Rebuilt Big Charity increasingly seems best option fo LA

It sounds like the state needs to start listening closely to those who favor rebuilding of the Medical Center of Louisiana – New Orleans (“Big Charity”) from its existing structure rather than embarking on a costly new structure that may not be cheaper for the same quality and whose new construction can disrupt historic neighborhoods.

Today at a legislative committee hearing questions were raised about whether the state should build an entirely new facility, which would raze 74 acres in Mid City New Orleans, instead of taking the existing Avery C. Alexander Memorial Hospital building that was severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina and rebuilding it. While damage was extensive, the only independent survey to date, authorized by the Legislature, shows as expensive as renovation is, at $550 million, still would be cheaper by $282 million over a total replacement – and that after the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration ordered scaling back some of the grandiose ideas for it previous to his taking office. Additionally, they argue rebuilding would occur two years quicker than building anew.

The Louisiana State University system which runs the facility has ordered evaluations which it says – but will not publicly reveal the details of – shows it would be more expensive to renovate the existing facility. One selling point in its favor is that it could combine some functions with a U.S. Veterans Administration hospital to be built next to it. But even so, including extraneous items that he argues would be needed in a rebuilding, state facilities director Jerry Jones claims it would cost $70 million to rebuild than build new.

Some LA educators must put children, not selves, first

Sticking with the recent theme of economic development to mitigate outmigration from Louisiana, last week served up some perfect examples of attitudes in the area of education which explain why economic development has been so difficult to create in the state.

One set of events revolved around the delayed announcement by the state of what local schools would be taken over by it. The state would take eight Baton Rouge and two Shreveport schools under its wing. In every case, these schools had been scored as “academically unacceptable” for at least four years, and in each case not just majorities, but large majorities of their students were scoring in the bottom categories in tested subject areas. Overall, in almost every category at least two-fifths of East Baton Rouge students cannot perform up to the basic level of achievement, and for some grades and subject areas it is over three-fifths.

Yet concerning the East Baton Rouge Parish School System, not only did its School Board fight the possibility of 12 schools taken from their control, rallying interest groups and religious groups to back it, but when the eight were designated to be removed talk from it turned to lawsuits to prevent the perfectly legal transfer. One must wonder why such desperation exists to keep these schools governed locally.

Cut red tape, forgo economic bribery to prevent outmigration

Yesterday I mentioned ways that Louisiana could accomplish a pro-growth agenda to jolt the state out of its downward quality-of-life trajectory. Recent comments illustrate perfectly one aspect of necessary reform in this regard.

Louisiana Association of Business and Industry President Dan Juneau gave some examples of tax cuts which helped business in the state, removing nonsensical taxes unique to the state. But perhaps more importantly, in this interview he gave examples of procedural reforms that could be made that would ease obstacles on business.

Tax cuts get the publicity, but making these kinds of changes could go further to promote a climate in the state that encourages wealth creation. In fact, Gov. Bobby Jindal first gained political prominence as a technocrat in government who found ways to make government work smarter, so he ought to be the ideal person to lead the charge to get government out of the way of business by eliminating unnecessarily complicated structures in areas such as tax collection.

At the same time, Jindal has to resist the ideology disseminated by his Secretary of Economic Development Stephen Moret that somehow the state can do a better job of directing investment. As one major interest group that advocates in the area of tax policy states in reference to the idea of targeted tax breaks, “Lawmakers create these deals under the banner of job creation and economic development, but the truth is that if a state needs to offer such packages, it is most likely covering for a woeful business tax climate,”

It cannot be stated too often that in order to make people love their country, i.e. not want to leave, their country must be lovely. That happens by sweeping away bothersome government regulation that hampers business efficiency and taxes that suck the life out of commerce. This means in the near future that Jindal, if unable to offer more tax breaks because of ailing government finances, must back legislation to cut red tape and give up on this notion that monies must be set aside to bribe business into locating in Louisiana.

If some prospects come through, Moret wants to replenish a fund that has over $400 million designed to attract big employers. Money of that magnitude if talking economic development would be more wisely spent on tax relief, and cutting regulations won’t cost a cent. These are what need to be concentrated on in the 2009 legislative session, while the fund should be allowed to be drained away if it at all succeeds. If Jindal takes this course of action, it will show he truly understands how to solve the state’s outmigration problem.

Jindal correct to reject mistaken tax hike emulation

Perhaps the way to summarize the effect of the separate problems Louisiana faces in creating economic growth is it has an outmigration problem – more people leave the state and enter, and it’s getting to the point that the excess of births over deaths won’t be able to compensate. But maybe the state will get lucky because fiscal policy of many other states may give Louisiana a boost, if Gov. Bobby Jindal sticks to his guns.

Jindal has said he will not consider any tax increases of any kind to work the state’s way through an impending budget crisis, preferring smarter use of funds and cutting functions. However, some other states are raising taxes, mostly on consumption of certain good deemed to impart something deleterious, hence the name “sin taxes.”

There is some stupidity out there on this issue that actually argues personal income or consumption taxes on the wealthy should be raised, the rationale being that the really rich have so much money they’ll never miss it and it might actually be good for them to have a more “realistic” understanding of a good’s true value. This is not the space to analyze the intellectual confusion of this view (an excellent job is done here) but it suffices to say that the historical empirical evidence exactly contradicts this view, as cuts in tax rates particularly among the wealthiest bring the strongest economic growth because their resources get deployed in the most efficient fashion through investment, as opposed to government spending it in a much more inefficient manner for purposes that fail to contribute to society.

Republican Jindal seems to understand the obvious, that if a choice has to be made, it’s a pretty safe bet that there are low-priority, essentially unneeded things being done in government that can be excised rather than government sucking a greater proportion of society’s resources out of the economy into its own maw which, in the long run, will only serve to depress the economy even further. That other states (notably, almost exclusively those with Democrat majorities in their state governments) that don’t have the wisdom to understand this simple truism are willing to do the opposite are going to hand Louisiana a competitive advantage over the next few years.

As Jindal’s Secretary of Economic Development Stephen Moret has noted, Louisiana suffers from having low growth in economic areas where it could have a competitive advantage. Yet the solution is not, as he intimates, some kind of government policy targeting assistance to these sectors because that reflects the same folly of belief that government somehow knows better than the market where to commit resources. Instead, it is policy that reduces generally tax and regulatory burdens, a direction into which Jindal has made small steps and perhaps, at least on the regulation-reduction side, will make more soon.

Tax reduction may be suspended for a short while given other reformist goals of Jindal’s such as in health care and from receding economic tides, but a relative reduction may come if other states and the federal government make the mistake of raising taxes. This will make Louisiana more attractive precisely to those groups Moret frets about being in short supply in the state going forward, the younger and more educated/motivated. Jindal is smart to continue resisting the ignorant suggestion of the chattering classes to follow the course of these other states.

Parish must emulate Bossier City on fiscal rectitude

Gov. Bobby Jindal’s aggressive approach to reducing state taxpayer handouts to nongovernmental organizations and local governments largely was well received by the public earlier this year. One northwest Louisiana government seems to have learned from this, while another apparently has not.

Last year, the Bossier City Council wisely did not act on a request by the Ark-La-Tex Mardi Gras Museum which is located in the city, to subsidize it to the tune of $25,000, approximating its current revenues. (This is regardless of the fact that, given the stipulations the city placed upon krewes several years ago, Carnival krewes no longer parade in the city.) Its executive director held out the museum as a great educational opportunity, and asserted that with its disappearance of public grants that its donors and admission fees collected from roughly 5,000 annual attendees could not keep open its doors much longer.

