Ethics members still push flawed retrenchment idea

From the statements that continue to emanate from members of Louisiana’s Board of Ethics concerning the possibilities of political interference in ethics adjudication, you have to hope they bring the a higher level of information and logic to their roles on it.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, they keep pushing this fiction that allowing the Board itself to adjudicate cases, as was the case until a couple of years ago, contains less possibility for political interference than the present setup where administrative law judges with civil service protections deliberately designed to minimize political interference perform this function. The latest reiteration of this erroneous view comes from the Board Chairman Frank Simoneaux from a larger discussion about Board reform.

Simoneaux argues that another board to perform adjudication with political appointees should be created. This follows a model suggested by the Public Affairs Research Council and is one followed by several other states. But that only would create the same potential for political interference if the same method of selection is used.

The Board has it members selected for fixed terms directly separately by the governor, House, and Senate, from nominations produced by presidents of independent (that is, private) accredited universities in the state. Even if nominations come from sources outside of state government, this does not mean that they are nonpolitical (nor that their nominators cannot be pressured – there are plenty of ways the state can regulate these institutions) nor that those who get nominated do not bring their own agendas to their potential jobs that may align with certain political forces in the state. The selection process then clearly invites the chosen to get their jobs on the basis of politicians’ beliefs, if this is part of their agenda, based upon who would be most favorable to them in any potential ethics case.

Contrast this with the selection process for the judges. Several dozen of these civil servants (an example job description is here) are employed in the Division of Administrative Law at any given time. They must meet merit qualifications in the hiring process and after their probationary period have full civil service protections. After a couple of layers of bureaucracy, their ultimate agency boss is the DAL director who approves of the hire and is appointed by the governor for a fixed six-year term with Senate confirmation. Among their many potential duties are to adjudicate ethics cases.

To adjudicate in ethics cases, further insulation is present. Of the judges, annually seven are chosen randomly to hear cases that year. For each case, three of the seven are randomly chosen. Supervisors have no authority over them in these matters. And it is worth reaffirming that civil service regulations prohibit any outside interference with standards that make it impossible to cut pay and virtually impossible to fire them as means by which to pressure the kinds of decisions they make.

It’s worth restating because Simoneaux doesn’t appear to have a clue that these regulations exist, which is the only thing that can explain how he possibly could think there’s a greater chance of putting political pressure on ALJ’s than on Board members. Consider the following scenarios:

Under the present system, in order to exert political pressure on a decision, let’s say a governor wishes to do so, and thus makes contact with the DAL director. Subtly, his representative tells the director a case that has been sent over by the Board must be decided a certain way or he won’t reappoint the director.

First of all, given the long length of her term there’s a decent chance that governor won’t even be in office when the director’s term expires, and with Senate confirmation required the governor can’t even assure that nomination again is tantamount to retaining the job. Second, in order for the director even to have any influence over assigning the case to presumed “favorable” judges, she would have to go through an extraordinary amount of corrupt and hard-to-disguise behavior in (if it’s coming up the next year) rigging the selection of the seven judges and/or rigging the three-judge panel selection. Finally, in tandem with this or alternatively, she would have to undergo a very risky course of action which could result in legal action against her to try to pressure judges to decide a certain way when it is strictly prohibited by regulations with many recourses by employees so threatened.

Contrast this with a similar scenario under the old system, which is proposed as the selection method for this new adjudicatory panel. The governor’s agent calls up the Board member, subtly says he cannot expect to be reappointed later this term or after the governor’s reelection if a case gets decided a certain way … and that’s all there is to it. Instead of four layers of insulation (chain of command, two randomizations, regulations that protect), there are zero. And Simoneaux (and PAR) seriously believe the new system is more open to political manipulation? (Not to mention they cast aspersions on the integrity of the entire DAL which decides cases in many different areas besides ethics using procedures which are actually less insulated.)

Apparently, so does Board member Scott Schneider who at least tries to find a different rationale to argue the same point. He asserts that because making these decisions is part of a job, that the “livelihood” of the ALJ’s could be pressured, whereas less ability to pressure exists because the Board appointees do not serve in those positions as their employment.

