2005 MULLET COMMENTARY ARCHIVES - June Thursday, Jun 30 2005
LA could learn from Ireland (Posted 06/30/05)
According a column in the New York Times, since the 1960s Ireland has gone from the “sick man of Europe” to the “richest country in the European Union after Luxembourg.” Since 1990 the work force has doubled, yet they have NO UNEMPLOYMENT.
For hundreds of years Ireland was best known for it’s “out-migration” of its college graduates.
“We went on a borrowing, spending and taxing spree, and that nearly drove us under,” said Deputy Prime Minister Mary Harney. “It was because we nearly went under that we got the courage to change.” Sound familiar?
How they turned things around could be a lesson to LA.
Ireland’s advice is very simple: Make high school and college education free; make your corporate taxes low, simple and transparent; actively seek out global companies; open your economy to competition; speak English; keep your fiscal house in order; and build a consensus around the whole package with labor and management - then hang in there, because there will be bumps in the road - and you, too, can become one of the richest countries in Europe.
There’s nothing in the formula that LA cannot accomplish. All we lack is the political will to just: GIT ER DONE!
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
Veto of HB 36 requested (Posted 06/29/05)
LA Constitution Article III, Section 13 reads:
No local or special law shall be enacted unless notice of the intent to introduce a bill to enact such a law has been published on two separate days, without cost to the state, in the official journal of the locality where the matter to be affected is situated. The last day of publication shall be at least thirty days prior to introduction of the bill. The notice shall state the substance of the contemplated law, and every such bill shall recite that notice has been given. (emphasis mine)
The issue
Here is an excerpt from the Times Picayune:
Insurance companies will have to cover the costs of colorectal cancer screenings starting Jan. 1 if Gov. Kathleen Blanco signs a bill passed in the session that ended last week. But before the measure got final approval, it picked up an amendment to let any official holding an appointed position with the West Jefferson Levee District for more than eight years to get state health insurance coverage from the Office of Group Benefits. The measure passed unanimously in the Senate and 92-2 in the House. Blanco can sign it, veto it or let it become law without her signature. It’s not clear how the levee district addition will affect her decision. (emphasis mine)
The bill referred to is HB 36. Clearly the “hitch-hiker” amendment is either a “local or special” bill that must be duly advertised before introduction as it only affects a limited number of persons and only in one Levee District. I find no notice that it was advertised in the bill nor am I able to find another bill dealing with the subject matter that was so advertised.
In some of these end-runs on our constitution, as was done by Senator Robert Adley, D-Benton, (to give the Orleans Levee Board president a $48,000 pay raise) they insert “general language” such as “any levee board in a parish of over 400,000 population based on the 2000 Census.”
Veto requested
If the provision dealing with the West Jefferson Levee District was not duly advertised, regardless of the merits of the original legislation, I call on Governor Blanco to veto the bill as it violates our constitution. Even if it was advertised, it was not so mentioned in the bill which also violates the constitution. Finally, I question whether the amendment is germane to the subject matter of the bill and whether the bill as it now stands contains dual objects (also prohibited by the LA Constitution.) The two matters are not even in the same Title of the Revised Statutes.
Watchdog needed
Of course, this is merely an academic discussion until LA has a public interest litigation group that is willing to challenge such matters in court. Otherwise, everything passed the lege is presumed to be done so in compliance with our constitution.
WHERE ARE THE CURRENT “WATCHDOGS” to which the media daily refers?
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
Leges even lie to each other!!! (Posted 06/28/05)
Saturday’s editorial in the Baton Rouge paper highlights a dangerous trend in the LA Lege. See editorial here.
There used to be a lot of “winking and nodding” going on during the lege process, but these latest shenanigans of out-right lies strike at the very heart of representative democracy.
Governor Blanco should have her legal staff go over every bill that comes to her desk that was the result of a Conference Committee Report in the last three days of the session.
Regardless of the relative merit of any portion of the legislation, if it was not fully-explained to the respective bodies of the lege, she should veto it and explain in her veto message exactly why she vetoed it.
At the last minute of the last hour of the 2005 Regular Session, the state senate passed a resolution (here) asking the governor to veto a bill that they had just passed overwhelmingly because the senators were unaware of that on which they had just voted. Another resolution was proposed, but apparently was withdrawn after the House killed another such bill.
In most cases, the lies are by omission, by failures to fully disclose the contents. However, this instance by Representative Jack Smith, D-Stephensville, is nothing, but blatant lying. Unfortunately, the state constitution protects the leges from lawsuits for what they say during the sessions. It needs to be amended to excluded outright lies.
This stuff is exactly why, LA has and justly deserves the reputation of being a corrupt state.
I call on Rep. Jack Smith to apologize to the people of LA and I call on all the members of the legislature to denounce him for lying to them and the thus the people of LA.
Finally, I ask the public how long are we going to suffer these indignations by our elected representatives in silence? It will continue until we speak out.
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
Lege shenanigans at its worst! (Posted 06/27/05)
Sen. Robert Adley, D-Benton tried to pull as fast one on the taxpayers of New Orleans. In a House/Senate Conference Committee, at the last minute, Adley tacked on an amendment to give a pay raise from $12,000 per year to $60,000 to the president of the Orleans Levee Board. A FOUR HUNDRED PERCENT (400%) INCREASE!!!
Seems that Sen. Adley forgot to tell his colleagues about the raise hidden in the bill that on the surface only dealt with the Bossier Levee District.
See story here.
Kudos to Rep. Warren Triche, D-Thibodaux for exposing this sneak attack on the taxpayers of New Orleans. Unfortunately, of those who are supposed to represent New Orleans many voted to go along with this taxpayer rip-off.
It’s disgusting, but typical of what goes on at the last minute by those who are supposed to represent us.
More shenanigans tomorrow.
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
LA close to manufacturing plant (Posted 06/24/05)
During the 8 years of the “Black Mold Administration” (1996-2004), in most cases when a new manufacturing plant was being located in the South, our economic development officials didn’t even know about the plant.
Progress!
We are finally making progress. Earlier this week, it was announced that Alabama was selected for the $600 Million Airbus plant and its hundreds of jobs.
According to the story LA was considered, but we didn’t make the final four sites, one each in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina. The news is even better, according to the report, the potential site in Mississippi was “located near the Louisiana border.”
Perhaps if LA’s economic development guru, Mike Olivier, would stop suggesting that businesses coming to LA need to pay more taxes, perhaps LA might actually make the cut next time and not have to rely on plants “near the Louisiana border” so perhaps our citizens can actually live AND work in LA.
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
Tax businesses more! (Posted 06/23/05)
In what is likely to stand economic development theory on its head, LA’s chief economic developer wants businesses in LA to pay more taxes. See story here.
Here is the message that LA is sending out to businesses in the state and those who might consider coming here:
“I just think it’s wrong to exempt business from school property taxes,” state Department of Economic Development Secretary Michael Olivier said.
“I would prefer not having school property taxes exempted … so school districts continue to get a revenue stream and not have to wait 10 years for the revenue stream to come in,” Olivier said.
Regardless of whether he is pandering to hang onto his job, his counterparts in the rest of the U.S. must be sending thank you notes to Olivier for his help in their efforts to bring businesses to their states.
Only in LA!!!
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
Kudos to Governor Blanco (Posted 06/20/05)
It shouldn’t be that way, but in LA it is so rare when a politician does what they promised to do, it deserves to be noted.
Buddy Roemer claimed to be “anti-gambling.” However, he ushered in, via the lottery, riverboat casinos and video poker, big-time legalized gambling unlike any ever seen in this state or in any other state other than Nevada.
Our next “anti-gambling” governor was Big Daddy. We should have been suspicious because Big Daddy voted for Roemer’s gambling bills when he was a mere state senator. However, he claimed to have “reformed” and had a different constituency.
Big Daddy was no more changed that a leopard can change his spots. He saved the land-based casino in New Orleans from bankruptcy via a massive tax break and other concessions. Big Daddy allowed all 15 riverboat casinos to become land-based casinos. He then ushered in “racinos” (slot machine casinos at the horse racing tracks). Big Daddy even secretly tried to bring an Indian casino to the Lake Charles area.
Governor Blanco, when she was running for office, avoided the worn-out cliche’ of saying that she was “anti-gambling.” Candidate Blanco said that she was opposed to the “expansion of gambling” in LA.
To-date, Blanco has been true to her word. Blanco has refused to allow another Indian casino in LA. She is even being sued because of her effort to keep her campaign promise. This past week, the administration testified against two more attempts to expand gambling: paddle wheel casinos and four casinos at the New Orleans airport.
When the Senate committee passed the bills out over her objections, Blanco put her efforts into killing the paddle wheel casinos on the Senate floor. That defeat lead the proponents of the airport casinos to defer action on the bill.
Thank you, Governor. It is a most refreshing change in LA.
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
Money, money everywhere, but…. (Posted 06/10/05)
The New Orleans hotel/motel tax revenues are up “a whopping 17 percent over the same month a year earlier and higher than any month in the past five years,” but still there’s not enough to pay the state’s obligation to the Saints. See story here.
Money, money everywhere, but not the money to pay the Saints. Nope, we gotta have the money from those 4 casinos at the airport for that purpose.
It’s enough to make one wonder whether we have a revenue problem in LA or a spending priority problem.
I’ll have to climb into the Think Tank and cogitate on the matter.
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
Buying and selling tax votes (Posted 06/09/05)
There was an article in Times Picayune where a lege explains how he has sold his vote for $3.6 Million. This is not unusual in the LAlege. What is unusual is the candor with which then-Rep. Derrick Shepherd and now Sen. Shepherd admitted to selling his vote to support a cigarette tax increase. See story here under “Doubling Down.
Theoretically, a lege is elected to vote on behalf of their constituents. Unfortunately, that is only theoretical.
You can’t make this stuff up. Only in LA!
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
Leges giving pigs bad name (Posted 06/08/05)
There was an editorial in the Baton Rouge paper complaining about the uncontrolled growth of state spending, especially on unnecessary items. See editorial here.
First, I would call upon the Advocate to look at its own support for higher taxes on items such as cigarettes. These tax increases are precisely the cause of the outrageous spending.
Second, the editorial writer singles out the noble pig to denigrate by comparing it to a LA lege. It is wrong to compare out-of-control spending of this magnitude to a pig. If anyone knows about pigs, even pigs occasionally stop eating to sleep, breed and even play in their mud wallows.
This Think Tank calls upon the media, in general, to stop blaspheming the pig. If you must compare the actions of a mammal to LA politicians, please refer to the whale and its blubber. At least we don’t raise whales in LA.
Thoughtfully yours,
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
Think Tank Opinion issued on state employees lobbying (Posted 06/07/05)
The Think Tank has been contacted by several individuals asking if it is legal for state employees to lobby the leges. The short answer is NO.
Particular reference has been made to story appearing in the Monroe paper on Saturday, wherein it was reported:
University of Louisiana at Monroe President James Cofer and Louisiana Tech University President Dan Reneau took different approaches Wednesday in urging faculty to contact their legislators to promote the tax increase.
See full story here.
In Think Tank’s opinion, per LA R.S. 43:31(D)(below) it depends whether the lobbying takes place while the state employees are on leave or “on the clock” and what they are telling they leges. Asking leges to vote for or against a particular piece of legislation is in violation if the employee makes the contact while on the state time or using state equipment such as email, telephone, typewriters, etc.
LA R.S. 43:31(D):
No branch, department, agency, official, employee, or other entity of state government shall expend funds of, administered by, or under the control of any branch, department, agency, employee, official, or other entity of state government to print material or otherwise to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition on an election ballot nor shall such funds be used to lobby for or against any proposition or matter having the effect of law being considered by the legislature or any local governing authority. This provision shall not prevent the normal dissemination of factual information relative to a proposition on any election ballot or a proposition or matter having the effect of law being considered by the legislature or any local governing authority.
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
Leges Asleep at the Wheel (Posted 06/06/05)
The State Senate voted to ask Congress to get rid of the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote for President. SCR 25 takes a shot at President Bush for to the Presidential Election of 2000 where President Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore, but won the Electoral vote.
Regardless of one’s party affiliation, due the our relative small population, abolishing the Electoral College would make LA irrelevant in the election of future Presidents.
Republicans State Senators voting in favor of the resolution were: Senators Walter Boasso, James David Cain, Sherri Cheek, Jay Dardenne, Clo Fontenot, Art Lentini, Max Malone, Craig Romero, Tom Schedler (Co-chairman of the Repub Lege Delegation) and Jerry Theunissen.
See full vote here. An absent vote is the same as a Nay vote.
Some of the senators are alleging that they have changed their votes since they awakened. The Senate Rules do not allow a vote to be changed after it has been announced by the President of the Senate. They can submit an explanation for their vote. Can’t you just see the explanations: “I was asleep.” “I didn’t read the resolution.” “Nobody told me what was in the resolution.”
You can’t make this stuff up. Only in LA!
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
To say the very least… (Posted 06/03/05)
Regarding the contract that former F Troop Commandant, Steve Perry negotiated between the state and the Tournament Players Club golf course which guaranteed payment for rounds of golf not played, Senator Art Lentini, R-Kenner said:
“Well, that was a horrible contract, to say the least,”…. Associated Press, May 29, 2005.
The provisions of the Black Mold Administration’s contracts coming back to haunt the taxpayers begs a question of veteran leges like Lentini: What were they doing while the Big Daddy or the auto-pen was signing them?
Just like the special filters on the air-conditioning vents at the Governor’s Mansion covering up the Black Mold problem, there must have been something covering up the system of “checks and balances.”
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
He’s not right this time…. (Posted 06/02/05)
In his column in the Times Picayune, James Gill explores the legal question of reducing lege terms of office. (Gill did not write the headline so please disregard its misleading statement.) See column here.
After reading Rep. Peppi Bruneau’s legal basis for his contention that terms of incumbent leges could not be shortened, the Think Tank’s legal team was consulted. None could find any basis for his argument.
Jurisprudence
Here is the result of a quick research by Paul Hurd, Attorney at Law (Who has won numerous cases overturning enactments by the LA Legislature.) into the jurisprudence on the 14th Amendment on which Rep. Bruneau relies:
There is no U.S. Constitutional violation by shortening the term to one year for one term, and then returning to a four year term, that corresponds with the federal elections. The Supreme Court declared explicitly in 1972 that “property interests . . . are not created by the [U.S.] Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law . . . .”
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 131 (U.S., June 29, 1972, Decided).
The Eighth Circuit has decided a case almost directly on point. In Arkansas, Majors in the Sheriff Departments in Arkansas had civil service employment protections. In 1985, the legislature, amended the civil service law, so that Majors were no longer protected, and served at the pleasure of the sheriff. Two previously employed Majors were terminated without cause. They asserted Rep. Bruneau’s theory of entitlement, of “once you have me, you can’t get rid of me.” The Eighth Circuit Court of appeals properly recognized the legislature’s authority to modify these employment protections, and that the new employment terms applied. See, Gattis v. Gravett, 806 F.2d 778 (8th Cir., 1986).
For more recent jurisprudence, see McMurtray v. Hooaday, 11 F.3d 499 (5th Cir., 1993), where the Fifth Circuit obviously, and properly, recognized that Rep. Bruneau’s theory of electoral entitlement was constitutional poppycock:
“But the legislature, which creates the property interest in the first place, may also take it away: “The procedural component of the Due Process Clause does not ‘impose a constitutional limitation on the power of Congress to make substantive changes in the law of entitlement to public benefits.’” Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115, 129, 105 S. Ct. 2520, 2529, 86 L. Ed. 2d 81 (1985) (quoting Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U.S. 78, 81, 92 S. Ct. 254, 257, 30 L. Ed. 2d 231 (1971))”
Conclusion
Thus one might reasonably conclude that to address “synchronizing” elections this year, in addition to saving a few dollars, is merely to give all term-limited incumbents an extra year in office.
The voters will have the final say should HB 80 reach the people for a vote on November 7, 2006. At a minimum, the voters will have the benefit of the initial House vote when determining who shall be their elected representative during the next lege elections, whenever they may be.
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
Non-creative, lame, excuse unacceptable (Posted 06/01/05)
LA has some of the highest insurance rates in the nation. For the most part, rates are set by the LA Insurance Rating Commission based on experience solely within the state of LA.
Included in the rate-making process are the insurance companies’ costs of doing business. One of the costs of doing business are fees and taxes imposed by the state of LA to operate the LA Department of Insurance. The more the department spends, the higher the fees/taxes and thus the higher the rates.
Here is the excuse offered by the department for spending $300,000 to send staff on junkets:
Deputy Commissioner Chad Brown said the travel is necessary for the department to repair its reputation in the eyes of insurance companies, because the last three commissioners have gone to jail. “We have an image problem in the Department of Insurance,” Brown said. Times Picayune, May 31, 2005.
Here’s questions that should have been asked:
In exactly what part in the rate-making process is the “image problem” figured? How does it enhance the image of the department to send 30 staffers to San Francisco?
The only thing lamer than the excuse will be if the leges accept it.
C.B.
A Non-profit Non-Partisan Think Tank
Copyright Policy
While I would like to have my efforts attributed to me; if you want to take them as your own, feel free. The purpose of this website is strictly to provide information.
Uncategorized 3:24 pm