One must admire the audacity of the request while being repelled with its inanity. Are there not other grants out there to be had, and, if not, don’t their absence or rejection of applications from the group tell us just how valued of an enterprise organized philanthropy thinks this is? And if the museum is so important to the concept of Carnival around these parts, why don’t the krewe members themselves come to the rescue? With several hundred of them parading in any given year, each could carve $50 out of their throw, costume, ball, and/or libations budget to donate to the museum which would more than make up the deficit.

LA must continue to resist use of child as political pawn

The reprehensible saga continues where a small child is being used by its guardians for political purposes, thrusting Louisiana into the middle of the controversy.

As noted previously, the state was ordered by a federal judge to put the names of two males on a birth certificate for a child adopted by two male New Yorkers. Louisiana state law clearly states that only a married couple, defined by the Constitution as a man and woman, or a single individual may have their names listed on a birth certificate of an adopted child, as the law permits for public records purposes that the parent or parents of an adopted child by their discretion may be placed on the certificate. The judge ruled because same-sex couple adoptions could occur in New York and because of the full faith and credit clause in the U.S. Constitution both males’ names had to be placed on the document, using judicial fiat to overrule both the state Constitution and law.

The state has argued that the matter needs to be reheard, either with a full trial involving this judge (whose ruling was not in a trial setting) or passed to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Naturally, the New Yorkers, who comprise a homosexual relationship, with their advocacy groups supporting them, resist this. A full trial might pressure the federal judge to revise his order, and the state Supreme Court taking up the matter surely would bring a ruling against them, citing the Louisiana Constitution.

Tougher times unlikely to reduce LA incarceration rate

In grappling with budget woes, Louisiana as is many states is cutting back in correctional work, but unlike others isn’t actually emptying some jails. This is congruent with Gov. Bobby Jindal’s governance philosophy and the structuring of state correctional policy, and is unlikely to change.

One might think Louisiana would be a prime candidate to reduce correctional expenses by imprisoning fewer in order to reduce overall government spending. The state has the highest per capita incarceration rate of all and the per capita expenses in the area of corrections are also above the national average, raking 17th. However, strategies to take prisoners out of incarceration if not freeing them have not been pursued.

In his midyear budget cuts, in terms of discretionary dollars, the approximately $11 million Jindal ordered out and compiled with by the Legislature in he area of corrections was only 6.2 percent of its budget, a little less than the general fund’s overall 7 percent figure. Further, the areas disproportionately cut where those that dealt with the nontraditional areas of corrections, most principally being not pursuing an expansion to a dedicated skilled nursing unit and in divesting the state of a unit dedicated to rehabilitation for dependency. Outside of these areas, most of the rest of the reductions were in staffing.

Democrats must blame selves, not chairman, for losses

In many ways Louisiana never has been a progressive state but the manner in which its voters have grown typically to reject liberal Democrats provides a refreshing exception. This puzzles Democrats to the point they can’t figure what is wrong, as shown by the recent meeting of the party’s state central committee.

I’ll make it simple to understand: Republicans who are credible conservatives who run with credible conservative agendas usually win in a state as a whole and most of its electoral districts because these electorates are themselves moderate to conservative in orientation. That’s why Reps. John Fleming and Bill Cassidy, both solid conservatives who ran on conservative platforms, beat two Democrats who were at best supporters of liberal-to-moderate policies, and why state Republican Treasurer John Kennedy could not beat Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu, because he lacked credibility as a conservative given his chameleon-like policy preferences of the recent past.

Arguments discounting ethics improvement lack merit

The small in number but loudly enthusiastic critics of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s ethics reform agenda enacted in large part into law last year received another blow when, on behalf of his efforts, Jindal received more plaudits from professionals in the field of ethics. It underscores yet again that this criticism tends to come more from political agendas than based on any objective analysis.

When the 2008 First Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature adopted these sweeping changes, they were not the “gold standard” that Jindal proclaimed, but they did make substantial improvement. This has been recognized on more than one occasion. The Center for Public Integrity, which investigates financial disclosure laws, said they took Louisiana’s score from 43 to 99 out of 100. The Better Government Association computed that the state rose from almost the bottom to the top five states in its ranking of strength of states’ laws relating to transparency, ethics, and accountability in government. And now the Ethisphere Institute, an organization that desires to create and advance best practices in business ethics, ranked Jindal eighth in 2008 for his positive contribution to advancing their cause.

But if you listened to a small group of self-appointed arbiters outside of these groups, none of this seems to matter as they base fantastic assertions that ignore that the laws are indisputably tougher on that enforcement is lacking. the most hyperbolic of the bunch recently proclaimed, “There is no ethics reform, period. End of sentence …. It angers me for people to even think that there is. There is no enforcement.”

Budget woes used by opponents of Jindal priorities

While cruising through Baton Rouge on the latter part of Friday on my way to the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association in New Orleans, I guess I should have stopped by the Capitol because I still could have caught the last part of the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget’s marathon session to approve of Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal’s recommended cuts to the state’s current year budget. This was required given the size of the proposed reductions after mandatory revenue forecasts revealed a deficit, and with it the chance for Jindal opponents to take shots at him and his priorities.

One novel tactic comes over the very definition of what is a “cut” in spending. Republican State Sen. Robert Adley, who lost power in the Senate as a result of Jindal’s election, in claims echoed by Jindal’s most prominent media critic on the left the Baton Rouge Advocate’s Mark Ballard, that since much of the reduction involve monies not spent at as high a rate as anticipated that these are not reducing spending. In arguing that the only real “cuts” mostly are coming by reducing benefits to Medicaid recipients and some social service programs with few actual layoffs in government, the implication is most of the Jindal Administration’s efforts are illusory and targeted against the disadvantaged.

But Adley has been in state government and Ballard writing about it long enough to know better. If appropriations are legally passed into the form of a budget, which is nothing more than a tool to implement a spending plan, that money is there to be spent and the only way to legally prevent that from happening is to cut the budget which will reduce that spending. Is Adley suggesting that, had revenues not fallen, this money that Jindal cut would not have been spent, and in that event would he have led the charge, for example, to freeze the thousands of open positions in government Jindal proposed as a cost-savings measure? If you can’t establish that, then what Jindal has done is cut spending and to suggest otherwise speaks more to a desire to score political points than any substantive contribution to the debate.

While it is important for legislative input into this kind of matter and some legitimate searching for information and answers was performed by committee members, it appears a lot of what went on was the pursuit of agendas in other areas. Democrat state Sen. Francis Thompson, along with others that are indicted for an alleged activity related to the state spending millions of dollars on building reservoirs that he arranged, has obsessed over improving land around those man-made lakes, and in the midst of this budgetary crisis his remarks indicated that he was, well, obsessed over golf courses in his district being affected. Some just can’t let go of the idea that a primary purpose of government is to redistribute wealth.

Others can’t let go of past defeats. Democrat state Sen. Sharon Broome, the body’s second-ranked leader, stated she was being contacted by people concerned about high salaries being paid in the executive branch. She seemed to pay much closer attention to those kinds of calls as opposed to the ones she was getting six months ago when she voted herself a hefty pay raise that it took a Jindal veto to stop.

Democrat state Rep. Karen Peterson proclaimed the state’s limited scholarship/voucher program was being unfairly spared the removal of funds present because of lower-than-expected usage, thundering she would not act to reduce other services if this were the case. Peterson, who carries water for government schools that see this program as forcing them to work harder and become less inefficient, when the time came did exactly what she said she wouldn’t, proving her rhetoric more than hollow.

She and the others had little choice. They had to accept the package as a whole or not at all, and a rejection would have forced a special session in a matter of days where real chaos could occur. Nobody wanted that extra aggravation and preferred the devil they knew in Jindal’s plan, so the panel approved without objection.

All of these opponents fear Jindal’s ability by use of this situation to remake state government into something other than the instrument of redistribution that brings them power and privilege. So far they are losing, but with a budget promising to be smaller next year to complicate matters, the battle is far from over.