Apart from the facts that, as demonstrated above, it is nearly impossible to exert political pressure on judges and it’s a bit unsettling to imply unintentionally that Board service is a hobby by comparison, Schneider’s argument also logically fails. Lack of being employed by an institution does not mean that other avenues to put pressure on a person serving for that institution do not exist. Board members are there obviously because they want to be, so any hint that they might not be pending a certain decision certainly is a nontrivial inducement that, by comparison with the protection afforded judges, has much more potential to influence a decision.

Simoneaux is right about one thing, that the Legislature is unlikely to revisit this aspect of ethics adjudication – because it’s a better system also currently used by several states. While some other changes would be beneficial, going backwards on this is not the answer.

Good Jindal plan for higher education needs refining

Legislation backed by Gov. Bobby Jindal regarding finance and performance of Louisiana’s higher education is welcome and necessary, but questions remain about it that must be answered satisfactorily for it to truly revolutionize the provision of this service.

The bill would allow any institution of higher learning to raise its tuition 10 percent a year until it reached the level of its southern peer average, and after that five percent, with a special higher level set for Louisiana State University Baton Rouge. In exchange for being able to have this power, institutions must raise admission standards and hit graduation targets within the next six years.

This is an excellent answer to a system that has lacked coordination that misallocated resources through a failure to demand enough excellence from students, interjected too many marginal students into the system or into inappropriate places in it, and did not demand enough accountability. Still, for it to work optimally, several aspects must be addressed.

Landrieu right to ignore group's corrupted policy view

In Sen. Mary Landrieu’s world, it’s bad enough that her opponents hammer her for doing the wrong thing, and then it’s made worse when her allies on the left pile on – even when the criticism is undeserved and she’s right.

Recently, ads began to run against Landrieu criticizing her for her support of legislation that disallows the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide emissions which the agency now is in the process of doing. Not only is her view that these decisions should be a matter of law passed by Congress intuitively appealing – the people’s elected representatives should decide here, not unaccountable bureaucrats who allow themselves to be influenced and captured by special interests and ideologies – but on this issue it also is constitutionally correct.

Yet this has drawn the ire of an interest group that calls itself Catholics United – although the only thing connecting it to Roman Catholicism seems to be its name given its far left agenda and support of politicians that often take contrary stances to the Church’s teachings. This is why it’s surprising that the group, throughout its history having supported pro-abortion politicians, should attack Landrieu, baptized Catholic yet faithfully pro-abortion.

Perhaps a more appropriate description of the religious beliefs of this group is faith in scientifically unverified environmentalism, which leads to a delicious irony in the ad’s message. It implies that Pope Benedict XVI would support their agenda that Landrieu they argue opposes. But in fact, early in his papacy he condemned exactly the attitude evinced by the group, where he counseled that prudence and basing conclusions on firm evidence rather than on ideology is a necessary part of forming a response to the issue.

While we might expect a pressure group that claims to base its views on religious belief to make public policy assertions based upon faith and not science, it performs a disservice to allow its faith in the existence of significant man-made global warming to substitute for science in drawing its conclusions and in the process to mischaracterize the religion on which it asserts its belief exists. Landrieu and Catholics can safely disregard the blandishments of this group which neither comport to Catholic faith nor to science.

Help me out: is Edwards biography worth buying?

When its publication was announced, despite my obvious interest in Louisiana politics, I hesitated to buy veteran TV journalist’s Leo Honeycutt’s authorized biography of Prisoner #03128-095, known before his conviction on corruption charges as former Gov. Edwin W. Edwards. After hearing more about it, my reluctance remains.

Initially, my main reason was because in doing so it would line the pockets of Prisoner #03312-095, known before his conviction as former statewide elected official Jim Brown. This is because Brown, convicted of lying to investigators (involving a case where Edwards also was indicted, but acquitted), has been singularly unrepentant in insisting on his innocence despite exhaustive appeals where impartial courts continually reaffirmed his conviction. Besides producing his own self-authored book out attempting this argument, Brown published Honeycutt’s.

I don’t wish to reward his inability to admit fault with a transfer of my money to Brown, but a pretty good argument could be made that Edwards was the second-most influential figure in the conduct of state government in the 20^th century, behind only former Gov. Huey P. Long and jockeying with the likes of former Govs. Earl K. Long and John M. Parker. Therefore, this biography could be of great value and something to own.

Then last week I was able to catch an interview of Honeycutt by Moon Griffon on his program. This constituted good fortune for me since I rarely get a chance to hear more than a few minutes of the show and it just so happened I was on the road (to participate in a project; look for it on screen within the next few months) so I could listen to its entirety and especially because it could help resolve my dilemma: would the tome’s contents sound so fascinating that it would override my sense of rewarding those only when integrity was present in them?

Thus it is with a feeling of uncertainty that I have to report the interview did not get me to make up my mind either way. My continued ambivalence doesn’t stem from the information that seems present in it, but, rather, from qualms I now have about the author’s approach, taken from my more than two decades of being a researcher in academia and my modest career in journalism.

Warning sign #1: Honeycutt said he tried to lay out a case than neither glorified nor vilified Edwards, but the impression the vast majority of Moon’s callers got was that Honeycutt was defending a politician (in terms of an overall assessment of his value to the state, not his crimes) that (given the majority of Moon’s audience) they brooked no love for. As a result, Honeycutt started to become defensive and essentially began telling callers they didn’t know what they were talking about, saying he dealt in “facts,” he had 1,700+ footnotes to back him up, and he had spent years doing this so, the impression he conveyed was, he knew a lot more than any caller might about this and therefore he was above criticism on the matter.

In academia, when somebody does not feel entirely confident in their work, they will make appeals to external authority like this, rattling off large numbers of sources and citations. That’s all well and good, but the proof of an argument rests not just on source material or even its comprehensiveness, but how convincingly it is woven into an narrative the validity of which we can test using not just a selection of the data, but all of it. Since I haven’t read the work I can offer no judgment on that, but it’s not a good sign in terms of the quality of the argument in my experience when this kind of defense of it is used.

Warning sign #2: One caller mentioned about how Edwards contributed to the perception of Louisiana as a “laughingstock,” to which Honeycutt took exception. He argued that, on a per capita basis regarding convictions for crimes of political corruption, in recent years according to different sources Louisiana ranked only fifth or sixth and therefore, since it was not first, it was not a “laughingstock.”

But this view obviously begs the question, can only the worst state be a “laughingstock?” Are the other 49 exonerated no matter how much political corruption exists in them? I would argue that, even if Louisiana doesn’t lead the pack, the continuing high incidence of corrupt behavior in the state (look at this guy) does continue to make us a “laughingstock.” And if somebody is going to take the line of reasoning on this that Honeycutt sounded like he was doing on the air, then I have to question the analytical power he brings to his subject and whether there’s much of value in a book like that.

Warning sign #3: Another caller related that he had been a state policeman who had been assigned around Edwards many times and that the ex-governor had a very arrogant attitude towards the troopers. Honeycutt agreed there was an air of arrogance about him but expressed surprise at this particular expression of it and said he really hadn’t talked to anybody in the course of doing research with that view. Griffon then related a similar story from someone he had known who also had served in the state police and gave some context as to perhaps why. That two people within a span of a few minutes would relay some information about an aspect of his subject that apparently had eluded the author does not encourage the casual listener to think the job done was very thorough or complete if we are to understand fully the man and his motivations for policy.

Therefore, I remain in limbo on its potential purchase for my voluminous Louisiana politics library. The subject is fascinating but my confidence in the quality of the work, without having read it, was shaken by this interview. Granted, these are little things gotten off a radio show, but evidence is evidence and it's not in the right direction.

Honeycutt has said he wished to have the work avoid being influenced by Edwards’ charm and charisma, but the last caller to the broadcast said she thought exactly that had happened to his effort. If this ended up as hagiography rather than biography, it’s not something I would want. But I welcome any comments about it readers wish to leave who have read it – maybe you all can help me finally decide.

LA should not miss chance to protect citizens' liberty

Perhaps Louisiana has its regular legislative sessions later than in any other state, but that does not means it should miss the opportunity to ensure that its citizenry is not forced into following suboptimal policy where state inaction could lead to deprivation of liberty.

In response to the Democrat-controlled federal government attempt to force Americans to pay into an altered health care system higher costs for lower quality, over 30 states have or are enacting into law provisions that would prevent the federal government from curtailing people’s liberty in their choices about whether to have health insurance. These do not prevent citizens from participating in federal health insurance programs, only recognizing their freedom to opt out of them without penalty.

While an argument could be made that the Commerce Clause (Art. I Sec. 8) of the Constitution could be stretched to interpret this kind of power as a shared power with the federal government and therefore it would take precedence over states’ wishes if it legislated in that area, more than a couple of hundred years of judicial recognition of the general police power of states should prove judicially negating in that regard, affirming that states have supreme power in the abilities to regulate the health, safety, and morals of the public. Thus, there is a very reasonable expectation that these laws are not moot exercises.

That the Democrat effort on this issue seems to be running out of steam does not reduce the imperative among the states to legislate this protection. Still simmering are these plans, not yet dead politically, and there’s no guarantee in the future that a majority of elected officials will not try to take the people and country off the rails in this area again.

So far, no enterprising legislator in Louisiana has prefiled such a bill. Doing so and its passage into law would perform prodigious service to the state.

LA House remap perhaps most controversial of all

If you think controversy has flared over a redistricting proposal that would shift two state Senate seats out of New Orleans after the 2010 census, and as if redistricting that will lead to the loss of a U.S. House seat isn’t also stirring the pot enough, the biggest one has yet to be addressed.

Regarding the House seat, two ideas are making rounds: eliminate the Third District, basically south of I-10 and east of I-49 currently white-majority and the only one not held by a Republican, or combine the Fourth and Fifth which essentially take up all of the state north of Alexandria. Momentum is on the side of the former as it fits better legal aspects of redistricting imposed by federal courts, the Third will have no sitting Congressman to defend it, Republicans who with the governorship and an effective majority in the state House have the upper hand in the process and will want to see a Democrat district dismantled, and black political interests wishing to preserve an Orleans power base desire this outcome.

Regarding the Senate, the Republican/black coalition also is making itself felt as this plan will create three black-majority districts at the expense of removing two such districts from New Orleans. If black politicians join Republicans on this, they will have more than enough votes in the Senate to approve such a plan. However, the prospects of this plan are less certain because so many Senate interests are threatened – not just because of the two black Democrat New Orleans Senate seats (mathematically, a plan could be produced that creates only the loss of one), but also as several white Democrats will find their districts may become less favorable for one of their partisans to be elected and with a nine-seat edge even if only half of black senators stay with them they can prevent the plan from succeeding.

But where the real consternation may occur is in the state House. There, by the numbers, New Orleans stands to lose three House seats. And the geography, demography, and legal environment suggest more loss of black and Democrat power.

Ideally, the districts that come out of the process will have about 44,000 residents, which translates normally into about 30,000 registrants to vote. This puts almost all current Orleans-based districts at risk, but black-majority ones more than others. In fact, the most any has according to them latest statistics is the 93^rd (currently vacant) at 25,341. The 99^th (Charmaine Stiaes with 19,122) and 101^st (Cedric Richmond at 19,885) both are under 20,000.

Viewing the map, one easy consolidation and some paring would be the 101^st with the 100^th (23,042), state Rep. Austin Badon’s. This is not news; it’s no accident that term-limited Richmond is running for Congress (and favored to win) while Badon is running for New Orleans City Council. With Badon not term-limited, if he loses the city race, not against an incumbent in a combined district he probably won’t mind this change.

A little trickier but still obvious would be the combination and paring of the 99^th and the 97^th (22,718), the latter held by recent arrival state Rep. Jared Brossett. Both would want to remain in office but Stiaes has been around a lot longer than Brossett and probably could get a combined district drawn to her favor.

Yet it Republicans and blacks, for different reasons, wanted to go for the jugular, they could create two districts out of the 96^th (22,418) held by state Rep. Juan LaFonta who is running against Richmond, the 93^rd, and the 98^th (21,736) held by state white Rep. Neil Abramson. The 96^th and 98^th are not next to each other, but the dismembering of the 93^rd would connect them. Intriguingly, the 98^th is a majority-black district more centered on Uptown but it could be made to disappear into two majority-black districts – in essence, blacks would then lose just two seats and whites one.

This kind of plan may appeal to blacks if then the 103^rd and 104^th, based in St. Bernard, are combined. Democrat state Rep. Reed Henderson’s 103^rd (17,467) and Republican state Rep. Nita Hutter’s 104^th (16,313) simply cannot survive the depopulation of the area separately. Both are white and Hutter is term-limited. Being the only incumbent then, Henderson, even if a consolidated district might favor a Republican, could feel optimistic about retaining the seat. This would mean in the New Orleans area two seats held by blacks and two seats by whites would disappear – in the minds of black politicians, perhaps a good deal given the circumstances.

A final bonus to blacks would be the 91^st, 95^th and 102^nd districts, held respectively by white Democrats Walter Leger, Walker Hines and Jeff Arnold, could still be arranged to have majority black populations. This means if not in 2011, then soon after, all of these could gain black representatives. Thus, in terms of sheer number of black representatives, there may actually be more after redistricting than before.

Republicans would not mind this at all. From the perspective of Gov. Bobby Jindal, wiping out Abramson’s district might not have him shed many tears as Abramson has been one of Jindal’s staunchest legislative critics. They would have a good chance at keeping a combined 103/104, could be competitive at some point in the 91^st, 95^th, and 102^nd, and with four seats shifting out of the area to other parts of the state are very likely to get one or more of those newly drawn in a way that favors them.

This is just one scenario, but one which maximizes Republican and black Democrat representation at the expense of white Democrats. Whether Democrats will fracture over this remains to be seen, but it helps to recall that there has been some historical animosity of the rest of the state towards New Orleans, and the chance to pile on may be too much to resist regardless of party and race.

Senate remap plan creates more demographic equity

A joint redistricting plan jointly proposed by a social conservative interest group and a black Democrat state senator presents not only a good redistricting plan for the Louisiana Senate but also highlights the stakes present in the upcoming decennial exercise.

The Louisiana Family Forum is not a stranger to these attempts, as it previously has offered a plan for U.S. House redistricting in the wake of the great likelihood that the state will lose a seat after the 2010 census. Combining forces with it is state Sen. Elbert Guillory, and just like the House plan, this state Senate plan recognized increased black political clout and decreased white Democrat strength.

With the House plan, essentially what is today’s Third District currently represented by white, and currently the only in the delegation, Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon is the casualty of declining population. The LFF plan essentially creates five districts in areas that recently have been won by Republicans and a majority-black district captured in unusually circumstances by Asian Republican Anh “Joseph” Cao last election. This makes it less likely that a white Democrat will be elected from the state and currently is the idea with the most momentum, without Melancon around to lobby for his present district (he is running for the U.S. Senate), depopulation of Orleans Parish necessitating that Cao’s district expand, and desires of black politicians to make sure that a majority black district that would comprise 17 percent of the state’s population remain in a state where 30 percent of the overall population is black.

The state Senate plan follows these parameters in the sense that it shuffles the 39 districts to maximize black representation while dismembering districts of two term-limited legislators – currently held by state Sens. Joe McPherson and Rob Marionneaux – and two recent arrivals to the Senate – state Sens. J.P. Morrell and Karen Peterson – and shifting completely around the district of term-limited Sen. Pres. Joel Chaisson – to constitute new ones. In the process, even as it obliterates two Orleans-based black majority districts, it creates three new ones in different parts of the state – in the River Parishes area, Acadiana, and central Louisiana.

This could be a significant selling point. Currently, only two mainly non-urban majority-black districts exist – in the northeast part (now represented by white Democrat state Sen. Francis Thompson) and just north of Lafayette (Guillory’s). This would create three more, and might appeal to black politicians who would like to see greater opportunity for blacks to be elected outside of urban areas in the state and who wish to clip New Orleans’ political power. Indeed, the plan is advertised as seeking “demographic equity.”

Since it increases the number of black majority districts, it reduces the dilution of black voting strength statewide. Currently, the average spread between the two races in Senate districts is 47 percent. This plan would increase it to 55. That aspect may worry white Democrat politicians because it will make some of the districts they currently hold significantly more amenable to the election of a Republican – particularly the 18^th of state Sen. Jody Amedee, the new 19^th, the 21^st of term-limited state Sen. Butch Gautreaux, the 22^nd of state Sen. Troy Hebert, and the 29^th of state Sen. Jack Smith.

Two black Democrats also may have problems with this plan, Morrell and Peterson, especially the latter as she just got elected to this seat after leaving the second-ranked position in the House. Her clout may be the most substantial roadblock to this plan but the reality is New Orleans at the very least will lose one Senate seat and if other black politicians are willing to let internecine warfare occur within New Orleans to get these others benefits of the plan, they can box in her, Morrell, and the senators they would be pitted against, Ann Duplessis and Edwin Murray.

This plan will become law if a majority of black Democrats in the Legislature – particularly those in the House who might have progressive ambition for some new Senate seats – will put aside relationships with some existing members with the goal of increasing overall black representation in the Senate. They will be assisted by Republicans who also could get more of their members elected under this plan – as things stand, if the districts listed above flip, they will have a Senate majority. As with the House plan, the odd people out will be white Democrats, casualties of a Louisiana white electorate that increasingly finds itself opposed to Democrats nationally and a Louisiana black electorate seeking co-ethnic candidates to represent their interests.

Jindal protecting higher education serves political goals

Perhaps the most unexpected budget decision made by Gov. Bobby Jindal for fiscal year 2010-11 was to make only a relatively small reduction to money going to higher education management boards and none others. As he and others elaborate on their thinking towards higher education funding, the potential rationales for this become clearer.

After priming the world for a large round of cuts to all of higher education with the establishment of the Postsecondary Education Review Commission by the Legislature, which teed up recommendations that could justify tens of millions of dollars in reductions, then Jindal basically used the budget to impose just one of them, consolidation of system governance. Jindal’s explanation was that, after facing a quarter billion dollars of downsizing over the past 14 months, the system needed time to adjust to that.

Jindal did propose cutting some other areas, quite significantly, and continued relatively smaller cuts to health care which prompted immediate complaint from a hospital group representative. Also, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee state Rep. Jim Fannin indicated his panel might be in a cutting mood – meaning higher education delivery would be the most likely and most affected area subject to this – to prepare better the state for the 2011-12 cycle which is predicted even worse for deficits. Jindal has some influence over Fannin – nobody that opposes often or on particularly big issues the governor gets to run a legislative committee – so Fannin must feel he has the means to embark upon this course successfully. Jindal, then, must have some strategy in mind to articulate protecting higher education at the expense of other things and maybe against the wishes of legislators.

Notably, Jindal was once head of what is now the University of Louisiana system and also he was not and did not have a great deal of input into the genesis and operation of PERC. This gives him somewhat of an independent streak in how he wants to deal with reform of higher education delivery. Further, he may be counting on precisely the reason why Fannin thought it might be better to make bigger cuts now than next year, that next year will be an election year. While Fannin may see that as an impediment to cutting, as legislators don’t want to remove things that they could get credited for that could help their reelection, Jindal may not see that as a problem for his reelection chances given his popularity and that he is not subject to parochial constituency desires.

In fact, he may be counting on another aspect to next year’s budgeting that could be used for political purposes: next year, the Legislature may take up fiscal matters including tax increases which it cannot do this year (unless in special session). It could be that Jindal wants to show in his budgeting that he can produce one without a tax increase (as he has stated countless times how he will not raise taxes). Some legislators may be clamoring for one in that environment but Jindal would seal reelection by appearing to stand up against them.

More specifically concerning higher education, Jindal may think this course has better chances of producing the reform actually needed. Often, Jindal has stated his preferences about reform: besides governance consolidation, also higher admission standards for baccalaureate institutions and more emphasis on community and technical college provision of learning, with performance standards including increased graduation rates for all campuses. As part of the fix, schools would get greater leeway and less interference from the Legislature in setting tuition rates.

This session could produce the bill that allows tuition to go up. In exchange for that, Jindal may hope that higher education will pursue the goals of creating realistic performance indicators and boosting admissions standards (which will create a natural shift of enrollments to two-year and below institutions), in addition to his monetary prodding of system consolidation. He always could threaten higher education with failure to pass the bill unless it makes a lot of progress before the middle of July on these matters. That approach may be more effective at producing workable reform than initiating the crisis sooner that could lend itself to emphasizing the short-term at the expense of the long-term instead.

It also may be the best tool to getting the Legislature to act on another Jindal idea. Higher education stands the greatest risk of cutting because the state’s fiscal structure creates great inflexibility in budgeting through dedication of funding sources. Jindal tried last session to get this addressed to begin a process of removing dedications but the Legislature was cool to that notion. By proposing to make the crisis hit later – and during an election year – Jindal may figure that this will provide extra impetus for the Legislature to follow his wishes on this now so the mechanism is in place next year as a method to handle cuts which will allow reduced cuts to higher education.

Thus, delaying a potential day of reckoning (besides buying time for miracles) serves several Jindal purposes. It creates incentives he may feel optimal to produce the reforms he sees needed in higher education. It gives him leverage to get other, related reform measures passed. It positions him well politically in an election year. And even if the Legislature shows great will on its own and passes out an operating budget (for example, not allowing one-time money to prop up higher education spending) that forces more cuts on higher education in a way Jindal cannot use his veto powers to stop, at least he can claim he tried to protect higher education. Understood this way, his budgetary choices do not seem that surprising.

Solid Jindal reform budget stays course, promises more

Reformers should take heart from a Gov. Bobby Jindal budget that continues for the most part to advance the cause and begins to reveal the boldness that Jindal always has promised, and needs to show to advance his political career.

Fiscal pressures meant another exercise in cutting, and Jindal used to a moderate degree the recommendations of the Commission on Streamlining Government whose output was a much a search for deficit reduction measures as it was a vehicle to build political capital for ideas along these lines the Jindal Administration has been contemplating for some time. But not much was used from the Postsecondary Education Review Commission as the only cuts made there were in system administration. If anything, this signals to the Regents and schools that they have a year to get their houses in order and to make some big changes, or the next budget will force it on them.

With higher education almost totally spared, once again in aggregate health care bore the brunt of reductions even as they were minimal, although this could change. With talk of federal action that generally could pump health bucks to the states for another year, and still the hope that specifically for Louisiana a fix will be made to the funding formula that disadvantages the state for past federal recovery largesse, should one or both of these manifest the budget is designed largely to restore this funding.

These cuts largely resonate around the theme of the state getting out of the business of direct provision of health care, manifested this year in the areas of mental health services, group homes for the developmentally disabled, and treatment of addictive disorders. Shifts are from institutional to community- and home-based care and privatization when possible. But just as with higher education, a message is sent that bigger things are one the way with the current changes signaling that next year wholesale de-institutionalization is on the way as the state likely will shed most of its charity hospitals, state supports and services centers for the developmentally disabled, and (more optimistically) in reliance on nursing homes for care of the elderly and disabled under the theory that the nongovernment sector can handle much of this service provision with reduced emphasis on warehousing of the less healthy.

These grander ideas, if Jindal holds to course, represent a shift more towards these kinds of actions where in the past Jindal usually has moved in less eye-catching ways based more upon improvement of implementation as his reformist strategy. However, there still is plenty of that in other areas of government where some significant reductions occur mainly in operational aspects. The Department of Social Services is planned to have many functions consolidated to other agencies, the Office of Motor Vehicles faces the same within its own structure, the Department of Environmental Quality will have to run only on the resources it collects itself (including federal sources), the Department of Corrections must trim expenses through greater use of technology, and the Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism must set priorities in what offerings it will be able to run.

Besides the overall Jindal goal of reducing government’s role in direct health care provision which has been an ongoing effort since the budget crisis began over a year ago, the budget also introduces subtle and more specific Jindal desires of more recent vintage that challenge established orders. The cuts to CRT speak to Jindal’s desire to eliminate the lieutenant governor’s position which already is drawing resistance, the higher education cuts provide impetus to combining the fragmented higher education governance structure, and other cuts to the administration of elementary and secondary education at the state level which send the message that streamlining must occur there as well, where all attempt to prod powers that be in these areas Jindal cannot directly control to accept these Jindal initiatives. If they resist, next year’s budget actions could ramp up the pressure even more.

Two areas disappoint, one in a nagging way. Many tax amnesty dollars got used which made the health care cuts minimal, but this is a one-time source not available for next year and federal spending dollars around $1 billion continue to prop up this year’s effort. If all things remain the same, neither will be available next year and their use is unfortunate because of the concerted efforts that Jindal and mainly his fellow legislative Republicans have made to match state expenditures with recurring sources of funds.

The biggest ongoing weakness of Jindal’s fiscal plans is his odd faith in the chimera of state-planned “economic development” where the state intervenes in the marketplace to bribe firms to locate in the state through cash giveaways. The budget does nothing to discourage this and protects money that sits there for this purpose, despite the fact it costs more in taxpayer dollars to provide these incentives than the revenues they ever bring in to state coffers, when it could be used for more cost-effective needs.

On the whole, though, the executive budget continues remaking Louisiana government into a smaller and better steward of the people’s money. It even hints of bolder things to come which cannot hurt Jindal in a 2011 reelection bid and for any other political plans he may have.

Second spot choices show mixed results for reform

Looks like questions are getting answered concerning recent potential leadership changes in the state, in a way mixed for political reform.

One was Sec. of State Jay Dardenne’s announced entry into the lieutenant governor’s contest this fall to succeed Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu who will be assuming his new elective office of New Orleans mayor in early May. This is a clear sign that Gov. Bobby Jindal’s hope of savings some bucks and streamlining government through elimination of the nearly-useless office is likely to fail.

Since it would require a constitutional amendment which means at least two-thirds of each chamber of the Legislature must approve followed by a majority vote of the people – a referendum that would occur at the same time as the election to fill the unexpired spot in question – that Dardenne, whose current office likely would inherit some of the duties of the abolished office and become the new successor to the governor if that office disappears, does not fear leaving his current spot only to find his new job is disappearing into his old. This means his political intelligence must have the bill probably never making it out of the Legislature.

Of course, if somehow it does by the end of the session near the end of June and he feels it could get voter approval, he always could fail to qualify shortly thereafter. Still, this would require spending a decent chunk of money campaigning to that point so he must feel the odds are not in the favor of legislative approval.

The other was the apparent imminent appointment of state Rep. Joel Robideaux to the Speaker Pro-Tem position in the state House. With the body split essentially evenly between Republican and Democrats but with Speaker Jim Tucker being a Republican, to honor this close division somebody from the GOP could not realistically be favored by Tucker. Robideaux is one of three independents in the House.

Black and younger Democrat state Rep. Rick Gallot and old-timer white Democrat Noble Ellington also declared intentions for the post, but not only appear to be splitting the support among Democrats. Further, some Acadiana Democrats (Robideaux is from the Lafayette area) are lending support to the nonpartisan (Gallot and Ellington are from north Louisiana). This gives plenty of capital for Tucker to forward Robideaux’s name and for the latter to win the leadership election at the commencement of the session.

This is good news for reformers, of which Gallot and Ellington are anything but, and ironic for Republicans. Robideaux ran as an independent only because of an internecine feud within the local GOP and while maintaining that label after his special election win in 2004 votes fairly reliably with Republicans. Thus, what at the time looked like an embarrassing defeat for the party actually turns to its advantage now. This ascension also would make Robideaux a favorite to become the new Speaker after Tucker leaves on term limits after 2011.

Reformers might be nonplussed at the dim prognosis of the amendment regarding the second slot in the executive branch, but getting Robideaux in the second slot in the House, even if it largely is symbolic in terms of wielding real power, is as good as reformers could have hoped for at any time during the life of this Legislature.