Melancon push poll continues Titanic-like strategy

I got push-polled yesterday by the Rep. Charlie Melancon for Senate campaign. It started when a female, sounding about college-aged, from the 757 (Norfolk, VA) area code called and asked about my interest in the “November poll.” When I said I had interest in that “election,” she figured I was good to go and asked whether I’d answer some questions about it.

Off she went, and when she couldn’t pronounce “Melancon” correctly I knew this would be interesting. After questions about my certainty and enthusiasm about voting, party identification and ideological identification and a few feeling thermometer questions about Melancon, Pres. Barack Obama, Sen. Mary Landrieu, Gov. Bobby Jindal, and Sen. David Vitter, and vote intention, she got right to the point after I had rated Republican Vitter relatively highly compared to the Democrats and said he was my first-choice vote. 

After a few questions on issues such as taxes and candidate competence, out came seven “questions” that were lengthy assertions about Vitter which concentrated in two areas, trying to imply he was for redistribution of wealth to the wealthy and that he had a vendetta against women. Knowing better, I answered these arguments were “nor persuasive.”

Landrieu votes put big govt ahead of small business

As has the other Democrat federal elected official in Louisiana, Rep. Charlie Melancon, Sen. Mary Landrieu has made a career of holding herself out as one thing to the voting public in order to obscure what her behavior tells us she really is, a big spending liberal. Her statements and actions dealing with H.R. 5297 remind us of that once again.

This bill, inspired by Pres. Barack Obama and put into action by his willing Democrat shills in Congress, essentially wastes another $42 billion but presents an opportunity to claim Democrat friendliness towards small business. It tries to extend $12 billion in tax credits to small business – but ones that are short-lived, thus ineffective, and that few businesses can claim. The other $30 billion would increase lending to small business but imposes qualification to lending institutions that lowers lending standards, thereby increasing the likelihood of waste through default, and gives the federal government some ownership in them. In short, this really does nothing to help small business but does assist the federal government in exerting more control over the economy, the major goal of the Obama Administration from its outset.

If the Obama Administration were serious about assisting small business, as the guy Melancon is challenging this fall Republican Sen. David Vitter pointed out, he would drop the idea of trying to raise taxes on small business owners which would impact nearly half of all small business income instead of pushing legislation designed to appear it actually does anything helpful, producing savings to business (and then passed on to consumers) of $35-40 billion. And mimicking the president’s exact behavior on these is Landrieu.

Special session needed to deal with LA budget nightmare

It’s great that the Governor’s Office and Division of Administration are holding the line, even finding some savings, to stave off the looming budget disaster for Louisiana beginning in Fiscal Year 2011. The problem is, it’s not nearly enough and they can’t print money.

We won’t know for a couple of more weeks, but come Oct. 1 the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration may report an actual uptick in state revenues, even those going into the general fund. But too low state-generated revenues up against higher state spending isn’t the main culprit for a budget deficit for the upcoming year estimated at $1.5-2 billion dollars, or roughly 6.5 percent of all current spending. Rather, it’s that a fair portion of federal dollars won’t be coming in next year compared to this one.

While the causes of this are varied – Medicaid formula changes, old bills being collected by the federal government, a reduction in one-time aid given to all states, among others – the practical impact is that the state is going to have to make up for the absence of these funds, unless something unexpected happens and revenues come from somewhere else. Don’t count on that. Jindal is opposed to raising taxes and most legislators will join him in an election year, and with big spending Democrats about to get wiped out in seven weeks time in Washington, a new Congress won’t be in any mood to bail out states.

However, as noted many times in this space, it’s not a revenue problem primarily facing the state, but a spending problem. And part of the reason why overspending occurs is its straitjacketed fiscal structure that essentially mandates spending in lower priority areas in lean times.

To review the current numbers, if backing out the federal dollars required to be spent on mandated activities, dedicated spending (from 35 constitutionally dedicated funds and almost 300 statutorily-dedicated funds where monies collected in certain ways must go), statutorily required expenditures (like debt service), and agency fee collections (which must go to fund their activities), only 12 percent or $3.1 billion of truly discretionary funds are left. From this, if all else stays the same, 55 percent of this will have to be cut.

The agencies mentioned above are part of this discretionary block, but even throwing in the other few discrete agencies that are unconnected to higher education and health care, they comprise only about a third of this amount. The other two-thirds are split equally between health care and higher education. They are the areas really at risk because of the budgeting process and what may happen with projected shortfalls in state-generated revenues year over year.

For those dedicated funds, they only can be cut in small amounts. Worse still, the large bulk of these funds are in the constitutional funds which can only be changed by amendment which could occur only after the next fiscal year goes into affect without a special session. Worst of all, available deficit reduction measures often are tied into only to the state’s general fund while much if not all of the anticipated drop is to come from the removal of federal funds which may not trigger the devices in law to allow money to be taken out of these funds.

Thus, the several aspects of this system that create budgeting problems are (1) dedications that have escaped review for years, even decades, that may be pumping revenues into areas of lower priority than higher education and health care, (2) a system that permits only limited redirection of these funds (in all but the case of the Minimum Foundation Program at one percent, five percent), and (3) redirection occurs only when reduced revenues occur in state-generated money, not from federal dollars. While the first may be altered through a regular legislative session, the others would require a constitutional amendment – which would be passed too late for the fiscal year beginning Jul. 1.

Therefore, Jindal and the Legislature must act now. The Armageddon cut for higher education solicited as the disaster-case scenario by Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater of $518 million is more than twice what has been cut from it in less than two years. Combined, those cuts would be close to what already has been whacked from health care, which would suffer a similar amount of paring under this scenario. This doesn’t mean that both can’t be pared some more, but to foist so much onto these areas would be apocalyptic to both which is what the current fiscal mechanisms unchanged would do.

To avoid this runaway lack of prioritization, the following need to occur:

• Wider implementation of Commission on Streamlining Government recommendations. This won’t generate more revenues, but it will leave more dollars to plug into the discretionary areas.
• Change the law dealing with statutory fund protection. By increasing the current percentage that can be transferred out to other uses, reductions are more equally shared and better prioritization may occur.
• Eliminate unneeded dedications. Efficiency gains and greater flexibility will create more funds available for the discretionary areas.
• Have a special session of the legislature called early next year to propose some constitutional amendments to permit more flexibility in the budget compilation process. Then a statewide vote would have to occur on the April election date to ratify it in time for it to be useful in this budgeting cycle (assuming it passes voter muster). Specifically, amendments would have to allow dedicated fund redirection in the case of federal revenue reduction and of greater than the current five percent for a forecasted one percent deficit and including both state and federal dollars.

The clock is ticking, and unless these kinds of things are done, at the stroke of the new fiscal year Louisiana is going to be stuck with some very undesirable policy outcomes.

Policy failures send NW LA legislators on different paths

It’s a tale of two Northwest Louisiana legislators who pursued similar ends during this year's legisaltive session but whose reactions to it ended very differently.

Former state Rep. Wayne Waddell, among other things, pushed for three pieces of legislation that he claimed would force the governor’s office to open more records without adverse consequences. Opposed by the governor and eventually a majority of his colleagues (at least at the committee level), by contrast one of his successes was passing a resolution commending former legislator Forrest Dunn on his retirement from leading the Louisiana State Exhibit Museum in Shreveport.

Less than a month later, at session’s end Waddell was Dunn’s replacement, chosen by Secretary of State Jay Dardenne for the post. Giving up his seat for this in a way provided tardy justice. As the 2007 election approached, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that Waddell had exceeded term limitation requirements, but he could take office because he had no opponent and no challenge had been filed against him within the legally prescribed time.

At this point, the honorable thing would have been for Waddell to resign prior to the organizational session in early 2008 but he did not. Now, better late than never.

His colleague state Sen. Robert Adley was equally as ineffective in pushing similar legislation (rejected by a Senate committee) this year, but rather than accept quietly the decision of his colleagues he became especially riled when he argued that Gov. Bobby Jindal exerted payback for his failed efforts.

When Jindal issued his line item vetoes on members’ amendments, or state tax dollars steered to specific local projects and uses both inside and outside of local government in a legislator’s district commonly referred to as “slush funds,” Adley’s prominently were excised, prompting the one-time minor candidate for governor to remark about the action of the current occupant, “It’s one thing to veto my bill. It’s another thing to veto worthy causes, to hurt other people because you’re mad at me.” Adley got it again when four of his capital budget items also got removed, leading him to whine, “The projects are things people need. They paid their tax money for it.”

These vetoes especially hurt Adley politically because he’s very much a proponent of bringing home the bacon regardless of the good (or lack of) it will do the state as a whole, in part to distract local voters from his penchant from talking out of both sides of his mouth. And his comments go to show how little Adley understands philosophically about these funds and the political process.

It’s not that these vetoes aren’t deserved; one could make a great case every single request should have been. In the case of local governments, Jindal has made the point that by having local governments do the spending themselves improved accountability as citizens could more easily understand where they tax dollars were going and make better judgments on policy. For example, one veto that vexed Adley axed a police car for Sarepta (population under 1,000). If the town so badly needs a police car, why must it go to the state? How much would it cost the citizenry for an installment loan on it? And if the municipality is so broke that it can’t even afford a note of a few hundred bucks a month, doesn’t that beg the question about whether a combination of tax increases or reduction in services should be implemented instead of making taxpayers statewide pay for it? In fact, if this item is too expensive for the town to support, why doesn’t it just disband its police force and depend upon Webster Parish sheriff’s deputies for protection? And why should state taxpayers foot the bill for Plain Dealing's water system?

It’s these hard questions that end up getting avoided. Adley’s reaction shows he has every intention of dodging them. Even so, Jindal’s criteria for member's amendments offer – as either a “state agency need” or as having “substantial regional impact” – a chance to spare some spending. But at the same time, judgment calls left discretionary room that is part of the political process – an aspect Adley is free to lobby to change through constitutional amendment wiping out the line item veto power.

Further, Adley has a solution under this process if he wishes to counter Jindal’s agenda provided for in the Louisiana Constitution: he can urge his colleagues to call a veto override session, and then successfully undo the vetoes (a solution he made half-hearted mention of and really did nothing about). It’s all part of a separation of powers, checks and balances arrangement to maximize the chances of good policy-making at the statewide level. If Adley truly believes that this “worthy cause” is in the best interest of all his constituents and state taxpayers, he would call for this session and welcome the opportunity to argue this position in front of his colleagues and citizens.

Otherwise, he’s just bloviating a lot of hot air And his dyspepsia isn’t even logical as by his worldview it’s his own actions, not the Jindal Administration’s, that “hurt other people.” Being of long tenure in the Legislature and being as suspicious of gubernatorial power as he lets on, he should have known there was a good risk that (if it’s true) his bill would trigger the reaction, then he must blame himself and his own lack of prudence in recklessly pursuing the bill if shoveling money for police cars, tourism efforts, water systems, courthouse annexes, and even no-strings-use of it to towns are so important for the state. After all, if you choose not to get out of the way, leading is more productive than whining.

Melancon, Landrieu again try faking out Louisianans

When it comes to taxes and spending, Louisiana’s two elected Democratic federal officeholders demonstrate that it doesn’t matter whether they are running for office, they’re still going to present themselves as something they are not.

The one running for office, Rep. Charlie Melancon, has not let his trailing massively in polls to incumbent Republican Sen. David Vitter get in the way of keep digging his hole deeper. While Republicans and Vitter have argued that tax cuts pushed through by former Pres. George W. Bush and the GOP but which will expire by the end of the year should be renewed – a view increasing supported by Democrats – Melancon wants taxes to increase in line with Pres. Barack Obama’s view for those single filers making more than $200,000 and for those married filing jointly of more than $250,000.

Melancon says so because – get this – otherwise the federal budget deficit will increase more. This is the same Melancon who hadn’t cared at all about deficits during Obama’s term, voting for record budget-busting spending throughout, most prominently for the early-term spending bill that has managed to increase unemployment and the number of federal government jobs simultaneously while producing nonexistent economic growth. That bill’s bite looks to be settling in around the $800 billion range; Obama Administration officials predict an extra $35-40 billion would be raised by this tax hike. And if Melancon were a genuine deficit hawk, he’d be against renewing cuts for any income earners.

What this hypocrite doesn’t seem to understand is the tax hike he backs has the greatest potential to choke off any potential economic recovery. Democrats in trying to sell this idea fixate on the “97 percent fallacy,” that only three percent of household filers report any business income and therefore it won’t be very burdensome on small business. This is to divert attention from the fact that, in reality, almost half of net income attributable to small business activity went to households above the $200,000 level. In other words, just about half of all small business activity will be subject to these tax increases, so they would gut recovery chances as proprietors reduce activity or, as studies have shown, entrepreneurs are significantly less likely to try to start small businesses as rates increase.

He’s not the only one trying to demagogue this issue. His co-partisan Sen. Mary Landrieu, also takes the Obama position and rationale, proving you don’t have to be running for election to be similarly disingenuous and a sudden convert to reducing deficits, she also having voted for the spending bill. And both claim they want to help small business when in fact the Obama legislation they support would bring more government control over the financial sector where it doesn’t destabilize it further.

This legislation, which claims $12 billion in tax credits, would help few businesses and what few can use it can only do so for the next two months to two years (depending on the kind of credit). Worse, the $30 billion asserted to lend to business contains qualifications that would lower credit lending standards and give the government some ownership in the accepting lending institutions. Raising this money, which runs afoul of Melancon oft-stated but seldom followed pledge to pay-as-you-go in government, he conjures up from “waste” in the Department of Defense.

If Melancon and Landrieu, who actually is chairwoman of the Senate’s Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, really preferred helping small business, they’d back extending the Bush tax cuts in their totality. Instead, they’d rather support an agenda featuring more government spending and control that slowly but surely is bringing ruin to America’s economy.

Saving Obama rather than LA behind EPA opposition

Political agendas behind in the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to oppose a regular permit that would allow Louisiana’s berm building to continue make it clear that the Pres. Barack Obama Administration would rather preserve its own life and those of marine creatures than help Louisiana protect human life.

Under emergency permits, guided by Gov. Bobby Jindal’s directive the state began building six berms of about 34 miles to prevent oil from the recent Gulf of Mexico spill to prevent it from entering estuaries and lapping up on shore. Even incomplete, they have succeeded by catching a small amount of the total estimated spillage that would have fouled the coastline.

However, Jindal has bigger plans. He wants to build another 13 berms that could protect another 103 miles of coastline which not only could catch oil but also could be used as the first stage of a comprehensive coastal restoration plan. Always a stickler for efficient government in action, Jindal reasoned this could bring that kind of restoration, which counters disruption of some aquacultural and agricultural production but, more importantly, provides for increased hurricane protection, more quickly and more cheaply to the state.

Instead, the EPA indicated it would shoot down the idea by its asking for a halt of the first six berms’ construction, still months away from completion even as they are enough present to catch oil (and already paid for by the miscreant company responsible for the spill) and opposing the construction of the other 13. The commentary attached to the decision said the potential environmental costs it felt exceeded the benefits of catching oil, especially since the leak had been stopped.

Both ideological and partisan politics influenced this decision. Keep in mind that the most radically environmentalist presidential administration in history wishes to use this agenda as a method for government to gain more control over the economy, resorting to corrupt science and unconstitutional fiat using the EPA to impose its will. EPA mandarins may not be so much interested in that mission, aside from the increased power it gives them, as they are in propagating an agenda that inappropriately overvalues non-human concerns at the expense of human needs, especially as any potential harm to the environment is uncertain while a major storm striking the southeast part of the state’s coast certainly will have huge economic costs in dollars and human costs in lives. With such horrendous consequences, the cost of a chance of environmental degradation pales in comparison to these which can be mitigated the faster and more efficiently coastal restoration occurs, as Jindal proposes.

Unfortunately, political concerns even more brutally push the EPA into this position. As Obama was criticized severely for his inadequate response to dealing with the spill and its after-effects, Jindal was applauded by many for his proactive response, making Obama look bad by contrast. The berms were a key component of Jindal’s response, and that they have proven successful does more political damage to Obama. So, Obama has an interest in letting his subordinates at the EPA know that this reminder of his lacking leadership should be curtailed.

Further, as part of the strategy to downplay Obama’s fumbling of the issue, his Administration has floated a narrative that most of the leaked oil no longer poses a threat to the coast, hoping that minimizing the incident makes the public see it less critically as an issue. Thus, part of the EPA response mimics this assertion that not much oil out there thus can cause little damage, reducing the usefulness of the berms.

But in fact, the Obama Administration’s claims quickly were faulted by the scientific community, and more exacting and detailed analyses showed just the opposite. This reality magnifies the utility of the berms and their incorporation into a larger coastal restoration plan. By having this done, they can become more secure and provide better protection just like barrier islands. A decade or more from now a big storm could kick up all of this oil floating near or on the bottom of the ocean and thrust it inland, or a series of smaller events over time incrementally could push it shoreward. Without the berms, one day Louisiana will wake up without warning to a sudden influx of oil onto the coasts and into marshlands, and probably repeatedly.

In the end, this EPA pronouncement was more about saving the political ideology and fortunes of the Obama Administration than any reasoned analysis which would place primacy on protecting Louisiana’s people and coast – which should come as no surprise to observers of this regime since it came into power.

Jindal endorsement vacillation serves political needs

Gov. Bobby Jindal’s vacillation over whether to endorse incumbent Republican Sen. David Vitter isn’t really that mysterious when considering the nature and purpose of endorsements by politicians.

Before Labor Day, Jindal said he would be issuing no endorsement in this contest, where Vitter’s main challenger is Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon. After the holiday, his spokeswoman then said he might give one out, presumably for Vitter, before the election. Furthering muddying the waters was Jindal had said he would not get involved in this way in federal elections – despite having done so in a losing effort for the Sixth Congressional District special election in 2008, for a winning effort in that district months later, and also in a losing bid for the Senate simultaneously – later amended to say he had meant this just for this election cycle, before the hemming and hawing on that.

Seems confusing, but it really isn’t. Endorsements by a sitting elected official for others seeking office actually contains reciprocal benefits. The endorser hopes his imprimatur helps a candidate he favors, for reason of party loyalty or ideological compatibility to assist his agenda, or maybe just genuine liking, to get elected. But he also expects the endorsement to reflect favorably on him, which combines the perceptions that the endorsement proves useful to get somebody in office and that winner is someone with which he identifies. Both directions, giving and getting, link the candidate to the endorser.

Were it not for Vitter’s having admitted to a “serious sin,” believed connected to a prostitution ring although that has not been proven nor subject to any legal proceedings, likely Jindal would have endorsed Vitter long ago. However, Jindal may think that such an act may cause him political harm with some voters who are more interested in rumors about candidate behavior than issue preferences and thereby dislike Vitter even as they agree with his agenda. By an endorsement, Jindal may think this feeling may rub off on him with some voters.

This consideration might pale for Jindal were Vitter in a close race. But he’s not as polls consistently show he will defeat Melancon handily and all others spectacularly. Endorsements generally help only in close races and/or ones where the preferred candidate is an underdog – precisely the circumstances behind Jindal’s other federal contest endorsements. Thus, a Jindal endorsement really does nothing to change Vitter’s chances of victory, so far ahead is he, and the cost to Jindal of such certainly does exist. Why then endorse when no benefit for you or your preferred candidate seems obvious, especially when a cost to you appears present?

If something really crazy happened and Vitter’s lead suddenly shrank, then Jindal retains the option to endorse, where at that point any cost he incurs will be lower than the overall cost, not just to his agenda but also to those agendas of his party and ideological cohort, of Vitter not winning reelection. At that juncture, an endorsement might matter and Jindal even could come out looking enhanced in image, were Vitter to then win a close race, as he may appear with it to have tipped the scales in Vitter’s favor.

So it’s not all that hard to fathom Jindal’s silence, particularly as he continues to attract a modicum of attention as a figure for high national office. When looking towards the next election, in matters where principles don’t appear at stake (and for many if they are at stake, even greatly) you do things that you think will win more votes than lose them. On this issue Jindal acts rationally, even if this perturbs some supporters of Vitter, Republicans, and conservatives.

Don't wait until election to remove dictatorial Deen

Maybe the Bossier Parish School Board thought the well had been poisoned for tax increases, despite its deficit spending, when it did not roll forward rates last week. Because if one wanted to find a definition of “farce,” “arrogant,” and perhaps even “illegal,” around these parts look to the June Potemkin meeting by Bossier Parish Sheriff Larry Deen to raise taxes on suffering Bossier Parish residents to satisfy some strange lust for taking maximal resources from them for minimal return.

Again, a review of statistics shows how Deen’s aberrant behavior has been over the past decade, as he has raised the overall tax millage far more than any other major governing authority in Bossier Parish through rolling forward rates. The Constitution mandates that rates be lowered above the legal maximum for an authority because of increase in value of property to keep overall tax paid the same, unless the authority acts to roll forward rates.

Unlike the Parish, Bossier City, and the School Board, he unilaterally may decide on this while these other authorities must have a supermajority of their governing bodies to do so.

Since 2000, Sheriff’s Office revenues have climbed 296 percent, expenses have increased 361 percent, property tax revenues – with just a 2005 roll forward prior to this one – went up 136 percent, and assets have exploded 932 percent. Parish population outside of municipal boundaries increased only about 12 percent in that period, and overall crime rates – which are more affected by things that policing cannot control such as proportion of young males in the population and economic performance – have gone down about 14 percent.

Lives, not marine life, should have priority in permitting

-->

You could see this coming from far off, in this case the adoption by Gov. Bobby Jindal of the Pres. Barack Obama Administration’s mantra, “never let a crisis go to waste.” But while Obama wishes to take, if not provoke and create, crises in order to empower government at the expense of people, Jindal wants to use an entirely unwanted one to score environmental protection way ahead of schedule and on the cheap.

When the Apr. 20 well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico began pumping oil into the sea, that unfortunate incident cost lives and environmental degradation. But while Obama sought to use the incident as a catalyst to push for a costly, counterproductive alternative energy agenda, Jindal saw a silver lining to the tragedy enabled by a confluence of disparate circumstances.

The disappearance or retreat of Louisiana’s coastline long has been recognized, caused by human intervention such as through activities to prevent flooding and controlling waterways and economic activities, and also through natural changes. While the environmental and economic consequences are troubling, perhaps the greatest threat from change this comes from hurricanes. As marshlands recede, natural impediments to hurricanes are reduced to permit stronger ones to hit larger populated areas just off the coast.

In Senate race, Melancon shows worse character

It’s the other shoe time dropping time with the final prong of the Rep. Charlie Melancon campaign emerging, possibly as part of a presumably coordinated effort with defeated Senate candidate Chet Traylor.

In his quest to take the seat held by incumbent Sen. David Vitter, the Democrat Melancon has found himself on the wrong side of most issues about which a majority of Louisianans care. Recognizing this, he has based his campaign almost entirely on attempted character assassination of the Republican Vitter, making thoughtful people wonder whether it’s worth putting such a petty, vituperative person that focuses most of his efforts attacking his opponent into such an office of great responsibility.

The unusual entrance of Republican Traylor into that party’s primary from the beginning smacked of an attempt to create a stalking horse working with Melancon against Vitter. With little organization, almost no money, and considerable political baggage himself, the only plausible explanation as to why Traylor would enter, and lose devastatingly, was as an excuse to intensify Melancon’s attack strategy against Vitter.

In particular, Traylor ran some ads thin on substance but long on personal attacks on Vitter, more extreme and explicit than previously had surfaced from the Melancon campaign or from allied Democrat organizations and affiliates. This level of venom has continued with new ads out designed to support Melancon by tearing down Vitter. Now, Melancon, who would have looked less statesman-like had he initiated these on his own in the past, can claim he’s simply repeating what other candidates already have articulated.

If Traylor was encouraged by backers of Melancon to enter the race, that was the main purpose, to provide this kind of cover for a campaign that will get nastier because that’s all Melancon has to offer. It reflects poor character on his part to permit such shenanigans to go forward, rather than conduct a campaign concentrating instead on issues of government spending, taxation, support of Democrats’ agenda, federal funding of abortion, and wasteful junkets.

But if polling data to date don’t change dramatically, it’s not working. Louisiana voters are more focused on issues, even if Melancon avoids them as well as his constituents, and this final descent into hate-filled politics that Democrats are making serves perhaps as the final validation of why in the next couple of months Americans will judge them unfit to run its national legislature, as well as illuminating Melancon’s deficient character.