Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August, 2012

The greatest hits of Notable Quotables; nostalgia ain’t what it used to be but Louisiana politics never seems to change

Posted in Notable Quotables on August 6, 2012| 1 Comment »

Any time you try to list outrageous, disingenuous, or non-sensical quotes from public officials, elected or appointed, you can count on running out of room before you run out of quotes.

This is precisely what happened when we attempted to describe The Game Plan, a book discovered recently by a member a group touring the Louisiana State Capitol.

Accordingly, we are back but this time with some of the best of our Notable Quotable offerings—with a twist: following the quotes and the attribution, we are offering an interpretation of what was really meant.

“I, along with other members of the Louisiana Legislature, greatly appreciate your contribution to the scholarship funds. Your $1,000 check…can be sent directly to me…”–Exerpt from solicitation letter by State Rep. Joe Harrison (R-Gray) seeking contributions to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Louisiana Scholarship Fund. The scholarship fund pays the expenses of state legislators to attend ALEC conferences. (We’re going to collect our $152 per diem from the state while kicking up our heels in Salt Lake City but to really party down, we’re gonna need more money.)

“Rep. Harrison informs that his assistant will return Monday (July 16) & send the list of recipients of the letter.”–E-mail to LouisianaVoice from House Clerk Albert “Butch” Speer on Thursday, July 12, in response to request for the names of recipients of a letter from Rep. Joe Harrison (R-Gray) soliciting $1,000 contributions to help “over thirty” legislators attend an ALEC conference. (Rep. Harrison is stalling for time.)

“My opinion is that the solicitation of donations for ALEC does not create a public record.”–E-mail from Speer on Monday, July 16, explaining that there had been a 180-degree flip-flop over the weekend. (I know what the law is, but I work here and I have to do what these clowns say.)

“Wisdom should be left to the political arena and not to us.”–State Civil Service Commission member John McClure. (Politicians are clueless but we are more so.)

“You must be an employee of the Office of Student Financial Assistance in order to be considered for this position.”–One of the requirements of applicants for a new position at the Louisiana Office of Student Financial Assistance (LOSFA) that pays up to $76,000 per year. (We already know who we want for the position, so don’t bother applying.)

“The Department of Education’s legal department has determined that the documents are in the ‘Pre-Decisional Status,’ and we’re unable to allow you to examine them.”–Department of Education (DOE) after first agreeing to allow LouisianaVoice to examine copies of all applications for vouchers/scholarships received by DOE. (We got caught with our pants down with some of our voucher approvals and we have to cover our backsides.)

“I think that John White is still lying. He is in full CYA mode and assumes that he will simply be able to BS his way out of the contradiction the Monroe News-Star has caught him in. After all, it’s a method that has worked perfectly well for him ever since he arrived in Louisiana.”–Comment by a Times-Picayune reader in response to State Education Superintendent John White’s contention that there was “nothing inappropriate” about his email to members of Gov. Piyush Jindal’s staff in which he outlined his plan for “muddying up the narrative” of reporters who exposed a Ruston school with no accommodations but which was approved for 315 voucher/scholarships. (I think that John White is still lying. He is in full CYA mode and assumes that he will simply be able to BS his way out of the contradiction the Monroe News-Star has caught him in. After all, it’s a method that has worked perfectly well for him ever since he arrived in Louisiana.)

“I know that the administration was not prepared to answer questions and the answers they gave were not forthcoming about the voucher program.”–State Sen. Ed Murray (D-New Orleans), on hearing of State Education Superintendent John White’s emailed plans to baffle the legislature with B.S. over the issue of the department’s approval of 315 vouchers for a Ruston school that has no classroom space, desks, teachers or books to accommodate the additional students. (I think that John White is still lying. He is in full CYA mode and assumes that he will simply be able to BS his way out of the contradiction the Monroe News-Star has caught him in. After all, it’s a method that has worked perfectly well for him ever since he arrived in Louisiana.)

“There are tremendous ramifications for our members and the system.”–Cindy Rougeou, executive director of the Louisiana State Employees Retirement System (LASERS), in discussing the need to obtain a determination from the IRS on whether or not Piyush Jindal’s recently approved “cash-balance” 401(k) type retirement plan for new hires, scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2013, will be eligible for tax-exempt status–a question one would reasonably expect Jindal to have determined well in advance of presenting his new plan for legislative approval. (Piyush Jindal is such a nimrod.)

“The course provider shall receive a course amount for each eligible funded student.” “…The per course amount means an amount equal to the market rate as determined by the course provider and reported to the State Department of Education.”–Examples of language contained in House Bill 976, aka Act 2, aka the Student Scholarships for Educational Excellence Act, passed by the legislature and signed into law by Gov. Piyush Jindal, which is anticipated to cost the state $44.5 million over five years. (We going to let the fox guard the henhouse and by the time the legislature and the voters find out, I’ll be vice president.)

“Over the last four and a half years, we have outperformed the national and southern economies, and in order to continue to attract business investment, we need to stay competitive with the rest of the country and the world.”–Gov. Piyush Jindal, on signing into law two bills to “increase economic competitiveness” by creating a corporate headquarters relocation program. (Tax breaks, tax breaks. We gotta give more tax breaks.)

“We accept every contribution in good faith and in accordance with the law. Everybody who donates to our campaign gets the same thing and that is good government.”–Timmy Teepell, advisor and confidant to Gov. Piyush Jindal, responding to questions about $95,000 that federal investigators say may have been laundered illegally into the Jindal 2007 campaign for governor. (We don’t care how dirty the money is; once we get our hands on it, it’s ours.)

“We cannot protect people from making bad decisions in their lives.”–Sen. Elbert Guillory (D-Opelousas), commenting on the possibility that retirees may spend all of their lump-sum pension benefits being proposed as part of Gov. Piyush Jindal’s retirement reform package. He went on to say that retirees may have to apply for food stamps, welfare and other government programs. (I’ll even give you an example of a bad decision: I got elected, didn’t I?)

“Can’t you keep your employees from going elsewhere? Can’t you forbid them to leave?–Then Rep. (now Ascension Parish Tax Assessor) Mert Smiley, responding to an official of the Office of Risk Management who alluded to the problem of keeping adjusters after the agency was privatized. (Emancipation Proclamation? What’s an Emancipation Proclamation? I got elected didn’t I?)

“Samples of successful bidder will be retained at the purchasing office or the using agency…Any other samples received, if not destroyed in testing, may be returned at the bidder’s expense.”–from bid specifications contained in Louisiana Division of Administration’s invitation for bids on the purchase of condoms by the state. (Don’t even ask how we test ‘em.)

“You are entitled to your opinion, but I do suggest you conduct a fact check.”—BESE President Penny Dastugue, in response to questions about BESE “walking quorums” to discuss privately certain topics before discussing them in open meeting—a violation of state open meeting laws—and of questions about her admission of conducting conference calls with BESE members to head off unfavorable action on scholarship school accountability. (Are you going to believe your eyes or what I tell you?)

We have a bad reputation in this state as legislators and public officials because we keep filing bills like this and telling people we are crooks.”–Sen. Dan Martiny (R-Metairie), in a snit as he spoke out against a bill that would prohibit former legislators from taking state jobs to pad their retirement. (Wait! I said we’re telling people we’re crooks; I didn’t say we are crooks.)

“We do not have a poor state, but a state with poor leaders.”—Piyush Jindal, in his first inaugural address, Jan. 14, 2008. (To remedy that, I’m going to hire poor leaders from other states.)

“When we succeed…they will take note on the board rooms of Wall Street.”—Piyush Jindal, in his first inaugural address. (With all the private contracts I’m going to award, they’ll love me on Wall Street.)

“Our governor, a proponent of less government spending, sure does spend a lot of time out of state on the taxpayers’ dime to promote himself.”–Unidentified reader, responding to Baton Rouge Advocate story about Gov. Jindal’s upcoming trip to speak to The American Federation of Children in New Jersey. (Our governor, a proponent of less government spending, sure does spend a lot of time out of state on the taxpayers’ dime to promote himself.)

“That rebuttal speech will be played over and over and over and over.”–Loyola University in New Orleans associate political science professor Philip Dynia, commenting on what would likely happen if Gov. Bobby Jindal ran as Mitt Romney’s vice president and the prospects that Jindal’s Republican rebuttal to President Obama’s 2009 State of the Union Address would be resurrected from YouTube. (…resurrected from YouTube and played repeatedly on Comedy Central.)

Read Full Post »

There’s rhetoric and there’s rhetoric: what they really mean when they say what they say and they just don’t make sense

Posted in Uncategorized on August 5, 2012| 5 Comments »

A recent tour group happened by the Louisiana State Capitol in Baton Rouge recently. Wide-eyed and cameras at the ready, they made their way up the 50 steps, each given the name of one of the states. They entered the stately rotunda adorned with brass and a large round state seal embedded in the middle of the floor, complete with each of the state’s 64 parishes.

As their gaze took in the beauty of the magnificent structure, they noticed dozens of people scurrying about. Many of them, they noticed, were reading from a small book. The more adventurous of the tour group caught up with someone in a brown shirt and asked what he was reading but the brown shirt ignored him and walked away.

The tourist noticed a copy of the book on the floor. The title of the book was The Game Plan. He picked it up and sat down beneath a statue and began to read. The introduction explained that The Game Plan was simply an instruction manual for administration officials, from education to health care to legislative procedure and fund-raising.

“It is important to remember,” the introduction said, “that the successful appointed or elected official must be adept at saying one thing while meaning something else entirely.”

The tourist, intrigued, read on. He found the following examples in the book of what might be said, followed by what was actually meant:

• “Always refer to vouchers as ‘scholarships.” (In other words conflate the meaning of something given by the state with something earned by the student.);

• “Parents should have a choice about where they send their children. Children should not be trapped in a failing school.” (We do not, under any circumstances, discuss students trapped in poverty. What’s that got to do with education anyway? We must, by any method available, steer the conversation away from poverty.);

• “Characterize disastrous budget cuts as an ‘opportunity to transform.’” (We must condition the public to additional budget cuts as we continue to pass additional corporate tax breaks.);

• “Discuss privatizing public functions rather than profitizing private companies.” (We have campaign contributors who we must take care of.);

• “Describe dedicated state workers who provide essential public services as ‘government bureaucrats.’ (Exploit, at every opportunity, the public’s general distaste of the word bureaucrat.);

• “Unions want to maintain the status quo.” (It’s corporations that have the money for campaign contributions. See: Citizens United.);

• “Deliberately employ confusing statistics, contradictory statements and bureaucratic language.” (If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S.);

• “Appeal to fear and security as reasons for radical actions.” (Can you say Joseph McCarthy, Richard Nixon and the House Unamerican Activities Committee?);

• “Be sure to repeat ‘Transparency and Accountability’ as often as possible.” (That way, no one will notice when you have secret ‘walking quorum’ BESE meetings to discuss what you plan to discuss in open meeting. But NEVER mention accountability when discussing vouchers or charter schools.);

• “The private sector is better equipped to provide vital services more efficiently.” (The sole purpose of government is to provide opportunities for corporate profits.);

• “Appointments will be based on what you know, not who you know.” (How much did he contribute to the campaign?);

• “The MFP is fully funded.” (The MFP means ‘More for Piyush.’);

• “I have the job I want.” (I won’t settle for anything less prestigious than emperor of the free world.)

The tour group was about to leave so the tourist had to put down the book. As he walked to rejoin his group, he looked back at the statue and saw that it was Republican Party strategist Frank Luntz and he was holding a copy of the book while blowing on a dog whistle. Timmy Teepell, with a sly grin on his face and an “OnMessage” sign hanging around his neck, was peeking from behind the statue.

Read Full Post »

United Healthcare files formal protest over awarding of OGB contract to Blue Cross/Blue Shield by DOA: litigation next?

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Civil Service, Governor's Office, Health Care, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Privatization, Transparency on August 3, 2012| 10 Comments »

At least one of the three companies that submitted proposals to replace the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) as a third party administrator (TPA) for OGB’s preferred provider organization (PPO) has done what the Louisiana Civil Service Commission lacked the courage to do: ask tough questions about the selection process.

In fact, United Healthcare on Friday filed a formal protest over the awarding of the three-year, billion dollar contract to Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana (BCBS).

Reports received by LouisianaVoice indicate there was only a 20-point differential between BCBS and United in the scoring and that BCBS did not have the best score in certain important segments of the overall proposal, namely for the score on claims processing, an area in which one source said BCBS was actually the highest of the three companies.

The Civil Service Commission on Wednesday voted 3-2 in favor of approving the BCBS contract that will result in 121 OGB employees losing their jobs. The approval came after scant testimony supported by an eight-page Power Point presentation by the Division of Administration (DOA) and after allowing opponents less than 20 minutes in which to state their opposition.

Word leaked out immediately following the commission meeting that there had been heated discussion among commission members prior to their entering the aptly-named Louisiana Purchase Room for the meeting—in apparent violation of the state’s open meeting law.

It was also clear from the tone of commission members’ questions, mostly soft balls lobbed at DOA and OGB officials. Conversely, attorney J. Arthur Smith, representing about 100 OGB employees was allowed 15 minutes to present the opposition’s side as commission members appeared to pay scant attention and offer no follow up questions.

When Smith later attempted to correct what he said was incorrect information provided by DOA, commission Chairman David Duplantier rudely stopped him, saying, “This is not a public debate. This proposal was received by the commission in April and you submitted a three-inch thick set of documentation to us on Monday.”

Jindal has benefitted financially from BCBS and its parent company, Louisiana Health & Indemnity. The two combined to funnel $56,000 to Jindal’s political campaign and BCBS gave an additional $100,000 to the Supriya Jindal Foundation, a charity run by Jindal’s wife.

Jindal has been attempting to privatize OGB for more than a year now and is currently on his third agency director since initial efforts to privatize OGB.

Tommy Teague was fired on April 15, 2011, after failing to demonstrate sufficient enthusiasm for the privatization plan.

Teague had taken the agency from a deficit of about $60 million to a $500 million surplus in just over five years.

His successor, Scott Kipper, lasted only six weeks after testifying before a legislative committee that were it left for him to decide, he would not lay off any of the OGB employees. His remarks were made only minutes after his boss, Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater had insisted that OGB needed to be downsized by 149 positions.

Rainwater visibly winced at Kipper’s comment and his departure was announced soon thereafter.

It was not immediately clear if United Healthcare, if its protest is denied, would file a lawsuit over the selection of BCBS.

Humana was the other company that submitted a proposal for the PPO takeover.

Two years ago, when BCBS was selected as the TPA of the HMO program for state employees, Humana and United Healthcare filed suit and the court ordered the state to re-bid the proposal.

Read Full Post »

Shane! The land baron/cattle rancher/banker has taken over our town; where are you now that we really, really need you?

Posted in BESE, Education, Governor's Office, Health Care, Higher Education, Legislature, Legislators, LSU, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Politicians, Privatization, Transparency on August 2, 2012| 6 Comments »

Shane is no doubt one of the all-time quentessential western movies.

Starring Alan Ladd, Van Heflin, Jean Arthur, Brandon DeWilde and Jack Palance, the flick has stood the test of time and has been remade in various shapes, forms and titles by such Hollywood legends as John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart and Clint Eastwood. Perhaps the closest any movie has come to capturing its true appeal is one that came along half-a-century later—2003’s Open Range, starring Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner and Annette Bening.

Even the most casual movie-goer knows the storyline: mild-mannered stranger rides into town—not looking for trouble but invariably finding it in the person of the villain, a ruthless land baron/cattle rancher/banker. Said land baron/cattle rancher/banker has brought in hired guns from out of town to maintain tight control over the local populace, usually personified as honest but helpless homesteaders who only wish to care for their families by trying to scratch a living out of mother earth.

The hired gun, of course, is obligated to ridicule or otherwise demean the weakest among the local homesteaders who, upon attempting to defend himself, is summarily gunned down as an example to the others.

The lesson, of course, is to toe the line or be eliminated in like fashion. This heavy-handed tactic, of course, helps to consolidate the power and control of the land baron/cattle rancher/banker.

Now fast forward to a certain southern state in the years 2008-2012:

A new land baron/cattle rancher/banker has appeared on the scene in the form of an egomaniacal governor who fancies bigger and better things for himself—perhaps even thinking of himself as presidential timber.

But he doesn’t leave anything to chance by bringing in a single hired gun; he hires an entire posse. He surrounds himself with subordinate hangers-on who feed his presidential aspirations like any loyal sycophant, while at the same time cautioning him to keep saying he has the job he wants over and over ad nauseam.

These toadies, or hired guns, if you will, are mostly from out of town, much like the hired guns in Shane and its many clones. They don’t wear guns any more, of course, but the threat they hold over the homesteaders, in this case state employees, is their livelihoods—their jobs.

• If you’re head of the state’s highway safety program and you oppose the governor’s attempt to repeal the state motorcycle helmet law? Gone.

• If you are criticized for the way in which shelter conditions are administered following a hurricane? Goodbye.

• If you are a member of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and you don’t agree 100 percent with the governor’s education program? So long.

• If you are a state employee who testifies against his plan to streamline government? You’re history.

• If you are a legislator who happens not to agree with his royal decree? Kiss your committee chairmanship goodbye.

• If you are president of a university who disagrees with cuts to higher education? Take a hike.

By the same token, if you are a recently out-of-work politician who was smart enough to align yourself with the governor, not to worry: you have a nice state job waiting for you at a six-figure salary.

These hired guns, with names like Plotkin, Palmieri, Greenstein, Steckel, Vallas, Levine, Zachery Jiwa (DHH chief technology officer), and John White, each brought in from places like Seattle, Chicago, New Jersey, New York, Alabama and Florida, roam the corridors of state government, making certain that no dissention will be tolerated from lowly state employees. They are to keep their heads down and noses clean if they like their jobs.

If a few naïve state employees, namely teachers, do show up to testify before a legislative committee, there is always a friendly legislator who will insist that they reveal not only their name and agency, but whether or not they took annual or sick leave to attend the committee hearing, or if they are on their own time.

If a few state employees wish to participate in a rally against closure of or cutbacks to their agency, there is always an agency head who can be coerced into telling the employees—illegally—that they are not allowed to participate in said rally.

Then, of course, the governor can always call on more than 200 campaign contributors who coughed up more than $784,000 to his 2007 election campaign and appoint them to plum positions on important boards and commissions. And in case anyone tries to pass a bill requiring him to divulge that information, he can always call on compliant legislators to kill the bill.

Finally, to maintain an unyielding grip on his political power, this governor must not allow any federal encroachment, such as helpful federal grants, to tarnish his own stellar reputation. Thus:

• Grants to bring broadband internet to rural parishes must be stymied in the name of private enterprise;

• Grants to build a high speed rail system between Baton Rouge and New Orleans must be discouraged because of accompanying maintenance costs;

• Grants for early childhood development must be rejected because of federal oversight. Besides, let the little darlings attend one of the voucher schools where they teach that the Loch Ness monster really exists and that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That’s all the early childhood development they could possibly need.

This land baron/cattle rancher/banker is so confident of his unchallenged power that he now feels it is not even necessary that he remain in the town much. Instead, he chooses to hop scotch all over the country auditioning for bigger and better things.

The little town is simply holding him back so he spends all this time away from his office even though the town back home is drying up; education and health care are undergoing drastic cuts because he has given all the money needed to support them to his corporate friends in the form of tax incentives.

But why settle for being a local land/baron/cattle rancher/banker dominating a comparatively small spread when there is an entire nation out there over which he can hold sway?

Normally, in a situation such as this, we would summon the Lone Ranger. But not this time: one masked man is more than enough.

But we can almost hear the last line of that great old movie: “Shane! Come back! We need you!”

Read Full Post »

Vitter balks, Landrieu walks on Disclose Act Senate vote; source of campaign funds remain a well-protected secret

Posted in Campaign Contributions, House, Senate, Public Records, Transparency, Vitter on August 1, 2012| Leave a Comment »

The best chance for Congress to at least partially mask the stench of Citizens United fell 11 votes short in the U.S. Senate last month, thanks in part to Louisiana’s two senators.

The vote for the Disclose Act, which would have forced independent groups to disclose the names of contributors who give more than $10,000 to them for use in political campaigns, died when it failed to receive the 60 votes needed for passage.

The vote was 51 to 44 in favor of passage.

As might be expected, Sen. David Vitter sided with the Republican opponents in voting against the measure that would have forced unlimited secret campaign spending out into the open.

What might not have been expected was that Sen. Mary Landrieu took a walk.

Just as puzzling was Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), who co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law in 2002, but voted against the Disclose Act.

Arkansas its votes between its two senators with Mark Pryor voting yes and John Boozman voting no but both Alabama senators, Jefferson Sessions and Richard Shelby, voted no. William Cochran of Mississippi voted against the measure.

Besides Landrieu, others who did not vote on the bill included Dean Heller of Nevada, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Roger Wicker of Mississippi. With the exception of Landrieu, all those not voting are Republicans. Kirk is out on extended medical leave after suffering a stroke last January.

Vitter could be expected to be protective of his source of campaign contributions, thus the motivation for his vote against the bill.

Since 1999, OpenSecrets.org reports that Vitter has received the following amounts from these sources:

• Health professionals: $1.67 million ($241,433 from political action committees);

• Attorneys and law firms: $1.1 million ($217,776 from PACs);

• Oil and gas: $1.03 million ($337,450 from PACs);

• Real estate: $853,886 ($90,000 from PACs);

• Securities and investment: $841,581 ($101,000 from PACs).

Individual contributions to Vitter since 1999, according to OpenSecrets.org, not surprisingly show that he shares three large contributors with Gov. Piyush Jindal:

• Edison Chouest: $230,654;

• Jones Walker Law Firm: $304,190;

• Adams and Reese Law Firm: $237,100.

Vitter also received individual contributions from:

• Koch Industries: $40,500;

• National Rifle Association: $237,100.

In all, Vitter received $24.54 million in campaign contributions since 1999. That included $17.9 million, about $12 million of which was in the form of large individual contributions. He also received $4.96 million in PAC contributions, records show.

Landrieu, it seems, is just as beholden to certain special interests.

The record of her campaign contributions go back a full decade further than Vitter because she has served longer. Since 1989, she has received $26.38 million. Some of her major contributors include:

Attorneys and law firms: $3.22 million ($448,420 from PACs);

• Oil and gas: $1 million ($479,205 from PACs);

• Real estate: $821,000 ($121,300 from PACs);

• Lobbyists: $865,656 ($43,108 from PACs);

• Leadership PACs: $669,000.

Landrieu also received individual contributions totaling:

• $288,854 from Entergy ($147,324 in PAC contributions);

• $80,699 from the Shaw Group (43,499 in PAC money);

• $88,598 from J.P. Morgan Chase ($39,498 in PAC contributions).

Like Vitter, Landrieu received the bulk of her contributions ($15.9 million) from individuals but again like Vitter, about 65 percent of those were large individual contributions, meaning that high rollers tend to pose more of an influence than the $50 individual donations. Almost $8 million of her funds came from PACs. That’s about 60 percent more than Vitter.

So it would appear that some elected officials, regardless of party affiliation, are a tad sensitive to letting voters know the sources of their campaign contributions.

As difficult as it is to admit, at least Vitter showed the courage of his convictions, however misplaced his values are, but voting against the Disclose Act.

Landrieu should be as forthright.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »