Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for November, 2010

Hidden legislative perk: Pentagon Barracks housing

Posted in Ethics, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Transparency on November 29, 2010| 5 Comments »

By Tom Aswell

Here’s a sound business plan that’s sure to attract shrewd investors in today’s competitive real estate market: Construct four apartment buildings containing 39 one- and two-bedroom units of an average size of 800-900 square feet each.

Throw in about $74,136.46 in free furniture and locate the $4.4 million apartment complex on prime property with scenic views of the Mississippi River on one side and the majestic Louisiana State Capitol building on the other. As a final inducement, offer the units for an average monthly rent of about $310, utilities included (sorry, no cable TV). Add two units assigned to a special VIP who pays $3,268 per month for 2,964 square feet, and the average monthly rent balloons to a whopping $368 per occupant.

Think you’d have any trouble attracting tenants at that price and with those amenities?

Probably not.

At those bargain basement rates and provided there were no maintenance costs, no new furniture to purchase, no remodeling needed, and if there were no increase in utilities along the way, and given a mortgage interest rate of 6%, the combined annual rental income would fall short of servicing the principal and interest on the debt, meaning owners would never break even on their investments. A 40-year mortgage at 6%, for example, would require a monthly payment of $24,209.40 against total monthly rental income of only $18,778. Think you’d get many takers with a can’t-miss opportunity like that?

Again, probably not.

Yet, that’s what’s happening, thanks to a long-standing practice by state elected officials in Baton Rouge. Most Louisiana taxpayers are unaware of their own generosity in funding this arrangement during one of the worst economic recessions in decades.

And just who are the beneficiaries of such big-hearted largesse? Who are the lucky tenants? That would be those same elected officials, more specifically, a select handful of legislators from the House and Senate who, even in the face of a looming $1.6 billion state budget deficit next year nevertheless show no reluctance in taking advantage of the cheap rentals even as hundreds of their constituents and state workers alike are losing their jobs and struggling to keep their homes.

The apartment complex in question? The historic Pentagon Barracks that served as part of the LSU campus from 1886 to 1926. Before that, in 1816, the fort at Baton Rouge was selected as an ordnance depot and a contract awarded for the construction of four barracks buildings and a combination commissary-warehouse building. The barracks are now on the National Historic Register.

Early on, the barracks played host to such dignitaries as presidents Zachary Taylor, Abraham Lincoln, U.S. Grant, Warren Harding, and William Taft; Jefferson Davis; Gens. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, James Longstreet, Nathan Bedford Forrest, George Armstrong Custer, George B. McClellan, P.G.T. Beauregard, and William Tecumseh Sherman, the first president of the military academy that would become LSU.

Today, there are 39 units occupied by 50 legislators—25 from each house. (The Louisiana Legislature is comprised of 144 members—39 senators and 105 representatives.) Two other units are occupied by the lieutenant governor, even though recently-elected Jay Dardenne is a resident of Baton Rouge. Two others, Rep. Karen Gaudet St. Germain (D-Plaquemine) and Sen. Rob Marionneaux (D-Livonia) live only 15 and 24 miles, respectively, from Baton Rouge which could leave some wondering why those three need special housing accommodations in Baton Rouge.

Occupancy of the Pentagon Barracks apartments appears to be more a matter of status than seniority or party affiliation, since several tenants are in their first term in the legislature and there are nearly as many Republicans as Democrat tenants from each house. A request by Capitol News Service for an explanation of criteria used in assigning apartments was not answered by either the House Clerk’s office or the Division of Administration.

Rent charged the legislators (other than for the House speaker and Senate president) ranges from $185 per month each for six senators sharing three apartments to $400 for each of eight representatives who are the sole occupants of their units. Speaker of the House Jim Tucker (R-Terrytown) decides which House members will get apartments. He pays $500 and $125, respectively, for two separate apartments he assigned to himself.

On the Senate side, Senate President Joel T. Chaisson (D-Destrehan) assigns the 21 apartments to 25 senators. Chaisson pays $565 per month for his 1,764 square-foot apartment, which is double the size of the next in size—10 units that are 882 square feet each.

But that arrangement apparently was not good enough for Tucker. During this year’s regular legislative session, almost immediately after the election of former Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu as mayor of New Orleans, Tucker pushed through HB-1172 that would have moved the lieutenant governor’s quarters to a smaller apartment and allowed the speaker to take over the lieutenant governor’s two apartments which total 2,964-square-feet. The $3,268 monthly rental on the lieutenant governor’s apartments currently is paid by the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism. The two units underwent $187,000 in extensive renovations in 2004 at the behest of Landrieu, then newly-elected as lieutenant governor.

HB-1172 was approved 86-0 by the House with 17 either absent or not voting. Among those 17 were six Pentagon Barracks tenants: Andy Anders (D-Vidalia), Roy Burrell (D-Shreveport), Noble Ellington (D-Winnsboro), Rick Gallot (D-Ruston), Cedric Richmond (D-New Orleans), and Ernest Wooten (I-Belle Chase). The bill also passed unanimously in the Senate but died as one of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s few vetoes of the session.

Three neighboring states—Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi—were contacted to learn if those states provided discounted housing for legislators. Only one, Arkansas, did and there apparently is some controversy about that policy, mostly because of several legislators who are chronically late in paying their rent. The state-owned apartment building is across the street from the Arkansas State Capitol and contains 48 apartments that are assigned to representatives and senators at rentals of $300 and $350 per month, according to Cathy Bradshaw, deputy secretary of state.

Arkansas pays its lawmakers a flat salary of $15,362 per year, plus $136 per diem and mileage expenses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

NCSL also reports that Texas pays its legislators $7,200 per year and $168 per diem for days that the legislature is in session, compared to Louisiana, which pays legislators $16,800 per year and $159 per diem. Mississippi lawmakers receive $10,000 per year plus $123 per diem during legislative sessions. Additionally, Alabama pays its lawmakers a base salary of $3,650 per year, plus $3,958 per month during legislative sessions only and $50 per diem only for the three days per week that the legislature actually meets.

Louisiana legislators are paid $16,800 per year and $159 per diem. That per diem amount is paid for each of the 85 calendar days of the even-year legislative sessions and 60 days of odd-year sessions even though the legislature meets on fewer than half of those days. The same $159 per diem is also paid to the 50 Pentagon Barracks tenants despite their favored housing status.

State records for the four Pentagon Barracks buildings show that their combined appraised value is slightly more than $4.4 million for 41 units comprising 43,424 square feet.

A sampling of the items of furniture purchased for legislative tenants include:

• Entertainment center, $3,200;
• Sofas, $1,520 and $1,304;
• Chairs, $1,100 and $849;
• Eighteen dining room chairs for Speaker Tucker, $64 each;
• Loveseat, $798;
• Dresser, $969;
• Chair with Ottoman, $1,103;

In all, $31,670 was spent on furnishings for House tenants and another $42,466.46 for senators’ apartments.

Tucker, a Republican, and Democrat Chaisson apparently play no particular party favorites in assigning tenants to the Pentagon Barracks apartments. Of the 25 House tenants, 15 are Democrats, nine are Republicans and one is an Independent. Chaisson’s tenant assignments include 11 Republicans, 13 Democrats, and one Independent. If, however, Sen. John Alario follows through on his recent statement that he is leaning toward switching to Republican, the Senate tenants will be evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.

House members lucky enough to secure apartments in the Pentagon Barracks, the parishes they represent and the rent they pay include:

• Andy Anders (D-Vidalia): Concordia, East Carroll, Madison, Tensas ($250);
• Jeff Arnold (D-New Orleans): Orleans ($250);
• Harold Richie (D-Bogalusa): Washington and St. Tammany ($250);
• Tim Burns (R-Mandeville): St. Tammany ($259);
• Rick Gallot (D-Ruston): Lincoln, Bienville, Claiborne ($250);
• Cedric Richmond (D-New Orleans): Orleans ($250);
• Brett Geymann (R-Lake Charles): Beauregard, Calcasieu ($250);
• James H. Morris (R-Oil City): Caddo and Bossier ($250);
• Damon J. Baldone (D-Houma): Lafourche and Terrebonne ($250);
• Gary L. Smith, Jr. (D-Norco): St. Charles and St. John the Baptist ($250);
• Dorothy Sue Hill (D-Dry Creek): Allen, Beauregard and Vernon) ($250);
• Karen Gaudet St. Germain (D-Plaquemine): Ascension, Assumption, Iberville, and West Baton Rouge ($250);
• Gordon E. Dove, Sr. (R-Houma): Lafourche and Terrebonne ($250);
• Joe Harrison (R-Gray): Assumption, St. Mary, and Terrebonne ($250);
• Nita Hutter (R-Chalmette): St. Bernard ($400);
• Jim Tucker (R-Terrytown): Jefferson and Orleans ($500 and $125);
• Ernest Wooton (I-Belle Chase): Jefferson, Plaquemines, and St. Charles ($400);
• Kay Katz (R-Monroe): Ouachita ($400);
• Roy Burrell (D-Shreveport): Bossier and Caddo ($400);
• Jean M. Doerge (D-Minden): Webster ($400);
• Jane H. Smith (R- Bossier City): Bossier ($400);
• Jim Fannin (D-Jonesboro): Bienville, Jackson, Ouachita, and Winn ($400);
• Noble Ellington (D-Winnsboro): Caldwell, Catahoula, Franklin, and Tensas ($400);
• Rosalind D. Jones (D-Monroe): Ouachita ($250);
• Charmaine M. Stiaes (D-New Orleans): Orleans ($250).

The 25 Senate members assigned to Pentagon Barracks apartments and the parishes they represent include:

• John Alario (D-Westwego): Jefferson ($375);
• Daniel Martiny (R-Metairie): Jefferson ($300);
• Lydia P. Jackson (D-Shreveport): Caddo ($300);
• Mike Michot (R-Lafayette): Lafayette ($300);
• John R. Smith (D-Leesville): Vernon, Beauregard, and Calcasieu ($300);
• Gerald Long (R-Winnfield): Natchitoches, Sabine, Winn, Grant, Rapides, and Red River ($300);
• Francis Thompson (D-Delhi): Concordia, Richland, East Carroll, Madison, Tensas, and Ouachita ($300);
• Conrad Appel (R-Metairie): Jefferson ($345);
• D.A. “Butch” Gautreaux (D-Morgan City): Assumption and St. Mary ($300);
• Joe McPherson (D-Woodworth): Rapides ($300);
• B.L. “Buddy” Shaw (R-Shreveport): Caddo and Bossier ($300);
• David R. Heitmeier (D-Algiers): Orleans, Jefferson, and Plaquemines ($370);
• Julie Quinn (R-Metairie): Tangipahoa, St. Tammany, Jefferson, and Orleans ($370);
• Troy Hebert (I-Jeanerette) ($185): Iberia and St. Martin (Hebert resigned his senate seat last week to assume the position of Commissioner of the Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control, succeeding Murphy Painter who resigned under pressure last August. Hebert announced last June that he would not seek re-election to the senate after almost 16 years in the legislature as first a three-term representative and less than a full term as senator.);
• Rob Marionneaux, Jr. (D-Livonia): East Feliciana, East and West Baton Rouge, Pointe Coupee, and Iberville ($185);
• Eric LaFleur (D-Ville Platte): Evangeline, Avoyelles, Allen, and St. Landry ($185);
• Jean-Paul J. Morrell (D-New Orleans): Orleans ($185);
• Edwin R. Murray (D-New Orleans): Orleans ($370);
• Neil Riser (R-Columbia): Caldwell, Catahoula, Concordia, Franklin, LaSalle, West Feliciana, Avoyelles, Ouachita, Rapides, and Richland ($185);
• Mike Walsworth (R-West Monroe): Ouachita, Morehouse, West Carroll, Union, and Claiborne ($185);
• Sherri Smith Cheek (R-Keithville): Caddo ($370);
• Willie L. Mount (D-Lake Charles): Calcasieu ($370);
• Dan “Blade” Morrish (R-Jennings): Acadia, Jefferson Davis, Cameron, and Calcasieu ($370);
• A.G. Crowe (R-Slidell): St. Tammany, St. Bernard, and Plaquemines ($370);
• Joel T. Chaisson, II (D-Destrehan): St. Charles, St. John the Baptist, and Lafourche ($565).

Read Full Post »

Effect of Technology on Population

Posted in Uncategorized on November 23, 2010| Leave a Comment »

By John Sachs
Guest Columnist

This discussion of the effects of technological advancements centers on population and societal concerns. I’d much rather Dr. Gary Stokley or Dr. Judith Howard discuss the sociological or psychological effects and ramifications of technological advancements, but I’ll take a layman’s stab at it. If either expert gives me a thumping, I’ll take my licks.

In 1800, the average American woman bore 7 children. By 1940, that birth rate had fallen to 2 per woman and has stayed roughly in this range since, with the exception of the “baby boomer” spike in the 1950’s.

Although 2 children per couple roughly equates to zero population growth, it takes approximately 70 years for that to take effect. That is, it takes roughly 70 years before a child is born, has children of his or her own, and then dies at age 70 just as a great-grandchild is born. In the interim, in absolute numbers, population continues to grow. Therefore, it will be a number of years before we see a shrinking population even if we are immediately successful at significantly reducing our current birth rate to that of China, Canada, and most European nations.

Several factors led to the dramatic decline in the birth rate mentioned above. Mechanization of farming created less demand for human labor. Tractors with cultivators, plows, discs, and harrows, and cotton pickers, grain threshers, and potato diggers are examples of such mechanization.

However, at this same time, industrialization was hitting its stride, and nonexistent child labor laws created a climate for hiring cheap child labor. These children lived at home and their meager wages went into the household coffer. So even as rural families were decreasing, urban families had reason to increase family size.

But urban families did not increase in size as much as rural families decreased. Why? First, during this 140 year period, wages increased six fold, and women chose to enter the workforce as contributors to the family income rather than staying at home having babies to work the farm or in the mills. And second, women were becoming educated and wanted more from life than being a subservient bearer (I won’t say beast) of burdens for their husbands.

Are you beginning to see that history is in the process of repeating itself as a result of today’s technological advancements? Again, fewer people doing more work. Educated men and women seeing themselves as more than just procreators of the species (parents) eking out a drab existence. Economic factors are again significantly affecting social behavior. But this time the world is a far different place.

The populations of almost every nation have reached a level where there are not enough jobs to sustain functioning, much less vibrant, economies. There are certainly not enough jobs for the unskilled and uneducated or under-educated. And there never again will be. The remedy for this is twofold: fewer people and a better educated and more skilled workforce. And both must be dealt with simultaneously.

One factor that will continue to reduce birth rates is gainful employment of better educated men and women of child-bearing age. Such couples choose to have smaller families — unlike the marginally employed and poorly educated couples OR SINGLE PARENT. Job success, rather than producing children, provides a sense of accomplishment. Also, educated couples provide better educational environments for their fewer children. This is Quality over Quantity.

And as to the issue of single parents, children born to unwed mothers now represent 40% of all American births. This is up by 25% in just the last 5 years. 5 years! That’s an explosion. Worse yet is the fact that 70% of Black children are born to unwed mothers. I’m not sure what I can or should say about that statistic, so I’ll leave it saying only that this is a problem of epidemic proportions that absolutely must be resolved.

Never mind the ethics regarding absentee and irresponsible fathers. Look only at the economic impact. In large measure, children born to unwed mothers and raised without two present and involved parents will not, on average, receive the education and skills needed to compete in the job market. And what will result from more and more such people comprising a significant percentage of the population? You fill in the blank. And I’ll bet in your worse case scenario you’ll underestimate the negative effects.

An educated, employable, and employed populace is an absolute necessity to national survival. America has already fallen to #18 in technology development, whereas less than 10 years ago we thought that we would always be #1. At #18 we are virtually out of the race. Remember, the country that develops the technology gets first crack at creating the jobs utilizing such technology.

That’s why La Tech’s Enterprise Center and others like it are so critically important. America’s math and reading skills rank so low that I don’t even care to report them to you. Suffice it to say that at our current rate, American children had best learn to speak and read Chinese, Hindi, and Spanish at a minimum so that they will be able to communicate with their bosses.

Anything, ANYTHING in the near-term that slows effective classroom education and skill-set training to our entire population will negatively impact our economic well-being and ultimately our national security. Keep this in mind as you listen to and discuss political debates.

Read Full Post »

Jindal: Mastering the art of doing less with more

Posted in Economy, Governor's Office, Jobs, Layoffs, Transparency on November 21, 2010| Leave a Comment »

Gov. Bobby Jindal’s office has announced that one of his top aides is leaving to pursue work in the private sector. The announcement immediately prompted two observations.

First, how is it, when thousands of Louisianians are out of work and unable to find jobs, Camille Conaway can simply walk away from a $110,000-per-year position—notice I said position, not job—and find work in the private sector? When hundreds of rank-and-file state employees are being laid off as the Christmas season approaches, it seems odd that she can jump to the head of the line—unless she has connections. Of course, we know no one from the governor’s office would intercede in her behalf while turning their backs on long-time dedicated civil service employees. Would they?

Well, why not? If it was good enough for former Commissioner of Administration Angelé Davis, why not, indeed.

Second, her departure gives the governor in absentia the perfect opportunity to lead by example.

If Jindal really wanted to make an impression (other than taking a helicopter to some remote protestant church in north Louisiana to give out federal stimulus money that he is against accepting on principle), then he would simply leave the position open, saving the state treasury that $110,000.

If he were really sincere about “doing more with less,” as he insists state agencies and state colleges and universities do, he would hold a press conference and, in his rapid-fire style of delivery say something like this:

“Three things: One, we are losing one of the administration’s top people. Two, we hate to see her go but after taking a close and critical look at my office, I have decided that I can do more with less. Three, the dozens of overpaid deadheads who remain are just gonna have to suck it up and do more work. They may, of course, be required to spend less time on Facebook but whatever it takes, we can, and will, do.”

That’s what he should have said. But that, unfortunately, is not what he did say.

In fact, he didn’t say anything. He left it to public relations flunky Kyle Plotkin.

Plotkin, in case you didn’t know, is from New Jersey. (Obviously, Jindal, who openly bemoans the exodus of Louisiana’s best and brightest to other states, was unable to find even one person from Louisiana who was qualified to grind out press releases.) Plotkin worked in various capacities for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, which or course makes him eminently qualified to do what no one from this state is capable of doing: paying lip service to policy decisions by the Louisiana governor/wunderkind/frequent flyer/wannabe best-seller author who knows what’s best for America but not necessarily for Louisiana. Speaking of which, how can Jindal call himself an author when his book was ghost written (meaning he didn’t write a complete sentence of his own memoir that he dares to call Leadership and Crisis)?

But as usual, I digress.

Conaway, Plotkin said, was primarily responsible for developing Jindal’s legislative package and also worked with legislators. One has to wonder: Might part of the legislative package she developed have been stripping the State Board of Ethics of its power? Okay, that’s a rhetorical question and again, I’m off-point.

Plotkin went on to say that Conaway will be replaced by Michael Dailey, who served as (get this) deputy secretary of programs at the state Department of Children and Family Services. Deputy secretary of programs? What in the name of all that’s holy would that entail? What programs? Deputy secretary of programs sounds awfully Barney Fifeish.

Nevertheless, Dailey will pull down the same $110,000 salary as his predecessor, Plotkin said.

So much for leading by example. So much for doing more with less.

Can’t wait for your next book, Guv: How to Run A Shell Game With Only One Shell.

Read Full Post »

A view from Pea Ridge: interpreting mid-term election

Posted in Uncategorized on November 20, 2010| 1 Comment »

By Judith Howard

My biggest disappointments in the recent mid-term elections were that Senator Russ Feingold in Wisconsin and Congressman Tom Perriello in Virginia lost their seats. Both are men with conviction, and are as clean as politicians can be.

Feingold co-sponsored legislation with McCain on campaign finance laws that our conservative Supreme Court dismantled in January. He voted against the financial reform bill because he said it wasn’t strong enough.

Perriello voted for health insurance reform, for Wall Street reform, and for a cap and trade bill even though he is from a district that went for John McCain in 2008, because he thinks those votes were the right thing to do. In his concession speech he said that Judgment Day was more important than Election Day. I hope both men will run again.

My biggest embarrassment was that David Vitter will once again be Louisiana’s senator. It gets tiresome to be the laughingstock of the country.

According to Republicans congressional leaders, voters in last week’s election sent a message that we want a repeal of healthcare, lower taxes, and smaller government. Of course that’s what they are going to say. That is not what they are going to do.

The Henry K. Kaiser Foundation’s did exit polling to see what the most important thing on voters’ minds was. Their polling found that 29% said jobs and the economy was most important, the deficit/government spending was most important for 9% of voters, and taxes ranked at the bottom with only 5% of voters.

There have been all kinds of interpretations of the election results. The best I’ve seen is this one by Matt Miller:

Voters punished a party they are furious with by giving more power to a party they can’t stand. That sounds about right to me. Capitol Hill Republicans have a 23% approval rating, according to a National Journal poll in October.

Why might voters be furious with Democrats? Because of the unemployment rate. Because we bailed out Wall Street, yet not one banker has done a perp walk for almost taking down the financial system. Because bankers have fraudulently foreclosed on peoples’ houses, yet not one of them has been held to account.

I suspect Democrats underestimate how much the lack of accountability underlies much of the discontent with Washington, especially with people who have lost not just their jobs, but also their homes as a result of being unemployed.
The unemployed and the foreclosed-upon have families and friends who, even though they may still have a job and a home, see how the system has worked for those who don’t, versus how it has worked for bankers.

Plus, corporate America spent anonymous millions to convince voters that Obama raised taxes, even though he didn’t; that health insurance reform is socialism, even though it expanded the market for private insurance companies; and that Nancy Pelosi is the devil incarnate, even though she got legislation passed to benefit the middle class.

In other words, those anonymous millions of dollars created an alternate reality that too many Americans bought into.

In order to show their displeasure with Democrats, people voted for the Party they hate. This makes no sense, but we shouldn’t be surprised by it. Angry behavior is seldom rational behavior.

The election results mean we will probably get watch gridlock for the next two years, because Republicans have no ideas beyond tax cuts, and no interest in governing. What they have is rhetoric—fine-sounding, but insincere words.

Take, for example, repealing health insurance reform. Ain’t gonna happen. Why? One reason is because insurance executives don’t want it to happen. As reported by Reuters, the CEO of Cigna said, “Repealing the new U.S. healthcare law would be a waste of time, but there is room to improve it.”

Insurance CEOs don’t like parts of the law, such as not being able to reject people for pre-existing conditions, but they love the individuate mandate, because it brings them millions of new customers.

Not unsurprisingly, the individual mandate is the only part of the law that voters disapprove of, (where’s all that personal responsibility when you need it?). According to a Henry K. Kaiser Foundation survey last week, other sections of the law received in the neighborhood of a 70% approval rating.

I predict congressional Republicans will engage in all kinds of posturing about trying to repeal health insurance reform in order to placate their Tea Party base. Come 2012, however, the law will still be in place, but Republican governors will try to gum up the works and sabotage the insurance exchanges in whatever ways they can.

The mid-term election has come to an end. Now the 2012 presidential election has begun. Why do I say that? Because rather than groan behind the scenes, some in the Republican establishment have started to publicly turn on Queen Sarah–they do not want her to win the nomination. This could get interesting.

Read Full Post »

Jindal’s lies: making Goebbels proud

Posted in Budget, Campaign Contributions, Civil Service, Governor's Office, Layoffs, Veto on November 15, 2010| 2 Comments »

It seems it’s come down to this: Gov. Bobby Jindal is either a pathological liar or he is completely disconnected with reality.

Or he’s blithely residing in a parallel universe where myth is truth and truth is only a concept, a suggestion, to be rolled out only when it plays better than the myth. And that ain’t often.

Jindal, in New York Monday to tout his book Leadership in Crisis, told the nation on Fox and Friends that his administration had “cut taxes, cut spending, and balanced the budget.”

Balanced the budget?

Whatever the governor in absentia has been smoking has apparently ensconced him snugly in his happy place. To say he sees the world through rose-colored glasses during his all-too-frequent appearances in some place other than Louisiana would be to belabor the obvious.

And, as Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet, therein lies the rub. The governor, you see, just isn’t in Louisiana that much these days. First there were the fellow Republican candidates in more than a dozen states who apparently needed his help to get elected to Congress, the Senate, or to various governors’ offices. Then, once the elections were over, it was off on a 10-day national tour to promote his book about some vague perception of leadership.

Following New York, where he was scheduled for the Today Show and Fox and Friends and several interviews, he is scheduled to fly to San Diego for the Republican Governors Association annual conference and on Friday he will attend a fundraiser in support of his gubernatorial reelection campaign in Los Angeles. And just why would anyone in Los Angeles be concerned about a governor’s race in Louisiana anyway? Did either of the California gubernatorial candidates hold any fundraisers in Louisiana this year? I think you can check that box NO.

Then, on Saturday he will speak at the Reagan Ranch in Santa Barbara before traveling to Washington, D.C. later that day to hold media interviews for his book. He will return to Baton Rouge, theoretically, on Tuesday, November 23.

Meanwhile, home-schooled subordinate Timmy Teepel apparently will be solving the state’s financial woes back home in Jindal’s absence now that he is back from working on behalf of southern Republican gubernatorial candidates. Teepel apparently is being groomed as the next Karl Rove to Jindal’s Ronald Reagan. Both comparisons are, of course absurd to the point of cruel parody.

But I digress. Let’s return to the “balanced budget.”

As of this writing, the state budget deficit is $106 million, hardly a “balanced budget.”

Federal stimulus money, approved by Congress in August, earmarked $147 million to Louisiana’s parish school systems with the stipulation that the money go to salaries of teachers, administrators and support staff. No problem: Jindal simply pulled an identical amount from school funding to plug the deficit. Never mind the adverse effect it had on the local school districts who had already factored the stimulus money into their operating budgets.

But wait, there’s more. No sooner had Jindal “balanced the budget” than it was announced by Associated Press on Monday that the state budget underestimated the number of students attending public schools this year by 9,000, creating a $42 million shortfall in the state’s Minimum Foundation Program (MPF) which pays schools on a per-student basis.

So much for a “balanced budget.”

Not that State Treasurer John Kennedy hasn’t been trying to tell us this. Kennedy, sounding more and more like a potential challenger to Jindal from within his own party, has been critical all along of the legislature for bloating the state budget from $24.2 billion to $26 billion by using “one-time” money at the time when all signs pointed to lower tax revenues and a looming budget crisis.

Kennedy cited the legislature’s use of $198 million in “rainy day” funds, $242 million from delinquent taxpayers, $1.5 billion in one-time federal funds, $17 million from the settlement of a lawsuit against a drug company and money taken from the state emergency response fund as evidence of legislators’ recklessness and fiscal irresponsibility.

Jindal, in his interview with Fox and Friends, http://video.foxnews.com/, cited the need for the president to have the benefit of the line-item veto.

President Bill Clinton lobbied for and got the line-item veto but it was subsequently ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. It remains something of a mystery as to why Jindal would call for the presidential line-item veto; as governor, Jindal has the line-item veto but has used it so sparingly during his tenure as to render it all but useless. He has literally allowed the legislature to run amok with embarrassingly wasteful spending bills without so much as a whimper of protest. At least by not invoking the veto more often, he is conserving ink.

Kennedy also has called for the reduction of the number of state civil service employees by attrition, or simply not replacing workers when they quit or retire. Jindal, on the other hand, has opted for sweeping layoffs—the latest round scheduled two weeks after Christmas.

Kennedy may be a demagogue, but much of what he says makes sense.

Jindal, on the other hand, offers gooney-babble about leadership in crisis and his heroic feats of cutting taxes and spending and of balancing the budget. The lies are so ludicrous as to border on pathos—or to invoke outrage among those who know the truth in something other than abstract terms.

But there is one thing to be said about his arrogance, bravado, and outright distortions: he would make Joseph Goebbels proud.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »