Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Transparency’ Category

π-yush takes a powder, ducks the issues…again but Vitter’s cowardice eclipses D.C. Madam scandal in pure sleaziness

Posted in Contract, Contracts, Education, Ethics, Governor's Office, Health Care, Higher Education, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, ORM, Office of Risk Management, Politicians, Privatization, Revenue, Taxes, Transparency, Vitter, Vouchers on September 21, 2012| 11 Comments »

This is about arrogance. More specifically, it is about the arrogance of two men, both from Louisiana and each elected to represent his constituents to the best of his ability.

And to that end, each has failed miserably while taking his individual insolence to new levels—in very different ways. One we have written about extensively in the past. The other, not so much, though perhaps he may well warrant closer attention in the future.

We are talking about Gov. Piyush Jindal and U.S. Sen. David Vitter.

The first, Jindal, has repeatedly displayed his cowardice, his spinelessness, by taking actions to close state facilities without bothering to notify affected legislators of his plans in advance. He has consistently ignored the plight of hundreds of state employees he forced into unemployment by cutting services and corporate taxes, further exacerbating the state’s budgetary crisis.

Vitter’s vote on a Senate bill last week can only described as despicable and hypocritical.

We will get to him presently.

It was not enough that Jindal announced the closure of Southeast Louisiana Hospital in Mandeville and C. Paul Phelps Correctional Center in Dequincy without extending the courtesy of a heads up to the legislative delegation in southeast and southwest Louisiana, the two areas affected.

But in doing so, he appeared to give little regard to or concern for the hundreds of employees at the two facilities who will be adversely impacted by layoffs or, in a few cases, transfers.

Then, on the heels of the announcement of the C. Paul Phelps closure The Baton Rouge League of Women Voters held a panel discussion to discuss Jindal’s continued privatization of state agencies, including the Office of Risk Management, the Office of Group Benefits, charter schools, educational vouchers, state hospital privatization and Medicaid cutbacks.

Invited to attend were representatives of the Jindal administration and proponents of privatization as well as four opponents, including an education coalition representative and Dr. Fred Cerise, former head of the LSU Health Care System.

One end of the head table was fully represented. On the other end, not a single person appeared on behalf of the administration. Cowardice. If an administration cannot publicly defend its actions—and make no mistake, Jindal never does—then that can only be described as cowardly.

Oh, they all had excuses. Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater said he had to attend a State Bond Commission meeting. But that meeting was over before the panel forum began across town. Bottom line, no one from the administration could—or would—find the time to defend the governor’s program.

Of course, Jindal had plenty time to attend a Republican unity breakfast in New Hampshire a week before and agreed to participate in a Sept. 26 Leaders of Iowans for Freedom “No Wiggins” bus tour—a rally in opposition to the re-election of Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins who voted with the majority to rule the state’s one-man, one-woman marriage law unconstitutional.

We have to wonder how our governor, who, metaphorically speaking, has more snakes than he can kill right here at home, can find time to involve himself in a supreme court race in Iowa. Does the state Medicaid budget’s gaping budget hole not keep him sufficiently occupied without his having to traipse off to Iowa? Isn’t the fiscal plight of the state’s colleges and universities of enough concern to deter him from having breakfast in New Hampshire?

Or could it be more than mere coincidence that the first presidential primary and party caucus will be in New Hampshire and Iowa, respectively, in about three years? Could Jindal be that brazen, that disturbingly obvious? Well, yes. Could he really be that delusional, fooling himself into thinking he has a prayer? Yes again.

Piyush would be wise to awaken to the realization that Timmy Teepell is no Karl Rove.

LouisianaVoice has submitted a public records request to determine the cost of Jindal’s two trips including costs not only for Jindal, but for his security detail and any staff members who went along, including travel, lodging, meals and salaries—and including Jindal’s pro-rated salary for the days he is out of state.

Just for argument’s sake, let us say he made each trip in a single day. Giving his annual salary of $130,000, that would mean he should rebate the state a minimum $712 in salary while he was out of state attending to non-governor-type business—plus all the other expenses incurred on the trip for him and his entourage.

Now let’s talk about Vitter.

There was a bill up for a vote in the Senate last week. The Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012 would have made it easier for veterans in the future to transition to civilian life.

With veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars experiencing unemployment rates 3 percent higher than the general population, the bill would have put a lot of those veterans to work.

A majority (58-40) voted for the bill but that was two votes short of the three-fifths majority needed to overcome a budgetary point of order thrown up by Republicans.

Republicans said the bill violated the Budget Control Act by adding a program that would increase the deficit. Only five Republicans voted for the bill.

Vitter was one of 40 Republicans who voted no.

That’s correct. U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-Louisiana), given a chance to vote up or down on a measure to help veterans, chose to vote down.

We’re talking about a $16 trillion deficit and the Republicans were quibbling over a budget item of $200 million per year over five years.

Given the propensity of Republicans to consistently vote for larger and larger appropriations for the Pentagon and military contractors and given Republicans’ support of two wars that have cost this country more than $4 trillion, a $1 billion appropriation to help our veterans re-enter the work force should not seem so unreasonable.

Given that most of these Republican chicken hawks have never experienced military service, it certainly is curious that they are so reluctant to lend a hand once these military personnel have sacrificed so much to defend the rhetoric of the pompous congressmen who while beating their collective breasts, are so quick, yea eager, to send them off to war.

It is heartless enough that military personnel with traumatic head injuries are unable to obtain adequate or timely medical treatment once they are no longer useful as fighters and as unwitting enablers of military contractors who milk the Pentagon budget of untold billions of dollars in unchecked cost overruns and outright fraud.

But when it came time to put his money where his patriotic, flag-waving mouth is, Vitter, rather than reaching out to the veterans, turns his back on them. What a coward.

And we thought his frequenting New Orleans prostitutes and cavorting with the D.C. Madam after all of his preaching about family values was hypocritical. That was child’s play, a victimless crime, as they say. His vote on the Veterans Jobs Corps Act dwarfed that transgression. There were thousands of victims of that callous action.

To demonstrate the Republican stance on American exceptionalism and righteous wars, one need look no further than to a statement made by Andrew Card, President George W. Bush’s chief of staff who, when asked about the timing of the March 2003 Iraqi invasion, dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom, said, “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”

There you have it. A half-century ago President Eisenhower said, “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

Despite that admonition, war—and the influence of that military-industrial complex—has become a marketing concept, a product to be introduced with the appropriately hyped mixture of patriotism, mom and apple pie, along with the oft-repeated need to defeat the newest threat to the American Way of Life, whatever that is.

And Vitter is right there with his fellow Republicans—until it’s time to help those who supported that policy—the men and women in uniform.

In 2003, he voted in favor of HR 1559, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act. In 2008, he voted in favor of HR 2642 to approve funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan War—funding that has now exceeded the $4 trillion mark.

But in 2012, he and 39 other Republicans just could not bring themselves to waste a five-year, billion dollar expenditure to help military veterans return to the workforce.

We should be so very proud of our junior senator.

Read Full Post »

Legislators’ answers to questions are less than satisfactory; apparently some think constituents’ concerns don’t matter

Posted in BESE, Governor's Office, Health Care, Higher Education, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, LSU, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, ORM, Office of Risk Management, Privatization, State Agencies, Transparency on September 19, 2012| 3 Comments »

Remember when we recently suggested that you contact your legislator with a specific list of questions relative to Gov. Piyush Jindal’s efforts to:

Destroy public education by allowing private concerns to open charter schools and offer online courses with no accountability;

Destroy higher education in general with massive budgetary cutbacks and LSU in particular by loading the state’s flagship university board of supervisors with political hacks and campaign contributors;

Dismantle the state’s public health system through closures, cutbacks and by, as in the case of the LSU Board of Supervisors, packing the University Medical Center Management Corp. Board with political cronies, and

Usurping the powers and responsibilities that rightfully belong to the legislature?

We provided the internet web page addresses for both the House and Senate and suggested that you contact your legislators with these specific questions with specific answers and promised that as the results came in, we would publicize them.
Rep. Alan Seabaugh (R-Shreveport), knowing that state employees might be reluctant to divulge their names for fear of being teagued and thus might feel the need to use a pseudonym, issued the following snarky reply to one such person:

“You make some substantive and good points. However, I do not send substantive responses to people who hide behind fake names.”

Rep. Stephen Carter (R-Baton Rouge) fell back on the standard tactic of “baffle ’em with B.S. with his non-response to a constituent:

Thank you for your email. I understand your concerns and appreciate you taking the time to contact me. Upon review, most of the items you listed are proposals and have not been implemented yet. When the time comes, I will be charged with giving the up or down approval through legislation. I will carefully consider each item individually that is up for a vote. The Governor’s job is to propose initiatives, try to get the approval of the legislature, and then implement. The a governor has not sought my advice on the items you listed, but I will consider his proposals when and if they become proposed legislation. I cannot usurp his authority including his appointive power to various boards and commissions.

I do want to be sure I make decisions in the best interest of the state, whether privatization is the answer or not. Until we have the opportunity to see proposals to privatize, it is difficult to evaluate the pros and cons. I can’t make a blanket judgement about privatization because I believe it is an issue that warrants case-by-case evaluation.

To provide information on some of your specific concerns, William Jenkins is the interem President of the University. He has appointed, and the Board of Supervisors has approved, Dr. Frank Opelka to serve as the Executive Vice President for Health Care and Medical Education Redesign. The Board has approved Dr. Opelka issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to seek the interest of private partners who are interested in a collaboration with LSU to run the hospitals. Again, thank you for your interest and rest assured that all of us in the legislature are trying to make decisions that will improve the quality of life of all of our citizens. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any more questions or if we can be of any assistance to you.

Best regards,
Steve Carter

Our favorite, however, came from Sen. Neil Riser (R-Columbia):

“Thank you for your correspondence to Senator Riser regarding state cuts. Please know that Senator Riser appreciates hearing from you and will keep your thoughts and concerns in mind as they go thru the legislative process.”

There you have it. A canned response and not even from Riser himself, but from a legislative assistant. The man could not even take the five minutes out of his busy schedule to write specific responses to specific questions. Apparently the affairs of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), of which Riser is a member, are of greater precedence that those of a lowly constituent.

For those of you who may have missed it, here are the questions and the web addresses again;

I want to know where you stand on of allowing the governor to ignore the medical needs of the state’s indigent population as well as to ignore the need to maintain teaching hospitals for medical students at the LSU and Tulane schools of medicine;
Moreover:

When are you, as my (representative/senator) going to stand up to Gov. Jindal and his runaway efforts to:

• Disembowel higher education;

• Destroy public education to the financial benefit of private contractors/campaign supporters;

• Dismantle the state’s flagship university by appointing political hacks to the LSU Board of Supervisors, firing capable administrators and closing/privatizing state hospitals;

• Allow voucher and online courses to take the place of public education without even a smidgen of accountability or standards to which public education is held;

• Continually allow our governor to usurp the powers and responsibilities that rightfully belong to the legislative branch, including the choosing of House Speaker and Senate President?

I want and expect a public and publicized answer by you on the entirety of this subject. You’ve been silent long enough.

Click here for a list of House members: http://house.louisiana.gov/H_Reps/H_Reps_ByName.asp

Click here for a list of Senate members: http://senate.legis.louisiana.gov/Senators/
Scroll down the list until you find your representative/senator and click on the name. The legislator’s email address will on the page that will appear. For representatives, you need only click on the email address but you will have to type the senators’ email addresses.

It helps if you are able to provide your real name but if you are a state employee, do not use your real name.

Also, send only the questions; do NOT send the entire content of this blog. It’s not that we are concerned about legislators knowing where the questions originate because most of them will; it’s just not necessary to send this entire text.

One final note:

We are getting comments back today that certain legislators were sent the original questions and have not responded.

Our suggestion would be to re-send them each and every day until they do respond. Bombard them and do not let up.

One of Winston Churchill’s greatest speeches included this classic line: “Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never never.”

Read Full Post »

Guest columnist explains why he feels ‘sense of urgency’ in legislative defeat of the punitive π-yush privatization push

Posted in BESE, Campaign Contributions, Charters, Ethics, Governor's Office, Higher Education, House, Senate, Layoffs, Legislature, Legislators, LSU, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, ORM, Office of Risk Management, Privatization, State Agencies, Transparency on September 18, 2012| 2 Comments »

By JOHN SACHS

Periodically I am asked why I’m screaming about what is taking place in our state government. It is suggested that I speak with more deference and respect to and about elected and appointed officials. I am reminded of the adage that one catches more flies with sugar than with salt. I listen to that advice and then I counter with the following explanation for my approach and call to action:

When you as an individual or through your business or when a government entity wants to make a change in service providers such as a pest control service, a janitorial service, or a building maintenance and repair service, it does not involve the lives and livelihood of employees or the ownership of the entity’s physical assets such as buildings. One simply contacts several competing service providers and after evaluating them, makes a decision as to which vendor will provide the specific service for a specific time period.

Now take the case of lease and rentals of buildings and equipment. This is a more complex transaction and generally extends over a longer period of time than a service contract. Except in the case of a rent/lease-to-own transaction, ownership of the assets remains unchanged. Thus, at the end of the lease the parties can agree to terminate the agreement and go their separate ways or to enter into a new contract. Ownership of the asset being rented or leased, however, remains with the original owner.

Finally, there are the types of transactions that are of a permanent nature with lasting consequences, and the ones that the Jindal administration is entering into that will for all intent and purposes change our system of government, alter the delivery of essential services, and transfer ownership of state physical assets forever. What Gov. Bobby Jindal is doing now will be felt for decades to come if not forever. And forever is a mighty long time for the state to suffer after Jindal leaves office for greener pastures (which I find myself occasionally hoping will have a name such as “Serenity Gardens.”)

The first of these “Forever” changes involves privatizing essential government services. When these services are privatized, the state employees almost to a man/woman lose their jobs, their retirement and their benefits. Moreover, their years of experience and expertise are lost to the state almost always forever. The state’s records generally become those of a private company accessible only by the state agency responsible for their administration.

And even that access can become iffy. Take the Office of Risk Management, for example. In less than a year after being privatized at a cost of $75 million to the state, the contract was transferred to a second and then a third company—in open defiance of the state contract requiring written authority for the contract to be transferred. Today, two years after the privatization, nothing has been done about the contract violation.

Records that should be open and public disappear behind a cloak of protection from prying eyes not afforded public agencies. Consequently, monitoring by state and even federal investigators charged with oversight of the function becomes difficult. And to the press, the fourth estate charged with keeping everyone honest and accountable, access to once public records becomes all but impossible. When one adds in the profit motive of a private enterprise and tax liabilities that are not a cost factor to a state operating department, the cost to administer an essential and rightfully state service escalates significantly to the detriment of the state.

The second “Forever” change is the most troublesome and is the one that makes me scream the loudest. That is when physical assets owned by the state and its citizens are sold to private individuals, companies, and corporations. When assets such as hospitals, prisons, schools, etc., are sold, ownership of those assets by the state is lost FOREVER. Let me say that again. When physical assets of the state are sold, ownership of them by the state is lost FOREVER.

We will never again own them. If we need those physical assets to deliver essential state services and programs, we have to enter into negotiations with the new owners to rent or lease those same facilities that we previously owned. And since we in almost every case have no alternative site from which to provide the service, we are held captive by the private owner of the former state facility paid for with taxpayer dollars.

If the new owner knows that he has no competition, is it reasonable to expect him to give us a fair, reasonable, competitive rent/lease term? Chances of that happening are so slight as to be incalculable. The only protection is the initial agreement. After that, it’s every man for himself.

And remember, these new owners will most likely be the contributors to Jindal’s political campaigns, his political slush fund, Believe in Louisiana, or his wife’s “charitable” foundation. They will be the ALEC-supported “One-Percenters” who feel that they are, by divine right, entitled to the spoils of political patronage. It is the finality of the “FOREVER” consequences of the sale of physical assets that makes me scream the loudest and that must be stopped before it ever happens.

Jindal has three years left to do his dastardly deeds. Everyone knows he has higher political aspirations (goals that he will never attain) and that he is a pathological liar who will say anything to portray himself as a caring and responsible keeper of the sacred trust placed in him by the Louisiana electorate. And our generally brain-dead media will drink his poisoned Kool-Aid, ask no intelligent and probing questions, and print verbatim his press releases.

Meanwhile, the Super Pacs will reward him for his unconscionable acts of greed on behalf of the One-Percenters.

So how can Jindal be stopped? There is only one way. Our legislators must muster the required two-thirds (2/3) vote to take back powers to act that in the past have been ceded to the governor and his appointees. That is the only way. And that must happen within the next year and certainly before the end of his term in office. Otherwise, Jindal will have sold ALL of the most marketable physical assets that the state must have in order to deliver essential services mandated by state and federal law and the state will be forced to contract with the new owners for these assets use at exorbitant rates and for terms favorable to the new owners.

That is why I’m screaming and you’d better scream too. Legislators, you’d better muster whatever it takes to act as a body politic united to preserve our state’s assets or your term in office will be forever tainted as a do-nothing, hear, see and speak no evil hand-maiden to the most corrupt governor in our state’s history. That’s a legacy that I would not want to bear.

Read Full Post »

Attorney General opinion accuses π-yush of parliamentary chicanery in Office of Group Benefits privatization contract

Posted in ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, Attorney General, Campaign Contributions, Civil Service, Contract, Contracts, Ethics, Governor's Office, Health Care, Jobs, Layoffs, Legislature, Legislators, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, ORM, Office of Risk Management, Prison, Privatization, RFP, Request for Proposals, Transparency on September 15, 2012| 5 Comments »

A Louisiana Attorney General’s opinion released Friday has accused the administration of Gov. Piyush Jindal of attempting an end run around the legislature in its efforts to privatize the Office of Group Benefits (OGB).

Meanwhile, another state prison is abruptly closed by Jindal.

The eight-page opinion, written by Assistant Attorney General Michael J. Vallan, says that the proposed privatization of the Office of Group Benefits and the ensuing contract with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana must be approved by the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, as well as the Office of Contractual Review.

But don’t expect Jindal to capitulate too easily, for while the opinion, which boiled down to a interpretation of under which state statute the privatization action was taken, is just that—an opinion. It has no force of law and the likely action to be taken by Jindal and the Division of Administration (DOA) is to simply ignore it and proceed as planned.

The only recourse in such a scenario, would be for the legislature to file suit against Jindal to get a determination of which statute should apply in the privatization process—one which effective bypasses legislative authority or one which specifically requires approval of the two committees.

The requirement for approval of the Office of Contractual Review may as well have been deleted from the opinion since the office is a part of DOA and answers directly to Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater, making that agency’s approval a virtual given.

The Division of Administration, through OGB issued a request for proposals (RFP) earlier this year and on April 30 issued a Notice of Intent to Contract (NIC) for Administrative Services Only (ASO), meaning for the awarding of a contract to a third party administrator (TPA) to take over the administrative duties for the state’s Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) plan, the High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) with Health Savings Account (HAS), and the LaChip Affordable Health Plan (LaCHIP).

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana (BCBS) was already serving as third party administrator for the state’s HMO coverage for state employees and their dependents through OGB and on July 20, OGB issued a report and recommendation to the Evaluation Committee in which it proposed awarding the PPO, HDHP, HAS and LaCHIP business to BCBS as well.

That recommendation was approved by the State Civil Service Commission on Aug. 1.

State Rep. Katrina Jackson (D-Monroe) two days later requested an expedited legal opinion from the attorney general’s office based on her belief that the legislature had to sign off on the awarding of such contracts.

Vallan, in his opinion, said that Louisiana Revised Statute 42:802(B)(8)(b) “clearly provides that any such contract shall be subject to review and final approval by the appropriate standing committees of the Legislature having jurisdiction over review of agency rules by OGB as designated by (statute), or the subcommittees on oversight of such standing committees, and the Office of Contractual Review of the Division of Administration.”

“It is our understanding that the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Finance Committee are the appropriate standing committees having jurisdiction over OGB rules.

“Therefore, pursuant to the plain language of …42:802, it is the opinion of this office that any contract negotiated by OGB pursuant to the authority granted by …42:802(B)(8) shall be subject to review and final approval by the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Finance Committee.”

The entire issue hangs on which statute was used in the issuance of the NIC and the subsequent awarding of the contract to BCBS.

“According to OGB,” Vallan said, “the contract at issue was not negotiated pursuant to the provisions of …42:802(B), but was instead negotiated pursuant to the authority provided by Louisiana Revised Statute 42:851.”

While acknowledging that 42:851 does not require legislative approval of contracts, Vallan said, “Our reading of …42:851 is that it applies to situations where a particular state governmental or administrative subdivision, department, agency, school system, etc., intends to procure private contracts of insurance for its respective subdivision, department or agency.

“We do not believe that …42:851 provides OGB with the authority to enter into the proposed contract with BCBS. We are of the opinion that such authority is clearly granted by …42:802. An interpretation of both …42:802 and 42:851 authorize OGB to execute the proposed contract with BCBS would render the provisions of (the two statutes) duplicates of each other and their provisions superfluous and/or meaningless. Such an interpretation should be avoided.”

Vallan said that by enacting 42:802, it was clear that the legislature “has expressed its desire that contracts governing the provision of basic health care services, as well as certain other related contracts be subject to review and final approval by the legislature.

“To interpret …42:851 as offering some sort of alternative route to execute such contracts, thereby escaping legislative oversight, appears to be contrary to the logic and presumed fair purpose the legislature had in enacting …42:802.

“In summary, it is the opinion of this office that the proposed contract between OGB and BCBS is a contract negotiated pursuant to the provisions of …42:802. As such, the contract is subject to review and final approval by the appropriate standing committees of the legislature having jurisdiction over review of agency rules by the Office of Group Benefits.”

Almost lost in all the legalese is the fact that if Jindal’s privatization plan is ultimately approved—by the legislature or by the courts—121 state employees who show up each day to see to it that the medical claims of more than 100,000 state employees, retirees and their dependents are paid in a timely fashion will see their jobs vanish.

Jindal sees privatization through rose-colored glasses—provided him, no doubt, by generous corporate campaign contributors—despite the obvious pitfalls.

Take the Office of Risk Management (ORM), for example. It was the first state agency to be privatized and the company that the state paid $68 million to take over the TPA functions. The takeover was to occur in phases, with the worker’s compensation section one of the first to go and the road hazard section scheduled later this year as the last section to go over.

One of the conditions of the privatization contract was that the TPA absorb displaced ORM employees for a minimum of one year.

In only about eight months after taking over ORM in September of 2010, the contractor, F.A. Richard and Associates (FARA) of Mandeville, was back, asking for an amendment of a tad over $6.8 million to its contract, bring the total to just under $75 million.

Because the request was for an additional 10 percent, legislative approval was not necessary; there is a provision that contractors may get a one-time bump of 10 percent without legislative concurrence.

Legislators were not too happy to learn of that provision but in less than a month, FARA sold out to a company in Ohio which in a matter of only a few more months, sold out to a company in New York.

But here’s the clincher: the contract with FARA contains a clause which specifically says that its contract with ORM may not be transferred or reassigned without prior written approval. When DOA was asked for a copy of the written approval to transfer the contract to each of the out-of-state companies, the response was no such document existed.

So, because of not one, but two flagrant violations of its contract for privatization, ORM is being run by an out-of-state corporation even before all the ORM sections were phased into the contract.

And where are those former ORM employees today? Well, it seems, only a handful of former ORM employees remain there.

OGB remains on the privatization chopping block despite the encouraging legal opinion of the state’s highest legal office. It remains to be seen how it all will play out.

Meanwhile, Jindal, having failed to privatize state prisons as he wished, is simply closing facilities. J. Levy Dabadie Correctional Center was closed earlier this year with nary a word to area legislators of his intent.

On Friday, September 14, Jindal dropped another bombshell.

C. Paul Phelps Correctional Center in DeQuincy is being closed with its 700 medium security prisoners to be transferred to Angola State Penitentiary.

Again, state employees, about 150 of them, have had their livelihoods jerked from under them with no prior warning. About 70 of those will be given the opportunity to transfer to Angola. As for the rest?

Apparently they’re not Jindal’s problem. After all, he likes to say do more with less.

And now, with such a stellar record to back him up, Jindal is turning his attention to the privatization of the LSU Health System and its 10 affiliated hospitals statewide that treat the state’s poor and which train medical students.

Does anyone see a trend?

Read Full Post »

Notable Quotables (in their own words)

Posted in Ethics, Governor's Office, Jobs, Layoffs, Privatization, Transparency on September 12, 2012| 9 Comments »

Funny how the same governor who fought so hard to render state employees destitute in their retirement years–and who is closing hospitals, laying off workers, privatizing state jobs and sending them out of state to contractors–never once hesitated to call on state employees to work emergency shelters and emergency food stamp application sites while he sleeps comfortably in the mansion at night.

–A reader.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »