Governing compares IL and LA

Katrina trumps Blagojevich. At least that is what the state report cards at Governing magazine would appear to indicate. How is it that a state with a bigger population, higher median income, larger political clout, etc scores lower on this scale than a state that recently underwent the biggest natural disaster in recent US history?
It seemingly all comes down to politics. While Hurricane Katrina certainly did shake up the state of Louisiana financially and infrastructurally the state was overall united by the tragedy and sound fiscal policies were put into effect to curb the damage wrought by the storm. On the other hand, Illinois did not suffer from a crisis that remotely approached the destruction of a large hurricane and state government is controlled in all 3 branches by the Democratic Party (following a scandal plagued series of Republican administrations) yet its leaders cannot come to agreements on fundamental areas. Louisina planned for its post-Katrina budgets assuming the worst and thus received budget surpluses as a result of federal money flowing into the state as well as unforeseen economic investment. Of course, this is not to say that the article finds the state to be exemplary but rather that it is doing a capable job under duress. A criticism that is specially voiced is the manner in which projects are approved, which involves many layers of bureaucracy and could further be streamlined or done away with. Illinois, on the other hand has had a tough time getting its budget into balance because of outstanding debts and a populace that is averse to raising taxes (but what populace isn't?). Unmentioned in the article is the split between the Chicagoland metropolitan area and the rest of the state. Downstaters are not interested in funding rapidly aging infrastructure for Chicago or helping expand their rapid transit in the same way that Chicago-area residents are not terribly excited that their tax money goes to fund roads they will never drive on.