that -- $120 million which almost exclusively targeted education and health care which it said was using these “one-time” dollars. But more egregiously, it shifted other money around to fund about 140 local projects to the tune of around $15 million, even though Jindal had said that he was going to line-item veto projects of which many appeared to be of the kind that were added.
Today, debate in another House committee on SB 87 should have commenced. Yet today it got postponed for more research – which presumably had been going on since Friday’s surplus announcement – into options and feasibility.
An expensive game of chicken may be going on here. House members may be bargaining with Jindal, saying they will put the bill into a form he seems willing to sign – the latest rumor being phasing in the cut over four years – keeping the new surplus in essence unspent to allay Jindal’s stated fears of using “one-time” bucks on recurring expenses which was the rationale for cutting the $120 million and maybe even restoring that, so long as Jindal doesn’t touch most of the newly-added spending (no doubt the leadership would allow for a few symbolic strikes of the veto pen). If Jindal doesn’t deal, then they send the bill through as is and dare him to veto it and the negative political repercussions that could result from a governor who said his goal was to get rid for the individual income tax doing exactly the opposite.
But if this is what is going on and Jindal is smart and sincere in his tax-cutting desires, he can use this to turn the tables. He can tell the Legislature (the House would be carrying the Senate’s water on this deal, making the deal on its behalf as well for its senatorial projects) that unless they give him the original SB 87 that he will sign to make everybody look good and trim most of the added spending, he’ll sign the amended version and then kill off all those earmarks, plus a lot more of what they may value in other places, in the name of savings to “afford” the cut. That would dare the Legislature to try to overturn the line item vetoes (it never has) or to kill the tax cut on its own and bring the negative attention onto itself.
Ever since Jindal let the tax cut issue get out of his control by refusing to endorse it, his rhetoric about tax cuts and “one-time” money has been used against him. This bold stroke would put him back in control and it would take equal boldness for the Legislature to try to oppose, such as keeping those $120 million in cuts and calling what they may think is a bluff. But after the House’s words of caution about “one-time” money it can’t suddenly go out on a spending spree to compensate, and Jindal will then be sitting nearly a billion bucks that can be used (through debt reduction thus lower service payments and other means) to compensate for the tax cut in either form (both would cost about the same for the first year, but then obviously the amended version would escalate much more afterwards).
The scenario may offer Jindal a way out of the mess he created for himself and with successful enforcement of budget discipline through his veto pen and a tax cut presented way ahead of schedule, he’ll come out looking really good – besides, of course, doing prodigious service to the people of the state. We’ll just have to see if this is the opportunity presented, and what transpires.
11.5.08
Shreveport/Bossier needs real development leadership
While Shreveport metropolitan area denizens hear all the hype about the area’s burgeoning film industry, conventions supposedly coming to town, or the probable coming of the U.S. Air Force Cyber Command, the reality is the area ranks near the bottom of places for business and careers, according to Forbes Magazine. If area politicians can stop breaking their arms patting themselves on their backs for a moment and pay attention to this, maybe they can learn how to try to improve matters.
Shreveport’s metropolitan area ranks 162nd on the Forbes list out of the largest 200 metropolitan areas. Not that this placement is exceptionally bad in Louisiana – the best ranking is held by Baton Rouge at 142, and Shreveport is sandwiched by New Orleans and Lafayette. Among smaller areas, nor does Louisiana’s rank well either, ranging from 128 to 156. Nine categories were used to make this ranking, which provide clues as to how the area can increase its desirability.
Incredibly, Shreveport ranks this low despite being fifth-best in terms of the cost of doing business, which includes taxation and costs of labor, energy, and office space. Even more incredibly, the taxation component depresses this specific ranking, because even though Caddo Parish (like most of Louisiana’s on the list) ranks in the bottom 20 nationally because of the homestead exemption, sales taxes are above average. It’s the resource costs which are really low, but only energy’s for a good reason – lots of it nearby being pumped and refined. Office space is cheap because of a glut, and labor costs are cheap due to several other factors.
Shreveport’s metropolitan area ranks 162nd on the Forbes list out of the largest 200 metropolitan areas. Not that this placement is exceptionally bad in Louisiana – the best ranking is held by Baton Rouge at 142, and Shreveport is sandwiched by New Orleans and Lafayette. Among smaller areas, nor does Louisiana’s rank well either, ranging from 128 to 156. Nine categories were used to make this ranking, which provide clues as to how the area can increase its desirability.
Incredibly, Shreveport ranks this low despite being fifth-best in terms of the cost of doing business, which includes taxation and costs of labor, energy, and office space. Even more incredibly, the taxation component depresses this specific ranking, because even though Caddo Parish (like most of Louisiana’s on the list) ranks in the bottom 20 nationally because of the homestead exemption, sales taxes are above average. It’s the resource costs which are really low, but only energy’s for a good reason – lots of it nearby being pumped and refined. Office space is cheap because of a glut, and labor costs are cheap due to several other factors.
8.5.08
Jindal funds plan sharpens potential tax cut showdown
Strangely, Gov. Bobby Jindal continues to paint himself in a corner as he announced his plans for a presumed revenue excess to be declared on Friday by the state’s Revenue Estimating Conference.
It is anticipated at that time that the Conference will declare excess funds over its prior forecast for this budget year, and also some for next budget year. That means additional monies other than what has been budgeted for this year could be spent this year on recurring programs, and the revenue base for next year’s budget has gone up which may close a predicted deficit at current spending levels.
Jindal wants the Legislature to lay off spending this year’s excess funds. If that happens, that means after July 1 they only could be spent on non-recurring items defined as five different kinds of purposes (probably soon to be six, courtesy of a bill to allow tax rebates to be given out of these funds). He also wants next year’s funds to be treated the same way by an accounting move. In other words, in essence he does not want any of these funds spent on recurring items.
This would put him on a collision course with SB 87, both its original and amended version. Author state Sen. Buddy Shaw intended the bill to provide a permanent tax cut by lowering rates on middle-class taxpayers. State Sen. Nick Gautreaux got it amended to provide a phaseout of all individual income taxes over a 10-year period, a tactic widely believed to be backed behind the scenes by Jindal to make the bill seem irresponsible enough to entice passage by making lawmakers seem willing to cut taxes, and then provide justification for Jindal to veto it. Regardless, both versions would reduce revenues about the same amount next year, around $300 million.
Jindal’s plan would forgo using excess funds to cover that amount. He has said he would support the original version if other cuts could be made elsewhere – and a tempting target to slice is a $307.1 million addition to a “megafund” to attract a large employer the expenditure of which would be a less efficient way to develop the economy than a permanent tax cut and anyway may never get used. The strategy here seems to be to keep the Gautreaux language on the bill as its overall revenue reduction is estimated at $4 billion over those years in order to save the megafund increase and keep revenues in place. In addition, the Jindal Administration defines those monies intended for the megafund as “one-time” and thus should be shuttled away from funds not collected on a recurring basis from a tax cut.
Or, as the presence of floor leaders at the news conference announcing this preference indicated, the strategy could be simply to kill off the bill. Whether any of this will work is another matter. The House, with its 60 of 104 new members many having articulated a desire to support legislation like Shaw had intended, may not let it come to that. They could call Jindal’s bluff and excise the megafund money. Or, even more intriguingly, they could amend the bill to cut income taxes by whatever amount gets declared as surplus and dare Jindal to veto a tax cut that is paid for by the numbers, knocking out the “irresponsibility” argument. Most likely, if they have smarts and muscle, they will tie the two together – force the original SB 87 through and cut the megafund increase in exchange for not putting Jindal in this political pickle.
(One additional strategy presents itself – if floor leaders and the Administration get wind that there may be rebellion in the ranks after the House Ways and Means Committee hears the bill today or perhaps if the vibes really are bad if it doesn’t by getting it deferred, one or more of them may refuse to declare a surplus. The Conference has as three of its four members House Speaker Jim Tucker and Senate President Joel Chaisson, and Jindal but more likely his designee Commissioner of Administration Angéle Davis, . The declaration must be unanimous. Without a declaration, the money doesn’t exist and in effect that would accomplish the rollover of this year’s funds to next as envisioned by Jindal. The news conference also appears to dispell rumors that Jindal might actually sign SB 87 in its current form.)
The intrigue increases but one thing seems sure: Jindal does not appear to believe the revenue enhancements that will come down the road from tax cuts that stimulate the economy are worth the short-term subtracted revenue. This belief must be ironclad for him to put up with the political pressure for tax cuts, and makes one wonder whether he really believes tax cuts inherently are salutary in the first place.
It is anticipated at that time that the Conference will declare excess funds over its prior forecast for this budget year, and also some for next budget year. That means additional monies other than what has been budgeted for this year could be spent this year on recurring programs, and the revenue base for next year’s budget has gone up which may close a predicted deficit at current spending levels.
Jindal wants the Legislature to lay off spending this year’s excess funds. If that happens, that means after July 1 they only could be spent on non-recurring items defined as five different kinds of purposes (probably soon to be six, courtesy of a bill to allow tax rebates to be given out of these funds). He also wants next year’s funds to be treated the same way by an accounting move. In other words, in essence he does not want any of these funds spent on recurring items.
This would put him on a collision course with SB 87, both its original and amended version. Author state Sen. Buddy Shaw intended the bill to provide a permanent tax cut by lowering rates on middle-class taxpayers. State Sen. Nick Gautreaux got it amended to provide a phaseout of all individual income taxes over a 10-year period, a tactic widely believed to be backed behind the scenes by Jindal to make the bill seem irresponsible enough to entice passage by making lawmakers seem willing to cut taxes, and then provide justification for Jindal to veto it. Regardless, both versions would reduce revenues about the same amount next year, around $300 million.
Jindal’s plan would forgo using excess funds to cover that amount. He has said he would support the original version if other cuts could be made elsewhere – and a tempting target to slice is a $307.1 million addition to a “megafund” to attract a large employer the expenditure of which would be a less efficient way to develop the economy than a permanent tax cut and anyway may never get used. The strategy here seems to be to keep the Gautreaux language on the bill as its overall revenue reduction is estimated at $4 billion over those years in order to save the megafund increase and keep revenues in place. In addition, the Jindal Administration defines those monies intended for the megafund as “one-time” and thus should be shuttled away from funds not collected on a recurring basis from a tax cut.
Or, as the presence of floor leaders at the news conference announcing this preference indicated, the strategy could be simply to kill off the bill. Whether any of this will work is another matter. The House, with its 60 of 104 new members many having articulated a desire to support legislation like Shaw had intended, may not let it come to that. They could call Jindal’s bluff and excise the megafund money. Or, even more intriguingly, they could amend the bill to cut income taxes by whatever amount gets declared as surplus and dare Jindal to veto a tax cut that is paid for by the numbers, knocking out the “irresponsibility” argument. Most likely, if they have smarts and muscle, they will tie the two together – force the original SB 87 through and cut the megafund increase in exchange for not putting Jindal in this political pickle.
(One additional strategy presents itself – if floor leaders and the Administration get wind that there may be rebellion in the ranks after the House Ways and Means Committee hears the bill today or perhaps if the vibes really are bad if it doesn’t by getting it deferred, one or more of them may refuse to declare a surplus. The Conference has as three of its four members House Speaker Jim Tucker and Senate President Joel Chaisson, and Jindal but more likely his designee Commissioner of Administration Angéle Davis, . The declaration must be unanimous. Without a declaration, the money doesn’t exist and in effect that would accomplish the rollover of this year’s funds to next as envisioned by Jindal. The news conference also appears to dispell rumors that Jindal might actually sign SB 87 in its current form.)
The intrigue increases but one thing seems sure: Jindal does not appear to believe the revenue enhancements that will come down the road from tax cuts that stimulate the economy are worth the short-term subtracted revenue. This belief must be ironclad for him to put up with the political pressure for tax cuts, and makes one wonder whether he really believes tax cuts inherently are salutary in the first place.
7.5.08
Press complaints of bills more about money than principle
One thing that always has fascinated me, both when I worked in the industry and now observing it but interacting with it on occasion, is the self-righteousness of the media which often is used as a cover for baser motives. At other intervals I’ve discussed how some in the media see themselves as gifts to society whose efforts they feel are indispensable, if not irreplaceable safeguards to preventing tyranny by challenging the orthodoxy that may emanate from government – all the while promoting their own kind of orthodoxy even as they claim they are “objective.”
But besides plumping for a particular worldview, there is even a greater motivator explaining why the media does what it does – money. As I remind my students at the very beginning of sections in my courses that cover the media, the business of the media is not to watch over government, or to empower “neglected” sectors of society, or to do anything else, other than just plain making money. And we have some fine examples of this masquerade of their motives in discussions about changing the scope and methods of official journals for state and local governments in Louisiana.
HB 431 and HB 446 by state Rep. Hunter Greene would move the requirement that the official acts of the state be printed in a newspaper, the only difference between the two being the latter makes this a matter of law and the former enshrines it in the Constitution. HB 971 by Rep. Dee Richard would do the same legally for local governments. Predictably, there have been howls from the press about these – but never revealing their true source of distress, the loss of revenues for their industry as it continues to decline.
It’s humorous to witness the contortions the press goes through trying to justify this corporate welfare the bills seek to end. One argument is that publishing in a source outside of government allows for greater confidence that what gets published is somehow not been “corrupted” in some sense by government. In other words, you should trust what appears in a newspaper, not what appear from government. OK, I’ll buy this – but only if these publishers of official records prove to me they have been checking what gets handed to them to publish. This argument is specious if all these publishers have been doing is taking what’s given to them and republishing it. How is that any different from it appearing on a government website? Or, how is that any different that what any enterprising citizen can do now, go to the Legislature’s web site and have full text versions available of all acts promulgated for each session, regular and special (for example)?
Another is that having web-only access is too limiting, because not enough people have or can afford Internet access. Again, only the lazy would accept this line of reasoning: newspapers cost money, too; in fact, in some places a month’s subscription is more expensive than a monthly bill for Internet access. Of course, if you can’t pay for either or get either, a trip to the library can get you both – and actually, more locations probably have free Internet access than they do papers that are official journals. So if access ends up being no worse than equal, why duplicate services tolerating a far more expensive publishing component?
And one hears dead silence from the press on the issue of how this patronage by government to a publisher may influence what is published. Especially in some rural areas where the revenues from publishing an official journal as an overall part of an enterprise may be significant, those governments who have a choice of publishers can put pressure on these outlets to cover news a certain way by threatening to yank their contract. (I have witnessed a parish government do precisely this.) Responsible publishers realize these kinds of laws can protect the media from undue pressures.
However, I’m willing to give these guardians of democracy and champions of transparency the benefit of the doubt. If they really believe in what they preach, how about this compromise: governments would designate an official journal, but pay only for it to be online and open the bidding to everybody? For example, the $200,000 subsidy the state gives the Baton Rouge Advocate for taking computer files, formatting them on some virtual pages, and then putting them to ink on paper, might only cost $20,000 a year (if even close to that) in the form of an online archive (although essentially the state already does this). Of course, whereas in Baton Rouge only a handful of publishers have the capacity to do this, dozens, even hundreds of websites could compete for the business (and in rural areas, there often is only one publisher available).
If those in the press bleating about ideals of good government and democracy against these bills (although HB 431 is not deserving of passage because this kind of policy is not important enough to be a constitutional matter) are serious, they will support compromise language to HB 446 and HB 971 that allows publication electronically outside of government which likely will bring in far fewer revenues for them if not outright loss of this business to other outlets. Otherwise, we see them for what they really are – cloaking base motives in lofty language, more interested in fleecing the taxpayer than fulfilling higher goals, and therefore their complaints need not be taken seriously.
But besides plumping for a particular worldview, there is even a greater motivator explaining why the media does what it does – money. As I remind my students at the very beginning of sections in my courses that cover the media, the business of the media is not to watch over government, or to empower “neglected” sectors of society, or to do anything else, other than just plain making money. And we have some fine examples of this masquerade of their motives in discussions about changing the scope and methods of official journals for state and local governments in Louisiana.
HB 431 and HB 446 by state Rep. Hunter Greene would move the requirement that the official acts of the state be printed in a newspaper, the only difference between the two being the latter makes this a matter of law and the former enshrines it in the Constitution. HB 971 by Rep. Dee Richard would do the same legally for local governments. Predictably, there have been howls from the press about these – but never revealing their true source of distress, the loss of revenues for their industry as it continues to decline.
It’s humorous to witness the contortions the press goes through trying to justify this corporate welfare the bills seek to end. One argument is that publishing in a source outside of government allows for greater confidence that what gets published is somehow not been “corrupted” in some sense by government. In other words, you should trust what appears in a newspaper, not what appear from government. OK, I’ll buy this – but only if these publishers of official records prove to me they have been checking what gets handed to them to publish. This argument is specious if all these publishers have been doing is taking what’s given to them and republishing it. How is that any different from it appearing on a government website? Or, how is that any different that what any enterprising citizen can do now, go to the Legislature’s web site and have full text versions available of all acts promulgated for each session, regular and special (for example)?
Another is that having web-only access is too limiting, because not enough people have or can afford Internet access. Again, only the lazy would accept this line of reasoning: newspapers cost money, too; in fact, in some places a month’s subscription is more expensive than a monthly bill for Internet access. Of course, if you can’t pay for either or get either, a trip to the library can get you both – and actually, more locations probably have free Internet access than they do papers that are official journals. So if access ends up being no worse than equal, why duplicate services tolerating a far more expensive publishing component?
And one hears dead silence from the press on the issue of how this patronage by government to a publisher may influence what is published. Especially in some rural areas where the revenues from publishing an official journal as an overall part of an enterprise may be significant, those governments who have a choice of publishers can put pressure on these outlets to cover news a certain way by threatening to yank their contract. (I have witnessed a parish government do precisely this.) Responsible publishers realize these kinds of laws can protect the media from undue pressures.
However, I’m willing to give these guardians of democracy and champions of transparency the benefit of the doubt. If they really believe in what they preach, how about this compromise: governments would designate an official journal, but pay only for it to be online and open the bidding to everybody? For example, the $200,000 subsidy the state gives the Baton Rouge Advocate for taking computer files, formatting them on some virtual pages, and then putting them to ink on paper, might only cost $20,000 a year (if even close to that) in the form of an online archive (although essentially the state already does this). Of course, whereas in Baton Rouge only a handful of publishers have the capacity to do this, dozens, even hundreds of websites could compete for the business (and in rural areas, there often is only one publisher available).
If those in the press bleating about ideals of good government and democracy against these bills (although HB 431 is not deserving of passage because this kind of policy is not important enough to be a constitutional matter) are serious, they will support compromise language to HB 446 and HB 971 that allows publication electronically outside of government which likely will bring in far fewer revenues for them if not outright loss of this business to other outlets. Otherwise, we see them for what they really are – cloaking base motives in lofty language, more interested in fleecing the taxpayer than fulfilling higher goals, and therefore their complaints need not be taken seriously.
6.5.08
Blacks gave seat to, can take it away from, Cazayoux
As election returns rolled in last Saturday, the good news for U.S. Rep.-elect Democrat Don Cazayoux was he got elected. The bad news was, the same returns showed how difficult it will be for him to get a full term in November.
There are three groups he needed especially to thank for this good fortune. Two were the campaign of his Republican opponent Louis “Woody” Jenkins and the National Republican Congressional Committee who independently yet equally as stupidly promoted Jenkins with personality-driven, rather than issue-driven, efforts. Cazayoux’s state House record firmly tags him as a liberal Democrat yet, except for a half-hearted effort on health care, none of this was raised during the campaign.
And the health care issue was brought up in the context of the overall, failed strategy of linking Cazayoux to national liberal Democrats. The problem was, the organizations needed to reinforce their inference; i.e. because Cazayoux calls himself a Democrat and is occasionally seen with national Democrats who are liberal and therefore out of touch with Louisianans’ desires and best interests, unless provided with some kind of proof that he shared their same issue preferences – and his voting record gave plenty of examples – many prospective voters either would not make the connection or would not be convinced of it, especially since Cazayoux went around portraying a misleading picture of himself by stressing the few issues on which is actually is in tune with his new district. With his constantly bleating “I'm a pro-life, a pro-Second Amendment, pro-family” candidate, Jenkins and House Republicans allowed him to define himself unchallenged.
As a result, any decent Republican (other than Jenkins) challenging Cazayoux in the fall has a better-than-even chance of defeating him as long as they exploit his weakness on most issues. This point is reinforced by the behavior of the group to whom Cazayoux really owes thanks – black voters.
An analysis of 35 Baton Rouge precincts of 98 percent or more black voters shows they voted at disproportionately higher rates in the general election than in the primary runoff where Cazayoux defeated fellow state Rep. Michael Jackson. Turnout in the general election was almost 50 percent higher overall; that is, Cazayoux’s number of votes received in the general election were about half-again the total he and Jackson got in the runoff. But among these precincts, 80 percent of those had higher turnouts than 50 percent and several more than doubled in turnout general election to runoff. Therefore, for the runoff relatively lower black turnout benefited Cazayoux, and in the general election relatively higher black turnout did the same. In that sense, he lucked out.
Using this convention again, the good news for white Cazayoux was that black Jackson’s call for a boycott of Cazayoux was trumped in part by former elected official and Baton Rouge black political broker Cleo Fields who blessed Cazayoux on a ballot he passed out, and blacks provided the backbone of his triumph. The bad news was Cazayoux owes this election to black voters who very easily can be taken away from him in the fall.
Jackson has said he will run then as an independent, skipping a Democrat primary where national Democrats supported Cazayoux, especially if black Sen. Barack Obama gets the Democrat presidential nomination. This puts Cazayoux between a rock and a hard place: if Obama wins and Jackson follows through, Cazayoux is a sure loser. But if Sen. Hillary Clinton wins the nomination instead and Jackson feels like he cannot win without Obama heading the ticket because many black voters will be disengaged out of disappointment and disgust, Cazayoux loses many of them, too – not because they’ll vote for the GOP candidate, but because they won’t vote at all, and the lesson of the special election is that, against the candidate he matched up best with, even then he needed exaggerated black turnout to win. And a better quality Republican opponent makes his position even worse.
Deluded Democrats will read far too much optimism into this election, but Cazayoux and national Democrats are politically aware enough that know they have a problem. Dealing with a quality Republican and Jackson (and by extension, Fields) will be daunting, and those who argue Cazayoux’s chances are difficult to get a full term assess the situation correctly.
There are three groups he needed especially to thank for this good fortune. Two were the campaign of his Republican opponent Louis “Woody” Jenkins and the National Republican Congressional Committee who independently yet equally as stupidly promoted Jenkins with personality-driven, rather than issue-driven, efforts. Cazayoux’s state House record firmly tags him as a liberal Democrat yet, except for a half-hearted effort on health care, none of this was raised during the campaign.
And the health care issue was brought up in the context of the overall, failed strategy of linking Cazayoux to national liberal Democrats. The problem was, the organizations needed to reinforce their inference; i.e. because Cazayoux calls himself a Democrat and is occasionally seen with national Democrats who are liberal and therefore out of touch with Louisianans’ desires and best interests, unless provided with some kind of proof that he shared their same issue preferences – and his voting record gave plenty of examples – many prospective voters either would not make the connection or would not be convinced of it, especially since Cazayoux went around portraying a misleading picture of himself by stressing the few issues on which is actually is in tune with his new district. With his constantly bleating “I'm a pro-life, a pro-Second Amendment, pro-family” candidate, Jenkins and House Republicans allowed him to define himself unchallenged.
As a result, any decent Republican (other than Jenkins) challenging Cazayoux in the fall has a better-than-even chance of defeating him as long as they exploit his weakness on most issues. This point is reinforced by the behavior of the group to whom Cazayoux really owes thanks – black voters.
An analysis of 35 Baton Rouge precincts of 98 percent or more black voters shows they voted at disproportionately higher rates in the general election than in the primary runoff where Cazayoux defeated fellow state Rep. Michael Jackson. Turnout in the general election was almost 50 percent higher overall; that is, Cazayoux’s number of votes received in the general election were about half-again the total he and Jackson got in the runoff. But among these precincts, 80 percent of those had higher turnouts than 50 percent and several more than doubled in turnout general election to runoff. Therefore, for the runoff relatively lower black turnout benefited Cazayoux, and in the general election relatively higher black turnout did the same. In that sense, he lucked out.
Using this convention again, the good news for white Cazayoux was that black Jackson’s call for a boycott of Cazayoux was trumped in part by former elected official and Baton Rouge black political broker Cleo Fields who blessed Cazayoux on a ballot he passed out, and blacks provided the backbone of his triumph. The bad news was Cazayoux owes this election to black voters who very easily can be taken away from him in the fall.
Jackson has said he will run then as an independent, skipping a Democrat primary where national Democrats supported Cazayoux, especially if black Sen. Barack Obama gets the Democrat presidential nomination. This puts Cazayoux between a rock and a hard place: if Obama wins and Jackson follows through, Cazayoux is a sure loser. But if Sen. Hillary Clinton wins the nomination instead and Jackson feels like he cannot win without Obama heading the ticket because many black voters will be disengaged out of disappointment and disgust, Cazayoux loses many of them, too – not because they’ll vote for the GOP candidate, but because they won’t vote at all, and the lesson of the special election is that, against the candidate he matched up best with, even then he needed exaggerated black turnout to win. And a better quality Republican opponent makes his position even worse.
Deluded Democrats will read far too much optimism into this election, but Cazayoux and national Democrats are politically aware enough that know they have a problem. Dealing with a quality Republican and Jackson (and by extension, Fields) will be daunting, and those who argue Cazayoux’s chances are difficult to get a full term assess the situation correctly.
5.5.08
Lawmakers prefer protecting govt than improving schools
Starkly revealed during the debate over Gov. Bobby Jindal’s pilot program to improve schools was the main reason why, despite being a pioneer in school accountability measures over a decade ago, Louisiana students and thus schools remain firmly near the bottom of performance indicators.
Jindal has proposed using $10 million to provide scholarships for Orleans Parish students who recipients could attend a private school as a result. This money is in addition to any funds the Orleans Parish public schools would receive under the state’s method of financing school districts, the Minimum Foundation Program – although that pot of money is much lower than historic norms for the district because most Orleans schools, for reasons of abysmal performance and/or disruptions from natural disasters, have been removed from local jurisdiction and are run separately either indirectly as charter schools or directly by the state itself in its Recovery School District.
But Sen. Yvonne Dorsey got testy when she objected to the Jindal Administration calling the money set aside as independent of the MFP. In committee hearings she pointed out that one component of the MFP funding formula was based upon a per-pupil measure. Therefore, if the new program enticed students out of the Orleans system, the following year funds to Orleans schools would be reduced proportionately. Thus, she called the idea that the program would not take money from the MFP disingenuous and tried to argue it would harm public education on that basis.
Of course, it really is Dorsey and those who think like her who are being disingenuous on this issue because they are trying to change the terms of debate. Dorsey, it appears, is more interested in making sure a failing educational unit gets money for students it wouldn’t be teaching than to improve the lot of students. If she really cared about education, she would want to allocate money on the basis of how best it will serve the students, not on how it will affect a government agency.
And this illustrates all too well the sad state of Louisiana education: too many politicians prefer to focus on how to protect public education institutions and their employees rather than improve elementary and secondary education as a whole. It’s why the greatest impediment to improving education in the state, individual teacher accountability measures including assessment of knowledge, not only remains unimplemented, but undebated. It’s why solutions that would improve education as a whole, if they do not use the existing institutions, are derided by out-of-touch lawmakers.
As the process unfolds, we’ll see how this measure does. With an influx of new legislators this term, there’s hope they’ll think beyond the old attitudes that have kept education in this state inferior and support this very modest policy change which will improve public schools anyway through competition.
Jindal has proposed using $10 million to provide scholarships for Orleans Parish students who recipients could attend a private school as a result. This money is in addition to any funds the Orleans Parish public schools would receive under the state’s method of financing school districts, the Minimum Foundation Program – although that pot of money is much lower than historic norms for the district because most Orleans schools, for reasons of abysmal performance and/or disruptions from natural disasters, have been removed from local jurisdiction and are run separately either indirectly as charter schools or directly by the state itself in its Recovery School District.
But Sen. Yvonne Dorsey got testy when she objected to the Jindal Administration calling the money set aside as independent of the MFP. In committee hearings she pointed out that one component of the MFP funding formula was based upon a per-pupil measure. Therefore, if the new program enticed students out of the Orleans system, the following year funds to Orleans schools would be reduced proportionately. Thus, she called the idea that the program would not take money from the MFP disingenuous and tried to argue it would harm public education on that basis.
Of course, it really is Dorsey and those who think like her who are being disingenuous on this issue because they are trying to change the terms of debate. Dorsey, it appears, is more interested in making sure a failing educational unit gets money for students it wouldn’t be teaching than to improve the lot of students. If she really cared about education, she would want to allocate money on the basis of how best it will serve the students, not on how it will affect a government agency.
And this illustrates all too well the sad state of Louisiana education: too many politicians prefer to focus on how to protect public education institutions and their employees rather than improve elementary and secondary education as a whole. It’s why the greatest impediment to improving education in the state, individual teacher accountability measures including assessment of knowledge, not only remains unimplemented, but undebated. It’s why solutions that would improve education as a whole, if they do not use the existing institutions, are derided by out-of-touch lawmakers.
As the process unfolds, we’ll see how this measure does. With an influx of new legislators this term, there’s hope they’ll think beyond the old attitudes that have kept education in this state inferior and support this very modest policy change which will improve public schools anyway through competition.
3.5.08
Cazayoux win gains short lease on Congressional life
One pretty much knew the outcome of the special election for the Sixth Congressional District in Louisiana was going to be unpredictable. Even more fascinating is that even though it’s over, it’s not really over.
You knew things were getting interesting because it was a special election which tends to bring out an unrepresentative electorate compared to what will come in November with a presidential contest topping the ballot. You also had an independent candidate whose impact in terms of voter diversion from the major party nominees was unknown. You had the Democrat nominee runner-up telling black voters not to vote for the Democrat nominee and that he would run again, basically already campaigning before this one was even decided.
In the end, however, independent Ashley Casey’s campaign really did not change the overall results, where state Rep. Don Cazayoux narrowly upset former state Rep. Louis “Woody” Jenkins. His erstwhile primary opponent state Rep. Michael Jackson’s ads seem to have been countered somewhat by former U.S. Rep. Cleo Fields’ endorsement at the last minute. Jackson and Fields have been allies in the past, and these apparently contradictory moves were entirely by design.
From black politicians’ standpoint, Cazayoux will be easier to knock off than Jenkins would have been in the fall. Jackson plans to run again but as an independent and to make that work he has to have a white Democrat to siphon off enough white votes in a three-contest to win. Had Cazayoux lost, he well may not have tried it again because in November in this district that election will better favor a Republican or a black Democrat.
One reason why is personalistic factors in an isolated contest such as this one featured will play a smaller role with a presidential candidate at the top of a ticket. Jenkins historically has been a divisive politician and his campaign got too fixated on arcane minutiae such as Cazayoux would be taking orders from Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi instead of pounding home his liberal voting record in the state House. Meanwhile, Cazayoux leveled personal attacks on Jenkins. Issues will be more important in November especially with a liberal Democrat to tie Cazayoux around.
Another factor will make that easier, although it won’t be pursued by Jackson, and that will be especially true if Sen. Barack Obama is the nominee as seems likely. That works against Cazayoux in two ways: when not blasting Jenkins, Cazayoux trumpeted some socially conservatives preference of his to obscure his overall political liberalism but being tied to Obama’s social liberalism will negate that, and that Obama’s presence on the Democrat ticket will dissuade white for voting for Cazayoux and encourage blacks to vote for Jackson if he runs.
Finally, with this being a vulnerable seat for Democrats and having to defend Sen. Mary Landrieu’s vulnerable seat, plus with better chances elsewhere in the country and a sputtering Obama to support, national Democrats will not put much money into this contest, unlike this time when there was no other contest to support. Meanwhile, this one will be a priority for the GOP and other unaffiliated supporters.
Thus, Jackson’s plans are best served with a white Democrat in office. His chances especially improve if a quality Republican doesn’t step up soon to run with qualifying beginning in just a couple of months – the compressed schedule being something else working against Cazayoux.
Normally, being in office would give a bump to an incumbent, but Cazayoux barely will have any time in office at all – in fact, probably only enough time to make votes that could hurt rather than help himself. He must immediately gear up for reelection bid that, quite frankly, shows a major portion of his victory came courtesy of black votes the majority of which will disappear if Jackson runs. Even if Jackson doesn’t, an Obama candidacy will probably drive more whites who had voted for him this time into a Republican’s camp than add blacks to his column.
Winning today was nice for Cazayoux, but in reality he has six more months of campaigning ahead and with this win is hardly any closer to winning then. And if Jackson does get into the race, Cazayoux’s Congressional career almost certainly will be among the shortest on record as he has little chance to beat both a Republican and Jackson.
You knew things were getting interesting because it was a special election which tends to bring out an unrepresentative electorate compared to what will come in November with a presidential contest topping the ballot. You also had an independent candidate whose impact in terms of voter diversion from the major party nominees was unknown. You had the Democrat nominee runner-up telling black voters not to vote for the Democrat nominee and that he would run again, basically already campaigning before this one was even decided.
In the end, however, independent Ashley Casey’s campaign really did not change the overall results, where state Rep. Don Cazayoux narrowly upset former state Rep. Louis “Woody” Jenkins. His erstwhile primary opponent state Rep. Michael Jackson’s ads seem to have been countered somewhat by former U.S. Rep. Cleo Fields’ endorsement at the last minute. Jackson and Fields have been allies in the past, and these apparently contradictory moves were entirely by design.
From black politicians’ standpoint, Cazayoux will be easier to knock off than Jenkins would have been in the fall. Jackson plans to run again but as an independent and to make that work he has to have a white Democrat to siphon off enough white votes in a three-contest to win. Had Cazayoux lost, he well may not have tried it again because in November in this district that election will better favor a Republican or a black Democrat.
One reason why is personalistic factors in an isolated contest such as this one featured will play a smaller role with a presidential candidate at the top of a ticket. Jenkins historically has been a divisive politician and his campaign got too fixated on arcane minutiae such as Cazayoux would be taking orders from Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi instead of pounding home his liberal voting record in the state House. Meanwhile, Cazayoux leveled personal attacks on Jenkins. Issues will be more important in November especially with a liberal Democrat to tie Cazayoux around.
Another factor will make that easier, although it won’t be pursued by Jackson, and that will be especially true if Sen. Barack Obama is the nominee as seems likely. That works against Cazayoux in two ways: when not blasting Jenkins, Cazayoux trumpeted some socially conservatives preference of his to obscure his overall political liberalism but being tied to Obama’s social liberalism will negate that, and that Obama’s presence on the Democrat ticket will dissuade white for voting for Cazayoux and encourage blacks to vote for Jackson if he runs.
Finally, with this being a vulnerable seat for Democrats and having to defend Sen. Mary Landrieu’s vulnerable seat, plus with better chances elsewhere in the country and a sputtering Obama to support, national Democrats will not put much money into this contest, unlike this time when there was no other contest to support. Meanwhile, this one will be a priority for the GOP and other unaffiliated supporters.
Thus, Jackson’s plans are best served with a white Democrat in office. His chances especially improve if a quality Republican doesn’t step up soon to run with qualifying beginning in just a couple of months – the compressed schedule being something else working against Cazayoux.
Normally, being in office would give a bump to an incumbent, but Cazayoux barely will have any time in office at all – in fact, probably only enough time to make votes that could hurt rather than help himself. He must immediately gear up for reelection bid that, quite frankly, shows a major portion of his victory came courtesy of black votes the majority of which will disappear if Jackson runs. Even if Jackson doesn’t, an Obama candidacy will probably drive more whites who had voted for him this time into a Republican’s camp than add blacks to his column.
Winning today was nice for Cazayoux, but in reality he has six more months of campaigning ahead and with this win is hardly any closer to winning then. And if Jackson does get into the race, Cazayoux’s Congressional career almost certainly will be among the shortest on record as he has little chance to beat both a Republican and Jackson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)