Louisiana Voice

Editor’s note: Louisiana Voice, while intended to draw attention to the foibles of our Louisiana Legislature and the machinations of the administration in Baton Rouge, is also open to a dialogue on national and international matters of import. Whether we agree or disagree with our guest columnists is not the issue. The issue is the free and unencumbered exchange if ideas, a principle to which we are incontrovertibly committed.

By Judith Howard

Ok, I get it. If I believed Obama was born in Kenya, is a socialist who is determined to undermine the United States, is a racist with a profound hatred of white people (even though his mother was white), promoted a healthcare plan that put the government between my doctor and me, that he has taken over every sector of the American economy, and that he has an anti-Christian agenda, I’d vote for Republicans too. None of this is true. Nor has he raised taxes.

If Republicans had spent years and millions of dollars from anonymous sources repeatedly telling the public that Martians walk among us, plenty of people would believe it. Some would even swear they had seen a Martian, and some people actually believe all that malarkey in the first paragraph.

A Washington Post reporter went to McKee, Kentucky where 50% of the residents live below the poverty line, and nearly three-quarters subsist on government money like Social Security, welfare or another entitlement program. It is 99.5% white. The reporter recorded these statements from McKee residents:

Viola Johnson, age 72, said, “I just feel like they’re trying to destroy our government and our Constitution and make us a socialistic society. They’re trying to take our freedoms away – no doubt about it.” Think about that for a minute. A woman on Social Security and Medicare– fretting about socialism. It would be laughable were it not so sad. Where do you think she gets her information?

The owner of the hardware store in McKee, Mr. Barrett, said that many locals are deeply suspicious about Obama and consider him an illegitimate president. He said people openly question whether Obama is Muslim or was born outside the United States.

Barrett said, “I’m not real sure. You don’t know what to believe. I hope he’s a Christian. He seems like a real good fella.”
Pointing to his computer, Barrett added: “I’ve seen on here a sign in Kenya or wherever his father’s at, ‘Birthplace of the American President.’ You really don’t know what to believe. Honestly, do you?”

When I read Barrett’s statement about reading it on the internet, I thought of a young woman’s sign at the Rally to Restore Sanity last weekend. It read, “Dear Dad, just because you read it on the internet doesn’t mean it’s true!”
One of my favorite rally signs was “Sanity, not Hannity.”

But back to Kentucky and how people get bamboozled. What are people referring to when they say Obama is “taking away our freedoms?” I can’t think of a single freedom Obama and the Democrats have taken from me, yet I keep hearing right-wingers rant about it.

People who have never read the Constitution get all upset because Democrats are destroying the Constitution. Why would they think this? Because Sarah Palin says so.

I received an email from a right-winger last week that was a scary message about the government taking our guns. Nobody has landed in black helicopters and stormed in to seize my guns. Them guvmint agents must not be able to find Pea Ridge. Have they been to your house?

Here’s an example of how silly this is, and how misinformed people are: A television reporter asked some Alaskans who were holding signs in support of Republican Joe Miller why they supported him. They said it was because Miller supported gun rights, unlike Eric Holder, head of the Justice Department.

When asked what Eric Holder had done to threaten their gun rights, they didn’t have an answer. One guy said, “Just look at his voting record.” I groaned. Eric Holder has never held elective office, thus has no voting record.

All this fear, divisiveness, and hatred whipped up to win elections are a sad commentary on our politics. If you want to see what moral courage looks like, read this email from an old friend in North Carolina who voted early:

“Well, I stood in line for about 20 minutes and voted today. While in line, the folks in front of me were discussing who the NRA said to vote for. Then the topic turned to the federal government. When a man referred to that n—-r in the White House I decided I needed to join the conversation.

I opened with, “That’s incredibly offensive.” And the conversation ensued. He said he had a right to his opinion and I agreed that he had the right to be racist. His fellow Republicans did not enter the conversation but were listening intently.

There were two black women standing about 2 1/2 feet in front of us, which his friends tried to point out to him. He added that he was proud of the South and would fly the Confederate flag if he wanted to. I agreed that he had that right, but he was still a racist. Oh yes, and he is very concerned about the President’s place of birth.”

I was dumbfounded when I read my friend’s email. The guy in front of him must have mistakenly assumed that everyone around agreed with his bigotry. What he didn’t realize is that a majority of people recognize the humanity of minorities, and antipathy towards them has gone the way of the dinosaur.

You’d have to know my friend to understand how courageous he was to speak up. He is not an activist; he’s a quiet person, and very much a “live and let live” sort of guy.

I understand that radio talk show hosts and Faux News peddle lies and hatred to boost their ratings. I understand that politicians spread lies and fear to win elections. But my friend’s experience in the voting line is an example of what hate-peddling does to our country.

While politicians have been exploiting fears about all manner of crazy stuff, people in a small Iowa town that has lost thousands of jobs were interviewed on television about the election. Gay marriage and abortion are not on their radar, and they don’t care about Republicans or Democrats.

They said they just want people in Congress to solve problems for everyday Americans, not go to Washington to make a career out of being there. They’re angry at politicians and desperate about their economic situation.

Republicans offer no solutions for these people. David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director no less, said on television last weekend that he was embarrassed to say it, but Republicans propose “tax cuts” as the answer for every problem.

How refreshing to hear one of their own tell the truth. It beats the heck out of lies about our President’s birthplace, or how much freedom we’ve lost, or who’s coming for our guns.

Read Full Post »

BATON ROUGE (CNS)— The previous Louisiana Constitution, passed in 1921, was subjected to a whopping 802 proposed amendments in its 53-year history. Voters approved 536 of those, the most of any state constitution in the U.S.

The 1921 document was originally less than 50,000 words but by 1973, when then-Gov. Edwin Edwards saw the need for a new constitution it had grown to more than 250,000 words, making it the nation’s lengthiest as well. In 1970, disgruntled voters defeated all 53 proposed amendments.

The 1973 Constitutional Convention convened in Baton Rouge, producing a document of only 35,000 words in length. It was approved by voters in 1974 and since then 155 of 223 proposed amendments have been approved. The best year was 2006 when 21 of 21 proposed amendments passed. The nadir was 1992 when voters approved only two of 12.

Unless the proposed amendments are tied to a major election, voter turnout is traditionally low, ranging as low as 18 percent (1993). That’s because voters rarely understand—or really care about the amendments.

On Nov. 2, Louisiana voters will again be asked to decide on 10 proposed constitutional amendments (two were approved earlier this month). While most again apply only to a select clientele and are difficult to understand, there are a couple that warrant special attention. (For a detailed explanation of each amendment, log onto the Public Affairs Research Council’s web page at: http://www.la-par.org/Publications/PDF/ConstAmend_Nov2010.pdf.)

Amendment One is probably the one that will generate the most interest statewide with Amendment Two a close second from the perspective of individual parishes.

A vote for Amendment One would require than any increase in the salaries of statewide elected officials, public service commissioners, or legislators not take effect until the beginning of the next term after the increase is approved.

State civil service employees were infuriated earlier this year when it was learned that legislators had received a 9.7 percent increase while at the same time denying 4 percent merit increases for classified employees.

In 2008, legislators passed a 123 percent increase for themselves but the public outcry was such that House Speaker Jim Tucker made an 11th-hour appeal that Gov. Bobby Jindal veto the increase. Jindal, who had initially said he would not veto the bill, nevertheless complied with Tucker’s request and legislators hoped that the incident would be forgotten.

But if that anger carries over, the amendment is almost certain to pass, meaning office holders would not benefit from any approved pay increase unless they are re-elected sense the increase would not take effect until the beginning of the next term of office.

Earlier this month, voters may have unwittingly approved an amendment that changed employees of the State Department of Homeland Security from classified to unclassified, meaning they would not be restricted by the freeze on classified employee salaries and could receive virtually unlimited increases.

The legislature is responsible for determining the salaries for statewide elected officials, members of the Public Service Commission, and members of the Legislature. Proponents of the amendment say there would be less incentive for legislators to pass pay raises for themselves if they could not benefit personally unless they were re-elected.

Opponents say that such a restriction should be statutory—that is, passed by the Legislature in the form of a new law—rather than by amending the Constitution.

The obvious response to that argument would be to ask who in his wildest fantasy actually thinks the Legislature would ever pass such a law? Given the recent history of the Legislature, that answer would appear somewhat obvious.

Amendment Two would increase state severance tax revenue for parishes of origin and also dedicate a portion of severance tax collected on state lands to the Atchafalaya Basin Conservation Fund.

Local governments are prohibited from levying any severance taxes and the sharing of state severance tax revenue goes all the way back to that 1921 Constitution and is intended to compensate parishes for wear and tear on local roads and bridges by oil and gas drilling equipment and other related traffic.

The present Constitution requires the state to pay parishes or origin 20 percent of the state severance tax on all natural resources except sulfur, lignite, or timber. The amount each parish can receive, however, is capped at $850,000, adjusted annually for inflation. The cap for 2009 calendar year was $907,534.

Opponents of the proposed amendment question the wisdom of the state’s giving up more revenue to benefit parishes. They argue that mineral resources are considered assets of the state as a whole and an increased dedication would prevent the state from using revenue where most needed.

Proponents counter that increasing the cap above the inflation rate is justified because parishes should receive a larger share of minerals taken from them.

Other amendments, if passed:

Number 3: would give parishes the option call elections to double the homestead exemption for veterans with service-connected 100 percent disabilities (this benefit would extend to certain surviving spouses);

Number 4: would limit property tax millage increases that non-elected taxing bodies following a mandatory millage decrease due to reassessment;

Number 5: would allow homeowners displaced by disaster to apply for a second five-year extension on special assessment levels and homestead exemptions if they are unable to reoccupy their homes due to pending appeals on damage claims;

Number 6: would require majority legislative approval for changes to benefits provisions of any public retirement system subject to legislative authority, and would require two-thirds legislative approval when any changes have an actuarial cost;

Number 7: would change bidding rules for tax sale auctions and would allow tax collectors to charge additional penalties for nonpayment of property taxes;

Number 8: would remove the requirement that public authorities first offer expropriated property for re-sale to its prior owner before the property can be sold to a third party provided the property was taken to remove a public health or safety threat and was held for 30 years or less;

Number 9: would require that certain workers’ compensation cases be re-argued before a panel of five or more appellate judges prior to the reversal or modification of an administrative agency’s decision (present law requires a majority vote of a panel of only three judges).

Number 10: would allow criminal defendants to waive rights to a jury trial in non-capital cases only if the waiver is made at least 45 days prior to the beginning of trial and would provide that any such waiver would be irrevocable.

Read Full Post »