God knows, I’m no financial wizard. My bank account balance clearly illustrates that. Nor am I a political strategist qualified to critique an administration less than a month into its term of office. After all, it took three years of Bobby Jindal blunders for me to become cynical enough to launch LouisianaVoice.
Moreover, my advice is worth precisely what I charge for it: zero.
Still, there are developments in the John Bel Edwards administration that are already prompting questions and causing my spider senses to tingle a bit.
Obviously, the reappointment of Mike Edmonson as State Police Superintendent heads that list. Likewise, the reappointment of Jimmy LeBlanc over the Department of Corrections raised more than a few eyebrows given the ongoing investigation into the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola and the myriad of problems documented there.
But I am aware of political reality and the reality is the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association wanted both reappointed. Edmonson because of what he can do for the sheriffs, i.e. jobs to sheriffs’ relatives; LeBlanc because of the convenient arrangement that has local jails housing state prisoners at a nice profit to the sheriffs.
Edmonson and LeBlanc aside, there are other appointments and salary structures that should raise a few eyebrows.
Take Thomas Enright, for example. Bobby Jindal’s former executive counsel, Enright repeatedly found ways to block legitimate public records requests by throwing up the “deliberative process” defense. And don’t forget, it was apparently on his advice that Jindal signed the infamous “Edmonson Amendment” in 2014 that would have given Edmonson an additional $50,000 or so in retirement. That was the last-minute amendment tacked onto an otherwise benign bill by State Sen. Neil Riser of Columbia which was ruled unconstitutional by a Baton Rouge district judge pursuant to a lawsuit filed by State Sen. Dan Claitor of Baton Rouge.
So Enright was shown the door, right?
Not exactly. While he is no longer the governor’s executive counsel and while he is no longer earning $165,000 per year, he was kept on the payroll by Edwards. Shunted off to the Department of Veterans Affairs where he will serve as executive counsel to that agency, his salary was reduced to $120,000 per year, a 27 percent cut in pay.
Meanwhile, Edwards has announced staff and cabinet appointments with combined salaries of $2.4 million.
Several months ago, when it first appeared that he had a real chance to win the governor’s race, I offered up some of that free advice I alluded to earlier.
In an email to Edwards, I offered up what I thought at the time was a bold but sensible suggestion: appoint retired executives to key cabinet positions and pay them $1 per year. I even offered up the name of the retired president of my alma mater, Louisiana Tech, Dan Reneau. I didn’t know of Dr. Reneau would accept a job, but I used his name as an example of someone with expertise who was financially secure and not political ambitious.
Obviously, such an appointee would have to be someone who didn’t need the money and it would be imperative that such a person would not want to use the position as a springboard to political office.
And it’s not like mine was an original idea. The precedent has been set already—many times. Perhaps the most famous dollar-a-year men are President John F. Kennedy, former Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca and former Apple CEO Steve Jobs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dollar_salary
http://www.businessinsider.com/ceos-who-take-1-dollar-salary-or-less-2015-8
Others include former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Oracle Chairman Larry Ellison, Hewlett Packard CEO Meg Whitman, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, to name only a few.
Some of those of course took healthy stock options in lieu of salary, but not all did. Jobs, Iacocca, Kennedy, Schwarzenegger, Bloomberg and Riordan did not. Nor does John Mackey (Whole Foods), Jack Dorsey (Twitter), David Filo (Yahoo), Jeremy Stoppelman (Yelp), Edward Lampert (Sears), or Richard Hayne (Urban Outfitters).
Obviously there are few other than Tom Benson that are in the same league with these gazillionaires and even his fortune pales in comparison to Zuckerberg’s $46 billion. But there are certainly a sufficient number adequately well off to give of their time to fill a dozen or so crucial spots in state government. Their expertise, after all, could be invaluable in addressing the state’s dire fiscal woes head-on. The absence of a political agenda on their part could only be an added plus.
Edwards’ response to my suggestion?
“I’ll think about it.”
Apparently he didn’t think too long about it. Like his predecessor, he has loaded down his administration with top-heavy salaries and has even raised the salaries of six appointees.
Joey Strickland got $134,351, a $4,351 raise over what David Lecerte was earning as Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Jay Dardenne’s salary as Commissioner of Administration is $237,500 compared to Jindal’s last commissioner Stafford Palmieri’s $204,400.
New DOTD Secretary Shawn Wilson is making $176,900, an increase of $6,900 over the previous secretary, Sherri LeBas. Former State Rep. Karen St. Germain will make $125,000 as Motor Vehicles Commissioner, compared to former commissioner Stephen Campbell’s $103,614.
Press secretary Richard Carbo is being paid $110,000. Jindal press secretary Mike Reed made $93,600 and General Counsel Matthew Block pulls down $180,000 compared to Enright’s $165,000.
Granted, the $2.4 million outlay for cabinet and staff members (so far) is not a lot when one considers a looming budget deficit of $700 million for the remainder of this fiscal year and a whopping $1.9 billion (and counting) for the next fiscal year which begins July 1.
But placing retired executives with the appropriate expertise in key positions would have been a symbolic—and productive—gesture that would have sent a positive message to voters that Edwards is serious about solving the state’s fiscal mess. Such a move would have marshaled the state’s brain trust into a united effort never before seen in this state—probably in any state. It would have said to a few good men and women who still have much to offer: “Hey, we’re all in this together. Come help us.”
Instead, it was a missed opportunity. For one who said he would “not be a business-as-usual” governor, this looks, sounds, and smells a lot like business as usual. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/john_bel_edwards_emphasizes_un.html
I hope I’m wrong.
I hope you are wrong, too. Edwards had a lot going for him -especially his “honor code” campaigning. I hope his military supporters will remind him of this oath to be honest. These kinds of decisions will not inspire our loyalty, which he will need. Still hoping…
I’m sorry, but JBE is a politician. Any jack politician that would take a party bus to a strip club is cause for concern. He isn’t even trying to be a uniter and solve problems. He is bullying everyone and continuing Jindal’s crap fest.
And when Vitter raised the issue of the “strip club” it was answered at that time. Find something else to kvetch about (I’m sure you will).
Why the negativity (I’m sure you will)? What the heck? Anyone that ran a campaign on family values and an honor code shouldn’t be seen in such a place. Unlike you, I hold politicians on both sides of the aisle accountable.
The only time and only places I saw references to “party bus” and “strip club” were posts on They Hayride, Daily Caller and those of similar ilk.
I hold politicians on both sides of the aisle accountable.
If you get your news from the sources above, I highly doubt that.
And so much for ousting John White. We’ve been duped…again. WTH? Is he accountable to no one? So disappointing.
Only BESE can fire John White & JBE only has 3 appointees. Most of the other members were the billionaire-supported candidates whom our foolish electorate voted in. This is not JBE’s fault.
Only those of us of a certain age will remember when cabinet appointees were paid nominal salaries and offered themselves up as a public service for the good of the public. Altruism seems to have largely disappeared in government much as it has in the commercial sector.
My main concern at the moment is the gaping hole in the budget and the fact John Kennedy is going around the state in his quest to become U. S. Senator telling people of rampant fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicaid program and elsewhere in state government. He gives examples that are very persuasive and EXACTLY what the general public wants to believe.
If some of the things Kennedy says are true they need to be addressed and addressed NOW, not later. If they are not true, they need to be proven false. One thing administrations (and legislatures) have NEVER seemed to actually understand is that the public has ZERO tolerance for waste, particularly in hard times. As long as they see it and believe it exists, any cuts to services will always be questioned.
Kennedy’s attacks bring immediately into question JBE’s DHH release today of a doomsday scenario where vital services are eliminated in the absence of additional revenue. It is a serious mistake for this administration to ignore Kennedy and dismiss what he is saying out of hand. Jindal was somehow able to do whatever he wanted to do whenever he wanted to do it and treat Kennedy’s then-milder criticisms like slightly annoying gnats, but this is a new day and people have great expectations of JBE.
Even if Kennedy wasn’t telling them, people don’t believe the kind of cuts being suggested in health care (or elsewhere) are necessary or will ever even occur. Why? Think about it. Could it be they have heard it all before?
It is JBE’s obligation to explain why Kennedy is wrong when he says we only have a spending problem and, if he doesn’t do so explicitly, a majority of people are going to believe Kennedy is right and that JBE is not only wrong, but a liar, to boot. Offering an olive branch to Kennedy as Mr. Carbo did in today’s press report ignores history and reflects naivete’ at best and cowardice at worst.
.
IF drastic cuts actually have to be made JBE will be in even more trouble for ignoring Kennedy’s assertions and blamed for making cuts that were not necessary. The threatened health care cuts are not elimination of waste. They are elimination of services people are actually receiving without which, not to be overly-dramatic, lives will be lost – and JBE, will be blamed, not John Kennedy.
THINK ABOUT IT, JBE, AND DO SOMETHING!!!
Amen…..
Completely agree with you Stephen. Kennedy needs to release a list showing amounts and contracts involved when he talks about excessive money going out for too many contracts. And if he knows of this waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid, just bring your info to the U.S. Attorney then. Those are federal dollars involved in that too and I’ll bet the Feds would be interested in the fraud.
Agreed, Stephen. JBE does need to prove to the people that Kennedy is wrong. All I am hearing is that JBE needs to cut. I am not sure what he can cut, but if he does not disprove Kennedy, no one is going to believe that he can’t.
Here are some very worrying statements from Kennedy-
“Kennedy said other steps that would address the $750 million shortfall include canceling some of the state’s 19,000 consulting contracts, rethinking how state employee managers oversee an average of four classified state workers and finding ways to curb Medicaid costs, which account for nearly 40 percent of the budget.”
Those from Stephen’s link in a comment two posts ago. And one from Kennedy’s address to the Rotary Club of Baton Rouge at http://theadvocate.com/news/12859445-123/kennedy-on-next-governor-needs
–
“One way to save money, he said, is to change practices that allow 22 percent of managers in classified state service to manage one employee, with four employees the average. We have way too many generals folks and they are well paid.”
One thing about machine politics is that, as sure as death and taxes, if it can happen, it will happen. The plundering of a government treasury in payment to political supporters is a very old and recognized mechanism of the ‘spoils system’.
What Kennedy is speaking to in his above statements is the bloating of government administration in pursuit of that system. The effective management of staff is sixteen employees per manager. Given that administrative staff are exempt from civil service classification, this gives either political party means to effect excessive administrative overhead relative to civil service employee numbers. Instead of cutting administrative costs by reducing managers, civil service employees (the real worker bees) and services are cut instead, maintaining current political hegemony. Private consulting contracts are just as useful a mechanism for this purpose.
If state management is in such straits, you can imagine what Medicaid is like given that it’s state managed.
As long as there is no legislation preventing these tactics, they will occur. Be aware of what you’re looking at.
Not to make excuses, but….
I am still hopeful that we will see some real change in Louisiana government during JBE’s term as governor, although like other supporters, I am not pleased with some of his first appointments, including those cited above. However, I am willing to be a realist & acknowledge that JBE has some very difficult tasks to accomplish in the area of the budget – which will require the cooperation of many already in government including state department leaders from Jindal’s tenure, as well as, the members of the LA Legislature. Perhaps he has decided to proceed very slowly with wholesale changes in an attempt to avoid alienating many of those whose cooperation he will have to depend upon to meet the many challenges facing the state post-Jindal.
I do want to mention a status quo situation that has disturbed me for some time. In consideration of our current dire need for revenues in Louisiana, why is the legislature not pursuing the “dirty deeds” money – $600,000,000 annually going to the descendants of Governors H. Long, Allen, & Noe, from illegal oil leases??? Lee Zurik won multiple awards for his story, but the money continues to bleed out of Louisiana.
In 2012, the House Appropriations Committee (of which JBE was a member) voted unanimously NOT to look into stopping these illegal payments. Opponents said there is no legal precedent for stopping the lease payments even though they were fraudulently contracted by the former governors.
I believe that this is not true. In the 1990s, Plaquemines Parish was able to recoup $11 million in repayment for similar illegal oil leases from the descendants of Leander Perez. The citizens of Plaquemines would have recovered even more money if the 100+ year-old Plaquemines Parish Courthouse had not mysteriously burned to the ground soon after the first settlement, destroying the old paper records that supported the case.
So Tom, do you believe these funds are unrecoverable? I think it’s an issue that needs to be revisited.
Can you check that again. I do not think JBE was on Appropriations.
I hope I am wrong about JBE being on Appropriations, but I do know that the committee voted UNANIMOUSLY not to investigate in 2012. My own rep. was a member on the committee. he told me on the phone that the “lobbyists” – that is for the families getting the money – “explained it all to them!”
“Only three weeks in and … ” Tom, PLEASE STOP. You are “no financial wizard”, you are “aware of political reality”, and you state as “obvious”, that any altruistic appointee “would have to be someone who didn’t need the money … “. You have no idea if your suggested person would even ntertain the challenge. Please, do JBE a small favor and give it a rest, for God’s sake! JBE will not do everything perfectly or to your liking, but this constant chipping away at him will only serve to throw a very good baby out with the bathwater. If you really want him to be a one-term governor, by all means, CARRY ON.
K, I don’t know who you are and I am not speaking for Tom, but myself. If you read my post above, it is very specific and it is something JBE and Dardenne need to do something about immediately. If you and they can’t see that, I have wasted my keystrokes.
JBE will be a one term man even if Tom retired from LV tomorrow. Only one person will be what does him in: JBE.
If the people only give him one term, so be it. At least the state cannot be any worse off than it is now.
Fred, after reading the paper this morning it appears that the make up of the House Appropriations committee is a clear sign that JBE is in for a tough fight. Only six of 24 members are democrats. I hope the republicans have a viable plan. If JBE fails, the voters are not going to blame JBE. The voters will blame a republican-controlled legislature.
Cliff, there is just one problem with a sitting governor knowing full well he can’t win another term in office. He knows that’s his only time to serve the punch at the party, so he has no incentive not to let his folk make hay while he is there. That’s why he paid the salaries Tom post above.
Like Jindal, JBE is in a select class of people who got to be governor. The odds are heavily against anyone becoming governor, but he defied the odds and is in some select company now just like Jindal. If he don’t make some changes in the way he’s running this place though he gone be written up worse in history books than Jindal.
Fred, I have to disagree. I don’t believe any governor who succeeded Jindal will gone down in history as a worse governor than Jindal.
I just finished reading an article about how Senate finance members expressed their distrust of the Jindal administration, when it came to the real numbers. My problem with that is that both the House and the Senate have competent fiscal staffs and there is also the Legislative Fiscal Office(LFO). Granted the house and senate fiscal staff have to depend upon the the numbers the administration gives them, to an extent. However, the LFO can dig deeper and produce its own numbers. I believe the problem was that the legislature would not listen to the LFO.
“Granted the house and senate fiscal staff have to depend upon the the numbers the administration gives them, to an extent.”
This is the only sentence in your comment with which I disagree. 30 years ago, maybe. Today, no.
Stephen, you know better than I do. Considering that you worked inside the process, thus thank you for correcting me. I was working for the House when the first group came in after term limits. What us older staff noticed was that these new members did not trust us and depended more upon the administration’s staff(no disrespect to you) and the hired guns(lobbyists). The greatest evidence of this distrust is the inordinate amount of litigation this past administration was involved in.
Clifford, after reading this article:
http://theadvocate.com/news/14711016-77/senators-feel-misled-about-the-states-fiscal-situation
I have to go back on my initial comment and apologize. With a program of this magnitude and complexity, you are right, it is necessary for staff to take the word of cabinet officials and the administration on policy issues and their fiscal effects. I wasn’t thinking of it this way when I originally responded. The info is out there, but full-time monitoring and auditing by at least a couple of outside people would be required to do full independent analysis and, even then, the feds are unpredictable and our folks request so many waivers with such dramatic effects if approved, predicting what will actually happen becomes impossible.
On the other hand, simply reading the paper about the kind of wild fluctuations Jim Fannin talks about should have set off sufficient alarms for him, of all people, to make it disingenuous for him to now claim to have been kept in the dark. If he and other members of the legislature were misled they were misled willingly because they were desperate to provide evidence they were good fiscal stewards when they knew full well they were not. They were simply looking for ways to make the public think they were.
I wholeheartedly agree legislators have excellent fiscal staffs who have attempted to provide good, solid analysis via ad hoc reports and the very excellent Focus on the Fisc put out by the LFO.
Fannin got by with his “aw shucks” demeanor as chair of the appropriations committee and seemed largely oblivious to what was going on, despite clear evidence things just didn’t make sense in the Medicaid budget. Now he is trying to act surprised? The only way he could be surprised is if he was as clueless as he acted and, in my opinion, that was an act. It apparently worked for him, if not us.
Great post, Stephen.
Stephen,
Is there any way that Kennedy can be forced to show his hand, prior to the Feb. legislature meeting, regarding his assertions on budget?
AsYouLikeIt, no. The session in February is to take care of the immediate shortfalls. That is the problem with the demands that you all are putting on this administration. The regular session begins in March. He does not have a year or even six months to do a detailed look at proposed budgets or do a detailed look at revenues vis a vis expenditures.The governor must submit his budget by February.(I think. Correct me if I am wrong on this Stephen)
I think you are talking about the special session and I frankly don’t know who could force his hand on this. Apparently, neither the press nor JBE are planning to, according to an article posted this afternoon on The ADVOCATE site. Here’s what he had to say:
““John Kennedy is going to say what John Kennedy says,” Edwards said when asked about the criticism.
“I appreciate that. The fact of the matter is he is running for the Senate. He doesn’t have an incumbent to run against. So he will do what he thinks is in his best interest. I would invite him to do what is in the state’s best interest instead.”
Not to be overly critical, but that statement would seem to be a continuation of the Jindal approach of dismissing Kennedy’s statements coupled with offering him a seat at the table he is obviously not going to take.
The only place I’ve seen Kennedy challenged was on WRKF:
http://wrkf.org/post/fact-checking-treasurer-john-kennedy
Clifford, per TItle 39: “The executive budget submitted during the first year of each term shall be submitted to the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget no later than thirty days prior to the regular session of the legislature”.
Kennedy didn’t just fall off the turnip truck! He has been treasurer all these years and see first hand all the waste. He always says to check his numbers if people doubt. He cited some organization for the 900000 fraud emergency room visits (can’t remember who but they had a video of it on some blog). To call Kennedy a liar would be to call them people liars too! It’s some research group, so who is going to point the finger at them and say that they telling a lie. Hell, if people think Kennedy lies so much, why did he get 80% of the vote: http://staticresults.sos.la.gov/10242015/10242015_Statewide.html.
I worked with John Kennedy for 4 years beginning some 28 years ago and agree he did not just fall off the turnip truck. He is a smart guy. NOBODY is opposed to the elimination of the kind of waste you are talking about and many of us have BEGGED multiple administrations to eliminate it. You are making my point. There should be NO tolerance for waste. I am SIMPLY asking that John Kennedy provide a list of wasteful spending that equals the gap, no more, no less. BTW, the treasurer is the state banker, not the state watchdog, and I admire John Kennedy for attempting to point out the waste, but he is doing the state a disservice by attempting to put forth an argument that the problem can be solved by cuts alone and that those cuts will not hurt anybody who doesn’t deserve to be hurt, specifically if he is unwilling to submit a list of EXPLICIT cuts to balance the budget.
Okay Fred and Cliff. I’m glad nobody calling Kennedy a liar. BTW, I finally found that blog with the Kennedy 900000 emergency room fraud it is here http://www.soundoffla.com/?p=252. First guy rants about Dardenne and all we got to pay him for years and years. Sound like Tom on the same page on that one. In the second video Kennedy says public affairs research council gave him numbers on emergency room fraud. I searched for them and got the website, but they got tons of reports. I couldn’t find the one he must be looking at but did see one that doesn’t sound all that thrilled about Medicaid expansion here it is http://www.parlouisiana.com/dynaengine/loadDocument.cfm?site=1002087&doc=par%5Fstatement%5Fnew%5Fmedicaid%5Fanalysis%5F3%5F28%5F13%2Epdf. Well, I’m glad you guys not saying Kennedy is making stuff up because many people believe in him and trust him.
Fred, I don’t think anyone is calling him a liar. However, it’s easy to focus on certain parts of the budget and declare such as wasteful spending. I saw earlier where he speaks about the number of unnecessary middle-managers that we have in state government. Well, you can’t just take office in January and then in March revamp the structure of state government. It would take, at a minimum, a solid year to take a detailed look at every department and then develop legislation to accomplish what you want done. He has talked about the excessive contracts. Well, lets spend another year examining these contracts to see if they are necessary and whether they are efficient expenditures of state monies. He speaks about some 150 statutory dedications. Again, lets put them all on the table and review to see whether the state can do without them. Please be reminded that any changes to and , repeals of any of the above will require legislation. As he cannot do it alone.
I believe what you are suggesting should be a continuous process with department heads held accountable for them. We pay these people big bucks and they should be held strictly accountable for their inaction, on efficient management of financial resources on a day-to-day basis.
I am unaware of any governor who has truly held these people accountable for wasteful practices in their departments since the Treen days. The state budget office used to have that responsibility, but Gov. Treen believed the budget office had too much power and that he could trust his appointees to make the best use of their resources. The budget office was more effective under Roemer, but it never recaptured its role as a true watchdog and now focuses on making the numbers match up more than anything else. The department heads call they shots, largely unimpeded, on how best to use the money they are budgeted.
25 years ago I proposed the creation of an Office of Efficiency and Effectiveness which would have drawn a small staff from the state budget office (no new positions) to go department by department looking at common sense things, not the expensive GEMS rehash of things that had been recommended for generations and which we paid big bucks to have recycled and restated. Nobody does a common sense review of professional services contracts anymore. The departments send them in, they are given a legal and technical review and go into effect. Total trust is placed in those executing the contracts. What could possibly go wrong? And, this is just one example.
Sorry for running on, but I agree wholeheartedly these things need a good look and I believe we have reached such a level of mediocrity any savings should be redirected to services to the people that have steadily eroded over time. They should be an on-going solution, not the immediate one.
P. S. I still have my proposal somewhere and it was done on a word processor, if we can believe such an ancient device ever existed, much less a typewriter.
Stephen, I like your idea about that new office. Following your lead, I would hope that JBE and Dardenne would direct the department heads to do just as you have suggested. I think the problem that arises is that those department heads become stakeholders, whose main objective is to protect their turf. The type office that you suggested would be perfect.
Stephen, Clifford,
The state has been good about getting a lot government details online. Is there any way to fact-check around him?
My concern is that we’ll get stuck w/ things like a permanent sales tax increase when it should be a temporary bridge giving time to evaluate as Clifford has mentioned.
…”like same old business as usual.”
Except for one difference Tom. In this case, we have a bunch of politicos running around, waving arms and shouting, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling, we’ve got to do something….quick.” The next thing you know the people are saddled with even more taxes while the political machine keeps on humming. The rubes fall for it every time.
Here’s the deal: If this was a one-time “sky is falling” thing you would be absolutely right, but the fact of the matter is there have been many years of that and there have been dozens and dozens of studies and proposed solutions and there are more today than ever with even better data to support them.
If we continue to say, “Oh, let’s not rush into anything, let’s continue to study the sh-t out of it, ad infinitum, we will stay where we are ad infinitum. Is that really what you want? Of course not.
The time to act is NOW and there is more than enough information available to make intelligent decisions. The problem is nobody so far has shown the guts necessary to simply take solid information readily available and turn it into action.
With all due respect, what is distinctly NOT needed is more time or more study
Stephen,
I agree with you that if Kennedy has anything of substance in regard to his assertions that the time to step forward with them is now. However, if you’re speaking of GEMS there were complaints that for the cost all they amounted to were recommendations for what the administration had been doing all along, make cuts. Do you have anything you could venture about actual efficiency studies that would deny or bolster Kennedy’s remarks? Names? Available on the internet? Otherwise I’m not interested in any deals.
Again, all I am saying is this:
1. We have a big problem
2. By throwing out anecdotes (not proof) leading the public to believe the solution is the elimination of waste (not services), Kennedy is doing JBE and the state a disservice.
3. Kennedy should not be allowed to get away with #2.
Rather than making it JBE’s or anybody else’s responsibility to knock down what he is saying, Kennedy should be forced to at least provide proof of his own argument.
Kennedy loves this bullshit game. He is smart and knows our electorate is not as smart as you guys. He will do whatever it takes to protect the taxpayers. This means he will espouse stuff he knows is not true. This plan to privatize, cut spending, medicare, Social Security, etc is a show to get everything $$$lined up to increase taxes to repair our country so the Republicans can take credit and keep their arrogance up. ron thompson