Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Civil Service’ Category

A trend of arrogance permeates Jindal administration

Posted in Civil Service, Governor's Office, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, ORM, Office of Risk Management, Teague, Transparency on May 6, 2011| 13 Comments »

Perhaps it’s only coincidence, but a trend seems to be developing in Baton Rouge and it’s not a very pretty one.

There is a condescending attitude of arrogance that permeates the Jindal administration from top to bottom and the day to day civil servants who work in the trenches are the ones who are feeling the brunt of the administration’s haughtiness.

The attack has been subtle but steady with no letup in sight.

Forget about Jindal’s campaign flyer four years ago in which he pretended to hold state employees in such high esteem (LouisianaVoice post of April 22). That was just political rhetoric that morphed into bitter irony.

State Employee Recognition Day? That was last Wednesday and for the third consecutive year, Jindal signed a proclamation in which he fawned over “dedicated state employees” even as he maneuvered behind the scenes to have legislation introduced last year to abolish Civil Service, to freeze merit pay increases for classified employees but not for unclassified employees (read: political appointees), and even as he moved to privatize everything in sight at the cost of putting mid-career employees on the streets who are not qualified for social security or Medicare. Some of those employees have life-threatening illnesses and will have no medical insurance.

One state employee, Melody Teague, was fired one day after she criticized Jindal during a forum held by the Commission for Streamlining Government. She won her job back but her husband recently evoked memories of the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” of Oct. 20, 1973, when Richard Nixon fired Archibald Cox and abolished the office of Special Prosecutor.

Tommy Teague, by all accounts, had been doing a superb job as CEO of the Office of Group Benefits. OGB went from a $100 million deficit when he took over to a $500 million surplus and the agency was paying claims within 48 hours.

But on April 15, Jindal decided that Teague was somehow standing in his way of privatizing that agency and Deputy Commissioner of Administration Mark Brady was called on to fire Teague. Unlike Attorney General Elliot Richardson, who resigned rather than carry out Nixon’s orders to fire Cox, Brady was more than up to the task and Teague was shown the door.

All that’s old news. Last week a couple more events, though minor in the overall scheme of things, nevertheless strip away that veneer of piety behind which Jindal prefers to hide. Neither event directly involved Jindal but as was said earlier, it’s the arrogance from top to bottom that makes the latest occurrences seem so typical of this administration.

Let’s take the Office of Risk Management first. This agency was privatized last year at a cost of $68 million to the state with a promise of savings of $20 million per year. The first section to go was Worker’s Comp. That was last July. Less than nine months later, the company that took over ORM, F.A. Richard & Associates (FARA) requested and got approval for a $7 million amendment, bringing the cost to $75 million.

Rep. Jim Fannin (D-Jonesboro) apparently wasn’t too pleased that FARA was seeking more money or that the Division of Administration approved the amended contract. He has placed ORM on the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting of the House Appropriations Committee which he chairs.

But that’s not the story. ORM Director J.S. “Bud” Thompson sent out word to his troops on Thursday that no one from ORM was to attend the meeting.

That is in direct violation of Civil Service rules. In fact, a very recent memorandum just went out to all Civil Services employees from the Department of Civil Service that addresses that very issue.

General Circular No. 2011-009 reminds state employees that the 2011 Regular Session of the Legislature will be taken up mostly with budget issues. “As classified state employees, some of these issues may have a direct impact on you (and) about which you may wish to speak,” the circular said. “Classified employees are prohibited from engaging in efforts to support a candidate, party, or political faction in an election.

“These restrictions do not prohibit classified employees from expressing themselves either privately or publicly on issues that may be pending before the legislature.”

The circular also said state employees who attend legislative hearings must be on approved leave.

Thompson did not respond to an email inquiry from CNS about his new policy—new, because a year ago, ORM employees were allowed to attend Joint Budget Committee hearings on the privatization—but on Friday he did amend his policy to allow one employee from the agency to attend Tuesday’s hearing.

His Friday email, sent to all ORM employees, attempted to justify his decision to limit attendance. “Because of the need to continue our preparations for the July 1st transfer of handling of General Liability claims to FARA and the concern that rising river levels next week might cause us problems in accessing our office, we will allow only one employee to attend that meeting,” he said.

Other lines, or units, will not be involved in preparations for transferring the General Liability line to FARA any more than other lines were involved in last July’s transfer of Worker’s Comp to FARA. In that case, claims adjusters came to work one day and the Worker’s Comp adjusters simply were gone. No pomp, no fanfare, just gone and no one else’s work was disrupted in the least, so the General Liability excuse is a smoke screen easily recognized as such by ORM workers.

Again, though, he is in violation of Civil Service regulations; there is nothing in the regulations that allow him to restrict the number of employees who may attend.

But not to worry: streaming video of the hearing can be accessed by logging onto http://www.legis.louisiana.gov/ and navigating to the proper committee room (5). Thompson’s Friday email also instructed employees they watch the video playback at home but to refrain from viewing it at work. Of course, an enterprising employee could simply plug in his or her headphones and minimize the video and continue working on claims while listening to Thompson’s testimony.

The other event is totally void of any semblance of subtlety.

CNS received an anonymous letter on Friday that contained an email sent from the iPhone of Nick Gautreaux, erstwhile state senator from Abbeville, not to be confused with current Sen. Butch Gautreaux of Morgan City. Nick Gautreaux is the current Commissioner of the State Office of Motor Vehicles.

Dated March 17, the email was addressed to all OMV employees and consisted of only five sentences but it was the third sentence that appeared to hold true to the philosophy of superciliousness that has become the hallmark of the Jindal tenure.

“I am proud of our teams (sic) hard work this past week,” the email began. “All of you have shown a willingness to progress to a higher level of production and customer service.”

Then came that third sentence: “I must say that the individuals who continue to defy change will suffer the wrath of my management team.”

He closed by saying, “I want everyone to know that I have an open door policy. Thanks for the hard work.”

It’s pretty evident that Gautreaux didn’t go to the Zig Ziglar School of Employee Relations. If he did, he was absent on Motivation Day.

Defy Change? Management wrath? Could OMV be next? Holy Privatization, Batman!

Read Full Post »

Got promised? Weighing the words of candidate Jindal vs. actions of governor Jindal: a study in deliberate deceit

Posted in Civil Service, Education, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Layoffs, Legislature, Legislators, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Teague, Transparency on April 22, 2011| 7 Comments »

Perhaps this should be filed under “How Soon We Forget,” or maybe it shouldn’t be remembered at all because of the bitter irony it invokes. Either way, we felt a little reminder of campaign promises past might give you an insight into political realities present and future.

Candidate Bobby Jindal had an interesting campaign flyer in the last gubernatorial election that someone found and sent to LouisianaVoice.

It’s all about how touchy-feely he was about state employees. It’s almost enough to give you a warm fuzzy if it weren’t for the foreboding chills it invokes when one considers that his real motivation is not the welfare of state employees or even the citizenry of this state, but the consolidation of his own political power base.

While state employees are being laid off and in some instances, as in the case of Office of Group Benefits CEO Tommy Teague, fired outright, Jindal continues to campaign weekly outside the borders of Louisiana, adding more and more to a campaign war chest already crammed with more than $10 million.

When he campaigns in California, New York, Texas, and elsewhere, the costs of those trips—including flight costs, hotel accommodations, meals, and security detail (state police who accompany him on each and every trip)—are not reimbursed to the state by the Republican Party. They are borne by Louisiana taxpayers. And lest you thought he travels alone, rest assured he takes staff members with him on those jaunts. When George Bush campaigned for a second term and when Barrack Obama campaigns, the costs were—and are—reimbursed by their respective national parties.

All his hopping from fundraiser to fundraiser at out-of-state venues must surely raise the question: just why is someone in California or Wisconsin or Montana so vitally interested in a governor’s race in Louisiana? That’s the question voters must ask themselves when they enter the polling booth next fall.

It’s a good bet that laid-off state employees or employees of agencies that Jindal has privatized or plans to privatize will be asking.

It’s a certainty that employees with serious health issues would like to know why they stand to lose their health benefits after years of loyal service, some of whom even fell for Jindal’s “love of state employees,” pitch and voted for him—not once, but twice—for governor.

Here, then, are the verbatim contents of that long lost (at least he must wish it was lost) flyer that, with any justification, will bite him in the backside next fall:

As a former state employee, I know firsthand how important it is that we protect state employees and state retirees.

I have served the state as Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals and as President of the University of Louisiana System.

My mother has been a state employee for three decades. I know that she and the thousands of people who serve our state at every level dedicate themselves on a daily basis to ensuring that Louisiana is moving forward, and I strongly believe that we must support these workers in their efforts.

As my campaign for Governor continues to intensify, I expect that some people will begin to spread false rumors about the future of state employees under my Administration.

I wanted you to hear it from me that I will be a friend and supporter of both state employees and retirees.

Any statements to the contrary are simply false.

I am committed to bringing more jobs and more economic opportunities to Louisiana, and I want to see state workers and retirees supported for the work they do.

In addition, I have been a vocal supporter in Congress of legislation to protect state employees and retirees from unfair Social Security provisions, specifically, the Government Pension Offset (GPO), which lowers the dependent benefits a state employee with a spouse working in the private sector receives through Social Security, and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), which penalizes public school teachers and state workers who have second jobs.

I am a co-sponsor of the Social Security Fairness Act (H.R. 82) in the U.S. House of Representatives, which would repeal both the GPO and the WEP.

I do not believe we should punish people for working, and certainly do not believe teachers and state workers in Louisiana should be singled out for penalty.

These men and women work incredibly hard to ensure a bright future for our state and our children, and they deserve to receive adequate Social Security benefits.

My mother is a state agency employee and I myself have paid into the State Teachers Retirement System, so I know firsthand how unfair these provisions are to state workers. I fully understand the importance of rectifying this problem so state workers and teachers are not unfairly penalized for their service.

I commit to you that I will continue to fight to protect all Louisiana workers as Governor of Louisiana.

There you have it. The words in that flyer certainly take on a hollow ring today. We have only one word for Gov. Jindal and his promises: pandering. By any definition, it’s pandering in the sorriest sense of the word. Does anyone remember Jindal’s uttering a single word as governor about the GPO or WEP? Didn’t think so.

Has anyone heard a single encouraging word from him to state employees. No? Hmm.

Does any remember another campaign promise to block any attempt by legislators to give themselves a pay increase? Probably not, but he certainly did, in another flyer like the one quoted above. Yet, what did he do when they voted for a 123 percent pay raise back in 2008? He said he would not veto the pay hike. Only when he was swamped with public outcry such that his email literally shut down, did he finally acquiesce and veto the action.

Turn your attention away from the NBA playoffs and LSU and Saints football long enough to do your homework. Weigh what he says against what he does. Consider the contracts handed out to donors to his wife’s foundation. Think about the motive behind his interstate campaign trips. Look below the surface for his real reasons for wanting to privatize so many state agencies and find out who is getting the contracts for those agencies. Most of all, try to put yourself in the place of that state employee who, facing grave health issues, finds himself on the street.

Read Full Post »

State employees get another slap in the face from administration in the form of Personnel Policy #95

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Civil Service, Ethics, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, Transparency on April 5, 2011| 5 Comments »

There exists something of a double standard in Louisiana state government between elected officials and civil service employees, or as some would describe it, between the haves and the have nots.

Members of the Louisiana Legislature may reinstate their currently suspended annual, automatic pay raises at their pleasure. Likewise, unclassified employees (appointees) may be given annual pay raises at the pleasure of the administration but for the second straight year state classified (civil service) employees have their pay frozen—at the behest of the legislature and Gov. Jindal.

Legislators may accept meals from lobbyists but classified employees are strictly prohibited from accepting so much as a cupcake from a vendor for fear that the low-level bureaucrat can do favors for the vendor that a legislative committee chairman obviously is unable to do. One civil service employee was fined $250 by the State Ethics Board a few years ago because a vendor sent her a Christmas ham.

The governor of the State of Louisiana is free to write a book about his career and to hawk it on national television but if an employee of the Division of Administration (DOA) wishes to write a book, he must obtain prior approval from his section head. Those who embrace the First Amendment might suggest that this is a form of prior censorship.

Legislators who happen to be attorneys can—and do—sue the state and no one in any official capacity sees it as a conflict of interest.

The playing field, which has never been level, is poised to become even more tilted in favor of those in power and to the detriment of those who work in the trenches on a day to day basis to keep the state running efficiently.

State classified employees—the same employees whose pay has been frozen for two years—cannot engage in outside employment activities to earn extra income unless the work is approved in advance by that same section head for fear that an employee may be engaging in a conflict of interest.

DOA employees either have already received or will be receiving a copy of DOA Policy No. 95 (not to be confused with Area 51 in Nevada, though the policy may appear to some to have been inspired by alien mind control). The new policy details limitations to any outside work employees may perform outside state business hours.

State civil service employees have for decades been asked to sign affidavits that neither they nor immediate family members worked for any contractors or vendors who did business with their agency but this regulation is far more restrictive.

The five-page memo being sent out via email to DOA employees said the purpose of the policy “is to prevent employees from participating in outside employment that may be detrimental to the DOA’s mission and public image.”

The governor only last week attended a campaign fundraiser hosted by a state vendor who has a $380,000 state contract but it’s not considered a conflict because, the vendor said, it was held “after hours.”

Corporations with lucrative multi-million-dollar contracts with the state are allowed—encouraged, even—to contribute to the governor’s wife’s foundation with no apparent concern about conflicts of interest. The governor, in fact, even posed with his wife for a photo that is featured on the foundation’s home page.

Could that be construed as a subtle solicitation of contributions on the part of the governor, and thus a conflict of interest? Apparently not.

So much for public image.

Outside employment is defined by Policy 95 as “any non-DOA activity for which economic benefit is received,” including but not limited to:

• Employment with any non-DOA employer;

• contracts to provide consulting, personal, or professional services to non-DOA individuals or entities, or

• Self-employment (an individual who operates a business or profession as a sole proprietor, partner in a partnership, or any other type of legal business entity).

Policy 95 defines economic benefit in the context of the policy as “any compensation or benefit an employee receives for his outside employment that has a monetary value, e.g. payroll check, cash payments, share of profits, share of stocks, equity participation, etc.”

Any current DOA employee planning to engage or already engaged in outside employment will be required to complete an Outside Employment Disclosure Statement form and forward it to his supervisor for review and consideration.

The supervisor will review the statement and make a recommendation to either approve or deny the request and the supervisor would forward the form, along with his recommendations, to the section head, who then would make the final decision to approve or deny the request. If the section head is unsure, he will be required to consult with the DOA Office of Human Resources (OHR) and if necessary, OHR would contact the Board of Ethics for further guidance.

On closer examination of the entire five-page document, it appears to be sorely lacking in firm, definitive policy and heavy on vague but subjective policy enforcement by too many section heads on individual whims. In more common venacular, enforcement is strictly fly by the seat of the pants with ever-shifting interpretations that could all too easily hinge on the personalities involved.

“Original disclosure statements for outside employment must be forwarded by the section to OHR for filing and copies should be kept by the supervisor in a confidential file,” the memo says.

The policy and accompanying memo are already causing an undercurrent of discontent among many state employees.

One DOA employee said he has no outside income but nonetheless feels it is no business of the state what he does after 5 p.m. “This just smacks of …. the old ‘1984 Big Brother is watching thing,’” he said in an email to OHR.

“I object strongly, on principle alone. I don’t care if I am a male stripper on Friday nights or if I repair cars in my back yard on Sunday mornings—it is none of your or anyone’s business.”

“At this moment in time, I am so angry that I have no intention of signing this thing…and I am sure that I am not alone,” he said. “What happens if I don’t sign? Would you really fire me—after 36 years?”

There was no indication as to whether or not Policy 95 would also apply to non-classified employees in the governor’s office.

Read Full Post »

Would Jindal outsource his mom’s job? Not a chance!

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Civil Service, Education, Governor's Office, Higher Education, Layoffs, ORM, Office of Risk Management, Privatization, Retirement, Transparency on March 29, 2011| 3 Comments »

If Gov. Bobby Jindal is serious about his suggestion that state employees “do more with less,” he has an excellent opportunity to lead by example: he could ask his mom to step down from her state job.

The governor has been up front with his plans to outsource state agencies, thereby forcing employees of those agencies to retire (if eligible), seek other employment, or hope to catch on with the private sector company taking over the state agency.

The lucky ones get to retire. But many—some of whom have 20 years or more with the state—are still too young to retire and thus must scramble for a new job in a depressed market where jobs are scarce and when filled at all, go to much younger applicants. Don’t believe for a nano-second that there is no age discrimination.

Those are the ones who are truly caught up in the classic Catch-22 scenario.

When F.A. Richard and Associates (FARA) took over the Office of Risk Management (ORM) last July, its contract stipulated that it take all ORM employees for at least one year. There is nothing in place to protect the state employees after that 12-month period. The privatization of ORM, by the way, was supposed to save the state $50 million over five years but FARA already is asking that its $68 million contract be amended by $7 million, to $75 million.

Jindal also is seeking to privatize state prisons and the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) but as yet has said nothing about outsourcing the Louisiana Workforce Commission (formerly the Louisiana Department of Labor).

Perhaps that is because that is where his mother is employed.

Perhaps not, but a $45,000 per year state employee being outsourced (read: laid off) has to smart just a tad when doing a cursory web page search (link), clicks on “Louisiana State Payroll” on the top menu bar, and then types in “Jindal” in the box “Search by Name,” only to find that Gov. Jindal is paid $130,000 per year to campaign for out-of-state candidates, attend fundraisers for himself, and to promote his book—all while ostensibly serving as the governor of Louisiana.

The resentment must really smolder when the name Raj G. Jindal appears beneath that of the governor. Raj G. Jindal is the governor’s mother and she pulls down a cool $117,915 per year as an Information Technology (IT) Director 3 in charge of workforce support and training. We assume she is a valuable, capable employee. But that’s not the point here. It’s the perception, stupid (with apologies to Bill Clinton).

One might think the governor, as a show of good faith, would ask his mom, an employee of 30-plus years and certainly eligible for retirement, to lead by example, and step down to benefit someone who really needed a job. Even if she were not eligible for retirement benefits, what a PR move it could be for the governor.

One might think so. After all, should she opt for retirement, her retirement income in excess of $90,000 would be more than double that of the average salary of state employees still working full time ($44,338).

But then Gov. Jindal has never been one to display an excessive amount of compassion for state employees. Quite the opposite would, in fact, seem to be the case. He just doesn’t care. He has shown that in his actions time and again, from privatization, to behind-the-scenes efforts a year ago to dismantle the state Department of Civil Service and the Civil Service Board.

He showed it when he gutted the state’s ethics laws, all the while spouting his oft-repeated mantra in campaign appearances in other states that his is the most transparent, most ethical administration in Louisiana history.

He showed his disdain for minorities in the manner in which he replaced a white member of the Board of Regents for Higher Education with an African-American, all the while claiming the move had nothing to do with a lawsuit brought by Southern University students challenging the makeup of the previously all-white board. Yeah, right.

At least that move was pretty transparent.

He has shown nothing but contempt for public school teachers in the way his administration is hell-bent on destroying public education in favor of charter (read for-profit) schools. He must be very proud of the Recovery School District.

No, it’s not very likely that Raj G. Jindal will be asked to lead by example by doing “more with less.”

It’s just not in our governor’s makeup.

Instead, the governor will in all likelihood fall back on another line he uttered just before departing for yet another out-of-state campaign appearance last fall: “Quit whining.”

Read Full Post »

Gov. Jindal’s Land of Smoke & Mirror Budgeting

Posted in Budget, Civil Service, Education, Governor's Office, Higher Education, Layoffs, Retirement, Revenue, Taxes, Transparency on March 18, 2011| 2 Comments »

Editor’s note: Periodically, LouisianaVoice invites guest columnists to contribute to our blog. The following essay was written by Don Whittinghill, consultant to the Louisiana School Board Association.

It is also posted on the association’s website at http://www.lsba.com/.

Last week, Gov. Bobby Jindal released a budget proposal for the 2011-2012 fiscal year.

Legislators reacted swiftly. Some of them accused Gov. Jindal of balancing the state’s operating budget on the backs of college students, state workers, and the poor.

Demonstrations were staged on the Capitol steps.

The proposal was designed in the face of a financial chaos that might well be a politically orchestrated stage on which to carry out an ultra conservative agenda.

First, state universities were told by the governor that they would have to endure another 35% in cuts. Then, Superintendent Paul Pastorek told newly elected K-12 school board members that it would be likely only a 10% cut. Two days later the governor proclaimed it would be less than 10%.

Secondly, the official revenue estimates (made March 7) were for revenues to amount to $7.8 billion. The actual revenue collections for 2010 amounted to $7.1 billion.

It should be recognized that revenue estimates are made several times each year for the past 17 years. Over the 19 years for which estimates are recorded the Legislative Fiscal Office calculates that it has underestimated revenues in 16 of those years. The March estimate is that used for casting the state budget. Over those 19 years the fiscal authorities calculated an error rate, on the low side, averaged 7.7%. For each percent of underestimating revenue the fiscal office reports $96 million for each percent underestimated. That suggests the current pre-legislative estimate of revenue could be $739 million below actual when all is said and done.

When one looks into the presented budget one finds that vouchers for fewer than 2,000 New Orleans school children will increase to $10 million. These vouchers went, last year, to slightly more than 1,600 and the size of the average voucher was around $4,400. Current MFP budget letter shows the average per pupil contribution of state funds is less than $3,500.

The administration declares that it is protecting Pre-K-12 education. But, there is no adjustment of inflation, retirement system contributions rise more than 5%, health insurance coverage increases, school bus fuel costs have grown more than 20% in the last month and are projected higher. The legislature decreed that local school districts must pay for private school bus transportation that had formerly been paid by the state. The $5,000 per year stipend granted by the state for Nationally Certified Teachers has now gravitated to the local school boards to pay. Now, the administration proposes to fund TOPS scholarships by raiding a state trust fund that generates money for K-12 education.

As more and more public schools are taken over by the state and converted to charter schools that divert money from local public schools, Gov. Jindal presents as part of his budget cutting the selling of prisons to private firms. In the case of prison or privatized management of charter schools state money is diverted to the profit line. It is unclear how such diversion of funds can make for better service or lower costs.

Most folks would consider such a series of budgetary moves to be CUTS to Pre-K-12 education!

The administration declares it will not grant state employees, including teachers, a pay increase. But its budget calls for raising retirement contributions by 37%. This governor seems to think that raising college tuition is not the same as a tax paid by students and their parents.

The shock and awe doctrine that the administration has established in the media is, it seems, calculated to bring popular acceptance of policy that would not be accepted under more normal circumstance. In the game of craps such a move is known as a “come bet.”

The proposition that half of the dollars needed to fund the TOPS program would come when voters approve another Constitutional Amendment that has not even been introduced to the legislature would certainly raise an eyebrow or two if the average business did so.

The administration says it will cut over 4,000 state jobs to save money. The fact that over half of them were jobs not filled during the 2010-2011 fiscal year suggests a misunderstanding of the term cash flow.

An important ingredient in the state’s revenue stream is derived from the oil and gas industry. Many headlines, over the past year, have signaled huge shortfalls in mineral income to the state. However, a look at current official reports reveals some interesting facts:

The Revenue Estimate underlying the budget calls for an average price for crude oil pegged at $84.65 per barrel. Oil and gas industry estimates for the coming year average $101.77 per barrel. Each dollar per barrel difference amounts to $12 million in state revenue. That means if business forecasts are correct, the Revenue Estimating Committee is underestimating by over $200 million.

In 2010, Louisiana’s production of oil on state lands and waters increased over that of 2009 by 626,243 barrels. State natural gas production also significantly increased by 2.2 billion cubic feet. Much has been made of oil producers’ tax relief creating a shortfall in severance tax revenue. According to the state revenue department 2010’s severance tax increased $73 million or 10.7% over the prior year. It should also be recalled that severance taxes are dwarfed by other state revenues that flow from oil and gas production. Well over $1.1 billion was paid out to land owners (including the state) in royalties on production from their lands and in other expenses subject to sales taxes. The income collected by Louisiana’s folks is subject to income tax (lessened by depletion allowance deductions) which is substantially more productive for the state treasury. In the Haynesville Shale gas field, more than 4,000 acres of state-owned land is leased for production.

One might also consider the administration/legislative attitude toward the “Rainy Day Fund.” The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington, D.C-based think tank says they are designed to be used when times are bad. In Louisiana, the debate over just what constitutes a fiscal “rainy day” has fixated budget planners for more than a year. About $644 million remains in the Budget Stabilization Fund. One might question whether or not these times are sufficiently bad to justify tapping those funds. While there are restriction that revolve on repayment into the fund, that law can be changed about as easily as the administration-proposed raid on trust funds to fund TOPS.

It appears as if there is a real need to evaluate administration shock-doctrine financial claims. If the administration is right, that leaves another option to be considered other than that proposed.

Moody’s Investors Service, in January, reported that Louisiana’s debt per capita was $4,799 with by far the majority being unfunded pension liability.

Still another D.C.-based think tank, The Tax Foundation, ranks states on a per capita tax basis. Louisiana, in the most current ranking, is 42nd lowest taxed in the nation. One might ask: does Louisiana face a spending problem or is it short of revenue to meet real needs?

When the smoke enveloping the newly proposed budget clears, and the mirrors start to reflect reality, perhaps the chaos being manufactured will be clearer. The priority of state spending then might be seen less on enhancing the Governor’s national image and more on meeting public needs.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »