Landrieu's Hard Choices to Make

APRIL 20, 2009 POLITICS / JOHN MAGINNIS


Since Sen. Mary Landrieu's re-election in November, the two
issues she and her staff have heard the most about from
constituents are: card check and Jim Letten.

The former is shorthand for the Employee Free Choice Act, a
labor-backed bill in Congress that would enable unions to
organize workplaces through signed petitions instead of secret
ballot elections. Landrieu co-sponsored the bill last year
when it was clear it would not get the needed 60 votes. This
year, she has not taken a position, which has caused her
office to be bombarded from both sides.

But she and a handful of other moderate Democrats caught a
break when Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., a crossover vote the
unions were counting on, announced he could not support the
bill. With supporters now two or three votes short, card check
is stalled if not dead, and Landrieu is off the hook for now.

That leaves Letten. Whether or not the senior senator
recommends that the president reappoint the Republican as U.S.
Attorney in the Eastern District is a matter of intense
interest beyond the New Orleans region.

For many, the career prosecutor has achieved folk hero
status as a corruption fighter, whose ultimate trophy was the
conviction of former Gov. Edwin Edwards for racketeering in
2000. Letten, then the first assistant, forcefully presented
the government's case at trial.

Letten's critics acknowledge his competence while
questioning his zeal to prosecute Democratic officials
primarily. At any rate, they feel that with a change of
administrations, it's time for a new U.S. Attorney, and they
expect Landrieu to recommend one.

Letten's most fervent supporters proclaim that without him,
that part of the state will return to its corrupt old ways-
-"the Louisiana way" as Letten famously dubbed it--and they
demand that Landrieu do the apolitical thing and ask the
president to keep him on the job. Leading that charge is Sen.
David Vitter, who has promised Landrieu a fight if she goes
with anyone but Letten.

Soon after the election, Landrieu said that she backed
Letten, but later stated that it was only fair that supporters
of other candidates get to make their cases.

Her decision could come as early as next week, according to
staff sources.

Part of why she has taken so long is that this is more than
about Letten. There are the U.S. Attorney posts in the Western
and Middle districts to fill, three new U.S. Marshals to name
and, as it works out, a vacant federal judgeship in each
district.

Some following this closely think Landrieu will make all or
most of her recommendations at once, which, either way she
goes with Letten, would dilute some of the controversy.

From some of the names mentioned as leading candidates,
Landrieu is putting a premium on diversity by race and gender.

In the Western District, both the U.S. Attorney and the new
judge might be African-Americans. Two female attorneys are
among those under consideration for the judgeship in the
Middle District, which has not had a woman judge before. State
Judge Jane Triche-Milazzo of Napoleonville is thought to be a
leading contender for the Eastern District judgeship.

For the prosecutor's job in the Eastern District, if it is
not to be Letten, the leading alternative mentioned is Brian
Jackson, an African-American career assistant U.S. Attorney,
who has served in New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Washington.

It might be politically easier for Landrieu to go with
Letten, but now that Vitter has made him his cause, she would
appear to be caving to her rival if she recommends
reappointment.

Landrieu knows that Letten's most vocal backers, those
convinced that no Democrat is fit to replace him, probably
didn't vote for her or the president, and never will. Many
others who favor Letten, but not so adamantly, also recognize
the president's right to appoint a fellow Democrat, especially
another career prosecutor with impeccable credentials.

Vitter can employ procedural moves against the confirmation
of a replacement, just as Landrieu blocked former President
Bush's appointment of U.S. Attorney David Dugas to the Middle
District judgeship. But assuming Landrieu's recommended choice
is qualified, sooner or later the junior senator will have to
come up with a better objection than that he or she is not Jim
Letten.

More, Not Fewer, Should Pay Property Tax

APRIL 13, 2009 POLITICS / JOHN MAGINNIS


Every year, Sen. John Alario, D-Westwego, proposes a
constitutional amendment to double the homestead exemption to
$150,000. And every year, after business and local government
groups testify against the plan in committee, it dies there.

What's changed this year--creating more buzz about his
perennial bill in years--is the sticker shock of owners of
houses that were realistically reassessed in 2008 for the
first time in years. That, in turn, caused one young real
estate broker to begin an on-line petition to raise the
exemption to $160,000, which, said organizer Joshua Kahler,
would cover the inflation that has taken place since the last
increase in 1982.

To date, the petition has garnered about 55,000 signatures,
though the rate has significantly tapered off from its fast
start. Kahler hopes the show of support builds into public
pressure on legislators to put the question on the
constitutional ballot.

Yet, assuming all petition signers are voters, 55,000 is
less than 2 percent of statewide registration of nearly 3
million. A random review of on-line signatures at the site
shows a heavy concentration in the suburbs of New Orleans,

Baton Rouge and Lafayette, where property values have
escalated most. The distribution is sparser in urban
neighborhoods, small cities and rural parishes. Legislators
from those areas already are speaking out against the proposal
and say they have more than the one-third votes needed to
block it.

An informed debate, however, would be healthy, given that a
whole generation of homeowners has come along since the
exemption was last raised.

At $75,000, Louisiana's homestead exemption is the highest
in the nation, and the tax burden on individual homeowners is
the lowest. According to the non-profit Tax Foundation,
Louisiana ranks 46th in state and local property taxes on
owner-occupied residences, an average $183. Its "tax burden"
ranking falls to 51st for residential property taxes as a
percentage of both per capita income and home value.

Fifty percent of homeowners are fully covered by the
homestead exemption, while businesses pay 80 percent of
property taxes. That's fairer than a quarter century ago when
80 percent of homesteads were assessed below $75,000 and
businesses carried 90 percent of the load.

After a few tries, business and public interest groups
have given up on lowering the exemption. Instead, rising
property values have gradually, if slowly, adjusted the
balance to include more homeowners among the payers.

That trend should be left to continue. Raising the
homestead exemption to $75,000 was a mistake that should not
be compounded by giving the large majority of homeowners a
free ride once again.

It's more than a matter of national rankings and business
climate. It's the principle that every property owner should
contribute something to the public services--education, law
enforcement and public works--that support the community while
protecting and enhancing property values.

Most legislators understand the value of keeping a broad
base of property tax payers. Despite the Internet-fueled
populist appeal of the proposal, its chances of passage at the
Capitol are slim again.

But since Sen. Alario will be back with the same bill next
year and after that, maybe it's time for an alternative
approach. Instead of fewer homeowners paying property taxes,
there should be more.

Rep. Kevin Pearson, R-Slidell, has filed a constitutional
amendment that would not raise the homestead exemption but
would elevate it to apply to property values between $10,000
and $85,000. In that way, every owner pays taxes on the first
$10,000, but property over $85,000 would not be taxed any more
than now.

The fair way to finance basic local services is for
everyone in the community to pull the wagon at least a little
while virtually every homeowner still gets a break.

Yet fair doesn't make it politically viable. It's hard to
imagine two-thirds of legislators voting to tax the half of
homeowners who currently pay nothing. But since proposals to
raise the homestead exemption will always be with us, those
who favor a more civic-minded approach deserve a cause to back
as well.

No Easy Answers for State's Money Woes

APRIL 6, 2009                   POLITICS / JOHN MAGINNIS

   Artists, musicians, teachers and arts advocates protested deep state funding cuts last week by staging a mock funeral procession to the Capitol, complete with coffin, symbolizing the death of the arts. They were not exaggerating much, given the Jindal administration's proposed cutting of total arts funding by more than half, including effectively ending a grants program to community groups by slashing it 83 percent. Without those state grants, galleries, museums and theaters in towns across the state could close and schools would lose the teaching services of visiting artisans and performers.

   They are not alone, as the cuts run deep through nearly every department of government, causing fears of services to be eliminated, college class sizes enlarged and providers, like pediatricians treating poor children, dropping out of the Medicaid program.

   Compared to most state agencies, the arts councils at least are able to capture some public attention with street theater. A funeral procession by Treasury Department auditors mourning the death of fiscal accountability just hasn't the same zing.

   Neither do columns about the state budgets, compared to the typical fare of Louisiana politics. But how Gov. Bobby Jindal and the Legislature resolve the current fiscal crisis will be the defining drama of the coming legislative session, and the governor's term to date.

   The real-life stage for agencies, colleges and non-profit groups is before the House Appropriations Committee, which is meeting three days a week in advance of the legislative session to scrutinize every section of the governor's proposed budget, which takes effect July 1.

   Legislators, stung by the governor's vetoes of their pay raise and local spending projects last year, are determined to show more independence from him in the coming session, starting with the budget. They have picked a funny time to take charge. Last year, the governor got to decide how to spend a $1 billion surplus and over $1 billion in new revenues, with minimal input and backtalk from lawmakers.

   This year, with $1.3 billion less to spend and layoffs and service cutbacks looming, he is more than happy to let them rearrange the reductions, as long as they don't raise taxes.

   The favored solution of many legislators, however, is to grow the pot by taking from two other large pots, $775 million in the so-called Rainy Day fund and another $415 million in the mega fund set aside for large economic development projects. The governor does not favor using the former this year and is trying to commit the latter before legislators get their hands on it.

   The constitution allows the Legislature to use up to one-third of the Rainy Day fund in a year, about $258 million, with no more withdrawals for two more years.

   It's raining now, say legislators. But it will be pouring in two years, responds the governor, when the federal stimulus money--$666 million a year for two years in the state general fund--runs out. Jindal and Commissioner of Administration Angele Davis want to start a steep but gradual descent now rather than fall off the cliff in 2011, when, of course, the governor and legislators will be up for re-election.

   Still, it is unreasonable to expect or blame the Legislature for drawing from the Rainy Day fund in the worst budget fix in 20 years, even if it does get worse later. They can take out one-third now and one-third of what's left in 2011.

   The administration will balk now but eventually accede in face of a broad coalition of unmet needs. If it gave in on the Rainy Day fund now, the Legislature would be after the mega fund already. And that would be a terrible thing to waste on patching a budget hole, when it is the last real chunk of change, along with the $400 million in last year's surplus funds not yet spoken for, that the state will have to do something major, whether to seize a big economic development opportunity or a meet a big emergency.

   Though not filling the whole hole in the budget, the stimulus infusion from Congress is buying the Legislature two years to make some structural changes in government that the people can live with. If legislators fail that--and the governor too--the funeral processions of 2011 could be for their careers.

Jindal Follows the Money Across U.S.

MARCH 30, 2009 POLITICS / JOHN MAGINNIS


The governor has been catching flak for his frequent flying
around the country to attend fundraising events in his honor.
He justifies the trips as opportunities to tell out-of-
state audiences the good news about Louisiana breaking from
its corrupt past through the great new ethics laws he signed
last year. And if someone in San Diego or Boston wants to
express their admiration by writing a $5,000 check, then it's
a win-win, right?

There's a lot of money in being the future of the
Republican Party. The great thing about being the future of
anything is that supporters, at this point, are more
interested in potential than in results. That suits Bobby
Jindal fine. These days he is seen less as a front-line
presidential contender in 2012 and more as a reliable
messenger of party principles who is going to be around for
awhile. What player wouldn't want to put a modest bet down on
someone like that?

For his part, Jindal can't resist the urge to follow the
money, given his humble beginnings dialing for dollars. He
started out in 2003 with nothing but a phone line and Mike
Foster's list of campaign contributors, and grew from there.
In 2007, over 85 percent of all campaign contributions in the
governor's race went to him. Still he had to strive to match
the deep pockets of two millionaire opponents.

Having raised $3.5 million last year, at the going rate he
could easily bank over $10 million by when his re-election
campaign starts (that is, if his last campaign ever stopped).
And, no, it's not enough. Though he raised his money the old-
fashioned way--he asked for it--he knows there could always be
a well-heeled challenger who can write one check to match him.

It doesn't seem to bother Jindal that many of his loyal
local supporters are quite fed up with his constant national
tour. But he will give fundraising a rest once the legislative
session starts later this month, when the governor is barred
from accepting or soliciting contributions until 30 days after
lawmakers adjourn in late June.

If he stays close to home through mid-summer, the carping
will lie down, in time for him to launch his fall financial
offensive.

Besides the time the governor spends away from the state,
there is the question of what effect do contributions have on
decisions he and his administration make, from jobs and
appointments to contracts.

Citizens would know already what contributors got for their
money, had Gov. Jindal not vetoed a bill to reveal just that.
Rep. Neil Abramson, D-New Orleans, managed to pass a bill last
session to make elected officials report the names of
contributors that they hired or they appointed to boards and
commissions. Abramson said he communicated with the governor's
staff for months to resolve any problems with the bill. But
Jindal vetoed it anyway, citing a drafting error, which the
author didn't see as a defect.

If the governor does not have to disclose that information,
an enterprising reporter did it for him, and us. Independent
journalist Jeremy Alford's research showed that about 200 of
the Jindal's contributors, who gave a combined $784,000 in
2007-08, were appointed by him to 76 boards and commissions.
Eleven appointees to the Board of Commerce & Industry,
which grants millions of dollars worth of industrial tax
exemptions, contributed a combined $49,000. Four appointees to
the University of Louisiana System board gave $63,000;
Louisiana Recovery Authority members, $57,000; Superdome
Commission members, $45,000; State Mineral Board members,
$35,000.

Viewed another way, those 200 donors made up less than 1
percent of Jindal's 23,000 contributors, and the $784,000 they
gave comprised only 5 percent of the $14.7 million he raised
over two years.

One could say: if everybody buys you nobody owns you.
Jindal could have said that by signing Abramson's bill, which
he may again get the opportunity to do in the coming session.
If the governor sees nothing wrong with the relationship
between his contributors and his appointments, he has no good
reason not to connect the dots on his own. Or someone else
will.