While it is well known that Louisiana continues to operate state-owned hospitals that Gov. Bobby Jindal wants to wean out of state responsibility for indigent care through health care reform, perhaps less realized is that the state has a similar arrangement with homes for the developmentally (meaning mentally and physically) disabled. Fundamental reform should come to this area as well, but parochial attitudes of legislators may prevent that from happening.
Unfortunately, for decades the state has had a bias in all areas of health care towards the warehousing of individuals into large institutions, benefitting certain special interests and creating patronage tools for legislators. As the times have changed where technology has allowed solutions to severe health problems that permit more home- and community-based living at a reduced cost, this inertia now needlessly costs taxpayers – Louisiana on a per capita basis has more than double the number of people in developmental centers than the national average and thereby has the fourth most people in such centers out of all the states.
Testimony in front of the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Health and Welfare illuminated the fact that the typical resident of the six remaining centers – New Orleans’ basically had to surrender its residents in the wake of the hurricane disasters of 2005 – costs the state $127,000 a year, while the typical participant in the state’s New Opportunities Waiver program which allows individuals to live at home or in a group setting using workers paid for by the state averages only $70,000 annually. The savings actually should be much greater, given that NOW’s participants are at the highest levels of disabilities and almost 20 percent of those currently in the centers are at the lowest levels – those most likely to benefit from home- and community-based care – where estimated costs under NOW are considerably lower. (As the program expands, the estimated cost for new entrants, who would be needing lower levels of care, this year is forecast to be only $44,208 each.)
The experience of the winding down of the New Orleans center was that over half of the residents and their families chose to have residents move into the community. If four of the six centers with residents were phased down at this same rate (the remainder choosing to move into supports and services centers that would remain open in Bossier City and Iota), savings could be over $38 million a year, and this doesn’t include money the state could bank by selling the unused facilities. If then the yearly savings were applied to fund new waiver slots (over 9,000 who have qualified remain on a waiting list, often for over a decade with some dying before ever receiving a waiver), at the predicted cost about 850 could be served.
If some legislators were not moved by the economics of the matter, they should have been by the human costs. Many families who have members in the centers resent being forced, with no options available, to have their loved ones have to live in these places when with some assistance from the state they could care for them at home, or at least in a community setting. Not only does this convey a psychological benefit, another economic benefit is present as well: outside of institutions, some of these disabled will be able to hold down jobs and contribute to the economy.
Some families do prefer having the centers around because they are unable or unwilling to care for their disabled member, and some residents have no family. A growing number of states have no such facilities at all now, instead having created programs that allow for their care in private sector settings, but even if the state did keep operating a couple of facilities the option would be there for state care. Certainly this might mean longer trips for families to visit and it might be initially disruptive for some residents to move. But it is unfair to ask taxpayers to surrender tens of millions of dollars annually extra just for the minor convenience of a few hundred families.
Yet legislators will often use this rhetoric on the issue about how they want to help these residents and their families (keep in mind many would far prefer the waiver solution) to mask their real motivation to continue to support the inefficiency of this system: it permits state money to pour into their districts and creates jobs, both of which assist them in their abilities to get reelected, as well as presents a veneer to some families about how a service (which could just as easily be done in the private sector without any state involvement) is being performed for them, again worth some votes.
It’s the same dynamic as witnessed in the case of the state’s charity hospital system and falls squarely into the state populist tradition of having government provide what can be better provided from other sources in order to attain power and prestige. If legislators prove too inured to this old siren song, hopefully Jindal will not be and will push a plan to move the state out of the disabled housing business and into policy that is more cost effective and overall improves the quality of life for the disabled in Louisiana.
18.2.09
Group puts politics before free inquiry by withdrawal
The initial reaction from the announcement by the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology that it was cancelling holding its 2011 convention in New Orleans because it objected to a recently-enacted state law that supports academic freedom is that this organization is less interested in that and more interested in politics.
The group holds itself out as “dedicated to promoting the pursuit and public dissemination of important information relating to biology,” but with this announcement by its executive committee that it would shift this meeting to Utah as a result of the Science Education Act one supposes that “biology” should be replaced with “political correctness.” The law allows for supplementary materials to be introduced into science classes to better critically appraise theory, and specifically disallows any material that would promote any religious beliefs.
However, some individuals apparently that are so insecure in their own beliefs and/or who do not value critical thinking in the classroom have taken umbrage at the law and created a fictitious bogeyman surrounding it. Despite the law’s explicit wording, these opponents mistakenly claim it will allow some kind of religious content into instruction. Again, this straw man argument tells us more about them and their negative views on the topic of intellectual inquiry than it represents any realistic appraisal of the situation, for any person who can read and reason can look at the text of the law and figure out its unmistakable meaning.
Thus seems to be the attitude of this executive committee. I would recommend that SICB members, at the next opportunity, vote out such dullards who might well be first class scientists but clearly are second class leaders. It should also make members think twice about their own participation in an organization where political agendas get put ahead of the study of biology by its leaders.
Sure, this temper tantrum will take some sales tax dollars from state and New Orleans coffers but if the state must choose between a commitment to free inquiry versus lucre, waving goodbye to this politicized group is a no-brainer.
The group holds itself out as “dedicated to promoting the pursuit and public dissemination of important information relating to biology,” but with this announcement by its executive committee that it would shift this meeting to Utah as a result of the Science Education Act one supposes that “biology” should be replaced with “political correctness.” The law allows for supplementary materials to be introduced into science classes to better critically appraise theory, and specifically disallows any material that would promote any religious beliefs.
However, some individuals apparently that are so insecure in their own beliefs and/or who do not value critical thinking in the classroom have taken umbrage at the law and created a fictitious bogeyman surrounding it. Despite the law’s explicit wording, these opponents mistakenly claim it will allow some kind of religious content into instruction. Again, this straw man argument tells us more about them and their negative views on the topic of intellectual inquiry than it represents any realistic appraisal of the situation, for any person who can read and reason can look at the text of the law and figure out its unmistakable meaning.
Thus seems to be the attitude of this executive committee. I would recommend that SICB members, at the next opportunity, vote out such dullards who might well be first class scientists but clearly are second class leaders. It should also make members think twice about their own participation in an organization where political agendas get put ahead of the study of biology by its leaders.
Sure, this temper tantrum will take some sales tax dollars from state and New Orleans coffers but if the state must choose between a commitment to free inquiry versus lucre, waving goodbye to this politicized group is a no-brainer.
17.2.09
Genuine control over LA staffing entails changing policy
Gov. Bobby Jindal’s administration and Louisiana state legislative leaders have said they intend to look closely at the matter of state staffing levels as a means of controlling spending, making changes if necessary to facilitate administrative ability to affect the size of the state’s workforce. Understanding who is responsible for what is necessary even to begin to make the system more controllable.
In the broadest sense, if every single person that gets compensated in some way for some work on behalf of the state that is not a contractor is counted, the December, 2008 number would be over 105,000. Removing workers in the legislative and judicial branches, leaving only those drawing non-contractor compensation from the executive branch, produces a figure of 103,875. (Henceforth, “state employees” will be defined identically to “state executive branch employees.)
But this is not the figure of full-time employees in the state, because it contains employees such as part-timers, student workers, and those who receive only per diem compensation and the like such as those who serve on state boards and commissions. Remove those and combine the part-timers into full-time equivalents and they bring the figure reported by the government agency concerned with state employment, the Department of State Civil Service (the only cabinet department over whom the governor has no direct control that does not elect its members statewide) at the end of the last fiscal year (June 30, 2008) to 93,099 full-time equivalent employees.
However, this figure masks further delineations within it. One is that only 61,411 are in the state’s classified service, which gives greater controls over their hirings (and great protections to prevent firings) than the others that comprise the unclassified service. For example, college faculty are unclassified and decisions about the creation or abolishment of these positions are out of the hands of top budget planners.
Another is that state discretionary money is used for only a portion of these positions. This is why when checking the fiscal year 2008-09 budget documents, only 45,879 are listed as being paid from its general fund. And even this isn’t the actual number because it does not count higher education employees save those that work for one of the state’s four management boards and Board of Regents.
Note a final distinction as well with this figure: the general fund lists not employees, but positions, and with hundreds vacant at any given time the actual figure employed being paid for by state discretionary dollars (that is, not where some kind of revenue dedication over which policy-makers don’t control is forced into paying for filled positions) will be a little below that figure.
Thus, the starting point for figuring out who controls what begins with the governor and Legislature, who through budgetary maneuvers directly can affect the fate of roughly 45,000 current employees. After that, it gets much trickier.
Concerning the unclassified folks, budgetary control is diluted because the institutions make their own decisions about positions and people: the only way the governor and Legislature can shape this is by manipulating the bulk appropriation it makes to each institution. And a large number of state employees come from federal dollars to support various activities such as health, welfare, and education. They come courtesy of grants or matching funds, so it is not entirely the state’s choice. That is, if it wishes to accept funds from the federal government to perform a legal obligation (or mandate from the federal government), it must hire personnel to do it.
Finally, for comparative perspective, the number of FTE employees over the past several years actually has declined by a few hundred since 2004 and those tied to the general fund discretionary spending have declined by about a thousand from the fiscal year 2004-05 budget (these the last figures before the big drop and since then rise from the hurricane disasters of 2005). Relative to the rest of the nation, Louisiana is somewhat overstaffed, ranking just in the top third of states in per capita FTE staffing at 17.45 per thousand (but given health care reforms proposed by Jindal that would distance the state from direct provision of it, given that about a third of state workers are involved in health care these changes could drop Louisiana to about the national average).
So these considerations mean that, in trying to understand how to bring personnel spending under control in Louisiana:
Comparisons of the total numbers of all people drawing some remuneration for non-contractor work present a distorted picture in trying to gauge the actual direct control elected policy-makers have over the size of state government in terms of employment; more accurate would be using the FTE and most accurate the budgeted positions numbers, but none give an entirely accurate number of directly controlled positions by policy-makers
Greater control by elected policy-makers can be gained if statutes are changed to (1) give them increased control over decisions made in higher education, (2) reduce the size of the state-run health care sector, and (3) removing dedications of state revenues
Recent trends suggest a small downward movement in overall state employment (as well as in FTE per capita) even as the latest figures have increased due to state government (especially in the health care area) recovering from the hurricane disasters
In the latest reporting period (7/1/2007 to 6/30/2008, under half of which time the present Jindal Administration and Legislature controlled), the FTE numbers have increased about 3,000 (almost two-thirds of that an increase in unclassified employees) and apparently much of that due to bringing the state’s health care system back close to its pre-disaster level and fully funding higher education to its recommended level for the first time in a quarter century. Outside of higher education, it largely seems to have involved federal dollars since the budget for general fund positions intended to lop off 1,316 unadjusted for higher education (note: budgeted numbers will be slightly different from what actually happens since the Legislature makes changes to the budget before its passage).
Thus, the most valid statement regarding recent changes in state personnel levels is that Jindal and the Legislature have achieved a small reduction in the state workforce over which they have the most control. The areas over which they have less control grew more substantially, and there will have to be statutory, perhaps even constitutional changes for them to achieve the same degree of authority over those areas.
In the broadest sense, if every single person that gets compensated in some way for some work on behalf of the state that is not a contractor is counted, the December, 2008 number would be over 105,000. Removing workers in the legislative and judicial branches, leaving only those drawing non-contractor compensation from the executive branch, produces a figure of 103,875. (Henceforth, “state employees” will be defined identically to “state executive branch employees.)
But this is not the figure of full-time employees in the state, because it contains employees such as part-timers, student workers, and those who receive only per diem compensation and the like such as those who serve on state boards and commissions. Remove those and combine the part-timers into full-time equivalents and they bring the figure reported by the government agency concerned with state employment, the Department of State Civil Service (the only cabinet department over whom the governor has no direct control that does not elect its members statewide) at the end of the last fiscal year (June 30, 2008) to 93,099 full-time equivalent employees.
However, this figure masks further delineations within it. One is that only 61,411 are in the state’s classified service, which gives greater controls over their hirings (and great protections to prevent firings) than the others that comprise the unclassified service. For example, college faculty are unclassified and decisions about the creation or abolishment of these positions are out of the hands of top budget planners.
Another is that state discretionary money is used for only a portion of these positions. This is why when checking the fiscal year 2008-09 budget documents, only 45,879 are listed as being paid from its general fund. And even this isn’t the actual number because it does not count higher education employees save those that work for one of the state’s four management boards and Board of Regents.
Note a final distinction as well with this figure: the general fund lists not employees, but positions, and with hundreds vacant at any given time the actual figure employed being paid for by state discretionary dollars (that is, not where some kind of revenue dedication over which policy-makers don’t control is forced into paying for filled positions) will be a little below that figure.
Thus, the starting point for figuring out who controls what begins with the governor and Legislature, who through budgetary maneuvers directly can affect the fate of roughly 45,000 current employees. After that, it gets much trickier.
Concerning the unclassified folks, budgetary control is diluted because the institutions make their own decisions about positions and people: the only way the governor and Legislature can shape this is by manipulating the bulk appropriation it makes to each institution. And a large number of state employees come from federal dollars to support various activities such as health, welfare, and education. They come courtesy of grants or matching funds, so it is not entirely the state’s choice. That is, if it wishes to accept funds from the federal government to perform a legal obligation (or mandate from the federal government), it must hire personnel to do it.
Finally, for comparative perspective, the number of FTE employees over the past several years actually has declined by a few hundred since 2004 and those tied to the general fund discretionary spending have declined by about a thousand from the fiscal year 2004-05 budget (these the last figures before the big drop and since then rise from the hurricane disasters of 2005). Relative to the rest of the nation, Louisiana is somewhat overstaffed, ranking just in the top third of states in per capita FTE staffing at 17.45 per thousand (but given health care reforms proposed by Jindal that would distance the state from direct provision of it, given that about a third of state workers are involved in health care these changes could drop Louisiana to about the national average).
So these considerations mean that, in trying to understand how to bring personnel spending under control in Louisiana:
In the latest reporting period (7/1/2007 to 6/30/2008, under half of which time the present Jindal Administration and Legislature controlled), the FTE numbers have increased about 3,000 (almost two-thirds of that an increase in unclassified employees) and apparently much of that due to bringing the state’s health care system back close to its pre-disaster level and fully funding higher education to its recommended level for the first time in a quarter century. Outside of higher education, it largely seems to have involved federal dollars since the budget for general fund positions intended to lop off 1,316 unadjusted for higher education (note: budgeted numbers will be slightly different from what actually happens since the Legislature makes changes to the budget before its passage).
Thus, the most valid statement regarding recent changes in state personnel levels is that Jindal and the Legislature have achieved a small reduction in the state workforce over which they have the most control. The areas over which they have less control grew more substantially, and there will have to be statutory, perhaps even constitutional changes for them to achieve the same degree of authority over those areas.
16.2.09
Hypocrite Melancon sabotages Senate chances with vote
With his affirmative vote for the no government left behind spending package, Rep. Charlie Melancon showed not only that he is a fraudulent hypocrite but that he essentially has given up any realistic chance of claiming a Senate seat in 2010.
Melancon regularly touts his membership in the “Blue Dog” coalition, now serving as its co-director of communication, meaning his House website hosts the group’s site. The site proclaims the group of Democrats is deeply committed to fiscal stability in national policy, supplies all sorts of news releases concerning the group’s articulated desires for fiscal responsibility, less deficit spending, and the like, and even has a debt calculator on its home page informing that the U.S. national debt is ready to hit $10 trillion and how each member of the public now owes over $30,000 to paying it off.
Yet as did almost every single member of the caucus, Melancon laid down his principles to vote for the spending package that will increase that debt by 10 percent, tripling this year’s annual deficit. This reveals what Melancon tries to desperately hide, that he is nothing more than a tax-and-spend liberal, by distracting his right-of-center constituency in the Blue Dog rhetoric.
Either that, or he’s just stupid or ignorant. Melancon attempted to justify his vote by saying, “To do nothing is to assure that the economy will collapse and the recovery period will be extended,” which shows he knows nothing about history involving the Great Depression, where the exact same approach President Barack Obama is taking with the bill made the situation worse and extended economic recovery years beyond what was necessary.
(To make a bad week worse, Melancon also found time to look like an idiot when he complained about talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s quote “I hope he fails” that referred to Obama’s policy plans. Instead, Melancon mischaracterized the quote out of its context, criticizing Limbaugh for something he didn’t say, that he hoped Obama would fail the country on the economic recovery issue. Which means he needs to give a good talking to whichever staffer monitors Limbaugh’s program for getting that wrong.)
But more than making a wrong choice for his constituents and his country, Melancon also completed the hat trick by putting himself on the wrong side of this issue if he has any ambitions to challenge Sen. David Vitter for his seat next year. Vitter was one of the leading opponents to the bill in the Senate, and anecdotal evidence is that a solid majority in Louisiana agree with him on that. If 18 months from now, as is likely a result of this bill, the economy is still in recession or worse, Vitter would annihilate him on this issue. Meaning that if a year from now conditions are like this, Melancon may have short-circuited his entire candidacy on this and therefore decide not to run. And it may cast such a pall over him that he may have a hard time fighting off a quality Republican challenger to his current position.
Melancon, electorally lucky in the past, may have staked his entire political future on this vote. He had better hope his luck continues.
Melancon regularly touts his membership in the “Blue Dog” coalition, now serving as its co-director of communication, meaning his House website hosts the group’s site. The site proclaims the group of Democrats is deeply committed to fiscal stability in national policy, supplies all sorts of news releases concerning the group’s articulated desires for fiscal responsibility, less deficit spending, and the like, and even has a debt calculator on its home page informing that the U.S. national debt is ready to hit $10 trillion and how each member of the public now owes over $30,000 to paying it off.
Yet as did almost every single member of the caucus, Melancon laid down his principles to vote for the spending package that will increase that debt by 10 percent, tripling this year’s annual deficit. This reveals what Melancon tries to desperately hide, that he is nothing more than a tax-and-spend liberal, by distracting his right-of-center constituency in the Blue Dog rhetoric.
Either that, or he’s just stupid or ignorant. Melancon attempted to justify his vote by saying, “To do nothing is to assure that the economy will collapse and the recovery period will be extended,” which shows he knows nothing about history involving the Great Depression, where the exact same approach President Barack Obama is taking with the bill made the situation worse and extended economic recovery years beyond what was necessary.
(To make a bad week worse, Melancon also found time to look like an idiot when he complained about talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s quote “I hope he fails” that referred to Obama’s policy plans. Instead, Melancon mischaracterized the quote out of its context, criticizing Limbaugh for something he didn’t say, that he hoped Obama would fail the country on the economic recovery issue. Which means he needs to give a good talking to whichever staffer monitors Limbaugh’s program for getting that wrong.)
But more than making a wrong choice for his constituents and his country, Melancon also completed the hat trick by putting himself on the wrong side of this issue if he has any ambitions to challenge Sen. David Vitter for his seat next year. Vitter was one of the leading opponents to the bill in the Senate, and anecdotal evidence is that a solid majority in Louisiana agree with him on that. If 18 months from now, as is likely a result of this bill, the economy is still in recession or worse, Vitter would annihilate him on this issue. Meaning that if a year from now conditions are like this, Melancon may have short-circuited his entire candidacy on this and therefore decide not to run. And it may cast such a pall over him that he may have a hard time fighting off a quality Republican challenger to his current position.
Melancon, electorally lucky in the past, may have staked his entire political future on this vote. He had better hope his luck continues.
15.2.09
LA budget reform ideas good, but start reviewing now
Gov. Bobby Jindal got it right again with his stumping for greater flexibility for policy-makers to adjust Louisiana’s operating budget. But he needs to be even more ambitious in what he asks from the Legislature on this matter.
Last week, Jindal outlined an agenda regarding this question for legislative consideration this upcoming session. The state faces a large projected deficit but due to the fact that the budget faces 391 different direct appropriations of funds for a particular purpose, it leaves little flexibility and forces reductions largely in the areas of health care and higher education.
To change this situation, Jindal asked that the Legislature to send forth an amendment to the Constitution to give the governor authority to cut as much as 10 percent from anywhere in the budget (except for the Minimum Foundation Program which funds secondary and elementary education), doubling the current allowed standard that kicks in when the budget is sufficiently in forecasted deficit. He also asked that they change the statute to allow this to be a potential annual occurrence if needed, instead of the present standard of every other year. Finally, he also asked it to set up a mechanism to create sunset review of all dedications of funds every four years.
These all are excellent (if not new) ideas. Not only would they present more options to deal with crises, but they wisely demand that priorities be reviewed on a regular basis. Still, Jindal can challenge the Legislature to go one step further. Over 90 percent (358) of the dedications are statutory; why not start the review process now in time for this year’s budget? That’s a lot to look through, but the Legislature start by reviewing the largest in dollar and/or the most obviously egregious. For example, what about the law that dedicates gambling proceeds to fund eradication of boll weevils, which for years has vastly exceeded needs and for years permitted former Agriculture Secretary Bob Odom to legally divert these funds for other dubious purposes?
These bills need to be given high priority and the review process that would be enshrined into new laws should commence now before their passage in order to provide the most flexibility now that it is needed. Jindal should add this last provision to his shopping list for this year’s regular session.
Last week, Jindal outlined an agenda regarding this question for legislative consideration this upcoming session. The state faces a large projected deficit but due to the fact that the budget faces 391 different direct appropriations of funds for a particular purpose, it leaves little flexibility and forces reductions largely in the areas of health care and higher education.
To change this situation, Jindal asked that the Legislature to send forth an amendment to the Constitution to give the governor authority to cut as much as 10 percent from anywhere in the budget (except for the Minimum Foundation Program which funds secondary and elementary education), doubling the current allowed standard that kicks in when the budget is sufficiently in forecasted deficit. He also asked that they change the statute to allow this to be a potential annual occurrence if needed, instead of the present standard of every other year. Finally, he also asked it to set up a mechanism to create sunset review of all dedications of funds every four years.
These all are excellent (if not new) ideas. Not only would they present more options to deal with crises, but they wisely demand that priorities be reviewed on a regular basis. Still, Jindal can challenge the Legislature to go one step further. Over 90 percent (358) of the dedications are statutory; why not start the review process now in time for this year’s budget? That’s a lot to look through, but the Legislature start by reviewing the largest in dollar and/or the most obviously egregious. For example, what about the law that dedicates gambling proceeds to fund eradication of boll weevils, which for years has vastly exceeded needs and for years permitted former Agriculture Secretary Bob Odom to legally divert these funds for other dubious purposes?
These bills need to be given high priority and the review process that would be enshrined into new laws should commence now before their passage in order to provide the most flexibility now that it is needed. Jindal should add this last provision to his shopping list for this year’s regular session.
12.2.09
Education reform proposals promise great improvement
Some of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s announced education initiatives smack so much of common sense one wonders why they haven’t been done before (or were discontinued decades ago). Others portend potential contentious policy battles. Either way, from the broad outlines he presented yesterday, they seem bound to improve elementary and secondary education in Louisiana.
Jindal’s education legislative agenda addresses four areas. The first deals with charter school regulation. So far, the move to allow these institutions which operate much like state-run schools except with fewer regulations has turned out to be a success, with outcomes improvement outpacing that of government schools especially in the cases where charters took over academically unacceptable institutions. Jindal wants to increase regulation at the low end of these kinds of schools by having them vetted by the national professional association of them and hopefully at the high end making them perform even better by allowing faith-based organizations to organize and run charter schools.
The last matter will draw opposition from the usual anti-religion zealots but these political or constitutional matters should not stand in the way of this proposal’s passage. So long as religion is not advocated mandatorily in the classroom, it should not matter who runs the school. Another issue, allowing simple majorities rather than two-thirds votes of teachers to request a move of their school into charter status should prove even more controversial, as the education establishment and teachers’ unions historically have fought charter schools because they take resources and power out of the hands of the former and the latter cannot protect mediocre performers in exchange for their support in unions’ quest to redistribute resources from taxpayers to their members.
A second is in minor tweaking to teacher assessment. While competency testing and additional forms of accountability measuring for teachers are badly needed in Louisiana education and would do more than any other reform to improve schooling, this very small step to improve the manner of assessment is positive.
Third, Jindal will stump for broader authority to remove disruptive students from the classroom. The tolerated presence of such students is a major problem in low-performing schools in that acting up interferes with learning by students who want education. Less coddling may draw opposition from the education establishment which fears obnoxious parents berating them for acting firmly against their overindulged and/or unsupervised children, but at least they would have the law on their side now.
In addition, the plan sensibly argues for alternative instruction of these suspended students. Rather than have them sit out with most neglecting studies, they would be put into after-school or Saturday learning situations in order to allow them to keep up with their studies but in an environment where they can’t hold others’ learning hostage. The hangup here will be this likely will cost more money and the annual automatic Minimum Foundation Program funding is not designed to incorpoarte something like this. Additional appropriation for these kinds of programs may be necessary, but these are tight budgetary times. Yet if implemented, these ideas could make a dent in the dropout rates that plague state education.
Finally, another big part of the dropout tendency, truancy, Jindal addresses also. Laws would be strengthened to put more of the onus for discouraging this activity on parents. They would be notified immediately of absences, extant fines that can be levied on parents for repeated truancy would be increased, and alternative penalties are proposed to be added. Sensibly, in the case of minors society holds parents responsible for many of their actions and truancy should be no exception. If parents face sanctions for their children’s bad behavior, it should prompt them to put greater effort into better parenting to prevent it; one suggestion is that mandatory parenting classes be an option for remediation.
Jindal smartly recognizes that mindless dispersal of more money to administrators and teachers to improve education has diminishing returns, a point probably largely reached in Louisiana. The focus must be on the philosophy and procedures to produce superior learning which means wringing out of the system the attitude that self-actualization means more than learning facts and how to reason, or the difference between gearing the system towards a lowest common denominator and challenging all to rise up – even if that means in the case of some to use an iron fist in a velvet glove to motivate them. If the legislation that accompanies this broad outline adheres to this thinking and passes, in the coming years Louisiana will reap significant benefits.
Jindal’s education legislative agenda addresses four areas. The first deals with charter school regulation. So far, the move to allow these institutions which operate much like state-run schools except with fewer regulations has turned out to be a success, with outcomes improvement outpacing that of government schools especially in the cases where charters took over academically unacceptable institutions. Jindal wants to increase regulation at the low end of these kinds of schools by having them vetted by the national professional association of them and hopefully at the high end making them perform even better by allowing faith-based organizations to organize and run charter schools.
The last matter will draw opposition from the usual anti-religion zealots but these political or constitutional matters should not stand in the way of this proposal’s passage. So long as religion is not advocated mandatorily in the classroom, it should not matter who runs the school. Another issue, allowing simple majorities rather than two-thirds votes of teachers to request a move of their school into charter status should prove even more controversial, as the education establishment and teachers’ unions historically have fought charter schools because they take resources and power out of the hands of the former and the latter cannot protect mediocre performers in exchange for their support in unions’ quest to redistribute resources from taxpayers to their members.
A second is in minor tweaking to teacher assessment. While competency testing and additional forms of accountability measuring for teachers are badly needed in Louisiana education and would do more than any other reform to improve schooling, this very small step to improve the manner of assessment is positive.
Third, Jindal will stump for broader authority to remove disruptive students from the classroom. The tolerated presence of such students is a major problem in low-performing schools in that acting up interferes with learning by students who want education. Less coddling may draw opposition from the education establishment which fears obnoxious parents berating them for acting firmly against their overindulged and/or unsupervised children, but at least they would have the law on their side now.
In addition, the plan sensibly argues for alternative instruction of these suspended students. Rather than have them sit out with most neglecting studies, they would be put into after-school or Saturday learning situations in order to allow them to keep up with their studies but in an environment where they can’t hold others’ learning hostage. The hangup here will be this likely will cost more money and the annual automatic Minimum Foundation Program funding is not designed to incorpoarte something like this. Additional appropriation for these kinds of programs may be necessary, but these are tight budgetary times. Yet if implemented, these ideas could make a dent in the dropout rates that plague state education.
Finally, another big part of the dropout tendency, truancy, Jindal addresses also. Laws would be strengthened to put more of the onus for discouraging this activity on parents. They would be notified immediately of absences, extant fines that can be levied on parents for repeated truancy would be increased, and alternative penalties are proposed to be added. Sensibly, in the case of minors society holds parents responsible for many of their actions and truancy should be no exception. If parents face sanctions for their children’s bad behavior, it should prompt them to put greater effort into better parenting to prevent it; one suggestion is that mandatory parenting classes be an option for remediation.
Jindal smartly recognizes that mindless dispersal of more money to administrators and teachers to improve education has diminishing returns, a point probably largely reached in Louisiana. The focus must be on the philosophy and procedures to produce superior learning which means wringing out of the system the attitude that self-actualization means more than learning facts and how to reason, or the difference between gearing the system towards a lowest common denominator and challenging all to rise up – even if that means in the case of some to use an iron fist in a velvet glove to motivate them. If the legislation that accompanies this broad outline adheres to this thinking and passes, in the coming years Louisiana will reap significant benefits.
11.2.09
Jindal travel critiques need to show its harm to LA
Where in the world is Gov. Bobby Jindal? Learning that you just can’t win as governor on the issue of travel.
When former Gov. Mike Foster spent perhaps a couple of days of his entire eight years in office outside of Louisiana, critics said he should be out “selling” the state. When former Gov. Kathleen Blanco tried, almost totally unsuccessfully, to do just that, critics rightly pointed out such quixotic travel did taxpayers a disservice. Now Jindal is coming under fire not because he goes nowhere, not because his travels on state expense yield next to nothing in return, but because he goes everywhere on his own (campaign’s) dime.
Jindal just isn’t taking off on a whim, at least he’s getting invited to deliver speeches that often only tangentially address state issues. This is why his organization or others pay for his peripatetic lifestyle. The main focus of these is Republican party-building and refreshing his own campaign coffers, and to date he has been doing it in a way that has gotten him noticed on the national scene to the point he has been selected as the counterpoint to Pres. Barack Obama’s state of the union lite speech in 13 days.
The question is, does this schedule help or harm the state? On the balance, from current evidence, the answer is the former. These speaking trips don’t cost the state’s taxpayer’s a dime, they do at least present Louisiana in a positive light, and they don’t preclude Jindal from taking “homework” along. In fact, when Jindal let a legislative pay raise controversy get out of hand last year while firmly ensconced at the Capitol this showed he didn’t have to be out of state to let inattention play havoc with his agenda.
Some argue against the extensive travel because it somehow detracts from his ability to do the job as governor, although they never explain exactly how that occurs and/or how the state would be better off if he stuck around Baton Rouge more. That’s probably an assertion that won’t fully be answered until it comes time for the 2011 contest for governor, when a comprehensive comparison of what Jindal said he would do against what he actually has done can happen.
So far, Jindal has initiated meaningful (despite some lame protestations otherwise) ethics reform, backed a few business tax cuts early, did not stand in the way of individual income tax cuts late, restructured workforce development, and curbed some low-priority government spending. Still on the agenda are health care reform to increase efficiency, realigning higher education spending on the basis of outcomes, eliminating even more dubious government spending, and (for a grand slam) the elimination of individual income taxation.
If Jindal can accomplish all of this in the next almost three years, such a record of achievement would demonstrate that travel didn’t seem to impede it. But if he lacks the political will and/or capital to do much more than he has, then the travel issue becomes legitimate. But until then, unless somebody can demonstrate exactly how Jindal is putting too much time into talking and not enough into doing, this criticism seems pointless.
When former Gov. Mike Foster spent perhaps a couple of days of his entire eight years in office outside of Louisiana, critics said he should be out “selling” the state. When former Gov. Kathleen Blanco tried, almost totally unsuccessfully, to do just that, critics rightly pointed out such quixotic travel did taxpayers a disservice. Now Jindal is coming under fire not because he goes nowhere, not because his travels on state expense yield next to nothing in return, but because he goes everywhere on his own (campaign’s) dime.
Jindal just isn’t taking off on a whim, at least he’s getting invited to deliver speeches that often only tangentially address state issues. This is why his organization or others pay for his peripatetic lifestyle. The main focus of these is Republican party-building and refreshing his own campaign coffers, and to date he has been doing it in a way that has gotten him noticed on the national scene to the point he has been selected as the counterpoint to Pres. Barack Obama’s state of the union lite speech in 13 days.
The question is, does this schedule help or harm the state? On the balance, from current evidence, the answer is the former. These speaking trips don’t cost the state’s taxpayer’s a dime, they do at least present Louisiana in a positive light, and they don’t preclude Jindal from taking “homework” along. In fact, when Jindal let a legislative pay raise controversy get out of hand last year while firmly ensconced at the Capitol this showed he didn’t have to be out of state to let inattention play havoc with his agenda.
Some argue against the extensive travel because it somehow detracts from his ability to do the job as governor, although they never explain exactly how that occurs and/or how the state would be better off if he stuck around Baton Rouge more. That’s probably an assertion that won’t fully be answered until it comes time for the 2011 contest for governor, when a comprehensive comparison of what Jindal said he would do against what he actually has done can happen.
So far, Jindal has initiated meaningful (despite some lame protestations otherwise) ethics reform, backed a few business tax cuts early, did not stand in the way of individual income tax cuts late, restructured workforce development, and curbed some low-priority government spending. Still on the agenda are health care reform to increase efficiency, realigning higher education spending on the basis of outcomes, eliminating even more dubious government spending, and (for a grand slam) the elimination of individual income taxation.
If Jindal can accomplish all of this in the next almost three years, such a record of achievement would demonstrate that travel didn’t seem to impede it. But if he lacks the political will and/or capital to do much more than he has, then the travel issue becomes legitimate. But until then, unless somebody can demonstrate exactly how Jindal is putting too much time into talking and not enough into doing, this criticism seems pointless.
10.2.09
Higher exemption fails to address real problem of taxes
The mistake being made by those who support an increase in the homestead exemption is that it won’t reduce their overall taxes by much if at all, it will merely change the way in which they pay it.
For years, now-state Sen. John Alario has introduced legislation to raise the level from the nation-high $75,000 to $100,000. A New Orleans real estate agent (who no doubt believes a higher exemption will make housing more attractive, bringing more sales and him more commissions) has upped the ante in an online petition to $170,000. The proposal has an inflation-adjusted mechanism that he says if present when the last change was made in 1982 would have put the level at $160,000 today.
Rightfully, he notes that the state Constitution can foist automatic increases in property taxes when reassessment occurs quadrennially if local taxing bodies vote to roll forward millages to their present levels. The thinking of this proposal is that an increased homestead exemption, which prevents parish governments from taxing on that amount of value, will help mitigate higher taxes forced upon homeowners in that way.
But this is entirely the wrong approach because it addresses exceptions to taxation, not the actual level of taxation itself, an approach that won’t do much to reduce its overall level. Raising the exemption will prompt governments subject to it simply roll forward millages. Worse, it could tempt the state which constitutionally can levy its own property tax but which presently defers to do that. If these things are done, high-valued homeowners could find their overall amounts going up, making the burden already more inequitable. This means many with homes valued between $75,000 and $170,000 may see little or no decrease, while those owners of abodes above $170,000 may see an increase. And the inflation trigger will only goad governments into taking these steps.
One of the great mistaken assumptions concerning the exemption is those who fall under it thinking they don’t pay for the exemption. This is faulty. If, for example, as a response to a higher exemption government prevents rolling back, this becomes a tax increase to businesses and owners of rental property. They will then raise their prices or rents to compensate, passing this cost in part onto those who don’t directly pay property taxes. Because the burden is being shifted, the overall level of taxation, the real problem, does not get addressed.
If you want to address the question of property taxes being too high, the answer lies in the procedure for dealing with reassessment. Currently, it takes a two-thirds vote by a taxing authority to roll forward. If people are upset with an increase in taxes, they should take it out on their elected representatives who did it to them. However, some bodies that have this power have appointed members, so mechanisms should be put in place to control their ability to do this, perhaps by amending the Constitution (as has been tried) to also bring rolling forward to a vote of the people. In addition, people simply could exercise the franchise by voting down new proposals or renewals of property taxes, instead of fiddling with the exemption.
The trick is not to make somebody else pay, which only imperfectly avoids you paying, but to make sure everybody pays less. That comes through mechanisms to promote overall reduction, not redistribution of tax burden as this flawed proposal
9.2.09
Ending costly subsidies encourages moving forward
It’s too bad that Hurricane Katrina had to strike the New Orleans area about 42 months ago, displacing hundreds of thousands who had to find new places to live and means to finance them. But enough is enough: the federal program that subsidizes rent for those who are verified as having lived in an area hit by Katrina needs to end on schedule at the end of this month.
For some, the elderly and disabled, slack should be given and a federal program to do so is starting operations. If processing applications is too slow, extensions should be given to ensure all who are eligible and care to sign up have the chance.
But as for able-bodied others, consider that it has been three-and-a-half years since the disaster. The vast majority of the 17,000 households receiving the subsidy in Louisiana had lived in Federal Emergency Management Administration manufactured housing parks until they were closed at the end of May of last year, so they have known about this deadline for the past nine months and had plenty of time to make preparations. Regardless of prior living arrangements, the deadline has been known by all for months and years.
For some, the elderly and disabled, slack should be given and a federal program to do so is starting operations. If processing applications is too slow, extensions should be given to ensure all who are eligible and care to sign up have the chance.
But as for able-bodied others, consider that it has been three-and-a-half years since the disaster. The vast majority of the 17,000 households receiving the subsidy in Louisiana had lived in Federal Emergency Management Administration manufactured housing parks until they were closed at the end of May of last year, so they have known about this deadline for the past nine months and had plenty of time to make preparations. Regardless of prior living arrangements, the deadline has been known by all for months and years.
8.2.09
Dire charity hospital scenario may work in reform's favor
In response to requests from the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration, the Louisiana State University system which runs the state’s charity hospitals prepared reports of the impact of impending budget cuts, including the worst case scenario. Despite a small percentage loss, that scenario predicted a major impact. But would that be so bad?
The operation of these hospitals consumes only $90 million of the general fund out of $971 million spent by the unit, of which the largest projected cut is $31 million. However, that portion that does come from the general fund mostly covers medical direct-care personnel and prisoner care, the latter of which the Jindal Administration said not to cut. The system argues that having to do without some of that personnel would require closing some services that would have, at its most extensive, a ripple effect that would close three unnamed hospitals. Even the best-case scenario would turn two into out-patient-only facilities.
Yet when contemplating this outcome and putting in the context of grander plans that Jindal has for the restructuring of indigent care in Louisiana, these might not be bad alternatives. This plan would provide incentives to move indigents out of the inefficient current system that promotes the ill to troop to a government hospital regardless of the nature of the malady, to one that uses the private sector for more efficient utilization of services that likely would shift usage away from charity hospitals towards non-government facilities, with lower per-patient costs to the taxpayer.
Cuts in the charity system could speed the process along. In fact, one aspect of Jindal’s plan coincides with an outcome identified by the LSU system, making Lake Charles’ W.O. Moss Medical Center into an out-patient-only facility. This might argue making them in the larger urban areas (although paying attention to the medical education missions in New Orleans and Shreveport) where there is more slack for the private sector to pick up.
If Jindal is smart, as mentioned elsewhere he can use budgetary problems to accelerate and more comprehensively introduce government spending reforms as flush coffers would allow opponents who believe big government should provide all more cover to obstruct reform. Using this tool of necessity, Jindal could save not just the relatively small projected amount, but leverage that to drive down expenses in covering the indigent while have care provided as good or even better to more people.
Even if the “no government spending left behind” debt-inducing spending package championed by national Democrats gets rammed into law, Jindal would be wise to follow his reformist instincts and not let that interfere with this opportunity. The Legislature may thwart him in the end, but as the health care spending crisis of the state continues to eat away at state resources, he at least must try.
The operation of these hospitals consumes only $90 million of the general fund out of $971 million spent by the unit, of which the largest projected cut is $31 million. However, that portion that does come from the general fund mostly covers medical direct-care personnel and prisoner care, the latter of which the Jindal Administration said not to cut. The system argues that having to do without some of that personnel would require closing some services that would have, at its most extensive, a ripple effect that would close three unnamed hospitals. Even the best-case scenario would turn two into out-patient-only facilities.
Yet when contemplating this outcome and putting in the context of grander plans that Jindal has for the restructuring of indigent care in Louisiana, these might not be bad alternatives. This plan would provide incentives to move indigents out of the inefficient current system that promotes the ill to troop to a government hospital regardless of the nature of the malady, to one that uses the private sector for more efficient utilization of services that likely would shift usage away from charity hospitals towards non-government facilities, with lower per-patient costs to the taxpayer.
Cuts in the charity system could speed the process along. In fact, one aspect of Jindal’s plan coincides with an outcome identified by the LSU system, making Lake Charles’ W.O. Moss Medical Center into an out-patient-only facility. This might argue making them in the larger urban areas (although paying attention to the medical education missions in New Orleans and Shreveport) where there is more slack for the private sector to pick up.
If Jindal is smart, as mentioned elsewhere he can use budgetary problems to accelerate and more comprehensively introduce government spending reforms as flush coffers would allow opponents who believe big government should provide all more cover to obstruct reform. Using this tool of necessity, Jindal could save not just the relatively small projected amount, but leverage that to drive down expenses in covering the indigent while have care provided as good or even better to more people.
Even if the “no government spending left behind” debt-inducing spending package championed by national Democrats gets rammed into law, Jindal would be wise to follow his reformist instincts and not let that interfere with this opportunity. The Legislature may thwart him in the end, but as the health care spending crisis of the state continues to eat away at state resources, he at least must try.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)