Jim Beam column:Landry loves political power
Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jeff Landry has never met a political power that he doesn't like. This time it's an auto insurance situation.(Photo courtesy of The Louisiana Illuminator).
Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, who in the last year has been given more power and authority than any governor since the late-Huey P. Long nearly a century ago, said he doesn't understand why the state's insurance commissioner refuses to accept more power.
Landry made that statement during an April 16 House Insurance Committee meeting on House Bill 576 by Rep. Robby Carter, D-Amite, that would give the insurance commissioner greater freedom to reject excessive auto insurance rates.
'The last time I checked,' Landry said, 'I've yet to find a politician not willing and eager to accept more power.'
Commissioner Tim Temple also testified at that hearing that under current law he can suppress rates for practical reasons, primarily if the rates are actuarily justified. He said Carter's bill would return to the days when the state had an insurance rating commission that often set rates for political reasons.
Temple said three successive insurance commissioners elected in the 1980s and 1990s went to prison after facing accusations of accepting illegal favors from insurance companies.
The commissioner and others have said it's obvious that Landry wants to put greater responsibility on the commissioner so he can blame Temple if car insurance rates keep rising.
Landry insists the Legislature has passed laws to lower rates but premiums keep rising and insurance companies are making unbelievable profits. He was extremely emotional during that hearing. The governor said if lawmakers didn't pass Carter's bill, he would bring them back in a special session to get it done.
Carter's bill cleared that committee with a 13-4-1 vote and was scheduled for full House debate on April 28. However, Carter put off a vote twice, apparently because he lacked the support the legislation needed.
Landry proved on April 30 that he wanted that Carter bill passed and that he would do whatever it took to make it happen. The Advocate reported that the governor got Rep. Jeff Wiley, R-Gonzales, to allow Rep. Brian Glorioso, R-Slidell, to allow an amendment to one of his bills (HB 148) that was actually the Carter bill that Carter couldn't get passed in the House.
The newspaper said Landry 'powered over Republican opponents in the state House' and the amendment was approved 67-33. Only 36 Republicans supported it, while 33 opposed it. All 31 Democrats voted for the amendment. The bill passed the House 68-34 and went to the Senate.
To their credit, Republican Reps. Brett Geymann of Moss Bluff, Chuck Owen of Rosepine, Rodney Schamerhorn of Hornbeck and Phillip Tarver of Lake Charles were four of the 33 who opposed the amendment.
Rep. Paula Davis, R-Baton Rouge, who worked for the Insurance Department for a decade, explained why passage of the bill was a terrible idea.
'We're sending a message to the industry that we're an unstable place to do business,' Davis said.
Rolfe McCollister, author and CEO of the Baton Rouge Business Report, isn't buying Landry's 'balanced approach' between insurance companies and trial lawyers on auto insurance.
McCollister said in a column that he remembered Landry's veto of a critical auto insurance bill last year 'when you had a chance to do the right thing. This is a matter of who the people will trust …'
The Louisiana Association of Business and Industry on June 18, 2024, said Landry's veto of that bill that held promise in lowering rates was a major disappointment. It said the legislation 'was a compromise bill that helped bring fairness, predictability and transparency to our legal system.'
LABI added, 'The governor's signature would have sent a resounding message to insurance carriers throughout the state and the country that Louisiana is indeed open for business as we work to fix our unstable insurance market.'
Landry's veto last year took the steam out of insurance reform that could have been more successful. And he's been ranting and raving about passing the Carter bill since it was introduced.
Rep. Gabe Firment, R-Pollock, chair of the House Insurance Committee, and a strong Landry supporter, told The Advocate in an interview how dangerous the Carter bill is.
'I think this bill has the potential to completely nullify all the good bills we may pass and the potential to negate all the property reforms we made last year,' Firment said. 'It will send a chilling effect to the entire market. It could be catastrophic for our insurance market.'
Jim Beam, the retired editor of the American Press, has covered people and politics for more than six decades. Contact him at 337-515-8871 or jim.beam.press@gmail.com. Reply Forward
Add reaction
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. | Opinion The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that way of thinking? Show Caption Hide Caption Trump rescinds Biden-era emergency abortion care guidance The Trump administration rescinded guidance clarifying that hospitals in abortion-ban states must treat pregnant patients during medical emergencies. unbranded - Newsworthy Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? Having a baby in America is dangerous. Republicans aren't helping. The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. None of this is surprising from Republicans. It's just sad. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno
USA Today
20 minutes ago
- USA Today
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts.
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts. | Opinion Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. Show Caption Hide Caption Disabled protesters removed from House committee hearing Disabled demonstrators protesting a Republican proposal to cut benefits were forced to leave a House committee hearing and arrested. Perhaps you've heard: Republicans are about to kick millions of people off health insurance. That claim is all over the news media as Congress debates the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Advocates on the left even say the proposed changes will kill people. Such claims have no basis in reality. The point is to frighten Republican lawmakers into giving up on necessary reforms. Instead, the GOP should double down. Congressional Budget Office is biased, and often wrong The source for this fearmongering is the Congressional Budget Office. As the Foundation for Government Accountability shows in our new research, CBO staff consists largely of registered Democrats and the agency is often wrong in its projections. Washington elites and their media allies like to hold up the CBO as an all-seeing oracle. In theory, it's a nonpartisan federal agency inside Congress that accurately predicts how legislation will play out in the real world. In reality, CBO is overwhelmingly staffed by Democrats and its findings are less than trustworthy. We painstakingly analyzed the voter registration of every CBO employee. Our finding: A staggering 79% of CBO staff are Democrats. A mere 12% are Republicans. That's actually worse than senior bureaucrats at the most liberal federal agencies, including Housing and Urban Development, the State Department and Health and Human Services. And when you look at key CBO departments, the liberal bias is even more stark. The Health Analysis Division is 93% Democrat and zero Republican. That's the department now driving the news about the dangers of the Republican bill. In other words, CBO may well be the most liberal government outfit in all of Washington. And surprise, surprise: It does Democrats' bidding. Tell us: Republicans want massive cuts to Medicaid. What do you want? | Forum Opinion That fact should persuade Republicans to ignore CBO's analysis of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In May, CBO asserted that about 10 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage by 2034 if the bill passed. CBO blames Republican reforms like Medicaid work requirements, more frequent eligibility checks and the removal of illegal immigrants from Medicaid. But think about what's really happening. A group of Democratic bureaucrats are criticizing Republican efforts to roll back Democratic priorities. This isn't nonpartisan policy analysis. It's political damage control. CBO projections were wrong on 'Obamacare' And wouldn't you know: The leftist CBO is frequently wrong. The agency has a long history of underestimating the benefits of Republican policies like tax cuts and health care reforms. The CBO also routinely minimizes the damage of Democratic policies, especially the soaring cost of government expansions. In 2010, when the Affordable Care Act passed, the CBO said only 13 million able-bodied adults would be covered under the law's Medicaid expansion in all 50 states. But within a decade, 50% more able-bodied adults had jumped onto Medicaid, even though only two-thirds of states had expanded the program. Opinion: GOP must cut Medicaid now. Or risk debt crisis and devastating cuts later. CBO's error made "Obamacare" look more affordable than it is, and taxpayers have spent tens of billions of additional dollars on able-bodied adults who push vulnerable Americans and individuals with disabilities back in line. For more than a decade, CBO has been consistently wrong on Medicaid expansion's real-world impact, underestimating enrollment and the cost to taxpayers. But when CBO analyzed the Republican repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate in 2017, it overestimated how many people would lose coverage. It said 4 million people would lose private health coverage and Medicaid in the first two years alone. But by 2020, about 13 million people had gained coverage. CBO could hardly have been more wrong. And the agency is still in charge of making predictions. Now, the CBO is once again warning about massive coverage losses, and their media allies are dutifully repeating the assertion. But congressional Republicans should see through the charade. Case in point: CBO's predictions about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act include 1.6 million people enrolled in Medicaid in multiple states. They won't lose coverage in the state where they live, but CBO still counts them among those losing coverage. In addition, 200,000 'losses' are people who aren't even on Medicaid. CBO just assumes they'll join in the years ahead. GOP is doing the right thing with Medicaid The truth is that Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. That will allow states to focus on Medicaid's intended recipients such as individuals with disabilities. Republicans are also removing ineligible people and illegal immigrants from Medicaid rolls. CBO makes it sound like those coverage losses are wrong, but what's really wrong is letting millions of people take advantage of taxpayers. Republicans are looking out for Americans − taxpayers, individuals with disabilities and future generations. The Congressional Budget Office, on the other hand, is looking out for the Democratic agenda of growing government at any cost. Republicans in the Senate should ignore the fearmongering and move forward with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as soon as possible. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability, where Addison Scherler is a data investigator.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
It's the last day of work for a leader of a tiny CT town. Public opinion forced her out.
Today the clock starts ticking on finding an interim leader in a tiny Connecticut town. It's first selectwoman Paula Cofrancesco's last day on the job after resigning amid a scandal produced by an alleged child sex abuse case. Meanwhile, the remaining two members of the Board of Selectmen will be in charge: Democrat Gina Teixeira and Republican Robert H. Brinton, Jr. They are also responsible to take the first steps in finding an interim first selectman until November, when the regular election is held. Teixeira, who has a busy full-time job as a staff attorney for Disability Rights Connecticut in Hartford, said she is willing to handle town business in the meantime and she assumes so as Brinton, who couldn't be reached for comment. He is the town engineer in Orange. 'My plan is to be available as needed,' she said. 'It's a crisis situation.' Cofrancesco announced her resignation in May, effective June 6 at an annual town meeting after calls from residents for her to step down reached a feverish pitch. Cofrancesco came under fire in the wake of a report that blasted her handling of alleged child sex abuse by a town employee working with kids. That former employee, Anthony Mastrangelo, 25 at the time of his arrest, is facing sex assault and risk of injury to a minor charges. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges, and is free on bond. Now starts the task of finding a new first selectman. It could be fast or it could drag on until sometime in September. The process in this case gives Republicans an advantage because Cofrancesco is of that party. Cofrancesco could not be reached for comment. Since Bethany doesn't have a charter the town will follow the process outlined in state statute Sec. 9-222, 'Filling of vacancy in office of first selectman or selectman.' The statute says the remaining selectmen, in this case Teixeira and Brinton, can either take the position themselves or have 30 days to agree on a replacement. If the vacancy were not filled within 30 days the town clerk would within 10 days after have to notify the elective Republican town officers and they get to pick someone. It has to be within 30 days. If someone's not happy with the choice, a member of either party can petition for a special election for an interim replacement. For the petition to be successful they must have a number of electors at least equal to five percent of the names on the last-completed registry list, but not fewer than fifty electors. In this case if each step before a special election went out to the full 60 days , it would put a special election into about September. Regular Election Day is Nov. 4. Roger Senserrich, spokesman for the Secretary of State's office said that agency would become involved if there were a special election. To start the process Brinton and Teixeira are scheduled to meet Monday at Town Hall. If Monday's meeting were made public, the two selectmen would likely to go into executive, or private, session for part of it, if names are discussed. Cofrancesco has been under fire for about a year after the public, including irate parents, questioned her handling of allegations of sexual assault of girls by parks and recreation employee Anthony Mastrangelo, who was 25 at the time of his arrest. It is alleged he touched the girls during his employment. A fifth alleged child victim came forward after Mastrangelo babysat at her house. An investigation on the handling of the allegations revealed the State Police dropped the ball by not making an arrest sooner and that Cofrancesco failed to take action quickly to fire Mastrangelo and warn parents. The investigation also revealed a close friendship between Cofrancesco and the Mastrangelo family. It was so close they went on vacation together and Cofrancesco and Mastrangelo's mother planned meals together by email. When questioned about the vacation at a public meeting Cofrancesco told residents the meeting on vacation was by chance. Cofrancesco at first vowed she wouldn't resign, but residents didn't back down and began an appeal to the governor's office to have her ousted. Cofrancesco resigned effective June 6, saying although she didn't agree with the investigation report, the matter had become a 'distraction' to the town. Residents applauded when she resigned, but at the same time many were also further angered by what they read as a her continued lack of accepting responsibility. At the height of the demands for her to leave, those joining the list of residents calling for her resignation were state Sen. Jorge Cabrera, state Rep. Lezlye Zupkus, a Republican like Cofrancesco, the Bethany Democratic Town Committee, and Democratic Selectwoman Gina Teixeira, and the Republican Town Committee. The investigative report was based on a review of more than 125,000 electronic and paper documents — emails, text messages, town policies, and related attachments—and on interviews of 48 current and former town employees, elected officials, concerned citizens, and parents of the victims, according to the the law firm Pullman & Comley, LLC. She began her first term as first selectwoman in 2019.
