By Stephen Winham, Guest Columnist
If you’ve been following state government at all lately (aside from the governor’s COVID-19 briefings) you know that the new House Speaker and Senate President (both Republicans) have been making moves increasingly independent of the governor (a Democrat). This reflects exercise of the legislative branch’s constitutionally co-equal power with that of the governor – something rarely seen since the administration of our last true reform governor, Charles Elson Roemer III, some 30 years ago, and not a bad thing as long as it doesn’t devolve into pure partisanship.
The Roemer Revolution started big, but slowly fizzled out as the legislature rebelled against the politically unpopular reforms the governor attempted to implement. He lost re-election to a second term, fulfilling the prophecy that reform governors (if they actually try to implement reforms) rarely last more than one term.
By contrast, the legislature went along with pretty much everything Bobby Jindal proposed during his eight years from which we are yet to recover. His relationship with the legislature was more representative of history, but brought the exercise of executive powers to new heights. Governor John Bel Edwards has attempted to strike an appropriate balance despite clearly partisan efforts to undermine his initiatives.
The best thing about increasing legislative power is that the power should come with commensurate accountability. Up to now the governor has been a convenient scapegoat for legislators when constituents complained, ala, “I tried, but the governor has too much power and he killed my bill.”
As it becomes clear to the public that the legislature, not the governor, holds the keys to the vault (the power of appropriation), perceived responsibility for what gets funded shifts. Oh, sure, the governor has veto power, but the legislature has the power to overrule his vetoes – a power rarely exercised. And, he wields powers he shouldn’t (IMO) over capital outlays, but that can change.
Beginning in John Bel Edwards’ first term, the legislature effectively politicized the method by which the amount of money in the budget is determined – and when. The Revenue Estimating Conference was established to eliminate arguments over how much money was available using the best forecasts by professional economists. The law requires unanimous votes by its 4 members – a university economist, the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and the governor’s representative – the commissioner of administration. If any one member refuses to vote to adopt an estimate, it, and the budget at whatever stage, go into limbo. Now that the precedent is set, the potential exists for this to recur at any time in the future.
Some of you may have read this article by Tyler Bridges in the June 10, 2020 edition of The Advocate:
The article highlights one apparently new way the legislature is flexing its power.
The Legislative Fiscal Office was created in 1973 to provide the legislature with its own independent source of fiscal information. The legislature had been essentially rubber-stamping the budget and fiscal information presented to them by the governor’s representatives. The legislature believed it was appropriate to have substantive, independent analysis of this information and that it needed its own joint fiscal staff to do it. The Legislative Fiscal Officer was created by law to direct and represent this staff and is provided a legal buffer against political reprisals for the recommendations made – Votes by two legislative money committees and the full membership of both legislative bodies are required for the fiscal officer’s removal.
As Mr. Bridges notes in his article, the current Legislative Fiscal Officer, John Carpenter, was informed his services will no longer be required as of the end of the current legislative session – notwithstanding, and with no consideration of, the legal process required for his removal. No reason was given other than that the leadership wanted to move in a new direction. The most likely reason: Mr. Carpenter stood behind analysis prepared by a member of his staff that demonstrated the large costs the state would incur if parish lawsuits against oil and gas companies for coastal damages were killed and the issues wound up being litigated by the state. The legislation was strongly supported by oil and gas interests and by the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry – and by many Republican legislators. Failure of the legislation was considered, at least in part, a result of the potential increased costs to the state.
If Mr. Carpenter is being canned for political reasons, or even simply because his position on this matter was generally unpopular, it sets a terrible precedent. If a “yes person” is appointed to the job, the office loses at least half its value as an objective source of information for anybody. And, lest we forget – the most respected economist in state government is on the staff of the Legislative fiscal Office.
The Legislative Fiscal Office has served a valuable purpose throughout its history. It was a thorn in my side when I was state budget director, but it certainly kept me on my toes. I would hate to see it become just another office making recommendations that are ignored by everybody – or worse.
(Stephen Winham is the retired Director of the Louisiana Executive Budget Office, having service in that office since 1979 and as Director from 1988 to 2000.)
Louisiana Voice 
Stephen, all you need to know is right there:
Friendster, believe me. Those two organizations have a replacement in mind.
Heh, I bet they do. Pathetic.
Bingo.
One day my supervisor pulled me to the side on the House floor. He said(and these are his exact words: “Here in the House, perception is reality.” Once John’s replacement is announced, it will be perceived that his replacement will do the same thing John Carpenter was perceived to have done.
Stephen, if I remember correctly, does not the numbers that the fiscal office staff use to prepare the fiscal notes, come from the agency whose fisc will be affected?
Yes. The Legislative Fiscal Office sends the fiscal note forms to the agencies. The agencies fill them out and the LFO analysts review and accept or modify them.
In this case the analyst apparently got the information from the Department of Natural Resources on what the litigation would cost the state. Although the Attorney General would also have costs associated with these suits, that office reported it could handle the costs within its existing budget.
In the Advocate this morning:
“Along with naming a new director, the Republicans who oversee the Louisiana Legislature said they want the Legislative Fiscal Office to adopt a controversial economic model known as dynamic scoring that conservatives favor. Dynamic scoring can be used to reduce the estimated cost of a tax cut by predicting that it will generate a burst of investment that will produce more tax revenue.”
Forget about perception.
I am not an economist nor a fiscal analyst, but how can you predict “a burst of investment”?
Economists can literally predict anything they can back up with an ostensibly credible argument and any economist will admit this. Apparently, the idea here is to create more optimistic forecasts, but those can come back to bite you, as history has shown.