Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Elections’ Category

HB 218 on way to passage, giving highly-paid sheriffs more, even in poverty-stricken parishes: check what yours makes

Posted in Budget, Elections, Ethics, Finances, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, Politicians, Public Records, Senate, State Police, Transparency on March 28, 2018| 10 Comments »

If there was any lingering doubt as to the political stroke of the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association, one need only watch House Bill 218 do its imitation of Sherman’s March to the Sea.

The bill, authored by State. Rep. Katrina Jackson (D-Monroe) and which gives Louisiana’s sheriffs a 7 percent pay raise, has already sailed through the House with a convincing VOTE of 79-9 with the remaining 16 managing to skip out on the vote.

It now moves on to the Senate Judiciary B Committee where it will be rubber stamped before going to the Senate floor where it is virtually assured of a similarly overwhelming majority approval as it enjoyed in the House.

In the interest of full disclosure, it should be pointed out that neither the sheriffs’ current salaries nor the proposed increase will come from state funds. All sheriffs’ salaries come from their individual budgets but any raises must be approved by the legislature.

But that doesn’t change the fact that sheriffs are among the highest paid public officials in the state. There is not a single sheriff among the 64 parishes who does not make significantly more than the governor of the gret stet of Looziana.

LouisianaVoice painstakingly perused the latest audit reports for every sheriff in the state and found some interesting numbers that might make even the most ardent law and order advocate blanch a little.

Base salaries for sheriffs range from $105,279 for Assumption Parish Sheriff Leland Falcon to $179,227 for East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff Sid Gautreaux but benefits can—and do—kick the bottom line up significantly.

Several small rural parishes are especially generous to their sheriffs when it comes to chipping in extras.

Take John Ballance of Bienville Parish, for example. Ballance, by the way, is a retired State Trooper drawing a pretty hefty pension from the state. His base salary is $144,904 but he gets an additional $82,607 in benefits that bump his overall pay to $227,511. Among his perks are a $14,504 expense allowance, $10,957 in insurance premiums, $41,207 in retirement contributions and—get this: $13,295 in membership dues for the sheriffs’ association. He has the third highest total in benefits in the state. Bonnie and Clyde, who met their demise in Bienville Parish back in 1934, should have made out so well.

Dusty Gates, the sheriff of Union Parish, pulls down $144,938 in base pay but gets an additional $83,652 in benefits (highest in the state), including $13,766 in sheriffs’ association membership dues (it ain’t cheap being a member of the most powerful lobbyist organization in the state).

Gerald Turlich of Plaquemines Parish comes in second in benefits with $83,530 tacked onto his $159,540 base pay—and he doesn’t even get any membership dues. His perks include $36,825 in insurance and $41,038 in retirement.

Nineteen individual sheriffs currently make $225,000 per year or more after benefits are included—and that’s before the proposed increase.

The top ten overall compensation packages, in order, are:

  • Turlich (Plaquemines): $243,070;
  • Tony Mancuso (Calcasieu): $237,080;
  • Ron Johnson (Cameron): $233,556;
  • Mike Stone (Lincoln); $232,785;
  • Craig Webre (Lafourche): $231,413;
  • Julian Whittington (Bossier): $231,100;
  • Andrew Brown (Jackson): $230,739;
  • Rodney Arbuckle (DeSoto): $230,566 (Arbuckle resigned on March 16);
  • Willy Martin (St. James): $229,951;
  • Ricky Moses (Beauregard): $229,098.

Conversely, only seven sheriffs earned less than $190,000 per year after benefits were included. They included:

  • Falcon (Assumption): $153,637;
  • Sam Craft (Vernon): $171,615;
  • Randy Smith (St. Tammany): $177,367;
  • Eddie Soileau (Evangeline): $180,766;
  • James Pohlmann (St. Bernard): $184,057;
  • Ronald Theriot (St. Martin): $188,003;
  • Toney Edwards (Catahoula): $188,751.

Base salaries are determined by the legislature, according to St. Landry Parish Sheriff Bobby Guidroz.

Twenty-four sheriffs have base salaries of $159,540. A 7 percent increase will add $11,167, boosting their base pay to $170,707 before the addition of benefits

Gautreaux’s East Baton Rouge Parish base pay of $179,277 will jump by $12,549, giving him a new base pay of $191826.

Here is a list of all the SHERIFFS’ SALARIES, including base pay and total compensation.

Read Full Post »

State Sen. Dan Claitor’ SB 276 would ban any legislators, statewide officials 70 or older from holding elected office

Posted in Elections, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Judges, Legislature, Legislators, Politicians on March 14, 2018| 14 Comments »

State Sen. Dan Claitor (R-Baton Rouge) sometimes seems to be Louisiana’s answer to California Gov. Jerry Brown, aka Moonbeam.

Claitor can sometimes be an example of what we should expect from our legislators but far more often than not, fail to get. He also can do a spot-on Jekyll-to-Hyde transformation.

For instance, it was Claitor who filed a lawsuit to stop fellow Sen. Neil Riser’s sneakier than sneaky attempt to (illegally) inflate then-State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson’s retirement by, it eventually turned out, some $100,000 per year.

Points for Dan Claitor.

Claitor also filed a bill way back in 2012 that would have prevented legislators from leaving the House or Senate and taking six-figure political jobs in order to boost their retirement. That bill caused Sen. Daniel Martiny (R-Metairie) to practically go slightly ballistic—possibly because he could see an opportunity slipping away for himself.

The impetus behind Claitor’s doomed bill was Bobby Jindal, who was handing out those jobs like a lecherous old man giving candy to little kids

Claitor’s bill was defeated even as it became known that Jindal had appointed former legislators to lucrative jobs for which they possessed few, if any, qualifications.

Cases in point included:

  • Noble Ellingtonof Winnsboro, appointed to the second position in the Department of Insurance at $150,000 per year;
  • Jane Smithof Bossier City, appointed to position of Deputy Secretary in the Department of Revenue at $107,500 per year;
  • Troy Hebertof Jeanerette, appointed Commissioner of the Louisiana Alcohol and Tobacco Control Board at $107,500per year;
  • Kay Katzof Monroe, named member of the Louisiana Tax Commission at $56,000 per year;
  • Nick Gautreauxof Meaux, named Commissioner of the Office of Motor Vehicles at $107,000;
  • Tank Powelland  J. “Mert” Smiley, both named to the pardon board at $36,000 per year—Smiley to serve only until he took office as Ascension Parish tax assessor;
  • Former St. Tammany Parish President Kevin Davis, named Director of the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness at $165,000, and
  • Former St. Bernard Parish President Craig Taffaro, new Director of Hazard Mitigation and Recovery at $150,000per year.

Points for Claitor for his quixotic tilting at windmills.

So, what’s with his SENATE BILL 276 in the current legislative session? Is he now acting out his Mr. Hyde role?

Claitor, who will be 57 later this year, is trying to push through a constitutional amendment that, if passed by voters, would bar anyone who is 70 or older from serving in the legislature or from holding statewide elective office.

In a magnanimous gesture of goodwill, however, his bill does stipulate that any officeholder who reaches age 70 while in office would be able to complete his term.

Wow. Thanks, I guess, from the Old Geezer Gallery. Claitor can certainly expect a Christmas card from State Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon this year (he’ll be 74 by that time).

It’s uncertain, without time-consuming research, just how many legislators would be disqualified to hold office under terms of Claitor’s benevolent bill, but my State Representative, J. Rogers Pope will be 77 later this year and I kinda like the job he’s done for the citizens of Livingston Parish. Senate President John Alario, considered the most able legislator whether or not you agree with him, is 74 (15 days older than yours truly but don’t worry: I’m not running for office).

And there is a gaggle of legislators well under Claitor’s self-imposed age of demarcation who, based on their collective performance in addressing the state’s fiscal problems, should already be out the door well before reaching their septuagenarian years. As a group, they’ve proven themselves to be inept, greedy, ambitious, petty, obstructionist, partisan hacks—and that’s sugar-coating it.

Apparently, Claitor, an attorney, has never heard of the AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT. Which forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older (did I mention that Claitor is 56?).

Initially, I thought Claitor, in a snit of self-righteousness, might be aiming his bill at Secretary of State Tom Schedler, who is embroiled in a dandy sexual harassment lawsuit by a former employee (Schedler admits having sex with the plaintiff, but says it was consensual, which she denies). The entire affair (poor choice of words) has more or less captured the interest of political junkies in Baton Rouge who thought Schedler ran one of the more upstanding, scandal-free agencies until this story broke.

But a quick check reveals that Schedler is 68. He will be 70 on Jan. 24, 2020, only days after the new terms of office for state officials and legislators begin which would mean that Schedler, if he remains in office and is re-elected, would be able to complete his next term under Claitor’s proposed guidelines.

Regardless, Claitor has royally ticked off a few senior citizens who are aware of his bill. Among them is former State Budget Director Stephen Winham of St. Francisville, who just happens to be 70. The bill wouldn’t affect Winham unless he plans to run for office, but he nevertheless was rankled by Claitor’s attempt at slamming the door on those who do aspire to office but have reached the magic age of 70.

“I do not live in your district,” Winham said in an email to Claitor. “I am 70.  I take offense at this bill and I am sure I am not alone. Is this one of those bills where you are trying to punish an individual elected official or do you really believe ALL of us who have reached age 70 are senile or otherwise incapable of serving in public office?”

Claitor was less than diplomatic in his response to Winham:

“I am glad you take offense to SB 276. I will assume that you also take offense to requiring judge’s (sic) to retire at age 70. Please stay tuned to the debate. Thank you.”

Besides his apparent inability to correctly spell the plural of judge despite holding a law degree (it doesn’t take an apostrophe, Dan), Claitor also appears to have a propensity to be a bit snotty with critics. Not a good trait for an elected official.

Stay tuned, folks. The “debate” should be interesting.

Read Full Post »

Irony Anyone? (or how to blow more money daily than many make yearly while not fixing a budget grossly out of balance

Posted in Corruption, Economy, Elections, Ethics, Finances, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, Politicians, Taxes on March 5, 2018| 17 Comments »

By Stephen Winham

Guest Columnist

In the unfunny joke that was the latest “special” [not] legislative session there were no real surprises.  After much bickering over a small gobble-de-gook of incomplete solutions and ideas with no goal beyond getting 70 House votes for just about anything, the session finally ended with a whimper that anybody should have been able to predict after 15 days of inaction.  We are all left to ask why this debacle ever took place at all.

In the weeks leading up to the session Gov. Edwards threatened to not call it if an agreement on what to do about the “fiscal cliff” was not imminent.  Showing a distinct lack of decisive leadership, he not only went back on this threat, but failed, himself, to present a concrete proposal with a combination of cuts and taxes that would yield a recurring balance.  He never even really tried and seemed to say he was tired of doing so.

The governor presented a list of “cuts” he said he had already made, too many of which were not really cuts and a few of which were apparently duplicated.  Even the unambiguous cuts on the list begged the question of what has really changed as their result?  What pain has been inflicted and on whom? At the very least, what services have been diminished?

What evidence did the governor present that his appointees will be held accountable for making government as efficient as possible in the future, so people can have faith the revenues raised or retained will be spent wisely?  Ask anybody on the street if they believe state government is improving in that regard and the answer will most often be a resounding “No.”  This is particularly true of people who read newspapers and political blogs, listen to talk radio, and watch local television news where negative reports about state government are routine.

It is just plain common sense that people want answers to these questions. If the governor has made meaningful cuts he should be able to provide proof.  In other words, it should be possible to demonstrate the effects (not just dollar amounts) in such a way that people can judge whether the cuts should have been made and whether additional significant cuts should be made and, most importantly, specifically where?

For the coming year, the governor presented a list of cuts, but defended none of them as cuts he believed should be made.  On the revenue side, he presented a package that didn’t even fund these cuts and which he only halfheartedly supported.  About the only hope reflected in the governor’s proposal was that the mediocrity that keeps us on the bottom of practically every list of good things could continue.

The state senate waited the whole session for the house to give them something meaningful to do – Revenue bills had to originate in the house by law.  The Senate returned one bill providing tax relief to flood victims and the House concurred.

Despite having plenty of time because of a temporary two-year bridge, solid research of all pertinent issues, and promises to come forth with a plan to simply balance the budget, the house did nothing of the kind.  Instead of presenting a balanced plan of cuts and revenues, or even cuts alone, the house argued over pieces of the puzzle on the sheer basis of whether enough people would vote for them – what deals could be cut.  And cutting deals to get votes does not necessarily work to the advantage of the state or its citizens.

There was never a serious attempt to construct an enduring solution with more than a trace of desperately needed fiscal reform.  If there was a goal, it was to continue what we have had for over a decade – a questionable and temporary balance that makes as few voters and special interests angry as possible.  Thrown in were a handful of feel-good measures including ostensible Medicaid reform, a new spending cap proposal, and a promise of enhanced government transparency – none of which should require legislation.  Accomplishing their goals should be part of responsible governing.  Nobody was made happy -except those who think we should go over the cliff and see what happens.

One measure was anointed the pre-requisite and centerpiece for everything else and every day of deliberation the argument was put forth, “If we can’t renew ¼ of the expiring sales tax, we can’t move forward.”  What was so magical about that quarter of a penny?  Was it important to continue to punish the poor at least a little for being poor as a starting point, or what?  As its author, Rep. Dwight himself pointed out, the prospects for passage of his bill never really improved as the session went on.  Worse, it only took care of about a third of the gap and there was no clear plan for filling the rest of it from anywhere.  In a word, the bill was worthless.

Representatives Barry Ivey and Kenny Havard stood out as sincerely interested in doing something to help the state and its people move forward.  They both repeatedly called out their colleagues for hypocrisy and empty rhetoric. It is unfortunate Ivey did not get his February 28 motion to adjourn sine die on the floor and passed.  At least it would have saved the taxpayers the $60,000+ per day costs of the remaining days.  Sharon Hewitt and a growing number of others at least had sense enough to see the wisdom in that. Always rational, Rep. Julie Stokes attempted to move members in a progressive direction despite her Republican pedigree.  Speaker Pro Tempore Walt Leger offered progressive income tax measures to lukewarm support.  A few others voiced frustration but did little to steer what they clearly viewed as a doomed session toward success.

Republican Caucus Chair Lance Harris, himself a true expert at it, said he was tired of the blame game. Rob Shadoin agreed and restated the obvious when he said the session accomplished nothing except failing the people.  Speaking of blame, many people were happy to place it on the Black Caucus and their fellow Democrats.  If they were to blame for anything, it was for trying to get at a least a minuscule amount of progressive fiscal reform wedged in somewhere.

And speaking of partisan politics, the T Rex in the House was the desire on the part of Republicans to make the governor look as bad as possible.  Helping with that were the special interests, including that beacon of conservative light, Americans for Prosperity, founded and funded by the Koch brothers and claiming a membership of over 3 million right-minded people. How many of our elected officials pay homage to its agenda?  Its representative at the session wanted the session to go the distance in furtherance of the Louisiana Checkbook, a [non]panacea for the masses that will probably never be satisfactorily implemented regardless of legislation.  How many other budget reform laws languish in the books apparently ignored by our policy makers?  And, even when stumbled across, there is always the easy out of no money to implement them.  Forget about the will to do so.

The special session served one critical function to anybody who paid any attention to what went on.  It showed the utter lack of effective leadership in our state’s government.  It revealed who among our elected officials has the best interests of our state and its people at heart, i. e., who literally supports our form of government – and who doesn’t.

We can’t immediately recall the people who continue to ignore those of us without deep pockets, but we can replace them at election time – assuming people willing to truly represent us offer themselves for election – a daunting proposition at best.  Many current officeholders, with the validation of history, believe they don’t have to represent the bulk of us to be re-elected.  All they must do is get enough money from special interests to generate a flood of propaganda and false promises to fool enough people into voting for them.

Let’s prove them wrong.

(Editor’s note: Stephen Winham is the retired Director of the Louisiana Executive Budget Office, having served in that capacity from 1988 to 2000.)

 

Read Full Post »

NRA response to Parkland shootings disgusting and Trump’s would-be machismo makes him even more of a laughingstock

Posted in Corruption, Elections, Ethics, House, Senate, Media on February 28, 2018| 28 Comments »

I’ve deliberately put LouisianaVoice on hold since the horrendous events at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in order to try and let my emotions level off somewhat. That’s because I couldn’t really write how I feel about the NRA, the failure of law enforcement to read the signs, and the incredibly simplistic and idiotic reactions of our Coward-in-Chief, who would have us believe, in hindsight, that he would have tried to save the day had he just been there.

You see, I have seven grandchildren, five of whom are in public schools (the other two are in college). I also have two daughters who are teachers. So, whenever I hear about a Columbine or a Sandy Hook or Parkland, it becomes very personal—and emotional—to me.

So, before it even gets to that point, don’t bother trying to label me as some sort of idealistic liberal who wants to take you precious guns away—unless you happen to be the owner of an AR-15, a gun no civilian has any business possessing in the first place.

I have guns and I haven’t heard of a single person who wants to take them away from me. (If you think differently, please provide name of the person or persons and any backup data you may have to support your theory. Otherwise, I will just assume you’re drinking the NRA Kool-Aid and you’re regurgitating their nonsense.)

Two things are important to consider here:

  • If the government ever does decide to take your guns, there’s not a thing you can do to prevent it. Even with your AR-15, you’ll be dead meat against the arsenal the military and police can throw at you. How well do you think you’re going to do against rocket launchers, stinger missiles, grenades, helicopters, armored urban assault vehicles, tanks, satellites and drones?
  • You would be far wiser to follow the money. The Republicans, the guys you think are your friends, are busy saying things you like to hear—like white supremacy, free markets, anti-communism, anti-Islam, anti-immigration, anti-union, voter fraud, and of course, pro-guns. All the while, they’re quietly maneuvering to take away your Medicare/Medicaid, your Social Security, your minimum wage, your overtime, your vacation and retirement benefits, your workplace safety protection, environmental protection, and your union representation—all while ensuring the continued flow of benefits to your CEOs and corporate boards….and you’re not even paying attention because you hear only the siren’s song. Stage magicians call that misdirection. They get you to focus on their left hand while the right hand lifts your wallet. Don’t believe it? Hide and watch.

Other than the senseless shootings themselves, the most outrageous thing to come out of all this is the nonsensical blathering of the conspiracy theorists who insist Sandy Hook, Columbine, Las Vegas and yes, Parkland, were staged by those who want to justify seizing our guns. Or that survivors of the shootings who want something done about the easy access to assault weapons are not students at all, but “CRISIS ACTORS.” What a load of unadulterated, shameless crap! Those who would attack these kids as political operatives represent the very lowest bottom feeders on the planet.

CNN’s (that lying, liberal, left-wing CNN—as opposed to that beacon of journalistic integrity Faux News) ANDERSON COOPER (and yes, I’m keenly aware that he’s gay and such an obvious threat to family values and the American way—as opposed to that towering symbol of virtue and all things good, the female genitalia-grabbing Trump) probably said it best when he described the conspiracy theories at “sick.” And, now that he’s back from promoting the Trump brand in India, you may wish to ask why Donald Trump, Jr., “liked” the Facebook posting by one of those conspiracy theorists.

You certainly have to admire Sen. Marco Rubio whose reactions to the shooting were described by Fred Guttenberg, the father of one of the victims, as “PATHETICALLY WEAK.” Rubio was even more PITIFUL in responding to a student’s request to vow he would not accept NRA contributions. Instead of being a man, Rubio said, “…(NRA) people buy into my agenda.” He even attempted to convince a hostile audience that the influence of the NRA “comes not from money. The influence comes from the millions of people who support that agenda.”

What a crock. Here’s a news flash, Rubio: representative democracy is not about donors reflecting your agenda, it’s supposed to be you reflecting—and representing—the agenda of your constituency, 70 percent of whom demand something be done about access to assault weapons. Your response to that young man only served to confirm the fact that you are just another political whore.

If influence does not come from money, then why the hell does the NRA, Big Pharma, oil and gas interests, financial institutions, military contractors, and cable television, to name only a few, spend untold millions of dollars lobbying Congress and contributing to political campaigns? Why do the corporate interests fight so hard to defend Citizens United? Rubio looked right into the eyes of that student and lied through his pearly white teeth. And he did it with a straight face.

Of course, the Florida legislature, in a proud display of courage and religious-patriotic-moral zeal, refused to act on restricting access to assault weapons but did advance a bill requiring schools to display “In God We Trust” signs and another declaring pornography as dangerous.

Apparently, this courageous bunch of morons doesn’t consider AR-15s dangerous. But CHELSEA ROMO might beg to differ. She is a survivor of last October’s Las Vegas shooting rampage that left 58 others dead. If you’re squeamish, you may wish to skip this story, but it’s a great example of what AR-15s are designed for: killing human beings.

And much has been made of the Broward County deputy sheriff who waiting outside the school while the shooting was taking place instead of entering the building and engaging the shooter. Coral Springs police, in fact, claim that there were actually three deputies who remained outside the building.

Sheriff Scott Israel expressed his disgust that his deputy/deputies did not engage the shooter but as always, there are two sides to any story.

First of all, the deputies would have been going up against a semi-automatic assault weapon while they were armed most probably with only a sidearm. Not good odds, perhaps even suicidal. So, let’s not be too quick to judge the deputies who, after all, are political appointees.

Which brings up another interesting point. Israel’s detractors—and it appears there are many—point out that he has PADDED HIS PAYROLL with hangers-on and political supporters. His self-proclaimed “great leadership” aside, he seems to have devoted far more attention to returning political favors in his hiring decisions than to actual qualifications for the positions he filled—much like sheriffs across the gret stet of Looziana.

And of course, WAYNE LaPIERRE, the high potentate of the NRA, lost no time going on the attack before a friendly, carefully-chosen audience at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (C-PAC)—one of our very own Bobby Jindal’s favorite haunts.

Exploiting the Parkland tragedy for political gain, LaPierre, the eager opportunist, accused “opportunists” of using the Parkland tragedy “for political gain” in one of the most curious examples of circular logic found anywhere. LaPierre, of course, was given center stage for his diatribe by Faux News.

Isn’t it interesting to know that we’re living in a time where the plea to stop shooting our kids is regarded as a “liberal talking point” by the pro-life, pro-gun, God-fearing segment of society?

And then there was the NRA mouthpiece DANA LOESCH who had the gonads to say that “Many in legacy media (whatever that is) love mass shootings.”

You bitch. Name me one person, just one, in the media (I don’t even know what she means by “legacy” media) who loves mass shootings. With one incredibly stupid, ill-advised, ill-informed statement—no, not ill-informed; you knew exactly what you were saying, you lying, simple-minded idiot—you have libeled an entire group of people and I consider myself one of that group. My degree is in journalism and I made a living at the trade for four decades and picked up an award or two along the way so I can rightfully resent the hell out of your implication and your accusation.

Like nearly everyone else, we entered our chosen field not for the purpose of exploiting tragedy but as a calling (it certainly wasn’t for the money). If we happened upon a chance to expose frauds like Dana Loesch and Wayne LaPierre, then we consider our jobs a public service. You’re welcome.

(As a side note, it would be interesting to know if the NRA headquarters is a concealed carry zone and if its entrances are equipped with metal detectors.)

And just why is it, anyway, that the Second Amendment is so much dearer than say, the Fourth Amendment, which is supposed to protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures but which is routinely violated…and the NRA never makes a peep?

Or the Sixth Amendment which guarantees the right to a speedy trial but which is often ignored…and the NRA utters not a word?

Or the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech and the right of the people to assemble peaceably but whenever it is exercised, heads often get busted…and the NRA is silent?

Now, to the biggest fraud of them all: Donald Trump, aka The Trumpinator, aka Donnie Bone Spur.

The Trumpinator appears to have used the same speech writer as LaPierre. Either that, or he simply PLAGIARIZED LaPierre is using the same “harden our schools,” “soft,” “gun-free zone” phraseology in his White House talk as LaPierre had used hours earlier at C-PAC. (by the way, I would love to see LaPierre, Dana Loesch, or Trump take their talking points away from the friendly C-PAC audiences and to the parents and students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.)

But as bad theater as that was, it paled in comparison to his disgraceful meeting with shooting victims from Parkland, Columbine, and Sandy Hook. He couldn’t even hold an informal meeting without going in with crib notes on how to be spontaneous and empathetic—including a written reminder to say “I hear you.” You had to write that down to remember what to say? Seriously?

(The “45” om his cuff is to remind the Great Unwashed (us) that he is the 45th POTUS)

And his suggestion that teachers be armed would have been laughable had it not been so incredibly shortsighted and ignorant.

Police officers who are Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certified only manage to hit their targets 18 percent of the time in real-life shootouts and only 30 percent of the time when suspects do not return fire. So, help me understand: Trump is suggesting that teachers, who are not POST certified, will be the best line of defense in case of an attack by someone wielding an AR-15?

Two questions:

  • When a shooter knows a teacher is armed, who do you think he would go for first?
  • And how many kids do you think would perish in the crossfire?

And there’s this: If my daughters wanted to become firearms proficient, they would have opted for military careers instead of becoming educators.

Of Course, the Trumpster, as he so often does, tried to walk back his suggestion by saying he was referring to teachers who are “retired from the Marines.” Really? How many teachers do you know who are retired Marines?

As might be expected of such a playground-type solution to a real problem, it was roundly CRITICIZED by those who know better—and that’s just about everyone on the planet.

But far and away the most audacious, most self-serving, most self-delusional, most indescribably derisory thing The Trumpinator has uttered his entire presidency (even more so than his “very stable genius” blathering) came when he said he would have entered the school unarmed had he just been there. “I really believe I’d run in there even if I didn’t have a weapon,” he said in his criticism of the deputy who did not engage the Parkland shooter.

BONE SPUR TRUMPINATOR: “I’LL BE BACK BIGLY. COVFEFE.”

That remark left Sarah Huckabee Sanders somewhat dubious.

The only place Trump might ever consider running into would be into the girls’ locker room.

The Washington Post observed of that flamboyant boast of Bone Spur Donnie, who received five deferments during the Vietnam War (one for bone spurs): “Run into a shooting scene? He won’t even go into a conference room with Mueller.”

Read Full Post »

Listen for ‘Now is not the time’ and ‘TAP’ from members of Congress in wake of Wednesday’s Florida school massacre

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Corruption, Crime, Elections, Ethics, House, Senate, Lobbyist, PACs on February 15, 2018| 30 Comments »

Perhaps I’m a prime candidate for self-flagellation but I would rather stand by what I believe in the face of ridicule and scorn—even from those I once considered friends—than surrender my self-respect for the sake of being liked by those who would turn on you in a heartbeat.

And I know no one would ever mistake me for Tom Petty but as he said in that great song, I won’t back down.

So go ahead, pile on the criticism and outrage at what I’m about to say but know this: If and when that awful day comes when some deranged individual bursts into a school, armed with an AR-15 somewhere in Louisiana, you’d better pray to God he doesn’t gun down your child or grandchild.

And make no mistake, it can happen here.

You might want to remember that, Sen. Bill Cassidy ($2.8 million), Sen. John Kennedy ($9,900) Rep. Garrett Graves ($6,000), Rep. Clay Higgins ($3,500), Rep. James Johnson ($1,000) or Rep. Ralph Abraham ($1,000), and—of all people—Rep. Steve Scalise ($23,850) before you accept any future campaign contributions from the NRA.

A further breakdown of contributions for just the 2016 election cycle can be viewed HERE. Rep. Charles Boustany, Kennedy, and Scalise each received $4,950 from the most powerful lobby in the universe.

Here is a partial listing of some of the recipients of the more generous NRA direct and indirect contributions These include contributions in support of these candidates and contributions in opposition to their challengers. They may cover several election cycles:

As for the latest slaughter, this one in Parkland, Florida (where, incidentally, a Denham Springs resident had two grandchildren enrolled—fortunately, they were unhurt), we can count on our members of Congress who, lacking the backbone to stand up to the NRA, will utter these same two worn-out clichés:

“Our thoughts and prayers (shortened to TAP) are with the families of the victims.”

“Now is not the time” to talk about legislation to curtail access to automatic weapons.

And, of course, mouthpieces for the NRA will continue to spew the garbage that the best deterrent against bad people with guns is good people with guns. Just what we need, a shootout between teachers with a pistol and a maniac with an AR-15—with school kids caught in the crossfire. Brilliant strategy.

The chorus of protest certain to arise from this post will consist of criticism of any advocacy of additional laws to control ready access to automatic weapons. That, I will admit, is a valid criticism: Those laws should have been enacted long ago but for the collective cowardice of Congress.

Some will say there are already laws on the books if we would just enforce them but there are gaping loopholes LOOPHOLES in the law that addresses access to automatic weapons like the AR-15, which seems to be the COMMON DENOMINATOR in these mass shootings. In fact, there is a package of BILLS—backed by the NRA—that would actually make it easier to purchase silencers like the one used in the Las Vegas attack that killed 59 people. Here’s another link to the AR-15 popularity.

The only people with real courage in this oft-repeated scenario are the ones like the teacher at Sandy Hook or the COACH at Parkland yesterday who shielded students from their attackers and took a fatal bullet in the process. Or the teacher at Parkland who had the presence of mind to herd 19 students into a CLOSET during the rampage.

Those are the heroes. Too bad we can look in vain for any member of Congress who would do as much. They would rather offer TAP and continue to take NRA money.

Sen. MARCO RUBIO ($4,950), Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart ($27,450), Gus Billrakis ($16,450), Vernon Buchanan ($15,450), Bill Posey ($13,500), Dennis Ross ($11,000), Charles Crist Jr. ($9,900), Daniel Webster ($7,950), Carlos Curbelo ($7,450), Brian Mast ($4,950), Theodore Yoho ($4,000), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ($2,000), Tom Rooney and Neal Dunn ($2,000 each), and Alcee Hastings, Matt Gaetz, and John Rutherford ($1,000 each) may also wish to justify their NRA contributions to their Florida constituents.

Full disclosure: I own a .22 rifle and a .38 revolver. Does that make me a hypocrite? Perhaps. But I do not own an AR-15 nor are either of my guns equipped with a silencer. I’m not a hunter but if I were, I fail to see why I need an automatic weapon to bring down Bambi. If I’m not good enough to do it in one or two shots, maybe it’s time to take my checkerboard to the park and hobnob with some other equally inept old geezer. And why would I need a bump stock to go squirrel hunting anyway?

Moreover, while I readily acknowledge the rights of non-felon mentally sane Americans under the Second Amendment, there’s this thought, for what it’s worth:

The universal expression in invoking the Second Amendment is the protection it gives us in preventing the “guvmint” from swooping in and confiscating all our weapons.

Well, to those folks, I say you might want to take a look around you.

Local police departments—even college and university police departments—are stocking up with heavy-duty MILITARY ARMAMENTS even as I write this. These are weapons designed for massive destructive force. Lethal would be a good word to describe them.

Why would a small-town police department need an armored urban assault vehicle? Why would it need a military helicopter?

And if the “guvmint” ever decided to swoop in and confiscate your weapons, what effect might your deer rifle have in preventing that? Against those kinds of weapons, even an AR-15 would be the equivalent of a bb gun against a grizzly bear.

So, go ahead. Take your best shot. I stand by my outrage at the silence and inaction of our political leaders in the face of such obviously escalating CARNAGE.

I don’t profess to have the answers. But I do know this: TAP and saying now isn’t the time ain’t the solution; it’s a weak-kneed cop-out. TAP aren’t going to stop a bullet and now most certainly IS the time to talk about it.

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »