Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Higher Education’ Category

Piyush privatization at work: LOSFA advertising for $76,000 in-house procurement position after laying off 58 employees

Posted in Higher Education, Privatization, Transparency on July 11, 2012| 12 Comments »

EDITOR’S NOTE: Pursuant to our public records request of Wednesday, July 11, LOSFA informs us that the number of positions eliminated was actually 58–not 47 as first reported. The number 47 was based on earlier figures released by LOSFA. We have updated the numbers accordingly.

LouisianaVoice was the first to break the news of the 58 classified employees were to be laid off, effective June 30, at the Louisiana Office of Student Financial Assistance (LOSFA).

Now that that messy little item has been taken care of and those 58 employees are gone, LOSFA is advertising on the state’s civil service web page for a new job opening that will pay up to $76,000 per year.

The opening is for the position of Procurement Director 1 and the salary range is $3,023 to $6,361 per month, or $36,276 to $76,332 per year.

But none of the recently laid off employees need apply; the civil service announcement is quite specific in saying the new position is promotional only. “You must be an employee of the Office of Student Financial Assistance in order to be considered for this position,” the announcement says—in bold lettering.

Interpretation: Someone in the LOSFA is about to receive a promotion and a sizable pay bump.

LOSFA, besides serving as the guarantor for student loans, also supports the state’s TOPS and START programs, the Early Start Program, the Rockefeller State Wildlife Scholarship, the State Matching Funds Grant, Go Grant, Chafee Education Training Voucher Program, the Volunteer Firemen’s Tuition Reimbursement Program, John R. Justice Student Loan Repayment Program, Financial Literacy for You (FLY) and College Knowledge.

The 58 employees lost their jobs because of the privatization of LOSFA and at the time that LouisianaVoice first learned of the layoff plan, agency Executive Director Melanie Amrhein promised us she would inform us who in the office would be retained.

She never got back to us, but we learned through other sources that three unclassified employees, each making approximately $100,000 per year, would not lose their jobs. Those were, besides Amrhein, Deputy Executive Director Sujuan Boutté, Assistant Executive Director for Fiscal and Administrative Affairs Jack Hart and Assistant Executive Director for Marketing and Outreach David Roberts.

The agency justified its layoff plan to the Department of Civil Service in April by saying:

• A reduction of overhead was necessary to maintain support of state programs;

• An attrition of staff leads to ineffective administration and further strain on generating revenue;

• Contracting services will potentially result in higher performance on portfolio while allowing the agency to retain a higher net income with reduced overhead;

• The timeline provides an orderly conversion from in-house functions to managed contractor operation;

• Adversely-affected employees will be given time to fine new employment.

(Just not with us, the justification might have added.)

So, just what will the new Procurement Director 1 be doing?

According to the civil service position announcement, the lucky person will “direct and coordinate all aspects of a procurement program for a small agency in the central procurement office or satellite field facility.”

That’s a pretty ambiguous description at best although the announcement does go on to say that the new person will be responsible “for approving emergency acquisitions of commodities,” although it’s just not clear what “commodities” LOSFA will be acquiring.

Around 2 p.m. on Wednesday, we attempted to contact Amrhein, Boutte, Roberts and Hart as well as LOSFA general counsel George Eldredge but no one answered either of the five phones.

The new position is administrative in nature, but with all those 47 employees now gone, who will this new Procurement Director 1direct/administer?

But wait! We get further clarification in the job description. It seems that whoever is promoted to this position will “establish goals and objectives and monitor performance to improve efficiency for the procurement process of the department” and will also “assist agency staff by providing data for establishment of goals and objectives.”

Well, that certainly clears up a lot of questions relative to the overall merits of privatization (read: layoffs) and it certainly is consistent with the administration’s rock solid policy of transparency and accountability.

Just try explaining that to 58 former employees.

Read Full Post »

Louisiana is following trend of taking ‘State’ out of state colleges in slow move to privatization of higher education

Posted in Governor's Office, Higher Education, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, ORM, Office of Risk Management on May 31, 2012| 13 Comments »

All but lost in the brouhaha over Gov. Piyush Jindal’s overt moves to privatize the Louisiana Office of Risk Management, Office of Group Benefits, state prisons, Medicaid, the Louisiana Office of Student Financial Assistance and K-12 public education is the quiet but steady erosion of state financial support for state colleges and universities that is pushing higher education toward that same precipice.

Once considered sacrosanct, Louisiana’s state colleges and universities no longer are considered untouchable by legislators. Accordingly, administrators find themselves having to seek funding more and more from private endowments and from tuition increases that threaten to push student costs to a prohibitive level for all but the wealthiest.

And Louisiana is by no means the exception. The trend toward pseudo- and outright privatization is becoming more prevalent in all 50 states as state colleges fall victim to cuts in state aid, the depletion of federal stimulus dollars, tuition increases, caps in enrollment and the elimination of positions. Throw in billions upon billions of dollars in corporate tax exemptions and it’s easy to comprehend the fiscal disaster Louisiana has been courting for decades.

Even as this perfect storm gathers momentum, conservative legislators, led by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are pushing to recast state universities in the mold of private corporations.

If this sounds somewhat familiar, it is because state colleges across the country are following the same track as K-12 public education in the conversions to charter schools—another of ALEC’s model legislative crown jewels.

In fact, the plan for higher ed was presented at ALEC’s national convention in New Orleans last August. That meeting was hosted by then-State Rep. Noble Ellington (R-Winnsboro), ALEC’s 2011 national president. Ellington, who did not seek re-election, eased from his House seat to a more comfortable position as second in command at the State Department of Insurance at a salary of $150,000 per year.

ALEC, which purportedly espouses increased transparency in government, restricted access to its New Orleans meeting and specifically barred the media.

And, considering Jindal’s dogged determination to privatize everything public and his penchant for secrecy, it must be no coincidence that ALEC bestowed upon him its Thomas Jefferson Freedom Award at last August’s New Orleans closed-door convention.

Alarming examples of this slow trip down Privatization Lane abound in practically any state one chooses to observe.

In Texas, for example, Gov. Rick Perry, whom Jindal backed in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, has packed the board of regents at all six state college systems with political allies who, like Perry, adhere to the Republican mantra that colleges should be run like businesses whose “customers are students.”

In Arizona, voters in 2010 approved a state referendum banning affirmative action in state universities, replicating the same action taken in Florida in 1999.

At the University of Virginia, the first public college in America and founded by Thomas Jefferson, the state provides less than 8 percent of the school’s operating budget, down from 28 percent 25 years ago. Things are no better at William & Mary and Virginia Tech, prompting Virginia’s three flagship universities to ask the General Assembly to make them “chartered” universities, which would give them freedom to set tuition and to run themselves.

Of the $1.8 billion cost to operate all 27 of Louisiana’s state universities, colleges, junior colleges and technical colleges, only $734.2 million, or 40.2 percent, came from state appropriations but even that figure is deceiving because Jindal has ordered an additional cut of $50 million.

In February, not long after Jindal submitted his executive budget, then-LSU Systems President John Lombardi, no doubt at Jindal’s behest, sent an email to his administrators asking that they not complain about Jindal’s proposed elimination of 2,837 positions in higher education. Lombardi said that Jindal would appreciate it if the administration acknowledged that the budget “gives higher ed special treatment…”

That “special treatment,” it turned out, was a carrot that Jindal dangled before university presidents in the form of a promise of $100 million for higher education should the governor’s retirement package pass.

It didn’t.

Goodbye $100 million.

And on April 27, goodbye Lombardi as the LSU Board of Supervisors, acquiescing to Jindal’s wishes, unceremoniously fired the LSU president.

A spokesperson for the Board of Regents said that the state only a few years ago provided 70 percent of the funding for state colleges and universities with tuition making up most of the balance. That formula is virtually reversed today with the state providing 40 percent and tuition and other resources providing 60 percent.

This trend toward privatization is not new; it has been taking place for more than a decade, but the implications are only now becoming clear.

As state financial support dwindles and colleges begin implementing double-digit tuition increases, the result is that the school’s mission to provide access to higher education for all suddenly becomes a mission more akin to a private university that caters only to those who can afford it.

Sometimes, even that doesn’t work. When Virginia Commonwealth University bumped its tuition by 24 percent to make up for previous cuts in state appropriations, Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell cut the school’s appropriation even more.

Consequently, as flagships gravitate toward the elitism of privatization, poor and middle-class students are priced out of their institutions and into second-tier schools. This then creates the social stratification of higher education in which the elite colleges are filled with kids from upper income families while kids from poorer backgrounds are relegated to less prestigious schools.

What was it again that Romney said about class warfare? Oh, yes, he said that the Occupy Wall Street protests represented class warfare.

So, when state colleges privatize and their tuition, which currently averages around $7,500 a year (not including room and board), escalates to the private college levels of $25,000 to $40,000 a year, many students who do manage get into those schools will do so only by taking out ever-larger student loans and just who will profit from that?

A few clues:

• Sallie Mae currently has $21 billion in student loans on its books;

• Citi Student Loans, part of Citibank: $5.9 billion;

• Wachovia Education Finance: $5.5 billion;

• Bank of America: $4.9 billion;

• JP Morgan Chase (yes, the one that just reported the $2 billion trading loss): $3.5 billion.

And those loans are guaranteed by the federal government so the lenders are betting on a sure thing, which is more than be said of the students. Even taking the low end of $25,000 tuition plus room and board, a student graduating in four years would exit as a 21- or 22-year-old college graduate, possibly with no job, and with a $150,000 debt (Don’t forget the room and board). Add two years of graduate study and presto! His debt is now $200,000. No wonder he moves back home.

ALEC was ostensibly founded to promote the “Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism and individual liberty.”

One has to wonder if this is what Thomas Jefferson had in mind for his school.

Read Full Post »

‘Governance: A Fable’ – a commentary on threats disguised as progressive political reform personified by Piyush Jindal

Posted in Governor's Office, Higher Education, Uncategorized on May 22, 2012| 16 Comments »

John Lombardi was recently fired from his position as president of the LSU System. The firing, orchestrated by Gov. Piyush Jindal, was primarily the result of Lombardi’s refusal to parrot the party line on funding and because he insisted on being his own man. Whether Lombardi’s management style was best for LSU or not, his firing was just another in a long line of dismissals of anyone who dared think or speak for himself – something simply not allowed by Tsar jindal.

This piece, a classic parody, was written by Lombardi and posted on his blog Inside Higher Ed. Critics say this piece has no moral, no point. We couldn’t disagree more. Only the staunchest Jindal loyalist or someone who has no sense of Louisiana political history could make such a claim.

While we offer no opinion on Lombardi’s tenure at LSU, we nevertheless feel this should be required reading for not only Gov. Piyush Jindal but members of the Legislature as well. Accordingly, we offer it for your edification.

By John V. Lombardi

Imagine a small, developing country of perhaps 3 million people. Like many other small developing countries, our imaginary nation is rich in natural resources, its economy has prospered on the export of agricultural crops and benefited from the revenue generated by petroleum production, refining, and support services. Its history, like some of its counterparts in the developing world, reflects a constant structural economic weakness covered by a colorful culture, truly creative and charming people, and an often dramatic sequence of past events. Civil wars, civilian uprisings, and the failure to compete with more dynamic and successful nations have left our country with a small, wealthy, interbred, and interconnected elite, a growing entrepreneurial middle class, and a large much less prosperous population of rural residents and urban poor.

Riven by cultural conflicts generations old and struggling with an archaic political system, the country periodically falls into the hands of populist demagogues and petty tyrants. In between, often when prosperity strikes, the country’s significant group of responsible leaders seeks to enhance legal and institutional structures to improve its ability to attract and retain internationally competitive economic enterprises, but the periods of responsible leadership fade fast, and the nation reverts to a pattern of clientele government, backroom deals, and populist rhetoric.

Over all, its population remains significantly less educated relative to its peers in nearby nations, although a structure of incentives and subsidies support good education for the children of the growing middle class and the political and economic elite. Other groups of citizens struggle through underfunded and inadequate schools, and those who survive often find themselves excluded from post-secondary opportunities by weak academic preparation and high cost.

Periodically, reformers achieve significant positions, supported by responsible citizen leadership, and demonstrate major improvements in translating the nation’s extensive resources into true economic change and transformational progress. Their efforts, often promising at first, can collapse when confronted with a structure of privilege, relationships, and politics that remains powerful in spite of the considerable achievements of reform-minded citizens. The reformers, confronted by a resurgence of clientele politics, leave the national stage and return to private life, sometimes abroad in more receptive national climates.

In its current incarnation, this small republic operates with a populist authoritarian government led by individuals in search of advancement to more prosperous and internationally significant posts. Their skillful combination of populist rhetoric, economic manipulation of a state dominated economy, and first-world media management has maintained them in power. The regime has taken every opportunity to create illusions of progress by continuously bleeding the nation’s treasury to buy the participation of foreign companies that receive tax-supported subsidies. Their arsenal of management also includes the use of state resources to conclude beneficial contracts with favored national business interests.

When confronted with opposition, the regime mobilizes its sycophantic adherents and paid partisans to discredit, isolate, and eventually drive out any people with an ability or opportunity to address the real issues and consequences of the regime’s behavior. The technique, developed with great political skill, involves three fronts.

The first is the effort to co-opt anyone with an independent perspective. These individuals receive coveted appointments to government boards, association with the regime’s powerful people, and assurances that the regime will protect their business and personal interests. This works quite effectively with some people, although others choose not to participate, and normally responsible individuals become dependents of the regime, bound to provide whatever support the regime requires.

When this strategy fails, as it often does with independent agency officials of some visibility, the regime turns to a form of more direct engagement. In this second mode, representatives of the regime explain to the official that the better tactic for success during these years would involve a collaborative arrangement with the regime. That collaboration would provide support and regime protection for the official, permitting continued leadership of the agency. But to achieve this protection and collaboration, and to ensure that the agreement to work together is of substance, the regime requires a test of loyalty. This loyalty test requires the official to dispose of close associates whose work the regime dislikes. Absent those associates, the regime’s messengers promise but do not guarantee the official a secure role as a significant leader under the regime’s protection.

This message of threat disguised as offer is usually delivered by reputable business leaders associated with the regime who also maintain a relationship with the non-conforming official. Should the official appear at all reluctant, the regime then reinforces the message by mobilizing their most trusted direct political operatives to echo the message.

When this second more direct approach fails, the regime moves to the third stage and mobilizes its dependents, especially those connected in one way or another to the non-conforming official, and identifies a method to remove the dangerous behavior of regime independence. This involves a conspiracy to exile the offending official, preferably to another nation. Recognizing the transparency of this maneuver, the regime activates its media experts and develops a slanderous rationale for the forced exile. A few courageous people object, but others fall silent, for the price of failing to cooperate with the regime is now clearly revealed.

Once the offending official goes into exile, the regime moves quickly to place a reliable regime loyalist in the agency’s leadership role to consolidate control over the formerly independent entity. Its purchased adherents, careful of their economic and personal relationships with the regime, cover the transactions with bureaucratic formalism while creating opportunities for regime favorites to find a home in the now domesticated agency. This completes another cycle of institutional failure.

In the end, of course, the regime’s time is finite due to national restrictions on re-election, and the regime leadership seeks elevation to more significant and visible international settings. However, to make the move to international position, the regime’s key members must desperately manage to cover over the impact of structural inequality, the destructive effects of mismanaging the economy, and the constant need to feed the purchased business and other elite participants who live from government subsidies and contracts.

The challenge is one of timing. Will the regime escape to higher international office before the consequences of their bad management crash the state?

Such fables as these may not match any known reality, but the moral of the story may well be real.

Read Full Post »

Could loss of that $80.6 million broadband internet federal grant last fall have been deliberately orchestrated by ALEC?

Posted in Broadband, Internet, Governor's Office, Grant, Grants, Higher Education, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Regents, Revenue on May 9, 2012| 6 Comments »

That $80.6 million Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) grant to provide high speed broadband internet to rural areas of Louisiana keeps rearing its ugly head.

That’s the grant—the second grant—that Gov. Bobby Jindal eschewed and eventually lost when the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a three-page letter of revocation last October. Jindal had earlier declined to apply for a $60 million grant for early childhood education.

LouisianaVoice has obtained information that indicates the forfeiting of the broadband grant now appears to have been the brainchild of none other than the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which last August bestowed its highest honor, the Thomas Jefferson Freedom Award, on Jindal at ALEC’s national conference in New Orleans.

The project would have created 900 miles of cable over 21 rural parishes in Louisiana and would have supported several Louisiana universities with expanded optical fiber networking capacity that could have complimented the Board of Regents’ $20 million Louisiana Optical Network Initiative (LONI) project, designed to extend high-speed networking capabilities in the state.

But Jindal, whose wife’s charitable foundation received funding from AT&T, preferred that the project be carried out by private companies—such as AT&T. He refused to re-apply for the grant because of what he called a “heavy-handed approach from the federal government that would have undermined and taken over private business.”

U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu called Jindal’s reasoning “hogwash.” She said the grant would not have interfered with private enterprise and in fact, just the opposite was true. “We weren’t trying to create a government broadband system; it’s granting money for private companies to lay the cable,” she said.

Even more ominous, that revocation letter from Arlene Simpson Porter, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Division (NOAA), informed the Jindal administration, “Consideration of this adverse action may be used in future funding decisions for your organization.”

That could mean that Jindal’s decision could be used against the state in any future grant applications.

The problems started March 17, 2011, when BTOP staff informed the Board of Regents that the project was nine months behind schedule. A formal response was requested by May 13, 2011, but on May 17, there still was no formal response and a corrective action plan (CAP) letter was sent to the Board of Regents.

That was followed on May 26 by a conference call between BTOP staff, the Board of Regents and the Division of Administration (DOA) to discuss the CAP response. On June 14, the Board of Regents and DOA issued a response letter in which it was noted that the DOA Office of Information Technology (OIT) would provide project oversight to ensure that implementation of the BTOP grant would not be in direct competition with private providers.

The state was notified on July 6 that it was even further behind on the project and additional problems were encountered on July 12. On July 27, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) requested that NOAA suspend Louisiana’s U.S. Treasury Automated System Application for Payment (ASAP) account pending corrective actions, including delivery of project benefits and compliance with award terms and conditions.

The Board of Regents on Aug. 8 provided BTOP staff with a chart outlining the planning process and goals. A month later, the Regents proposed an alternative design that included a new plan, new project schedule with new structure and milestones and a survey of service providers that would provide unspecified indefeasible right of use (IRU). An IRU is a contractual agreement between operators of communications systems, including fiber optics.

The Regents’ proposal was rejected by NOAA, which on Sept. 20 issued a 30-day notice of termination of award. That was followed by Simpson-Porter’s Oct. 26 termination letter.

Could the loss of the grant have been orchestrated by ALEC? Could the administration have deliberately stalled until the grant was pulled in order to comply with ALEC’s national agenda?

Perhaps we will never know the answer to that, but consider this:

As far back as August of 2010, at ALEC’s annual meeting in San Diego, its Telecommunications & Information Technology Task Force passed the following resolution:

• Whereas, it is the mission of the American Legislative Exchange Council to advance the Jeffersonian principles of the free markets, limited government, federalism and individual liberty, and

• Whereas, broadband information services sector is critical to growing the nation’s economy, enhancing quality of life through new and innovative applications, and enabling greater job creation, and

• Whereas, the rise of private investment in broadband technologies has dramatically transformed the way consumers work, live, learn, and conduct their daily lives, and

• Whereas, ALEC believes that innovation, private investment, and market competition, not additional regulations, should drive the continued deployment and adoption of broadband information services, and

• Whereas, the FCC has moved forward with a plan that would impose its authority on the internet and regulate the provision of broadband information services, and

• Therefore, be it resolved that ALEC voices its support of lawmakers and regulators avoiding the unnecessary, burdensome and economically harmful regulation of broadband internet service companies, including the providers of the infrastructure that supports and enables internet services, and further

• Be it resolved that ALEC urges that the FCC, Congress, and state regulatory and legislative bodies refocus their efforts on specific and limited initiatives targeted at ensuring that broadband service is made universally available and affordable to consumers, rejecting overly prescriptive regulation that would harm innovation, investment, and job growth, and further

• Be it resolved that ALEC’s opposition to the sweeping redefinition of broadband services be communicated to all ALEC members, and further

• Be it resolved that ALEC shall convey its support to the members of the United States Congress and Executive Branch.

The resolution was offered by Intuit, Inc., following a presentation by Eagle Communications on “concerns over federal grants being used to fund businesses to compete head-to-head with broadband service providers in areas that are already being served.” Intuit was one of the corporate members that recently pulled out from ALEC after the controversy over Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, a law strongly supported by ALEC, and the subsequent shooting death of a black youth by a neighborhood watch volunteer.

AT&T and Cox Communications, both major investors in cable TV and internet services, are also members of ALEC. AT&T even serves on ALEC’s corporate board.

Louisiana legislators attending that San Diego conference – at state expense – included:

• Former Rep. John LaBruzzo (R-Metairie);

• Rep. Robert Johnson (D-Marksville);

• Rep. Thomas Carmody (R-Shreveport);

• Rep. Tim Burns (R-Mandeville);

• Rep. Joe Harrison (R-Gray);

• Rep. Bernard LeBas (D-Ville Platte);

• Sen. Yvonne Dorsey (D-Baton Rouge).

Read Full Post »

Jindal’s economic yo-yo has perpetual ups and downs; is Louisiana better than the worst or worse than the best?

Posted in Economy, Education, Exemptions, Incentives, Governor's Office, Higher Education, Prison, Privatization, Revenue, Taxes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 8, 2012| 4 Comments »

If you feel you’ve been getting mixed signals about the need for more state revenue vs. the need for more tax cuts, there’s good reason.

If you’re a bit confused about the fiscal health of the State of Louisiana, you’re certainly not alone.

If you think you can call for budget cuts, college tuition fee increases, and spending freezes in-state and then run around the country and crow to Sean Hannity about how good things are in Louisiana, then you’re Gov. Piyush Jindal.

Only Piyush would insist on having it both ways.

If you have your head out of the sand and are not fooled for one nano-second by his Protestant church appearances and pseudo-reform measures, then you’re a Louisiana voter with at least a modicum of intelligence.

For your edification and in no particular order, we offer the following condensed news items about Louisiana’s economy that have appeared over the past several months. The lone exception to that time frame is the first story that appeared four years ago and which set the stage for those to follow:

• May 2008: Gov. Jindal repeals the Stelly Plan, estimated to cost the state as much as $300 million per year. Jindal said the repeal could save single tax filers as much as $500 per year and joint filers up to $1,000. What he did not say was that single filers would need to make as much as $90,000 and joint filers $150,000 per year to realize the maximum savings.

• July 2011: Louisiana earns a no. 1 ranking for economic development for the third consecutive year from the Southern Business and Development magazine. The Lake Charles American Press said, “Much of that credit belongs to Gov. Bobby Jindal.”

• April 2012: The state’s Revenue Estimating Conference projected a drop in $210 million in revenue for the remainder of the current fiscal year and another $304 million for the 2012-2013 fiscal year. “The problem is the economy, lamented Greg Albrecht, chief economist for the Legislative Fiscal Office.

• October 2011: President Obama should take a cue from Louisiana on job creation, Jindal tells Faux newsman Sean Hannity. “Every year I have been governor, our employment rate has been below the southern and national averages,” he said. “We’ve added 45,000 jobs in economic developments and $10 billion in private capital investments, three years in a row.”

• May 2012: Louisiana’s full-time college students may be forced to pay an extra $300 per semester in new fees to help cover massive budgetary cutbacks by colleges and universities. College tuition costs in Louisiana have increased 30 percent since Jindal took office in 2008.

• April 2012: Even with the state’s budget problems piling up and income projections plummeting, Jindal continues to see his administration through rose-colored glasses. “More people are working in Louisiana than ever before,” he said, citing 44,000 imaginary jobs added over the past year. Sen. Ed Murray, keeping it real, asked, perhaps somewhat rhetorically, “When is our state going to see the positive impact (of the alleged jobs)? We keep having to have budget cuts because revenues are down.”

• June 2011: a reporter writing in the Detroit Free Press noted that Louisiana jumped to No. 1 in Site Selection magazine’s 2011 overall competitiveness ranking in terms of attracting corporate investment. He said Louisiana and Jindal were doing “a lot of smart things to turn (the economy) around.” Comparing Louisiana to Michigan, the reporter said, “If Louisiana could rebound during the downturn of 2008-09, there’s hope here, too.”

• March 2012: Jindal issues Executive Order No. BJ 2012-3 initiating a spending freeze for state agencies pursuant to projected budgetary shortfalls. The spending freeze augments a hiring freeze ordered in July of 2011.

• April 2012: In an email to supporters, Jindal touts a number of industrial expansions in the state. “The bottom line is that Louisiana is on the move,” he said. “Our state is climbing up in the rankings and securing economic development wins that build momentum for a better and more prosperous Louisiana. There’s still work to be done, but we’re making tremendous progress.” Jindal called for continued tax cuts, revamping workforce training programs and “transformative education reforms.” He said Louisiana is taking steps “that signal to the business community that our state is the best place in the world for companies to invest and create jobs.”

• April 2012: Since 2008, the year Jindal took office, Louisiana’s per capita income ranking has soared from 29th in the nation to 28th. The per capita income of $38,578 for the state in 2011 compares to the national average of $41,663. But we are ahead of Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas. We do rank near the top in violent crime, however. While we’re way down at 33rd in rapes, we’re 18th in robbery, 14th in auto theft, 9th in burglary, 4th in assault and—drum roll, please—first in murder. Overall, Louisiana ranks third in violent crime.

• May 2012: Chief Executive magazine announces that CEOs nationwide rank Louisiana as the most improved state for business in the U.S., going from 27th in 2011 to 13th this year. “Since we took office in 2008, we’ve worked tirelessly to create a business environment where companies want to invest and create jobs for our people. We’ve reined in government spending, eliminated job-killing taxes on business, created customized workforce training programs and overhauled our governmental ethics laws.”

• November 2011: The U.S. Census Bureau, in noting that poverty has been on the rise since the 2008 recession, release statistics that show the poverty rate for Louisiana to be 18.8 percent, which is 3.5 percent higher than the national average of 15.3 percent.

• April 2012: Area Development magazine ranks Louisiana No. 6 among the Top States for Doing Business in 2011. Business Facilities magazine named the Louisiana Office of Economic Development’s (LED) FastStart the nation’s best state workforce training program in both 2010 and 2011, calling the Louisiana program “the gold standard for workforce training solutions.”

• May 2012: Legislators are considering whether to use Louisiana’s “rainy day” fund to help offset a $211 million shortfall projected by the Revenue Estimating Conference. “I don’t know that there are a whole lot of options left at this point in time,” said House Speaker Chuck Kleckley (R-Lake Charles). Jindal’s office indicated that the governor would consider using the rainy day money. “We’re prepared to make reductions, but we’re open to different ideas from legislators that part of a balanced budget that doesn’t raise taxes and protects critical services,” said Jindal spokesman Kyle Plotkin.

• April 2012: Pollina Corporate Real Estate names Louisiana the most-improved state in the nation in its ranking of business-friendly states. “We have noticed an increase in the number of companies that are considering a move to the state or want to have the state evaluated as a potential location,” the report said.

• February 2012: Gov. Jindal proposes a $25.5 billion state operating budget that would close prisons, eliminate more than 6,000 state jobs, cut rates for health-care providers who treat the poor and freeze, for a fourth consecutive year, per-public basic state aid to public schools. Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater said a projected $895 million shortfall would mean “holding the line on certain anticipated cost increases.”

• April 2012: Southern Business & Development magazine named Louisiana as the 2011 State of the Year for the third consecutive year. Louisiana earned the highest project score per capita in the magazine’s history.

• April 2012: Rep. John Schroder (R-Covington), questioned the lack of accountability in allowing LED to offer increased tax breaks for payroll, relocation costs and corporate income and franchise taxes for businesses the state wants to attract. “It looks like we just give sort of a blank check to the Department of Economic Development, and it doesn’t come from their money. It comes from the treasury,” he said. The various state tax exemptions have cost Louisiana more than $18 billion over the past four years.

Incentives already offered by LED include Enterprise Zone, Quality Jobs, Restoration Tax Abatement, Industrial Tax Exemption, Research and Development Tax Credit, Sound Recording Investor Tax Credit, Digital Medial Incentive, Motion Picture Investor Tax Credit, Live Performance Tax Credit, Louisiana FastStart, Technology Commercialization Credit and Jobs Program, Modernization Tax Credit, Small Business Loan Program, Micro Loan Program, Bonding Assistance Program, Veteran Initiative and Mentor-Protégé Tax Credit.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »