Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Politicians’ Category

It might be understandable if critics of Piyush Jindal were somewhat smug after revelations that he lobbied—practically begged—to be chosen for vice president or at least be awarded a cabinet position in the Mitt Romney administration during the Republican nominee’s unsuccessful campaign for president.

Piyush, after all, kept feeding us that asinine line that he had the job he wanted and that he wasn’t interested in higher office. He even went so far as to say he would not accept a cabinet position which seemed odd, given that he had not been offered one.

The Daily Mail, a British publication which somehow seems to provide better coverage of Washington than our own media, has a story that quotes a Romney insider as saying Romney’s biggest post-election critic, one Piyush Jindal, “wanted very, very much to be Vice President.”

Of course, we in Louisiana who know him best knew that all along; he couldn’t wait to take the first flight out of Baton Rouge headed for the Beltway. We knew it, he knew it, the media knew it but still he tried to play coy with us, a tactic he is not very good at—in fact, is downright clumsy. Diplomacy is not his forte; never has been, never will be.

What he is good at, however, is taking Louisiana citizens—those who twice entrusted the state’s highest office to him—for idiots who were too stupid to see through that façade of sincerity, that veneer of humility, that false mask of concern for the people of this state.

None of it is—or ever was—real. We’ve been beating that drum for more than two years now and the message finally seems to be getting through. This guy is not to be trusted—not with our lives, our health care, our education (public and higher), our prisons, our taxes, our economy, and certainly not with all those political appointments to his campaign contributors.

• We sat idly by as he systematically undermined the state’s infrastructure by giving away billions of dollars in tax breaks, incentives, and credits to corporate entities.

• We have watched him rape public education in the name of reform, all the while, bringing in unqualified administrators at six-figure salaries, some of whom are allowed to work from their homes in other states.

• We have seen him abandon higher education to survive by its own devices (read: tuition increases which hurt those least able to absorb the financial pain).

• We have witnessed him as he turned his back on hundreds of thousands of Louisiana citizens in need of health care by implementing ruthless budget cuts to and in some cases, closing state hospitals and clinics.

• We have stood on the sidelines as he closed prisons after being thwarted in attempts to privatize those facilities.

• We have watched as he privatized state agencies, one of which amassed a $500 million fund balance while efficiently managing state employee health insurance claims.

• We have observed over and over how he has shamelessly courted the national media while ignoring requests from Louisiana media for interviews and comments.

All these actions (he refers to them as “reforms” when he appears on those frequent network news interviews) have cost thousands of Louisiana citizens jobs which in turn have cost them their benefits. He even boasts on those interviews of the jobs he has eliminated, failing to mention the has-been legislators he has appointed to six-figure state administrative jobs—jobs for which they are completely unqualified in every respect.

And, of course, when anyone disagrees with him, be it a state employee, an administrative official, a college president, an attorney, a doctor or even a legislator, he or she is immediately fired or demoted, a practice that has come to be known in Louisiana as teagued.

He has run up more than $100,000 in costs for state police security alone while flitting from state to state, from network news show to network news show, raising campaign money, promoting his book on leadership (what irony!), campaigning for other Republicans, and more recently, lecturing the national Republican Party on becoming more lovable, more touchy-feely.

But sometimes when one bites the hand that feeds him, it can bite back.

Former Romney aides have outed those “craven hypocrites” whom they say only days before the Nov. 6 election were in a virtual feeding frenzy over desired cabinet positions in the Romney administration that, it turned out, was never to be.

“I’m sure Gov. Romney is finding out now who his real friends are,” one aide was quoted as saying. “There were one or two well-known figures who were late committing to support him, who were the most eager to curry favor when it looked like we would win and who are now out there trashing the governor,” the aide added.

That would be our boy Piyush and Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich was late in joining the party because he was seeking the nomination in his own right. Piyush, you may recall, was lightning quick with his endorsement of Texas Gov. Rick Perry before that ill-fated campaign cratered.

When the train wrecks formerly known as the Gingrich and Perry campaigns tanked, Gingrich and Piyush saw the Romney parade headed down the street and jumped in front, yelling, “Follow me!”

Romney former foreign policy adviser Dan Senor told MSNBC, “In politics, when you win, you are a genius and when you lose everyone calls you an idiot. But to see the way certain craven hypocrites are acting right now really sticks in the craw.”

Senor, by the way, is the son-in-law of former Louisiana Secretary of State and Insurance Commissioner Jim Brown.

Senor said “leading figures” were cozying up to Romney in Ohio days before the election, trying to land cabinet positions.

Piyush made national headlines with his criticism of the Romney campaign within days of his loss to President Obama. He turned on Romney like a junkyard dog would attack an unsuspecting intruder.

And that may be more than an analogy; Piyush, the incoming head of the Republican Governors’ Association, obviously now considers himself as the titular head of the party and the one anointed as its official spokesman.

Who better, after all, to criticize than a sitting governor who won 67 percent of 20 percent of the vote in last year’s gubernatorial election? That’s right, the darling of the Republican Party could coax only 20 percent of the electorate to the polls as 80 percent of the state’s voters yawned themselves into a state of catatonic indifference. Of course, his $9 million in campaign funds bowled over an unknown school teacher from north Louisiana who had only about $25,000. What would one expect?

Still, she got 17 percent of that 20 percent turnout. He called it a mandate. We call it swatting a gnat with a meat cleaver.

So now, he lectures Republicans on how not to write off 47 percent of the voters but to strive to attract “one hundred percent of the votes.”

Does anyone else see the irony here?

But oddly, it’s not smugness we feel as we watch this little drama being played out in the national, indeed international, media.

Instead, it’s a continued sense of sadness and embarrassment for the state and its people.

We deserve better than petty, petulant Piyush.

Read Full Post »

“I am on record as pro-life, pro-gun and pro-traditional marriage. I’m personally in favor of the death penalty.”

—District Court Judge Jeff Hughes, on his personal philosophy he hopes will catapult him to the State Supreme Court where he may someday be called upon to rule on those issues.

“Not money, but money in the wrong place: describe the architecture of incentive, and people will infer the causation.”

—Lawrence Lessing, in his book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It.

Read Full Post »

Things are not always as they seem.

Take those flag-waving, gun-loving, pro-traditional marriage, pro-life, pro-death penalty TV ads that helped propel one Jefferson Davis Hughes into the Dec. 8 runoff for the 5th District Louisiana State Supreme Court seat being vacated by the retirement of Chief Justice Kitty Kimball.

To see and hear those ads, one could reasonably come to the conclusion that Hughes is the epitome of American conservative values and that he personally was responsible for the patriotic revolution that freed the colonies from the British Crown.

One of the distasteful ads opens with the portentous voiceover saying in an appropriately ominous tone, “President Obama would never appoint Jeff Hughes to the Louisiana Supreme Court” as if that fact alone qualified him for the office—never mind the fact that Obama appoints none of the State Supreme Court justices.

That stunning opening statement is followed by the pronouncement, complete with all the patriotic fervor the unseen voice can muster that Hughes is pro-gun, pro-life, pro-traditional marriage. And while the ad doesn’t say so, Hughes announced at a recent forum held by the Baton Rouge League of Women Voters that he also supports the death penalty.

Thanks in large part to those slick, misty-eyed, lump-in-the-throat tributes to all that is good and holy, Hughes, with the obligatory “R” behind his name, will face Democrat Circuit Judge John Michael Guidry in next month’s runoff election.

Guidry, who chose to rely on a tactic unheard of in today’s age of electronic media and expensive political consultants/pollsters—public forums and face-to-face campaigning—had no TV ads and yet still managed to finish first in the field of eight candidates with 93,119 votes (27 percent) to 71,911 (21 percent) for Hughes.

The Hughes ads led to the question of propriety on his part because, as Baton Rouge Advocate writer Bill Lodge correctly pointed out, part of Canon 7 of the Louisiana Code of Judicial Conduct stipulates that neither a judge nor a judicial candidate shall make “any statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a mater pending in any Louisiana state court.”

And while gay marriage and gun bans have not yet made it into the Louisiana legal system, there is nothing to say they won’t. Abortion and the death penalty, however, certainly have been raised in the state’s court system.

The question then becomes, did Hughes cross the line in expressing his personal beliefs and prejudices when a judge—at any level, from city court to State Supreme Court—is charged with enforcing the law in total disregard of his own political philosophy?

In our opinion, he stepped far over that line. We feel it is entirely inappropriate for a judge to campaign like a typical political candidate—because he is not. Judges are held, necessarily, to a much higher standard—and they should be. Politicians by their nature are expected to pander to the electorate; judges, on the other hand, are supposed to be fair and impartial in administering the laws—with heavy emphasis on fair and impartial. To express a political stand so charged with controversy and legal interpretation during a campaign taints the entire judiciary.

Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a typical 5-4 split, has ruled otherwise. The Minnesota Supreme Court’s canon of judicial conduct likewise prohibited judicial candidates from advancing their views during campaigns for office but the nation’s high court said that violates the First Amendment right to free speech.

But remember, too, that the U.S. Supreme Court also gave us the Citizens United decision that says corporations are people and are thus free to make unlimited and unreported campaign contributions to secretive super PACs on behalf of favored political candidates.

The Citizens United decision only served to intensify the growing tsunami of secretive campaign contributions funneled through political action committees so we, the citizenry, have no idea who the financial power brokers are behind the candidate(s) seeking our votes.

Campaign finance has evolved into such insanity that when we make a paltry $100 contribution to our favored candidate’s campaign, we may eventually find ourselves pitted against the interests of a corporation that plowed $100,000 into that same candidate’ campaign through some super PAC. When that issue—us against say, banks or credit card companies or environmental polluters—comes to a committee or floor vote, which way do you think our “favored candidate” will vote?

All this brings us back to those cheesy ads that could just be a smokescreen to conceal more sinister underlying issues.

Hughes received only about $44,000 in campaign contributions and $10,200 of that was money he transferred from funds remaining from a prior campaign. He also loaned his campaign $250,000 but even that was not nearly enough to cover the glut of television spots and the widespread mail-outs.

So who paid for that advertising?

One report said that the Citizens for Clean Water and Land http://www.cleanwaterandland.com/ ponied up the money.

It’s an innocuous sounding name and seems to express a goal to which we all aspire but even such noble-appearing endeavors as clean water and land can have underpinnings of greed and objectives of enrichment through political proximity.

Citizens for Clean Water and Land was established by John Carmouche and other plaintiff attorneys for the apparent purpose of influencing the outcome of the Supreme Court race and for paving the way for a favorable ruling by that court at some time in the future.

During the legislative session earlier this year, Carmouche was front and center in the battle to resist reforms in the handling of Louisiana’s so-called legacy lawsuits, http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/may/31/legacy-lawsuit-compromise-sent-to-governors-desk/ an issue that now appears headed for the courts. Carmouche and other plaintiff attorneys were opposed to the reform legislation because it made it more difficult to recover damages against oil companies.

Legacy lawsuits deal with the extent of cleanup of environmental damage caused by the practices of oil producers in the state decades ago.

The reform effort was initiated in part as a result of a $72 million judgment against Shell Oil for its failure to clean up property owned by the family of Lake Charles attorney Michael Veron.

In short, no matter what your position may be on the issue of oilfield cleanup, do we really need a State Supreme Court justice whose campaign is bankrolled by special interests (read: plaintiff attorneys) who feel the need to grease the skids in the hope that their case will eventually make its way before that same Louisiana Supreme Court?

The hidden agenda in this race then would appear to come down to three words:

Influence for sale.

Read Full Post »

“This is what happens when Gov. Jindal removes members from the committee.”

—Rep. Katrina Jackson (D-Monroe), on Friday’s House Appropriations Committee approval of the $1.1 billion contract with Blue Cross/Blue Shield to serve a third party administrator (TPA) for the Office of Group Benefits.

Read Full Post »

The deuces were wild in Friday’s vote by the House Appropriations Committee to approve the $1.1 billion contract between the state and Blue Cross/Blue Shield (BCBS) which calls for BCBS to take over the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) Preferred Provider Organization (PPO), which provides health care coverage for about 62,000 state employees, retirees and their dependents.

The Senate Finance Committee, meeting jointly with the Appropriations Committee, was a foregone conclusion insofar as the Piyush Jindal administration is concerned; Senate Finance was overwhelming in favor of knuckling under to Piyush all along. It was the Appropriations Committee that displayed a streak of independence last week when it voted 16-9 in favor of an immediate vote on the contract.

That motion, by Rep. Katrina Jackson (D-Monroe) prompted Commissioner of Administration Kristy Nichols to pull the proposal until this week.

Within hours of that vote, two members of the Appropriations Committee, Vice Chairman Cameron Henry (R-Metairie) and Joe Harrison (R-Gray) were removed by House Speaker Chuck Kleckley (R-Lake Charles) as indisputable proof that he is Piyush pliant.

Henry and Harrison were replaced by Reps. Bryan Adams (R-Gretna) and Alan Seabaugh (R-Shreveport).

This time, the vote was 15-9 in favor of the contract with Adams and Seabaugh voting in favor.

Also voting in favor were two members who were absent from last week’s meeting—Reps. Patrick Connick (R-Marrero) and Jack Montoucet (D-Crowley), and two members who got the message after the demotion of Harrison and Henry and flipped last week’s “no” votes to emphatic “yes” votes this week: Reps. Henry Burns (R-Haughton) and John Schroder (R-Covington).

Two other members who voted with Jackson last week were absent Friday: Reps. Brett Geymann (R-Lake Charles) and James Morris (R-Oil City).

Now that the contract has gained the legally required approval of the two legislative committees, the next likely phase will be the courts if unsuccessful bidder United Healthcare files suit against the state as expected.

Litigation could ensue because of the selection process for the contract, which is not to exceed $1.1 billion. The BCBS bid is said to have been as much as $15 million more than that of United Healthcare.

Jackson, who had sought—and received—an attorney general’s opinion that the contract required legislative approval, said Friday’s action came despite testimony Friday that the contract, besides resulting in 111 OGB employees losing their jobs, would cost the state “millions in additional dollars.”

She said new budgetary request shows a “significant increase” in what the state will spend on claims.

Testimony from the Legislative Fiscal Office and an OGB CEO Charles Calvi did little to shed any light on questions raised by committee members but it was all but obvious from the outset how the vote would come down.

While the Appropriations Committee vote was virtually a 180 reversal of last week’s vote (16-10 in favor Friday as opposed to 16-9 opposed last week), the Senate Finance Committee’s vote was 10-3 in favor Friday compared to last week’s 11-3 vote to defer action until this week. Voting against both deferral last week and the contract this week were Sens. Sherri Smith Buffington (R-Keithville) and Ed Murray (D-New Orleans). Sen. Dan Claitor (R-Baton Rouge) voted against deferral last week but in favor of the contract this week. Sen. Fred Mills (R-New Iberia), who voted in favor of deferral last week, voted against the contract.

“This is what happens when Gov. Jindal removes members from the committee,” Jackson said of Friday’s vote.

“The vote last week was a vote based on the will of the legislature. The vote this week I a vote based on Jindal violating the separation of powers clause and removing members from the committee based on their vote(s).

“Testimony showed that this move would not result in state savings yet (and) because of Jindal’s overlapping interference in the legislative process, some members were backed into voting for it.”

Sen. Gerald Long (R-Natchitoches) told LouisianaVoice after the meeting that he voted in favor of the contract “because BCBS is already administering 75 percent of OGB’s claims and is doing a good job.”

He did not address the question of why he voted to put 111 OGB employees out of work who were doing an equally good job administering the remaining 25 percent of OGB claims.

One of the phrases most repeated by witnesses who spoke out against the contract as committee members talked among themselves, texted and walked around the room was “why fix something that is not broken?”

That question is yet to be addressed by anyone on either committee or from DOA.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »