The Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) agenda, as we have shown here on numerous occasions, promotes unyielding opposition to any legislation that smacks of benefits to workers, the unemployed and the poor.
Among other things, ALEC, led by the Koch brothers, pushes legislation that:
- Opposes an extension of unemployment benefits;
- Undermines the rights of injured workers to hold their corporate employers accountable
- Promotes for-profit schools at the expense of public education;
- Opposes consumers’ right to know the origin of food we consume;
- Opposes an increase in the federal minimum wage;
- Limits patient rights and undermines safety net programs including, of all things a call to end licensing and certification of doctors and other medical professionals.
While the effort to end licensing and certification of medical professionals might play into the hands of State Sen. Elbert Guillory (R-D-R-Opelousas) and his affinity for witch doctors, such a move probably would not work to the benefit of the average patient.
And while ALEC vehemently opposes any legislation that might remotely resemble benefits to the poor or which might invoke that hated word welfare, the organization’s agenda remains something of a paradox when one takes a step back and examines the spate of corporate welfare programs enacted by willing accomplices in the highest reaches of Louisiana politics.
Generous tax exemptions, credits, and incentives have proliferated to an extent not even imagined by the injured or unemployed worker trying to provide for his family—while generating few, if any, real benefits in the way of new jobs.
Probably the most glaring abuse of the incentives offered by our Office of Economic Development are the absurd tax dodges meted out to the movie industry and for what—being able to boast that we’re now recognized as Hollywood East.” That offers little encouragement to the guy trying to pay for a mortgage, a car payment, education of his kids, and health care if he’s hurt or can’t find a job.
By contrast, LouisianaVoice has found a few federal farm subsidy payments to several “persons of interest” which may come as a surprise to Louisiana’s great unwashed. Then again, maybe not.
For example, we have former legislator (he served in both the House and Senate) Noble Ellington, two years ago appointed to the $130,000 per year position of Deputy Commissioner of Insurance despite his having no experience in the field of insurance.
Ellington, a Republican from Winnsboro, also served until his retirement from the legislature as ALEC’s national president and even hosted the organization’s annual convention in New Orleans in 2011 so it stands to reason that he would, on principle alone, reject out of hand any form of welfare—even such as might be to his own financial benefit.
Not so much.
From 1995 to 2012, Ellington received $335,273 in federal farm subsidies while sons Ryan Ellington and Noble Ellington, III, received $89,000 and $25,223, respectively—nearly $450,000 for the three.
Granted, the senior Ellington made his fortune as a cotton merchant so we suppose that qualifies him to the subsidies—except for his position as National President of ALEC which is diametrically opposed to welfare. Oops, we forgot; that’s diametrically opposed to welfare for all but the corporate world. Our bad.
And then there’s Ellington’s successor to the Louisiana House, Rep. Steve Pylant (R-Winnsboro), who introduced a bill during last year’s session that would have required the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) to “adopt rules and regulations that require all public high school students beginning with those entering ninth grade in the fall of 2014, to successfully complete at least one course offered by a BESE-authorized online or virtual course provider as a prerequisite to graduation.”
If that’s not corporate welfare, in that it guarantees a constant revenue stream in the form of state payments to private concerns offering those Course Choice courses, we will shine your shoes free for a year.
During the same time period, 1995 to 2012, Pylant received nearly $104,400 in federal farm subsidies.
His occupation prior to his election to the Louisiana House? He was sheriff of Franklin Parish.
Another ALEC member, State Sen. Francis Thompson (D-Delhi), also received $472,952 in federal farm subsidies for the same time period as Ellington and Pylant.
Thompson holds an Ed.D. Degree from the University of Louisiana Monroe (formerly Northeast Louisiana University) and lists his occupation as educator and developer.
Other ALEC members, their occupations and federal farm subsidies received between 1995 and 2012:
- Bogalusa Democratic Sen. Ben Nevers—electrical contractor, $20,000;
- State Rep. Andy Anders (D-Vidalia)—salesman for Scott Equipment, $34,175;
- Rep. Jim Fannin (R-Jonesboro)—Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, “independent businessman” and also has a background in education, nearly $2600—a pittance by comparison but still indicative of the mindset of the ALEC membership when it comes to applying a heaping helping of double standard to the public trough.
To be completely fair, however, it should be pointed out that Nevers introduced a bill this session (SB96) that called for a constitutional amendment that would make health care available under Medicaid to all state residents at or below 138 per cent of the federal poverty level—an effort that sets him apart from those who parrot the standard ALEC position on medical care for the poor. Of course his bill failed in committee by a 6-2 vote today (April 23) after Sen. Dan Claitor (R-Baton Rouge) moved to defer action.
Perhaps voters will remember Claitor’s compassion for those without health care in this fall’s (Nov. 4) congressional election.
Two other legislators and two political appointees of Gov. Bobby Jindal who are not members of ALEC also combined to receive nearly $561,000 in federal farm subsidies between 1995 and 2012, records show. They are:
- State Rep. Richard Burford (R-Stonewall)— dairy and beef farmer, $38,000;
- State Rep. John Morris (R-Monroe)— attorney, $11,625;
- Robert Barham of Oak Ridge—Secretary, Department of Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries, $489,700;
- Lee Mallett of Iowa, LA.—member of the LSU Board of Supervisors, $21,600.
All but Burford and Mallett reside in the 5th Congressional District formerly represented by Rodney Alexander (R-Jonesboro), who now heads the Louisiana Department of Veterans Affairs.
The 5th District includes the Louisiana Delta which make up one of the largest row crop farming communities of any congressional district in the nation.
Accordingly, the $289,000 paid out to recipients in 2012 was easily the highest of Louisiana’s six congressional districts, more than double the 4th District represented by John Fleming and accounting for 50.6 percent of the statewide total.
For the period of 1995-2012, the 5th District also ranked highest in federal farm subsidies with the $23.7 million paid out representing 31.2 percent of the total and ranking slightly ahead of the 3rd Congressional District of Charles Boustany, which had $21.1 million (27.8 percent).
Of the $292.5 billion paid in subsidies nationwide from 1995-2012, the top 10 percent of recipients received 75 percent of all subsidies, or an average of slightly more than $32,000 per recipient per year for the 18-year period reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA records also reveal that 62 percent of all farms in the U.S. received no subsidy payments.
Louisiana Voice 
Re licensing of medical professionals. While it sounds like a necessary policy for the state to insure public safety it is currently an impediment to employment. My daughter graduated from LSU in Dec, received her national certification that same month and was hired into a well paying job in Jan. She was subsequently let go in March. Why? Because she couldn’t perform procedures that involved patient care without a license and the license process is currently taking between 90-120 days to complete. They could not wait that long to have someone performing these duties. The employer had performed the background check and verified her certification prior to hire. Surrounding states do not require this state license. The state indicates that they want young people to stay in state and be productive citizens however they are not making it very easy for them to do so. When my daughter finally does receive her license – note the process had to start over because state police rejected her fingerprints – she’ll have to start the job hunt process over. It’s very frustrating to have a good attitude about this state and it’s unnecessary policies.
Obviously, there has to be an overhaul of the procedure for licensing here. Most see the necessity of licensing medical professionals but for the licensing process to take this long means the system is not working as it should. This could be a symptom that we are finding throughout the state—state licensing boards that are more focused on handing out violations and collecting fines, particularly in the case of the State Dental Board, than performing the function for which they were formed.
It would be instructive to know the profession for which your daughter needed a license. I worked a number of years for a company doing licensing and certification testing for medical professions (doctors, nurses, Radiologic Technologists, etc.) and I was impressed with the speed with which licensing and certification processes worked. In our case, we had firm deadlines for testing and our center stayed open the number of hours necessary to meet those deadlines. Most people who need licensing and certification apply well in advance of graduation or expiration dates and all the boards for whom we tested made timelines clear to the applicants. Many employers hired people who hadn’t completed licensing requirements and allowed them to work provisionally for several months until they had secured licensing. It’s none of my or anybody else’s business. I’m just curious. Thanks, and good luck to your daughter.
Sounds like you are for getting rid of the the farm subsidy program. Should be get rid of it and if we did, what would it do to LA farmers? If you were a LA farmer would you turn down the payments if available? I am against it too but it needs to be dismantled carefully.
Note that the people receiving the subsidies are not farmer. They have other jobs. Farm Subsidies do not help the “farmer,” they only support the landowners. Most “farmers,” meaning the guy who actually does the work, leases his land simply because he can’t afford to own it because the subsidy to the land increases the “land value.” Removing the subsidies to the “land” would cause the landowner to sell to the farmers. Then instead of the economics rewarding ownership, it would reward farming/labor/work.
I read Tom’s farm subsidy remarks to simply point out the moral if not legal conflict the ALEC legislators have in promoting their warped political philosophy, which is, as long as we have a black president, we can do anything, we are a “conservative” red state and if not now, when? One exception, my old friend Francis Thompson,(no relation), who actually understands that once elected, you must represent ALL of your constituents, not just conservatives. ron thompson
Interesting that from Ron Thompson’s view, the hypocrisy of the above cited legislators applies except to his buddy, Francis Thompson.
I’ll say that Francis Thompson, along with John Alario, represent some of the worst of Baton Rouge and Louisiana politics. Both of them have been in Baton Rouge for about 2 decades too long.
Noble Ellington was another fossil who needed to go away. Thankfully he finally did. Let’s hope Jim Fannin, Alario, Thompson, Pat Smith or Dorsey Colomb aren’t all too far behind.
I’m thinking about buying a “farm” in La. where I can keep my horses and the government will pay me top dollar to ride horses on my land. What a sweet deal! Since Louisiana is not very transparent, it could be years before anyone knew that non-farmers receive hundreds of thousands of dollars to ride around on their horses.
I’m gonna’ be your neighbor Tom!!
Okay, this piece has clarified that Obama and the Koch Brothers conspire with the Agriculture Department to funnel money to ALEC members and non-members…is that right?
First of all, I don’t recall ever mentioning Obama in my post but just to indulge you, I’ll go back and read it again. Second, I believe it was Congress that passed the Farm Bill which allocated farm subsidy money (through the Agriculture Department) to these so-called farmers. As for the ALEC/Koch brothers angle, that should be fairly easy to comprehend. The Koch brothers fund ALEC; Noble Ellington was National President of ALEC, which opposes any form of welfare (except corporate welfare, of course) and Ellington and his sons reaped nearly half a million in farm subsidy (read: corporate welfare) money which, on the mere face of it, should be a conflict of interest between Ellington and ALEC but in reality, it is not. As for “educator” Francis Thompson receiving $473,000 an ex-sheriff getting $104,000, the secretary of Wildlife & Fisheries getting $490,000 and an attorney/legislator receiving $11,000…well, perhaps you can explain the logic in that.
You are right, although you do not specifically mention Mr. Obama, he is the President and the Department of Agriculture technically works for him through his appointees. He dictates policy and he or should we say his machine, dictates who gets what. So if we look at the article again we can deduce that Obama/ Koch Brothers come from the same sack of dog food, right? I seriously doubt that the Koch brothers dictate who gets farm subsidies since both ALEC members and non members received these subsidies. Also, because they are politically worlds apart from the administration. The bottom line is that the good old boy network is alive and well in Louisiana and Washington, in spite of our dear governor’s rhetoric. Your statement about the Koch brothers funding ALEC in not quite 100% true, there are many other donors and many that donate more. Granted, the so called public servants probably should not be receiving these subsidies. There is no logic in stealing from the taxpayers.
Thanks Nick, I was not clear. My point was to show that a legislator like Thompson, my buddy,can actually legislate without joining the Republican Party. And Tom, the farm subsidy bill is good and necessary to stabilize food prices and yes, it appears to be corporate welfare, and it is, but the hypocrisy is the Republicans being so anti-government, anti-federal, yet accepting the subsidy. I know personally the families of Ellington, Thompsons, and Barhams and they are farmers, and you can’t get the subsidy without a lot of paperwork and audit trails. And Nick, Ellington is still here reaping his golden parachute at a do nothing job at Insurance at La. taxpayers expense, for his conversion to Jindalism, and why are you judgmental toward us Democrats? ron thompson
I don’t believe the word “Democrat” is anywhere in my comment above. Do you see it?
Reblogged this on Politically Activated and commented:
#StandUpToALEC