Feeds:
Posts
Comments

“The upcoming November 3, 2020 election is a ripe target for peddlers of misinformation and false, manipulated content, including media polls. The June 8, 2020 CNN poll is designed to mislead American voters through a biased questionnaire and skewed sampling.

“Therefore, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. is formally requesting that CNN retract its skewed poll by publishing a full, fair, and conspicuous retraction, apology, and clarification to correct its misleading conclusions.”

—Actual letter of June 9 by Donald Trump attorney Jenna Ellis to CNN, demanding a retraction of its poll results which show Trump trailing Joe Biden by double digits.

 

“To my knowledge, this is the first time in its 40-year history that CNN has been threatened with legal action because an American politician or campaign did not like CNN’s polling results.

“To the extent we have received legal threats from political leaders in the past, they have typically come from countries like Venezuela or other regimes where there is little or no respect for a free and independent media.”

—Letter of June 10 from CNN to Ellis, explaining to her “how free speech works,” and telling her, in effect, to go pound sand up her a**. [Folks, if a politician (or someone acting on his behalf) threatening the media with legal action over something so benign as a poll doesn’t scare the bejeezus out of you, nothing will—or you are more dedicated to a tyrant than you are to your country. I’m afraid it’s that simple.]

“TRUMP: So full of S**T the entire nation ran out of toilet paper.”

—Decal so large it took up the entire rear window of a pickup truck bearing Florida plates. [Surprised the truck wasn’t vandalized in such a red state.]

 

“Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment. I watched, he fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?”

—Tweet on June 9 by America’s leading conspiracy nut, Bunker Boy Donald Trump, using such dog-whistle catch words as “could be,” “appearing to,” etc. to promote OANN’s contention that Gugino was some sort of subversive. [Taking the absurdity even further, some online wackos are claiming Gugino had a tube that squirted fake blood from beneath his head after his fall. That would’ve taken some pretty intricate planning. Trump spends more time on conspiracy theories than all the UFO hunters and Dealy Plaza CIA/Cuba/Mafia/Hoffa/LBJ plot-hatchers combined. It’s a wonder he can find time to play golf.]

By Stephen Winham, Guest Columnist

If you’ve been following state government at all lately (aside from the governor’s COVID-19 briefings) you know that the new House Speaker and Senate President (both Republicans) have been making moves increasingly independent of the governor (a Democrat). This reflects exercise of the legislative branch’s constitutionally co-equal power with that of the governor – something rarely seen since the administration of our last true reform governor, Charles Elson Roemer III, some 30 years ago, and not a bad thing as long as it doesn’t devolve into pure partisanship.

The Roemer Revolution started big, but slowly fizzled out as the legislature rebelled against the politically unpopular reforms the governor attempted to implement. He lost re-election to a second term, fulfilling the prophecy that reform governors (if they actually try to implement reforms) rarely last more than one term.

By contrast, the legislature went along with pretty much everything Bobby Jindal proposed during his eight years from which we are yet to recover. His relationship with the legislature was more representative of history, but brought the exercise of executive powers to new heights. Governor John Bel Edwards has attempted to strike an appropriate balance despite clearly partisan efforts to undermine his initiatives.

The best thing about increasing legislative power is that the power should come with commensurate accountability. Up to now the governor has been a convenient scapegoat for legislators when constituents complained, ala, “I tried, but the governor has too much power and he killed my bill.”

As it becomes clear to the public that the legislature, not the governor, holds the keys to the vault (the power of appropriation), perceived responsibility for what gets funded shifts. Oh, sure, the governor has veto power, but the legislature has the power to overrule his vetoes – a power rarely exercised. And, he wields powers he shouldn’t (IMO) over capital outlays, but that can change.

Beginning in John Bel Edwards’ first term, the legislature effectively politicized the method by which the amount of money in the budget is determined – and when. The Revenue Estimating Conference was established to eliminate arguments over how much money was available using the best forecasts by professional economists. The law requires unanimous votes by its 4 members – a university economist, the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and the governor’s representative – the commissioner of administration. If any one member refuses to vote to adopt an estimate, it, and the budget at whatever stage, go into limbo. Now that the precedent is set, the potential exists for this to recur at any time in the future.

Some of you may have read this article by Tyler Bridges in the June 10, 2020 edition of The Advocate:

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_b841f220-aa9d-11ea-80f7-0f65bfc3d486.html

The article highlights one apparently new way the legislature is flexing its power.

The Legislative Fiscal Office was created in 1973 to provide the legislature with its own independent source of fiscal information. The legislature had been essentially rubber-stamping the budget and fiscal information presented to them by the governor’s representatives. The legislature believed it was appropriate to have substantive, independent analysis of this information and that it needed its own joint fiscal staff to do it. The Legislative Fiscal Officer was created by law to direct and represent this staff and is provided a legal buffer against political reprisals for the recommendations made – Votes by two legislative money committees and the full membership of both legislative bodies are required for the fiscal officer’s removal.

As Mr. Bridges notes in his article, the current Legislative Fiscal Officer, John Carpenter, was informed his services will no longer be required as of the end of the current legislative session – notwithstanding, and with no consideration of, the legal process required for his removal. No reason was given other than that the leadership wanted to move in a new direction. The most likely reason: Mr. Carpenter stood behind analysis prepared by a member of his staff that demonstrated the large costs the state would incur if parish lawsuits against oil and gas companies for coastal damages were killed and the issues wound up being litigated by the state. The legislation was strongly supported by oil and gas interests and by the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry – and by many Republican legislators. Failure of the legislation was considered, at least in part, a result of the potential increased costs to the state.

If Mr. Carpenter is being canned for political reasons, or even simply because his position on this matter was generally unpopular, it sets a terrible precedent. If a “yes person” is appointed to the job, the office loses at least half its value as an objective source of information for anybody. And, lest we forget – the most respected economist in state government is on the staff of the Legislative fiscal Office.

The Legislative Fiscal Office has served a valuable purpose throughout its history. It was a thorn in my side when I was state budget director, but it certainly kept me on my toes. I would hate to see it become just another office making recommendations that are ignored by everybody – or worse.

(Stephen Winham is the retired Director of the Louisiana Executive Budget Office, having service in that office since 1979 and as Director from 1988 to 2000.)

“There’s no regrets on the part of this White House. We stand by those actions.”

—White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, on the aggressive tactics employed by US Park Police to clear Lafayette Park so Trump could have his Bible-totin’ photo-op. [She really should learn to make her subject and verb agree (There’s: singular, regrets: plural).]

 

“If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone.”

—Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, in speech he had written and was prepared to deliver in case the D-Day invasion of June 6, 1944, had failed.

 

“I didn’t do it.”

—Donald Trump, when asked about his administration’s disbanding the White House pandemic team upon taking office. [Actually, he did do it.]

 

“No, I don’t take responsibility at all.”

—Trump, when asked if he took any responsibility for his administration’s slow response to the coronavirus outbreak. [The final three quotes are contained in a new television ad by the Lincoln Project, a group of former Republican political operatives opposed to Trump, to illustrate how Trump refuses to take responsibility for his blunders as opposed to former President Eisenhower.]

“We’re eroding the capabilities of the planet to maintain human life and life in general.”

—Gerardo Ceballos, an ecologist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and lead author of a new study that indicates that we are in the midst of a mass extinction driven not by any catastrophic natural event, but by humans. [At the current rate, about 500 more terrestrial vertebrate species will become extinct over the next 20 years, the number that would normally occur over 10,000 years. If allowed to continue, Earth will lose vast ecosystems and the necessities they provide, including fresh water, pollination, and pest and disease control. In language the computer generation can understand: Earth may need to reboot.]

 

“No, I don’t support defunding the police. I support conditioning federal aid to police based on whether or not they meet certain basic standards of decency and honorableness.”

—Joe Biden, expressing his opposition to calls to defund police departments.

 

“The funding of police is a local matter, as you know. From the standpoint of our legislation, we’re not going to that place. What we’re doing is talking about how we change policy to make our policing more just,”

—House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on defunding police departments.

 

“There won’t be defunding. There won’t be dismantling of our police, and there’s not going to be any disbanding of our police. Our police have been letting us live in peace, and we want to make sure we don’t have any bad actors in there.”

—Donald Trump, on defunding police departments. [Is this what’s known as bipartisanship?]