Complaining regarding some budget deficit strategy being employed by the Gov. Bobby Jindal administration is akin to a mountain being made out of a molehill, but from the peripheral froth there appears a central point that policy-makers would do well to implement in this year’s budget deliberations.
The Administration and Legislature made a concerted effort in the 2008 cycle to create a budget where continuing operations were not funded by so-called “one-time” funds, these often arriving in the form of federal grants. That commitment has been called into question because now under the emergency conditions of a state budget deficit, part of the Administration strategy has been to take funds that will not appear to be spent on a certain activity and shift it to others that appear will run short. Some call these unexpended funds “one-time” money but fail to recognize the conceptual difference between the planned strategy of 2008 and the strategy in the breach of 2009.
If an item is budgeted for some kind of continuing cost, whether it be to pay for salaries, supplies, reimbursements for outside services, etc., there is consistency when the revenue source itself also recurs, through some type of taxation or investment returns. Budgeting is an imprecise practice so it is common in government for there to be surpluses in certain accounts because of inaccurate predictions, and as common to shift funds from one category in surplus to another that is in deficit.
Making this situation different only in degree is its scale. Here, we are not considering shifting a hundred bucks from supplies to travel in a department, but millions from one agency to another. Still, the principle remains the same: if in retrospect too much of a recurring source of revenue got put into a budget account for textbooks and not enough for Medicaid reimbursements, the former does not become a “savings” or “one-time” money just because it didn’t get spent for a particular purpose.
By contrast, if money comes in from a windfall, or a grant of limited duration that then would allow money that might have been committed to one purpose to be shifted to another, that is very conceptually different since there is no dependable recurring source for that funding. That is why Jindal also can claim $400 million set aside for economic development purposes is “one-time” that should not be used: a specific appropriation at one time and for one time only was set up to fund this, so subsequently it becomes a source of revenue to be spent on a specific purpose. It cannot be a recurring source of funds for things that do not fit its purpose.
However, this leads to the larger question of whether the end purposes of budgeting are accounted for correctly. That a surplus appeared in the textbook account, for example, could be a result of poor planning which is not uncommon given typical budgetary strategies used in government. Unfortunately, a widespread practice in budgeting in government is the incremental inflation tactic, where a budget is calculated merely by taking last year’s accounts and adding a sum around the rate of inflation to them.
Practices such as this are supposed to be taken care of by RS 39:87.1-87.4 which mandates that Louisiana government tie budgeting to performance. In reality, this can be done in a cursory way that invites mismatching of resources to task. In its review of the budget to look for cuts in regards to the deficit, one hopes Jindal made clear such criteria were used, and, if not, his administration would do well to emphasize this approach in budgeting for 2009-10 to bring about better alignment and likely cuts that will little affect performance.
But superior practice does not mitigate poor policy choices. The $400 million fund stands as a good example. If the purpose of such a pot is only to pay for quick infrastructural improvements for a large employer, the sum in it should be far smaller in size. Any thought to use its funds to induce financial incentives for employers to locate in the state fundamentally misunderstands human behavior. A state looks lovely for commercial interests and they want to be there as a result of policy (such as low tax rates and reduced regulation), not bribery. No amount of cash inducements can make the unlovely lovely.
So to tackle what appears to be a $2 billion deficit coming up in 2009-10, Jindal needs to focus on procedure and substance. Following the latter, it also means Jindal must be willing to admit past mistakes in priorities and rectify them in the present budget.
7.1.09
LA GOP House members can perform valuable service
If Republican, it’s tempting to assign too much import to the fact that the majority of new GOP U.S. House members comes from Louisiana, and a recent such state member is now the only elected non-Hispanic non-white governor in the nation who is also a Republican. At the same time, it would be a mistake to neglect the larger lessons present.
While some may be eager to hold out Louisiana as a model on how the GOP can both win and do so with candidates of diverse ethnic backgrounds, it must be tempered by the fact that special conditions allowed all three winners, Reps. Anh “Joseph” Cao, John Fleming, and Bill Cassidy, to triumph. Cao took advantage of being up against an incumbent in legal disgrace, Fleming by having a postponed election that washed away potential black Democrat support for his opponent without pres.-elect Barack Obama on the top of the ballot, and Cassidy may not have defeated a short-time white Democrat incumbent except for the independent candidacy of a black Democrat.
But without unapologetically conservative-themed campaigns, Fleming and Cassidy despite being put in a position to win could not have won. Since 2004, learning from the lessons of that election cycle Democrat strategy has been to obscure the ideological content of their campaigns because of the understanding that Americans’ ideological leanings as a whole are moderately conservative. It culminated in the most intellectually vacuous presidential contest in decades, where the Obama campaign was akin to a teenager asking for keys to the family car and a six-pack of cold brew on the basis of a slew of vague promises to be good that ran counter to past behavior.
This was replicated down the line, with the typical Democrat candidacy assigning bogeymen to blame (often for problems created by their own policies), offering vague ideas and/or more specific unsustainable/ignorant policy prescriptions on the basis of these issues and, in the South in particular, sounding select conservative themes in an attempt to inoculate themselves from being found out that they supported a much more liberal policy agenda.
In many places, they got away with it for two reasons, because too many Republicans had not governed in a fashion that was sufficiently conservative to make a credible contrast, and that their GOP opponents did not try to expose them for what they were. To (especially) Fleming’s and Cassidy’s credit, they not only had the conservative credentials, they embraced and articulated conservative philosophies and did not give their opponents passes. (Cao’s campaign was much less ideological, being that he was running in one of 15 percent or so districts in American where its composition makes conservatism unpopular at present). Both made efforts to connect their opponents, long-time politicians, to their liberal fellow-travelers, and largely succeeded.
It’s simple, conservatism wins elections – not everywhere in America, but in enough places overall to give conservatives a natural majority. It’s why over the next four years Obama and Democrats are going to govern as if they were still campaigning – do only what seems popular, in public for cover present some of these things in conservative light (whether they are in execution will be another matter), and implement ruthlessly a liberal agenda behind the scenes and in the shadows out of the inattentive public’s view, hoping in four years to secure majorities again. Then the hammer comes down on America, as in the next four years they take off the mask and govern openly and blatantly on the hard left to push things through that could take decades to correct.
This is makes the electoral model of Fleming and Cassidy most valuable, for we will need Members who credibly will call things like they are as the nation prepares for years of spin, smoke, and mirrors from the Democrats.
While some may be eager to hold out Louisiana as a model on how the GOP can both win and do so with candidates of diverse ethnic backgrounds, it must be tempered by the fact that special conditions allowed all three winners, Reps. Anh “Joseph” Cao, John Fleming, and Bill Cassidy, to triumph. Cao took advantage of being up against an incumbent in legal disgrace, Fleming by having a postponed election that washed away potential black Democrat support for his opponent without pres.-elect Barack Obama on the top of the ballot, and Cassidy may not have defeated a short-time white Democrat incumbent except for the independent candidacy of a black Democrat.
But without unapologetically conservative-themed campaigns, Fleming and Cassidy despite being put in a position to win could not have won. Since 2004, learning from the lessons of that election cycle Democrat strategy has been to obscure the ideological content of their campaigns because of the understanding that Americans’ ideological leanings as a whole are moderately conservative. It culminated in the most intellectually vacuous presidential contest in decades, where the Obama campaign was akin to a teenager asking for keys to the family car and a six-pack of cold brew on the basis of a slew of vague promises to be good that ran counter to past behavior.
This was replicated down the line, with the typical Democrat candidacy assigning bogeymen to blame (often for problems created by their own policies), offering vague ideas and/or more specific unsustainable/ignorant policy prescriptions on the basis of these issues and, in the South in particular, sounding select conservative themes in an attempt to inoculate themselves from being found out that they supported a much more liberal policy agenda.
In many places, they got away with it for two reasons, because too many Republicans had not governed in a fashion that was sufficiently conservative to make a credible contrast, and that their GOP opponents did not try to expose them for what they were. To (especially) Fleming’s and Cassidy’s credit, they not only had the conservative credentials, they embraced and articulated conservative philosophies and did not give their opponents passes. (Cao’s campaign was much less ideological, being that he was running in one of 15 percent or so districts in American where its composition makes conservatism unpopular at present). Both made efforts to connect their opponents, long-time politicians, to their liberal fellow-travelers, and largely succeeded.
It’s simple, conservatism wins elections – not everywhere in America, but in enough places overall to give conservatives a natural majority. It’s why over the next four years Obama and Democrats are going to govern as if they were still campaigning – do only what seems popular, in public for cover present some of these things in conservative light (whether they are in execution will be another matter), and implement ruthlessly a liberal agenda behind the scenes and in the shadows out of the inattentive public’s view, hoping in four years to secure majorities again. Then the hammer comes down on America, as in the next four years they take off the mask and govern openly and blatantly on the hard left to push things through that could take decades to correct.
This is makes the electoral model of Fleming and Cassidy most valuable, for we will need Members who credibly will call things like they are as the nation prepares for years of spin, smoke, and mirrors from the Democrats.
6.1.09
Policy must encourage fewer beds to boost quality
Disappointingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, the long-awaited federal government rating system for nursing homes showed Louisiana had the highest proportion of lowest-rated facilities in the nation. A change in state policy concerning long term care can bring incentives to boost the ratings and probably save the state money simultaneously while serving more of its needy citizens.
The official reason for the high incidence of low-rated places given by the industry itself is that Medicaid reimbursement rates paid by the state make more difficult hiring sufficient staff numbers. The majority of people in nursing homes are supported by and the revenues collected by the industry in the state are provided by Medicaid.
But other states pay lower rates than Louisiana and still manage to do a better job. The reason why is that for decades state policy deliberately has favored warehousing the elderly in nursing homes, as opposed to home- and community-based solutions to which increasing other states have gravitated. So has Louisiana, more slowly and somewhat unwillingly, and largely as a result of the Barthelemy settlement a few years ago, but despite that the state’s facilities proportion of Medicaid revenues are almost double that of the national average.
The official reason for the high incidence of low-rated places given by the industry itself is that Medicaid reimbursement rates paid by the state make more difficult hiring sufficient staff numbers. The majority of people in nursing homes are supported by and the revenues collected by the industry in the state are provided by Medicaid.
But other states pay lower rates than Louisiana and still manage to do a better job. The reason why is that for decades state policy deliberately has favored warehousing the elderly in nursing homes, as opposed to home- and community-based solutions to which increasing other states have gravitated. So has Louisiana, more slowly and somewhat unwillingly, and largely as a result of the Barthelemy settlement a few years ago, but despite that the state’s facilities proportion of Medicaid revenues are almost double that of the national average.
5.1.09
Jindal's first year misunderstood by many observers
Before we can figure out how to assess Gov. Bobby Jindal’s first year in office, we need to get straight what he did and did not do. Some seem confused about exactly what that was, while others don’t seem to want to understand what that was.
Conservative watchdog C.B. Forgotston argues that in his first year, Jindal increased spending by $1 billion and the government employee headcount by 2,700. His numbers are not far off – Jindal proposed an increase in non-disaster related spending of $760 million and total state employees as of last Jun. 30 were up 3,181 over the previous 12 months – but these tend to obscure the picture somewhat. If we look at only the general fund amounts excluding that portion tied to disaster relief, that budgeted figure (which was a little less than actually budgeted but will be more than what actually gets spent) was an increase of $466.5 million or an increase of 3.31 percent. Headcount associated with this spending actually was scheduled to be down 1,035.
The general fund numbers are the best representation because they are the ones that Jindal (and the Legislature which must pass budget bills) have most control over. Most of the rest of spending and positions associated with it are tied to the federal money coming into the state over which state politicians only have partial control (for example, some is mandated by the federal government and matched to a certain extent given state actions). Of course, this does not include hundreds of million of dollars in nonrecurring state funds from the general fund’s past spent in 2008’s second special session with Jindal’s blessing.
By this metric, Jindal did a decent job of holding spending to around the rate of inflation and, further, in the spending of federal money reduced dramatically the amount that came from nonrecurring sources which meant where state spending would have to increase in the future – such as in Medicaid where the state’s share is scheduled this year will go from 28 to 32 percent of the total (which Jindal hopes will not take place, arguing the continuing disaster recovery mode justifies the lower share) – would necessitate less surprise, unbudgeted state expenditures. Whether this makes Jindal a “fiscal conservative” may be in the eyes of the beholder.
Definitional issues aside, at least Forgotston pays attention to what Jindal actually does. Others seem unable to grasp what Jindal seeks to achieve even though it is right in front of them. Jindal’s most prominent leftist media critic insinuates he makes his record appear more accomplished that it actually is, while the state’s most famous liberal former politician/ex-prisoner claims Jindal is all perception without tangible results, and the head of a leading interest group with a hit-and-miss record on sensible state reform argues Jindal doesn’t have a clear vision on what he wants to do.
It’s a bit curious why such comments would be made because there’s no lack of clarity at all in what Jindal has done. Simply, he is trying to move the state from its past populist leanings towards a more fiscally responsible and service-oriented posture that relies less on government intervention. This is not something those on the left wish to see happen because it empowers individuals at the expense of government and its liberal allies. Consider:
State spending is more restrained and somewhat more sensible, in great contrast to practically every prior administration
After years of talk, Jindal provided motive force to meaningful government ethics reform in the state to start changing the culture that government exists chiefly to redistribute resources to favored constituencies
After years of complaints, Jindal began slicing away at some of these redistribution efforts through use of the line-item veto
After years of lamentations, Jindal actually went out and eliminated without involving a drawn-out process some counterproductive business taxes
Even if he joined the parade late, Jindal did what no other governor likely would have done in recent memory, get behind an income tax cut for individuals even as he knew it would present big budget challenges this year, thereby ensuring its passage
Perhaps most radically to date, his scholarship/voucher education program that without his support never would have seen the light of day promises to challenge a state education system that puts more primacy on protecting educators’ jobs and salaries than in providing quality education
Perhaps most radically in the future, he has laid the groundwork for an indigent health care system that intends, if the idea is to provide such coverage comprehensively, to operate primarily on market forces rather than by government direction
This is a record of at least some modest achievement (even if not enough for Jindal’s critics on the right like Forgotston) and is misunderstood by others either because they are inattentive or because they have an agenda in obfuscating it out of opposition to it. In some ways the latter harkens back to his campaign, where liberals in the media and elsewhere kept trying to convince voters before and after Jindal too office that he was being too vague, a kind of self-denial about Jindal that if they kept repeating long enough what they wanted Jindal to be (or not), he would (or would not) turn into it.
So let’s call it like it is, even if Jindal himself doesn’t typically phrase his own actions in such terms: Jindal is pursuing a reform agenda of conservative leanings, and if he is acting cautiously with it because he is relatively new to his position of power, expect that reticence to dissipate in proportion to the passage of time and the resolution of budgetary dilemmas. To date, he had given no reason to expect otherwise.
Conservative watchdog C.B. Forgotston argues that in his first year, Jindal increased spending by $1 billion and the government employee headcount by 2,700. His numbers are not far off – Jindal proposed an increase in non-disaster related spending of $760 million and total state employees as of last Jun. 30 were up 3,181 over the previous 12 months – but these tend to obscure the picture somewhat. If we look at only the general fund amounts excluding that portion tied to disaster relief, that budgeted figure (which was a little less than actually budgeted but will be more than what actually gets spent) was an increase of $466.5 million or an increase of 3.31 percent. Headcount associated with this spending actually was scheduled to be down 1,035.
The general fund numbers are the best representation because they are the ones that Jindal (and the Legislature which must pass budget bills) have most control over. Most of the rest of spending and positions associated with it are tied to the federal money coming into the state over which state politicians only have partial control (for example, some is mandated by the federal government and matched to a certain extent given state actions). Of course, this does not include hundreds of million of dollars in nonrecurring state funds from the general fund’s past spent in 2008’s second special session with Jindal’s blessing.
By this metric, Jindal did a decent job of holding spending to around the rate of inflation and, further, in the spending of federal money reduced dramatically the amount that came from nonrecurring sources which meant where state spending would have to increase in the future – such as in Medicaid where the state’s share is scheduled this year will go from 28 to 32 percent of the total (which Jindal hopes will not take place, arguing the continuing disaster recovery mode justifies the lower share) – would necessitate less surprise, unbudgeted state expenditures. Whether this makes Jindal a “fiscal conservative” may be in the eyes of the beholder.
Definitional issues aside, at least Forgotston pays attention to what Jindal actually does. Others seem unable to grasp what Jindal seeks to achieve even though it is right in front of them. Jindal’s most prominent leftist media critic insinuates he makes his record appear more accomplished that it actually is, while the state’s most famous liberal former politician/ex-prisoner claims Jindal is all perception without tangible results, and the head of a leading interest group with a hit-and-miss record on sensible state reform argues Jindal doesn’t have a clear vision on what he wants to do.
It’s a bit curious why such comments would be made because there’s no lack of clarity at all in what Jindal has done. Simply, he is trying to move the state from its past populist leanings towards a more fiscally responsible and service-oriented posture that relies less on government intervention. This is not something those on the left wish to see happen because it empowers individuals at the expense of government and its liberal allies. Consider:
This is a record of at least some modest achievement (even if not enough for Jindal’s critics on the right like Forgotston) and is misunderstood by others either because they are inattentive or because they have an agenda in obfuscating it out of opposition to it. In some ways the latter harkens back to his campaign, where liberals in the media and elsewhere kept trying to convince voters before and after Jindal too office that he was being too vague, a kind of self-denial about Jindal that if they kept repeating long enough what they wanted Jindal to be (or not), he would (or would not) turn into it.
So let’s call it like it is, even if Jindal himself doesn’t typically phrase his own actions in such terms: Jindal is pursuing a reform agenda of conservative leanings, and if he is acting cautiously with it because he is relatively new to his position of power, expect that reticence to dissipate in proportion to the passage of time and the resolution of budgetary dilemmas. To date, he had given no reason to expect otherwise.
4.1.09
Local govts continue attempt to skim from ratepayers
Some local governments in Louisiana, conscious more than ever of revenue being squeezed, continue to resist reform legislation in cable television provision that recently has gone into effect. From the bellows emanating from the Louisiana Municipal Association and Police Jury Association of Louisiana, one would think fundamental rights of the citizenry are being violated with this law coming into force. But in the end, all it’s about is local governments decrying being unable to skim more money out of the citizenry.
These groups have gone to court – and so far lost – to try to stop implementation on the new law, Act 433 of 2008. It allows for granting of statewide franchises for operators which gives far less discretion for local governments to attach on special conditions that can be used as backdoor methods to raise government revenue from ratepayers. Eager to deflect from this reality opponents of the law – who do not include the cable industry itself that once opposed but now supports the new standards – raise chimerical arguments that expose that the conflict really is about clipping local government power and not about citizens who subscribe to cable TV.
One concern presumed discrimination against rural areas because on a per capita basis it is more expensive to provide such service. This was addressed previously by the onerous “build-out” requirements most local governments forced upon providers which not only passed costs on to urban ratepayers (as rates were invariant of population density) but also provided more potential sources of pass-through revenues for local governments. The new law gives market forces much greater priority and reduces any such complaints of reduced rural service to a big “so what:” it’s not like cable TV is essential to anybody’s life, you don’t have the right to have it and, if you really want more than broadcast choices, there’s always satellite.
Another mountain-out-of-a-molehill complaint comes from local government who say they can’t get freebies that they used, such as compelled coverage of their governmental bodies or free service to government buildings. The former complaint is misleading: the law compels offering service for at least one channel of “public, educational, and governmental” access automatically for any local government upon request, and at least one additional channel if local governments use it enough. Whereas governments used to force companies not only to broadcast but to pay for production of certain things, the only difference now is that providers will have to only subsidize it partially. And why should government enrich itself with free service when if the company did not have to provide it, savings could be passed on to the ratepayers?
Finally, there is the claim heretofore rejected by the courts of the unconstitutionality of the law because it allows the state to interfere in local contracts. But the law sets up a clear procedure to enter into and exit contracts, and what are permissible contracts. And because of grandfather provisions the majority of the state’s population isn’t even affected by the new law.
Again, recognize this desperate attempt to undo the democratic will of the state for what it is – protecting government at the expense of the people. As the year passes and the greater competition that the bill triggers manifests, leading to more channels, more choices among them, and relatively lower costs, this truism will become all the more apparent.
These groups have gone to court – and so far lost – to try to stop implementation on the new law, Act 433 of 2008. It allows for granting of statewide franchises for operators which gives far less discretion for local governments to attach on special conditions that can be used as backdoor methods to raise government revenue from ratepayers. Eager to deflect from this reality opponents of the law – who do not include the cable industry itself that once opposed but now supports the new standards – raise chimerical arguments that expose that the conflict really is about clipping local government power and not about citizens who subscribe to cable TV.
One concern presumed discrimination against rural areas because on a per capita basis it is more expensive to provide such service. This was addressed previously by the onerous “build-out” requirements most local governments forced upon providers which not only passed costs on to urban ratepayers (as rates were invariant of population density) but also provided more potential sources of pass-through revenues for local governments. The new law gives market forces much greater priority and reduces any such complaints of reduced rural service to a big “so what:” it’s not like cable TV is essential to anybody’s life, you don’t have the right to have it and, if you really want more than broadcast choices, there’s always satellite.
Another mountain-out-of-a-molehill complaint comes from local government who say they can’t get freebies that they used, such as compelled coverage of their governmental bodies or free service to government buildings. The former complaint is misleading: the law compels offering service for at least one channel of “public, educational, and governmental” access automatically for any local government upon request, and at least one additional channel if local governments use it enough. Whereas governments used to force companies not only to broadcast but to pay for production of certain things, the only difference now is that providers will have to only subsidize it partially. And why should government enrich itself with free service when if the company did not have to provide it, savings could be passed on to the ratepayers?
Finally, there is the claim heretofore rejected by the courts of the unconstitutionality of the law because it allows the state to interfere in local contracts. But the law sets up a clear procedure to enter into and exit contracts, and what are permissible contracts. And because of grandfather provisions the majority of the state’s population isn’t even affected by the new law.
Again, recognize this desperate attempt to undo the democratic will of the state for what it is – protecting government at the expense of the people. As the year passes and the greater competition that the bill triggers manifests, leading to more channels, more choices among them, and relatively lower costs, this truism will become all the more apparent.
31.12.08
Jindal uses cuts to advance reform agenda sooner
Gov. Bobby Jindal swung the budget axe and largely hit some unneeded trim. More importantly, some of the cuts, triggered by a $341 million current-year deficit, began to shape things into a more fiscally sound posture that he has advertised was a priority for him in governance.
By law, Jindal could cut up to three percent of the budget with no more than three percent from any budget unit. That made up a little less than half of the projected general fund deficit (doubled in relative terms since half of the year’s spending already has occurred at the higher levels) so technically the remainder of his suggestions still wait legislative approval. However, because the total deficit exceeds 0.7 percent, he also was allowed to go beyond just the fund in deficit, the general fund of which almost three-quarters of all appropriations go to health care and higher education, and make cuts in other dedicated funds – a panoply of appropriations attached to a certain revenue source or drawn from a revenue source or to satisfy a bookkeeping or legal requirement – of up to five percent.
In doing so, since these funds go certain activities, in essence Jindal told the departments with access to the funds to perform the same functions with less, absorbing a cut in operations. Although this constituted only about seven percent of the total, it increased flexibility and the necessity for the general fund to absorb everything (not all dedicated funds got the maximum cut; some didn’t get cut at all). Jindal also targeted strategically cuts within the general fund programs that will constitute $317 million or so of them.
How he did it was instructive. By the ratios of general fund spending, $252 million should have been pared from health care and higher education, but targeting cuts put the final total at only about $173 million. Some of this could be achieved by the hiring freeze earlier instituted also allowed by law which reached all sectors of government, not just those dependent in any way upon the general fund, but the remainder of it did not follow what some had advised, across-the-board measures.
Smartly, Jindal used this power to promote his agenda, in a way getting an opportunity early to shape parameters of the kinds of reform he wants to bring to these areas. In higher education, for example, he backed up his assertion that the most important area of development was in community colleges and technical schools by leaving them out of the cuts.
In health care, he showed that efficiency was going to be injected into the system even if some interests would get a smaller portion of the pie as a result. For example, he signaled reality had arrived more quickly that thought by instituting a measure he had talked of in reference to overall reform of the Medicaid system scheduled to commence in 18 months, limiting non-vital prescriptions paid for monthly from eight to five a person. He also began to reduce incentives towards institutionalization by sensibly cutting the state’s reimbursement rate for facilities that have residents who leave for short periods, instead of paying at the full 100 percent as has been custom. (Hopefully, reductions in waiver programs that also work as incentive not to institutionalize individuals that can be cared for in the community won’t sabotage this effort.) He also placed reductions on medical provision that have been identified as inefficiently used, either by lowering rates or by changing procedures.
In other areas, he looked to eliminate what seemed to be duplicative, not needed at the current level of consumption, or where federal dollars could be eased in. There will be some retrenchment in areas some people find beneficial. For example, prisoners and the indigent who need mental health services in some places will have to suffer more inconvenience in gaining physical access to those services, and the Department of Social Services will continue its hiring freeze the remainder of the budget year as positions come open, stretching its human resources further.
As it was, Jindal created opportunity out of crisis. Those who believe that state government, which features higher spending and personnel per capita than most states, should go on a diet by eating less (by cutting taxes) and exercise (to reduce its size) should be pleased by his actions and recommendations. Additionally, those who believe in certain priorities – education continue as unmolested as possible, restructuring of health care to promote efficiency without reduction in service, downsizing or elimination of low-payoff programs, aligning demand with resources – should take heart in his chopping block list. While nobody likes to see budgetary problems, the silver lining for Jindal and supporters of this agenda is that it allows him to commence reform efforts sooner and with less opposition (driven by the imperative of the crisis), and he appears to have done so in carrying out his duty.
By law, Jindal could cut up to three percent of the budget with no more than three percent from any budget unit. That made up a little less than half of the projected general fund deficit (doubled in relative terms since half of the year’s spending already has occurred at the higher levels) so technically the remainder of his suggestions still wait legislative approval. However, because the total deficit exceeds 0.7 percent, he also was allowed to go beyond just the fund in deficit, the general fund of which almost three-quarters of all appropriations go to health care and higher education, and make cuts in other dedicated funds – a panoply of appropriations attached to a certain revenue source or drawn from a revenue source or to satisfy a bookkeeping or legal requirement – of up to five percent.
In doing so, since these funds go certain activities, in essence Jindal told the departments with access to the funds to perform the same functions with less, absorbing a cut in operations. Although this constituted only about seven percent of the total, it increased flexibility and the necessity for the general fund to absorb everything (not all dedicated funds got the maximum cut; some didn’t get cut at all). Jindal also targeted strategically cuts within the general fund programs that will constitute $317 million or so of them.
How he did it was instructive. By the ratios of general fund spending, $252 million should have been pared from health care and higher education, but targeting cuts put the final total at only about $173 million. Some of this could be achieved by the hiring freeze earlier instituted also allowed by law which reached all sectors of government, not just those dependent in any way upon the general fund, but the remainder of it did not follow what some had advised, across-the-board measures.
Smartly, Jindal used this power to promote his agenda, in a way getting an opportunity early to shape parameters of the kinds of reform he wants to bring to these areas. In higher education, for example, he backed up his assertion that the most important area of development was in community colleges and technical schools by leaving them out of the cuts.
In health care, he showed that efficiency was going to be injected into the system even if some interests would get a smaller portion of the pie as a result. For example, he signaled reality had arrived more quickly that thought by instituting a measure he had talked of in reference to overall reform of the Medicaid system scheduled to commence in 18 months, limiting non-vital prescriptions paid for monthly from eight to five a person. He also began to reduce incentives towards institutionalization by sensibly cutting the state’s reimbursement rate for facilities that have residents who leave for short periods, instead of paying at the full 100 percent as has been custom. (Hopefully, reductions in waiver programs that also work as incentive not to institutionalize individuals that can be cared for in the community won’t sabotage this effort.) He also placed reductions on medical provision that have been identified as inefficiently used, either by lowering rates or by changing procedures.
In other areas, he looked to eliminate what seemed to be duplicative, not needed at the current level of consumption, or where federal dollars could be eased in. There will be some retrenchment in areas some people find beneficial. For example, prisoners and the indigent who need mental health services in some places will have to suffer more inconvenience in gaining physical access to those services, and the Department of Social Services will continue its hiring freeze the remainder of the budget year as positions come open, stretching its human resources further.
As it was, Jindal created opportunity out of crisis. Those who believe that state government, which features higher spending and personnel per capita than most states, should go on a diet by eating less (by cutting taxes) and exercise (to reduce its size) should be pleased by his actions and recommendations. Additionally, those who believe in certain priorities – education continue as unmolested as possible, restructuring of health care to promote efficiency without reduction in service, downsizing or elimination of low-payoff programs, aligning demand with resources – should take heart in his chopping block list. While nobody likes to see budgetary problems, the silver lining for Jindal and supporters of this agenda is that it allows him to commence reform efforts sooner and with less opposition (driven by the imperative of the crisis), and he appears to have done so in carrying out his duty.
30.12.08
Protests designed to hide Constitutional subversion
It’s a clever tactic by supporters of legally-sanctioned homosexual relations, but if it is the will of the people of Louisiana, this agenda may be derailed.
As consumers of what passes as “news,” observers always should wonder when something becomes declared “newsworthy” by the media that doesn’t seem to have any real cause or impetus behind it. Such was this story about how a state board, after its existence of seven years, and about a year after election of socially conservative Gov. Bobby Jindal who appoints it members, suddenly has gotten worried promoters of legally-sanctioned homosexual relations.
The Commission on Marriage and Family has seldom conducted any activities, but Jindal has expressed interest in activating it and its nominal head state Sen. Sharon Weston Broome has scheduled a meeting of it. Jindal released an executive order on Aug. 22 re-establishing it. In October, he appointed its members. But only now does it seem to be drawing the alarm of some homosexual advocacy groups, which claim now it could be used as some kind of political cover for an “attack” of homosexuals adopting a child. They argue too many religious conservatives appear to be on this panel and, even though not a word has been uttered indicating any disapproval of these kinds of adoptions, that now it’s something to be worried about because the people of Arkansas in November voted to make unconstitutional such arrangements and the Commission could conceivably promote a similar policy.
This is an odd rationale. The Commission can do nothing but recommend, but somehow its opponents think a pronouncement by it on the issue would engender enough political power as to sweep the state into also making unconstitutional unmarried couples being able to adopt jointly. Yet there’s no real reason this has to happen: if enough of the people and political elites think this such a measure is good public policy, they don’t need a commission to tell them that and get them going to achieve it.
The timing of this complaint also is extremely curious. Why complain now? If these groups had stated publicly their concerns with the re-establishment in August (with the order itself extolling the virtues of marriage only between a man and woman, overwhelmingly approved by Louisianans into the Constitution years ago), or when the Commission’s composition was determined in October, or when Arkansas acted in November, that might make sense. But why go public, seemingly without warning, at the end of December?
Even more intriguing is, by law, just as same-sex marriage was ratified as unconstitutional, many years before that the Louisiana Legislature prohibited unmarried couples from adopting. Act 235 from 1991 created Article 1198 of the Children’s Code which unambiguously states that, outside of intrafamily or agency adoptions, “A single person, eighteen years or older, or a married couple jointly may petition to adopt a child through an agency.” Legally, this idea the groups see as problematic is a nonissue: the only couples that may adopt in Louisiana are married, and since same-sex couples cannot marry, such couples cannot adopt. What these groups complain about being attenuated already is banned by law, so why are they complaining? And the law still permits a single homosexual parent to adopt, so where’s the problem?
The answer lies in a little-noticed court decision made days ago. In New York, where same-sex couple adoptions are allowed, two men sued Louisiana to have the birth certificate of an adoptive child born in the state altered to put both of their names on it. Louisiana allows adoptive parents on the official birth certificate to have their name(s) and seals the original. However, R.S. 40:79 makes clear that “If the child is adopted by a married couple, the names of both parties shall be recorded as the parents …” and “If the child is adopted by a single person, the word ‘adopted’ may be written on the new birth certificate if the adopting parent requests it, otherwise no such wording shall be imprinted on the document and the name of the single adopting parent shall be recorded on the new birth certificate.” In other words, state law does not anticipate putting a non-married couple’s names on the document.
U.S. Eastern Louisiana District Judge Jay Zainey (a 2002 appointee of Pres. George W. Bush) ruled that since the adoption was legal in New York and that Louisiana allowed adoptive parents’ names on certificates, that the state would have to accommodate even though an attorney general’s opinion on the ambiguity ruled that the state did not have to put both names. This is a federal question since it involved the “full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the only way it would appear that the state could prevent this would be a law or amendment that specifies that unmarried couples cannot adopt, as opposed to listing that only married couples or single individuals may do so.
And that’s what advocates of legalized homosexual unions are afraid of. With this ruling, despite the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, some privileges of marriage are being conveyed to same-sex couples. Consider: what if these two men decided to move to Louisiana? Because of this ruling, regarding the welfare of the child (the men argued in their court briefing health care benefits could be denied relative to the child) this same-sex union would have equal footing with constitutional marriage. It’s a back door way of forcing benefits associated with marriage to be granted to same sex pairs, contravening the Constitution.
Unless that is taken care of legally or constitutionally. It’s not a commission making recommendations that they fear, but that the import of an event, this decision relative to existing adoption and records law and the impact on same-sex unions, that has them worried. Thus, they went public when word of this court decision got out in order to defuse the situation and to deflect attention from this, using the Commission and the passage of the Arkansas amendment as excuses. They didn’t want anybody connecting the dots that could allow this new loophole to continue undisturbed
Such tactics should not distract those who believe public policy should grant no special privileges to people of the same sex who decide they want to live together and call themselves united in some fashion. If they can muster a majority, they need to have legislation passed or an amendment ratified to negate this end run around the Constitution.
As consumers of what passes as “news,” observers always should wonder when something becomes declared “newsworthy” by the media that doesn’t seem to have any real cause or impetus behind it. Such was this story about how a state board, after its existence of seven years, and about a year after election of socially conservative Gov. Bobby Jindal who appoints it members, suddenly has gotten worried promoters of legally-sanctioned homosexual relations.
The Commission on Marriage and Family has seldom conducted any activities, but Jindal has expressed interest in activating it and its nominal head state Sen. Sharon Weston Broome has scheduled a meeting of it. Jindal released an executive order on Aug. 22 re-establishing it. In October, he appointed its members. But only now does it seem to be drawing the alarm of some homosexual advocacy groups, which claim now it could be used as some kind of political cover for an “attack” of homosexuals adopting a child. They argue too many religious conservatives appear to be on this panel and, even though not a word has been uttered indicating any disapproval of these kinds of adoptions, that now it’s something to be worried about because the people of Arkansas in November voted to make unconstitutional such arrangements and the Commission could conceivably promote a similar policy.
This is an odd rationale. The Commission can do nothing but recommend, but somehow its opponents think a pronouncement by it on the issue would engender enough political power as to sweep the state into also making unconstitutional unmarried couples being able to adopt jointly. Yet there’s no real reason this has to happen: if enough of the people and political elites think this such a measure is good public policy, they don’t need a commission to tell them that and get them going to achieve it.
The timing of this complaint also is extremely curious. Why complain now? If these groups had stated publicly their concerns with the re-establishment in August (with the order itself extolling the virtues of marriage only between a man and woman, overwhelmingly approved by Louisianans into the Constitution years ago), or when the Commission’s composition was determined in October, or when Arkansas acted in November, that might make sense. But why go public, seemingly without warning, at the end of December?
Even more intriguing is, by law, just as same-sex marriage was ratified as unconstitutional, many years before that the Louisiana Legislature prohibited unmarried couples from adopting. Act 235 from 1991 created Article 1198 of the Children’s Code which unambiguously states that, outside of intrafamily or agency adoptions, “A single person, eighteen years or older, or a married couple jointly may petition to adopt a child through an agency.” Legally, this idea the groups see as problematic is a nonissue: the only couples that may adopt in Louisiana are married, and since same-sex couples cannot marry, such couples cannot adopt. What these groups complain about being attenuated already is banned by law, so why are they complaining? And the law still permits a single homosexual parent to adopt, so where’s the problem?
The answer lies in a little-noticed court decision made days ago. In New York, where same-sex couple adoptions are allowed, two men sued Louisiana to have the birth certificate of an adoptive child born in the state altered to put both of their names on it. Louisiana allows adoptive parents on the official birth certificate to have their name(s) and seals the original. However, R.S. 40:79 makes clear that “If the child is adopted by a married couple, the names of both parties shall be recorded as the parents …” and “If the child is adopted by a single person, the word ‘adopted’ may be written on the new birth certificate if the adopting parent requests it, otherwise no such wording shall be imprinted on the document and the name of the single adopting parent shall be recorded on the new birth certificate.” In other words, state law does not anticipate putting a non-married couple’s names on the document.
U.S. Eastern Louisiana District Judge Jay Zainey (a 2002 appointee of Pres. George W. Bush) ruled that since the adoption was legal in New York and that Louisiana allowed adoptive parents’ names on certificates, that the state would have to accommodate even though an attorney general’s opinion on the ambiguity ruled that the state did not have to put both names. This is a federal question since it involved the “full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the only way it would appear that the state could prevent this would be a law or amendment that specifies that unmarried couples cannot adopt, as opposed to listing that only married couples or single individuals may do so.
And that’s what advocates of legalized homosexual unions are afraid of. With this ruling, despite the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, some privileges of marriage are being conveyed to same-sex couples. Consider: what if these two men decided to move to Louisiana? Because of this ruling, regarding the welfare of the child (the men argued in their court briefing health care benefits could be denied relative to the child) this same-sex union would have equal footing with constitutional marriage. It’s a back door way of forcing benefits associated with marriage to be granted to same sex pairs, contravening the Constitution.
Unless that is taken care of legally or constitutionally. It’s not a commission making recommendations that they fear, but that the import of an event, this decision relative to existing adoption and records law and the impact on same-sex unions, that has them worried. Thus, they went public when word of this court decision got out in order to defuse the situation and to deflect attention from this, using the Commission and the passage of the Arkansas amendment as excuses. They didn’t want anybody connecting the dots that could allow this new loophole to continue undisturbed
Such tactics should not distract those who believe public policy should grant no special privileges to people of the same sex who decide they want to live together and call themselves united in some fashion. If they can muster a majority, they need to have legislation passed or an amendment ratified to negate this end run around the Constitution.
29.12.08
New numbers empower Vitter, marginalize Melancon
The irony of it all is that as Democrats prepare to wield more power in Washington, in Louisiana the biggest loser from this will be its sole Democrat member while the biggest beneficiary will be its most high-profile Republican.
One might think Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon might be in a good position given the takeover of the White House by his party and a stronger majority in the Congress. The fabulously do-nothing 110th Congress run by Democrats, which when it tried to do something substantive typically sent extremist legislation blocked by Pres. George W. Bush’s veto, gave Congress the lowest public opinion approval ratings in history. But with him out of the way, the floodgates may open allowing Melancon and his ilk greater leeway than ever (as long as they hold on to that power which, if they serve up the same kind of legislation they have been proposing, unless it tries to structurally change electoral politics in Democrats’ favor such as by the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act, won’t be long).
But his problem is that things got too good for Democrats. Melancon often argues his affiliation with the liberal Democrats, not liked by a majority in the state (and whose presidential candidate got about 35 percent of the vote in Melancon’s Third District), is tempered by his fiscal conservatism. He will claim that it’s not a contradiction to put him into office because he can help moderate the more extremist tendencies of his party. It’s an assertion that next year he will have a much more difficult time conveying convincingly.
In the 111th Congress, the self-proclaimed fiscal conservative Democrat “blue dogs” will have about 50 of the about 257 Democrats in the House. With a majority (assuming all present) of 218 in order to win votes, for the fiscal and in every way liberal Democrat House leadership because of absences and defectors, they won’t need Melancon or his colleagues to pass legislation and therefore will not moderate it. In the 110th, their votes were sometimes crucial but that not being the case any more, their influence will go down.
At the same time, Republican Sen. David Vitter’s influence will go up, and for the opposite reason. Being in the smallest minority now than ever before, as a member of the opposition Vitter has greater freedom than ever to make a name for himself within it precisely because the opposition does not have the responsibility to govern. Utilizing the power of filibuster and cloture along with other Republicans, Vitter can publicly lambaste the harebrained schemes likely to emerge from the 111th Congress and have a visible hand in stopping them, gaining large credit back home for doing so.
Melancon, by contrast, will be tarred with every bad decision made in Congress. And to add to the irony, this will impede him as he contemplates taking on in 2010 Vitter who will be gaining strength with the same dynamics. As a result, in the next two years expect a lot of vocal opposition from Vitter, while Melancon stays as far away as possible from discussing policy desires of his party and confines his remarks mainly to how much pork he brings his district.
One might think Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon might be in a good position given the takeover of the White House by his party and a stronger majority in the Congress. The fabulously do-nothing 110th Congress run by Democrats, which when it tried to do something substantive typically sent extremist legislation blocked by Pres. George W. Bush’s veto, gave Congress the lowest public opinion approval ratings in history. But with him out of the way, the floodgates may open allowing Melancon and his ilk greater leeway than ever (as long as they hold on to that power which, if they serve up the same kind of legislation they have been proposing, unless it tries to structurally change electoral politics in Democrats’ favor such as by the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act, won’t be long).
But his problem is that things got too good for Democrats. Melancon often argues his affiliation with the liberal Democrats, not liked by a majority in the state (and whose presidential candidate got about 35 percent of the vote in Melancon’s Third District), is tempered by his fiscal conservatism. He will claim that it’s not a contradiction to put him into office because he can help moderate the more extremist tendencies of his party. It’s an assertion that next year he will have a much more difficult time conveying convincingly.
In the 111th Congress, the self-proclaimed fiscal conservative Democrat “blue dogs” will have about 50 of the about 257 Democrats in the House. With a majority (assuming all present) of 218 in order to win votes, for the fiscal and in every way liberal Democrat House leadership because of absences and defectors, they won’t need Melancon or his colleagues to pass legislation and therefore will not moderate it. In the 110th, their votes were sometimes crucial but that not being the case any more, their influence will go down.
At the same time, Republican Sen. David Vitter’s influence will go up, and for the opposite reason. Being in the smallest minority now than ever before, as a member of the opposition Vitter has greater freedom than ever to make a name for himself within it precisely because the opposition does not have the responsibility to govern. Utilizing the power of filibuster and cloture along with other Republicans, Vitter can publicly lambaste the harebrained schemes likely to emerge from the 111th Congress and have a visible hand in stopping them, gaining large credit back home for doing so.
Melancon, by contrast, will be tarred with every bad decision made in Congress. And to add to the irony, this will impede him as he contemplates taking on in 2010 Vitter who will be gaining strength with the same dynamics. As a result, in the next two years expect a lot of vocal opposition from Vitter, while Melancon stays as far away as possible from discussing policy desires of his party and confines his remarks mainly to how much pork he brings his district.
28.12.08
Calendar militates against Jindal 2012 White House run
As speculation flies about potential national aspirations of Gov. Bobby Jindal, one thing often left out in the equation is the electoral calendar particularly is unsuitable for getting himself elected to a second term as governor and making a stab at the presidency in 2012.
As anyone who has paid attention to national politics over the past two years can relate, running for the presidency is a full time job starting at least two years out from the election. The 2008 election had particularly two newer trends that exacerbated the problem even more. One was the abandonment of public funding by serious presidential candidates in order to raise more money than ever, which takes additional time of a candidate, and the other was the most front-loaded primary schedule ever which mandates more work earlier in a campaign.
Senators who may oversee a few dozen people at most and whose only responsibility is to cast votes have the luxury of time to campaign while on the job, and the president and vice president have huge staffs and resources to help the president out with his far more numerous tasks (the vice president hardly has any, of course). But governors are another matter, who have to run a state and largely must keep state and national issues separate which makes their time campaigning for national office at a premium. It’s no accident that since the beginning of the Depression only five sitting governors were able to get a major party nomination for the presidency and just three have won, the last being Bill Clinton in 1992.
And these governors typically have an advantage that Jindal will not – about three-quarters of them are selected in off-years for presidential elections, so that they can run for reelection and as soon as that is complete, they could pick up running for the White House. Jindal will not have that opportunity since Louisiana is joined only by Mississippi in having its statewide elections in the third year of a quadrennial presidential cycle, a year later than most. In Louisiana, Jindal could get elected in October, 2011 and then face the beginning of presidential preferences primaries less than three months later, while other Republicans will have been campaigning exclusively for the presidency for months, perhaps even years. Jindal can’t, because he cannot be seen as ignoring state issues when running for reelection.
One could argue that Jindal might have that luxury. Right now, Democrat officials are whistling into a hurricane if they think Jindal will lose in 2011. Only unless Jindal proves utterly incapable of helping to fashion a fiscal solution to the current budgetary crisis would he stand any chance of not being reelected. No Republican that could win will run against him, and Democrats have few they could put up against him with any legitimate chance to win.
(Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu would rather be mayor of New Orleans in 2010 and if he can’t get that, he’s not going to give up his safe position to go up against Jindal. Atty. Gen. Buddy Caldwell is too old and low profile to seriously contest Jindal. Rep. Charlie Melancon probably will try for Sen. David Vitter’s seat knowing he could be redistricted out of his House job, but if he can’t beat Vitter in 2010, there’s no way he’ll beat Jindal in 2011. Sen. Mary Landrieu would not want to leave the gig she has.)
But neither will Democrats give Jindal the luxury of an easy run that could allow him to think of piggybacking a presidential candidacy on a gubernatorial one. Democrat operatives at all levels know how dangerous Jindal is to them nationally and they aren’t going to give him a pass at the state level to bolster his national stature. When the most competitive Democrats pass on the election, look for the party regulars to throw a sop to blacks by backing up a black candidate who cannot win, such as what occurred in the Seventh District this past fall and at the gubernatorial level in 1999. This move serves the dual purpose of placating black Democrat officials, as the whites running the party take for granted black votes but when this becomes too obvious it results in revolts such as state Rep. Michael Jackson’s independent bid for Congress in the Sixth District this year. If state Democrats know they will lose, at least they can take the opportunity to throw some bones to that part of their neglected base.
So even if Democrats back someone with really no chance to win, Jindal still will have to work at his reelection which will obviate any presidential campaigning. In this situation, the only way for Jindal to take a shot in 2012 would be to not run for reelection. While if president-elect Barack Obama does what he campaigned on the country will be in a mess by 2012, still it would be a gamble by Jindal to give away sure reelection for a chancy run at the White House.
When Jindal tells the media he’s only focusing on his present position, he very likely means it. By retiring after a presumably successful eight years in 2015, he would be set perfectly for a 2016 run if Obama somehow wins reelection (and would quiet critics about his “job-hopping”). If a Republican does win in 2012 he could challenge Landrieu in 2014 and set himself up for 2016 or 2020. These possible futures given the electoral calendar do make it unlikely that Jindal will go for the White House in 2012.
As anyone who has paid attention to national politics over the past two years can relate, running for the presidency is a full time job starting at least two years out from the election. The 2008 election had particularly two newer trends that exacerbated the problem even more. One was the abandonment of public funding by serious presidential candidates in order to raise more money than ever, which takes additional time of a candidate, and the other was the most front-loaded primary schedule ever which mandates more work earlier in a campaign.
Senators who may oversee a few dozen people at most and whose only responsibility is to cast votes have the luxury of time to campaign while on the job, and the president and vice president have huge staffs and resources to help the president out with his far more numerous tasks (the vice president hardly has any, of course). But governors are another matter, who have to run a state and largely must keep state and national issues separate which makes their time campaigning for national office at a premium. It’s no accident that since the beginning of the Depression only five sitting governors were able to get a major party nomination for the presidency and just three have won, the last being Bill Clinton in 1992.
And these governors typically have an advantage that Jindal will not – about three-quarters of them are selected in off-years for presidential elections, so that they can run for reelection and as soon as that is complete, they could pick up running for the White House. Jindal will not have that opportunity since Louisiana is joined only by Mississippi in having its statewide elections in the third year of a quadrennial presidential cycle, a year later than most. In Louisiana, Jindal could get elected in October, 2011 and then face the beginning of presidential preferences primaries less than three months later, while other Republicans will have been campaigning exclusively for the presidency for months, perhaps even years. Jindal can’t, because he cannot be seen as ignoring state issues when running for reelection.
One could argue that Jindal might have that luxury. Right now, Democrat officials are whistling into a hurricane if they think Jindal will lose in 2011. Only unless Jindal proves utterly incapable of helping to fashion a fiscal solution to the current budgetary crisis would he stand any chance of not being reelected. No Republican that could win will run against him, and Democrats have few they could put up against him with any legitimate chance to win.
(Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu would rather be mayor of New Orleans in 2010 and if he can’t get that, he’s not going to give up his safe position to go up against Jindal. Atty. Gen. Buddy Caldwell is too old and low profile to seriously contest Jindal. Rep. Charlie Melancon probably will try for Sen. David Vitter’s seat knowing he could be redistricted out of his House job, but if he can’t beat Vitter in 2010, there’s no way he’ll beat Jindal in 2011. Sen. Mary Landrieu would not want to leave the gig she has.)
But neither will Democrats give Jindal the luxury of an easy run that could allow him to think of piggybacking a presidential candidacy on a gubernatorial one. Democrat operatives at all levels know how dangerous Jindal is to them nationally and they aren’t going to give him a pass at the state level to bolster his national stature. When the most competitive Democrats pass on the election, look for the party regulars to throw a sop to blacks by backing up a black candidate who cannot win, such as what occurred in the Seventh District this past fall and at the gubernatorial level in 1999. This move serves the dual purpose of placating black Democrat officials, as the whites running the party take for granted black votes but when this becomes too obvious it results in revolts such as state Rep. Michael Jackson’s independent bid for Congress in the Sixth District this year. If state Democrats know they will lose, at least they can take the opportunity to throw some bones to that part of their neglected base.
So even if Democrats back someone with really no chance to win, Jindal still will have to work at his reelection which will obviate any presidential campaigning. In this situation, the only way for Jindal to take a shot in 2012 would be to not run for reelection. While if president-elect Barack Obama does what he campaigned on the country will be in a mess by 2012, still it would be a gamble by Jindal to give away sure reelection for a chancy run at the White House.
When Jindal tells the media he’s only focusing on his present position, he very likely means it. By retiring after a presumably successful eight years in 2015, he would be set perfectly for a 2016 run if Obama somehow wins reelection (and would quiet critics about his “job-hopping”). If a Republican does win in 2012 he could challenge Landrieu in 2014 and set himself up for 2016 or 2020. These possible futures given the electoral calendar do make it unlikely that Jindal will go for the White House in 2012.
24.12.08
Support of EWE commutation explains LA ineptitude
At first I thought I was reading a term paper from one of my sub-par students. No, it turned out to be an Abbeville Meridional newspaper editorial advocating the early release of former Gov. Edwin Edwards, now better know as Prisoner #03128-095, and the intellect and logic showed in demonstrates exactly why Louisiana ranks at the bottom of many quality-of-life indicators.
The rambling thesis of this appears to be that the elderly Edwards has suffered enough. A lifetime of achievement it offers as exculpatory justification. In doing so, not only does it miss the entire point of Edwards’ punishment, it doesn’t even provide convincing arguments that he merits commutation of his 10-year sentence.
The editorial skirts Edwards’ apparent corruption in office. Instead, it advances the peculiar notion that his long service in various capacity somehow exempts him from paying the full price for his misdeeds, even going so far as to maintain proof of his overriding good work was being elected governor four times showed “he must have done something right. Voters in this state are not stupid.” No comment of mine can illuminate better the “merit” of this statement and I’ll leave it to my readers to ponder this wisdom without my input.
While he never was convicted of abuse of office, plenty of circumstantial evidence makes it hard to explain what the author claims is a “myth” that “Edwards made his money in politics.” If he didn’t make it while in office, it seems difficult to understand why Edwards was so unconcerned from what today would be illegal lobbyist cash gifts from Tongsun Park while in Congress, or why his former operative Clyde Vidrine would produce salacious revelations in his books about these things, or why during his 1986 corruption trial it was revealed that Edwards regularly visited Las Vegas casinos with suitcases full of hundreds of thousands of dollars when as governor he made in salary a fraction of the contents of one such case each year. Willing suspension of disbelief does not make for good argumentation.
It also reads a “second myth is that government in Louisiana is corrupt and that all elected officials are crooks.” Insofar as this is a straw man argument – nobody seriously argues this so why waste the space refuting something irrelevant – it claims corruption essentially stops at the Orleans Parish lines. The author needs to do a little research to discover just in the past year high-profile corruption cases being decided in Jefferson Parish concerning judges and a former state senator and in Baton Rouge about the state’s film office. Somehow, asserting without proof that little corruption exists outside of New Orleans is supposed to make readers believe … what? That since Edwards wasn’t from New Orleans he wasn’t corrupt?
The sad fact that the author runs from is that Edwards was convicted of a federal crime of using his influence improperly in politics. No amount of character references or favorable polling can change this fact, and it is important for him to serve his entire (and typical for the collection of crimes for which he was convicted) sentence because, as noted elsewhere, it provides disincentive to deter criminals from doing things, including performing additional corrupt activities to prevent the day of reckoning from coming to hold off their punishments long enough to have a way to escape their full sentences.
It will be interesting to see whether the Meridional is consistent in its view about Edwards concerning the case of Bernard Madoff who also allegedly engaged in corrupt activities (in the financial markets). Investors may have lost billions by him (although some made quite a bit from him as well, so he did help the public), but, hey, the guy is 70 years old and no doubt the trial will be taxing on him so why not let him off light? I await this editorial that argues if Edwards should be let off despite what he did to the Louisiana citizen, regarding Madoff that he merit the same treatment for what he did to duped millionaires.
That such an editorial so oblivious and would seem to take itself seriously just provides another indicator explaining Louisiana’s dismal situation. People who entertain the notion that violation of public trust not be punished to the full extent of the law are the same folks who keep putting into office politicians and supporting public policy that tolerates such behavior to the detriment of the state.
The rambling thesis of this appears to be that the elderly Edwards has suffered enough. A lifetime of achievement it offers as exculpatory justification. In doing so, not only does it miss the entire point of Edwards’ punishment, it doesn’t even provide convincing arguments that he merits commutation of his 10-year sentence.
The editorial skirts Edwards’ apparent corruption in office. Instead, it advances the peculiar notion that his long service in various capacity somehow exempts him from paying the full price for his misdeeds, even going so far as to maintain proof of his overriding good work was being elected governor four times showed “he must have done something right. Voters in this state are not stupid.” No comment of mine can illuminate better the “merit” of this statement and I’ll leave it to my readers to ponder this wisdom without my input.
While he never was convicted of abuse of office, plenty of circumstantial evidence makes it hard to explain what the author claims is a “myth” that “Edwards made his money in politics.” If he didn’t make it while in office, it seems difficult to understand why Edwards was so unconcerned from what today would be illegal lobbyist cash gifts from Tongsun Park while in Congress, or why his former operative Clyde Vidrine would produce salacious revelations in his books about these things, or why during his 1986 corruption trial it was revealed that Edwards regularly visited Las Vegas casinos with suitcases full of hundreds of thousands of dollars when as governor he made in salary a fraction of the contents of one such case each year. Willing suspension of disbelief does not make for good argumentation.
It also reads a “second myth is that government in Louisiana is corrupt and that all elected officials are crooks.” Insofar as this is a straw man argument – nobody seriously argues this so why waste the space refuting something irrelevant – it claims corruption essentially stops at the Orleans Parish lines. The author needs to do a little research to discover just in the past year high-profile corruption cases being decided in Jefferson Parish concerning judges and a former state senator and in Baton Rouge about the state’s film office. Somehow, asserting without proof that little corruption exists outside of New Orleans is supposed to make readers believe … what? That since Edwards wasn’t from New Orleans he wasn’t corrupt?
The sad fact that the author runs from is that Edwards was convicted of a federal crime of using his influence improperly in politics. No amount of character references or favorable polling can change this fact, and it is important for him to serve his entire (and typical for the collection of crimes for which he was convicted) sentence because, as noted elsewhere, it provides disincentive to deter criminals from doing things, including performing additional corrupt activities to prevent the day of reckoning from coming to hold off their punishments long enough to have a way to escape their full sentences.
It will be interesting to see whether the Meridional is consistent in its view about Edwards concerning the case of Bernard Madoff who also allegedly engaged in corrupt activities (in the financial markets). Investors may have lost billions by him (although some made quite a bit from him as well, so he did help the public), but, hey, the guy is 70 years old and no doubt the trial will be taxing on him so why not let him off light? I await this editorial that argues if Edwards should be let off despite what he did to the Louisiana citizen, regarding Madoff that he merit the same treatment for what he did to duped millionaires.
That such an editorial so oblivious and would seem to take itself seriously just provides another indicator explaining Louisiana’s dismal situation. People who entertain the notion that violation of public trust not be punished to the full extent of the law are the same folks who keep putting into office politicians and supporting public policy that tolerates such behavior to the detriment of the state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)