Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Lobbyist’ Category

π-yush’s alter-ego Timmy Teepell denies knowlege of ALEC agenda while Foster Campbell rips his boss for tax proposals

Posted in ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, Budget, Campaign Contributions, Congress, Economy, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, Politicians, Revenue, Taxes, Vitter on January 23, 2013| 3 Comments »

Last March, Piyush Jindal’s alter-ego Timmy Teepell (or would it be the other way around?) was a guest on the Jim Engster’s Show on Baton Rouge’s public radio station WRKF and in the course of that interview he denied any knowledge of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) agenda.

Another guest on Engster’s show, Public Service Commission Chairman Foster Campbell, this week took Jindal, the legislature and the entire Louisiana congressional delegation to task for not displaying sufficient backbone to back Jindal down on his proposals to eliminate the personal and corporate income taxes in favor of a 3 cent state sales tax increase.

Campbell instead called for the passage of a 3 percent processing tax on oil and gas which he said would generate $3 billion a year “and let the people who can afford a tax pay it.”

When one reads ALEC’s 5th anniversary edition of Rich States, Poor States http://www.alec.org/publications/rich-states-poor-states/, one has to wonder at the veracity of Teepell’s claim. The annual report devotes 15 of its 125 pages to demonstrating how bad personal income taxes for states’ economies—and that’s before it even gets to the five-page chapter entitled Policy #1: The Personal Income Tax.

Even after that chapter, state personal income taxes are mentioned at least once on 64 of the next 75 pages.

Likewise, corporate income taxes are also discussed on 10 separate pages before Policy #2: The Corporate Income Tax, another five-page chapter. Corporate income taxes are then mentioned on 56 of the remaining 80 pages.

As if that were not enough, Rich States, Poor States also zeroes in on its favorite tax, the sales tax. “We find that sales taxes have a neutral effect on state economies and therefore are a far preferable means for a state to raise needed revenue,” it said in the first paragraph of Policy #3, entitled (you guessed it) The Sales Tax.

In all, sales taxes are invoked on no fewer than 74 of the 125-page report which boasts that ALEC’s tax and fiscal policy is “to prioritize government spending, to lower the overall tax burden, to enhance transparency of government operations, and to develop sound, free-market tax and fiscal policy.”

And Teepell is unaware of this agenda. Really?

“When policymakers choose the levels and types of taxes for their state, they must confront not only the possible effects on the state economy, but the volatility of tax receipts as well,” the report says. “When tax receipts are volatile, that usually means an abnormally large shortfall of revenues when times are tough and spending needs are the greatest.”

Incredibly, the report claims that revenue generated from sales taxes “is the least affected by the boom and bust cycle—in fact, sales tax revenue changes only half as much as revenue from personal and corporate income taxes do.

“Not only does the sales tax do less to inhibit growth, it is a steady revenue source even during a recession,” says the report.

Then, ripping a page right of the Milton Friedman playbook, the report says, “Progressive corporate and personal income taxes do far more damage to the economy than do other taxes such as sales taxes, property taxes and severance taxes. In addition, they (income taxes) are substantially less reliable than those other taxes. How’s that for sound tax policy?”

Well, certainly inflicting a regressive sales tax on Louisiana’s poor is considerably more reliable than corporate income taxes when one considers all the tax breaks, exemptions and rebates this administration hands out to the tune of about $5 billion a year to corporate contributors.

But to address the sophomoric question, “How’s that for sound tax policy?” we turn to another publication entitled Selling Snake Oil to the States: The American Legislative Exchange Council’s Flawed Prescriptions for Prosperity.

A joint publication of Good Jobs First and The Iowa Policy Project, The November Snake Oil report takes ALEC to task for its Rich States, Poor States publication which, as might be expected, is heavily weighted in favor of its corporate membership.

“We conclude that the evidence cited to support Rich States, Poor States’ policy menu ranges from deeply flawed to non-existent,” Snake Oil says. “Subjected to scrutiny, these policies are revealed to explain nothing about why some states have created more jobs or enjoyed higher income growth than others over the past five years.

“In actuality, Rich States, Poor States provides a recipe for economic inequality, wage suppression and stagnant incomes and for depriving state and local governments of the revenue needed to maintain the public infrastructure and education systems that are true foundations of long term economic growth and shared prosperity,” it said.

The Snake Oil report said that results actually reflect just the opposite of the ALEC claims. “The more a state’s policies mirrored the ALEC low-tax/regressive taxation/limited government agenda, the lower the median family income; this is true for every year from 2007 through 2011.”

Jindal was elected in 2007 and took office in 2008 and his policies, Teepell’s denial notwithstanding, have certainly mirrored the ALEC low-tax/regressive taxation/limited government agenda and the state’s infrastructure and education systems just as certainly have suffered under staggering budgetary cuts.

Louisiana’s average median household income of $42,423 for 2010 was the nation’s 10th lowest and 29 percent of Louisiana’s children live in poverty, second only to Mississippi’s 32 percent.

The state’s working poor already pay little or no income tax, so elimination of the state income tax would have no effect on them. A sales tax increase, however, would hit the poor the hardest because they would be paying the same taxes on diapers, clothing, cars, gasoline, appliances and automobiles as the wealthy. Accordingly, they would be paying a much larger percentage of their income in sales taxes than higher income families.

Campbell, a former state senator and an unsuccessful candidate for governor in 2007, was elected chairman of the Public Service Commission last year.

Accustomed to being a political lightning rod for his candor, Campbell was in rare form on Engster’s show on Tuesday, saying that Jindal typically works for the benefit of big companies and corporations. “He’ll do anything he can to help those at the top end of the income bracket.”

Appearing to consciously avoid referring to Jindal as governor, he said, “Mr. Jindal knows the solution. When I ran for governor, I wanted to get rid of the income tax which I still think we ought to do. Progressive states like Florida and Tennessee don’t have state income taxes and neither does Texas. They seem to be doing better than us. But you have to replace it with something and Mr. Jindal knows what to replace it with but you couldn’t get him close to it.

“Mr. Jindal wouldn’t touch the oil companies and that’s where to get the money. We just need some politicians with some plain old-fashioned guts to ask ‘em to pay their fair share. I’ve never seen anyone stand up to the oil companies. We don’t have a congressman who’ll do it. Mary Landrieu won’t do it. David Vitter is joined at the hip with them and he absolutely won’t do it.

“Mr. Jindal would run out of the Capitol screaming if you asked him to touch Exxon with a tax,” Campbell said.

Campbell, a Democrat, then heaped praise on Louisiana’s first Republican governor since Reconstruction.

“The most honest governor by far, who tried to do the right thing, was Dave Treen. When he ran against Louis Lambert (in 1979), business and industry supported him but when he went after the oil companies, they all turned on him and put Edwards back in,” he said.

“He was absolutely right when he had the Coastal Wetlands Environmental Levy (CWEL) and he wanted some kind of fee from the oil companies for tearing up our coast.

“I like oil companies for furnishing jobs,” he said. “That’s great. But we have let the oil companies absolutely take over our state, damage our coastline and never asked them to pay for it.

The BP spill, bad as it was, was miniscule compared to the damage oil companies have done to our coastline and all our congressional delegation wants to do is go ask Obama to pay for the coastal restoration and Mr. Vitter (U.S. Sen. David Vitter is the leading cheerleader for that. The government didn’t drill the wells and Mr. Vitter knows that but he doesn’t want to ask the people he’s close to to pay for the damage. And neither does Ms. Landrieu. You see the ads on TV praising Ms. Landrieu. Do you know who’s paying for those ads? The oil companies.”

“We need to ask the oil companies who are making billions to pay something rather than asking the people of Louisiana which has (one of the) poorest populations in the nation. Rather than asking people at the bottom to pay the big end of the tax, why doesn’t Mr. Jindal ask companies like Exxon, Chevron, and Shell to pay their fair share? Fifty percent of the coastal erosion in this state is caused by offshore activity.

“In 1926, when we put it into the constitution, we could tax only domestic oil. That was fine back then when 95 percent of our oil was domestic. Today, it’s 96 percent foreign and 4 percent domestic.

“We have to tax oil and gas coming into the state of Louisiana,” he said. “I agree with Mr. Jindal that we need to eliminate the severance tax because it has been dwindling anyway since the ‘80s. Instead of the severance tax, charge a simple 3 percent processing tax which would raise $3 billion a year.

Campbell said former Gov. Buddy Roemer wants to tax oil that’s still in the ground. “That won’t generate the money. I asked Roemer, Edwards and (Mike) Foster (about the 3 percent processing fee) but they wouldn’t help.

“I guarantee you it would pass by 80 percent. Mr. Kennedy (State Treasurer John Kennedy) knows that, Mr. Roemer, Mr. Jindal and especially Mr. (Dan) Juneau, the head of LABI (Louisiana Association of Business and Industry), know it. Mr. Juneau cannot stand a processing tax because the people who pay his bills don’t want it.”

Campbell said, “It’s the LABIs of the world who represent the big companies doing business up and down the Mississippi. LABI is not worried about the Mindens, the Homers, the Farmervilles, the Ringgolds, the Mansfields or the Rustons of Louisiana. They’re worried about the Chevrons, the Dows, the Exxons. Those are the people who put up the big money.

“Legislators who consistently vote with LABI are not representing their districts because LABI could care less about them.

“That’s who Mr. Jindal is dancing to. That’s why he wants to raise the sales tax on the people. Don’t put it on the oil companies that make billions,” he said in mocking the administration line. “They can’t afford it. They might leave the state.

“How are they going leave the state when they have 50,000 miles of pipeline that deliver oil and gas all across America? And they have the Mississippi River! They can’t leave the state. We need politicians with backbone who’ll say, ‘Now listen, you’ve had a great day in Louisiana, but it’s over. We have crumbling roads, poor education, pollution, a torn-up coast and now you’re gonna pay your fair share. Now get out there and start crying that you’re gonna leave the state and we’ll see what the people believe.’”

At that point, Engster finally got to ask, “Are you a member of LABI?”

“Absolutely not. They don’t represent small business. They say they do but they represent the big boys. Never forget that. Mr. Juneau takes his orders from the boys that put up the most money. They don’t worry about the hardware store in Mansfield. They say they do, but they’re fooling those people. They represent the biggest of the big, nothing more, nothing less.

“That’s who Mr. Jindal represents. Look what he’s doing: raising the sales tax on the poorest people living in America—and make sure, by the way, to get rid of corporate taxes.

“You haven’t heard Mr. Jindal say one word about Exxon paying its fair share and you won’t because he’s in their back pocket.

“Mr. Vitter won’t say anything about fixing our coast because he’s in their back pocket.

“Ms. Landrieu won’t say that because she’s in their back pocket.”

LouisianaVoice did a quick check of campaign contributions and found that Campbell may have been onto something when he talked about a lack of courage by the legislature and the congressional delegation and Jindal’s being beholden to the oil and gas industry.

Oil and gas interests contributed more than $1.5 million to 143 state candidates, including legislators and statewide elected officials since 2003, including Jindal, Kennedy, Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne, former Lt. Gov. and current New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, Commissioner of Agriculture Mike Strain and former Secretary of Natural Resources and current Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle.

Moreover, oil and gas contributed more than $1.75 million to six of Louisiana’s seven congressmen since 2002 and $1.99 million to the state’s two U.S. senators since 1996.

The breakdown for the congressional delegation, with the dates each was first elected in parentheses is as follows:

Senate:

• Mary Landrieu (1996)—$940,174;

• David Vitter (2004)—$1.05 million’

House:

• Steve Scalise (2008)—$257,785;

• Charles Boustany (2004)—$641,605;

• John Fleming (2008)—$405,450;

• Rodney Alexander (2002)—$254,559;

• Bill Cassidy (2008)—$194,300;

• Cedric Richmond (2010)—$0

Read Full Post »

Notable Quotables (in their own words)

Posted in Attorney General, BESE, Charters, Education, Ethics, Governor's Office, Lobbyist on January 20, 2013| 9 Comments »

“Thomas Ratliff’s presence on the State Board of Education is not legal because of his being a registered lobbyist.”

—Opinion by the Texas Attorney General’s Office on the legality of a Texas registered lobbyist’s serving on the State Board of Education. Louisiana lobbyist Steve Waguespack was appointed by Gov. Piyush Jindal on Friday to membership on the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education even though his law firm advertises on the web of its expertise in working with charter schools and school reform advocates. Louisiana has no such ethics laws prohibiting such appointments despite Jindal’s claim to having the most ethical administration in Louisiana history.

Read Full Post »

π-yush appointment of lobbyist Steve Waguespack to BESE appears to be rife with ethics questions, conflicts of interest

Posted in BESE, Education, Ethics, Governor's Office, Lobbyist on January 19, 2013| 6 Comments »

When Gov. Piyush Jindal named his former chief of staff and executive counsel Steve Waguespack to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) on Thursday, he may have created something of an ethical dilemma—if this were Texas.

It’s not, of course. It’s Louisiana and in Louisiana, anything goes with the most ethical, most transparent, most accountable administration in Louisiana history.

Waguespack resigned as Jindal’s chief of staff last October to join the New Orleans law firm Jones Walker. He also registered with the Louisiana Board of Ethics as a lobbyist, listing as his clients Jones Walker, LLP, Periscope Holdings, Inc. of Austin, Texas, and Loop Garou Entertainment of New Orleans.

For the first two, he is registered as a lobbyist of both the legislative and executive branches of state government while for Loop Garou, he is registered only to lobby the executive branch, or governor’s office.

His employer, Jones Walker, meanwhile, is also registered with the Ethics Board as a lobbyist firm and lists is sole representative as one Stephen Michael Waguespack.

A visit to the Jones Walker web page raises the specter of an ethics gray area for Waguespack.

“Jones Walker represents universities and other educational institutions, both public and private, with enrollment ranging from several dozen students to more than 50,000 students,” the web page boasts.

The text below the bold-face heading “School and Education Advocacy Group” on the web page provided the real eye-opener, however.

It noted that Jones Walker’s work in the area of education “has extended to charter schools and other secondary education institutions” (emphasis ours).

The firm’s relevant experience, it said, “includes representing local school boards and charter school operations and management organizations before the Louisiana Department of Education and the Louisiana Board of Secondary and Elementary Education.”

Jones Walker formed a School and Education Law and Advocacy (SELA) Group which it claims “has the resources, reputation, knowledge and experience to serve as a valuable resource to charter schools, charter school management organizations and to non-government organizations at the forefront of the education reform movement.”

In Texas, Subsection 7.103(c) of the Texas Education Code “precludes certain registered lobbyists from serving on the State Board of Education.”

Specifically, that statute says, “A person who has been retained to communicate directly with the legislative or executive branch to influence legislation or administrative action in or on behalf of a profession, business, or association on a matter that pertains to or is associated or connected with any of the statutorily enumerated powers or duties of the Board is not eligible to serve on the Board.” Thus, a registered lobbyist who has been paid to lobby the legislative or executive branch on a matter relating to Board business is ineligible to serve on the Board.”

So, in essence, what we have is a former high-ranking member of Piyush Jindal’s inner circle who is now employed as a lobbyist for a law firm that specializes in working with school boards, charter schools and non-government organizations “at the forefront of the education reform movement” who has just been appointed to serve on the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, which is “at the forefront of the education reform movement” and has among other things, the responsibility of acting on charter school applications.

There is no law in Louisiana such as exists in Texas, so while there may be a moral obstacle there is no legal prohibition to Jindal’s making such an appointment—even if it does smack of questionable ethics and downright arrogance. It’s in-your-face politics at its worst by a man who hides behind a cloak of self-righteousness, sanctimony and piety.

One nagging question: is Piyush’s tendency to recycle the same tired old names in and out of his revolving door indicative that his circle of loyal supporters is contracting in size to such an extent that he now finds it impossible to reach out to new names he can trust to fill vacancies?

The resignation this week of executive counsel Gary Graphia may also reveal cracks in the foundation of the House of Jindal. Graphia resigned after only about three months on the job but his sudden departure is most significant in the spin the governor’s office tried to put on it.

It was almost as if Piyush spokesman Kyle Plotkin was trying too hard to make nice in his announcement to Press Release Central.

Plotkin, ever true to his boss, insisted—perhaps too sincerely—that Graphia’s leaving was “amicable,” adding for good measure that he was “leaving on good terms.”

Finally, making one last stab of convincing those who never asked, Plotkin said Graphia’s brief stay was attributable to “a transition period” for the governor’s office.

Well, silly us, we thought the “transition period” for the governor’s office was that three months between Jindal’s first being elected way back October of 2007 and his inauguration in January of 2008.

And remember, it was Jindal who called a special session of the Legislature immediately upon taking office in 2008 for the purpose of adopting those so-called sweeping ethics law changes and it was Jindal—and Waguespack, Teepell, et al—who directed the drafting, introduction and passage of Piyush’s radical education reform package last year.

If those education “reforms” turn out to be as big a joke as the ethics reform, well then perhaps, as someone once said, we really do get the government we deserve.

Many years ago Walt Kelly’s beloved Pogo told us, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Read Full Post »

The π-yush nullification whirlwind tour: is Florida next on his judicial revenge itinerary? LouisianaVoice will follow

Posted in ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, Campaign Contributions, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, Politicians on September 27, 2012| 7 Comments »

Piyush Jindal is still on his whirlwind tour of New Hampshire to attend a Republican breakfast and Iowa to campaign against a state supreme court judge who had the audacity to help make unanimous a ruling that the state’s one man-one woman marriage law was unconstitutional but now Jindal may already be planning another jaunt—this time to Florida to take on three more state supreme court judges.

Apparently there are simply no more problems in Louisiana that demand his attention so he is free to look elsewhere. Nice to know everything is under control here.

Though nothing official has come from Jindal’s office, the atmosphere appears favorable for him to charge into the state on his noble steed in concert with David Koch to rescue the state and Gov. Rick Scott from the evil judges who were part of a 5-2 majority that blocked an unconstitutional ballot initiative seeking to nullify the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare).

The Tea Party group Americans for Prosperity, chaired by David Koch of Koch Industries, the driving force behind the American Legislative Exchange Council, joined the Florida Republican Party’s effort to remove the three judges, which would give Gov. Scott, a Tea Party member, control over nearly half the court.

“Many states, like Ohio, gave their citizens the right to vote against the Affordable Care Act,” sniffed the Americans for Prosperity, sounding like a true victim, “but not Florida. Our own supreme court denied our right to choose for ourselves. Shouldn’t our courts protect our rights to choose?”

First of all, the Florida Supreme Court’s decision had nothing to do with denying anyone’s “right to choose.” The decision was to remove the unconstitutional ballot initiative after the initiative’s own defenders admitted that the ballot language was misleading so the court’s decision simply said that voters should be able to understand what they are voting for before they cast ballots.

Even more important, however, is that the Koch group, by supporting the ballot initiative, is also endorsing a questionable constitutional theory known as “nullification.” Because the Constitution provides that duly enacted federal laws “shall be the supreme law of the land,” states do not have the authority to block or supersede an Act of Congress such as the Affordable Care Act, whether through a ballot initiative or otherwise.

Nullification was last in vogue with the nineteenth century slaveholders and Civil Rights era segregationists. But the Tea Partiers have revived the concept and the Florida judges apparently hurt their feelings.

Tea Party self-appointed historian Tom Woods has published a book defending nullification. Of course he also once published an article describing the Confederacy as “Christendom’s Last Stand.”

So now Americans for Prosperity and Koch desire to punish three judges for putting the law above conservative ideology. They are hellbent on turning over Florida’s highest court to the Tea Party governor. If successful, this campaign will send a chilling message to every elected judge in the country (Louisiana’s judges are elected) that they can adhere to the Constitution at their own peril.

Sounds like a perfect opportunity for Piyush. After all, his most recent trips just happen to be in the states where the nation’s first presidential primary and first presidential caucuses are held. And Florida is almost certain to be a swing state in future elections.

Too bad Piyush doesn’t realize that his political fortunes are sinking faster than that big hole in Assumption Parish.

Read Full Post »

π-yush Jindal’s Revamp of LSU Health System reveals his obsession with destroying everything with ‘public’ label

Posted in Boards, Campaign Contributions, Commissions, Contract, Contracts, Governor's Office, Health Care, Higher Education, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, LSU, Privatization, Teague on September 16, 2012| 9 Comments »

When the LSU Medical Center, aka Charity Hospital of New Orleans, was closed for good following Hurricane Katrina, then-Gov. Kathleen Blanco managed to gain a legislative appropriation of $300 million for the construction of a new University Medical Center. The state secured another $475 million from the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) for the project.

Originally approved to “serve the public purpose,” the mission of the new $1 billion facility quickly changed from a public to private purpose after Gov. Piyush Jindal was inaugurated in January of 2008.

There are several problems with this scenario, however.

First, a private board was created with a purpose to support the educational research mission of LSU, according to the board’s bylaws. Then, the board, known as the University Medical Center Management Corp. (UMCMC), had to be appropriately stacked with members favorable to Jindal. That took a little chicanery, but it was done.

When the makeup of the 11-member board was finally agreed upon, seven of the members, their family members and businesses turned out to be major contributors to Jindal, combining to give nearly $205,000.

Those seven include;

• Robert Yarborough of Baton Rouge—$73,500;

• Donald T. “Boysie” Bollinger of Lockport—$58,850;

• David R. Voelker of New Orleans—$45,000;

• Thomas A. “Tim” Barfield of Baton Rouge (recently appointed by Jindal as Secretary of the Department of Revenue)—$15,000;

• Dr. Christopher J. Rich of Alexandria—$5,500;

• Stanley Jacobs of New Orleans—$5,000;

• Darryl Berger of New Orleans—$1,000.

Additionally, three of the seven contributed more than $157,000 to Believe in Louisiana, a political slush fund set up for Jindal’s use by Rolfe McCollister, former Jindal campaign manager and publisher of the Baton Rouge Business Report. Those include:

• Bollinger—$125,000;

• Voelker—$25,000;

• Yarborough—$7,700.

While the stated purpose of the board is to support the education and research mission of LSU, the board does not include anyone directly involved in education and research at LSU, and requests by then-LSU President John Lombardi to appoint such individuals were rejected by the governor’s office.

Board members and Jindal spokespersons have consistently asserted the need for the board to be “independent” of LSU, which is not consistent with the public function of the hospital. To construct the new hospital, considerable private property in downtown New Orleans was expropriated, or taken at market value for the overall good of the public. Private entities are forbidden by law to expropriate property—for any purpose.

So, that naturally brings up the question of what happens to all that property that was expropriated in the name of LSU and University Medical Center for the good of the public?

Before the first meeting of the Jindal dominated UMCMC board the chairperson, who was appointed by Lombardi and who had the fault of being loyal to LSU and not to Jindal (read: no campaign contributions), was replaced by Jindal loyalist, Bobby Yarborough.

Color her teagued.

Yarborough, owner of Manda Fine Meats of Baton Rouge, served as campaign finance chairman for Jindal’s gubernatorial campaign. He now is not only chairman of UMCMC, but also chairman of the LSU Board of Supervisors, which oversees the LSU medical system.

On Aug. 28, 2009, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for governance of the UMC was unanimously approved by Jindal’s hand-picked LSU Board of Supervisors. The MOU was signed by Jindal, then-Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) Secretary Alan Levine, John Lombardi and Tulane University President Dr. Scott Cowen.

Though there was a MOU, there has never been an agreement between the administration, LSU, DHH and the legislature whereby the legislature authorized a private corporation to manage this public hospital.

Original plans called for the new facility to be the primary teaching hospital of the LSU Health Sciences Center in New Orleans and to also serve as a teaching affiliate of Tulane University School of Medicine.

The business plan for the medical center called for a three-year construction period with opening in 2015 with clinical education and research activities now being provided at the Interim LSU Hospital to be transferred to the new hospital upon completion.

With drastic reductions already implemented and more planned at the Interim LSU Public Hospital (ILH), one has to wonder what the board and the governor’s plan is to meet the expectations outlined in the business plan approved by the legislature.

That plan depends on continued care for the insured and includes the assumption that Medicaid coverage for the poor would expand under ObamaCare. Now the governor is headed in the other direction: cutting services at ILH and rejecting the Medicaid expansion.

Can he tell us what the new plan is? How will this private entity fulfill its public mission to provide care and to support the education and research missions of LSU? It is an issue worth following, particularly since those involved in crafting the original agreements for LSU—Lombardi, Cerise and Townsend—have all been teagued.

Those personnel changes are not surprising, given the fact that the administration makes a habit of regularly calling LSU Board of Supervisors members, even during meetings, with instructions on what to say and what not to say.

That practice would appear to fly in the face of oft-repeated claims by Jindal—particularly in his many out-of-state appearances at fund raisers and television interview shows—that his is the “most transparent,” most open and accountable administration in Louisiana history.

It does, however, appear to dovetail with his growing reputation of micro-managing all facets of state government, his propensity to take a dim view of dissent and to fire or demote any subordinate who disagrees with him, be they employees, cabinet members or legislators.

Now, he has ordered a new round of deep budget cuts for seven public hospitals in south Louisiana. The new directive calls for budgets to be slashed by 34.5 percent.

Significantly, the closure of any hospital or emergency room or any cut of 35 percent or more requires the concurrence of the legislature. The 34.5 percent cut manages to conveniently fall just below that plateau.

Legislators already are showing signs of frustration and discontent in the manner in which the administration is keeping them out of the loop in the decision-making process regarding the LSU system’s 10 statewide teaching hospitals that provide health care to Louisiana’s poor.

The 34.5 percent cutbacks are likely to result in the loss of up to 400 of the 1500 resident doctors at the 10 hospitals across the state, which can also cause yet another problem: the disposition of the contracts between those doctors and the state.

The administration’s belief that private hospitals would take those residents could be a miscalculation with serious legal ramifications.

The administration has already put staff and employees on notice at LSU Medical Center in Shreveport, E.A. Conway Medical Center in Monroe and the Huey P. Long Medical Center in Pineville/Alexandria that a request for proposals (RFP) will be issued “for the purpose of exploring public-private partnerships for the LSUHSC-S affiliated hospitals.”

Jindal’s latest ploy of keeping cuts half-a-percent below the level requiring legislative approval is not likely to sit well with many lawmakers, particularly those in districts served by the hospitals which both employ and treat constituents.

All of this is to say that the current state of the LSU health care system is one big mess, thanks in no small part to a state administration with chronic tunnel vision, a compliant LSU Board of Supervisors comprised exclusively of political cronies, and the loss through firings and reassignments of capable administrators.

Louisiana—and LSU—deserve better.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »