Feeds:
Posts
Comments

LouisianaVoice reveals pair of frustrating episodes that reveal problems of state hospital privatization, closures

February 17, 2016 by tomaswell

Bobby Jindal: the gift that keeps on giving.

It’s bad enough that colleges and universities are facing the threat of temporary closures, cancellation of summer school, and loss of accreditation. But coupled with the bad news on higher education is an equally grim outlook for health care.

A sample of the legacy left us by Jindal’s hospital privatizations and closures:

In Baton Rouge, the closure of Earl K. Long (EKL) Medical Center had a ripple effect on the low income residents of North Baton Rouge. The emergency room patient care shifted onto Baton Rouge General Regional Medical Center Mid-City became such a money loser that it closed its emergency room on March 31, 2015. That moved emergency room care 30 minutes further away to Our Lady of the Lake (OLOL) Medical Center, located in largely white South Baton Rouge. One emergency room doctor confided to the author that it was his feeling that Jindal wanted to create “a medical wasteland north of Government Street.” Government Street, which traverses Baton Rouge in an east-west direction is a roughly-defined dividing line between South and North Baton Rouge.

Mid-City was hemorrhaging $2 million a month through its emergency room because Jindal refused to expand Medicaid and rejected any idea of putting up state money to keep the facility open. With the closure of its emergency room, residents of North Baton Rouge, which is largely low-income black in its demographic makeup, had few medical choices. With Our Lady of the Lake so far away, the alternatives were two urgent care clinics operated by the partnership of LSU and Our Lady of the Lake. The clinics were located on North Foster Street and Airline Highway. The North Foster clinic has no onsite doctor and the main Airline High clinic has a doctor onsite only until 7:00 p.m.

The same emergency room doctor who related the “medical wasteland” story told of the tragic case of an elderly African-American couple. “I felt sick reading this report,” he said. He said it involved “an old black couple who were paying $40 per month on their existing medical bill” to another Baton Rouge hospital.

The report read said the decedent was found “supine on bedroom floor. His wife told EMT personnel that her husband had congestive heart failure and that fluid had been building up. He did not go to the emergency room because the couple owed money to the hospital. She said he had been short of breath through the night and when she awoke, he was not breathing. CPR and advanced cardiac life support were initiated but were terminated after no response. “If he had gone to the LSU urgent care center, likely as not, no doctor would have been on duty,” the ER doctor said.

The closure of EKL and the decision by Baton Rouge General Mid-City to close its ER necessarily imposed a heavier workload on OLOL which entered into a partnership with the state for treatment of Medicaid patients. That increased workload has understandably also produced greater pressure on doctors and staff which in turn has apparently led to lapses in quality of care.

Consider the following brief email thread:

“Please see the email below sent from one of vascular consultants to our Associate Chief Medical Officer Dr. (redacted). My purpose for forwarding this email to you is not to criticize anyone nor is (it) to elicit a string of email responses. The sole purpose is to make all of us aware of the perception some of our consultants and primary care teams have of us. Increasingly of late, I am getting this type of feedback, be it real or otherwise.

“Doctors, we must elevate our game to meet the expectations of all our physician colleagues. I know you guys are working hard, but I am asking each of you to pay attention to the finer details.

“As Dr. (redacted) aptly said to me last night, our physician colleagues are our customers; we need to put ourselves in their shoes, be their voice, the voice of our customer.

Dr. (redacted)”

The email to which he referred read:

“I had a very irritating call last night from the ER. It bothers me that the environment around our hospital is deteriorating into a stereotypical dysfunctional training facility that we are all too familiar with and probably chose to go into private practice to avoid.

“I received a call at about 11:30 p.m. The answering service informed me who the call was about. When I called back a resident picked up and started telling me about ‘an endostent that had an endoleak with pain, transferred from Lake Charles.’ Knowing I was on city call, I figured I’d investigate this to expedite patient care. The resident told me they had already spoken to a doctor but it didn’t make sense when I couldn’t get the specifics I was asking for. At that point, I asked to speak to the attending whom (sic) was able to figure out they got the wrong guy. However, it’s a little disheartening that he didn’t readily know who the surgeon was they had spoken to that was assuming responsibility for the patient. He did mention ‘Dr. (redacted)” who is our resident (redacted)—but I’m not sure he knew it was a resident. It’s my feeling that in a patient potentially critical as this one—the attending should have his finger on the pulse a litter better than it appeared last night.

“After those 15 minutes I again informed the attending I was Dr. (redacted)…returning a page. At this point the attending gave me to ‘Dr (redacted), first year (emergency room) resident.’ The resident reports a consult on a patient with WBC (white blood cell) 19, blisters on cellulitic foot…When I ask asking info, it turns out the patient ‘has been on the board over 7 hours.’ When I ask to speak to attending who saw the patient—no longer working. At this point, I’m given back to the same attending who gave me to the first year resident he was covering. This attending was covering the resident, had taken sign-out, and expected the resident to call me and report but had never seen the patient. This reminds me of something I would get from the old ER at Mid-City, not what I would have received from OLOL in first 12 years of practice.

“I do realize we are a training facility but you and I both recognize that happens to a private practice service when run by residents. I’m sure the ER has exploded with new personal (sic) during this growth phase, but part of their responsibility is to know who the doctors are that routinely admit to this facility. To say the least, I was discouraged at the attending’s ‘finger on the pulse’ of what he was responsible for last night.

“This email is not to condemn any individual but to raise flags over the environment. Please forward to the appropriate people.”

(Sender’s name redacted)

Such is life in the aftermath of Bobby Jindal’s grand state hospital privatization scheme.

Posted in Contract, Contracts, DHH, Earl Long, Governor's Office, Health Care, Higher Education, Privatization | 26 Comments »

Dedications: Does eliminating them give Louisiana an easy way out of the state’s fiscal crisis? Is there an easy way out?

February 16, 2016 by tomaswell

By Stephen Winham

Every day we hear the same thing: “If we could just get rid of those dedications, we could fix the budget and not have to always hit higher education and health care so hard when times are tough. There are plenty of things we could cut without hurting anybody or anything.”

It sounds so easy. You hear, in very broad terms, how the budget has grown and how out-of-bounds spending has gotten. Our current budget totals about $25 billion, of which $10 billion is federal. I will focus on state funding in the official revenue forecast – about $10.4 Billion in the current year, with strongest emphasis on the $7.9 Billion in state general fund spending we can most readily control. The official forecast numbers for next year are $10.4 billion and $8.2 billion, respectively.

We hear about $4.3 billion in dedicated funds ($3.5 billion in the currently-proposed FY 2016-2017 budget) that could be eliminated and go a long way toward fixing our budget problems. What we rarely hear about is the additional $4 billion in the state general fund that is allocated and/or protected by the State Constitution.

For starters, almost a half billion dollars comes directly off the top of the general fund, but IS NOT APPROPRIATED. That’s right, you don’t see or hear much about this money because it is not appropriated – rather, it is a direct draw on the state’s general fund.

If you go to page 177 of the FY 2016-2017 Executive Budget, you will find Schedule 22, Non-Appropriated Requirements. This schedule allocates $496.5 million from the state general fund in the treasury, pursuant to the State Constitution, for the following:

$404.8 M – General Obligation Bond Debt Service

[IMPORTANT DIGRESSION: G. O. Debt service is increasing by over $211 million (109%) next year due to one-time savings utilized in the current year from defeasance of debt – In other words, this is part of the one-time “fix” in the current budget that has to be covered next year.]

$90.0 M – General Revenue Sharing – goes to local governments as a partial offset for local property tax revenue lost due to the State Homestead Exemption

$ 1.7 M – The Interim Emergency Board – provides emergency funds during the budget year

Now I ask you, which of these would you be willing to vote out of existence? Eliminating or changing them would require constitutional amendments and a vote of the people.

