Brigadoon Politics

Why Barack Obama struggles to mobilise the majority that won him the White House
Lexington column @ the Economist

IN THE 1947 Broadway hit “Brigadoon”, an American traveller is haunted by a brief encounter with a Scottish village that comes to life for a day every 100 years, before vanishing once more into the mists. It is a hokey Highlands tale, crammed with dodgy kilts and still dodgier lyrics—“Don’t ye ken, There’s a fair, Down on MacConnachy Square?”—but the premise is oddly moving. Back in his bar-hopping Manhattan life, the hero cannot shake off memories of the magical village and the girl he loved there.

Barack Obama shows signs of being similarly haunted. The president’s yearning centres on the more than 65m Americans who elected him in 2008 and again in 2012, rallied by his life story and flair for campaigning, then brought to the polls by a get-out-the-vote operation of nearly magical brilliance.

Tantalising glimpses of that America keep appearing. It must be maddening for Mr Obama. Shades of his winning coalition—which includes young voters, black voters, suburban women, unmarried women and Hispanics—can be sensed whenever majorities of Americans tell pollsters that they support such second-term priorities as increased background checks for gun-buyers or bold immigration reforms. Even on the most wonkish questions, such as the proper balance between spending cuts and tax increases for the rich, Mr Obama can point to polls and argue that he has a nationwide majority of voters on his side, including Americans of both parties. And then, time and again, the political mists swirl and his majority somehow vanishes. Since his re-election Mr Obama has been thwarted, defiantly, by Republicans who, in effect, kept a lock on Congress in 2012. He has endured a quieter, more scurrying sort of abandonment by congressional Democrats anxious about getting re-elected in Obama-sceptical bits of the country.

For the rest of the essay, click here.

  • Share/Bookmark

Maginnis: Newspaper Rivalry Good for Readers

By Louisiana-based political columnist John Maginnis

When I was growing up in Baton Rouge , after my family moved there from New Orleans just before I was born, the Times-Picayune was thrown in our yard each morning. After school, I would get on my bike to deliver the State-Times, the afternoon counterpart of the then-called Morning Advocate.

Besides the paper route, I’ve never worked for either paper (this is a syndicated column), but like most of their dual readers, their newly engaged business rivalry holds my attention as much as any stories they publish these days.

On May 1, both papers ran front-page banner headlines announcing their big changes: GEORGES BUYS ADVOCATE and T-P ADDING NEWSSTAND TAB 3 DAYS A WEEK.

The great south Louisiana newspaper war is on. This one is unlike those from the early 20th century in big cities, when the struggle was between two established papers rooted in the same market. New publisher John Georges plans to expand on the Baton Rouge Advocate’s recent incursion into New Orleans , while the Picayune prepares to defend its turf with its new tabloid, TP Street , to be published on three of the four days of the week on which it has stopped printing. The Picayune also is making a foray into the capital with its new tabloid BR, while both companies will compete digitally through their websites.

It is an audacious move by Georges to buy a newspaper that one member of the owning Manship family said was not worth what he was offering to pay. Such an assessment by a seller would give the ordinary buyer pause. But Georges is nothing if not confident, optimistic and driven.

He built a family fortune into a much bigger one that supplies grocery and convenience stores and services cigarette and video poker machines. He will say that gambling makes up only a small part of his holdings, but Georges Enterprises, which he founded, is a major player in the state’s video gaming industry.

With those businesses producing enormous cash flow, Georges has estimated his net worth at about $100 million. But men richer than he have lost more than that by trying their hands at newspaper publishing. (Ask Chicago real estate tycoon Sam Zell what owning the Tribune did to his bottom line.)

Georges becomes a publisher after running unsuccessfully for governor in 2007 and for mayor of New Orleans in 2010, making him a Louisiana-style William Randolph Hearst in reverse.

In his brief career as a politician (who’s to say it’s over?), he distinguished himself as one of the more colorful characters of the post-Edwards era. The man would say anything, and on the record. My favorite quip of his came after Bobby Jindal, then running for governor in 2007 as was Georges, delivered his wife’s baby in their Kenner bedroom when there was no time to get her to Woman’s Hospital in Baton Rouge . While others heralded Jindal’s heroics, Georges faulted him for “poor planning.”

In those days, Georges loved talking to political reporters, helpfully telling them how they should write their leads. To succeed as publisher he will need to resist that temptation, mighty as it is.

The daunting challenge facing him is to publish separate editions for two vastly different communities. The two cities have grown somewhat closer since Hurricane Katrina, but the remaining gap can still be as wide and impenetrable as the great swamp that lies between them.

To increase its New Orleans circulation to the point where it can compete for advertising, the new Advocate needs to offer a product that is embraced and not just accepted, while not losing the connection to its hometown readers.

TP Street needs to be more than a day filler if the Picayune is to woo back former subscribers who feel jilted by not having their daily paper on their front steps every morning.

The solution for both, of course, is to beat each other to the best stories and to better capture the cultural vitality of both cities. Doing so will require big long-term investments for both companies, with the dividends to be reaped by better informed and entertained readers. How this all plays out could foreshadow the future of daily journalism across the land. The whole newspaper world is watching. Gentleman, start your presses.

  • Share/Bookmark

The Mayor of New Orleans Has the Wind at His Back

Mitch Landrieu is presiding over a major economic turnaround.
by Adam Kuschner for National Journal

NEW ORLEANS—Among the many other changes unfurling in this town, its chief executive is another kind of break from the past. Mitch Landrieu is the first white mayor since his father left that office in 1978; to get the job, which he began in 2009, he had to assemble a broad-based, multiracial political coalition. The Landrieus may be a political dynasty in Louisiana (the mayor’s sister, Mary, is a three-term U.S. senator), but these are tough times for political machines in New Orleans, and Mitch has been able to slough off patronage awardees from city posts and contracts, inching closer to a meritocratic administration. He talked with National Journal’s Adam B. Kushner, a New Orleans native, about how the city’s economy is transforming, and how to make it last. Edited excerpts follow.

NJ There’s a sense of optimism I’ve felt in my reporting that I don’t remember from growing up here.

LANDRIEU Anybody who comes to New Orleans right now feels a palpable spirit of energy and hopefulness. They see physical manifestations of that transformation taking place in front of their eyes. You can see the medical complex going up, designed not just to take care of people’s health care needs or train doctors or do research, but also as a fairly aggressive step toward information and economic development. You take the smart thing coming out of the research and turn it into a product; we’re going to take the technology and transform it into a industry sector. The second thing is that we now have a working system of schools. We’ve redesigned the governing mechanism, and consequently you’ve seen the scores—which are what counts—begin to grow exponentially from the inner city. The achievement gap between kids here and in the [rest of the] state is closing rapidly. Graduation rates are now better than the national average, and that’s a structural change.

The people in New Orleans are not just deciding to build the city back the way it was. They’re accepting responsibility to build it the way they always wanted it to be. It’s amazing how many young people we have from around the country who are starting to create stuff.

NJ How do you build a knowledge economy? And how does it serve upwardly mobile New Orleanians who don’t have elite educations?

LANDRIEU Generally, we’ve been a place with a lot of raw material and talent and intellectual capital, and we’ve extracted it and exported it. Think of Wynton Marsalis at Lincoln Center. So if you want to have a knowledge-based economy, you’ve got to create the kind of jobs. GE Capital basically said, “I like what you’re doing down there.” They put 300 jobs downtown. Gameloft [which develops smartphone games] did the same. Pre- and postproduction film work is happening here now. All of a sudden, you’re attracting these industries, and then you’ve got to supply them with workers. Kids are coming to New Orleans and don’t want to live in the suburbs; they want to live downtown, so we have a construction boom, restaurants opening up.

NJ Are the young people who move here staying?

LANDRIEU Yes, they’re becoming citizens and leaders of New Orleans. I have a bunch working in my office right now. They’re moving into government, running for office, starting businesses. And because those jobs are here now, there’s a pathway to prosperity, a pipeline to success, through primary and secondary education, from college and tech schools to [knowledge-economy] jobs. You want to train people so that an older, African-American woman living in [a new, mixed-income development downtown] can walk down the street and have the job as phlebotomist at the new health center. You’ve got to train workers on the low scale, the medium scale, and the high scale. The same thing can be true about high schools and colleges.

NJ Violent crime here is 80 percent worse than the national average. Does that put a ceiling on economic growth?

LANDRIEU You have to know the difference between the crime rate and the murder rate. For the crime rate, we’re number 73 in the nation, meaning that major American cities are much less safe than New Orleans is. But the murder rate is 10 times the national average. Both those things are depressors, which is why we’re spending so much time working on that. Who’s killing, who’s being killed, where they are, and how to change that—it’s a complicated problem that has provided no easy answers for a long time. We hope, as the police department and the school system get better, and culturally we identify where the problems are, we can change it. But there’s no question that it has a negative impact. It should not be a ceiling. It is absolutely possible to change that trajectory. New York City did it; Chicago did it to a certain extent, though they’re having trouble now.

NJ How can you tell whether the gains in the tech and entrepreneur sector are lasting and will take deep root? These haven’t really begun to represent a major share of growth yet.

LANDRIEU When Forbes says we’re the most improved and best for jobs, when The Wall Street Journal says we’re best for business, something’s happening. [New Orleans was the most improved metro on The Journal’s “Best for Business” list last year, up 44 places from 2010. Forbes ranked Louisiana most improved on its “Best States for Business” and gave New Orleans the top spot for “America’s Brain Magnets,” attracting college graduates under 25.] They’re looking at objective data on a sea change of how a place operates. U.S. News & World Report says Tulane is the most popular school. All this stuff has nothing to do with culture and tourism and food. Now, seven years on, they’re beginning to see how change works.

NJ How can the improvements outlast your tenure?

LANDRIEU There’s probably no more important structural change for the future of the city than how the schools work. At some point, the governance of the school system has got to come back to local control [it is now administered by the state]—but not until we have absolute stability. We don’t have that back yet. When it comes back, the new school board must be designed as an oversight board of schools that are run at the site, where the principal has autonomy, where he can fire and hire based on merit, students are accountable, and parents have choices. Those are the kinds of inputs that will close the achievement gap.

This article appeared in the May 4, 2013, edition of National Journal.

  • Share/Bookmark

Dreher: The case for coming home (to Louisiana)

by Rod Dreher for the Baton Rouge Business Report

In the autumn of 1987, I sat at my computer terminal in The Daily Reveille office in the basement of Hodges Hall on the LSU campus and punched out a bitter op-ed commentary about Louisiana state politics. I can’t be sure, but I think it had to do with then-Gov. Edwin Edwards’ campaign statement that if Louisiana’s best and brightest wanted to leave the state, well, good riddance.

That might be what set the hotheaded undergraduate editorialist I was on fire. But truth to tell, as folks who lived through that dismal era of Louisiana politics can attest, it could have been any number of things. Whatever the catalyst, the point of the incendiary piece was to say goodbye to all that. The cynicism of our politics, the populist scorn for excellence, the economic storm and stress that Louisiana institutions seemed incapable of dealing with, and so on—all these things signaled to my generation of college students that we didn’t have much of a future here at home.

Five years later, after the failed Roemer Revolution, and having had to vote for the Lizard to keep the Wizard from becoming governor, I fulfilled my own Daily Reveille prophecy. I quit my job at The Advocate, loaded up a U-Haul Gentle-Ride van, and lit out for the East Coast, never to return.

Or so I thought. A year and a half ago, I moved with my wife and children from Philadelphia back to St. Francisville, where I was born and raised. Today I don’t have much more faith in Louisiana’s functionality, political or otherwise, than I had nearly 30 years ago. But I have a lot more faith in Louisiana—so much so that I came back home to raise our own children. I did this with open eyes and a changed heart.

Here’s what I see now that I didn’t see back then.

HARD TRUTHS

I left Baton Rouge for a journalism job in Washington, D.C. My roommates were friends from LSU, and my social circle included a number of Southerners. Whenever we would get together at bars or parties, we would usually end up telling stories about back home. As much as we missed the Bayou State, returning home was out of the question. We all had good jobs and good lives in Washington. Besides, Louisiana was a mess, and always would be. “It’s a great place to be from,” I used to say then, “but it’s not such a great place to be.”

As the years went on, I moved up and down the Eastern seaboard, onward and upward with my career. All the while I was corresponding frequently with an email circle of friends. One, a Californian, once said to me, “Did you ever notice that your best writing is about Louisiana? That’s when you really write with flair and passion.”

No, I had not noticed, but I conceded that she was right. Still, I told her, I can never forget the (perhaps apocryphal) words a New Orleans journalist told his newsroom at his farewell party before taking off for a job up North: It was more important to live in a city that valued libraries more than parades. That’s the reality of Louisiana life, I told my friend. Romanticism and sentimentality obscure, but do not nullify, hard truths about the barriers life in Louisiana raises to professional advancement.

Which is what mattered to me more than anything. And why not? There’s nothing wrong at all with wanting to advance in one’s field and better provide for the needs, comforts and prospects of one’s own children. As my family grew, my wife and I moved from New York City to Dallas, and then back east to Philadelphia; my career arc—and my salary—kept rising.

And then it happened.

In early 2010, my younger sister Ruthie Leming, a West Feliciana schoolteacher, went into Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center for exploratory surgery. Surgeons found stage IV lung cancer. Ruthie was 40 years old and had three children. She had never smoked. By the time her cancer was found, it was, barring a miracle, too late.

The news was devastating to all of us who loved her. Ruthie, typically, was a rock of faith, hope and serenity from the beginning. For my part, I was 1,300 miles away, powerless to do anything for my sister, her husband, their children, or my folks.

As it turned out, I wasn’t needed. Ruthie and her husband Mike, a Baton Rouge firefighter, had everything they could have asked for, and more. The West Feliciana community, as well as Mike’s BRFD buddies, rallied to their side from the first day and held firm until Ruthie died at home, 19 months later.

There was nothing Ruthie and her family needed done that wasn’t done—and even some things they didn’t need friends provided anyway. Ruthie had good medical insurance, but the town still threw a fundraising concert and barn dance for her, to show her how much they loved her.

This didn’t just happen. Ruthie had roots, and she tended them carefully. She accepted the limits of her small-town Louisiana life. To be sure, Ruthie did not do a cost-benefit analysis to decide her path. She did what she loved, and what she loved was being at home in Louisiana.

OPPORTUNITY COSTS

Back home for Ruthie’s funeral in the fall of 2011, my wife Julie and I saw an astonishing outpouring of love and affection for my sister and our family. Yes, it was terribly sad, but there was so much hope and light amid the darkness of those days. Ruthie’s friends gathered over beer in her Starhill kitchen, where she had cooked so many late-night meals for them, to talk about the good times. Mike said back then, “We’re leanin’, but we’re leanin’ on each other.”

Losing Ruthie compelled me to think in a new way about my responsibilities to my parents, to Mike and my nieces, and to my own kids. I asked my wife back then what would happen to our family if one of us woke up one morning with terminal cancer?

“We have friends who could help us,” she said. And it was true. But we had not been in Philly long enough to build the kind of deep and extensive relationships that Ruthie had from having spent all her life in one place.

There was more. In my emotional geography, Ruthie was a landmark, a mountain, a river, a fixed point around which I could orient myself. There was no horizon so far that I could not see Ruthie in the distance and know where I was and how to find my way home to Louisiana, no matter where in the world I lived.

Now she was gone, and before long, my mother and father will be gone, too. What would my children know of Louisiana then? Does that matter? Should it matter?

It mattered. Julie and I decided that we wanted to be part of Louisiana life—tailgating at Tiger Stadium, Christmas Eve gumbo at our cousins’ place in Starhill, po-boys at George’s under the Perkins Road overpass, Mardi Gras parades, yes ma’am and yes sir, and all the little things that give life its texture and meaning more than career prestige and a paycheck.

True, by moving to Louisiana our children would have fewer “opportunities,” in the conventional sense. But what were the opportunity costs of staying away? I had believed the American gospel of individual self-fulfillment and accepted uncritically the idea that I should be prepared to move anywhere in the world, chasing my own happiness.

But here’s the thing. When you’re young, nobody tells you about limits. If you live long enough, you see suffering. It comes close to you. It shatters the illusion, so dear to us modern Americans, of self-sufficiency, of autonomy, of control. Look, a wife and mother and schoolteacher, in good health and in the prime of her life, dying from cancer. It doesn’t just happen to other people. It happens to your family. What do you do then?

The insurance company, if you’re lucky enough to have insurance, pays your doctors and pharmacists, but it will not cook for you when you are too sick to cook for yourself and your kids. Nor will it clean your house, pick your kids up from school, or take them shopping when you are too weak to get out of bed. A bureaucrat from the state or the insurance company won’t come sit with you and pray with you and tell you she loves you. It won’t be the government or your insurer who allows you to die in peace—if it comes to that—by assuring you that your spouse and children will not be left behind to face the world alone.

Only your family and your community can do that.

What our culture also doesn’t tell young people is that a way of life that depends on moving from place to place, extracting whatever value you can before moving on again, leaves you spiritually impoverished. True, it is not given to every man and woman to remain in the place where they were born, and an absolute devotion to family and place can be destructive. I do not regret having left Louisiana as a young man. I needed to do that; I had important work to do elsewhere.

But the world looks different from the perspective of middle age. In her last 19 months of life, Ruthie showed me that I now had important work to do back home. Hers was a work of stewardship—of taking care of the land, the family, and the people in the community. By loving them all faithfully and tending them with steadfast care, Ruthie accomplished something countercultural, even revolutionary in our restless age.

You can’t convince somebody by logical arguments why they should love someone or something. You can only show them, and hope the seed of affection falls in the heart’s fertile soil. Through Ruthie’s actions, and through the actions of everyone else in the town who held our family close, and held us up when we couldn’t stand on our own two feet, I was able to see the power of Ruthie’s love, given and returned. And I was able to see my own life in light of this love, and, finally, to feel for the first time in nearly 30 years, a profound affection for this place I had abandoned so long ago.

THE CULTURAL CASE

We moved back to Louisiana and have regretted it not one bit.

It’s not that Louisiana has changed, or changed all that much. It hasn’t. Parades still matter more than libraries here, and college football coaches’ salaries are more important than college professors’ paychecks. The political and economic problems are still with us. So, bless his heart, is Edwin.

Louisiana may not have changed, but I have. Parades—I speak metaphorically—are a lot more important than I used to think. That is, the small things about the life we were all given as south Louisiana natives can’t easily be given a dollar value, or co-opted into an instrumentalist case for rising in the meritocracy. Having the chance to drive over to Breaux Bridge to the zydeco breakfast at Café des Amis, or to have Sunday dinner with the family every weekend, will not get your kids into Harvard, but it just might give them a better chance at having a life filled with grace and joy. Same goes for their parents.

When we told our Philly friends that we were leaving the big city for a tiny south Louisiana river town, we expected that they would be both shocked and amused. That’s not what happened. A startling number of them responded by saying, one way or another, how much they envied us. They wished they had a place like St. Francisville to go back to. Their parents made the decision to leave, and they themselves had been raised in rootless suburbia. This, it turns out, is one reason why they loved listening to my Louisiana stories: because I come from a real place, with particular traditions and a distinct culture.

Truth to tell, I was lucky that I had a good family back home, a beautiful town, and a job that I could do online. Not every Louisiana expat has these things, and that lack may keep them in exile, against their wishes. Nevertheless, many of us may come to realize that the limits we must accept by moving back to Louisiana make possible a richness of experience that we cannot have anywhere else. And it opens opportunities for us to take the good things we learned in exile and put them to work making our state a place that will be easier for our kids, whatever their calling, to choose as their home.

The cultural case for moving home to Louisiana, then, is fundamentally a countercultural one. The small life expats leave behind in search of grandeur in the world beyond Louisiana—a life whose limits are set only by our own desires and capabilities—may contain a profundity, even a greatness, that is hard to see when you judge it by contemporary American standards.

But how much sense do those standards make when judging a life? A Louisiana native who works in Washington politics said to me that folks back home know something about the good life that other people don’t.

“It’s OK to be average there,” he said. “To go to work each day, come home, have a beer, and love your family and friends. One thing that really sucks about D.C. is that everyone here very seriously carries the burden of having to Change the World.”

To be freed from the felt burden of having to Change the World, of having to get ahead, of having to think of your life in terms of achieve, achieve, achieve—it’s an unusual thing. You can be only OK in Louisiana, or maybe even a basket case, and they’ll love you anyway, as long as you can laugh at yourself and at life, and know how to sit on the front porch, so to speak, and pass a good time.

I didn’t know how important all of this was until my sister Ruthie died. I didn’t know that the things about Louisiana that used to hold me back turned out to be the things that held my Starhill family together in their time of great trial. There was a lot I didn’t know as an ambitious LSU journalism undergraduate, and one truth is this: Life is too hard and too short to spend in the office trying to get ahead, while outside in the bright sunshine, the parade passes by.

  • Share/Bookmark

Kennedy: A Plan B For Income Tax Reform

By Louisiana Treasurer John Kennedy

I appreciate Gov. Jindal’s plan to end Louisiana’s personal and corporate income tax. Our state needs a tax code that looks like somebody designed it on purpose, and the Governor is correct, in my estimation, that the income tax, which taxes work, makes us less competitive.

Though well-intentioned, the Governor’s plan was not going to pass. Nor should it, if for no other reason than it would have raised taxes on businesses by $500 million.

Now that the Governor has withdrawn his plan we need a Plan B. Several plausible ones have been hinted at. Here’s another.

1. Draft the Legislative Fiscal Office, the Legislative Auditor, PAR and CABL to count the beans. They have credibility.

2. Forget about raising the state sales tax rate or taxing services.

3. Concentrate instead on reducing the state income tax by making it and the state sales and excise taxes flatter. Our goal for income, sales and excise taxes should be the lowest possible rate (everyone pays as little as possible) and the broadest possible base (everyone pays something), consistent with the promotion of shared social and economic policies (for example, no one should have to pay sales tax to eat at home).

4. Achieve our goal by objectively analyzing the efficacy of each statutory (not constitutional) exemption, exclusion, credit and rebate our current state tax code gives to people and companies that would be paying income, sales or excise taxes, like everyone else, but aren’t because a law exempts them. Why were they exempted in the first place? Job creation? Fairness? To promote a shared value? If the exemption is achieving its purpose, keep it. Perhaps even double down on it if it is working exceptionally well. But get rid of it if the preference falls short of its purpose. All it takes is a majority vote of the legislature.

5. The state has 19,000 consulting contracts, according to the Legislative Auditor. We don’t need all of them. Eliminate at least 10% by value, and demand a reasonable discount, perhaps 5%, on the rest when the state has superior bargaining strength, which is most of the time.

6. Implement a centralized collection process and automated collections management system to collect the state’s accounts receivable (debts owed the state, such as fines, medical bills and taxes) by passing HB 629 by Rep. Chris Broadwater (R) and Rep. Ted James (D). CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc. estimates HB 629 will bring in an extra $158 million over 5 years, and likely more.

7. Eliminating exemptions, winnowing down and renegotiating consulting contracts and doing a better job of collecting state debt will save enough money to reduce the state income tax without raising the state sales tax rate or taxing services. The more money we choose to save this way, the more we can reduce the income tax. Enough could be saved to eliminate the income tax, if we want to. This sounds simple, and mathematically it is, but this exercise will require extraordinary political will. The buffet may be large-19,000 contracts; 468 exemptions worth $4.8 billion-but each has a constituency. We’ll find out quickly how serious we are about tax reform.

8. Finally, if Plan B passes, make it effective only if the voters agree. Gov. Roemer and Gov. Foster let people vote on their tax code revisions. So should the proponents of this plan.

Gov. Jindal has called for a fairer, flatter and simpler tax system that creates jobs and encourages growth. This Plan B achieves each one of his goals.

  • Share/Bookmark

Louisiana Budget Hawks Release their Plan

From The Hayride — http://thehayride.com/2013/01/fiscal-hawks-release-budget-reform-package/

The Budget Reform Campaign, founded by a coalition of fiscally conservative state legislators, and Chaired by State Representative Brett Geymann has published a draft reform package of Constitutional Amendments and bills to be introduced in the legislative session that begins April 8th.

“We are proud to present our initial draft of budget reforms to address key elements of the budget process” said Representative Brett Geymann.  “We are entering the second phase of our effort to establish a broad-based, transparent dialogue on budget issues, while we continue to share our work with stakeholders, and improve our package with input from civic, business and political leaders, and the general public ” Geymann said.  “I want to thank my colleagues who have worked so hard and continue to take time away from their families and businesses to support this effort for real reform” Geymann continued.  “We are committed to fixing the broken budget process that results in devastating mid-year and year-end budget cuts.  We are committed to protecting core priorities like healthcare and higher education that are so important to our people and our State” Geymann concluded.

The package of Constitutional Amendments and reform bills consists of proposals to address reform issues at the core of the Campaign’s mission:

  • Constitutionality. A proposed Constitutional Amendment regarding budget controls restores Constitutional budgeting by banning appropriations of funds not included in the official revenue forecast; that exceed the official forecast; that are contingent, or that use non-recurring funds on recurring expenses.  Only revenue that has been recognized by the REC as available may be appropriated.  This proposed instrument addresses concerns about the Constitutionality of our current budget process while clarifying existing language.
  • Transparency. Proposes constitutional amendments and statutes regarding budget procedures that clarify the timing and deadlines of the budget process, to enable a more broad-based and transparent review of the budget.
    • One proposal requires House notification of Senate Amendments within 24 hours of passage, so that the House has access to Senate changes in a timely fashion.
    • The House would be provided the text of Amendments 3 days prior to any House vote to allow time to thoroughly review Senate changes prior to a vote on concurrence.
    • Another proposal requires final passage of the general appropriations bill about two weeks earlier in the session, to ensure a more broad-based and transparent budget process.

These proposed instruments address concerns about inadequate time for proper deliberation and the need for more transparent review in the waning days of legislative sessions.

  • Budget Priorities. A proposed Constitutional Amendment helps protect higher education and healthcare.  This proposal requires that if the appropriations bill contains funding for higher education and healthcare at a level lower than the previous year, the bill would be split into non-discretionary and discretionary appropriation bills that would be voted on separately.  This proposed instrument would help ensure that core priorities are funded first, and create a transparent mechanism for reviewing statutorily dedicated expenditures on an ongoing basis.   This instrument requires that spending due to constitutional or other mandates be considered in a separate appropriations bill from spending that is not required to be funded if higher education and healthcare are reduced.

State Representative Lance Harris (R – Alexandria), a Charter Member of the Coalition believes that these core reforms are a necessary precursor to any significant change in the way Louisiana takes in revenue.  “It is critical that we fix the way we are putting together our budget before we make major changes in how we take in revenue” said Representative Harris.  “We keep pouring water into our bucket year after year, but it’s clear now that there is a hole in our bucket” Representative Harris said.  “Before we make changes to where we get the water, it would make a whole lot of sense to fix the bucket first” Representative Harris continued.  “We are looking forward to working closely with legislative leadership and the Administration to make sure this legislative session addresses the root causes of our budget crisis” Representative Harris concluded.

The full texts of these proposals are published below and available for download, here at WWW.LABUDGETREFORM.COM.

The Campaign will tour the state to present the package to budget stakeholders, to answer questions, receive input from stakeholders and revise the package accordingly.  The Campaign also expects that the package will include additional proposals resulting from consulting with legislators, leadership, the Administration, and the public input process.  The Campaign will hold several online events to allow statewide input.  All business and civic leaders, budget stakeholders and the general public are encouraged to participate in this process – online and in person.

  • Share/Bookmark

Noonan: Lessons Conservatives Need to Learn

Obama is a formidable foe. He means to change the country and crush the GOP.

  • By PEGGY NOONAN

Two lessons on how conservatives and Republicans might approach the future, and a look at the meaning of  Barack Obama.

Lesson one: Golf star Phil Mickelson this week complained about taxes—”I happen to be in that zone that has been targeted both federally and by the state”—and suggested he may leave California. Before anyone could jump down his throat, he abjectly apologized: He didn’t mean to hurt anyone, he shouldn’t have said it, taxes are a “personal” issue.

Actually they’re pretty public. The American Revolution started as a tax revolt. It is not remarkable that a man might protest a 50% to 60% tax rate that means he has to work from January through July or August for the government, and only gets to keep for himself and his family what he earns from then through December.

Most fans would rather see Mr. Mickelson hit a ball with a stick than hear his economic analysis, and talking about tax burdens when you’re making up to $50 million a year sounds like . . . well, a pretty high-class problem.

But his complaint came as kind of a relief. It was politically incorrect. It was based on actual numbers and facts and not grounded in abstractions, as most of our public pronouncements are. And it was unusual. Most people in his position are clever enough not to sound aggrieved.

Conservatives and Republicans feel a bit under siege these days because their views are not officially in style. But the Cringe is not the way to deal with it. If you take a stand, take a stand and take the blows. Many people would think that paying more than half your salary in city, state, county and federal taxes is unjust. Mr. Mickelson is not alone.

***

Lesson two came from Republicans on Capitol Hill. Conservatives on the ground are angry with them after the Benghazi hearings. Members of the Senate and the House have huffed and puffed for months: “It’s worse than Watergate, Americans died.” Just wait till they question the secretary of state, they’ll get to the bottom of it.

Wednesday they questioned Hillary Clinton. It was a dud.

The senators weren’t organized or focused, they didn’t coordinate questions, follow up, have any coherent or discernible strategy. The only senator who really tried to bore in was Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who asked a pointed question that was never answered: If you wanted to find out what happened when the consulate was attacked, why didn’t you pick up the phone the next day and call those who’d been there?  John McCain made a spirited, scattered speech—really, it was just like him—that couldn’t find the energy to end in serious questions.

Some conservatives are saying Mrs. Clinton looked unhinged, angry. In their dreams. She came across as human and indignant, and emerged untouched. What air there was in the Benghazi balloon leaked out. Someday we’ll find out what happened when somebody good writes a book.

All this looked like another example of the mindless personal entrepreneurialism of the Republicans on the Hill: They’re all in business for themselves. They make their speech, ask their question, and it’s not connected to anyone else’s speech or question. They aren’t part of something that moves and makes progress.

Minority parties can’t act like this, in such a slobby, un-unified way.

Hill Republicans continue not to understand that they are the face of the party when the cameras are trained on Washington. They don’t understand how they look, which is like ants on a sugar cube.

***

Finally, it became obvious this week that the Republican Party top to bottom has to start taking Barack Obama seriously. All the famous criticisms of him are true: He has no talent for or interest in sustained, good-faith negotiations, he has no real sense of alarm about the great issue of the day, America’s debt. He’s a chill presence in a warm-blooded profession.

But he means business. He means to change America in fundamental ways and along the lines of justice as he sees it. The proper response to such a man is not—was not—that he’s a Muslim, he’s a Kenyan, he’s working out his feelings about colonialism. Those charges were meant to marginalize him, but they didn’t hurt him. They damaged Republicans, who came to see him as easy to defeat.

He doesn’t care if you like him—he’d just as soon you did, but it’s not necessary for him. He is certain he is right in what he’s doing, which is changing the economic balance between rich and poor. The rich are going to be made less rich, and those who are needy or request help are going to get more in government services, which the rich will pay for. He’d just as soon the middle class not get lost in the shuffle, but if they wind up marginally less middle class he won’t be up nights. The point is redistribution.

The great long-term question is the effect the change in mood he seeks to institute will have on what used to be called the national character. Eight years is almost half a generation. Don’t you change people when you tell them they have an absolute right to government support regardless of their efforts? Don’t you encourage dependence, and a bitter sense of entitlement? What about the wearing down of taxpayers? Some, especially those who are younger, do not fully understand that what is supporting them is actually coming from other people. To them it seems to come from “the government,” the big marble machine far away that prints money.

There is no sign, absolutely none, that any of this is on Mr. Obama’s mind. His emphasis is always on what one abstract group owes another in the service of a larger concept. “You didn’t build that” are the defining words of his presidency.

He is not going to negotiate, compromise, cajole. Absent those efforts his only path to primacy in Congress is to kill the Republican Party, to pulverize it, as John Dickerson noted this week in Slate, to “attempt to annihilate the Republican Party,” as Speaker John Boehner said in a remarkably candid speech to the Ripon Society.

Mr. Obama is not, as has been said, the left’s Ronald Reagan. Reagan won over, Mr. Obama just wins. What Mr. Obama really is, is Franklin D. Roosevelt without the landslides. He has the same seriousness of intent but nothing like the base of support.

In 1932, FDR won the presidency with 58% of the vote to Herbert Hoover’s 40%. In 1936 it was even better: Roosevelt won 61% of the vote to Alf Landon’s 36.5%.

In 2008, Mr. Obama beat John McCain solidly, 53% to 46%. But last year, against a woebegone GOP candidate, he won just 51% of the vote, to Mitt Romney’s 47%. (Yes: ironic.)

Mr. Obama received 66 million votes in 2012—but four years earlier he received 69.5 million.

His support went down, not up.

He is moving forward as if he has FDR’s mandate and attempting to crush his enemy every bit as ruthlessly as FDR, who was one ruthless patrician.

It will take guts and unity to fight him. Can the GOP, just in Washington, for now, develop those things?

A version of this article appeared January 26, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Lessons Conservatives Need to Learn.

  • Share/Bookmark

Noonan: The Drawn-Out Crisis: It’s the Obama Way

The president’s inviting Mitt Romney for lunch is a small thing but a brilliant move. It makes Mr. Obama look big, gracious. It implies the weakened, battered former GOP nominee is the leader of the Republican Party—and if the other party has to have a leader, the weakened, battered one is the one you want.

Mr. Romney is not the leader of the party; he left no footprints in the sand. There is no such thing as Romneyism, no movement of which he’s the standard-bearer. Nor is he a Washington figure with followers. Party leaders already view him as a kind of accident, the best of a bad 2012 lot, a hiccup. The bottom-line attitude of Republican political pros: Look, this is a man who’s lived a good life and would have been a heck of a lot better than Obama, and I backed him. But to be a successful Republican president now requires a kind of political genius, and he didn’t have it and wasn’t going to develop it. His flaws as a candidate would have been his flaws as president. We dodged a bullet.

Republicans may be the stupid party, but they’re not the sentimental one. Democrats often like their losers. Republicans like winners, and they find reasons to be moved by them after they’ve won.

To the extent the GOP has an elected face, it is that of Speaker  John Boehner. And he is precisely the man with whom Mr. Obama should be having friendly lunches. In fact, the meal with Mitt just may be a clever attempt to obscure the fact that the president isn’t really meeting with those with whom he’s supposed to be thrashing out the fiscal cliff.

For the entire column click here. (WSJ subscription required)

 

  • Share/Bookmark

BEAM: Scalise Is Getting Things Done In DC

U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) appears to be the kind of congressman this country needs to solve its major financial problems. Scalise pulled off a big upset recently when he was elected chairman of the Republican conservative caucus. His defeat of a Georgia lawmaker, who had Tea Party backing, is significant in light of the impending “fiscal cliff.”

The immediate problem is what to do about the $671 billion in automatic tax increases and spending cuts coming in January if Congress and President Obama don’t come to terms. Economists worry that could trigger another devastating recession.

U.S. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) credited Scalise’s success to hard work and a winning personality, according to The Times-Picayune. McHenry said Scalise continues to be tough on Democrats and President Obama, but is making few enemies.

“How did he do it?” the Picayune asked.

McHenry said, “Steve is an example of how things used to work in Congress. You’d battle it out and afterwards you can sit down and be friendly with one another.”

For the complete column by commentator Jim Beam click here.

  • Share/Bookmark

Unions Kill the Twinkie

Perhaps it says something about America—though we’re not sure what—that iconic junk foods like Twinkies, Devil Dogs, Ho Hos snack cakes and Wonder bread have endured since the 1930s despite changing consumer health and eating habits. It does say something about institutions that can’t—or refuse to—adapt to new economic times that the company behind those products has chosen to go out of business overnight.

Hostess’s owners have decided to liquidate rather than ride out a nationwide strike by one of the largest of its dozen unions, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union. The Texas-based company owned by the private-equity shop Ripplewood Holdings and other hedge funds essentially gave up. On Friday it shut down its 33 bakeries and 565 distribution centers and prepared to fire nearly 18,500 employees en masse and auction off its brand and recipe portfolio.

Read the full editorial here. (WSJ subscription required)

  • Share/Bookmark