Posted in Economy, Governor's Office, Grant, Grants, Notable Quotables, Transparency on October 20, 2011| 2 Comments »
“Your decision not to even compete for these funds is one that will have a negative impact on thousands of children in our state. I hope your reasons for failing to apply for these funds are strong enough to justify these consequences.”
—U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, in letter to Gov. Bobby Jindal.
Posted in Education, Governor's Office, Grant, Grants, Transparency on October 20, 2011| 3 Comments »
If further proof of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s utter disdain and contempt for public education in Louisiana were needed, then his refusal to apply for a federal grant of up to $60 million in early childhood education funding for the state should lay all arguments to the contrary to rest.
We have already seen Jindal jerk away $147 million of the state’s share of the $10 billion Education Jobs Fund after local school systems had already plugged the funds into their budgets. The result was massive teacher layoffs all across the state.
Let’s face it, the man is not only shameless, but he is more arrogant than any governor in recent memory—Fast Eddie included.
U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu was more likely outraged and disgusted at Jindal’s decision but chose to use the words “disappointed and concerned” in an effort to exhibit some semblance of political protocol.
If you think we’re being a bit harsh on the governor, consider this:
Jindal’s administration announced earlier this week that it would not seek the grant money because, he said, the state’s system for early childhood education is inefficient and mired in bureaucracy and that the grant would not help to address children’s needs because it is one-time money for ongoing programs.
What? He objected because it was one-time money for ongoing programs? What the hell does he call selling off three prisons if it’s not one-time money to address ongoing budget issues?
What in the name of transparency and accountability does he call selling the Office of Group Benefits? By selling that agency, he is perfectly willing—and determined, we might add—to sacrifice an efficient agency that provides medical coverage for state employees in exchange for, what was it again? Oh, yes, one-time money.
Insofar as inefficiency and bureaucracy in the state’s early childhood education system, whose fault is that? The man has completely revamped the Department of Education to his tastes and political ambitions through his former superintendent Paul Pastrorek. On the one hand, Jindal would have us believe that his Recovery School District (RSD) is a model of efficiency and the star in his crown while on the other hand, there is only chaos, confusion and waste in the Department of Education.
That may well be the case but if his administration has done so much to make RSD so great, why hasn’t he been able to cut through the inefficiency and bureaucracy in the department itself? Here’s why:
He doesn’t give a rat’s behind about public education. In fact, Jindal’s two driving ambitions are the privatization of every facet of state government and to completely dismantle public education in Louisiana in favor of for-profit charter schools.
Jindal spokesman Kyle Plotkin, one of his out-of-state appointees, tried to explain the rationale behind the decision. You may want to sit down and take a deep breath before you try to decipher this gooney babble:
“We need to streamline the governance structure, funding streams and quality standards in our early childhood system.”
What?
The grant, of course, would only muddle things more by reducing flexibility and adding another layer of micromanagement and regulatory obstacles, he added.
Does anyone comprehend that gibberish?
Micromanagement? Folks, this administration is the very personification of the word. They love it. They live it.
Landrieu said the decision was “puzzling.” Did she possibly mean to say that Jindal’s proctologist is the only one who could find his head?
Plotkin said three separate departments had done a thorough analysis of the grant and determined that it was “the exact opposite approach our state should take to help our kids.”
Wait. What? Applying for a $60 million grant for early childhood education is the opposite approach the state should take to help kids? What kind of convoluted reasoning is that?
Fully one-third of the children in this state are living in poverty and early childhood education is the opposite approach needed to help them as determined by three separate agencies?
To paraphrase one of our favorite authors, “What demon agency in hell could ever come up with this logic?”
Have you ever wondered why Tara Hollis got into the governor’s race in the first place? She’s a public school teacher, as was her husband. She was perfectly content in that role until her husband and several of their fellow teachers lost their jobs in those massive statewide teacher layoffs.
Sure, Jindal is going to win in the first primary. That’s a given.
But hey, wouldn’t it be great if he were sent a little message? What if the golden boy barely squeaks by Saturday?
Well, at least we can dream. A surprising number of protest votes could send the message that not everyone wants to drink the Kool-Aid.
Posted in BESE, Campaign Contributions, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Transparency on October 19, 2011| 4 Comments »
It seems that Gov. Bobby Jindal is not only skilled at raising money for what appears to be a re-election cakewalk but he also appears to be quite generous in doling out some of that campaign cash to other candidates.
Over the past 12 months, Jindal has written checks totaling $285,000 to 102 candidates for the legislature, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), and to a sitting legislator who is running for parish tax assessor.
It is one thing for a governor to award supporters in the legislature with key committee assignments through a friendly House speaker and Senate president but quite another to spread cash around in an effort to secure support for his programs.
Some of those candidates are running for BESE and Jindal’s agenda for education is every bit as ambitious as any other area of government. Heading his to-do list for education is his appointment of John White as State Superintendent of Education to succeed the departed John Pastorek. BESE has thus far blocked those efforts.
Some might even say it is a not-so-subtle form of vote buying. It’s a bit more sophisticated than passing out five dollar bills to voters before hauling them to the polls, but still an obvious back-door effort to consolidate his power base.
So, what’s so terribly wrong with a sitting governor who is a virtual lock to be re-elected providing assistance to candidates politically aligned with him?
For one thing, some of those to whom he has contributed are not necessary his political allies. A few are (gasp) Democrats. Granted, some of those may be Democrats on whom he may be able to count in a pinch.
Perhaps that is why certain other Democratic legislators running for re-election are noticeably absent from Jindal’s list of recipients; he can’t count on their support.
But consider this:
Donor John Doe gives Jindal a donation for his gubernatorial campaign. Jindal then gives $2,500 to Candidate A who is running against Candidate B for either the legislature or for a coveted BESE seat. But it turns out that donor John Doe is a personal friend and avid supporter of Candidate B.
If donor John Doe is a major Jindal contributor of say, $1,000, $2,500 or $5,000, it could create what Johnny Carson used to call a sticky wicket–especially if donor John Doe also contributed to Candidate B and now feels that contribution has been negated, perhaps with his own money.
Jindal, of course, is free to spend campaign donations for any political purpose he deems worthy. In theory, at least, donations are supposed to be free of any strings or conditions. But we know how that works.
One of the more high-profile recipients is BESE member Chas Roemer, son of former Gov. Buddy Roemer and brother of Caroline Roemer Shirley, executive director of the Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools.
Jindal made identical $2,500 contributions to Chas Roemer about three weeks apart—on Aug. 15 and on September 6.
Chas Roemer consistently votes on matters involving charter schools that come before the board despite an apparent conflict of interest because of his sister’s position. The Louisiana Board of Ethics has, in fact, issued a ruling that Ms. Shirley is not allowed to appear before the board on matters involving charter schools because of her brother’s membership on the board. The ethics board also has ruled that she should not even communicate with BESE members on matters involving charter schools for that same reason.
Jindal also contributed $5,000 to the campaign of Jay Guillot of Ruston.
Guillot, who is seeking a BESE seat, is a partner in the multi-disciplined engineering firm of Hunt, Guillot and Associates (HGA) that has contracts with the state totaling almost $17 million.
The largest of those, for $16 million, calls for the firm to manage grants for infrastructure “and other projects undertaken as a result of damages incurred as a result of hurricanes Katrina and Rita and to a lesser extent as a result of hurricanes Gustav and Ike,” according to the contract description provided by the Division of Administration.
Jindal also wrote campaign donation checks of $2,500 each to Democrats Jim Fannin of Jonesboro, Rick Gallot of Ruston, Francis Thompson of Delhi, and Sharon Weston Broome of Baton Rouge. Fannin is Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, which may explain that contribution. Donations to the others would have to be investments in future key legislative committee and floor votes.
He also wrote a $2,500 check back on July 29 to the campaign of State Rep. John Schroder (R-Abita Springs). Schroder, it may be remembered, authored a number of bills in 2010 that would have abolished the State Civil Service Board, the state civil service system, and would have given the legislature final authority on which classified (civil service) employees–if any–would receive merit pay increases.
Schroder did not make a similar effort this year, possibly because it is an election year, but some observers feel he will renew those efforts in next spring’s legislative session.
The most curious contribution, however, was the $2,500 donation Jindal made to the campaign of State Rep. M.J. “Mert” Smiley (R-St. Amant) on Aug. 2. Smiley is not seeking re-election but instead is running for Ascension Parish tax assessor.
It was Smiley who, during testimony about the mass exodus of employees of the Office of Risk Management in the wake of that agency’s privatization, asked if there was not some regulation in place that would prevent employees from leaving for employment elsewhere. “Isn’t there some way you can make them stay?” he asked.
Posted in Notable Quotables on October 18, 2011| Leave a Comment »
Resident: “Hello?”
Caller: “I’m calling on behalf of Derek Babcock for state senate.”
Resident: “Who?”
Caller: “Derek Babcock. I’m calling to ask if you would consider voting for him for state senate.”
Resident: “Is he running against Dale Erdy?”
Caller: “Who?”
Resident: “Is he running against incumbent Dale Erdy?” (He is.)
Caller: “Um…I don’t really know…”
Resdent: “Dude. You’re calling to ask me to vote someone and you don’t know who he’s running against?”
Caller: “Um…”
Resident: “Scooter, this isn’t good. How can you ask me to vote for someone if you’re not even prepared to discuss the merits of voting for him over his opponent? How can you say he’s the better choice if you don’t even know his opposition?”
Caller: “Er…”
Resident: “Never mind. Based on the information you’ve provided, I don’t think I can support your candidate.”
Posted in Campaign Contributions, Economy, Governor's Office, Jobs, Transparency on October 18, 2011| Leave a Comment »
Bobby Jindal’s approach to his re-election campaign has about as much finesse as swatting a mosquito with a baseball bat.
First he spends three years visiting north Louisiana Protestant churches to hand out federal money he said he opposed. When he wasn’t garnering face time on television during hurricanes and oil spills, he spent so much time fundraising and book signing in other states that an LSU student found it necessary to travel to New Hampshire in an effort to get the governor to return and address budget issues at home.
He vastly embellished the number of jobs he claims his administration has created during his first term and then he attempted to take full credit for the cleanup of the BP spill. Of course those slick ads about his heroic actions to save the world from BP conveniently overlook his Monty Python-inspired plan to construct those $350 million berms to hold back the oil spill. Remember the aerial photos of the berms eroding away practically overnight (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of earth-moving equipment that sank along with the berms)?
(Just as an aside, consider how that $350 million might have been better spent.)
He even managed to politicize what should have been a magnanimous gesture—the awarding of medals to Louisiana military veterans.
It’s enough to evoke that wonderful quote by an exasperated Joseph Welch who in 1954 asked Sen. Joe McCarthy during the volatile Army-McCarthy hearings, “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
But for all his trumpeting about job creation, it’s interesting to note—again, for we visited this subject back in June—that Jindal has a propensity to go after out-of-state talent when trolling for votes.
In June, we reported that since his first run for governor back in 2003, Jindal had spent about $16.5 million on polling, political advertising, printing, direct mail, telephone banks, office rent, automated telephone calls, fundraising expenses, and campaign staff.
Of that amount, $6.2 million, or 37.6 percent of the total, went to pay out-of-state companies for those services.
This time, we decided to narrow expenditures down to a single 12-month period, Oct. 1, 2010 to Oct. 1, 2011.
The results were no less interesting–or disturbing–for this “Let’s keep jobs in Louisiana” governor. In just the past 12 months, he has lavished more than $1.1 million to some 20 out-of-state companies. Some examples:
• Prosper Group of Greenwood, Indiana—six payments totaling $57,100 for telecommunication services;
• Majority Strategies of Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida—16 payments totaling $113,500 for political consulting and sign printing;
• Gopshoppe.com of Glen Burnie, Maryland—eight payments totaling $53,300 for sign painting;
• Cold Harbor Films of Alexandria, Virginia—11 payments totaling $68,900 for advertising production;
• Onmessage, Inc. of Alexandria, Virginia—14 payments totaling $167,200 for political consulting, focus groups and travel expenses;
• Southwest Publishing and Mailing Corp. of Topeka, Kansas—four payments totaling $31,400 for design and printing for campaign mailer and mailing expenses;
• Illuminati Research of Englewood, Colorado—one payment of $9,000;
• Praxis List Co. of Austin, Texas—four payments totaling $22,600 for list rental for campaign mailers;
• Grassroots Targeting of Alexandria, Virginia–$46,300 in nine payments for web development and maintenance;
• RL Carriers of Wilmington, Ohio—one payment of $7,900 for shipping;
• MDI Imaging and Mailing of Dulles, Virginia–$19,300 in two payments for data processing for campaign mailer;
• Olsen and Shuvalov of Austin, Texas—twelve payments totaling $66,100 for design and printing for campaign mailers, mailing expenses, and printing expenses;
• Comcast of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania–$24,300 in six payments for advertising;
• Response America of Arlington, Virginia–$15,400 in three payments for design and printing for campaign mailers and for mailing expenses;
• Sage Payment Solutions of McLean, Virginia–$8,600 in five payments for fundraising expenses and processing fees;
• SBR Enterprises of Culpepper, Virginia—one payment of $4,300 for fundraising consulting;
• Capitol Hill Lists of Athens, Georgia—three payments totaling $11,100 for list rental for campaign mailers and for consulting expenses;
• National Media of Alexandria, Virginia—a single payment of $3,600 advertising fee;
Jindal did provide a number of temporary jobs for campaign workers. His campaign made 30 payments over the past 12 months totaling $229,100 in payroll taxes to the Internal Revenue Service.
And then there’s Matt Hutson. Hutson, one of those campaign employees for whom Jindal’s campaign paid those payroll taxes. His campaign made 12 payroll payments totaling $25,400 to Hutson.
But Hutson resides in Coweta, Oklahoma.
Could it be no one in Louisiana was qualified to do whatever it was that he did for Jindal’s campaign? But we digress. The point here is not Matt Hutson of Coweta, Oklahoma, though an Oklahoma campaign worker for a Louisiana governor does cause some head-scratching.
The real issue is that while there are numerous direct mail companies, production companies, polling services, telephone banks, advertising agencies, etc., in Louisiana, Jindal seems more than content to go elsewhere to spend all that campaign money.
Still, he continues to drone on ad nauseam with his tired “Louisiana jobs for Louisiana residents” incantation.
Has he no sense of decency at long last? Has he left no sense of decency?
$2.50 each or three for $6.00
Louisiana Voice 