Good, bad, and ugly of NW LA legislators, 2009

Previously, this space featured commentary about the this regular session’s most valuable northwest Louisiana legislator, state Sen. Buddy Shaw, as well as its biggest clown, state Sen. Robert Adley. But there are still some awards to give for the recently-completed session for the other good, bad, and ugly from the area’s delegation.

Best Legislation to Become Law: Unlike last year when Shaw had perhaps the best piece of legislation in the state when it cut taxes for the vast majority of taxpayers, little stood out from the northwest Louisiana delegation. Of it all, the best was state Rep. Jane Smith’s HB 559 with gives special breaks for veterans, particularly those disabled in their service, in operating businesses.

Worst Legislation Introduced: HB 705; see discussion below.

Most Disingenuous Legislator: In a competitive field where some feel you have to really make an effort to lie often and grandiosely just to be typical, one particular state senator’s level of brazenness put those accomplished legislators even statewide to shame. Lydia Jackson, not only in discussing her SB 335 but in the sheer gall it took to introduce it, made lying look as easy as breathing air. The bill reversed a tax deduction that began on Jan. 1, 2009, on which some people had already made financial decisions such as charitable donations based upon the break by the time the session started, and on which others already had paid estimated taxes based on it during the session.

Yet Jackson kept dissembling that it was not a tax increase at all when all she had to do was look at a calendar to see that wasn’t true. It also took a lot of nerve for her to introduce such a measure when ran counter to two sections of the Constitution that disallowed the Senate from introducing tax increases and in implementing retroactive laws. Such behavior on her part should serve as a warning that nobody, especially voters, can trust anything she says and that she is willing to subvert the truth for political purposes beyond what even some of the most shameless politicians are willing to do. That she refuses to be contrite or apologize for all of this speaks volumes about her character.

Most Ignorant Legislator: State Rep. Barbara Norton became more famous than just for her propensity to have subject-verb disagreements in her speech. Her HB 705 would have forced all but the smallest employers to pay women the same wages as men for jobs that required the same “skill, effort, education, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions,” regardless of many other mitigating factors where large differences often are reported between the sexes (such as women’s propensity to take more time off, work less, and change jobs more frequently). The basis of this, she claimed, was that women made only 65 cents to the dollar compared to men; therefore, the difference had to be attributed solely to discrimination and hence need for the law.

But that figure was discredited long ago as it looks at all people in all jobs. When looking at men and women in the same jobs factoring in all the variables, the gap disappears (98 cents on the dollar). This has been known for decades, yet in her testimony about the bill Norton seemed blissfully unaware of this and of the mountain of research showing the “comparable worth” concept on which her bill was based not only addressed an imaginary problem whose only impact would be to drive business costs and create litigation, but in the process would reduce men’s and even women’s salary levels and employment chances. She needs a serious education in matters about which she clearly knows little.

And if this weren’t bad enough, for lagniappe at the session’s end she introduced a resolution to commend her godson one Chris Dooley AKA “Hurricane Chris” for a song of his that had charted – one whose lyrics were laced with profanity and demeaning to women, leading one to wonder if she even has any common sense (At least the cacophony that comprises the piece that actually got played for the entire House had its lyrics sanitized.) Mercifully, the House let the resolution die.

Most Disappointing Legislator: Elected from one of the most conservative/reformist districts in the House, state Rep. Thomas Carmody’s voting record has not reflected those sentiments. On the voting record scale at my Louisiana Legislature Log where 100 is a perfect conservative/reformist score, last year he scored a 45 and this year a 55. That 50 average is well below his Republican Party’s average over the two years of just over 70, a record in contrast to his years on Shreveport’s City Council and to his campaign rhetoric. Former candidate Barrow Peacock may be calling supporters even as you read this for a 2011 run as Carmody is starting to leave himself very vulnerable with a record like this.

If these things weren’t enough to bring cheer or amusement to you, or turn your stomach, fear not, it’ll start all over again in about nine months.

Landrieu pass illustrates weakening political position

There are two reasons why Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu seems to have closed the door on pursuing in 2010 the office his father held and one he twice has run for and appears to prize heavily, mayor of New Orleans – he can’t win because he’s white and his last name is Landrieu. In doing so, he also reveals his uncertain political future.

A 1994 run produced little result, but in 2006 Landrieu made the runoff and many thought he would win with a voting population near black-white parity. Despite being the least mono-racial election for New Orleans mayor in decades – an estimated 20 percent of blacks voted for Landrieu – still he lost to a deeply flawed and weakened incumbent Ray Nagin.

Since then, white candidates have won what in effect are city-wide elections – Arnie Fielkow and Jackie Clarkson have grabbed at-large city council spots although the latter in a special election, and Leon Cannizaro got elected as District Attorney with President Barack Obama on the ballot just last year. But Landrieu’s problem is that his name is not so much associated with his father that might help him with black voters relative to stronger black candidates, but his own and his sister’s that will hurt him relative to white voters.

What Landrieu learned in 2006 is that his support was a mile wide but an inch deep. Even facing the likes of the ridiculed Nagin, he could not entice enough black voters to abandon the incumbent that more than offset his solid white support, but at the same time too many whites see him as too liberal, in part because of professed comfort with big government, in part because he is linked with his sister Sen. Mary Landrieu, for him to stimulate the disproportionate white turnout that would vote for him to beat a quality black opponent.

Being lieutenant governor provides a steady paycheck and it’s the kind of job where it’s difficult to knock off an incumbent, but it’s typically dead-end. Until former Gov. Kathleen Blanco made the leap in 2003, it had not happened electorally. Craven ambition will lead Landrieu to want to vacate his present post eventually, and it is unlikely that conditions ever will change for him to make the mayorality of New Orleans likely. Thus, governor would be the next logical step, but whether in 2011 is another matter.

Gov. Bobby Jindal has had a rough spot here and there but at this point – and two years is a long time politically – he should not have much trouble for reelection purposes and still enjoys high popularity. Landrieu may be wondering whether Jindal will make a stab at the presidency in 2012 which would really require for him to have any chance of success that Jindal stand down for 2011. Recent policy failures by Obama especially as the economy continues to deteriorate and the essential exclusion of two strong opponents, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin voluntarily and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford somewhat less so, may encourage such a Jindal run, but chances are still that Jindal will wait until 2016 for additional burnishment of his record and possibly facing no incumbent for the White House if he chooses to run for it.

Thus, Landrieu probably will have to wait until 2015, creating plenty of time for other contestants for the state’s top job to emerge. Therefore, the real lesson of this admission of Landrieu’s is he lacks strength to go after what he wants now, and needs to wait out and hope for favorable contingencies to advance his ageing political career.

Hypocritical, immature legislators react to Jindal vetoes

More vetoes were rung up by Gov. Bobby Jindal, and more wailing and gnashing of teeth from the comically hypocritical to the ignorantly profane were issued forth by his ideological opponents.

One Jindal bill victim was HB 785 which would have created a new political subdivision with sweeping regulatory powers, causing concern for the governor. Despite the reasonableness of the objection, this left the bill’s author state Rep. Sam Jones sputtering, “I fear that maybe it’s punitive … the reasons given to me certainly don’t wash.” Jones argued it was similar to an existing local government elsewhere – but just because it’s been done before doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, and Jindal’s veto certainly was appropriate.

However, it’s not surprising Jones would think in terms of vindictiveness; as a member of former Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s Administration, he likely had input into the “punitive” vetoes she used to cast. Jones’s selective and situational indignation is thereby duly noted and snickered at.

But another author of a bill that Jindal struck down, state Rep. Walker Hines’ HB 781, reacted in an immature way on many levels. This bill would have created a new salaried political appointee and a new board with political appointees to study ways to deal with “homelessness.” Jindal vetoed it because he thought that it wasn’t necessary to spend over $600,000 extra of the people’s money during the next five years for the Department of Social Services to do this. Hines thought the federal government might pay for some of this, but spending taxpayer money needlessly regardless of the source never is a good idea.

Hines’ reaction to the veto was akin to what one might have thought had he been told Jindal personally had gone door-to-door kicking people out into the street and repossessing their homes on a whim: “This is a political retribution – for what, I don’t know,” he whined, and followed up by asserting that Jindal would have to answer to his Catholic faith for the veto – presumably meaning that somehow the action was inconsistent with “Catholicism” as Hines desires to define it.

Yet if Hines truly believes adding one more bureaucrat and a commission on the taxpayer dime is going to do anything to address this “problem” to such an extent that to oppose it threatens Jindal’s soul, he clearly has lost touch with reality and knows little about Catholicism (despite his biographical claim that he practices it). Although he’s probably familiar with this document that instructs us to take care of some possible side-effects of homelessness (Ezekiel 18:16 declares as righteous he “who gives his food to the hungry and clothes the naked,” although also we are told in 2 Corinthians 5:1 “if our earthly dwelling, a tent, should be destroyed, we have a building from God”), it appears he may not be familiar with this one, but in neither case do they declare that it is a matter of doctrine for the faithful to have government use additional resources to address a social problem like homelessness, nor does failure to do so constitutes sin.

Hines also may not be aware of Pope Benedict’s recently released encyclical Caritas in Veritate and that nowhere in it does Benedict make such claims. In fact, the use of government to force a caritas out of its citizenry, the philosophy behind Hines’ statement about Jindal, is something of a contradiction to its entire meaning.

We, especially us Catholics, must lament the lack of maturity, intellect, and knowledge behind Hines’ comments, particularly when they come from one who holds himself out as Catholic, and depressingly consider that these traits may be more the norm than exception among politicians of all faiths or of none. But through communication and prayer, we can hope that they understand what it means that we are (as Mark 12:17 instructs) to “repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God” when it comes to wise public policy.

LA legislator's excuse reminds of her insignificance

So state Rep. Pat Smith is all upset because Gov. Bobby Jindal cast a line item veto against a project she sponsored. For the second year in a row, Jindal vetoed appropriations for the Louisiana Art and Science Museum in Baton Rouge, and what particularly galls her is entities such as the Louisiana Political Hall of Fame in Winnfield and Sci-Port in Shreveport escaped Jindal’s pen.

But to say it is a form of “retaliation” concerning her voting record, especially on a bill concerning disclosure by the governor’s office, is pure fantasy on her part. Reasons abound to demonstrate why.

First, while Jindal is never going to say he “retaliated” against any legislator, at the same time he offers a plausible reason for the vetoes – no regional impact compared to something like Sci-Port. Second, Smith was just one of many legislators to vote against Jindal’s preferences on not just that bill but also many more, so if that were Jindal’s decision criterion, a whole host of measures from a wide array of legislators should have been struck by him. Third, even if Jindal seemed to decide things this way, Smith was by no means Jindal’s biggest critic or obstacle to his agenda.

State Sen. Lydia Jackson, for example, sponsored legislation very opposed by Jindal to reverse already-implemented tax deductions. When the initial try was ruled unconstitutional by House Speaker Jim Tucker and not dealt with in that chamber, she tried again by amending her bill onto a House bill. On the floor in debate of these bills she criticized Jindal, and even in committee on a bill dealing with disclaimers on state publications she ripped into the Jindal Administration. She took every chance great and small to harangue Jindal over their policy differences, so if Jindal was in a retaliatory mood Jackson should be his obvious target. And – you guessed it – Sci-Port is in Jackson’s district.

It’s possible that a Jindal line item veto here or there might be designed to send a message. However, Jindal seems to do what he says in terms of projects meeting criteria such as public submission and discussion and statewide or regional impact when viewing the totality of his choices to retain or snip. Certainly the Baton Rouge museum didn’t close down because it didn’t get state money last year, validating the decision then and now.

And if Jindal were going to punish a legislator, let’s be frank, evidence is Smith simply isn’t that important or worth it. So the proper interpretation of her remarks is not that they have any validity, but that they reflect a big ego spilling out of a puny politician simultaneously searching to be taken seriously and to try to make excuses as to why she can’t deliver the goods.

Caddo schools play politics despite charter success

As a pair of its schools have officially gone under state control as of last week, political pouting by Caddo Parish school administration is going to get just that little bit more difficult as a result of the recent releasing of standardized test scores that cast more doubt on the direction the district is heading.

The results showed that yet another Caddo school has fallen into the danger zone that culminated in two such schools being taken over by the state’s Recovery School District at the end of this month. Ridgewood Middle School became the 14th, or now about one-fifth of the total, of the district’s schools to be put on the warning list. If there was any silver lining to this, it was on the basis not of overall scores as the previous 13 had been nailed, but on sub-groups scores.

To date, the other schools that have spent too many years on the list have escaped state takeover because of individual operating agreements made with the state while others have been subsumed into the “Caddo Plan” which is an attempt to create themed schools, pump in some more money to them, and tinker with personnel. Unfortunately, the latter is unlikely to produce the kind of change needed to get these schools up to snuff because it does not change the system that produced low performances in the first place.

In order to accomplish this, the district needs to look at the dramatic improvements seen in Orleans Parish. Most of the schools there have been taken over by the state, but that’s not what has really caused some impressive progress. Rather, it has been that almost all of the schools left under the Orleans Parish School District, and many now in the RSD, have become charter schools.

By way of comparison (for the exact methodology, please refer to a previous posting) at the 4th grade level in the RSD charter school students outperformed their regular school peers by 28 percent, at the 8th grade level in the RSD by 41 percent and in the OPSD by 43 percent, and on the Graduate Exit Exam in the OPSD (excluding the magnet high school Benjamin Franklin) by 53 percent. Keep in mind that, overall, these schools draw from similar populations and the typical per student cost in a charter school there was substantially lower than in the regular schools.

In short, charter schools have done much better in the education mission using fewer resources, primarily because they can avoid some of the bureaucracy and regulations inherent to the remainder of the monopolistic one-size-fits-all public school system, especially in personnel matters without great union interference and political machinations that often accompany questions surrounding teachers and principals. It should be no accident this was the model chosen by the state for the two Caddo school taken over.

Yet not only did the Caddo Plan decisively turn its back on the charter school model for its own revamping, but district administrators, claim everybody save the district itself, seemed to go out of their way to impede the startups of the incipient Linwood Public Charter School and Linear Leadership Academy, requiring state intervention to facilitate the transition. This should not be unexpected since in the eyes of too many Caddo administrators and School Board members these are now “competitors” and casting their eyes south they know they are unlikely to win a battle of achievement against them if history (and theory) is any guide.

Which is a lamentable attitude because it puts politics ahead of children. If things play out as expected, in a few years noticeable improvement will have occurred at the two new charter schools and they will have significantly better performing students than in the academically unacceptable schools still in the grip of the CPSD, absent any significant change from the district’s current course. Only then with this evidence may the district finally decide to move from trying to make a better buggy whip to creating an automobile by moving genuinely and enthusiastically in the direction of charter schools.

Meanwhile, years will have been wasted and children will have missed a better chance to reach their potentials. The lesson already is there; no rational reason exists for the district not to embrace the charter concept for its worst performing schools at all levels, only reasons relating to the continued maintenance of power and privilege of existing special interests inside and outside of the district.

Jindal makes progress with item vetoes, but more remains

Another year, another set of line item vetoes for Gov. Bobby Jindal to cast, and those that he did indicate he’s still selectively serious about priorities in state spending. Last year, Jindal got rid of over 250 items. This year’s (not including all the contingency items in HB 1) number were only a little more than a fifth of that total, in part no doubt because Jindal showed he meant business last year.

HB 881 served as the main vehicle for what are now called “member amendments” (those placed in on request of a legislator for a nongovernmental or local government agency), for which Jindal has stated certain criteria will serve. While a few of the vetoes were technical funding matters from the previous year, on the remainder and those for local governments, Jindal stressed several themes, beginning with they had to be submitted formally which a few were not:

Regional or statewide impact by an NGO. For example, money for Scouts organizations and Veterans of Foreign Wars posts which are centered around small areas of the state were jettisoned. Requests from urban areas, in number of requests and their sizes, particularly were at risk, despite some organizations having affiliations with politically well-connected individuals. Several of these appeared to have multiple grant opportunities from other governments to access.

Attempts to go outside department budgets. If it seemed like it should have been budgeted within funds already appropriated for program operations within a state government agency, Jindal rebuffed it such as in higher education and Treasury.

Persistence didn’t count. Four separate appropriates in very disparate places for the District 2 Community Enhancement Corporation were spiked.

Other local government resources. For example, while monies were allowed to go to a passel of economic development districts and other small local governments for their general activities, a direct appropriation to the Calcasieu Police Jury to run a mayhaw festival was denied as was one for the city of Monroe to deal with Black Bayou, along with one for land for a boat launch ramp in Luling, and one for a film projector and screen for the Beauregard Parish Police Jury to show children some movies. When specified, infrastructure-related projects fared much better than those requesting money to operate recurring programs.

Some were interesting. A roughly $884,000 appropriation Jindal vetoed from the Public Service Commission, ostensibly to fund inspections, because it duplicated something in HB 1, may have been a backdoor attempt for the PSC to gain funding to pay railroad crossing inspectors, a bill to do so having been defeated in the Legislature. Two attempts totaling of $150,000 on behalf of the Louisiana Museum of Arts and Sciences, Inc. were blighted, while the same amount went through for the Louisiana Political Hall of Fame and Museum and a lesser amount to Shreveport's Sci-Port. The Louisiana Association of Nonprofit Organizations, headed by a former Jindal cabinet secretary forced to resign after her handling of last year’s hurricane evacuations, found $100,000 chopped from its request. A local economic development nonprofit having as officers state Rep. Walter Leger and his father who sits on the Louisiana Recovery Administration board got denied $120,000. Even Jindal ally Speaker Jim Tucker got a $200,000 line for blight remediation and $300,000 for the Algiers Development District sliced in order to “ensure a balanced budget.”

Outside of these, the most substantial veto was that for the New Orleans Adolescent Hospital. Jindal had opposed the continuation of this, desiring to move operations across Lake Pontchartrain for efficiency’s sake, but intense lobbying by the New Orleans legislative delegation convinced the Legislature to buck that request. But Jindal will appear to get his way on this. (He did not, however, have a chance to veto money for another state-run institution that the state wished to sell off, the John J. Hainkel Home and Rehabilitation Center as that was folded into larger expenses of the Department of Health and Hospitals; the Legislature also blocked this but it was warned the governor might authorize its closing to save money.)

To sum, as he did last year Jindal proved he said what he meant when it came to the kinds of spending he would tolerate regarding local governments (beyond other revenue-sharing procedures) and that going to nongovernmental agencies. A small does of politics may have emerged into the process as well, given disproportionately the NGO deletions hit areas represented by Democrat political opponents of his, but in large part they also disproportionately made requests that seemed to invite Jindal to veto them by his standards. So to some degree, Jindal’s success here can be measured by the number of amendments that never got attempted, discouraged by his previous fortitude.

Still, given the nature of some things that were vetoed, more could have been. If a renewed seriously is conveyed by his actions, perhaps even fewer will be attempted next year. The next logical steps are in two directions, a reconceptualization of revenue-sharing policy to make moot the necessity of any amendments dealing with local government requests, and a restatement of policy regarding the activities of NGOs. Presumably, they get funded because they perform an important task. Why should not formal policy be articulated that either transfers similar, mainly social service, functions being done by government presently to NGOs, or the reverse? Transparency and accountability would be best served this way instead of this hybrid system.

Regardless, what efforts Jindal has made have altered the political landscape. With members less able to bring back projects and tout this ability for reelection purposes, policy becomes elevated in the minds of voters, meaning legislators become more likely to act in the people’s interest rather than self-interest.

To LA liberals, divisiveness happens only when they lose

At the conclusion of its 2009 regular session, several legislators complained about how conflict and disagreement, part of the governing process, seemed worse than ever this time out. Despite differences in levels of experience, race, and gender, with one exception, all claiming this for the record have one thing in common: they historically have voted for liberal and populist agendas that were largely swept aside in 2009, and the assertion was a defensive strategy to try to avoid more of the same in the future.

It’s a bit ironic that it should be these individuals would register these as complaints because those who share their political agenda on many occasions, given the slightest opening, blasted Gov. Bobby Jindal and his policies. To them, it seemed perfectly acceptable to hurl insults and insinuations at Jindal’s staff during committee testifying, yet not so if they perceived it to be aimed at them. At the same time, it isn’t so surprising neither because consistency means nothing when it conflicts with a standard ploy out of the playbook of liberal elected officials, nor because charges like this by them are a regularly used tactic.

Two attention-grabbing events tried to shape this impression. One occurred among House members, where leaders of three main factions – the caucuses representing Republicans, Democrats, and blacks – endorsed the statement that the House was “fractured” and “splintered.” The only non-liberal to articulate any of this, state Rep. Jane Smith, for whatever reason said it partially was the fault of communication skills of Speaker Jim Tucker. In the Senate, a farewell speech permitted for delivery by state Sen. Reggie Dupre, resigning to take a local government job, complained of “poisoned partisan” attitudes.

This is a typical liberal strategy when conservatives provide vigorous resistance to liberalism’s policy desires, and especially accessed when conservatism is as successful as it was on many issues in the 2009 regular session. At this level, especially when they are used to being in the majority, liberal politicians define “consensus” as “agreement with liberalism,” while being “divisive” is “too effectively opposing liberalism.” Thus, introducing “partisanship” is code for not kowtowing on the altar of liberalism because they try to define “nonpartisan” as “agreement with liberalism.” Thus, partisanship is “bad” and so is the “divisiveness” that can come with it.

Liberals unaware of the bankruptcy of their ideology as nothing more than an intellectually incoherent and factually unsubstantiated set of emotive statements see the tactic of terming opposition to them as “partisan” or “divisive” as a tool to combat what they see as sinister moves to obstruct the “truth.” More aware and thereby cynical liberals see it as a tool to prevent the thinking and informed from realizing that exact bankruptcy which allows them to continue to exercise power and to enjoy privilege. Regardless of motive, “partisan” and “divisive” they strive to attach negative connotations to in order to discourage the competition of ideas where, in a state such as Louisiana, they know they often will lose.

As mentioned elsewhere, “partisan” and other political conflict in fact are healthy and refreshing aspects of democracy. Of course, Smith and perhaps others probably meant conflict based on personal issues should be tamped down, but from the rhetoric from and actions of many leftist legislators throughout the session, one gets the sense they were objecting to the fact that their ideas, after a certain point, simply were losing out and this offended them, to the point they wanted to push legislation simply to try to embarrass their opponents. Indeed, of those crying out on this issue, many probably do so because they looked for and assumed offense because to them it is offensive that their opponents could win majorities on their issues, and that these victors disregarded their ideas totally – to these losers a sign of disrespect. Again, the irony is rich here for in years past when their agendas were ascendant (and slowing grinding the state into the dirt) they steamrolled over their opponents and ignored their wishes totally, and saw nothing wrong with that.

Tucker and Jindal will bear the majority of complaints because it was their agendas that largely muscled out of the way the inferior ideas of the liberal opposition. No doubt this will become an increasingly vocal theme of the minority as the conservative agenda consolidates and gains further ascendancy in state policy-making. Recognize it as an attempt to try to instill some illegitimacy onto the state’s new direction, a delaying tactic by those who, at the ballot box, in committee rooms, in house chambers, and in the realm of public opinion, are losing the debate and will try anything to forestall or prevent that.

LA elected officials must correct Obama on Honduras

Many might be surprised at the intense interest sparked in New Orleans area about the constitutional struggle occurring in Honduras. A little knowledge of the connections between the city and the country might explain and points to actions the region’s national representatives should take on behalf of their constituents.

Few know that for decades New Orleans has served as a prime nexus between Honduras and the U.S. Tens of thousands of metropolitan area residents are of Honduran ancestry, and as many are Hondurans working in international commerce. (It is asserted that New Orleans has the third largest population of Hondurans in the world outside the country itself.) In addition to trade, a significant amount of remittances flow from U.S. citizens or resident aliens of Honduran ancestry to their families in the country. One of the most significant political figures of recent Honduran politics also spent his formative years in New Orleans: Miguel Pastor Mejia, who along with his twin brother and political aide Sebastian graduated from UNO, is the former mayor of the capital Tegucigalpa and was an unsuccessful candidate for his party’s nomination for the presidency in the last election.

The winner of that election from the other major party, Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales, from the beginning of his term in 2006, began with a vaguely left platform and has steadily moved in that direction since. This has produced a major policy break with Honduras’ past and introduced more tension into its relations with the U.S. than perhaps in history. Zelaya has steadily lead the country towards closer relations with Venezuela and its anti-American leader Hugo Chavez (who, upon meeting Pres. Barack Obama for the first time, helpfully gave him a copy of his latest book haranguing America and reiterated its criticisms of America vocally; Obama offered no resistance or rebuttal) and become more critical of the U.S.

But this is not what started the controversy. Zelaya, barred from running for reelection, wanted to introduce a referendum to amend the constitution do allow him to do so and run for that reelection later this year. The constitution does not permit the president to call referenda on his own but Zelaya got Chavez to ship him the infrastructure and ordered the military (as is its job during elections) to distribute the ballots. The military resisted, Zelaya fired its leaders, and the country’s Supreme Court ruled he had acted illegally. Not to be thwarted, Zelaya had his own supporters violently secured and began to distribute ballots. This sparked large protests across the country. The country’s attorney general ruled that the actions were illegal, and the Court authorized the military to seize Zelaya to prevent further lawbreaking. He was sent into exile while the country’s legislature followed its constitution in the process to remove him and pick his temporary successor.

Despite this, along with many other states including ones that recently historically have been at odds with the U.S. including Cuba and Venezuela, on Obama’s order the U.S. not only has condemned the removal of Zelaya, but also Obama absurdly has denied the action was “legal” and termed it a “coup.” This language was stronger than that he employed when commenting on substantial evidence of fraud that appeared in recent Iranian presidential elections.

However, Obama has not committed to support Zelaya’s return to office as the only solution to end the crisis and here, on behalf of Hondurans in Louisiana who overwhelmingly back the new government, the likes of Sens. David Vitter and Mary Landrieu and Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao need to lobby the White House for it to respect Honduras’ constitutional processes and to resist the temptation to meddle in its internal affairs because it may prefer the politics of the ousted president. Cao, himself a victim of a country that retreated from the rule of law, especially could be valuable in his advice and support to help another state hold onto it.

While established, democracy in Honduras retains some fragility. The U.S. has supported it when it faced much bigger threats, such as in the mid-1980s in democracy’s nascent period when communist backed forces of Nicaragua, Cuba, and the Soviet Union tried to provoke revolution in it. It is incomprehensible why the U.S. today so far seems unwilling to assist Honduras when facing this smaller threat. If the executive branch of the U.S. seems bound to pursue its current unwise policy, it is up to the members of its legislative branch to point this out, strongly in private and respectfully in public, who are most closely connected to the issue – the federal elected officials representing the New Orleans area.

Weak arguments against new laws confirm their wisdom

When somebody gets what he wants in substance and then still expresses unhappiness in the outcome, it’s worth wondering whether that was the issue at all or if instead the real source of the conflict was more personal in nature, even as such inept criticism confirms the wisdom of the very thing being argued against.

The recently completed session of the Louisiana Legislature featured some far-reaching changes in state policy concerning openness of records in the governor’s office. One new measure requires appointees who give a thousand or more bucks in campaign contributions to the elected official who appointed them to report this. Another by all accounts increases overall the amount of information that legally will be made public by the governor’s office.

Yet somehow these changes have made a presumed advocate of more transparency in government, Baton Rouge Advocate Executive Editor Carl Redman, most unhappy. Redman fulminates that the new requirements for appointee reporting will be “burdensome” on “ordinary people” and the new records laws delay release of information he believes was previously available on budgetary matters that he thinks will be mooted because “special interests” still will be able to get information on the budget through informal means, He also chafes at the continuing restriction concerning the “deliberative process,” meaning that decisions made by the governor using input from his advisers during policy-making may be kept confidential. Let’s analyze the validity of these complaints.

Redman preferred an alternative to the contribution law, one that made the appointer go back, comb through campaign finance records, match amounts to (perhaps thousands of) appointees, and then file a report every time (maybe every day) such an appointee met the criterion. This of course will take potentially hundreds of man-hours with all of the cross-referencing and appointees involved – Gov. Bobby Jindal, for example, has had well over 10,000 people donate to him since he began his quest for this term in office – and bigger government and taxpayer resources to go along with it. By contrast, as noted previously, upon wondering whether an appointee gave in a sufficiently large amount to his appointer, any citizen under the new law can go online to the Louisiana Ethics Administration Program website, after a couple of clicks type in the appointee’s name, and get the result quickly at no extra cost to the taxpayer because it will be the civic and legal duty of the appointee to include this information on his standard disclosure form.

It would seem then that Redman has different definitions than in the dictionary for “burdensome” and “ordinary people” if he believes his preferred method, which increases the size of government and use of taxpayers’ money, burdens the citizen more than the actual law requires. His lexicon also appears to diverge from the public’s at the mention of “special interests” as well. Regarding the transparency laws, he argues that “really influential lobbyists and special interests are well-connected and will get information through back channels,” but fails to inform one of these is the media themselves. To strengthen their arguments, those privy to information they think helps their causes always will seek media outlets to be complicit in its dissemination, in order to gather public support. So Redman suddenly believes the media will stop doing a job they presumably already do for no real reason? If he argues information will get out, he cannot argue that, if it is relevant to public policy debate, that it will not become public if the media does their job.

While the transparency law, as previously noted, could have been improved at the margins, it is instructive to know that the standards used in drafting the new law are used commonly by other states and widely accepted. A good example, and perhaps one that injured Redman’s pride, is the “deliberative process” standard. Initially, Redman testified in front of a legislative committee against the bill, identifying himself as representing the Louisiana Press Association’s views on the matter, among other things on this very matter. As a result of that and other testimony, the “deliberative process” portion of the bill was altered in consultations with its critics, which gained the acceptance of the LPA for the entire matter. Stubbornly, Redman continued his opposition in the next round of committee testimony, sticking to support of an unworkable alternative, even as Louisiana’s newspapers (tepidly) favored the bill, so he now identified his opposition as his only.

The larger idea of “executive privilege” as it is known in the context of the presidency, has a well-established place both institutional and juridical at the federal level. Many others besides the LPA see this new standard defined in Louisiana law as striking a reasonable balance between the public’s right to now and improving the quality of executive decision-making through the ability to receive candid advice unbiased by its potential to become public. Redman may not, but his argument is not shared by those representing his profession and a great many policy-makers and legal scholars, if not the public as a whole.

Given the inherent implausibility of his assertions, one wonders whether Redman is truly that unaware of them, or if the issue to him isn’t so much openness as it is who is on what side of the issue. One wonders whether such a column would have been written if the governor did not have “Jindal” as a last name, or labeled himself as “Republican.” Regardless, the weak criticism offered by Redman confirms the wisdom of the new laws.

Tale of two senators encourages, amuses NW LA

Many families have a couple of archetypes among their members. One is the wise elder who exhibits good sense in almost all matters to whom others listen and employ or disregard his advice at their own risk. Another is the eccentric, prone to doing or blurting out whatever fool thing comes into his head which sometimes actually makes sense but more often are products of convoluted thinking, paranoia, or just general battiness. Northwest Louisiana’s political family is no exception to this general rule, and these two fellows who have the proud honor of serving Bossier Parish showed us their stuff during the 2009 regular session.

State Sen. Buddy Shaw proved to be the Senate’s only member willing to speak on the floor not once, but twice against bills (one intentional, one voluntarily hijacked) that would reimpose recently lowered taxes that would affect roughly 40 percent of Louisiana taxpaying households. While the thundering sound of other senators breaking their arms patting themselves on the back asserting they were making such a tough decision swept through the chamber, Republican Shaw (whose sentiments appeared to represent only a handful of others, none from this area) reminded them exactly of what they were doing: baiting and switching the people, giving hypocrisy a fresh name.

Much in lower profile than last session when he led the charge to cut tax rates for many taxpayers, while Shaw isn’t always right – his extensive public education background stunts his abilities to understand the vast benefits of school vouchers, for example – he always deserves listening to if not following his advice. And it’s good to know at least somebody in the Senate didn’t let the wimps, several of whom were elected in 2007 singing a very different tune about taxes and integrity, off the hook on this issue.

One of which is northwest Louisiana’s dotty Republican-in-name-only state Sen. Robert Adley (who actually authored the original tax cut and said, after Shaw’s remarks, that he must be one of the “hypocrites.”) If one can stand to listen long enough to his ramblings, in among the wackiness some gems may be found on occasion – if one doesn’t get driven crazy from the hyperbole, contradictions, and sheer illogic of what for him often passes as a train of thought.

For example, in 2006 when some legislators were arguing in favor of changes to the election code that would greatly lower the bar on the integrity of elections to allow hurricane-displaced individuals to vote, Adley was an effective spokesman on the floor showing how such changes did not “disenfranchise” voters.

But three years later, Adley brought this session a bill that would have reverted back federal elections in the state from the closed to blanket primary system. His reason? Because they registrants who do not choose a party label “lose” the “right to vote” in party primaries. Hearing this screed made one want to tap on his head, ask if anybody was home, and tell him nobody was losing any voting rights – if you made a declaration at registration as a party member you could participate in its nominating process, otherwise you could not; it was your choice. And if not, you still could exercise the franchise during the general election. (To make matters more interesting, during this testimony Adley told a story both humorous and horrific about voting irregularities in which his wife had been an unwilling participant.)

He also brought a bill concerning reporting requirements of the governor’s office which had little traction with an alternative now almost law. In its committee presentation, he drew out a conspiracy theory about how the alternative really was a ploy to induce greater secrecy, and openly wondered (as he would on the floor) whether the “Dark Ages” weren’t returning on this issue. Obviously, few other legislators reviewing the merits of the alternative seemed to agree. (Meanwhile, with very little publicity, Adley outside the Senate continues to enjoy a no-bid contract with Louisiana local governments for gas management, entities whose governance and finances he affects through decisions he makes as a senator. It’s a perfectly legal arrangement, but nevertheless makes for interesting occasions when he expounds on issues such as transparency and ethics.)

Adley ventured further towards the twilight zone when he opined on the Senate floor that the Governor’s Office put a pox on the Legislature hearing his bills, as part of a complaint of his there appeared to be too much political comment coming from the Division of Administration’s website (which apparently also is legal). In reality, it probably is more the quality of them that leads them to dead ends than anything else.

Antics such as these have gotten at least one Republican active in local politics already exploring a run against him in 2013. It would be easy to do a better job than the relic of a bygone era that is Adley, but difficult in the process to be more entertaining.