Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Revenue’ Category

A layman’s simplistic approach to taxation (Installment One)

Posted in Budget, Economy, Golf Courses, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Revenue, Taxes on January 1, 2011| 2 Comments »

During the 1988 presidential race, Vice President George H.W. Bush proclaimed, “Read my lips: no new taxes!”

That famous line helped him defeat Michael Dukakis but when he was forced to back-track on that promise, it was his eventual undoing. Bill Clinton’s own pithy campaign slogan “It’s the economy, stupid” swept the Arkansas governor into the White House in 1992.

Now, 19 years later, Louisiana’s Governor seems determined not to repeat Bush’s mistake. Bobby Jindal doggedly clings to his stated refusal to consider new taxes—or even to reinstate repealed taxes—to help lift the state out of its current financial morass.

Ironically, his stubbornness to keep that promise could conceivably cause him problems in his own re-election bid if he and the legislature cannot work together find some alternate means of achieving financial solvency for the state.

The state will be facing a budgetary shortfall estimated at $1.6 billion when legislators convene at noon on April 25. They will have less than two months to come up with a way to keep the state afloat.

The crux of the problem is lawmakers’ propensity to spend one-time revenue on recurring expenses with no long-term plan for addressing future needs. Jindal has tossed out a plan to sell off state assets, including state buildings and two state-run prisons, but that would be a temporary Band-Aid at best. Likewise, his tentative proposal to draw against future State Lottery revenues would seem to be a desperation ploy that would do nothing to address fiscal problems in ensuing years.

Jindal’s reluctance to use the line-item veto to kill more than $500 million in spending on local projects like golf courses, councils on aging, baseball parks, tennis courts, court houses, and community centers, has done little to assuage the situation and in fact, makes him complicit in perpertrating the state’s current dilemma.

So, just where does that leave the state?

In a word, broke.

So, what are the alternatives?

How about hefty increases in the state’s tobacco tax?

How about comparable increases in alcohol taxes?

Together, they’re commonly referred to as sin taxes.

Louisiana currently taxes cigarettes at a rate of 36 cents per pack, which ranks 48th among the 50 states and 51st overall, when Guam ($3 per pack), District of Columbia ($2.50 per pack), and Puerto Rico ($2.23 per pack) are factored into the equation.

The national average is 99 cents per pack.

Only Virginia, a tobacco state, and Missouri tax cigarettes at a lower rate at 30 and 17 cents per pack, respectively. Even North Carolina, another tobacco producing state, taxes cigarettes at 45 cents per pack. South Carolina, likewise a big tobacco producer, held its cigarette tax down to a paltry 7 cents per pack until July 1, 2010, when it was raised to 57 cents.

New York, which until July 1, 2010, taxed cigarettes at $2.75 per pack, now has the highest rate in the nation at $4.35 per pack. But over-taxing any commodity can have adverse effects. Enterprising bootleggers need only go across the state line to Connecticut ($3 per pack) New Jersey ($2.70), New Hampshire ($1.78), or Pennsylvania ($1.60), return to New York, and sell them on the black market, thus depriving the state of untold millions of dollars.

Likewise, if Louisiana gets too greedy, a new, prohibitive tax of say, $1.50 per pack, might well drive Louisianians into Mississippi where the current tax is 68 cents per pack. But a tax of that amount would put the state on virtual equal footing with Texas, which imposes a tax of $1.41 per pack.

But just for the sake of argument, let’s say the legislature does man-up in this, an election year, and increase the tobacco tax to $1 per pack. What would that mean in terms of revenue, assuming the increase would not cause a corresponding decrease in the number of smokers and that citizens would not traverse the state line into Mississippi in search of cheaper smokes?

During the fiscal year 2008-2009, the last year for which figures are available, Louisiana collected almost $147.2 million in tobacco taxes, the third straight year of increases. At $1 per pack, the state would conceivably reap $407.2 million, a 176.6 percent increase. A tax of $1.50 per pack would kick that amount up to $613.3 million, barring a reduction in sales.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy calls tobacco taxes both “regressive” and “declining”—regressive in that low-income smokers are the most adversely impacted, and declining because, it says, cigarette taxes are among the slowest-growing revenue sources available.

In 2006, the institute said in its 2007 policy brief, the state’s poorest smokers spent .6 percent of their income on cigarette taxes, 10 times the .06 percent spent by the wealthiest Louisiana smokers. Moreover, low-income Louisianans are more likely to smoke than higher-income taxpayers, the report said.

The same report said the state’s 36-cent-per-pack tax income will be static because the tax is not based on the retail price of cigarettes where tax revenues increase with price increases. Oddly, all 50 states have flat-rate cigarette taxes as opposed to basing them on a percentage of retail prices.

Another factor in the declining tax theory is the decrease in sales when cigarette taxes are increased. In fact, cigarette consumption by Louisianans has declined steadily over the past quarter-century, the report shows.

From a high of more than 600 million packs sold (about 132 packs per person) in 1982, sales plummeted to 410 million packs (91 packs per person) by 2005.

An increase in tobacco taxes, then, could serve as a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it might not produce a significant increase in revenue, but if it resulted in fewer people lighting up, the health benefits derived from the tax increase could be immeasurable with a lessening of the financial strain on the state’s charity hospitals.

Alcohol could be quite another story. Of the 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Washington D.C. only 12 have higher taxes on beer than Louisiana. On the other hand, only five of the 53 have lower taxes on liquor. Like tobacco, however, alcohol is taxed on the amount sold as opposed to basing the tax on a percentage of the retail price.

The Louisiana Department of Revenue reports that for Fiscal Year 2008-09, the state collected nearly $56.9 million in alcohol tax. The breakdown was $37.3 million on low-alcohol content (beer) and almost $19.6 million on high-alcohol (liquor) sales. Should the legislature decide to raise Louisiana’s liquor tax to the national average of $6.25 per gallon, it could mean an income of $49 million—more than double the present amount.

The solution, then, insofar as the state’s sin taxes are concerned, could be found not so much in an increase (though a modest increase in both tobacco and liquor taxes might well be in order) as a change to a rate based on the retail cost.

More simplistic revenue-producing suggestions from a non-CPA, non-financial analyst, layman perspective will follow in subsequent posts.

Read Full Post »

Louisiana’s tobacco lawsuit settlement laden with irony

Posted in Attorney General, Contract, Contracts, Health Care, Prison, Revenue, Transparency on December 8, 2010| Leave a Comment »

An online dictionary defines the essential feature of irony as “the indirect presentation of a contradiction between an action or expression and the context in which it occurs.”

A good example of irony would be the State of Louisiana’s legal position in joining with 45 other states several years ago in suing the big tobacco companies. Louisiana, then-Attorney General Richard Ieyoub claimed, was spending inordinate amounts of state revenue treating tobacco-related illnesses among indigent citizens at the state’s charity hospitals.

Joining in the lawsuit was a logical and justified means of recovering some of the state’s costs of treating heart and lung disease, diabetes, cancer, tooth and gum disease, and various other ailments afflicting the state’s poor smokers. It even made sense when state buildings established designating smoking rooms in the early 1990s and then later abolished smoking altogether, forcing those unwilling to kick the habit to trudge outside in heat, cold, and rain to get their nicotine fix.

The 46 states and several U.S. territories eventually reached a settlement of about $206 billion with Louisiana slated to receive $4.6 billion as its share of the settlement.

Louisiana received its first check of $104 million in December of 1999. Last year the state’s share was $175.5 million and the 2010 payment of an as yet undetermined amount is due later this month.

That would explain the justification. Now for the irony.

On June 16 of this year, the Louisiana Department of Corrections (DOC) awarded contracts to three separate vendors for the purchase of more than $6.1 million in tobacco products for re-sale to prison inmates across the state.

And that was only for a six-month supply.

Of the three vendors who were awarded contracts, two are from Texas. Rudy Love Distributing Co. of Huntsville, Texas, had a low bid of $1,002,450 and Price & Co. of Beaumont, Texas, submitted a low bid of $84,631.75. Lyons Specialty Co. of Port Allen tied with an out-of-state firm with its bid of $5,025,220, but was awarded the contract because it is a Louisiana firm, according to DOC spokesperson Pam LaBorde.

The three firms were low bidders on 16 separate items on which bids were opened on June 14, two days before the contracts were awarded, she said.

LaBorde said that DOC and Prison Enterprises (PE) recoups the full amount of the tobacco items purchased off the bids by selling the products to prisoners at a markup, “plus the applicable sales taxes by parish and city or town where the correctional center is located.” She added that prices will vary somewhat because of local taxes.

“When placed out for bid, the amounts reflected in the bid are estimates of usage for the six-month contract period,” LaBorde said. “The amount purchased fluctuates based on the demand.” She said that items are delivered on an as-needed basis and facilities are not required to purchase the full amount as estimated in the contract.

“These proceeds are used to offset the cost of the items, the bidding of the items, the storage, warehousing, other overhead, and delivery to each facility as well as to recoup the necessary salary funds of the correctional officers who provide the canteen service. These canteen services are provided to the offender population as self-generated program(s),” she added.

So much for recovering the costs of purchasing tobacco products for the prisoners. Every contingency, it seems, is covered.

Except….except, oh yes, medical care for the state’s indigent population.

And who in Louisiana is more indigent than prison inmates?

No one. And bear in mind that Louisiana has the largest prison population in the U.S.

And where are prison inmates treated for their smoking-related illnesses?

At the state’s charity hospitals, that’s where.

And who pays for their treatment?

Since the cost of medical treatment is not factored into the equation, i.e. the price prisoners pay for tobacco products, that would be you and me, the Louisiana taxpayers.

Irony.

Read Full Post »

Bobby Jindal: Indian Giver (subtitled: Where’s the leadership?)

Posted in BESE, Education, Golf Courses, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, Revenue, Transparency, Water Reservoirs, tagged on November 14, 2010| 2 Comments »

At the risk of sounding racist, Gov. Bobby Jindal has to be considered as a true Indian giver. More accurately, an Indian giver with no leadership qualities.

There. I’ve said it. Someone had to.

Gov. “I’m not taking and federal stimulus money” Jindal back in September finally acquiesced and made formal application for $147 million in education funding. That was the amount for which Louisiana was deemed eligible from the $26 billion federal stimulus bill that was passed by Congress in August.

State Superintendent of Education Paul—“I didn’t know it was improper to use a state vehicle for dozens of personal trips to Chicago”—Pastorek said the state was making the application for the money because there were “no policy strings attached.”

“No strings” notwithstanding, federal guidelines required that the money go directly to the local school districts and that the money be used to pay salaries and benefits for teachers, school administrators and other staff.

The local school district officials were ecstatic. In some parishes it had already been determined that the local districts could no longer afford to pay substitute teachers when regular teachers were out sick and that the regular teachers would have to pay them out of their own salaries. Suddenly it seemed there was relief for the local officials who worked the infusion of cash into their operating budgets.

Then, just as suddenly, Jindal last week pulled the rug from under the local districts. More precisely, he pulled the money.

He created his own strings, it seems, choosing to commandeer the money to plug the $106 million hole in the administration’s budget and to offset cuts to higher education, an area he has already gutted with earlier cuts. In fact, one might suspect that the political backlash against his higher ed cuts were such that in grasping for an answer, he fell upon the brilliant idea of jerking the $147 from public education. Problem solved or leadership void?

Jindal’s latest misstep lays bare the sad fact that he really has no plan for pulling Louisiana out of the current fiscal morass. He is every bit as lost in facing this crisis as Gov. Kathleen Blanco was in dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. But give Gov. Blanco her due: her crisis was not self-inflicted, but was a natural disaster with which nearly anyone would have been ill-equipped to deal.

Jindal, on the other hand, had to see this coming. We were warned that the legislature should not be spending one-time money from the hurricane recovery funds in the manner it was. No one listened; not the legislature and certainly not the governor who was loath to use the line item veto at his disposal.

And now, in the middle of a fiscal crisis and with an even bigger one looming next year, what does Jindal do? He scoots off to dozens of states to campaign on behalf of Republican candidates for governor, Congress, and the U.S. Senate, leaving home-schooled subordinates to grapple with the budget deficit. For those not especially good at history, Richard Nixon did the same thing in preparation for his successful 1968 run at the president’s office, except he did it as a private citizen. He lost to John F. Kennedy in 1960 and then somehow managed to lose the California governor’s election to Pat Brown, prompting his famous line, “You won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around any longer.”

Instead, Nixon, not as a sitting governor ignoring responsibilities to his state, began working on behalf of Republican candidates, amassing in the process, a hatful of chits that he was able to redeem in 1968. That’s exactly what Jindal seems to be doing. He was absent so often during the state’s worsening financial crisis, that the president of the LSU student body fired off a letter to a New Hampshire newspaper asking the governor to return home.

Jindal insists he has the job he wants. If that’s true, he should stay home and do that job. Instead of staying home once the November elections were over, however, he now embarks to a tour to tout his book, Leadership and Crisis. That begs the question, “what leadership?” Jindal “presided over Louisiana’s healthcare system at age 24, headed the University of Louisiana system at 27, became a U.S. congressman at 33, and was elected governor of Louisiana at 36,” according to the Amazon.com promotion of his book. Do we see a trend here? The two systems that he headed under former Gov. Mike Foster, higher education and health care, are the two agencies that he appears determined to dismantle.

Again, the question: “what leadership?”

Jindal had his chance. He blew it. He could have slashed away at the Capital Outlay Bill in the session that ended last summer, but he didn’t. He could easily have cut nearly half-a-billion in wasteful spending from the bill, but he didn’t. He could bring himself to cut only $9.4 million. And now he has backed himself into a corner.

Where was the leadership, Gov. Jindal?

Instead of spending millions of dollars purchasing golf courses, the governor could have said no. But he didn’t.

Where was the leadership?

In ordering deeper cuts recently, Jindal told department heads the state needed more leadership and less whining. Immediately after making that brash statement, the state’s leader in abstensia left for Pittsburgh, PA, to campaign for yet another Republican candidate.

Where was the leadership?

Just in case you may have missed it, Governor, here again is a partial list of inappropriate appropriations that, had they been vetoed on one of the days that you were in the state, the financial mess in which we now find ourselves might have been averted.

That would be real leadership.

So, please read these during your next flight to some other state to promote your leadership book:

• $800,000 for land acquisition for the proposed Allen Parish Reservoir;
• $1.4 million for the proposed Bayou Dechene Reservoir in Caldwell Parish;
• $2.6 million for the Washington Parish Reservoir Commission Feasibility study;
• $17.2 million for Bayou Segnette Festival Park land acquisition and sports complex improvements;
• $28 million for modifications to the Performing Arts Center in Jefferson Parish;
• $2 million for construction of a playground Basketball Gym in Orleans Parish;
• $1.8 million for construction of the Little Theatre of Shreveport;
• $2.6 million for a new Westbank YMCA in Algiers;
• $2 million for the New Orleans Music Hall of Fame;
• $6 million for construction of a new courthouse in Baton Rouge;
• $2.8 million for the Dryades YMCA in New Orleans;
• $5.4 million for the Red River Waterway Commission;
• $7.7 million for the renovation of the Acadiana Center for the Arts in Lafayette;
• $2.5 million for improvements to the Coteau Water System in St. Martin and Iberia parishes;
• $2.4 million for the Union Parish Law Enforcement District;
• $1.8 million for construction for the Robinson Film Center in Caddo Parish;
• $12 million for construction of a convention center complex in Shreveport;
• $3.8 million for a new tennis center in Orleans Parish;
• $4.7 million for construction of the Louisiana Artist Guild Arts Incubator in New Orleans;
• $26.5 million for expansion and construction of the National World War II Museum in New Orleans.

Millions more were spent on construction projects that included recreational facilities, councils on aging, courthouses, sheriffs’ offices, jails, drainage projects, work on parish and municipal road and street construction projects, community centers, and water systems.

As if that were not enough, when legislators found extra money lying around, as they always seem to do during each legislative session, the House quickly pushed HB 76 through, appropriating an additional $33 million in local pork projects. Some of those expenditures:

• $150,000 for the Louisiana Political Hall of Fame in Winnfield;
• $500,000 for the Louisiana Endowment for the Humanities;
• $500,000 to “organizations which assist small towns and rural areas with their water and wastewater systems;”
• $250,000 for construction of an animal shelter in St. Charles Parish;
• $1 million to the Lafayette Parish Consolidated Government for infrastructure construction.

Where was the leadership?

Read Full Post »

Earl’s big blunder (no thanks to Leander Perez)

Posted in Budget, Contract, Contracts, Earl Long, Huey Long, Economy, Ethics, Exemptions, Incentives, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, Revenue, Taxes, Transparency, tagged , , , , , , , , , on August 11, 2010| 7 Comments »

            The fiscal news from Baton Rouge continues to be bad. Besides a projected $319 million deficit for the current fiscal year that ends in seven weeks, there have been moves to privatize state services, a sell-off of state assets, layoffs, and now a massive oil spill that threatens the state’s seafood industry.

            There are those who insist it didn’t have to be that way but 60 years ago, on June 5, 1950, everything changed. That’s the day that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all of the submerged land from the shores of coastal states belonged not to the states, but to the federal government.

            It was a devastating decision that affected coastal states from Texas to Florida. An earlier decision, in 1947, had a similar affect on California. The ultimate cost to the states estimated as high as $300 billion, according to the late Mike Mansfield, former senator from Montana. Mansfield, writing in the May 4, 1953 Congressional Record, was critical of the decision by the Eisenhower administration to returned title of the submerged land back to the states.

            Eisenhower’s action, which was approved by the House on April and by the Senate on May 5, reversed a proclamation by President Truman in 1945.

Truman, in his Continental Shelf Proclamation, said that federal government had jurisdiction over all the mineral resources in the lands beneath the oceans out to the end of the U.S. Continental Shelf. Immediately after he issued the proclamation, the federal government initiated litigation against the states, claiming sovereignty over all offshore resources. Truman reasserted that position on Jan. 16, 1953, just before leaving office when he issued an executive order that set aside the submerged lands of the Continental Shelf as a naval petroleum reserve.

The issue of tidelands mineral rights didn’t appear of major importance to either Louisiana or the federal governments other than shrimpers and oystermen, until technology progressed sufficiently to drill in offshore waters. In November of 1947, the first such well was completed in 16 feet of water in the Ship Shoal area in the Gulf of Mexico, about 12 miles south of Terrebonne Parish. After that, all bets were off.

            Just as with California, litigation soon followed as the federal government filed suit against both Texas and Louisiana over control of more than four million acres of submerged land. Then, in the early fall of 1948 came one of the biggest negotiating blunders in the history of Louisiana politics that ultimately led to the landmark Supreme Court decision that will in all probability go unnoticed by most on its 60th anniversary on June 5.

            The players included President Truman, Speaker of the U.S. House Sam Rayburn, Gov. Earl K. Long, Lt. Gov. Bill Dodd, and Plaquemines Parish boss Leander Perez. Lurking in the shadows was the man who would emerge central to the decision by Long to refuse a generous offer from Truman that would cost Louisiana upwards of $100 billion, according to Dodd. That man was 29-year-old Russell Long, Earl’s nephew and the son of Huey P. Long.

            Dodd, in his book Peapatch Politics, laid out the details of a deal gone bad as a result of Russell Long’s political ambitions and Perez’s determination to protect his questionable control of mineral-rich Plaquemines Parish with Earl Long and Dodd caught in the tug-of-war between the federal government and Louisiana.

            In 1948, Russell Long was a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Perez, who was also head of the Democratic State Central Committee, ran his own less sophisticated but equally prosperous version of Huey’s old Win or Lose Oil Company in Plaquemines and, according to Dodd, was not above a little blackmail and extortion to protect his fiefdom. Rayburn was Truman’s emissary who was instructed by the president to make what in hindsight was a more than generous offer to Louisiana to settle the federal lawsuit against the state.

            In that fateful autumn of 1948, Rayburn called Dodd and Louisiana Attorney General Bolivar Kemp to a Washington meeting. Also in attendance in Rayburn’s office were Perez, Texas Attorney General Price Daniel, several representatives of the Department of Interior, as well as others.

            Rayburn, without fanfare or ceremony, offered to settle the Tidelands dispute with Louisiana by offering the state two-thirds of all revenues accruing from mineral bonuses, leases, and royalties in the two-thirds of a three-mile band extended from the Louisiana coastline outward into the Gulf of Mexico. Rayburn also offered the state 37.5 percent of all revenues in the Tidelands outside the three-mile band. In addition, Rayburn said the federal government would drop its lawsuit against the state. It was a much better offer than the state had anticipated and everyone present except Perez was ready to jump at the offer.

            Perez told Rayburn that he would recommend to Gov. Long that the offer be rejected, prompting Rayburn to explode. “This ain’t no compromise,” he said. “It’s a gift, and you better take it while the president is in the mood to give it to you.”

            Perez, who as attorney for Plaquemines Parish’s various levee boards, was in a position to dictate how and to whom the levee boards leased their lands. Many of those leases went to corporations he and his family controlled, reaping him millions in much the same manner in which Huey Long had structured his Win or Lose Oil Co. With no intention of losing any of his power, he got to Earl Long first and convinced the governor that the state was being sold a bill of goods by Truman and Rayburn. He insisted, moreover, that the state would prevail in the federal litigation against the state even though California three years earlier had lost an identical lawsuit.

            Perez, who was backing States’ Rights presidential candidate Strom Thurmond for president, controlled the state Democratic ticket and threatened to take Russell off the States’ Rights ticket, which would, in effect, hand the U.S. Senate seat to Shreveport Republican Clem Clarke. Earl wanted his nephew to win the election and eventually capitulated to Perez’s demands to reject Truman’s offer, prompting Baton Rouge Morning Advocate Editor Maggie Dixon, a close friend of the governor, to remark, “Earl is gonna trade our chances to be a tax-free state in order to elect that little tongue-tied nephew of his to the U.S. Senate.”

            Dodd, in his book, speculated that the immediate loss to the state was $66.5 billion, not including billions more paid in bonuses and leases, plus the severance taxes that would have amounted to about a fourth of the total value of production. Dodd said the cost as of 1986, when he wrote his book, was “$100 billion plus,” with future losses as much as $10 billion a year.

            Still, given the track record of the legislature to fritter away past “embarrassments of riches,” one would have to wonder how such an influx of revenue might have taken legislators from embarrassment to humiliation in emptying the state coffers.

Read Full Post »

Enough Already!

Posted in Budget, Ethics, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, Revenue, Transparency on July 31, 2010| Leave a Comment »

            Apparently oblivious to the state’s spiraling financial plight, 22 Louisiana legislators accounted for the expenditure of more than $47,000 in state funds attending legislative conferences in Kentucky, South Carolina and California—with each receiving $159 per day in per diem payments over and above travel, lodging, and registration fees.

            The travel comes at a time of shrinking state budgets and on the heels of state employee layoffs, program eliminations, and deep budget cuts to higher education and health care, coupled with runaway pork barrel spending during the recently completed regular legislative session.

Most of the expenses—registration fees, lodging, and travel—purportedly came from legislators’ $1,500 per month supplemental expense accounts which is part of the pay package for lawmakers. But with registration fees accounting for nearly half of that amount, the addition of travel and lodging expenses almost certainly pushed costs well beyond the $1,500 allocated per lawmaker.

Should all 22 legislators attend each day of the respective conferences, per diem payments would add another $16,854 to the cost paid by Louisiana taxpayers.

            State Rep. Joe Harrison (R-Napoleonville) and Baton Rouge Sen. Yvonne Dorsey, in fact, registered to attend two conferences with Dorsey scheduled for back-to-back conferences. She was signed up for the Southern Legislative Conference (SLC) in Charleston, S.C., scheduled for July 31-Aug. 4 and for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in San Diego Aug. 5-8.

            Harrison attended the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) in Louisville, Ky. July 25-28 and the ALEC conference in San Diego.        Besides Harrison, those attending the NCSL event in Louisville included Reps. Jonathan Perry (R-Abbeville) and Patricia Smith (D-Baton Rouge).

            Those attending the ALEC conference in San Diego besides Harrison and Dorsey included Reps. Robert Johnson (D-Marksville), Austin Badon (D-New Orleans), Bernard LeBas (D-Ville Platte), Tim Burns (R-Mandeville), Thomas Carmody (R-Shreveport), John LaBruzzo (R-Metairie), Kirk Talbot (R-River Ridge), Thomas Wilmont (R-Kenner), and Sen. Bob Kostelka (R-Monroe).

            Joining Dorsey in Charleston were Reps. Jim Fannin (D-Jonesboro), Jeff Arnold (D-New Orleans), Walker Hines (D-New Orleans), and Sens. Francis Thompson (D-Delhi), Butch Gautreaux (D-Morgan City), Gerald Long (R-Winnfield), Ed Murray (D-New Orleans), Buddy Shaw (R-Shreveport), and John Smith (D-Leesville).

            In Charleston, delegates, when not attending business meetings, attended a beach party and participated in a golf tournament at the Dunes West Golf & River Club sponsored by Reynolds American, the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

            One has to wonder just how arrogant and fiscally irresponsible our elected officials in Baton Rouge must become before the state’s citizenry draws the proverbial line in the dust and cries out in unison: “ENOUGH ALREADY!”

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »