The push for an improved website to document state spending is back. The idea, which under the broad branding of “Louisiana Checkbook” diverted much attention away from true fiscal reform during this year’s first special legislative session, comes up for hearings in the Senate Finance Committee Monday afternoon.
Bills filed by Sen. Rick Ward (R-Port Allen) and Sen. Regina Barrow (D-Baton Rouge) will require the website to “report all revenue, exemptions, credits and rebates,” including “incentive expenditures.” That makes the Senate bills very different from HB 510 by House Speaker Taylor Barras (R-New Iberia), which is the one pending hearing in House Appropriations. That bill, a duplicate of the one Barras filed during the special session, doesn’t include accounting of which businesses and industries are receiving tax breaks from the state or local governments.
It’s something Rep. Robert Johnson (D-Marksville) sought to remedy during the special session, by amending the bill to require tax break disclosure within broad ranges, such as $250,000 to $500,000, or over $2-million. It failed to muster enough House votes, but Johnson says he’ll be trying to add it to the Barras bill this session, as well.
It’s something promoters of the “Louisiana Checkbook” concept vehemently oppose.
“It takes it too far,” Louisiana director of Americans for Prosperity, John Kay, told The Advocate. “It’s a slippery slope that will lead to having to disclose tax returns that shouldn’t be public record.”
And it’s a pretty safe bet that AFP, LABI, and other industry groups will file objection cards to Ward’s and Barrow’s bills on Monday – even though Louisiana Association of Business and Industry president Steve Waguespack has pushed the transparency website idea by saying, “Accountability is the new normal. No excuses.”
Let’s take a closer look at why they’ll object, by drilling down into one particular program: ITEP.
The Industrial Tax Exemption Program has been a boon for business and industry since its creation in 1936; it’s actually incorporated into the 1974 state constitution. Under the program, the state Board of Commerce and Industry grants property tax exemptions to businesses and industries seeking expand in state, or to relocate here. Trouble is, there’s no state property tax, so it’s local property taxes they’re exempted from paying.
Thanks in no small part to a concentrated push from the statewide interfaith group Together Louisiana, in June 2016, Gov. John Bel Edwards issued an executive order requiring all future ITEP applicants to seek local taxing bodies’ approval first. It also requires that projects to be approved actually create new jobs, and that they truly be for the purpose of “manufacturing,” as defined by the state constitution. Now Sen. J.P. Morrell has filed SB 148, a constitutional amendment to make the provisions of the executive order permanent. That bill is being heard by the Senate’s Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee Monday afternoon.
In the meantime, parish councils and police juries, school boards and sheriffs have all been grappling with their newfound authority. Caddo Parish Sheriff Steve Prator was the first to say no to an ITEP application, while this past October, the Ascension Parish School Board publicly castigated those asking that company names, incentive amounts, and numbers of jobs created be revealed prior to approval of a package of ITEPs.
The Department of Economic Development was complicit in avoiding the spirit – if not the letter – of the governor’s executive order in that instance. While Ascension Parish Economic Development had code-named the applications Project Magnolia, Zinnia, Bagel and Sunflower, an LED representative at the school board meeting also refused to divulge the real names of the companies applying for the property tax abatements.
“I’m giving someone a blank check. I don’t even know who the check’s written to – it’s written to ‘cash’,” said attorney Brian Blackwell, who spoke in opposition at the meeting. “And the public doesn’t have that information to be able to know whether to oppose or support any particular exemption.”
“Together Louisiana will tell you if you deny the tax exemption, industry is going to make the investment anyway. I can assure you that’s probably not going to happen,” Greg Bowser with the Louisiana Chemical Association told the school board. “And if the investment is not made, then there is no tax revenue.”
That group of incentives was approved.
In East Baton Rouge Parish, the school board, sheriff, and Metro Council are scheduled to finalize their rules for granting ITEPs at a Monday morning meeting. The Baton Rouge Area Chamber is urging the allowance of exemptions without new job creation, and after work has been started or completed. That not only defies the governor’s order requiring new job creation, but it completely contradicts the state purpose of the ITEP program as an “incentive,” which is defined as “something that spurs action or activity.”
Adoption of the BRAC proposals would clear the way for approval of three ITEP applications that are especially problematic. Filed in December 2016 – after the governor’s executive order – they are for improvements made at Exxon Chemical, Exxon Plastics, and Exxon Polyolefins in Baton Rouge, for a total exempted value of $127,429,000. None of the projects create any new jobs, and all three have to do with “flaring” – to “minimize flaring”, “reduce flaring”, and “increase safety and reliability of flaring systems”.
Why is that problematic? Because October 31, 2017, the U.S. EPA and Louisiana DEQ announced the settlement of a civil action against those three Exxon facilities, plus others in east Texas. As part of the settlement of alleged violations of the Clean Air Act going back to 2006, Exxon was required to improve their pollution control systems, specifically addressing ten flare stacks located at the three Baton Rouge facilities. They’re also required to pay $2.5-million in civil penalties, instead of the $198,944,252 the alleged pollution racked up in daily fines.
The settlement decree states: “The Defendants have installed systems and equipment to recover Waste Gas generated by process units at their polymer and plastics manufacturing facilities,” which concurs with the info given in the ITEP advance notices, specifically, that construction was due to begin 01/01/2017 and be complete by 12/31/2017.
And leaving aside the lack of new jobs, and the lack of “incentive” due to project completion, the Exxon projects also violate one substantial part of the ITEP regulations – the part that says “environmentally required capital upgrades shall not qualify.” Environmentally required capital upgrades are defined as: “upgrades required by any state or federal governmental agency in order to avoid fines, closures or other penalty.” Improvements to ten gas flares on the three Exxon-Mobil properties in Baton Rouge as part of settlement of an EPA and DEQ lawsuit certainly seems to fall into that category.
So, Exxon wants to avoid paying property taxes on these legally-required improvements, while from 1998-2017, these three facilities have already been the beneficiaries of a total of $240,048,061 in exemptions from East Baton Rouge property taxes for schools, law enforcement, roads, water and sewerage maintenance, etc.
No rules currently require the Department of Economic Development to check with other state agencies – such as DEQ – for pending litigation or fines while processing ITEP applications, though they undoubtedly should.
And there’s no guarantee that a state transparency website including itemized corporate recipients of incentives, exemptions, tax credits, and rebates would make following this convoluted trail any easier for everyone. But the idea certainly makes industry uncomfortable, since it would actually allow taxpayers to see the return on their investment in corporate profits in lieu of good schools, roads and bridges, higher education and healthcare.
Eight years after Louisiana suffered the worst environmental disaster in American history, Liz Murrill, Louisiana’s first “Solicitor General,”- a job that does not exist under state law- and Attorney General Jeff Landry are leading an effort to prevent energy companies from complying with a rule promulgated during the final year of the Obama administration by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Risk Management Program (RMP).
On Friday, Murrill appeared before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often considered the second-most powerful court in the country, to present oral arguments on behalf of twelve state intervenors in the case Air Alliance Houston, et al v. EPA, et al; other intervenors include the American Petroleum Institute, the American Chemical Council, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
In addition to Air Alliance Houston, petitioners also include the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, the Clean Air Council, the Coalition for a Safe Environment, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Sierra Club; their suit is supported by eleven states, led by New York.
The rule in dispute seeks to augment and improve disaster response coordination between chemical plants and oil and gas facilities with local first responders and law enforcement, which became a priority in April of 2013 after twelve firefighters died while responding to a massive explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas. In all, fifteen people were killed and more than 200 were injured by the explosion.
“State and federal investigators found that firefighters in West did not know enough about what they faced at the plant,” The Dallas Morning News reported a year later. “The building stored 40 to 60 tons of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer used by farmers that becomes explosive under certain conditions.”
The new RMP rule addresses many of the vulnerabilities that were exposed by that explosion, emphasizing the necessity of information-sharing with local law enforcement, first responders, and nearby residents. But many in the chemical and oil and gas industry oppose the rule change, and after he was appointed by President Donald Trump, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt began dismantling a series of regulations unfavored by the industry.
The rule, which was officially proposed in March of 2016, took effect on January 13, 2017, a week before Trump’s inauguration. On March 13, 2017, less than a month after Pruitt was confirmed by the Senate, EPA delayed the implementation of the rule by 90 days. The very next day, Liz Murrill sent Pruitt a nine-page letter, petitioning him to reconsider the rule and delay it for another eighteen months.
Download Murrill’s letter here.
Following the expiration of the 90-day delay, in June, Pruitt ultimately agreed with Murrill’s recommendation and ordered the rule be delayed for an additional eighteen months, and that’s when the Louisiana Bucket Brigade and a coalition of environmental groups filed suit against the EPA.
For those unfamiliar with the nuances of administrative law, a rule-making change, such as this one, is already subject to extensive review and a 90-day “notice and comment” period, wherein the agency alerts potential stakeholders of a proposed change and provides them with an opportunity to openly and transparently submit concerns into the record. In fact, Jeff Landry had first expressed his opposition to the rule when it was officially proposed in early 2016; his arguments had already been taken into consideration.
More importantly, though, the law states that, once a rule is finalized, EPA can only delay its implementation for 90 days, unless an additional delay is determined to not be “arbitrary and capricious,” which is an enormously high burden considering the exhaustive review and drafting process already undertaken.
Although Murrill has been preparing her arguments for nearly a year, Landry praised her work for the first time on Thursday. “As I have said before: the ill-advised decision to finalize the RMP Rules not only subjected facilities to even more burdensome, duplicative, and needless regulation; but it also makes all of us more vulnerable to security threats,” he wrote in a press release, encouraging others to tune into listen to Murrill. “I am grateful Administrator Pruitt recognized this and granted our review; and I am confident Solicitor General Murrill will represent our State in the most judicious manner on Friday.”
Murrill was only provided a brief amount of time to present her arguments, which began by noting that Congress already had passed a litany of laws related to emergency response, including a law providing for the protection of animals. But she primarily focused on the claim that the rule could undermine homeland security because, in her opinion, it was too vague about the definition of who should be considered “emergency response officials.” She did not, however, claim that the rule itself was “needless.”
Under questioning from Judge Judith Rogers, Murrill argued that better coordination was necessary and important. You can listen to the entirety of oral arguments here (Murrill’s portion begins at the 1 hour and 36 minute mark).
“Confusion and change… inhibits response,” Murrill said, responding to the fact that EPA had actually amended the rule to better address concerns about information-sharing and homeland security.
Her arguments did not appear to sway Judge Rogers, who noted that Murrill and others were attempting to make two contradictory arguments. “I hear two lines here,” Rodgers told Murrill. “One, we want EPA to do more, but we want it to do it differently. And two, we can do it ourselves. EPA is unnecessary here. We have state laws. We have county laws. We have municipal laws. So, get out of our way and let us resolve these matters. But then I hear, ‘No, no, we want EPA to step in.’
“And just to respond (to your comment) that Congress has laws to protect animals. Years ago, it acted to protect human beings and the environment,” Rogers said.
Murrill’s reply directly belied what her boss, Attorney General Jeff Landry, had told the public only a day before. “The states don’t take the position that there’s not some value in improving these rules,” Murrill told the court. “I don’t think anybody actually disagrees that it’s a good idea to improve and modernize the rules.”
****
So, what is this really about? Why are Louisiana taxpayers being required to spend money to fight this battle?
According to the petitioners, EPA already put in protections to ensure safety concerns were addressed, and no one denies that better coordination is paramount. Indeed, the central argument offered by Murrill- that the rule is too vague about who should receive information- was already fixed in an amendment dramatically scaling down recipients of this information and ensuring the information would not be subject to “public disclosure.”
And there is “robust evidence” that as a result of this rule, people would “immediately have stronger emergency response.”
It is indisputable that far too often, first responders arrive at the scene of an emergency and subsequently become sick as a result of exposure to certain chemicals. And it’s also indisputable that far too often, first responders do not know the types of chemicals stored in facilities in their own communities.
There is a simple and obvious explanation: Louisiana’s Department of Justice is currently being led by people who have repeatedly proven to care more about the profits and public image of Big Oil and chemical companies than about the state’s environment or those who live in our most vulnerable communities, even if it poses a danger to first responders.
“The whole point of this is to enable and ensure noncompliance,” Emma Cheuse, an attorney for one of the petitioners, told the court.
“If we’re going to talk about family values, we should show we actually value families,” Gov. John Bel Edwards said, as he testified on behalf of equal pay and minimum wage bills in the Senate Labor Committee Thursday. “Of all the things we do here, these ought to be the easiest.”
And while the bills advanced to the full Senate for consideration, it wasn’t effortless.
SB 117 by Sen. J.P. Morrell (D-New Orleans) would require anyone entering into a contract with any state entity to comply with the Louisiana Equal Pay for Women Act. That law, enacted in 2013, only covers full-time workers employed by state governmental agencies. It doesn’t cover part-timers, or those employed in the private sector.
Still, there was objection to the new measure from the private sector.
“We oppose this bill because Equal Pay is already the law, and we encourage our small business owners to comply with the law,” stated Dawn Starns, director of the Louisiana chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business.
“Pay inequity is happening, though,” Sen. Regina Barrow (D-Baton Rouge) responded. “Women in Louisiana make 66-cents for each dollar a man makes. For women of color, it’s 48-cents on the dollar. As a woman, how do you feel that’s okay?”
Starns squirmed in her seat, and stammered a bit, clearly discomfited by the question. Then she squared her shoulders and replied, “I’m here representing small business owners, I can’t speak personally.”
Close to 50 green cards were submitted in support of the bill, versus 3 filed in opposition – and the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry was NOT one of those. The bill was moved favorably, 6-1, with only the committee chairman, Sen. Neil Riser (R-Columbia) voting nay.
The governor concentrated his big push on the bills that would raise the minimum wage from the current federally required $7.25 per hour.
“Think about what $7.25 actually buys – a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, and a dozen eggs?” Edwards began, provoking laughter from the predominately female public attendees at the hearing.
“What?” he asked, turning around from the witness table to look at the audience behind him.
“It buys milk and bread, Governor – no eggs,” Sen. Barrow advised, prompting Edwards to blush and chuckle ruefully, himself.
“Okay,” he said, grinning. “With the chicken coop at the mansion I haven’t bought eggs in awhile…
“Seriously, it’s just simply not enough in 2018. Congress should have done it, but they’ve decided to leave it up to the states. We’re now one of only five states in the country that have not set their own minimum wage,” Edwards said.
Jan Moller, the director of the Louisiana Budget Project, a progressive non-profit that works to combat socio-economic disparities in the state, said raising the minimum wage to $8.50 per hour by January 1, 2020, isn’t like paying something for nothing.
“Today’s worker is almost two times as productive as his or her counterpart 50 years ago, yet – adjusted for inflation – an hour of twice as productive work is worth less than it was 50 years ago.
“Even if you work really hard and play by the rules, you can’t get even – much less ahead,” Moller summarized.
“People that make minimum wage generally require government assistance,” remarked Peter Robbins Brown with Step Up Louisiana. “As a taxpayer, that costs me money. And ultimately, as a taxpayer, I’m being forced to subsidize the profits of a business that won’t pay a living wage.”
The governor urged the committee, “Move this forward to the Senate floor. Then send it over to House Labor, and help it get to the House floor. Send it to my desk so I can sign it.”
“Give the people of this state an opportunity to go to work and fend for themselves,” urged the bill’s author, Sen. Troy Carter (D-New Orleans).
Yet SB 162 – a constitutional amendment to let the voters choose whether or not to raise the minimum wage – is opposed by the “usual suspects”. LABI, NFIB, the Louisiana Chemical Association, Associated Builders and Contractors all filed cards in opposition.
On a straight party line vote of 4-3, the bill did move forward to the full Senate for consideration. Because it is a constitutional amendment, it will need a 2/3 vote of the entire Senate to advance further.
“As we all found out when we came here, we can’t touch certain funds when the state is strapped for cash,” Rep. Franklin Foil (R-Baton Rouge) told the House and Governmental Affairs Committee Wednesday.
“It’s frustrating for our hands to be tied,” agreed Rep. Steve Carter (R-Baton Rouge). “Part of our duty to the public is straightening out this mess.”
And in presenting the executive budget proposal to House Appropriations Tuesday, Commissioner of Administration Jay Dardenne brought up the uncomfortable fact of those “untouchable” funds.
“You have over $4-billion in spending that is constitutionally dedicated,” Dardenne reminded the money panel. “The people have said, ‘We don’t want the governor, the legislature or anybody else spending this money in any other way and for any other purpose than what we have said’.”
The Jindal administration frequently found ways to divert money from those dedicated streams to other purposes in so-called “fund sweeps”, using what was technically “one-time money” for recurring expenses. The current administration has halted all that, and has therefore struggled to fill budget holes that had previously been camouflaged.
In the meantime, complaints about constitutionally dedicated funding streams – along with those that are dedicated through statutes, collectively known as “stat deds” – have become the “go-to” excuse for lawmakers trying to absolve their inaction at digging in to achieve true structural reform of the state’s tax system.
The solution for many now seems to be re-writing the state constitution. Six pieces of legislation regarding a constitutional convention have been filed for this session.
“The current constitution has become a cumbersome document, full of statutes, full of funds and dedications. It has been amended 189 times,” Foil explained, as he presented two identical bills calling for a convention. “But Louisiana’s constitution should be more like the United States Constitution, a very general document, which in its 229-year history has only been amended 27 times.”
The bills, one authored by Foil, the other by Rep. Neil Abramson (D-New Orleans), would “break open the wall” on Articles VI, VII, and VIII of the 1974 Constitution.
“Article VI deals with local governments, which need more autonomy. VII deals with funds and financial issues, and VIII deals with education – a massive part of the budget,” Foil outlined.
“Delegates will be elected from each of the 105 House districts, and anyone – any citizen – can run for election as a delegate.”
But Rep. Barry Ivey (R-Central), who has his own bill calling for a constitutional convention, had some concerns about the delegate selection process.
“You said anyone can run to serve as a convention delegate, right? John Q. Public needs resources to run an election campaign. If we elect the delegates, we could end up with a constitutional convention that’s bought and paid for by special interests. Big money could decide who is going to ‘own’ the convention – and then nobody is looking out for John Q. Public and his small business. How can we protect from having special interests dominate the convention?”
“By doing it this way,” Foil replied. “It’s democratic. It gives everyone an opportunity to participate, and everyone will decide who they will elect.”
Ivey was shaking his head while Foil was responding, and Foil reluctantly conceded, “Okay, maybe there will be some influence exerted…”
“Not maybe. Will,” Ivey insisted. “If special interests own 60% of the convention, you’re set up for bias.”
Foil protested, saying, “The people have the power. They elect the delegate from their district.”
That delegate election would take place in the fall of 2019, during the next statewide election, and the proposed constitutional convention would then occur during the first half of 2020. So while the idea is touted as the ultimate fix for Louisiana’s budget imbalance, it’s actually kicking the Con con can down the road.
On the other hand, Ivey’s bill would would put the completed revisions to the constitution on the fall 2019 ballot. His version of the convention would begin their work in August of this year. Ivey’s bill, HB 385, calls for 93 delegates — 70 of them selected from the 144 current members of the legislature.
There were cards entered in support of the Foil/Abramson measures – from the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, and from the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association. Cards in opposition came from the Louisiana School Boards Association, the Police Jury Association, and the Louisiana Municipal Association.
Ultimately, Foil voluntarily deferred his HB 323 in favor of its twin, HB 500 by Abramson. The idea of a constitutional convention has been Abramson’s cause celebre since 2009. Every year he files a constitutional convention bill or study resolution. Three times it has made it as far as the House floor, but was never called up for a vote. This year, Abramson’s bill has 28 co-authors – all Republicans, most all of them part of the so-called “Disciples of No”.
HB 500 advanced, favorably, without objection. HB 385, by Ivey, was voted down.
But as we asked a few days ago, do the people of this state really want to punch through the wall of the state constitution and allow tinkering with its wiring, when their current elected lawmakers can’t seem to decide whether to change a burned out lightbulb?
Probably not.
According to the LSU Public Policy Lab’s 2018 Louisiana Survey, released today, Louisiana residents are “disillusioned” with the state’s entire political process. On the other hand, a constitutional convention is a political junkie’s dream-come-true.
This year’s annual poll, conducted from January 26 to March 3, shows that state residents are thoroughly displeased with the partisan bickering that has dominated state politics and halted progress for the past couple of years. And 79-percent expect it will continue, with no solutions in sight.
The survey says 66 percent of state residents have little or no confidence in the political wisdom of their fellow Louisiana citizens. That’s not very encouraging for the constitutional convention delegate selection process proposed in the Abramson bill.
As for Ivey’s alternative, drawing the majority of delegates from current lawmakers, the LSU poll says 70 percent of Louisiana residents believe elected officials in this state do not care what people like themselves think.
Considering the fact that economists have said the main reason for Louisiana’s fiscal decline was lawmakers statutorily repealing parts of the 2002 Stelly Plan – despite the fact that it was a constitutional amendment approved by the people – is it any wonder that 7 out of 10 state residents don’t trust elected officials to listen to them?
A fox has been repeatedly spotted on the Capitol grounds, and First Lady Donna Edwards is soliciting names for the seven baby bunnies born at the the Governor’s Mansion mini-farm. And in House Appropriations, the regular session’s second day offered more than a few additional references to the animal kingdom.
“It’s like buzzards flying around Louisiana, ready to swoop in on the carcasses we leave behind,” Commissioner of Administration Jay Dardenne told the money committee, as he presented the executive budget proposal.
He recited a litany of consequences expected due to more than a billion dollars in ”temporary taxes” dropping out of the state revenue stream after June 30th: inability to issue bonds because the state can’t afford the debt service, state credit downgrades, contract termination notices from public-private hospital partners, civil service layoffs, students being recruited to attend universities in Alabama and Georgia.
“These are facts. You may not like them, but you can’t change the facts,” Dardenne said of the effects of implementing the “doomsday budget.”
“Those of you who have said we just need to cut the budget, okay. It’s your turn. You do it,” Dardenne challenged. “You tell us specifically what you don’t want to fund. Show the people of Louisiana your cuts – that you’re willing to put your name on.”
“The sky has been falling since I walked in here,” Rep. Larry Bagley (R-Stonewall) remarked – in essence, verbally flipping the bird at the state budget chief.
Bagley wasn’t alone in his willingness to disregard Dardenne’s information, as several members of the Appropriations committee began picking at the numbers.
“How comfortable are you with the $302-million we’re expected to gain as a result of the federal tax cuts?” asked Rep. Blake Miguez (R-Erath). “When are you going to start using the lower number instead of insisting it’s a $994-million shortfall?”
“The official number from the Revenue Estimating Conference is $994-million,” Dardenne replied. “The amount from the federal tax changes are speculation, until the REC says differently.”
“But that’s going to help this budget tremendously,” Miguez insisted. “Where would you allocate those moneys?”
“That’s your decision,” Dardenne fired back. “I’m not here today to talk about ‘hypothetically.’ That will be your decision.”
Miguez pressed on: “Well, what about statutory dedications? Isn’t there a constitutional trigger allowing the Governor to cut 3 to 5-percent from those, across the board? According to the REC numbers, hasn’t that trigger been met? I mean, we have some spread sheets on our side that show $137-million available that way.”
“While I agree the trigger has been pulled, you have to remember, those funds will be one-time money, and so can’t be used for continuing programs. Using one-time money for continuing expenses is a big part of why we’re facing this cliff right now,” Dardenne cautioned.
“But it’s the Constitution!” Miguez insisted, as if that made it okay. “We should take advantage of every tool in the toolbox!”
“The fact is, you have presented your recommendations based on the official forecast, and based on the numbers we have today, correct?” Speaker Pro Tem Walt Leger (D-New Orleans) addressed Dardenne. “And the fact is, at this very moment, there are 994-million less dollars available to be appropriated than last year, correct?”
But before Dardenne could complete his answer in the affirmative, Appropriations chairman Cameron Henry (R-Metairie) interrupted.
“Look, we all know that the $994-million is what you want to spend, not the actual amount the state will be short. Our numbers are closer to $545-million and that is the number we will be working on.”
Committee members weren’t done pecking at the Commissioner’s numbers however, especially once he brought up the cuts projected for the Department of Health.
“You will hear the consequences of all these cuts,” Dardenne advised. “You’re not going to be able to get around LDH. It’s the gorilla in the room.”
Dardenne explained that while the Department of Health utilizes 26% of State General Fund available for the current fiscal year, the executive budget proposal takes 54% of the total cuts from LDH. That includes reducing funding for NOW waivers, eliminating mental health rehab services, and eliminating payments to the partner hospitals. Dardenne said that will effectively terminate the public-private hospital partnership contracts – something that’s been confirmed by his receipt of notifications to that effect by those hospital operators in Baton Rouge, Lafayette, Lake Charles, and now New Orleans.
That started a charge of bullish a questions from Rep. Tony Bacala (R – Prairieville).
“What happened to the $1.1-billion savings we were supposed to achieve in UCC due to expansion? We’ve doubled the number of people that are now insured, but we haven’t seen the UCC payments cut in half. It hasn’t been at all proportional!” Bacala contended.
Without letting Dardenne reply, Bacala went on, “Never mind! I don’t think you can explain it to my satisfaction!”
Then he went off on a rant about the partner hospitals and the contracts.
“You’re letting the big hospitals run roughshod over y’all – letting the tail wag the dog! Stop them! I don’t think terminating the contracts is a bad thing. It’s time to right the ship!”
Dardenne, who by this time was carefully unclenching his hands and stretching out his fingers, said pointedly, “That will cost more, as the state will have to take on the costs of running the hospitals and paying their employees.”
“Hmmph!” Bacala responded, folding his arms and looking down his nose – over the top of his glasses – at Dardenne, “You have the ability to change those contracts – if you chose to!”
Meanwhile, Gov. John Bel Edwards sent a formal request to Senate President John Alario and Speaker Taylor Barras, urging them each to work toward ending the regular session by mid-May, in order to hold and complete another special session by the currently scheduled end of the regular session on June 4th.
With the Appropriations Committee meeting lasting past 6 p.m. Tuesday, it might seem they’re in accord with that idea. However, Appropriations chairman Cameron Henry posted a video on Facebook indicating just the opposite.
“The governor’s idea for the budget process is for us not to have one,” Henry declares. “He thinks it’s better for us to come back here and waste more taxpayer dollars — not pass a budget so we can come into another special session to raise your taxes. I think that would be a colossal mistake on everyone’s part.”
It is, after all, springtime – when snakes have frequently been known to infest the Capitol.
With the league year officially starting on Wednesday, I thought we’d wrap up this series as soon as possible so we can start covering the free agency moves the team makes.
First, a couple of pieces of unrelated news to this column, but that will be relevant to any Saints fan.
Longtime left tackle Zach Strief, the last remaining player from the team’s legendary draft class of 2006, announced his retirement on Monday. Strief spent all twelve years of his career with the Saints, and mentioned that he had considered retiring last offseason but wanted to make sure New Orleans had found a replacement. “One of the things that I kept thinking about last year was that there was no clear replacement on the roster. I knew if I was at home watching TV and Drew was getting hit and I felt like I could have helped, I wouldn’t have been able to live with myself.” Strief also said of Brees, “My greatest drive as a player was not to let you down.”
With Ryan Ramczyk playing so well at both tackle positions as a rookie, he’ll be a permanent fixture at Strief’s old right tackle spot, and the position is in good hands.
The second, and far more important, item, is that Tuesday morning, the Saints and Drew Brees finally resolved their contract impasse, as Brees agreed to a two-year deal worth $50 million, $27 million of which is guaranteed. It sounds like Brees had bigger options in free agency, but as he said from the start, he wasn’t planning to go anywhere else. Getting the contract done in time will allow the Saints to spread the $18 million in dead money from his voided contract over three seasons instead of having it all hit now. The extra $12 million could certainly help as they try to add some free agents who will push the team from Super Bowl contender into more better Super Bowl contender.
Now, onto the secondary– cornerbacks first, then safeties. Each unit is led by a very young player going into his second year– one future star and one who’s already a star. Let’s look at the latter first.
CORNERBACKS2017 Players and Cap Information
Player
Age
2017 Cap Hit
2018 Cap Hit
Signed Through
Marshon Lattimore
22
$2,792,647
$3,490,809
2020 (TO for 2021)
Ken Crawley
25
$541,666
$631,668
2018 (RFA)
P.J. Williams
25
$816,654
$906,657
2018
Delvin Breaux
28
$619,000
N/A
UFA
Sterling Moore
28
$900,000
N/A
UFA
De’Vante Harris
25
$381,176
$650,000
2018 (RFA)
Justin Hardee
24
$410,294
$555,000
2018 (ERFA)
Arthur Maulet
25
$136,765
$555,000
2018 (ERFA)
Bradley Sylve
25
$21,600
$480,000
2018 (ERFA)
I could cite various statistics, rankings, and accolades Marshon Lattimore received to let you know how good he is, but if you’re reading this column, you likely know already. It’s rare for a rookie cornerback to be good; it’s rarer still for a rookie cornerback so young to be good; and it’s rarest of all for a cornerback playing in the NFL at age 21 to be so good. Lattimore will likely compete with Jalen Ramsey for the next ten years for the title of the NFL’s best cornerback. He’s a building block, and the Saints still have three years of him at a cost-controlled rookie deal, plus a fifth-year option in their favor. (The fifth-year option for top-10 picks is the average of the ten highest salaries at the position, but for other first-round picks, it’s the average of the third- through 25th-highest salaries. Lattimore was picked 11th. The difference this year is almost $13 million for the former vs. about $8.5 million for the latter.) And if Lattimore gets anything but the biggest cornerback deal in league history to that point when it’s time to extend him, I’ll be very surprised. Either that or it means he got seriously injured. Please, God, please, please don’t let him get seriously injured.
My favorite Lattimore tidbit from last season: He managed to shut down Mike Evans for three games despite only playing him twice. You might remember that Evans got so frustrated with him during their first matchup that he took a cheap shot at Lattimore’s back well after the play ended, earning himself a one-game suspension.
Ken Crawley found his way in the starting lineup in weeks 3 and 4 due to a Lattimore injury and then a P.J. Williams suspension, and then he never left it. He played well, finishing #32 in the NFL1000 cornerback rankings, a fine slot for a second cornerback. He’s young enough that he should still get better. There’s still a chance the team upgrades at the position, though– more on that in a bit.
P.J. Williams finally stayed healthy enough for a full season and was serviceable, if not particularly good. One reason I suspect the Saints will look to upgrade at the position is that a depth chart with another good starter opposite Lattimore, moving Crawley to the #3 position, looks even better than it does now– and with the degree to which teams use three wide receivers on offense these days, having three good cornerbacks would leave the defense with no potential mismatches there.
Delvin Breaux has the talent to be that cornerback, as he showed in 2015 and 2016, but unfortunately he hasn’t been able to stay healthy. He hits free agency after missing the entire 2017 season. If the Saints make an effort to bring him back, it will likely be on a cheap deal contingent on performance or health. I don’t know if they will, though– even though he can be good when healthy, at a certain point, if you start planning a roster around oft-injured players, you’re really planning around whoever their backups are.
Sterling Moore is a competent fourth cornerback, but also someone the team is unlikely to bring back unless they suffer a spate of injuries.
Arthur Maulet and Justin Hardee are both special teamers who played well in those roles last year. Both started the season on the practice squad before being called up during the year. I wouldn’t be surprised to see something similar happen again, or to see one of both of them make the team as special teamers. (Hardee is likely the favorite after he blocked a punt against Tampa Bay in week 9 and returned it for a touchdown.)
And then there’s De’Vante Harris. Seemingly a coach’s favorite, he started the year in the starting lineup before getting burned regularly in the first two weeks. Ken Crawley took over, and Harris didn’t see significant playing time on defense again until week 12, when injuries moved him back into the lineup against the Rams. He promptly got burned regularly again, and was cut after the game and assigned to the practice squad. I have no idea what the team intends to do with him, but I don’t see much reason to be optimistic about giving him more defensive snaps.
Bradley Sylve joined the practice squad last season after being released by the Buffalo Bills, and most likely seems like a candidate for that again this year.
With Breaux likely gone and the team not wanting to rely on Harris or Moore (at least, I wouldn’t), there’s talk of the Saints looking at adding a veteran cornerback in free agency. Malcolm Butler was linked to the team last offseason and discussed as part of the Brandin Cooks deal, though the team ultimately went a different direction (which in my opinion was the better direction). Butler is a free agent now, and after being benched for the Super Bowl, is clearly done with New England. He’s a possibility. (EDIT: He was a possibility– a few minutes after we went to press, news broke that Butler signed with the Tennessee Titans.)
Another recent rumor going around is Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, recently released by the Giants. The two time Pro Bowler still has valuable ball-hawking skills, with 30 career interceptions, although he fell out of favor in New York last season. (The again, pretty much all the cornerbacks fell out of favor at some point or another in a disastrous season that revealed then-head coach Ben McAdoo to be in over his head.) DRC will be 32 next season, but the former first-round pick still has the talent and athleticism to be a solid starter. Plus, if this is true, I definitely want this guy on my team:
DRC allegedly got benched for a game after calling Ben McAdoo “McAdoodoo” so I’m all for signing him
If the Saints add one of these two cornerbacks, they’ll have one of the best trios in the league.
Last note: The real prize of this year’s free-agent cornerback class is Trumaine Johnson, but he’ll probably be too expensive for the Saints to pursue.
SAFETIES2017 Players and Cap Information
Player
Age
2017 Cap Hit
2018 Cap Hit
Signed Through
Marcus Williams
21
$1,134,625
$1,418,281
2020
Vonn Bell
23
$902,975
$1,083,354
2019
Kenny Vaccaro
27
$5,676,000
N/A
UFA
Rafael Bush
31
$695,000
N/A
UFA
Chris Banjo
28
$1,050,000
$1,800,000
2018
Marcus Williams turns 22 two days after the season starts, but if I start making exceptions for players in how I list their ages, where do I stop? Anyway, though Williams is more nationally famous for his failed tackle on Stefon Diggs in the NFC Divisional game, he was tremendous all season, grading as a top-10 rookie by Pro Football Focus and as Bleacher Report’s #11 free safety on the year in their NFL1000 rankings project. Most rookies, especially young ones, take time to adjust, but Williams has already shown tremendous range and athleticism, and enough nose for the ball to come up with four interceptions on the year. He’s a remarkable player and a remarkable value at a position that was loaded in the draft. The fact that he’ll be hitting his prime late into his second contract suggests how much room he still has to grow. He should be manning the free safety position for a long time, and reasonably could end up one of the league’s best free safeties. (I’m not saying he can be an Earl Thomas clone, but I’m not not saying that, either.)
Vonn Bell had a mixed year; though he was mostly capable in a range of roles, he also didn’t grade particularly well by most standards, a little disappointing considering the Saints traded up for him. Still, he’s there for at least two years, and I imagine the Saints will use him in more of a strong-safety role. Even if new signing Kurt Coleman crowds into his playing time, Bell should still have an opportunity to grow.
Kenny Vaccaro just wrapped his five-year rookie contract with the Saints, where he tended to fit best as a strong safety who could play a linebacker role in nickel coverages and the like (see, for example, how they used him in coverage on Jarvis Landry against Miami). While I thought the team might be interested in re-signing him, the addition of Kurt Coleman almost certainly precludes that.
Rafael Bush has been a solid third or fourth safety for some time now. I don’t know if the depth chart is too crowded to bring him back or not. At his age, I don’t imagine the team would be willing to spend much on him, but he could still be valuable at that price.
Chris Banjo was a surprise survivor of the 53-man roster cut last year due to his special teams play. He lived up to expectations there and even came up with an interception on defense when he had to fill in due to injuries. He might have played well enough to entrench himself as the team’s fourth safety, making Bush expendable. Banjo’s cap hit is a little high, but the team having its two returning starters on rookie deals mitigates that a lot.
New Signings for 2018
Player
Age
2018 Cap Hit
Signed Through
Kurt Coleman
30
$6,000,000 (estimated)
2020
Mykkele Thompson
25
$480,000
2018 (ERFA)
Rickey Jefferson
23
$480,000
2018 (ERFA)
The details on Kurt Coleman’s contract aren’t yet readily available, but it’s been reported as a three-year, $18 million deal. The cap hit is probably not accurate; the Saints tend to distribute the cash in their contracts in such a way to make the cap hits smaller up front. This is particularly likely to be true for a player like Coleman, whose contract’s annual value is far larger than any he’s signed previously. I imagine the Saints will structure it so there’s not as much cost up front (particularly since at the time of signing, they didn’t know how the Drew Brees situation would play out), with a chance to get out of it relatively cheaply if he doesn’t perform up to expectations.
Coleman has been a decent player, if a journeyman; he started in Philadelphia for two of his four seasons there before moving to Kansas City for a year and then Carolina. With 11 interceptions his first two years with the Panthers, he might well provide a little more juice to the Saints’ ability to generate turnovers, though he didn’t record a single interception in 2017. He’s primarily listed as a free safety, but of course, Williams’ range puts him firmly entrenched there. I suspect Coleman will either fill Kenny Vaccaro’s hybrid role, or more likely, will serve as a secondary safety that lets Vonn Bell fill that role. Either way, I don’t see how the team can afford to bring Vaccaro back.
Mykkele Thompson was a former fifth-round pick of the New York Giants, who ultimately only appeared in one game for them due to injuries. He signed a reserve/future contract in January, and while I imagine he’ll be given a chance to make the roster, his health will be the first factor in determining what kind of shot he has. He might still be a candidate for the practice squad, although all of his three seasons in the league so far have ended on Injured Reserve. (Perhaps getting away from the Giants, who have consistently been one of the most oft-injured teams in football in the last four or five years, will help in that regard.)
Rickey Jefferson played college football at LSU and might be better known to Louisianians as Jordan Jefferson’s brother. He also signed a futures contract but seems likely to be a training camp body.
The team might add more training-camp bodies at the position, but it seems like Coleman will be the only major move they make at safety this year. (I suppose it’s possible a player they like too much to pass up falls to them in the draft, but I’m trying to make projections based on the current roster, not on unforeseeable factors.)
So that’s the status of the Saints roster heading into free agency and the draft. Free agency officially begins on Wednesday, and we’ll see some more dominoes fall quickly in the first few days. We’ll cover any moves the Saints make, after the initial noise dies down, we’ll start looking at some potential draft moves for New Orleans.
Governor John Bel Edwards paid homage to the words inscribed on the Louisiana Capitol’s cornerstone, as he concluded his opening address to the 8th legislative session since he took office in January 2016.
“There is a quote etched into one of the cornerstones of this building that says, ‘We live for those we love.’ Every single one of us is here today because we love this state. And that love is what drives us to come back, session after session, year after year, and work toward solutions for the problems we face. Together we can leave behind an even greater Louisiana – ‘for those we love’.”
But those harmonious words contrasted with many of the governor’s subtle (and some not-so-subtle) advisories that he has had enough of gridlock, and the rhetoric used to justify such inaction.
He began by saying that while extremely disappointed in the just-ended special session, he applauds those who stood up to “urge fellow legislators to put the people we serve ahead of the distracting political games.”
Yet the governor indulged in a bit of political gamesmanship himself, lobbing a few zingers toward Attorney General Jeff Landry, who was in attendance.
“Medicaid expansion is saving lives,” Edwards stated, pointing to the opioid crisis, in particular.
“Through expansion, nearly 16,000 people have received inpatient or outpatient treatment for substance abuse. That’s 16,000 fewer families who will have to suffer the heartbreak of losing a loved one to addiction.
“We reduced the number of opioid prescriptions last year by 15 percent. And for Medicaid patients, there has been a 40 percent decrease in the amount of opioids prescribed since the first month of expansion in July of 2016.”
Landry has been insistent that Medicaid expansion has exacerbated the opioid crisis, claiming prescriptions for the addictive drugs have “doubled” since expansion began. Just last month, in an interview with The Advocate’ s Elizabeth Crisp, he stated, “A Medicaid card to a drug pusher is like a credit card. It costs them nothing, then on the street it’s 100 percent profit.”
The governor also touted the success of criminal justice reforms the Legislature passed last spring – a direct swat at joint claims made by Landry and U.S. Senator John Kennedy that “the Louisiana Justice Reinvestment Act has been a disaster.”
“I realize there are some politicians peddling fear and scare tactics,” the governor said. “But very soon we will be able to say that we no longer lead the nation in imprisonment, and we have already exceeded our expected savings goal for the first year. We did that by working together.”
Edwards elucidated his agenda for the session: cutting red tape and regulations for small business, easing some of the 2012 restrictions against granting teachers tenure, developing a statewide plan to combat poverty – including passage of equal pay and minimum wage laws – and improving awareness and procedures regarding sexual harassment.
(Note: Secretary of State Tom Schedler, named as defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed 3 weeks ago, was the only statewide elected official not in attendance at the session opener.)
And, of course, there’s the budget, and the problem of the fiscal cliff. Returning to that problem, which lawmakers failed to address in the special session that ended a week ago, Gov. Edwards told legislators about a senior from Dutchtown High School – an Eagle Scout, with a 33 on the ACT – who is now leaning toward attending Alabama instead of LSU, due to the uncertainty of TOPS.
“Losing to Alabama in the classroom should feel just as painful as losing to them on the football field,” the governor remarked. “Remember – when a special session goes by without any action, you aren’t failing me. You’re failing that kid from Dutchtown and the thousands of others like him around the state.”
Edwards then directly challenged those who insist “that the fiscal cliff could be solved by simply making spending cuts.”
“I think what many of you will find is that it is much harder than it seems because when you cut funding you cut a service that someone in this state relies on,” the governor said.
Looking pointedly at Appropriations chairman Cameron Henry, GOP caucus leader Lance Harris, and then Rep. Alan Seabaugh (R-Shreveport), the governor added, “If that’s what you truly believe, now is your opportunity. To those that say we can cut our way out of this, it’s your time to step up to the plate and make the specific cuts that you insist can be made.”
At the conclusion of the speech, Senator Francis Thompson called out, “Play ball!”
But throughout the Capitol, residual tension from the combative special session manifested in a variety of ways: from the Speaker’s, “Oh, Jesus!” exclamation upon being told there was a problem with the House microphones, to the Senate holding committee meetings to hear bills immediately – obviously, reaction to their House-forced two-week-long inaction during the special session.
And in the House, there was a resignation announcement: Rep. Kenny Havard (R-Jackson) is stepping down as chairman of the House Transportation committee.
“Every time I walk up to this building, I feel the weight of it on our shoulders,” Havard said, addressing the full House. “It is our responsibility to make this state a better place. It’s not the time to run from our responsibility to govern. It is not the time for bandaids. For families waiting on NOW waivers, it really is a matter of life and death. This is our time to put people above politics and party.
“You know, my dad always used the example of ‘If everybody jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?’ He told me, ‘Never join a gang.’ But we come here and we square off as Republicans and Democrats – and citizens get caught in the crossfire.
“As a chairman, I’m supposed to espouse an ideology. I’m expected to support the Speaker 100-percent. I can’t do that. Today is the day I want to get back to doing the people’s work and vote my conscience.
“We come here to plant seeds for the future. Today’s the day I ask you to stand with me — together – and pull up all the weeds. Let’s make sure they never take over our garden again.”
Is Havard’s resignation the first letter of other writing on the wall? And will it say to the Speaker – as was said to King Belshazzar in the biblical book of Daniel – “Thou art weighed in the balances, and found wanting?”
Long a trouble spot for the team, last offseason New Orleans attempted to address their linebacker position with a number of moves, eventually going into the season with three all-new starters (and trading former first-round pick Stephone Anthony midseason, which permanently closed the book on Rob Ryan’s impact on the team).
However, the unit still didn’t play all that well as a whole, in part due to injury, and in part because the starters were capable but didn’t stand out. They may make more moves this offseason, but first, let’s see what they have at the position now. (I’m not going to distinguish between inside and outside linebacker, because the positions are so fluid, especially as teams mix up 4-3 and 3-4 looks and play in the nickel package so often. All off-ball linebackers will go in the same chart.)
2017 Players and Cap Information
Player
Age
2017 Cap Hit
2018 Cap Hit
Signed Through
A.J. Klein
27
$2,800,000
$5,200,000
2020
Alex Anzalone
23
$591,677
$826,148
2020
Manti Te’o
27
$1,675,000
$2,800,000
2018
Craig Robertson
30
$1,800,000
$2,000,000
2018
Nathan Stupar
30
$1,800,000
$2,125,000
2018
Michael Mauti
28
$397,941
N/A
UFA
Adam Bighill
29
$191,471
$480,000
2018 (ERFA)
Jonathan Freeny
29
$136,764
N/A
UFA
Gerald Hodges
27
$434,118
N/A
UFA
Shayne Skov
28
$86,400
$630,000
2018 (RFA)
Sae Tautu
26
N/A
$480,000
2018 (ERFA)
New Signings for 2018
Player
Age
2018 Cap Hit
Signed Through
Jayrone Elliott
26
$790,000
2018
The Saints’ intent going into the season was to start three new players at linebacker: A.J. Klein in the middle, Manti Te’o on running downs, and Alex Anazlone as the other outside linebacker. (Stephone Anthony would, of course, be given a chance, but he once again proved to be a player without the instincts for the game to match his athleticism. The Saints received a fifth-round pick from the Dolphins for him.)
Unfortunately, not everything went as planned, as first Anzalone and then Klein went on injured reserve. Craig Robertson ended up filling some of those snaps; he was signed in 2016 to play special teams but ended up winning a starting job. He wasn’t great, but he wasn’t much of a dropoff, either. Te’o ended up taking on a much larger role as well, and while he was somewhat inconsistent, he also showed up big in some crucial moments, like with his stops against the Falcons in week 16. He’s still best suited as a two-down linebacker, though, without the speed or agility to cover pass routes or go sideline-to-sideline.
Beyond the top guys on the team already: Stupar was a special-teams ace, as was Mauti (who was surprisingly cut at the 53-man deadline but brought back after injuries). Bighill was considered another special teamer with a chance to make the 53-man, but he didn’t; he was called up later in the season, though, and spent most of the time bouncing between the practice squad and the active roster. Everyone else currently signed is pretty much a practice-squad or training-camp body; the free agents like Freeny and Hodges were basically late-season fill-ins for injuries.
In theory, if Klein and Anzalone can stay healthy, they would make a fine every-down duo, if not an excellent one. But between the fact that they haven’t so far (Anzalone battled his fair share of injuries in college as well) and that neither of them is a star, the Saints could certainly look to upgrade this position, and might even spend a first-round pick there. Even though linebacker is a relatively devalued position in the modern, pass-heavy NFL– pass rushers and cornerbacks are the most important positions on defense now– a fast, athletic linebacker who can cover routes and go sideline-to-sideline still has a lot of value.
The two guys widely considered the best off-ball linebacker prospects in this year’s draft are Georgia’s Roquan Smith, a do-it-all three-down player, and Virginia Tech’s Tremaine Edmunds, another tremendous athlete who is absurdly young (he turns 20 in May) and has the talent to develop into a star. With a draft without much top-end talent, though, there’s a good chance that both of these players are long gone by the Saints’ selection.
The next tier of linebackers includes names like Alabama’s Rashaan Evans and Texas’ Malik Jefferson, but perhaps the most intriguing name is Boise State’s Leighton Vander Esch, whose terrific combine (testing him in the 96th percentile of NFL linebackers) has him rising and suggests he has the kind of athleticism necessary to be that player I described a few couple of paragraphs ago. I myself will have to go watch his film before I can given you an opinion on the subject.
The free agent market isn’t particularly promising in that regard, either. Many of the recognizable names are older players who just don’t have the kind of juice they used to. There are a few younger guys with some talent– names like Buffalo’s Preston Brown, Dallas’ Anthony Hitchens, or Tennessee’s Avery Williamson– but the former seems already linked to the New England Patriots, and the latter two are still primarily run-stopping players. They might be guys it’s worth taking an inexpensive flyer on, but they’re not necessarily the kind of player the Saints are looking for.
It might be tough for the Saints to upgrade this unit this year. That said, if everyone can stay healthy, it’s a unit that can get by just fine as long as the secondary and defensive line continue to improve.
Since this column was on the shorter side, I thought I’d add the special teamers writeup here, even though the team seems highly unlikely to change at any of the positions:
2017 Players and Cap Information
Player
Pos.
Age
2017 Cap Hit
2018 Cap Hit
Signed Through
Thomas Morstead
P
32
$4,700,000
$4,850,000
2018
Wil Lutz
K
24
$540,000
$630,000
2018 (RFA)
Zach Wood
LS
25
$465,000
$555,000
2018 (ERFA)
Morstead has, of course, been with the team since he was drafted in 2009, and along with Drew Brees and Zach Strief, is the only member of that Super Bowl squad to remain on the team ever since. (Update: Strief retired on Monday.) He’s got a really high cap hit for a punter, and the Saints could save $4.1 million by releasing him, but given his level of performance, I’d be surprised if they did. I think he’s not going anywhere. Neither is Lutz, who strong leg (career long: 57 yards) and deep accuracy (13/16 on 40-49 yard field goals last year, and 4/5 from 50+) seems to have finally solved the Saints’ revolving door at kicker.
The Saints traded for Jon Dorenbos from the Eagles to be the long snapper before the season, but the discovery of a heart condition forced him into retirement. The Saints then signed Wood after the Dallas Cowboys released him, and though they might seek to replace him, there’s no apparent reason to.
I’d be surprised if, barring injury, any of those three positions were manned by different players in 2018.
Next time: The secondary, which will wrap up our series just in time for NFL free agency to begin.
It’s abundantly clear that state lawmakers are tired as they head into the 2018 regular legislative session – not surprising, since they’ve only had a week to recuperate from the contentiously ineffective special session, which followed two back-to-back years of back-to-back-to-back rounds of lawmaking.
More than 1100 bills have been pre-filed for this session, and an abundance of them reflect the same tired thinking and themes that have stultified progress for the state as a whole, exacerbating partisan suspicions within the legislative body and among the citizenry.
There are a number of bills that can be categorized as “do-overs”, also known as “try, try again” measures. Seven of those reprise the House Republican leadership’s demanded “budget reforms” from the 2018 special session: revising the state spending cap, establishing the “Louisiana Checkbook” transparency website, and Medicaid reforms – including work requirements, paying premiums for Medicaid coverage, and auditing recipients’ declared income to prevent fraud.
Despite opposition Democrats (and the Legislative Black Caucus, in particular) voiced during the special session about the “punitive” appearance of those Medicaid proposals, additional bills have been filed that clarify the ultimate intent. Rep. Sherman Mack (R-Livingston) has HB 88, creating the crime of “government benefits fraud,” and HB 163, letting the Attorney General start a Medicaid recipient fraud unit.
Additional bills filed by House Republicans substantiate this “punish the poor” theme. HB 73 by Tony Bacala (R-Prairieville) would let a justice of the peace or constable serving a wage garnishment to add 6% to the total, and collect that money first. Jay Morris (R-West Monroe) wants the legislature approving any waiver of work requirements for SNAP (food stamp) benefits (all of which are provided by the federal government, by the way). Raymond Garofalo (R- Chalmette) wants those who drop out of college or lose eligibility to pay TOPS back. And HB 446 by Reid Falconer (R-Mandeville) would fine people and put them in jail if they witness someone being hurt and don’t assist them or call for help, i.e., “be a Good Samaritan…or else.”
On the opposite side are bills seeking to help the poor, nearly all filed by Black Caucus members, and nearly all attempted in prior sessions. From HB 192 by Joseph Bouie (D-New Orleans) setting a state minimum wage to HB 605 by Barbara Norton (D-Shreveport), Equal Pay for Women, these measures attempt to minimize some of the income disparities that contribute to Louisiana’s bottom ranking on a plethora of national quality-of-life lists. There are bills to prohibit shaming of students who can’t afford to pay for school meals, a requirement to more frequently test drinking water for lead, and bills to decriminalize marijuana possession.
A bill by Marcus Hunter (D-Monroe), HB 635, would require state agencies to collect data and combat “environmental and public health impacts on communities of color, indigenous communities and low-income communities” – in other words, fight those groups’ disproportionate exposure to air, water and soil pollutants.
And SB 455 by Sen. Regina Barrow (D-Baton Rouge) would effectively create a Louisiana “War on Poverty,” by requiring all agencies of state government to implement policies and procedures in a comprehensive plan to facilitate “economic independence for Louisiana families”.
There are other progressive concepts docketed, as well; they range from a complete prohibition on talking or texting while driving (HB 619 by Huval [R-Breaux Bridge]), to changing marriage law terminology to say “spouses” instead of “husband and wife” (SB 98 by Morrell [D-New Orleans]), to abolishing the death penalty (HB 162, Terry Landry [D- New Iberia] and SB 51 by Morrell). And once again, Rep. Pat Smith (D-Baton Rouge) will attempt to get the state to allow comprehensive sex education taught in public schools.
There are do-overs on abortion restrictions that have been enjoined by the courts: four bills seek to tweak those laws in order to resolve issues of concern raised in federal court rulings. And two bills by Sen. John Milkovich (D-Shreveport) seek to further circumscribe access to pregnancy termination. SB 181 would completely prohibit the procedure after 15 weeks. SB 325 would allow local DAs to shut down abortion providers, and allow prosecution of state Health Department employees who did not do so first.
Yet shadowing the entire session like a building thundercloud is the Legislature’s inability to solve the state’s overall fiscal uncertainty. Seventeen bills propose giving more autonomy to local governments in the areas of taxes, incentives, school standards and minimum wage. Another 17 bills propose one or another variation on telling the Governor and cabinet how to do their jobs. These include requiring the Division of Administration to consult with lawmakers while preparing the Governor’s annual budget proposal (SB 340 by Sen. Jack Donahue [R-Mandeville]) to setting up a task force to find more governmental functions that can be privatized (HB 590 by Rep. Rick Edmonds [R-Baton Rouge]).
Rep. Tony Bacala is renewing his push to require managed-care providers be contracted to oversee Medicaid patients in nursing homes, while Sen. Conrad Appel is bringing back his “one board to rule them all” concept for higher education. The measure abolishes the separate boards governing the LSU system, the Southern University System, the University of Louisiana System, and the Community and Technical College System, creating a new overall governing body in lieu of the Board of Regents. Appel tried this in 2011, and again in 2016, failing spectacularly both times.
For the past two years, we’ve heard a litany of complaints from lawmakers regarding how much state revenue is locked away by constitutional and statutory dedications, referred to as “stat deds.” This session offers two bills removing some of those restrictions: HB 485 by Rep. Rob Shadoin (R-Ruston), eliminating some constitutional dedications, and HB 664 by Edmonds, sunsetting some of the statutory entities that receive dedicated funds.
On the other hand, there are eight bills to dedicate more chunks of revenue: to roads, disabilities waivers, medical research, and TOPS.
And there are four bills calling for a constitutional convention, with an eye to rewriting the parts of Louisiana’s main governance document dealing with fiscal matters. It makes one wonder, though – do we really want lawmakers punching holes in the drywall to rewire the building, when they can’t even agree to replace a burned-out lightbulb?
Meanwhile, Gov. John Bel Edwards will be pushing lawmakers to finish their regular session work early.
“I’ve already asked President Alario and Speaker Barras to adjourn the regular session in mid-May,” the governor told the capitol press corps following the ignominious end of the special session. “Doing so would allow us to have a special session that would conclude by June 4th, which is the scheduled adjournment day of the regular session, so that the taxpayers wouldn’t have to worry about any additional cost of that special session. And also so that we can get this problem resolved fully with almost a month before this fiscal year ends, so the state agencies, higher education and all of the people across Louisiana will know what to expect come July first.”
But that proposal also hinges on how quickly HB 1, the budget bill, moves. Even though the governor has said, “I don’t believe it is possible to pass a budget with $692-million less in state general fund,” Appropriations chairman Cameron Henry seemed unconcerned when I asked him about it this past week.
“We all need to start off from the right number before we can move anywhere,” the Republican from Metairie said. “I think that’s what we’re going to work on at the beginning of the session, and make sure we understand where we need to be.
“Then what we’re going to do is we’ll start like we always do, with public testimony, committee hearings, subcommittee hearings, and work through it like we would normally do.
“Normally the lag time is when it goes over to the Senate. They usually wait further to the end of the session to deal with it, so they’re going to have to speed up,” he added.
Asked what he thinks is the deadline for getting the budget done and the revenue hole filled Henry said, “Depends on whether we have a special session after the regular session, so, uh, end of June would be ideal.”
The new budget year begins July 1.
In the meantime, there is one bill filed that could put some “fun” back into our dysfunctional Legislature, if only for a few minutes. SB 436 by Senator Norby Chabert (R-Houma) would designate the Cajun waltz as Louisiana’s state dance.
I can hear the accordion now. Fais-do-do, anyone?
In his recent novel, King Zeno, depicting New Orleans in 1918, author Nathaniel Rich writes about the construction of the Industrial Canal 100 years ago, a massive project intended to transform the city into a world-class port. The Port of New Orleans built the 5-mile long, deep-draft navigation channel through the Ninth Ward to connect the winding Mississippi River with Lake Pontchartrain, shortening the distance ships and barges needed to travel to reach the Gulf of Mexico.
In his narrative, Rich also describes corruption, payoffs, expropriation of private property, evisceration of a 375-acre cypress forest populated by 200,000 trees and exploitation of hundreds of poor blacks who worked long shifts, knee-deep in fetid mud and quicksand that threatened to swallow them alive.
“The concerns we have today are the same concerns they had 100 years ago,” said the Rev. Willie Calhoun, a longtime Ninth Ward resident.
A home in the shadow of the St. Claude Bridge.
Rich wrote: “The conditions were unwholesome, hospitable to the plague, the mud attracting mosquitoes, blackflies, chiggers, opossums, rats – scourges that only multiplied when the project’s scope was doubled to accommodate the larger ships built since the [First World] War began.” The excavation project faced opposition from residents who wondered how digging a huge canal in their back yard might affect daily transportation and safety.
“You are talking about economically killing this community. They will do irreversible damage to this neighborhood,” Calhoun said. “The culture is under attack.”
Current residents are angry the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has revived its plan to widen the Industrial Canal to allow bigger ships and multiple vessels to pass through repopulated neighborhoods. Since 1954, the Corps has made repeated attempts to deepen and widen the canal despite public resistance. The 13-year or longer project, estimated to cost $1 billion, would entail dismantling the historic St. Claude Bridge, building a temporary bridge, relocating some homeowners and dredging toxic sediment from its bottom.
“We expect the Corps’ economic study will have a lot of color graphs of benefits and almost no downside,” said John Koeferl, president of Citizens Against Widening the Industrial Canal (CAWIC). “The downside is when the floodwall collapses, community floods, wetlands disappear. They dig and we flood. Since we can’t sue them, why should they include that in the cost analysis?”
Jeff Treffinger, an architectural historian who has studied the lock, believes the Corps has no final plan, calling the project “a work in progress.” “They haven’t figured how to do the demolition of the historic lock – a pretty complex project, to say the least.” The lock is 225,000 cubic tons of concrete, not counting the steel. The length and width of the submerged structure is nearly the same size as the Chrysler Building in Manhattan, he added.
By relocating the lock 1/4-mile north of its existing location and building 24-foot tall flood walls, the Corps would invite Mississippi River water into a residental neighborhood with increased danger of overtopping.
New homes built next to the St. Claude Bridge.
“That’s a big existential threat,” Treffinger said.
In 1999, CAWIC received a McKnight Foundation grant for independent sampling of Industrial Canal sediments likely to be disturbed by the project. With the help of the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic, the research resulted in a federal judge stopping the lock project in 2006, pending a new Environmental Impact Statement.
Geologist Barry Kohl, Ph.D., participated in the McKnight study, going out in a boat to take samples of sediment, which were found through laboratory analysis to have dangerous levels of arsenic, barium, chromium and poly aromatic hydrocarbons. The Corps’ intention is to dispose contaminated soil in fragile wetlands.
“The sediments are contaminated with cancer-causing chemicals,” according to Kohl who served as an expert witness during the litigation. “The Corps ignores public health and only focuses on navigation for shipping,” Kohl added.
As a result of U.S. Army Corps of Engineer projects, including the Industrial Canal and Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Canal (MRGO), the Lower Ninth Ward has been flooded twice. Warily and slowly, former residents reclaimed their properties and rebuilt their homes. More than a decade after Katrina, the neighborhood is finally showing signs of progress with a new fire station, recreation center, high school and pharmacy, but construction will throw a wrench in the works. St. Bernard engineers, John Laguens and Tim Doody, testified at a public meeting that towing additional barges into the lock and the higher water tables resulting from moving the lock inland will necessitate both bridges to be frequently raised simultaneously and for longer periods.
The Industrial Canal
Widening the canal would strangle traffic for 50,000 people, stifle real estate investment, hamper hurricane evacuations and again put the Lower 9 once at risk for flooding. Profit-minded shipping companies such as Bollinger Shipyards will benefit while local business development and residents’ concerns are dismissed.
When the Industrial Canal began operation in 1923, it was touted as a catalyst for commercial shipping. The canal connects the Mississippi with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, a 1,300-mile inland system running from Texas to Florida.
But the Industrial Canal has never lived up to its promotions, nor fostered large-scale industrial development along its banks. After the additional dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), salt water intrustion killed the remaining cypress trees. The canal separated the city from the Lower Ninth Ward and brings traffic to a complete halt every 20-30 minutes. It also decimated wetlands that once reduced the force of tropical storms.
While the Corps of Engineers argue that the lock is antiquated and too small for modern shipping vessels, a 2007 study underwritten by the Corps Reform Network and the Rockefeller Gulf Coast Fund for Community Renewal and Ecological Health showed that demand for additional capacity was exaggerated.
“Failure to Hold H2O: Economics of the New Lock Project for the Industrial Canal,” a report produced by Dr. Robert Stearns, an expert in transportation economics, enumerated developments that have undermined the canal’s importance, including: significant reductions of commercial traffic transiting the lock; average delay times well below forecast; changes to the cost-sharing agreement, shifting many costs to the federal government, and closure of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Canal (MRGO).
“These findings and recommendations are based on the economic analysis alone. When considered in concert with unresolved environmental and community concerns, the case against this project is overwhelming,” according to the report.
“The Corps basically incentivizes disaster because even when bad things happen, they make money,” Koeferl remarked.
St. Claude Bridge at the Industrial Canal
By spending almost $1 billion, replacing a recently refurbished bridge, disrupting life on the east side of the canal for more than a decade, there might not be any benefit.
“We really need to close that canal,” Koeferl said. “We don’t need to have this upheaval in the middle of this city with all the inherent flood risk.”
“It was true that the canal flew against two centuries of municipal strategy, which called for keeping water out of the city at all cost, first with a parapet of earthen levees and later the modern drainage system. But what would happen if the rain kept coming? If all the springs of the great deep burst forth and the floodgates of the heavens opened, overwhelming Mr. Wood’s screw pumps? The lake swelling, the river rising. The water finding the weak spots in the canal walls and bursting through crevasses into the defenseless city. The Industrial Canal would no longer be ‘the realization of a splendid vision’ but a ravenous wolf exacting vengeance.”
-Nathaniel Rich
Download Murrill’s letter here.
Following the expiration of the 90-day delay, in June, Pruitt ultimately agreed with Murrill’s recommendation and ordered the rule be delayed for an additional eighteen months, and that’s when the Louisiana Bucket Brigade and a coalition of environmental groups filed suit against the EPA.
For those unfamiliar with the nuances of administrative law, a rule-making change, such as this one, is already subject to extensive review and a 90-day “notice and comment” period, wherein the agency alerts potential stakeholders of a proposed change and provides them with an opportunity to openly and transparently submit concerns into the record. In fact, Jeff Landry had first expressed his opposition to the rule when it was officially proposed in early 2016; his arguments had already been taken into consideration.
More importantly, though, the law states that, once a rule is finalized, EPA can only delay its implementation for 90 days, unless an additional delay is determined to not be “arbitrary and capricious,” which is an enormously high burden considering the exhaustive review and drafting process already undertaken.
Although Murrill has been preparing her arguments for nearly a year, Landry praised her work for the first time on Thursday. “As I have said before: the ill-advised decision to finalize the RMP Rules not only subjected facilities to even more burdensome, duplicative, and needless regulation; but it also makes all of us more vulnerable to security threats,” he wrote in a press release, encouraging others to tune into listen to Murrill. “I am grateful Administrator Pruitt recognized this and granted our review; and I am confident Solicitor General Murrill will represent our State in the most judicious manner on Friday.”
Murrill was only provided a brief amount of time to present her arguments, which began by noting that Congress already had passed a litany of laws related to emergency response, including a law providing for the protection of animals. But she primarily focused on the claim that the rule could undermine homeland security because, in her opinion, it was too vague about the definition of who should be considered “emergency response officials.” She did not, however, claim that the rule itself was “needless.”
Under questioning from Judge Judith Rogers, Murrill argued that better coordination was necessary and important. You can listen to the entirety of oral arguments here (Murrill’s portion begins at the 1 hour and 36 minute mark).
“Confusion and change… inhibits response,” Murrill said, responding to the fact that EPA had actually amended the rule to better address concerns about information-sharing and homeland security.
Her arguments did not appear to sway Judge Rogers, who noted that Murrill and others were attempting to make two contradictory arguments. “I hear two lines here,” Rodgers told Murrill. “One, we want EPA to do more, but we want it to do it differently. And two, we can do it ourselves. EPA is unnecessary here. We have state laws. We have county laws. We have municipal laws. So, get out of our way and let us resolve these matters. But then I hear, ‘No, no, we want EPA to step in.’
“And just to respond (to your comment) that Congress has laws to protect animals. Years ago, it acted to protect human beings and the environment,” Rogers said.
Murrill’s reply directly belied what her boss, Attorney General Jeff Landry, had told the public only a day before. “The states don’t take the position that there’s not some value in improving these rules,” Murrill told the court. “I don’t think anybody actually disagrees that it’s a good idea to improve and modernize the rules.”
****
So, what is this really about? Why are Louisiana taxpayers being required to spend money to fight this battle?
According to the petitioners, EPA already put in protections to ensure safety concerns were addressed, and no one denies that better coordination is paramount. Indeed, the central argument offered by Murrill- that the rule is too vague about who should receive information- was already fixed in an amendment dramatically scaling down recipients of this information and ensuring the information would not be subject to “public disclosure.”
And there is “robust evidence” that as a result of this rule, people would “immediately have stronger emergency response.”
It is indisputable that far too often, first responders arrive at the scene of an emergency and subsequently become sick as a result of exposure to certain chemicals. And it’s also indisputable that far too often, first responders do not know the types of chemicals stored in facilities in their own communities.
There is a simple and obvious explanation: Louisiana’s Department of Justice is currently being led by people who have repeatedly proven to care more about the profits and public image of Big Oil and chemical companies than about the state’s environment or those who live in our most vulnerable communities, even if it poses a danger to first responders.
“The whole point of this is to enable and ensure noncompliance,” Emma Cheuse, an attorney for one of the petitioners, told the court. 
CORNERBACKS
2017 Players and Cap Information
SAFETIES
2017 Players and Cap Information
CORNERBACKS
2017 Players and Cap Information
SAFETIES
2017 Players and Cap Information
2017 Players and Cap Information
Since this column was on the shorter side, I thought I’d add the special teamers writeup here, even though the team seems highly unlikely to change at any of the positions:
2017 Players and Cap Information
2017 Players and Cap Information
Since this column was on the shorter side, I thought I’d add the special teamers writeup here, even though the team seems highly unlikely to change at any of the positions:
2017 Players and Cap Information
