The Pelican Post

The report in the Times-Picayune on the financial disclosure of last year’s futile effort to depose councilwoman Stacy Head accentuates the need for higher standards of accountability in our local political process. The list of donors raises questions about the fiscal conduct of churches and police officers, and shines light on the ramifications of the Nagin-Riley regime.

Several donors included pastors from local Baptist churches, which appears to violate the IRS tax-exempt status of churches and religious organizations. This is hardly unprecedented in New Orleans; during the prosecution of Bill Jefferson and his relatives, several Baptist pastors used their pulpit to hold candlelight vigils in support of Jefferson. Needless to say, these acts went unpunished.

More alarming is the fact that one of the pastors in question, Donald Berryhill of First Zion Baptist Church, is also a NOPD officer, meaning that he violated both the code of conduct regarding a clergyman and a police officer. His involvement in the recall effort had previously been investigated within the department, but Berryhill was cleared of any wrongdoing. Either the “investigation” team was incompetent, or more likely, given the history of the department, it was quick to sweep any discovered violations under the carpet.

Fortunately for the city, Mayor Landrieu’s actions so far indicate a reversal of direction regarding public policy. The wise hiring of Ronal Serpas as police department has been accompanied by promises of external and Federal audits of the Department. This is necessary to purge a historically corrupt department of its culture of obfuscating and colluding with bureaucratic offices such as the Sanitation Department. Likewise, a cooperative relationship with Inspector General Ed Quatreveaux will help combat waste and abuse within the city.

However, we must continue to take steps to ensure good governance. Independent and objective audits are needed to regulate the civic process. For instance, in a city such as New Orleans, where divisive racial politics play such a major role, we must hold religious leaders and organizations accountable for abusing their position for purposes of demagoguery and political favoritism. Behavior which violates IRS statutes needs to be reported.

Likewise, political action committees, such as the effort to recall Ms. Head, need to be held to higher standards of transparency (The irony of this PAC’s official name, Citizens for Accountability and Transparency in Government, is surely lost on its members). As reported in the Times-Picayune, the chief organizer of the recall effort, Barbara Ann Jackson, failed to both register it as a PAC and release a financial disclosure. Considering the list of partners, one might assume this was too avoid potential embarrassment. Fortunately, the Board of Ethics has launched an investigation into this. We can only hope that it holds the concerned parties accountable and sets  a new standard for civic responsibility.

Would you like to read an excessively optimistic view on health care reform? Sen. Mary Landrieu’s op-ed highlights what she believes to be the greatest ObamaCare achievements, praising the full coverage of Louisiana’s children, young adults, and seniors.

Claiming that “congress has finally delivered meaningful health care coverage to all Americans,” Sen. Landrieu argues that the new reform will “save businesses thousands of dollars each year which will allow businesses to potentially increase wages or hire more employees.”

But Sen. Landrieu is overly confident – and even deceptive – because she is neglecting important facts behind the new health care reform: its costs. As Michael Cannon from the Cato Institute points out:

“Obama’s plan [aka: ObamaCare] would vastly increase the size and scope of the federal government, and increase our already record federal deficit”

The Congressional Budget Office estimated costs to be around $940 billion, but this projection takes into account only the costs to expand current health insurance coverage. Considering other unavoidable spending provisions, the costs would amount to around $1.2 trillion.  And that is a conservative estimate. Further, the new health care reform will force nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance, set price controls on the private health insurance industry, and increase the federal deficit by providing more than $1 trillion in subsidies.

Sure, Landrieu is right to claim that these reforms will extend coverage to more children, seniors, and sick individuals. Unfortunately she fails to acknowledge that this will not be sustainable in the long run.

On January 11, 2010, Senator Mary Landrieu was confronted by protestors outside the Vermilion Parish Library as she spoke about coastal protection.  The protestors were there to discuss the Senator’s vote on health care reform.  As she responded to criticism, she noted:

“The idea is to require personal responsibility.  People have to have insurance but we’ll help you pay for it.”

This is a strange kind of personal responsibility.  Real personal responsibility requires individual people to take ownership of their actions.  If the government mandates behavior, it can hardly be thought of as people taking the responsibility to accomplish something on their own.

To make matters worse, Landrieu follows up with a promise that the government will help pay for this required behavior.  It seems that she views personal responsibility as something that ought be legislated and subsidized rather than left to the individual where it belongs.

If legislators focused on addressing the unnecessary rules and regulations that drive up the cost of insurance and health care, more individuals could afford to act responsibly. That would be better for the individual and less expensive for the government.

Senator Mary Landrieu may have secured Louisiana a $300 million Medicaid supplement within the Senate health care bill when she voted in favor of cloture. While a provision within the bill is geared towards states currently recovering from major disasters, “when the bill is closely examined…the provision provides immense financial support for only one state: Louisiana.”

Although some, including Landrieu, downplay the significance of the cloture vote, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) points out “fully 97 percent of bills that win a vote to proceed eventually become law.”

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute points out: “Old-fashioned vote-buying is one thing, but what is one to make of supposed fiscal conservatives who voted for a bill that would increase federal spending by $2.5 trillion over its first 10 years of actual operation (2014-2023), paid for by 15 new or increased taxes?”

Do not be fooled into believing Landrieu is helping the state of Louisiana. If the proposed healthcare legislation were to be signed into law, the $300 million allocated to Louisiana will pale in comparison to the long-term debt Louisiana citizens will ultimately shoulder.  Landrieu has done our state no favors by displaying that she, like so many other politicians in the state of Louisiana, has a sweet spot for cash.

And consider this comparison between the actual Louisiana Purchase of 1803 with what has come to be known as the modern day Louisiana Purchase of 2009:

Purchase of Louisiana territory + Cancellation of Debt = $15 million in 1803 for all of the Louisiana Purchase

In today’s dollars, this would be equivalent to $212 million (calculated from Minneapolis Fed historical CPI estimates).

This is $88 million less than it cost to purchase Senator Landrieu’s vote Saturday, which came with a price tag of $300 million.

The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed a complaint with the FEC over a $25,300 donation by Senator Mary Landrieu’s campaign to the U.S. Treasury.

CREW executive director Melanie Sloan argues, “We all know politicians don’t give up campaign contributions – much less $25,000 – without a very good reason. It appears Sen. Landrieu’s reason may have been to avoid a scandal or, even worse, a federal investigation into some of her contributions.”

Marc Elias, Senator Landrieu’s campaign lawyer, called the lawsuit “frivolous” and said the campaign wanted to protect the identity of donors who “may not have done anything wrong.”  The CREW complaint however argues that the only two scenarios in which “dirty” money may be donated to the Treasury are if a donor is under a Justice Department investigation, or has been convicted for making illegal contributions.  In both of these cases, the identity of the donor must be made public.

Sloan follows up, “Our campaign finance laws were designed to ensure transparency.  If Sen. Landrieu did nothing wrong, she has no reason not to come clean with the American people and explain why she turned over $25,000 in contributions to the Treasury.”

The Landrieu campaign will have 15 days to respond after the FEC provides its formal notification.