Storms shape her legacy On behalf of the state of Louisiana, I would like to make a request of lame-duck Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco: give us an early Christmas present and just go away quietly. We’re tired of your inane, even mendacious, attempts to explain away your failed governorship. You blame your inadequate response to the hurricane disasters of 2005 on Republican-instigated “partisanship,” yet your own words and e-mail messages show you were the one interjecting partisanship from the very beginning into your actions which detracted from your ability to pursue better policy. In fact, despite having gone through simulated and real disasters, you still didn’t know simple intergovernmental procedures to have gotten aid faster, and you deliberately delayed to try to get partisan advantage. You also blame partisanship on the much slower pace of recovery in Louisiana than Mississippi when in fact it was your own dithering that hampered the receipt of federal recovery dollars into the state. Then your people disregarded federal rules in the distribution of that money which tied it up bureaucratically and bankrupted the program. It’s also annoying to hear you take credit for anything remotely resembling improved economic growth in the state. You promoted higher taxes that would detract from such growth and, let’s face it, the state is doing fiscally well only because of the tens of billion of dollars pumped into it for recovery funds from which the state takes a cut and because many of the former residents displaced by the storms financially took much more from the state than they contributed. Basically, you are taking credit for the weather; your recipe for economic success through inducing a natural disaster I don’t think is one we want to emulate. Now you’re poking your nose into the appointments of your successor who you knew you could not defeat, criticizing the actions of one before he’s even taken the job. Are you that desperate to make yourself appear relevant, which you have not been for about five months now? Constitutionally, we have to keep you around for almost a month. In the meantime, please just stop the attempts at historical revisionism and at achieving relevancy and leave us in peace to get on with the business that you couldn’t perform during the four years in office the state’s electorate foolishly gave you. (If you'd like to have Prof. Sadow's column mailed to you, go to http://www.between-lines.com and click on "Join the mailing list!" on the left-hand side.)
Read More...

U.S. corn boom has downside for Gulf On the back of the man-made global warming fraud, many taken in by it argue society must move away from the use of hydrocarbons and increase use of renewable sources of energy. Regrettably, the federal government for years has subsidized the production of ethanol and Louisiana joined in a year ago for the future with the state requiring sellers of gasoline to sell ethanol if statewide production reaches a certain level and politicians decide it’s not really more expensive than gasoline. Now these decisions are starting to haunt us and point out yet again an enduring lesson that hubris prevents too many from realizing fully. In the past year, production of corn has increased significantly which is the most common renewable crop used to produce ethanol. It’s not just government subsidies and federal regulations requiring its use in many metropolitan areas that now drive production, but higher oil prices. The consequence of the increased production, which is supposed to help the environment, is actually to degrade it in a way significant to Louisianans. Corn takes more fertilizer, typically nitrogen-based, than typical crops. Unfortunately, when carried south down streams that empty through the Mississippi’s delta, the nitrogen runoff of thousands of miles away creates a “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico where aquatic life can’t exist. Not only does this constitute an ecological problem, it is makes for commercial difficulties as fishing industry vessels must travel farther from port to harvest potentially less seafood, obviously negative for Louisiana’s industry. Irony abounds in this scenario. Ethanol is supposed to help air quality and reduce “greenhouse gases” that allegedly are responsible for significant global warming. Yet in the mania to produce it, it harms not just another aspect of the environment, the ecology of the Gulf, but in pursuing this forces fishing vessels to use more energy – which is hydrocarbon-based and produces more greenhouse gases. Thus revealing the folly of government intervention into the economy. Human history time and again has shown when there is a presumed public policy problem dealing with economic inputs and outputs, government intervention produces unintended and/or suboptimal outcomes. If government policy wasn’t forcing so much ethanol production, that production would be responding only to market forces, which would have the salutary impacts of reducing corn production (and prices for basic food on top of that) that would reduce the ecological consequences of it, and supplying greater incentives to spur technological developments such as ways to use fertilizer more efficiently and to extract and burn more efficiently petroleum products. The environment always is best protected by market forces. If degradation becomes too much and/or a less-friendly process thereby becomes too expensive, consumers demand changes. Government fiat only interferes with outcome and, if Louisiana policy-makers want to get series about not contributing to the dead zone problem, they will repeal R.S. 3:3711 as soon as possible. (If you'd like to have …
Read More...

LSUS plan sparks debate It’s not politically correct, but it’s true what University of Louisiana System Board of Supervisors member Michael Woods says about the Louisiana Board of Regents’ hesitancy in granting Louisiana State University Shreveport even a part of a Ph.D. program – it’s territorial and could delay or excise entirely the ability of LSUS to offer a doctoral degree in its own back yard.. Add to LSUS alumnus Woods’ comments the observation about the Board's position made by LSUS Chancellor Vincent Marsala: “short-sighted.” The program would offer a Ph.D. in bioinformatics and computational biology, contemplated for and developed over years by LSUS, which fits in nicely with a collaborative effort made with the LSU Health Sciences Center-Shreveport and Louisiana Tech University. The program has even more value now that it appears more likely than not that the Air Force will base its Cyber Command Center at Barksdale AFB in Bossier Parish. The program has received cautionary approval by the Regents who must authorize any new degree offerings in the state. The report does not at all indicate that the program should not be offered, nor that LSUS could not contribute significantly to it. Rather, it expresses reservations that LSUS ought to be a part of it, noting that the higher education master plan while not prohibiting LSUS from offering doctoral degrees does not explicitly permit such offerings. However, the Regents chairman Pat Strong personally seems to question whether the bringing of a doctoral program will really enhance the Shreveport metropolitan economy – “a doctoral program being that important to economic development.” That might make sense if it was a Ph.D. program in political science being discussed, but it seems pretty clear with the medical industry there and Cyber Command probably coming that there are going to be economic benefits, possibly substantial ones. And if the Regents are so wedded to the plan, perhaps it needs changing. There’s no reason why the state’s four-year comprehensive university in the state’s third-largest metropolitan area should not have the ability at least to collaborate on such a program. It already is forced to collaborate for masters degrees with outsider Louisiana Tech – a school 70 miles distant from the area. Woods also was courageously candid about that aspect, pointing out Tech has long sought placement in the Shreveport market. This brings up an entirely different question about the overbuilt nature of Louisiana higher education but if that’s not going to be addressed, then the next best thing is to give preference to universities in their areas – and that means LSUS in Shreveport, not Louisiana Tech. Part of the problem is, historically, the insistence of the LSU system to base as much as it could in Baton Rouge. LSUS began only 40 years ago (over a century after the modern incarnation of LSU Baton Rouge) and spent its first decade as a junior college. It’s not just Shreveport either: there was no LSU campus …
Read More...

State's surplus expected to double Louisiana’s Revenue Estimating Conference confirmed that revenues are slipping in the state as the infusion of federal recovery dollars begins to taper off. Once again, this fact reinforces the need for prudence in future spending commitments and for fiscal policy that will boost revenues in the future. These realities may have been overshadowed by the fact that a healthy surplus both for the current fiscal year and predicted for the next were declared by the Conference. Focusing solely on that aspect, however, misses the larger picture if drawing the conclusion that the state now has “extra” money to spend on things which, absent changing expenditure priorities, would be the worst possible decision to make. A retreating revenue picture demands caution with any new commitments, which are prudent only if revenues look likely to increase over time. Rather, the current scenario dictates that new spending be sparse and that reprogramming of current commitments takes place to ensure that a fairly flat revenue forecast does not strain future state resources as inflation erodes and unexpected but necessary new commitments eat into these revenues. Policymakers must understand the surplus exists only because spending demands in some areas (obviously not in areas of recovery expenses) have declined. Bluntly, with 300,000 or so few citizens displaced by the 2005 hurricane disasters of the socio-economic class most were in, the majority absorbed more, often much more, in state resources than they contributed. It’s not that state revenues have and will continue to go up for anything to do an improved state economy or fiscal outlook, it’s that with significantly fewer people to support off of government money that programmatic, nondiscretionary spending has gone down noticeably in some areas such as education and health care. If current practices don’t change, this means revenues will remain stagnant at best while expenditures will rise. This argues that policy must change to increase revenues, entailing alterations in both the revenue area (designed to increase the gross take) and in the spending area (reconfiguring the mix of expenditures in a way which will maximize the gross take). An example of the former would be cutting income taxes. Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal has stated his preference of reducing if not eliminating these. Not only would this allow revenues to grow within the next few years because of the greater economic activity produced, but also the approach solves a political problem: the Constitution caps spending by the state and if Jindal wanted to spend all of the surplus he would need a two-thirds vote of both Legislative chambers to secure this. Tax reductions lower the spending levels for cap purposes. An example of the latter would be passing legislation diverting transportation-related revenues to be spent only for transportation purposes. Under-funded transportation infrastructure has held back the state’s economic potential thus tax-generating potential of state business. The surplus dollars would cushion the amount removed from the general fund by this …
Read More...

Jindal proving hard to read I guess I’m not part of the “political class” that keeps “busy with a new pastime: reading tea leaves” concerning what Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal will promote as policy when he takes office. Maybe I’m just too simple, but it seems like to me it’s all been made very obvious to us – which will give us clear benchmarks by which to assess his performance in the future. It baffles me why one cannot go to Jindal’s campaign site and read what he has to say about important issues of the day. One columnist claims there’s only issue he seems to be clear on – ethics reform – and then thinks everybody must guess what he’s going to do. Well, it’s not hard to figure out, so let me assist: 1. Jindal wants to change the focus of health care. He proposes moving from a one-size-fits-all concept to one that simultaneously empowers consumers and brings more efficiency to the state’s pursuit of better health care. 2. He wants to shift spending priorities, principally dealing with transportation. He’d like to get rid of “slush fund” kind of spending which is determined more by politics than by genuine needs, where one of the biggest needs is an ailing transportation system. 3. He wants to change emphasis in education. He supports reconfiguring education systems and improving learning environments not necessarily with more expenditures, but by higher and reconceptualized standards. 4. He wants to reduce taxation, principally on income taxes. Certainly he desires immediate relief on certain counterproductive business taxes, but in the long run he’d like to lower if not eliminate income taxes. To put things in even more specific terms that the “political class,” journalists, and anybody else who can’t understand the above: (1) Jindal wants to pass more stringent ethics requirements for those in government, (2) he wants to adopt an indigent health care system that steers money towards patients and the choices they make rather than to institutions where most money then gets controlled by government, (3) he wants to divert money when raised in certain specific areas such as transportation for use in that area, (4) he wants to have funding for higher education focused more on benchmarks of education of students rather than attraction of students by an institution, and (5) to cut corporate and individual income taxes, perhaps all the way to zero if he stays in office long enough. None of this is really difficult to understand, and has been repeated and publicly reported upon numerous times. Jindal either will carry out what he said he was going to do, or he won’t. He’s not at all been ambiguous about what he supports, and a good portion of those who voted for him did so because of what he said on the issues. Yet somehow one observer opines it was not clear what “Jindal was saying and doing just to …
Read More...

Next congressman could win with less than majority Although the closed primary is common among the states, it’s new to Louisiana for congressional contests and, further, will debut in a special election in early 2008 for the House seat to be vacated by incoming Gov. Bobby Jindal. This could pose questions for many and, as a highly-trained specialist in this area whose graduate education in political science partly was paid for by Louisiana taxpayers, I’ll provide for its citizens some answers concerning this subject. First, as has been pointed out by one of my colleagues, that no runoff election exists to give a final general election winner an absolute majority not only is unremarkable for federal elections in the U.S., it is practically nonexistent. A very few states have super-minority kinds of requirements such as if nobody gets at least 40 percent in the general election that there is to be a runoff, but no state requires an absolute majority for declaration of a winner as a result of federal elections held on even-numbered years the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. (In fact, only about a dozen states or so even require runoff elections for any election, almost all of them in the South.) Second, for the foreseeable future it will be rare that a winning candidate does not get an absolute majority in the general election, even if more than just a Republican and Democrat nominee run. As weak as the major parties are in Louisiana, the state of minor parties is much worse and the closed primary legislation was designed to strengthen the major parties without commensurate benefits for minor parties. It is difficult to imagine than any minor party candidate could get more of a small sliver of the vote in these kinds of contests any time soon when both major parties put up a nominee. Third, however, the exception could be well-(probably self-) financed independent candidates along the lines such as recent gubernatorial hopeful John Georges. But even their effect will be diminished because the new law implicitly has what is called a “sore loser” provision. In their explicit versions which many states have, the law flat out mandates that a loser of a party primary cannot run in the general election. (One state that does not have any such law is Connecticut, a lacking that Sen. Joseph Lieberman exploited last election cycle when he lost the party primary to a fringe far-leftist; he then ran as an independent in the general election and won.) Louisiana’s version is implicit because its sets qualifying for candidates who do not go through a primary nomination process at the same time as those who wish to vie for a party nomination. Normally, but not in the case for Jindal’s 1st District seat because it is a special election and all things are accelerated, that would occur four months prior to the actual general …
Read More...

Bossier Parish lawmaker Adley switches to Republican Party You can’t paint stripes on a horse and call it a zebra. State Rep. Billy Montgomery found that out when he changed parties prior to this year’s elections, then was defeated by a genuine conservative and Republican when he tried to extend his legislative life into the Senate. Now his ideological and Bossier Parish fellow traveler state Sen. Robert Adley has done the same. New Republican Adley claims he chose now to switch, almost two months after his reelection, because of his enthusiasm for the agenda of the Republican incoming Gov. Bobby Jindal. One wonders whether he spent too much time campaigning against a lightweight Republican challenger to be aware that Jindal’s agenda hardly has changed since he last ran for governor in 2003, so why didn’t this happen before the election? Instead, it’s almost comical the reasons he stated for the switch now, describing himself as a conservative reformer, saying "I'm excited we have a new governor with the same philosophy, and I want to be as effective as possible in dealing with him." Of course, his record in the Senate just from the past year violates truth-in-labeling. Jindal repeatedly has said ethics reform is his top priority; Adley was one of the two senators most responsible for killing meaningful reform in the 2007 session. Jindal also has stated he would like to see the reduction, if not outright elimination, of income taxes; Adley in Senate committee hearings has publicly disparaged the idea and help ram through only the most miniscule tax relief despite an enormous budget surplus. Give Adley some credit for a skill most people can’t perform (although politicians often can), talking out of both sides of his mouth. The real reason why Adley switched likely is he realizes his power and privilege in the Senate is endangered under a Jindal Administration. Currently vice chairman of the Senate’s Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee, his past contrary stance to Jindal’s agenda leaves him less likely to retain that position under the anticipated election of Sen. Joel Chaisson to the Senate’s Presidency, especially as Chaisson, supported by Jindal, wishes to increase Republican representation on key committees and to give leadership positions to more Republicans. For example, this committee ended the session with Democrats holding an 8-3 advantage in a chamber where there were fewer than two to one Democrats over Republicans, and both leaders of it Democrats. The proof will be in the pudding, if Adley does vote a much more conservative line starting next year. Still, this switch, like Montgomery’s, seems more of convenience than from actual belief, if Adley’s past actions compared to current rhetoric apply. (If you'd like to have Prof. Sadow's column mailed to you, go to http://www.between-lines.com and click on "Join the mailing list!" on the left-hand side.)
Read More...

Jindal poverty plan cuts roots, not branches If there’s any consternation at all about incoming Gov. Bobby Jindal not having an explicit policy on poverty reduction in Louisiana when it seems he’s got a policy suggestion for everything else, it comes from misunderstanding that in most cases in no direct away can government do anything lasting about poverty. For about four decades now, there has been a persistent failure on behalf of many elites, borne of the invalidity of political liberalism to explain the human condition, in comprehending the causes of poverty. There are two of these, each requiring a different public policy approach in order to minimize poverty and simultaneously improve the life prospects of those caught up in it. One cause of poverty is bad fortune, both temporary and permanent, but with the same basic solution. Say a short-term illness drives a family into poverty; in this instance, government may provide relief designed solely temporary in nature until the crisis has passed and breadwinners are able to return to the workforce. This would include people whose bad choices brought the problems onto themselves, where government policy must be not to facilitate that behavior. If it’s a long-term illness, disability, or the like, government should provide a minimal, decent standard of living at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer. Related to this causes is misfortune in the sense that a person innately does not have the talent to contribute much beyond the minimal to society. As we know, in a free market wealth accrues to people in proportion to their contributions to society through their labor (whether it be physical or mental). Some will be very talented and thereby earn huge monetary rewards but others will be the opposite and eke out marginal remuneration. So long as the latter work hard, if they need government assistance to attain a minimal, decent standard of living, they should have it as they are contributing their maximum and trying their hardest to bring benefits to society. The other cause, one of which far too many intentionally or otherwise refuse to acknowledge, is poverty comes from behaving according to inferior attitudes. Simply, there are people who do not have impediments such as health problems who do not genuinely want to change their stations in life through hard work, thrift, and sacrifices of pleasures of the moment for long-term benefits; they would rather focus on instant gratification and hope others subsidize this behavior than to take it upon themselves to choose to behave in ways that will make them self-sufficient in the long run. These “poor” who lack willpower far outnumber those stricken by misfortune, the latter of which government can assist directly. Proper government policy accounting for this, realizing that only tyrannical government can (often just temporarily) force people to change their attitudes, focuses on providing incentives to persuade people to abstain from the previous inferior behavior which eventually will lead to genuine …
Read More...

McCrery decides against seeking 11th term Apparently, the frustration of a bifurcated life between career and family and an inability to pursue the agenda he wanted combined to have veteran Republican U.S. Rep. Jim McCrery decide against running for reelection for Louisiana’s Fourth District. The timing of the announcement of his decision, however, additionally likely included partisan factors. It was well known that McCrery was leaving sooner rather than later, given his past sentiments about the disruption his career caused to his family not only for him but of his wife and two boys. Something which may have encouraged him to hang on was his high position in the House GOP, at present the ranking member of perhaps the most powerful committee in the body, Ways and Means. The problem was, if not for the Democrats taking over control of the House last year, he would have been chairman of Ways and Means, and in position to write fiscal policy that emphasizes greater individual freedom, less government intrusiveness, pro-growth and greater efficiency. By contrast, Democrats have tried to push an agenda that takes more of the peoples’ earnings to favor special interests, would rather sacrifice prosperity on the altars of various causes such as the environmentalist anti-growth religion and other forms of political correctness, and thereby refuse to reform government programs to make them work better. Unfortunately, McCrery found out very quickly few of his ideas had any realistic chance of seeing the light of day, and the political trends of next years elections offer no assurance that Republicans could take back the majority. While Democrats might follow the suicidal path of nominating Sen. Hillary Clinton for the presidency, the large number of announced retirements from the House (his being the 18th so far) by Republicans make their chances only even of retaking the House even with a Clinton nomination. And, partisan politics may have played a role in the timing of the decision. He might have taken the chance to see if a Clinton meltdown would vault him into the chairmanship, then if not depart in 2010. But even as that would have led to two more years of decreased presence in his teenagers’ lives, a 2008 exit might also increase Republican chances of holding the district. With Clinton likely heading the Democrat ticket, that would be poison to any Democrat trying to succeed McCrery. McCrery definitely will be missed in both the district and the state. Louisiana would be fortunate if his replacement is of such quality. (If you'd like to have Prof. Sadow's column mailed to you, go to http://www.between-lines.com and click on "Join the mailing list!" on the left-hand side.)
Read More...

December 7, 2007…This week, it was announced by New Orleans Councilman-at-large Arnie Fielkow that the City Council would consider hate crimes legislation that would make it a crime to “intimidate someone with a noose, a swastika, a burning cross or any symbol deliberately chosen to frighten.” This effort was in response to about a dozen hate crime incidents which have occurred across the country in the past few months, including a well publicized case in Jefferson Parish involving a noose and a bull whip. The unfortunate events were likely a response to the publicity surrounding the Jena 6 case and the resulting civil rights march in that small Louisiana town. While civil rights leaders and human rights organizations praised Fielkow’s proposal, it was criticized by a diverse group of opponents including the ACLU. In fact, some critics blasted the proposed ordinance as nothing more than a “feel good” measure. As a result, Fielkow later announced that the measure would be “further vetted before being forwarded to the council for final vote.” Fielkow made the right move by delaying the vote. Hopefully, he will reconsider completely and drop the issue entirely. In reality, hate crimes are not a major problem in Orleans Parish, at least according to the FBI. In 2006 there was zero hate crimes reported in New Orleans. Yet, there were 162 serious crimes of another type, murder, which truly is the ultimate hate crime. This year, we don’t know how many hate crimes have been reported in Orleans Parish, but it surely is going to be infinitesimal compared to the ever growing murder rate, which currently stands at 205 for this year. The Jefferson Parish incident was swiftly and effectively handled by local officials and did not result in additional legislation. Orleans Parish should also deal with any incidents that arise on a case by case basis. Of course, hate crimes of any sort cannot be tolerated. Yet, any offender arrested on a hate crime charge will face serious consequences that are already outlined in federal legislation. As a result, no additional citywide legislation is needed. Based on reputable FBI statistics, hate crimes are not a major problem in Orleans Parish today and does not rank as a problem of any sort. However, there are major problems that should demand the immediate attention of the New Orleans City Council, such as: • Violent crime. So far, the murders in 2007 are setting the pace for New Orleans to be the Murder Capital of the nation once again • Revolving door criminal justice system • Homelessness. There are 10,000 homeless people in New Orleans, including hundreds who are camping at Duncan Plaza right across from City Hall. These people need to be relocated and an action plan needs to be implemented to deal with a problem that is growing • Lack of affordable housing • Poor public education system • Corruption. This has beset New Orleans for decades. Recent incidents involving former Council President Oliver Thomas, the Orleans Parish …
Read More...