31 May 2005

Floor action, May 31: SB 77

Who knew that burial policies would be the biggest issue on this day, deciding whether companies had to adhere to the minimums on their policies, which are much lower than present costs today, or to go back to the previous law which made those companies go beyond these minimums?

SB 77 is supposed to revert to the previous law. Present law made such insurance outfits adhere only to the minimums. What truly was incredible is the suggestion that rather than the Legislature taking responsibility for deciding whether the policies should be enforced at a certain amount, that this matter should be set by the courts. When did we dispense with the notion that it is the judiciary, rather than the Legislature, that should determine the law?

Its governance remains in the hands of the Legislature; the bill failed 15-19.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “It’s a nude picture of me and [state Rep. Danny] Martiny.”

State Rep. John Alario, giving a gift to the departing Rep. Derrick Shepherd, who is moving on to the Senate.

WEDNESDAY: HB 273 is scheduled to be heard in the House Civil Law and Procedure Committee; HB 568 is scheduled to be heard in the House Transportation, Highways, and Public Works Committee; HB 173 is scheduled to be heard in the House Ways and Means Committee.

29 May 2005

Legislative regular session through 5/27/05

THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 311 was passed by the Senate and awaits conference; HB 415 was reported favorably 8-0; SB 120 was reported favorably with a major amendment;

THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 21 was reported favorably by Senate committee; HB 219 was designated a duplicate and failed on the Senate floor 15-14; HB 444 failed 62-33; HB 688 was reported favorably 15-1 with minor amendments; HB 731 was reported favorably 16-0 with minor amendments; HB 763 was reported favorably from Senate committee; HB 799 was reported favorably 7-3; SB 47 passed 37-0; SB 136 was reported favorably and passed 36-0; SB 341 was reported favorably with minor amendments and passed 33-0.

MONDAY: HB 242 and SB 190 are scheduled to be heard in the House Health and Welfare Committee; SB 25, SB 105, SB 106, SB 202; SB 254, and SB 300 are scheduled to be heard in the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee.

SCORECARD:

Total House introductions: 877; Total Senate introductions: 352

Total House good bills: 41; Total Senate good bills: 22

Total House bad bills: 48; Total Senate bad bills: 19

Total House good bills heard in committee: 21; Total Senate good bills heard in committee: 16

Total House bad bills heard in committee: 25; Total Senate bad bills heard in committee: 9

Total House good bills passing committee: 5; Total Senate good bills passing committee: 7

Total House bad bills passing committee: 10; Total Senate bad bills passing committee: 5

Total House good bills passing House: 3; Total Senate good bills passing Senate: 4

Total House bad bills passing House: 4; Total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 3

Total House good bills being heard in Senate committee: 1

Total House bad bills being heard in Senate committee: 4

Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 1

Total House bad bills passing Senate committee: 3

Total House good bills passing Senate: 1

26 May 2005

Floor action, May 26: Amendments to HB 1

DID YOU KNOW?

Somebody in the Legislature actually has stepped up to reform the Urban and Rural Funds in HB 1. Rep. Mike Walsworth, amending the part of the operating budget bill, argued for the restructuring of these slush funds that in the past allowed the governor to pick and choose which projects to bless with what projects and amounts of money. This caused lawmakers in a geographical area to compete with each other to get pet projects funded, and had to cooperate among themselves to maximize their chances of getting the governor’s blessings.

Walsworth simply argued that the $16 million presently available should be split equally among all districts. This would remove the power of the governor to favor certain projects over others and thus extract favors for other legislation.

Rep. Jeff Arnold summed up remarks of the proponents by saying “This is the fairest thing I’ve ever heard in this House.”

24 May 2005

Floor action, May 24: SB 47; HB 311

SB 47 came and went with next to no discussion and a quick vote. Only Sens. Ken Hollis, Max Malone, and Craig Romero voted against it. Given that last week Rep. Mike Powell spoke against a similar bill, the area of east Shreveport and south Bossier City that Powell and Malone represent seems to be the island of sanity in the ocean of lake-building frenzy.

HB 311 also had little in the way of debate and passed 22-9 with six absences. This bill makes somewhat less generous Louisiana’s retirement system for the majority of state employees. Although Republicans normally can be found on the side of fiscal prudence, Sens. James David Cain, Sherri Smith Cheek, and Bob Kostelka voted against it. With very minor amendments and no indication from the governor that she’ll veto it, this bill turning into law seems imminent.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Double your pleasure …”
Acting Senate President Joe McPherson when noting Sen. Don Cravins would discuss HB 227, introduced in the House by Rep. Don Cravins, Jr.

WEDNESDAY: HB 571 is scheduled to be heard in the House Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations; HB 673 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Commerce, Consumer Protection, and International Affairs Committee.

23 May 2005

Floor action, May 32: HB 80

It’s with deep regret that I must switch a bill from the “good” to “bad” category. I was hoping against hope with state Rep. Peppi Bruneau’s HB 80 which changes state officials’ terms to a presidential-election quadrennial cycle. As far as timing goes, particularly for the GOP it’s a good idea because Louisiana’s Republican tendencies will be accentuated in national election years – it’ll be harder for “moderate” (in name if not in practice) Democrats to dissociate themselves with the hard left that has taken over the national party. As far as savings go, it can save the state quite a bit (the fiscal note says over $6 million).

But in its present form it missed an opportunity, in exchange for the extra year officials would be allowed to serve (because the Constitution prohibits shortening present terms) to make for stricter term limits. The present Constitutional rule is three consecutive terms in one chamber; it should be changed to three terms consecutive terms in any chamber. (Of course, since this also is a Constitutional amendment, as part of it this text could have read to shorten terms and save some money by reducing this term to 2006, then making the next a two-year term, then resuming with four-year terms – costing perhaps no extra money in 2006 because of pending Congressional elections.)

However, the bill was not amended this way and it got a vote 62-33. That's short of the needed two-thirds for a constitutional amendment but with 10 members absent and a little backroom maneuvering it may get the 70 votes necessary -- without any changes. The Senate still could amend the bill to exchange real term limits for the extra year, or to make the two-terms-from-one move, but that’s unlikely. Then it would be up to the people to decide whether they think their present legislators should get an extra year in office.

TUESDAY: HB 799 is scheduled to be heard in the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee; HB 415 and HB 694 are scheduled to be heard in the House and Governmental Affairs Committee; HB 242 is scheduled to be heard in the House Health and Welfare Committee.

21 May 2005

Legislative regular session through 5/20/05

THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 80 was passed out of committee 8-0; HB 311 was passed out of Senate committee with minor amendments; HB 654 was passed out of committee 11-0 with minor amendments and passed the House 102-0; SB 53 passed the Senate 30-2; SB 323 passed the Senate 26-7;

THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 437 was passed out of committee 17-0 with one major amendment; HB 444 was passed out of committee 5-4 with minor amendments; HB 763 was passed by the House 99-4; HB 847 was withdrawn; SB 47 was passed out of committee with a minor amendment;

MONDAY: HB 317 is scheduled to be heard in the House Appropriations Committee; HB 568 is scheduled to be heard in the House Transportation, Highways, and Public Works Committee; HB 273 and HB 370 are scheduled to be heard in the House Ways and Means Committee; SB 228 and HB 271 are scheduled to be heard in the Senate Finance Committee; SB 23, SB 25, SB 106, SB 120, SB 202; SB 254, SB 300, and SB 341 are scheduled to be heard in the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee.

SCORECARD:

Total House introductions: 877; Total Senate introductions: 352

Total House good bills: 42; Total Senate good bills: 22

Total House bad bills: 47; Total Senate bad bills: 19

Total House good bills heard in committee: 15; Total Senate good bills heard in committee: 11

Total House bad bills heard in committee: 18; Total Senate bad bills heard in committee: 6

Total House good bills passing committee: 5; Total Senate good bills passing committee: 6

Total House bad bills passing committee: 6; Total Senate bad bills passing committee: 3

Total House good bills passing House: 3; Total Senate good bills passing Senate: 4

Total House bad bills passing House: 4; Total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 1

18 May 2005

Floor action, May 18: SB 323, HB 492, HB 736

Whether you agree with the long-standing Supreme Court decision that mandates that a lawyer be made available to anyone accused of a crime, if something is going to be done, it needs to be done right. State Sen. Lydia Jackson’s SB 323 takes a step in Louisiana to get indigent defense done right.

On the Senate floor today, Jackson took up the bill (after it had been previously held over) and summarized the shortcomings of the system (which for one parish are elucidated here). She counseled that it did not change everything overnight, but would put it on the right track.

Minor amendments were unanimously added. It passed 26-7.

Reps. Eric LaFleur and Blade Morrish presented their competing bills concerning cloning. The difference between his HB 492, as he noted repeatedly, is that it bans all cloning but, he argued, would allow research to continue. LaFleur insisted only his bill, HB 736, would allow the necessary research capacity, that HB 492 was too strict, pointing to testimony by state university researchers to that effect.

The bill passed 75-23, and picked up 39 co-authors at the end. Then LaFleur got his turn. The importance of this bill was underscored by the fact that co-sponsor state Sen. Don Hines left his presiding post to hang out in the House for this one.

LaFleur insisted that whatever gets created by the process his bill (the practice he noted is now not regulated) would not be cloning and not create a human life because it is not viable except by human intervention after 14 days. (Of course, no human life is “viable” even after birth for a long time – infants need human intervention to survive.) Various “no” voters on HB 492 threw softball questions at LaFleur to help him hammer home these points. LaFleur also pointed out a board would be created to vet researchers.

Rep. Danny Martiny, however, a supporter of HB 492, got LaFleur to admit that, in essence, neglect of these cells, which LaFleur said scientists did not consider human, would have to occur for them to die out. Going further, another HB 492 supporter Rep. Gary Beard also brought up that these cells could in fact be cloned, according to the American Medical Association and President’s Council on Bioethics, because they are in fact embryonic in nature. LaFleur argued they were still different. Rep. Shirley Bowler also pointed out a loophole where the bill allowed for the cells to be frozen, and then nothing in the bill would prohibit these cells from being shipped out of the state’s jurisdiction. LaFleur admitted he would allow an amendment to this effect.

Morrish moved to put the bill back on the calendar, essentially killing it, but failed 50-47. After a little more debate, the bill failed 50-48, to applause.

QUOTES OF THE DAY: “Let me rephrase that … let’s clone Monica Walker

LaFleur to Beard, coming up with an example about how cloning occurs, referring to a District 28’s representative.

“Mike Foster is in favor of it … I don’t know if that helps …”

LaFleur, responding to a question about who favors stem cell research.

THURSDAY: HB 444 is scheduled to be heard by the House Labor and Industrial Relations Committee; HB 21 is scheduled to be heard by the House Municipal, Parochial, and Cultural Affairs Committee; HB 123 is scheduled to be heard by the House Transportation, Highways, and Public Works Committee.

16 May 2005

Committee action, May 16: HB 311

HB 311, the slightly smaller version of SB 7, came out of the Senate Retirement Committee today in pretty good shape. About the only major change contemplated was keeping the 2.5 percent rate of accrual for retirees after a certain number of years of service.

As we know, the state retirement systems face an unfunded accrued liability in the neighborhood of $12 billion, largely due to the generosity of the system to retirees. The changes would prevent people from retiring in their late 40’s near 100 percent of their average earnings of their (usually) last three years, or in their late 50’s at over 100%, with the ability to then double-dip, sometimes with their own agencies.

As usual, the retirement systems’ representatives argued the apocalypse would occur regarding these future employees (anybody hired after the end of the year; it doesn’t apply to present employees). Here’s the sad picture painted: the average LASERS-qualified employee arrives at 35, retires at 58, and thus over 40 percent of them will retire at levels below poverty.

Right – if they’re dumb enough not to set aside some money in addition to their state pension, which everybody except at the lowest pay levels has the capacity to do. Further, they’re entering the system later at higher compensation levels and leaving it relatively early because the generosity of the system gives them incentive to do so! Finally, they always have the exit option – if they think benefits are too low, they’re perfectly free to work elsewhere.

The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Pete Schneider, did not mince words when it came to his assessment of assistance he got from LASERS itself. He declared it and its director Bob Borden had not always been forthcoming and completely helpful in trying to find a solution to the unfunded liability problem – an assessment that state Sen.Walter Boasso did not disagree with, Boasso complaining about the tons of misinformation the agencies did not discourage from being disseminated about this bill and his own SB 7.

In the end, the bill went to the Senate floor unanimously. It may have a chance to pass since, unlike Boasso’s bill, it does not address the question of system governance.

TUESDAY: HB 80 is scheduled to be heard by the House Civil Law and Procedure Committee; HB 688, HB 691, and HB 731 are scheduled to be heard by the House Ways and Means Committee.

13 May 2005

Legislative regular session through 5/13/05

THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 232 was involuntarily deferred; HB 386 passed the House 101-0 and was scheduled to be heard in the Senate; HB 599 passed out of committee 14-0 and passed the House; HB 676 was involuntarily deferred; SB 44 was passed by the Senate 35-0; SB 82 was passed by the Senate 35-0; SB 146 was reported with minor amendments and passed out of committee.

THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 21 was referred to the Senate; HB 437 was reported with minor amendments passing 17-0; HB 560 was scheduled to be heard in the Senate; HB 763 was reported with major amendments passing 18-0 and passing the House 99-4; HB 874 was withdrawn; HB 875 was withdrawn; SB 8 was reported with minor amendments and passed by committee; SB 190 passed the Senate 35-0.

MONDAY: HB 654 is scheduled to be heard in the House Appropriations Committee; SB 228 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Finance Committee; SB 2, SB 94, SB 104, SB 105, SB 202, SB 254, SB 300, and SB 341 are scheduled to be heard in the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee; HB 311 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Retirement Committee.

SCORECARD:

Total House introductions: 877; Total Senate introductions: 352

Total House good bills: 42; Total Senate good bills: 22

Total House bad bills: 47; Total Senate bad bills: 19

Total House good bills heard in committee: 14; Total Senate good bills heard in committee: 11

Total House bad bills heard in committee: 14; Total Senate bad bills heard in committee: 6

Total House good bills passing committee: 3; Total Senate good bills passing committee: 6

Total House bad bills passing committee: 2; Total Senate bad bills passing committee: 2

Total House good bills passing House: 1; Total Senate good bills passing Senate: 2

Total House bad bills passing House: 2; Total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 1

11 May 2005

Committee and floor action, May 11: HB 80, HB 337, HB 497; HB 98

WEDNESDAY: HB 80, HB 337, and HB 415 are scheduled to be heard in the House and Governmental Affairs Committee; HB 146 and HB 242 are scheduled to be heard in the House Health and Welfare Committee; SB 146 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Health and Welfare Committee.

THURSDAY: SB 283 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Education Committee; SB 47 are scheduled to be heard in the Senate Local and Municipal Affairs Committee.

WEDNESDAY: HB 80, HB 337, and HB 415 are scheduled to be heard in the House and Governmental Affairs Committee; HB 146 and HB 242 are scheduled to be heard in the House Health and Welfare Committee; SB 146 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Health and Welfare Committee.

THURSDAY: SB 283 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Education Committee; SB 47 are scheduled to be heard in the Senate Local and Municipal Affairs Committee.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Term limits were on the minds of the House and Governmental Affairs Committee as it heard HB 80, HB 337, and HB 497. Interestingly, none of these bills had anything directly to do with them, but some involved in the testimony asserted the link.

The first two bills would change the state election cycle to having these elections every fourth year divisible by four, i.e. presidential election years. Rep. Bobby Faucheux spoke for his bill, HB 337, by stressing the amount of money the state would save. The author of HB 80, Rep. Peppi Bruneau, spoke next pointing out that 43 states already have some or all of their state elections during national elections and that participation in them ought to increase.

Bruneau also volunteered that this legislation was not an extra year dodge of term limits. He reminded his listeners that the Constitution prohibited shortening of current terms so there was no choice but to extend terms a year.

Without objection, the committee sailed his bill through, missing a chance to use these bills to correct the big problem in length of service – the fact that term limits apply only to consecutive service in a chamber, not the entire Legislature. An easy amendment to make would have been to get rid of this loophole, giving officials an extra year in exchange for terms limits the way they ought to be.

Perhaps even more interesting was Rep. Jack Smith’s bill, which calls for a constitutional convention in August wherein the delegates are the 144 members of the Legislature. Smith said "goofballs" say we're trying to weaken term limits and that “everybody” knew the Constitution needed fixing.

Smith ate those remarks awhile later when former legislator and now head of the Louisiana Family Forum Dan Richey identified himself as the “goofball” in question and reiterated his opposition to the convention, among other things, as a backdoor attempt to get rid of terms limits. Smith apologized for the monnicker but said Richey’s opinion was “goofballish” because he contemplated no such move against term limits.

Committee chairman Rep. Charlie Lancaster tries to substitute in a motion for more restrictions on the open-ended convention (which would need voter approval of any of its products) but only Rep. Mert Smiley joined him. They also were the on the losing end of the 4-2 vote approving the bill.

Interestingly, Rep. Loulan Pitre voted for this bill even though his HB 157 would have a much more limited convention called; his vote against could have killed it. His thinking here may have been that with his bill, now pending floor approval, would put in place the limits not there in HB 497.

FLOOR ACTION: HB 98 is an example of good intentions gone awry. Rep. Monica Walker’s motivation is to prevent people from refusing to take a sobriety test and being able to keep their license. She seemed to discount the possibility that those arrested were not guilty yet they would automatically lose use of their license (although it could be reinstated). She also did not see it as a problem, as Reps. Rick Gallot and Derrick Shepherd pointed out, that these citizens would then have to go through administrative process, even if the charges immediately were dropped and somebody was not guilty. Bruneau blasted the measure, arguing it took away the presumption of innocence.

(Let me tell you, from personal experience, I have known people pulled over and arrested for DWI who had not had a drink in 24 hours, because of overzealous law enforcement especially around the end of the month, after “inconclusive” breathalyzer tests. Despite what Walker thinks, it can happen. Thus, innocent people can get railroaded into having their licenses yanked under HB 98.)

Walker still said driving still could be legal, one would have to go through the process. But what she doesn’t recognize is the additional burden this places on innocent citizens. Fortunately, the House recognized this danger to our civil liberties and defeated the measure 57-36.

QUOTES OF THE DAY: “You might as well put on the crash helmets on Harrison Avenue in New Orleans”

Rep. Peppi Bruneau, on the propensity of senior citizens to swerve around Lakefront New Orleans on Mondays which could get them pulled over for DWI.

“This might **** some people off … oh, sorry Mr. Speaker!”

Walker during her closing remarks on HB 98.

09 May 2005

Committee action, May 9, 2005: HB 673

I think I’ve hit upon the reason why Louisiana is in so much trouble in terms of state finances and economic development – we have a bunch of economic illiterates in our state Legislature.

Debate over HB 763, and by extension HB 183, demonstrated exactly this problem. These bills try to create a category of “unfair sales” of gasoline which is an absolute oxymoron. In a free market, there is no “unfairness” in sales because competition allows for voluntary, uncoerced transactions.

But several kinds of confusion seem to exist. HB 763’s author Rep. Taylor Townsend in his bill seems to believe that some huge cartel of oil companies is extracting excess wealth from gas buyers, creating complicated regulations and definitions that assuredly would tack even more costs onto gasoline.

The real target, it was revealed through the hearings, was Murphy Oil stations because they control all the channels of distribution (refining to sales). Of course, they only have 39 of 3200 stations in Louisiana, but from the rhetoric of some you would have thought they were ripping off the entire state.

Such seemed to be the view of Rep. Derrick Shepherd. He kept harping upon high prices and the amount of money the industry made last quarter. He seemed clueless to the fact that returns on investment vary over time and that it was the margins that were important to understanding the whole picture. The fact is, margins continue to be very squeezed in the industry. And he seemed to be advancing the strange notion that by not allowing the industry to lower prices to whatever level, their “obscene” profits would be curtailed!

Also a model of confusion was Rep. Mickey Frith. He couldn’t grasp then concept that different retailers located near each other could have very different prices depending upon a host of factors.

Rival author of HB 183 Rep. (and petroleum engineer) William Daniel had more sense, pointing out that his bill which would not set floor prices but would prohibit selling below “cost.” Despite his protestations otherwise, where he said he favored lower gas prices for consumers, Daniel does not seem to believe that the free market would not prevent this from occurring over the long run in any event. Simply, exit and entry into this vastly competitive field will prevent that. In fact, Daniel himself admitted there seemed to be no monopoly and none looming, so what was the point of his bill?

Committee member Rep. Mike Walsworth showed at least some members of the Legislature get it. He pointed out to Daniel that there was no way Daniel’s bill could guarantee lower gas prices in any time frame, pointing out the inherent contradiction in Daniel’s bill: it may not set a fixed floor and it may not impose much of a regulatory burden, but the fact is it does impose a floor and some regulatory burden.

In a confusing end to a three-hour discussion on these bills, the committee deadlocked on HB 183 and HB 673 but loaded with amendments got through. But the whole debate was instructive, painfully so, about why this state has such trouble moving forward.

Legislative regular session through 5/6/05

Filing is finally over. The damage is 877 in the House, 352 in the Senate.

THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 247 made it out of committee 7-1 with a few technical amendments and awaits floor action. HB 311 passed the House 69-35 and will be heard in the Senate Retirement Committee. HB 386 passed out of committee 8-0 with a few clerical amendments and awaits floor action. SB 7 made it out of committee with slight amendments and awaits floor action. SB 53 passed out of committee and awaits final passage. SB 82 made it out of committee and awaits passage. SB 323 made it out of committee and awaits floor action.

THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 162 and HB 163 were involuntarily deferred by the House Insurance Committee. HB 560 made it out of committee 11-0 and passed the House 101-2, and now has been assigned to the Senate Finance Committee. SB 190 passed out of committee with some minor amendments and awaits floor action.

MONDAY: HB 183, HB 690, and HB 763 are scheduled to be heard in the House Commerce Committee; HB 436, HB 437, HB 502, HB 608, and HB 810 are scheduled to be heard by the House Ways and Means Committee; HB 219 and HB 676 are scheduled to be heard by the House Transportation, Highways, and Public Works Committee; SB 228 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Finance Committee; SB 1 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee; HB 311 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Committee on Retirement.

TUESDAY: HB 52 is scheduled to be heard by the House Committee of Civil Law and Procedure.

FILING BILLS THAT ARE THE GOOD: HB 834 by John LaBruzzo allows parents to take tax credits for expenses of private, including home-schooled, education. This is a necessary measure to create additional incentives for improvement of public schools by reducing the double-charging (local taxes and state taxes for schools and tuition and/or expenses) that goes on for parents not allowing their children to attend public schools. Pretty good too is Rob Marrioneaux’s SB 352 which exempts employers from paying unemployment compensation contributions on wages earned by part time workers who are full time students at postsecondary institutions, a commonsensical measure since by law these kinds of employees are ineligible to draw unemployment anyway.


AND THE BAD: HB 828 by Alex Heaton provides more corporate welfare for the music recording industry; HB 847 by Charlie DeWitt raises taxes on crude oil by 35 cents a barrel; HB 849 by Cheryl Gray essentially raises taxes by 19.6 cents a subscriber telecommunications line to fund an emergency response network while HB 863 by Austin Badon only attacks wireless contracts; SB 341 by Ann Duplessis creates corporate welfare for digital media production.

But the worst are the pair from Derrick Shepherd, HB 874 and HB 875 which makes tobacco dealers pay extra fees and for rolling paper sold, too, respectively. These bills don’t pretend to shuttle money to a fund for some laudable purpose, it just grabs more money for the state (so does DeWitt’s bill but at least he only has one).

SCORECARD:

Total House introductions: 877; Total Senate introductions: 352

Total House good bills: 41; Total Senate good bills: 22

Total House bad bills: 48; Total Senate bad bills: 19

Total House good bills heard in committee: 12; Total Senate good bills heard in committee: 8

Total House bad bills heard in committee: 12; Total Senate bad bills heard in committee: 4

Total House good bills passing committee: 3; Total Senate good bills passing committee: 3

Total House bad bills passing committee: 2; Total Senate bad bills passing committee: 1

Total House good bills passing House: 1; Total Senate good bills passing Senate: 0

Total House bad bills passing House: 1; Total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 0

04 May 2005

Committee action, May 4, 2005: SB 190

Louisiana’s administration of programs for the disabled certainly needs reforming, and state Sen. Sharon Weston Broome’s SB 190 does a good job of this. But it has one killer section which cannot be allowed to stay in the bill which went unaddressed when the Senate Health and Welfare Committee met this morning.

The problem comes with the content of just a few paragraphs, which essentially indicate that if your family has such a person using state services and you do not live in poverty, the state is going to come after almost all of your assets to "pay it back," even after that person is dead. This is an extension of current policy which is not recorded as a statute, and expands on it. In short, if bad luck strikes somebody and they have no insurance for that eventuality or it is insufficient to care for that person's need, the state will take almost everything of value from that family (the bill reads like it will even go farther than federal standards for Medicaid eligibility, which at least allow these family's to own a home, vehicle, and furnishings).

Bad fortune of this nature doesn't respect a family's socioeconomic status, and can produce bills in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just to sustain somebody and give to him a decent quality of life. Why should people who have worked hard and saved and invested for themselves and their posterity get suddenly wiped out before the state will help them, while those who do not have such resources, many of whom chose not to pursue strategies that would have accumulated wealth for them, are taken care of at no cost by the state. It is this mentality that spawns the use of expensive, specialized strategies for family's to preserve their assets in cases of calamity, which not everybody can do.

In fact, with these provisions (on p. 14 of the original bill) intact, the state would encourage people in this condition to do everything possible to divest assets to other family members or others and to go completely onto the state dole (including spouses getting divorced) – if they’re going to lose it anyway, they might as well lose it to their choice rather than to the state. In that way, the state ends up paying it all anyway, whereas if these provisions were modified to allow some asset protection by families, families would be encouraged to stay together and to use some resources to supplement the state’s help, reducing the state’s burden.

This bill with these passages will cost taxpayers more and cause more misery for those in this unfortunate health care situation. It’s been passed out of committee; some floor amendments will be necessary to make it worthy of passage.

THURSDAY: SB 283 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Education Committee.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “At least we need the nation in something …”

Comment from House and Governmental Affairs Committee after Rep. Mert Smiley informed it that Louisiana has more boards and commissions than any other state.

02 May 2005

Committee action, May 2, 2005: SB 7

SB 7 by state Sen. Walter Boasso doesn’t change anything for present state employees. But if the reaction of opponents was anything in its Retirement Committee hearing, it was like the end of the world to them.

The bill forces future education employees to actually work a respectable number of years before they can retire, especially at full pay. It’s possible now for somebody to retire at full pay before he’s 50 – and then turn around and get hired at approximately the same salary, potentially double dipping off of taxpayers for a couple of decades.

It’s one of the main reasons why the state’s retirement funds are so badly underfunded, too generous benefits. There’s also been criticism about their management, with Boasso providing examples about how ill-informed some of their board members were. But you couldn’t have known that from, particularly, the teachers’ unions representatives that lodged complaints about his bill. Complementing them was officials from the retirement boards, all together whining along several themes:


  • Past Legislatures and past board members had hamstrung them too much, which really caused all the problems so this bill punished the wrong people
  • Benefits to the system are backloaded anyway, so it doesn’t really fix anything
  • “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” because

    1. Recent return rates have been above average
    2. Combining two boards into one with hardly any teachers’ representatives on it would put too many eggs into one basket
    3. Why change boards compositions that had done so well?
    4. “Expertise” in investing in this area was overrated; elected representatives who are or were teachers could do just as well
  • It would treat teachers differently from other public safety occupations’ retirement in the state, being that teaching could be considered a “dangerous” profession (yes, a union thug from Jefferson Parish actually said this)

    Of course, none of these were convincing arguments. First of all, it wasn’t these representatives who were making these great investment decisions it was investment professionals whose advice they followed. Who says a new board with reduced teacher influence could make just as good decisions? Or even better, since the bill would put six investment professionals on the single board. Second, just because one set of people did all right investing does not mean anybody else can’t do as well or better. Third, even if benefits to the system are backloaded, $38 million would be saved over the next 5 years.

    Boasso, along with Sen. Jay Dardenne, pointed out most of these. Most interesting was the desperation evident among many of these opponents. Some snidely suggested that Boasso, a freshman senator, was being used by others to put this legislation forward. One, showing just how far out of touch they were with the citizenry, asked why any graduate would want to go into teaching starting at $27,000 a year and faced with having to work until he was 60. (Many Louisianans dream of such affluence in a job from which they almost could never be fired from.)

    Desperation reigned because they were fighting for the future of their unions, from which they derive power and privilege at the expense of taxpayers. Teaching will become less lucrative (note that state teachers’ pay, for two-thirds of a year’s work, in Louisiana still is higher relatively speaking than their results in the classroom) even as this bill still leaves in place a more-generous retirement system than virtually any other occupation. This means their unions become less powerful.

    The bill was amended to drop the year-long sit-out period without benefit payment between retirement and beginning double-dipping (because now you’d have to be 60 to start it) and to begin a year later, but otherwise passed unscathed and unanimously. The tenor and tone of its opponents likely means their fight against it isn’t over by a longshot.
  • TUESDAY: SB 323 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Judiciary C Committee; HB 173, HB 335, HB 539, HB 582, HB 583, and HB 712 are scheduled to be heard by the House Ways and Means Committee;

    WEDNESDAY: HB 386 is scheduled to be heard by the House and Governmental Affairs Committee; HB 162 and HB 163 are scheduled to be heard by the House Insurance Committee.