Jindal continues reform agenda through budget woes

One underappreciated facet of the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration has been its ability to make lemonade out of lemons and advance a reform agenda simultaneously. This trait surfaced again in Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals forced cuts because of mid-year budget deficits.

With roughly 40 percent of general fund money going into health care, the $248 million total general fund cut was going to make a significant impact on its operations as well as produce the single largest area of fiscal relief for the state Yet when the dust settled, particularly in the area of care of the indigent elderly and developmentally disabled, the Administration made exactly the best moves to induce increased efficiency into the system.

Most prominently, it has accelerated plans to close state-run development centers – in other words, publicly-owned nursing homes for the developmentally (meaning mentally and/or physically) disabled. Their operating expenses are much higher than comparable facilities in the private sector, and some of their clients could be cared for adequately in home- and community-based settings. Also, the state again has scaled back payments to the politically-powerful nursing home industry which for decades has benefitted from extra largesse that has bred wastefulness and inefficiency. This may encourage more transfers from institutional settings into alternatives at cost savings to taxpayers. Yet at the same time, the Administration preserved funding for the very home- and community-based programs that will be expected to take up the slack from the impact of these other changes.

What distinguishes these changes from those of the greater crisis of a year ago is back then alterations to produce savings largely were procedural, while this time they are more reallocation. This is a key and (given political forces) more difficult step in policy evolution but absolutely necessary if savings are to be realized. Some efficiency gains get realized through changing the way tasks are performed, but the real savings come from pulling money from less efficient uses and putting it into activities that produce the same or better outcomes for fewer dollars.

One would hope that these kinds of things would have been done absent any budget crisis on the principle that smaller government is morally better but regardless Jindal has done them in the current forced situation, instead of takings alternatives such as budget gimmickry, not introducing prioritizing into cuts, or, worst of all, raising taxes. Like other actions such as state human resources pay and personnel reform they are unglamorous whose benefits are hard to see but whose self-interested political opponents are vocal in their criticism, yet they bring large and undeniable benefits to the state as a whole. Jindal may be criticized for infrequent pursuit of the large and symbolic, but he must be commended for his ability to insert a conservative approach in the nuts-and-bolts of governing when faced with harsher fiscal times.

Glover's lack of response induces little confidence

Months after the incidents came to light, the only question out of many swirling around a percolating corruption probe into Shreveport’s City Hall that has yet to have been fully answered is whether “accountability” is in the lexicon of Mayor Cedric Glover. That has been answered as an emphatic “no," now buttressed by a largely useless report which is long on stating the obvious and short on accepting responsibility and making changes.

The actions taken by Caddo Parish Sheriff Steve Prator already has netted three employee arrests and another, former supervisor of inspectors Wavey Lester, resignation under duress. Lester, a holdover from former Mayor Keith Hightower’s administration reappointed by Glover, is related to one arrested in the alleged scheme to pay contractors for shoddy, fraudulent, or nonexistent work, and also to city Councilman Calvin Lester. The investigation subsequently spread to the Queensborough Neighborhood Association which is lead by Caddo School Board member Lola May.

Most stunning was that warning signals flashed for years that something was wrong while even the most basic due diligence was being neglected. Director of the department involved, Community Development, Bonnie Moore, also an appointee held over from the Hightower regime, revealed that the program under question did not even vet the presumed “contractors” receiving money to see if they had a contractor license – a process that takes seconds on the Internet. Direct invitations to corrupt actions were issued as a result of the department only a few years ago prohibiting nepotistic transactions – and then allowing those who had been participating such as Wavey Lester’s relative to continue.

This is not the first controversy this decade with the department with Moore’s leadership. Under Hightower, a loan program went bad with seeming political favoritism playing a role in decisions made in Moore’s department. Instead of corrective action, the program simply was stopped.

And Glover since his taking the helm of the city appeared to evince the attitude that he kept the area out of mind, nothing bad could be happening there. He was taken by surprise when Prator launched the investigation months ago, once it started his underlings instead of being cooperative and proactive expressed bafflement over or even passive resistance (such as charging sheriff’s investigators hundreds of dollars for city documents related to the probe before the arrests) to it, and Glover initially defended city actions before nudging Lester to resign.

This leads to some very curious, unanswered questions that only silent Glover can resolve:

Why was Moore kept on, despite her record and glacial speed in discovering and trying to address problems in the department?

Why were even the simplest procedural changes, such as vetting the status of contractors, never implemented despite Moore’s perception of problems?

Why was Wavey Lester kept on, and did it have anything to do with his relations with Councilmen Lester and the contractor?

What role did the Fair Share program have to do with the improprieties – the program that mandates that the city identify businesses owned by the “disadvantaged,” such as the arrested contractors who are all racial minorities thereby qualifying their firms and give them assistance to make them as competitive as possible in winning city contracts?

Why did the city not begin an investigation itself as it was clear even years ago that some kind of problem was emerging about this program?
Where was the city auditor Leanis Graham in studying these programs through which millions of dollars passed?

What is the city’s relationship with the Queensborough Neighborhood Association, with details about the money that flowed from the city to the organization and whether May’s position had anything to do with that flow of funds?

Glover has done nothing to address any of these questions. They still need answering because leaving them unresolved both sends to signal that a coverup is in the works to hide far more extensive corruption and/or that the Glover Administration cannot reflect upon or own up to mistakes which gives the impression that it is incapable of running the city in the efficient and ethical fashion that its citizens deserve.

Firing Moore, who has proven incapable and never would be retained had something like this come to light in the private sector, would be a first good step. Then Glover needs to be honest, even if that means heavy self-criticism, and show some leadership in addressing these concerns. Doing neither risks indicating to the citizenry he is incapable of achieving either.

Protest notes provide direction to challenge usurpation

Louisiana officials have joined in calling for the Environmental Protection Agency from backing off its ideologically-driven choice to set the stage for its regulation of carbon emissions as an “endangerment.” How they are doing so may point to a strategy for defeating the power grab.

As noted previously, a twisted interpretation of a law never intended to apply to what is in fact a nonexistent problem is going to allow the EPA eventually to issue regulations that will have a profound negative impact on the American economy – an issue pointed out in these numerous communiqués. But most galling is that the EPA in the process plans to rewrite unilaterally the law without Congressional approval. To understand why, we must first acknowledge the political nature of the “man-made global warming” issue and the political and monetary agendas of those who support it.

The hoax largely is aided and abetted because of a mixture of ideology and money. Pres. Barack Obama and many liberal Democrats want to use the issue to acquire more power and privilege for government they think they will control. The federal and other governments dole out huge sums of money to researchers to give them incentives to fashion research that will support this agenda (the exposure of these efforts now turning them into babbling, transparent apologists). Interest groups who share this ideology shut their eyes to the lack of and contradictory evidence to their article of faith (much of the recent research now having been found manipulated to attempt to validate their faith) in order to continue to maintain their purposes and jobs. Genuine scientific inquiry is a casualty of those that assert human activity makes any significant contribution to climate change.

Yet none of this is argued by the correspondents even as in replies to them the article of faith is reasserted. And all Louisiana legally can do is protest; it has no legislative power to make any changes to this federal concern. However, that the approach is to highlight the impact on property rights and economic freedoms may point to how to overcome the unilateral action of the executive branch, taken because Obama cannot get a reluctant Congress to put into law this policy.

What the EPA does not want to admit (and which is why it continues to claim it is being “compelled” to act in this way by a Supreme Court decision) is that it intends to act extralegally. The very law it cites as forcing it states that endangerment means regulation essentially of any property with a significant structure on it the size or more of an acre. Unilaterally, the EPA is creating a “tailoring rule” that will increase by an order of two magnitudes the emissions standard by which a property would face regulation because it knows to follow the law as written would subject well over a million new structures to a complicated regulatory process that would be overwhelmingly politically unpopular and enormously expensive.

The approach that these opponents of the EPA’s usurpation of legislative power appears to focus on a court challenge that initially would make the EPA follow the letter of the law, and once that happens, to sue on the basis that the interpretation of the Clean Air Act of 1971 constitutes impermissible takings under the Constitution. If this is what Gov. Bobby Jindal and others are intending by penning these protests, rather than a futile attempt at persuasion these lay the groundwork for policy that reasserts proper Constitutional authority. As such, they do Louisianans a service.

Enjoy Independence Bowl; sustainability questionable

Today the 2009 edition of the Independence Bowl occurs, in what might the end of the golden era of Shreveport’s Independence Bowl and an eventual slide into oblivion.

At least it has a title sponsor which may allow it to last longer than the dubious previous one which defaulted on its commitment. Essentially going a couple of years without a sponsor and then with one that quickly stopped paying its money forced the entity that runs it, the Independence Bowl Foundation, to dip into reserves and led Shreveport to make a controversial and secret gift/loan to the organization to keep the game afloat.

But the problem is these follies did not go unnoticed by college football. This game will be the last matchup between teams from the premier power conferences in the land, the Big 12 and Southeastern Conferences. This decade, they have produced six of the nine mythical national champions and every year but one put one of their teams in the national championship game.

With departure, LA Democrats can put up or shut up

After attempts public and private to boot him out of office, it appears that the chairman of Louisiana’s Democrats Chris Whittington apparently is leaving the post on his own accord, departing with a mixed legacy.

On the one hand, the tide of conservatism that belatedly has turned the South Republican at last hit Louisiana and caused major retrenchment of Democrats. Out of seven statewide elected offices, seven U.S. House seats, and the pair of Senators, only three of these spots are held by Democrats, one in each category, compared to the 10 when he assumed command of the party from the hapless Jim Bernhard. Democrats also during his term lost their effective majority in the state House although giving up only a little ground in the state’s Senate. One could blame the party leader for these reversals.

On the other hand, it must be noted that perhaps the weakest state political parties, institutionally speaking, in the country are Louisiana’s, in part because of a political culture that has placed so must emphasis on candidates/personalities, and in part because of a political system whose blanket primary system for state and local offices discourages identification with and disempowers parties. And of the two major parties, because registration tides have run against them to instill further resource erosion, as an organization the Democrats are the institutionally weaker.

LA policy-makers must fight flawed EPA takeover

Maybe the outspokenness comes from knowing he’s moving on by his own accord, but Louisiana’s Secretary of Environmental Quality Harold Leggett sent a necessary note that should wake up the uninformed and rouse the quasi-religious, and helps to back responsible policy-makers from Louisiana.

Leggett, who is leaving his post early next year to return to the private sector, penned a letter (similar to that of leaders of two other states) to the federal government’s Environmental Protection Agency objecting to its ruling that “endangerment” exists concerning emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This enables the agency to begin regulating CO2 as a “dangerous” gas and has introduced a means to do so. Leggett argues that Congress, which created the Clean Air Act of 1971 under which the EPA is claiming authority to do this and which represents the people, should be deferred to by the EPA in deciding what to do.

This position is entirely justified because of three major problems with the EPA’s approach. First, it derives its authority to do this from a 2007 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that was tortured in its jurisprudence and arrogated to itself what it thinks Congress should have thought about what could be regulated and how. Second, it does so through its own dubious interpretation of the law, unilaterally rewriting it because to follow the letter of the law would impose absurdly high regulatory costs on virtually any property bigger than a large house. Third, the “science” on which EPA based its decision itself has been demonstrated to be faulty, flawed, manipulated, and unreliable.

Thus, the logical conclusion is that if the EPA follows the law it will have such an absurd impact therefore reasonable minds must conclude Congress never intended the Act to regulate anything in the air and the genuine science to support the idea that man-made CO2 emissions cause a significant negative change in climate does not exist. Therefore, it would be entirely appropriate for the EPA not to act to preserve the integrity of the law and to allow Congress to provide guidance through legislation clarifying what it means to do, using actual science.

That, however, runs against the ideological grain of the pres. Barack Obama Administration which hopes to use the issue to increase government control over the economy to empower government and its other allies. This approach also brings power and privilege to those who disregard the questionable “science” behind the idea of man-made climate change and cling to that as a matter of faith regardless of the costs to people.

Louisiana is blessed to have two of the more active members of Congress who speak against the man-made climate change fraud, Sen. David Vitter and Rep. Steve Scalise. Hopefully, they will echo Leggett’s concerns in Washington and strive to correct the bull-headed Obama agenda by continuing to work against disastrous bills that in essence would ratify the EPA’s choice and to support others that would counteract its decisions in this regard.

Leggett is to be applauded for publicizing an issue gone largely unnoticed by the public and this would serve as a worthy way to punctuate his service to the state.

Suggested changes needed to ethics law adjudication

In cooperation with Louisiana’s Board of Ethics, the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration has come up with some changes to ethics law adjudication that deserve legal enactment, despite what one key legislator thinks.

The most significant change involves allowing the Board to appeal decisions. The present procedure has the Board acting as prosecutor and bringing cases to administrative law judges for adjudication, but then the Board legally must approve all decisions made by the law panel to which there is no appeal. Jindal and many on the Board both want to change this so that the Board can appeal a panel decision into the appellate court system and not just rubber-stamp everything.

This makes sense. As the Board acts like a prosecutor as well as grand jury, as a prosecutor it should have an appeal option. This clears up the legal ambiguity that forces it currently to sign off on all decisions, even those with which it disagrees. Also, this can clarify uncertainties of the law by having a court invested with judicial power provide a single legal interpretation of ethics statutes.

Two gals' choices help two guys' Congressional bids

Lost in the recent Legislative shuffleboard has been that two legislators now can feel better about their political futures because of the unanticipated actions of two others.

If anybody had predicted some kind of announcement coming from Democrat state Rep. Karen Peterson about this time it would have been that she was making herself the favorite to win the Second Congressional District by her entry into the contest. Not only does Peterson hold the second-highest position in the state House, Speaker Pro-Tem, but in 2006 she strongly had challenged then-incumbent William Jefferson, then fighting investigation for crimes in office for which he later was convicted.

But Peterson passed on the contest in 2008 while Jefferson was indicted. It was won by present incumbent Republican Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, largely because of the damaged candidacy of Jefferson, but with demographics favoring a Democrat and Cao’s support of a bill that would increase the cost of health care while reducing its quality souring Republicans on him, the winner of the Democrat primary in 2010 can expect election in November.

However, that won’t be Peterson, as almost simultaneously with the announcement of Democrat state Sen. Cheryl Evans’ upcoming resignation of her seat, Peterson announced she would pursue it, had a campaign organization ready to go, and had gotten scheduled her first fundraiser for the Feb. 6 election. Evans, who is leaving to stay in the same area code with her husband whose job has them moving out of state, appears to have with Peterson done a little coordination to give Peterson a head start on capturing the seat.

That Peterson has done so aggressively indicates that she does not have Congress in mind. It would be silly to go for the Senate seat, then to turn right back around and start campaigning for Congress (having delayed that for the Senate race for nearly two months). One could argue this isn’t something too far off from what Rep. Steve Scalise did before winning his Congressional seat – run for the state Senate in 2007, only to compete for the First District seat immediately after. Yet in Scalise’s case the seat came open only concurrently with his state victory – Gov. Bobby Jindal being elected – and also consider that Peterson is giving up her House leadership post. Unless she’s serious about staying in the Senate awhile, if she was just marking time until bagging a win for federal office it wouldn’t make much sense to give up that post.

Regardless of her reasons, this development must please the likes of state Reps. Cedric Richmond and Juan LaFonta, currently the main candidates for the Democrat nominee likely to face Cao. Neither could beat Peterson had she run, so one of them, probably Richmond given the increasing favors shown him by national Democrats, now is the favorite. For which, ultimately, they have to thank Evans’ sense of family togetherness and Peterson’s lack of interest (which may be for the same reason; she also is a relative newlywed who might not prefer spending so much time in Washington).

Pelosi thanks Deity for pro-abort clause; so may Melancon

A whole lot of stuff has to happen for Rep. Charlie Melancon to continue his political career past a little more than a year, but so far his state colleague and his Congressional mistress are keeping him in the running – if he can grasp the opportunity.

Melancon faces a tall task to defeat incumbent Republican Sen. David Vitter by poll numbers and the political tides. But he would have no chance at all if forced to vote for a career-killing health care reform bill that promises higher expenses and taxes for lower quality favored by many of his fellow Democrats, including the state’s only other Congressional member Sen. Mary Landrieu, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

At first, Melancon sided with Pelosi when in committee he refused to block consideration that would have steered federal dollars towards funding elective abortion. This enabled him to vote against the measure later with Pelosi’s blessing because enough other votes could be rounded up for it to pass. However, it later was removed to Pelosi’s chagrin, and Melancon was permitted to by her to vote also against the final product because it still had enough votes to pass.

This defeat stuck in Pelosi’s craw, but Senate action on this account has turned more to her liking. There, Landrieu helped support a partial reversal of the anti-abortion measure which for the first time ever would create a way for providers to replace privately-earned dollars for some aspects of care with publicly-subsidized bucks and then use those other dollars to fund elective abortion. Thus, the Senate version which is teetering on passage would conflict with the passed House version.

Pelosi, who said “Thank God” that the Senate version encourages the very un-Godlike practice of killing the unborn for any reason at all, now thinks this Senate difference can be reconciled successfully into the final product. To which House supporters of the original ban, including the lone Republican of the bunch Anh “Joseph” Cao, say only over their nay votes.

This collision course, if a Senate version passes and Pelosi pushes it, would give Melancon a great opportunity to keep alive his Senate hopes by a vote against a conference committee product that includes the Senate language – if Pelosi undoes his leash. The slippage of votes for overall passage that would occur as a result may be too great and then Pelosi would not give permission for Melancon to defect. Then he has a choice to make: do as he has unthinkingly and meekly done for years and submit to her will, or do what’s right, help kill the bill, and not destroy any chance he has of winning the Senate seat. If it comes to that, let’s hope for the latter.

If followed through, Landrieu faces grave electoral future

Zebras don’t change their stripes, so it’s no surprise that Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu looks to join her fellow liberals in the Senate in passing health care reform legislation that has gone from truly monstrous to just horrific with changes made to accommodate her and others.

Of course, Landrieu is an idiot if she actually believes what she now claims to support: it will not cut costs, it will not improve the quality of care, and it will bring health care to no additional people, but it will raise taxes and create a Trojan Horse for a continued government takeover of health care (for a succinct and data-filled rendering of the flaws and hidden agenda and the lies being told to cover them up in this legislation, see the Wall Street Journal’s “The WSJ Guide to ObamaCare”). But this attitude and subsequent behavior is the hallmark of liberalism, a discredited belief system about human beings that survives only because of ignorance, deception, and active propagation of negated assertions in order to gain power and privilege, and Landrieu never wanders far from it, so her acquiescence should come as no shock.

The question is what ramifications an eventual decision of hers to back this tissue of lies will have on her political career? It could be that she doesn’t plan on running for reelection. By 2014 she’ll be in her mid-fifties with 18 years in the Senate (and a lifetime of serving in elected offices with next to no experience in the private sector which explains much about her dismal record), her family having made a ton of money and she eligible for a fat pension. Maybe she thinks she can hand off the seat to younger brother Mitch (if he can win the New Orleans mayoralty). This certainly would explain why she would support something so thoroughly detested by the Louisiana electorate, because she doesn’t plan on facing it again.