On Tuesday the Jefferson Parish School Board will meet to consider approving a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Jefferson Federation of Teachers (JFT). The board elected not to renew the CBA last year, opting for individual contracts with teachers.

While neighboring Orleans Parish has received international attention for its heralded post-Katrina school reforms, Jefferson Parish has also embarked in a remarkable effort to transform a troubled school system.

Like New Orleans, Jefferson’s reforms are now bearing fruit. And like New Orleans, Jefferson benefits from leadership that places students above special interests. Here are five reasons why approving a new CBA would stymie momentum and risk recent gains:

1. Schools Are More Autonomous, Innovative and Accountable Without CBA Constraints

Since 2011, Jefferson Parish has pursued a strategy of giving more autonomy and decision-making power to schools and their principals. This has given leaders the freedom to focus more narrowly on student success and teacher development.

In exchange for this increased freedom and flexibility, schools, principals and teachers are finally being held accountable for school performance. For example, the district elected not to renew contracts with 15 principals at schools with unsatisfactory academic growth.

This sensible approach is commonplace the private sector, but in the union-dominated world of public education it is still regarded as revolutionary. But no organization can thrive without strong, flexible leadership.

This ability to innovate will become even more important in coming years. To take one example, Hispanic families made up 40% of those registering for pre-kindergarten spots in Jefferson this year. Adapting to this demographic shift and addressing new challenges that may arise in the years ahead will require leaders who are not constrained by a thicket of union rules and bureaucracy.

Principals, teachers and other administrators should work collaboratively, but the JFT’s overly prescriptive approach to “decision teams” hampers effective leadership. Jefferson schools will be better able to navigate the challenges and opportunities of the 21^st Century if school leaders have the autonomy to innovate, while being held accountable for academic outcomes.

2. Collective Bargaining Agreement Prioritizes Union Wants Over Student Needs 

The Jefferson Parish Public School System (JPPSS) is to be commended for taking a more “student-centric” approach in recent years. While this emphasis on the student should be the norm, in fact it is not. Much of this is due to the power of the union. Among the most egregious union practices has been the determination to ensure that job security takes priority over teacher quality.

While many are aware that union agreements make it almost impossible to replace an ineffective teacher, there are lesser know provisions that also demonstrate misplaced union priorities. For example, the JFT believes that special programs, like summer school, should be staffed by teachers on a rotating basis rather than staffed according to quality. In other words, the union wants to prohibit schools from selecting the teachers most suited for a particular assignment. The impact of this approach is not quantifiable but there is no question that students are the losers when schools cannot select the best person for a particular job.

Students have also suffered from a dearth of educational options over the years. JPPSS has finally taken steps to address this by bringing in new charter schools to the district. Programs like Course Choice will also expand the range of educational opportunities. The trend towards offering students more high quality options is long overdue and should continue. Empowering a union that consistently opposes choice through a new CBA would likely stunt the growth of this burgeoning educational marketplace and demonstrate a lack of commitment to the students of Jefferson Parish.

3. Financial Resources Are Being Deployed More Effectively

In 2010 JPPSS faced an annual deficit of $25 million. Difficult decisions have been made over the past three years, including eliminating approximately 150 central office administrative positions and closing 7 under-enrolled and under-performing schools.

The district has now achieved a balanced budget for two consecutive years. As further evidence of this fiscal probity, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has invited JPPSS to apply for a large grant and serve as a model of effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

Unfortunately, JFT has not been eager to embrace this responsible approach. The union continues to promote inefficient policies that drive up costs and do nothing to improve educational outcomes.

Public finances at the state and local level are likely to be stretched thin for decades to come. Success in this challenging environment will require the kind of prudence and flexibility that unions consistently oppose. If the district hopes to allocate its dollars in the most effective manner possible, rejecting the CBA is imperative.

4. Existing Law and Policy Already Protects Employees

Unions have served a valuable purpose in our society. There was a time when many private and public sector employees lacked protection from unjust terminations and unreasonable working conditions and unions helped address these wrongs.

But federal and state labor laws evolved over the years and now offer considerable protection to workers.  With the pendulum having swung in the other direction, unions are often left justifying their existence by battling for relatively trivial benefits. Further, these benefits do not advance the true mission of public schools: educating children.

It should also be noted that the lack of a CBA does not prevent JPPSS from addressing the concerns of teachers, either through district policy or employment contracts. Doing this without a CBA actually gives JPPSS more freedom to carefully craft its policy, rather than engaging in the one-size-fits-all approach that a CBA inevitably requires.

Finally, proceeding without a CBA will give JPPSS teachers greater freedom of association. Teachers who choose to join the JFT should be free to do so. But teachers should not be prevented from joining other professional development organizations, a legitimate issue at a time when growing numbers of teachers are seeking alternatives to the established unions.

5. Academic Outcomes Demonstrate Validity of Current Approach

None of the arguments outlined above would stand if these policy changes had not produced better academic outcomes. But results demonstrate the validity of the JPPSS approach. According to today’s grading scale, Jefferson schools were rated an F in 2008. Today they have improved to a C. Not surprisingly, the greatest jump in Performance Score took place in 2011-12, after Jefferson began prioritizing performance and principal autonomy. The district’s overall performance improved from 67^th to 41^st in the state in just two years. And graduation rates continue to rise while dropout rates fall. 

These results prove that the new approach is yielding benefits, but they also highlight the fact that Jefferson still has a long way to go. Of course the union will argue that this progress could have been achieved with their full cooperation. But the long, steady decline of JPPSS occurred at the peak of union influence. The decision to take a different approach was not made lightly and the union has stood in opposition throughout this turnaround.  

Conclusion

Jefferson Parish is at a pivotal point in its history. New Orleans is now appealing to many of the young families who in the past would have migrated to Jefferson. Many of those who choose to live outside of New Orleans are opting for the North Shore. If Jefferson is to thrive, strong public schools are critical.

Policymakers at all levels tend to shy away from direct conflict with teachers unions. This is understandable – teachers are pillars of the community, and many of us have friends or family who teach. But it is clear that a CBA is not needed to protect the interests of teachers.

Further, the union has aggressively fought against the statewide education reforms in Baton Rouge in recent years. While district leadership in Jefferson has embraced teacher accountability, school choice and other sensible reforms, the union has resisted them tooth and nail. A union that rejects the JPPSS approach to education reform should not be surprised when the district elects not to empower them through an ineffective and burdensome CBA.

The role of a school board is not to court popularity, but to ensure that children in the district have access to a superior education. Recent reforms have gone a long way to guaranteeing this access. A new CBA would endanger this turnaround and raise questions about the long-term prospects of Jefferson Parish.

Thumbtack.com, in partnership with the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, has released the second-annual Thumbtack.com Small Business Friendliness Survey showing that small businesses rated Louisiana among the most business friendly states, particularly in terms of its training programs and labor regulations.

This is the only survey to obtain data from an extensive, nationwide universe of job creators and entrepreneurs in order to determine the most business-friendly locations. While there are various “business climate rankings” that rate locations as good or bad for business, there are no others that draw upon considerable data from small business owners themselves.

“In surveying thousands of small businesses across America, we found that clear and consistent regulations and relevant training programs are among the most important factors in determining how they view their region’s friendliness,” said Sander Daniels, co-founder of Thumbtack.com. “By continuing to focus on these areas and listen to the concerns of the state’s small business owners, Louisiana state and local officials can put themselves in a position to provide this critical group of job creators with an environment conducive to growth and success.”

Some of the key findings for Louisiana include:

• Louisiana earned an ‘A’ grade for its small business training and networking programs.

• Small businesses rated the state’s labor and employment laws an ‘A-’. Louisiana’s tax code earned a ‘B+ grade’.

• Nationally, professional licensing requirements were more important to small business owners than taxes in determining a state’s overall business-friendliness, confirming the findings from last year’s study.

• African-American and Hispanic small business owners were more likely than their white counterparts to encourage others to start a new business.

• The top ranking states overall were Utah, Alabama, New Hampshire, Idaho, and Texas.  The lowest rated were Illinois, California, Hawaii, Maine and, in last place, Rhode Island.

• Louisiana’s online resources for small businesses were rated among the nation’s ten best.

• One area of concern for small businesses in Louisiana was obtaining and keeping health insurance, with 47% describing it as “Very Difficult.”

“It is critical to the economic health of every city and state to create an entrepreneur-friendly environment,” said Dane Stangler, director of Research and Policy at the Kauffman Foundation.  “Policymakers put themselves in the best position to encourage sustainable growth and long-term prosperity by listening to the voices of small business owners themselves.”

The full survey results can be seen here and include full sets of rankings, easily searchable quotes from Louisiana small businesses, regional comparisons within states, and Census data comparing Louisiana’s key demographics against those of other states.

Survey methodology

Thumbtack.com surveyed 7,766 small businesses across the United States. The survey asked questions about the friendliness of states and cities toward small business, such as:

• “In general, how would you rate your state’s support of small business owners?”

• “Would you discourage or encourage someone from starting a new business where you live?” and

• “Do you think you pay your fair share of taxes?”

Thumbtack and Kauffman ranked states and cities against one another along more than a dozen metrics.  The full methodology paper can be found here.

The achievement gap in the United States has been studied and examined by academics, politicians, and the media for over a century. Low-income, minority students are performing at significantly lower rates than white, middle-class students. African American students, for instance, are scoring 25% lower on standardized tests than their white peers. 12^th grade African American students’ scores on standardized literacy tests are equivalent to those of 8^th grade white students. Morally, this societal imbalance must be corrected immediately before another generation of children receive a second rate education. Leaders need to promote creative options for low-income, minority students whose educational needs are not being met adequately by their schools.

Louisiana’s Course Choice is an innovative solution that has the potential to place underperforming students in high-quality courses and programs that can help them improve their academic skills. Under this program, the Louisiana State Department of Education has approved 41 Course Choice Providers through a rigorous four-step process. Course Choice Providers range from commercial companies, non-profit organizations, local educational entrepreneurs, schools districts, community colleges, and virtual schools. Students can choose a range of courses from vocational classes like pipe fitting and barbering to Advanced Placement, to foreign language, to test prep, to core academics. Some providers offer college and career training.

The state is developing a strong accountability system to ensure effective implementation for the 2013-14 school year, and providers are paid for results. They receive 50% of the tuition payment after a student has stayed in a course past the add/drop period, and they only receive the remaining 50% when a student finishes the course.

Course Choice is designed to supplement the school system by creating courses that will help schools achieve their mission of delivering quality programs that build students’ academic foundation and prepare students for college and careers. Parents of students enrolled in the program see Course Choice as an academic lifeline for their children, and students are excited for new opportunities that they do not currently have. At the end of each school year, courses’ success can readily be evaluated through LEAP scores, End of Course Exams, and student participation rates.

In order for Course Choice to be most effective, providers, schools, and community-centers should work together to ensure that students are receiving the maximum benefit from the program. Course Choice Providers must work to deliver the highest quality curriculum by creative means in order to ensure that all students stay engaged and learn. They must be able to meet the needs of students who may have special needs and/or lack the basic skills required for some of the courses. Schools should notify students of all of their options and ensure that the courses are accessible to interested students and well-integrated into the school day. Schools and Course Choice Providers must communicate effectively about student learning plans and academic progress. Community centers should reinforce Course Choice by informing the community about it and potentially incorporating Course Choice into an after-school program or weekend academy.

Like any new policy, strong and courageous leaders need to ensure that the program is effective. State Department of Education, District, School, Community, and Course Choice Provider leadership must put students first and work together to deliver Course Choice effectively to all qualifying students. Collectively, educational stakeholders can have a strong impact on student academic achievement, which will help this generation of students have immediate access to quality courses and educational programs beginning in the 2013-14 school year.

Isaak Aronson is President/CEO of SmartStart Education, LLC, which operates SmartStart Virtual Academy, an approved Louisiana Course Choice Provider

Although Louisiana’s House of Representatives rejected a bill to expand Medicaid, a Senate committee approved a different Medicaid expansion bill and the House will be reviewing other expansion bills in the coming days.

The Pelican Institute has criticized this proposed expansion. We have noted the long history of federal programs exceeding their estimated costs; the unlikelihood of achieving market-friendly reforms when playing by Medicaid’s stifling rules; and the necessity of resisting another expansion of the modern welfare state.

New data has been released since our last analysis that makes the case for rejecting Medicaid expansion even more compelling:

1. Medicaid Spreads Wealth Without Improving Health

On Wednesday, the New England Journal of Medicine published the updated results of an extensive study of the relationship between health outcomes and health insurance delivered by Medicaid. The key finding was that “Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical outcomes” versus being uninsured. Other studies have reached the same conclusion but this in-depth study is considered the gold standard by many health care experts.

So not only does Medicaid place an unreasonable burden on taxpayers, it fails to deliver a significant health benefit to the poor. These outcomes could actually get worse if Medicaid is expanded, as existing beneficiaries will be forced to compete for access to medical services with the newly enrolled. While Medicaid beneficiaries do enjoy greater financial security than the uninsured, policymakers can do this without doubling down on a failing federal colossus.

2. Our Long-Term Fiscal Challenges Weigh Against More Spending Commitments

On Monday, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released their annual outlook on the fiscal health of state and local governments. The report shows that state and local governments will struggle to balance their budgets for years – even decades – to come. The report also highlights the dramatic increase in health spending as a proportion of GDP and that total tax revenues may remain below the historical high of 2007 all the way to 2060.

This raises an obvious question: Should policymakers commit to a long-term increase in state spending when the challenge of balancing the budget already promises to be perilous? Expansion advocates tout three years of 100% federal funding but short-term inducements do not solve long-term problems. Further, circumstances may require the federal government to reduce matching payments in coming years, putting Louisiana at the mercy of Washington.

3. States Have a Rare Opportunity to Cut Federal Spending

States that decline to expand Medicaid will not see their share of the funds sent to other states. This gives state policymakers the unique opportunity to effectively veto hundreds of billions of dollars of new federal spending by not expanding Medicaid in their states.

The Goldwater Institute has estimated that federal spending for Medicaid expansion has been lowered by more than $424 billion over the next eight years due to the 18 states that have opted out. If the 12 undecided states choose to opt out, this will be another $185 billion in savings. A total of $609 billion in federal spending could be saved over the next eight years, a victory for fiscal responsibility in a time of federal profligacy.

Conclusion

While advocates for Medicaid expansion may be motivated by an honorable desire to protect the poor, studies continue to demonstrate poor health outcomes for Medicaid recipients. These good intentions are not enough, especially for a program that consumes ever-growing portions of federal and state budgets. Louisiana policymakers should instead act to incorporate market-based principles into our health care system. In the long run, such reforms would do more to control costs, stimulate innovation and provide access to the needy than expanding Medicaid.

Yesterday the Health and Welfare Committee of the Louisiana House of Representatives considered whether Louisiana should participate in the Medicaid expansion being promoted by the federal government through President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. I testified at the hearing, explaining why I thought the expansion was problematic. The committee voted to involuntarily defer the bill, likely killing it.

In the aftermath, Robert Mann made some ugly accusations about Medicaid expansion critics, highlighting my commentary on the issue. Because Bob Mann holds the Manship Chair in Journalism and is the director of the Reilly Center for Media and Public Affairs at Louisiana State University, and his accusations center around the issue of racism, I feel compelled to respond to his claims.

First, Mann points out that I compared the federal government’s approach to enticing states into expanding their Medicaid programs to the practice among drug dealers of offering prospective customers a “taste” of the product to lure them in.

My obvious point was that legislators should think about the long-term impact of this policy, not just the short-term benefits. A free sample of cocaine can lead to a costly and destructive drug habit, just as a program initially funded by the feds can become costly and destructive down the road. Nothing about this analogy lends itself to racial stereotyping, nor does it imply anything negative about Medicaid patients. My analysis was focused on the incentives that distort policymaking decisions.

Next, he cites a portion of my recent column on Medicaid:

To make matters worse, these programs and their incentives have contributed to the demise of marriage and the traditional family unit, to the detriment of the children that are raised in unstable environments, lacking the demonstrable benefits of a two-parent family. These social costs cannot be fully captured by empirical data but they may well outweigh any of the other costs and benefits typically referenced in the debate over expanding Medicaid.

Rather than addressing the substance of my argument, Mann simply characterizes it as a tactic to get racists riled up over the possibility that black people will get free heath care from the government. He does not address the evidence that welfare has contributed to a host of severe social problems among people of all races across the nation. Of course, there are many people who would disagree with my statement. But my observations about the welfare state and its perverse incentives are not novel in any way, nor are they limited in relevance to blacks.

Readers should examine the entirety of my column and Mann’s blog post. I think they will conclude that his accusations are extremely unfair. They might also lament the fact that the most prominent professor of journalism and communications at Louisiana’s flagship public university uses his considerable skills to poison the well of public debate.

Accusations of this kind are especially pernicious because they cannot be disproved. There is no way for anyone on either side of an issue to scientifically demonstrate purity of motive when making a political argument. That is why one of the requirements of civil debate is a willingness to assume honorable motives on the part of your opponent. Mann simply assumes the worst without offering a shred of evidence. His bold attempt to categorize reasonable, mainstream arguments against Medicaid expansion as racially-based is both clever and repulsive.

This is a destructive form of advocacy. Attributing malign motives to your opponent increases the likelihood that listeners will reject an argument without giving it a fair hearing. This approach exacerbates an already polarized environment. The decline of civil discourse has been much lamented in recent years. I don’t know what Mann’s thoughts are on this issue but his actions speak volumes.

It is also worth noting that my comments were directed to state legislators. Mann gingerly avoids calling me a racist, instead claiming that I was making an argument designed to appeal to a racist audience. It appears that Bob Mann has found a roundabout way of calling the legislators who voted against expansion racists. Or maybe he just thinks their constituents are racist. Perhaps he should clarify this for us rather than beating around the bush.

If this were just another political blogger these accusations could be overlooked. But Bob Mann holds an important position at a prestigious public institution and he is understandably accorded a great deal of respect. More importantly, he is a teacher and mentor to many bright young people at LSU. His cynical deployment of racism is the wrong lesson for these future journalists and communicators.

Those of us concerned with the state of journalism will take no comfort from Bob Mann’s approach to political commentary. And those of us concerned with the state of higher education will take no comfort from the presence of another taxpayer-funded partisan. As for the students, let’s hope they remember the phrase “Do as I say, not as I do” when studying with Bob Mann.  

A key feature of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) was the expansion of Medicaid throughout the states. When the United States Supreme Court ruled on a challenge to the constitutionality of the ACA, it held that the federal government could not require states to expand Medicaid. Thus, states have been deciding whether or not to participate in this expansion.

Governor Bobby Jindal elected not to expand Medicaid and now faces a legislative challenge that would require Louisiana to participate in the expansion. This legislation is problematic for several reasons:

The High Cost to Taxpayers

Those who advocate for expanding government’s role in our health care have a long history of citing dubious figures to support their positions. This tendency dates back to the original expansion of the welfare state in 1967. At that time, Congress projected that Medicare would cost taxpayers $12 billion in 1990. In fact, Medicare cost $110 billion in 1990. It now costs $550 billion and in 10 years will cost $1.1 trillion.

Further, the ACA was supposed to have cost taxpayers less than $1 trillion, but the Congressional Budget Office now estimates its cost at $1.76 trillion. It can be safely said that government programs typically end up costing taxpayers more – not less – than originally estimated over time. There is no reason to think it will be any different this time around.

In response, supporters will resort to touting the alleged economic benefits of Medicaid expansion. This is a classic case of assuming that politicians and bureaucrats will make optimum use of taxpayer dollars. Experience with the “Stimulus Package” and other Keynesian projects over the years tell us otherwise.    

Beware the Federal “Bait and Switch”

Expansion advocates have claimed that the federal government will give states leeway to innovate and introduce market principles into their Medicaid programs. But the federal government has only recently shown signs of such flexibility, and this is because they understand that states cannot be dragooned into expansion.

Only the naïve policymaker would assume this newfound flexibility will remain in effect for long. Whatever promises the federal government makes regarding the ability of states to innovate are likely to evaporate over time. Supporters of President Obama’s health care law consistently advocate for more central planning, not less, so there is no reason to expect states to retain meaningful independence in the long run.

If the administration supported market principles and state autonomy, the ACA would be a very different piece of legislation. In fact, it is designed to continue the unfortunate trend towards greater federal control of our health care. Legislators should remember that when “you take the king’s shilling you become the king’s man.” More federal dollars will ultimately lead to more federal control.

Building on the Failures of the Welfare State

A strong argument can be made that the radical expansion of the welfare state that took place under President Lyndon Johnson has been the single biggest policy failure of the past 50 years. Not only have these programs grown far beyond what anyone imagined in terms of cost and participation rates, but many of the problems they sought to solve remain as intractable as ever.

For example, many studies show that Medicaid patients have worse health outcomes than people with no insurance at all. Because reimbursement rates are so low, many doctors elect not to participate in Medicaid. So unlike patients with private insurance, Medicaid patients often go untreated until their illnesses have reached a critical point.

Expanding Medicaid will only make this problem worse. Not only that, but some of the newly eligible will elect to drop their existing private insurance plans for the lure of “free” health care. This is one of many examples of the perverse incentives that make our welfare programs so damaging.

Another of the welfare state’s destructive features is to encourage a cycle of dependence. Many programs, Medicaid included, serve as disincentives to work because a higher income will result in a loss of eligibility. So welfare becomes a way of life.

To make matters worse, these programs and their incentives have contributed to the demise of marriage and the traditional family unit, to the detriment of the children that are raised in unstable environments, lacking the demonstrable benefits of a two-parent family. These social costs cannot be fully captured by empirical data but they may well outweigh any of the other costs and benefits typically referenced in the debate over expanding Medicaid. 

Ensuring that all Americans have access to health care is a worthy goal. But policies that are built on faulty principles are certain to have bad outcomes. This program, like many of the welfare programs of the 1960s, is in desperate need of an overhaul. Rejecting the expansion of Medicaid will increase the likelihood that such an overhaul will take place in the foreseeable future.       

Conclusion

Proponents of expanding Medicaid often criticize opponents for failing to offer viable alternatives. This is not true. While states are constrained in their ability to implement sensible health care reforms, there are a number of states that are exploring better options.

A Florida legislator recently introduced “Florida Health Choices Plus”, which would expand coverage, tailor benefits to different patient groups, and offer the option of a health spending account based upon the Healthy Indiana model. The plan utilizes free market forces and does not rely on federal dollars to operate.

Rhode Island and Indiana also have implemented meaningful reforms that did not require increased federal funding. Indiana has introduced cost-sharing measures in an effort to incentivize personal responsibility. These specific reforms may or may not be the right approach for Louisiana, but it highlights the ability of states to do more than take the federal bait and hope for the best.

Louisiana legislators may not have the power to fix what is wrong with the federal welfare state. But they can refuse to expand it in their own backyards. Our nation can and will find a better way to make health care more accessible to all Americans. Legislators should not short-circuit this effort by falling prey to the blandishments of federal largesse.

Much like a shark who is drawn to a feeding frenzy by the smell of blood, lawsuit lenders prey on people when they are at their weakest, such as someone who is injured in an accident and struggling to pay medical bills or put food on the table. Using powerful, aggressive advertising tactics targeting people who are out of work and most likely in desperate financial straights, they promise consumers access to quick cash before their lawsuit is settled with seemingly no commitment. But, as is often the case, the devil is in the details.

Lawsuit lenders often offer loans to consumers with hidden fees and sky-high interest rates that can range between 60-150 percent annually. To put that in perspective, the average annual percentage rate on a credit card is 13.3 percent. Because of these exorbitant fees and compounded monthly interest rates, the consumer may end up with nothing once their lawsuit is settled—or worse—they could end up upside down and owing the lender more than they’re awarded in the lawsuit.

The New York Times recently exposed this dubious industry highlighting people like Carolyn Williams who borrowed $5,000 from a lawsuit lender in 2007. Three years later her case was unresolved, and she owed the lender nearly $19,000. The contract Ms. Williams signed quoted an annual interest rate of 39 percent, compounded monthly.

The bottom line is these loans hurt consumers. They also encourage unnecessary lawsuits, increase litigation costs, and allow lenders to leverage the taxpayer-funded judicial system to line their own pockets. That’s wrong.

Fortunately, Louisiana lawmakers are considering a proposal to appropriately regulate the lawsuit lending industry. Senate Bill 166 by Sen. Dan Claitor from Baton Rogue will bring these companies in line with other lenders and better protect Louisiana consumers and our courts from lawsuit loan sharks.

With 19 companies already operating in Louisiana, the time has come to regulate this shady industry. Louisiana consumers deserve these protections and lawmakers should vote “yes” on SB 166.

Melissa Landry is Executive Director of Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse Watch, a non-partisan citizen watchdog group dedicated to improving Louisiana’s legal climate.

The recent death of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher invites reflection on the career of this remarkable figure. Naturally, this period of reflection includes speculation on where a great leader like Thatcher would stand on contemporary issues. While such speculation is often futile, Margaret Thatcher’s legacy of clear thinking and direct speaking leaves little doubt about where she would stand on many of today’s challenges. With the Louisiana legislature now in session, this is an opportune time to apply some lessons from Margaret Thatcher to what may be the most important public policy issue facing our state: education reform.

Lesson 1: Real Change Requires a Challenge to Union Hegemony

Margaret Thatcher’s signature moment may be her defeat of the National Union of Mineworkers in 1984-1985. The miner’s union was a national powerhouse that had helped bring down a prior government, so politicians were reluctant to take them on. But Thatcher recognized that union dominance was doing harm to the national economy. The greater good required her to take action.

Thatcher eventually won this fight and the unions were forced to come to terms. The victory was important, but Thatcher’s courage in taking on this fight is noteworthy in itself. Miners are heroic figures in England. The image of the brave miner, risking death to support his family, is understandably potent. No politician wants to be seen as an enemy of the miners, but Thatcher understood that the nation could not prosper unless the union’s stranglehold on the economy was broken.

Likewise, public school teachers are popular – even beloved – figures in our communities. Legislators who oppose teacher unions are certain to experience grief. It comes as no surprise that many policymakers who begin their career demonstrating some commitment to education reform eventually wear down and find ways to placate the unions.

This phenomenon is particularly acute among Louisiana Republicans. While many Democrats make no bones about their fealty to the teachers’ unions, most Republicans claim to understand that union power has made it almost impossible to replace underperforming teachers and incorporate a more sensible form of governance in our public schools. But Republicans have sponsored an alarming number of bills that reflect union goals, a sure sign that the education establishment holds sway in our state.

Louisiana has taken strides in recent years, but these gains will be undone in short order if legislators do not demonstrate a Thatcher-like willingness to stand up to the unions.

Lesson 2: Market Power Must Be Unleashed

While critics of Ronald Reagan trafficked in the inaccurate image of Reagan as the “amiable dunce”, nobody doubted the sharp intellect of Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher was a formidable thinker, with a sophisticated understanding of economics married to a gift for clear explanation. She was well versed in the works of scholars like Friedrich Hayek and understood the importance of markets in a free society.

Thatcher knew that government monopolies were not an effective way to deliver goods and services to the British people. This observation applies to government-run schools. While Louisianans support publicly funded education, this does not mean that government needs to operate all of our schools. Further, a regulatory regime that stifles innovation and competition denies our children the benefits of progress that we enjoy in so many other areas of our lives.

Louisiana now offers a broader range of education options than most other states – charter schools, vouchers, online learning and homeschooling are options for a growing number of children across the state. This introduction of market principles is long overdue.

Margaret Thatcher would agree that putting these choices in the hands of parents rather than bureaucrats will lead to better outcomes. Now Louisiana legislators need to demonstrate their understanding of this principle by making sure none of these options is constrained or eliminated by union-sponsored changes that seek to cripple the competition.   

Lesson 3: No U-Turns

Margaret Thatcher’s famous “U-Turn” speech is brief, but it illustrates the dogged determination that was required to put Britain on the right course after decades of socialist drift. The popularity of this speech also demonstrates the respect that is ultimately accorded to leaders who stick to their guns rather than caving in to special interests. Leaders who take a bold position but then seek to mollify those on the other side lose respect without gaining any loyalty.  

Thatcher knew the path of least resistance would not suffice. She identified goals and held firm, never letting the vitriol of her opponents weaken her resolve. While the reformers suffer the enmity of those who benefit from the status quo in the short run, in the long run it is the reformers who are remembered – and honored.

In Louisiana, there has been a familiar pattern of good education reforms being passed by the legislature, but slowly undone by compromise and collaboration. Our legislators can repeat this pattern or they can hold firm and recommit themselves to ensuring that common sense and freedom are not diminished by union intransigence.   

Conclusion

Legislators face an environment that is in some respects unpredictable. Pending court decisions, bills to reinstate reforms undone by legal action, and a plethora of union-sponsored bills create a fluid setting for decision makers. But at the end of the day it is our legislators who will ultimately decide whether Louisiana remains mired in the past or we continue to incorporate common sense principles into our education system.

Great leaders do not fold, buckle or backtrack. Louisiana legislators have been on the right track for several years in their approach to education. This is no time to “go wobbly” in a futile attempt to win friends among the beneficiaries of the status quo.

NEW ORLEANS – Today, the Pelican Institute for Public Policy, in partnership with the Beacon Hill Institute, released a new study showing how Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s tax reform plan will improve the Bayou State’s economy and lead to higher incomes for the state’s citizens.

The study, “The Economic Benefits of Tax Reform in Louisiana,” can be accessed here.

The study finds that the Governor’s tax reform would create 11,810 new jobs in the state by 2017– or roughly 3,000 jobs per year directly related to these tax changes—while maintaining revenue neutrality. It would boost investment in the state by $183 million, and increase real disposable income by $1.749 billion. That is, on average, an extra $910 for each of Louisiana’s households.

Kevin Kane, President of the Pelican Institute, announced the study’s release by saying: “This study shows that Governor Jindal’s tax reform plan gives Louisiana a unique opportunity to grow its economy and boost the income of its citizens.”

The study was conducted in coordination with the Beacon Hill Institute in Massachusetts, and relied on Beacon Hill’s State Tax Analysis Modeling Program (STAMP). It specifically analyzes the effects of eliminating the personal income tax, the corporate income tax, and the franchise tax, while raising the sales tax from 4 percent to 5.88 percent and expanding the sales tax base.

Other changes include an increase to the tobacco tax and curbing exemptions to the state severance tax.

Kane concluded: “This plan has several merits and should improve Louisiana’s economic environment. There may be individual components, like the amount of the tobacco tax increase, that could be subject to further review. But the overall approach is pro-growth and could be a model for other states contemplating how to grow their economies.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD FULL REPORT

Louisiana has once again earned the dubious distinction of having the most expensive auto insurance rates in the country.

A recent USA Today article highlighted the rankings compiled by Insure.com, which put Louisiana in the No. 1 spot for the third year in a row. Amy Danise, editorial director of Insure.com is quoted as saying, “Louisiana can’t catch a break. It is consistently at the top of our rankings.”

Based on annual premiums for more than 750 vehicles from the 2013 model year, Louisianians pay an average of $2,699/ year for car insurance.  That’s 2.5 times more than the amount citizens pay in Maine, which is the least expensive state for car insurance.

The experts say that Louisiana’s judicial system may be to blame for the high rates (this comes as no surprise to those of us who are familiar with the state’s legal system). One problem most often cited is Louisiana’s $50,000 jury trial threshold.  Because of this unique state law, lawsuits involving claims under $50,000 go before judges instead of juries.

In a recent analysis of civil jury trial threshold limits for all 50 states, LLAW found that the vast majority of states have no threshold for civil jury trials, and among the 14 states that do, Louisiana’s threshold is, by far, the highest in the nation. At $50,000, Louisiana’s jury trial threshold is roughly more than 28 times the national average of $1,742.40.

The practical impact of this is that it forces many auto insurance cases before a single elected judge, who determines fault and sets awards, as opposed to allowing the plaintiff or the defendant the right to request a trial before a 12-person jury.

This takes citizens out of the process, puts more power into the hands of our elected judges, and it makes us stand out like a sore thumb when auto insurers are calculating rates.

Louisiana’s excessive $50,000 threshold serves as yet another example of how Louisiana law is far out of alignment with most other states, and it contributes to our state’s growing negative reputation. On the most basic level, it simply raises everyone’s cost of operating a car in Louisiana. Lawmakers should correct this law and bring Louisiana’s jury trial threshold back into alignment with the vast majority of states. It may actually help to bring down rates—after all this is one list where we do NOT want to stay on top!

Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse Watch is a non-partisan, non-profit citizens’ watchdog group dedicated to raising awareness about the negative impact of lawsuit abuse and its costs to Louisiana workers, consumers, taxpayers and small businesses.  Learn more at www.llaw.org.