The one of these three I would not cut, for sure, is our $405 million in debt service. Defaulting on our debt would cause immediate loss of a marketable bond rating and send a message to the rest of the country that we are truly bankrupt.

Cutting the other $91.7 million in non-appropriated items would have very serious implications, particularly for local governments. Even if you think local governments shouldn’t get the revenue sharing, how do you think they would make it up, if they didn’t?

In addition to non-appropriated allocations, the State Constitution also mandates general fund spending for a number of appropriations. The state’s Minimum Foundation Program for public elementary and secondary education is required by the constitution and has a $3.4 Billion state general fund appropriation. You might be inclined to cut administration and other programs in the Department of Education, but are you willing to vote for a constitutional amendment eliminating basic state support for our public schools, or even allowing for substantially reducing it? You may not directly use public education, but you have to agree we absolutely have to have it and it should be funded at no less than its current level. The education provided by our public schools is vital and is finally improving. We can’t afford to lose the ground we’ve gained.

So, between just the General Obligation Bond debt service and the MFP requirements for next year, we have $3.8 Billion of General Fund (46% of the total) expenses it would be simply stupid to cut.

In addition to the MFP, another $600 million of our general fund expenditures are currently required by the State Constitution. State supplemental pay for local law enforcement alone is $124 million of this. Also included are salaries of statewide elected officials and the costs of elections. You might not be happy with the salaries of your statewide elected officials, but we have to pay them and I don’t think you could possibly support not having the money to hold elections. If you think locals ought to fully fund the salaries of law enforcement personnel, where do you think they might get the money to do so?

[Digressing again and focusing on local government funding for a moment, what if we decided to cut it all? Except for capital outlay projects, we indirectly fund recurring local services, so we would, in essence, be shoving our problem down to the local level – and we all live somewhere.  If local governments were unable to raise local taxes to support the services, they would be eliminated or significantly degraded.  If they were able to raise local taxes to support them, how would the taxpayers see a difference?]

What other general fund expenditures, currently considered mandated should we consider cutting? How about the $130 million in appropriated debt service (in addition to G. O. Debt)? How about the $400 million plus it costs to incarcerate adult inmates in our state prisons? Or, the $157 million we pay local sheriffs to house state inmates? The $27 million we pay in District Attorney and assistants’ salaries? How much of the $73 million legislative and $160 million judicial general fund appropriations are we and the legislature willing to cut? How much of the $848 million in general fund we consider sacrosanct because of federal mandates should we cut and what will happen if we do? How much can we realistically cut from our Medicaid program and still attempt to meet the health care needs of our citizens?

Finally, how about the elephant hiding behind the sofa, our annual payments via the state payroll system toward the Unfunded Accrued Liabilities of our state retirement systems? I’m no actuary, but using the actuarial reports generated by the Legislative Auditor, I estimate annual payments toward this liability, in state funds, is no less than $600 million and growing rapidly because of the way the amortization is structured. The State Constitution requires this debt to be liquidated by 2029.

We often hear that 67% of our general fund budget is non-discretionary. Let’s pretend we don’t have to do a lot of these things and, just for the sake of argument, say only 55% should not be touched. That still leaves only $3.7 billion of state general fund on the table subject to cut and we certainly aren’t going to cut over half of that to solve a projected $2 Billion problem next year. And, by the way, remember that any of the current year deficit not liquidated this fiscal year will, by law, have to be added to that problem.

Take a look at John Bel Edwards’ first Executive Budget. It is balanced to the official revenue forecast of general fund revenue. Look at what is cut and where. Look closely.

http://www.doa.la.gov/opb/pub/FY17/FY17_Executive_Budget.pdf

For more details, look at the supporting document:

http://www.doa.la.gov/Pages/opb/pub/FY17/FY17ExecBudget.aspx

Now, finally, let’s get back to those dedicated funds. The Legislative Auditor has just released a comprehensive document detailing these dedications. He points out there were 370 dedicated funds in Fiscal Year 2013-2014 (the last year for which complete documentation is available), 344 statutory and 26 constitutional. Let’s see which ones of these we want to eliminate.

How about the $1.4 Billion Transportation Trust Fund? Our roads are in great shape, right? Plus, we blow part of this on public safety rather than roads and public safety certainly isn’t important, is it?

How about the $159 million in Lottery proceeds? Surely we can find a better use than education for that money. The $184 million in the Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly? We only have to change a statute to cut the old folks off. The Oil Spill Contingency Fund at $52.7 million? We never have oil spills, do we? And, why should we share $39 million of our severance taxes with the parishes where the minerals are severed? TOPS is draining us dry, so let’s free up that money and spend it elsewhere.

I’m being facetious, but, seriously, don’t you think there is a constituency for every one of those 370 dedications (except maybe the 21 that have no revenue or expenditures)? How many times have dedications been studied and how many have been eliminated so far? The Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget has reviewed 25% of these dedications every other year since 2009, but has made no recommendations for modifying or eliminating any of them.

Whatever we do with dedicated funds can’t and shouldn’t be done overnight. Many of them support local governments, but the Transportation Trust Fund is the largest of them all and, in addition to the Department of Transportation, other state departments and agencies derive substantial operating funds from dedications, most notably the Public Service Commission, the departments of Environmental Quality, Wildlife and Fisheries, Economic Development, Agriculture and Forestry, Natural Resources and Public Safety Services.

Shouldn’t we look at each dedicated fund in depth to determine it source, its purpose, and the extent to which collections exceed needs? Isn’t this just what the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget should have done? Wouldn’t it have made a lot more sense to examine the historical inflows and outflows of each of these dedicated funds before creating a $442 million Overcollections Fund from their balances in FY 2014? This was yet another statutory dedication and a big reason statutory dedications spending rose so much. Worse, we then used the Overcollections Fund to pay for recurring expenses elsewhere – a significant part of why we are in our current mess.

Obviously, some collections in excess of needs should revert to the general fund. Others, justifiably, should not. In many cases, these funds are created from fees people pay for which they expect certain services. Some dedications to locals are used to service bonds.

Should we continue to look at potential modifications or eliminations of statutory dedication as a partial solution to our problems? Absolutely, but given our history and the realities of today, should we place an inordinate amount of blame for our current problems on them, or expect a miraculous cure to emerge from further study? I frankly don’t see why we would.

I urge you to look at the Legislative Auditor’s report here:

http://app.lla.state.la.us/PublicReports.nsf/0/13D9277344A19B9086257F560076E83A/$FILE/0000CAA1.pdf

It will give you a much better understanding of the dedications and is formatted in such a way as to drill down from a relatively high level to a very detailed level, so you can stop where you’d like and still gain valuable insight.

Let’s face it, as Gov. Edwards has said, if it is so easy to cut the budget, why has it not been cut to size long before now? This is particularly true in light of the fact we had a governor who travelled the United States for the past 8 years professing to be a budget cutter extraordinaire. If he actually cut expenditures to meet revenues and wrought such an economic miracle why do we find ourselves so out of whack? No, Virginia, it’s not just oil prices.

State Treasurer John Kennedy and others point to things the administration should do to eliminate fraud, abuse, and waste in state government. Who can disagree? To the extent these occur, we are all losers – the biggest are the intended beneficiaries of the services.

It is important that citizens believe their tax dollars and fees are being spent as wisely as possible or, at the minimum, that somebody is consistently and comprehensively trying to ensure this is the case. In my opinion, the accountability for this lies with the administration, not the legislative auditor or anybody else.

The administration has not yet provided specifics or even examples of what it plans to do about specific contracts that make no sense, bureaucratic structures that may be bloated, and more effective and efficient delivery of health care services. Gov. Edwards has said he will do something about these things, but he is yet to provide even anecdotal evidence like Kennedy and others to support his claim.

The executive branch needs to hold its appointed officials to the highest standards and demand they investigate dedications and everything else in the departments they are paid well to manage toward doing everything they possibly can to make our government as efficient and responsive as it can be. The public needs to know this is being done. They should not have to see an increasing succession of negative findings by the Legislative Auditor or, worse, disturbing reports of mismanagement and abuse in the media and elsewhere that go largely unanswered.

But, all that said, can these efforts bear fruit overnight? Can they come close to eliminating the gap? Look deeper than the rhetoric and you have to answer “no” and “no.”

One more link is below – an excellent presentation by the Louisiana House Fiscal Division done just a month ago. Check it out:

http://house.louisiana.gov/housefiscal/0112_16_OS_FiscalBriefing2.pdf

There is a lot of really good information out there from a variety of sources inside and outside government. Our decision-makers need to use it.

 

Posted in Budget, Ethics, Finances, Governor's Office, Health Care, Higher Education, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Politicians, Taxes | 85 Comments »

Some legislators are already diving for cover on academic funding even as they spend campaign funds on LSU tickets

February 16, 2016 by tomaswell

True to form, some legislators are already diving for cover or accusing higher education officials of crying wolf over the state’s lack of support for state colleges and universities. Either way, it all amounts to a shameless attempt to shift the blame as a means of deflecting attention from their pitiful performance over the past eight years

Some of those doing the loudest protesting might want to look inward to examine the hypocrisy of their current positions on funding higher education.

Sen. Conrad Appel (R-Metairie), for example. Appel opined in a Senate Education Committee meeting on Monday that he just didn’t think it is fair that education leaders are getting the public all worked up with scare tactics and doomsday propheteering—not to be confused with his own profiteering, of course.

“This is the first day of the process and the news media is flashing all this stuff up and getting the people all worked up,” Appel said in accusing higher ed leaders of sensationalizing the real impact of budget cuts and of creating what he termed “a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Of course, Appel is not one to pass up a good opportunity when he gets the chance. As Chairman of the Senate Education Committee two years ago, he was in a unique position to know of the pending deal between Discovery Education and the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) in time to sink between $5,000 and $24,999 into Discovery Communications stock just in time to make a killing. APPEL REPORT PDF

Senate Education Chairman Appel purchases Discovery stock week before company enters into state Techbook agreement

Since 2003, former and current members of the Louisiana House and Senate have used more than $710,000 of their personal campaign funds to purchase tickets to LSU athletic events. This despite the existence of several opinions issued by the State Board of Ethics specifically prohibiting the purchase of athletic tickets “for any personal use unrelated to a campaign or the holding of public office.” (Emphasis ours) http://ethics.la.gov/EthicsOpinion/DocView.aspx?id=7169&searchid=1e6d42e0-0081-4d47-b252-2473624ce865&dbid=0

LSU SPORTS PAYMENTS FROM CAMPAIGN FUNDS

So now we have legislators like State Sen. Mike Walsworth (R-West Monroe) criticizing taking higher education officials to task for suggesting that schools might close and TOPS may be ended because of a mere $970 million budgetary shortfall this fiscal year and a pending $2 billion budget hole for next fiscal year.

Walsworth, it should be noted, used $4,210 of his campaign funds in 2013 and 2014 on LSU athletic events.

But that pales in comparison to State Sen. Norbert Chabert (R-Houma) who went ballistic over a report that his alma mater Nicholls State University in Thibodaux might be forced to close temporarily. http://www.thenewsstar.com/story/news/2016/02/15/even-best-case-nicholls-close-temporarily/80403372/

“This is the first I’ve heard of it,” he said. “I think it’s unnecessary and a bad call. Are you telling me that the university in the fifth largest market in Louisiana that serves 6,300 students is going to close? This isn’t going to happen.”

Of course not, Norby. And Merrill Lynch, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual and a few hundred banks weren’t going to bite the dust starting back in 2008 either, were they? And shoot, Bernie Madoff was a man to be trusted with our investments, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bank_failures_in_the_United_States_(2008%E2%80%93present)

While while we ponder the wisdom of Chabert’s assurances, it might be worth noting that since 2009, he spent a cool $35,750 on tickets to LSU athletic events. It seems it’s okay to plow OPM (other people’s money—and that’s what campaign funds really are) into athletics, but don’t let university come crying about the shortage of funding for academics or the deplorable conditions of university infrastructure.

It would also be timely to point out here that athletics are not the only expenditure items for legislators’ campaign funds. There are the expensive meals, the leasing of luxury automobiles, Saints and Pelicans tickets, payments of ethics fines for campaign violations (expressly prohibited but done with impunity), and in at least one case, one legislator paying his personal federal income taxes with campaign money. https://louisianavoice.com/2015/05/11/hidden-in-plain-sight-campaign-funds-provide-opulent-lifestyle-of-meals-game-tickets-and-travel-for-legislators/

But because the focus for the moment is on higher education, we will limit our examination of campaign expenditures to LSU sports.

Here are some of the more flagrant cases we found:

  • Senate President John Alario, one of those who signed off on Grover Norquist’s no-tax pledge, spent more than $19,000 on LSU tickets;
  • Rep. James Armes (D-Leesville): $11,500 since 2008;
  • Rep. John Berthelot (R-Gonzales): $19,280 since 2011;
  • Rep. Thomas Carmody (R-Shreveport): $21,660 since 2010;
  • Rep. Patrick Connick (R-Marrero): $24,540 since 2008;
  • Rep. Michael Danahay (D-Sulphur): $17,600 since 2008;
  • Former Rep. Noble Ellington (recently appointed as legislative director for Gov. Edwards): $46,500 since 2002);
  • Sen. Dale Erdy (R-Livingston): $24,000 since 2003;
  • Former legislator and former Alcohol and Tobacco Control Commissioner Troy Hebert: $13,700 since 2009);
  • Rep. Frank Hoffman (R-West Monroe): $22,700 since 2009;
  • Former House Speaker Chuck Kleckley (R-Lake Charles): $31,900 since 2008;
  • Rep. Bernard LeBas (D-Ville Platte): $18,400 since 2009;
  • Sen. Danny Martiny (R-Metairie): $13,800 since 2002;
  • Sen. Jonathan Perry (R-Kaplan): $21,000 since 2009;
  • Former Rep. Erich Ponti (R-Baton Rouge): $18,700;
  • Former Rep. Joel Robideaux (R-Lafayette): $23,600 since 2004;
  • Sen. Gary Smith (D-Norco): $33,800 since 2002;
  • Sen. Francis Thompson (D-Delhi): $15,100 since 2010;
  • Former Sen. Sherri Buffington (R-Shreveport): $23,800 since 2009.

Buffington, then Sherri Cheek, is the same legislator who, in January 2004 traveled to New Orleans to attend the NCAA national championship football game between LSU and Oklahoma but forgot his tickets. No problem. She simply called State Police and arranged for a Pony Express-type relay by state troopers from Shreveport to New Orleans to deliver the six tickets. When word of the special deliver leaked out, she expressed her regret (don’t they always feel just awful—after they’re caught?) and said she would repay State Police $448.50, based on her computation of 12 hours of trooper pay. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1060246/posts

So while certain members of the legislature grandstand over the current and projected budgetary issues, it is important to remember they are a large part of the problem.

And higher ed is by no means the only fiscal issues before the legislature during the current special session.

There are grave cuts being proposed for health care which will be covered in greater detail in future posts here.

But a quick overview shows drastic cuts to programs serving the elderly, those on dialysis, the developmentally disadvantaged, hospice, and, of course, the disastrous venture into privatizing state hospitals.

It’s going to be difficult for legislators to rail against those with real needs to help keep them alive or well. To do so would truly expose the hypocrisy of those who claim to represent their constituencies.

As we said in an earlier post, this is the one chance lawmakers have to get it right. Rhetoric will not save the day. Denial will not solve the problems. Continuing the same fiscally irresponsible practices will not plug the gaping hole in the state budget.

And this is not the time to be point fingers or scolding administrators.

The time is now and the place is here to come together and to do what must be done to solve the state’s multitude of problems.

Anything less and wholesale recalls should be initiated immediately as soon as this session is over.

Posted in Budget, Campaign Contributions, Corruption, Ethics, Finances, Higher Education, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, LSU, Politicians, Revenue, Taxes | 13 Comments »

LouisianaVoice, guest columnists unite in effort to hold Louisiana Legislature accountable during special session

February 14, 2016 by tomaswell

The time has come to stop blaming Bobby Jindal. (Yeah, I know, I probably won’t. The man simply spread too much carnage during his eight clueless years occupying one office in theory while running for another in runaway delusional fantasy.)

But now it’s a new day and the torch of ineptness has been passed to his enablers, holdover members of the Louisiana House and Senate.

Legislators convened in Baton Rouge Sunday in special session to address a $900 million budget deficit for the remainder of this fiscal year and to take steps to head off a $2 billion budgetary shortfall for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1.

They have one chance to get it right. One chance, and one only.

If their performance over the last eight years is any indication, they won’t. Here’s why:

Louisiana elected officials who have signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge
Paul Hollis* State Representative Republican
John Alario State Senate President Republican
Jack Donahue State Senate Finance chairman Republican
Gerald Long State Senator Republican
Fred Mills State Senator Republican
Barrow Peacock State Senator Republican
John Smith State Senator Republican
Steve Carter State Representative Republican
Greg Cromer State Representative Republican
Cameron Henry State Representative Republican
Dorothy Hill State Representative Democrat
Valarie Hodges State Representative Republican
Sam Jones State Representative Democrat
Dee Richard State Representative No Party
Alan Seabaugh State Representative Republican
Scott Simon State Representative Republican
John Schroder State Representative Republican
Kirk Talbot State Representative Republican

*Paul Hollis signed the federal Americans for Tax Reform pledge when he was running for U.S. Senate. He is not listed as one of the people who signed onto the state government pledge.

These are returning legislators who swore an oath to a man who does not live in Louisiana, who has never held office. Yet, he appears to command loyalty from a handful of legislators who feel it is more important to serve his interests over those of their constituents, the ones who elected them to office. (Rep. Dee Richard of Thibodaux told LouisianaVoice last year that when he signed the pledge, he had no idea who Norquist was and had never heard of him.)

The late C.B. Forgotston called it “the lowest of a lot of low points” in Louisiana’s sorry legislative history. He said legislators, who had “already abdicated their constitutional responsibility to Bobby Jindal” were pleading with a non-resident of Louisiana “for help doing their jobs.”

Eleven state representatives—we called them “The Elastic Eleven” at the time—turned their collective backs on their constituents in particular and on the state in general in order to suck up to Norquist and to advance their own political agenda. In short, they were afraid to take a bathroom break without Norquist’s permission.

Their letter to Grover Norquist sought his blessing before they voted to pass the Student Assessment for Valuable Education, or SAVE credit program, which created money out of thin air via a higher education tax credit to cover a nonexistent student fee. https://louisianavoice.com/2015/06/08/eleven-republican-members-of-house-ways-and-means-committee-go-groveling-to-grover-norquist-for-direction/

Now, thanks to that little shell game, Louisiana’s colleges and universities teeter on the brink of unmitigated disaster. It’s not as if we were never warned: https://louisianavoice.com/2015/06/05/save-guest-columnist-wonders-if-grover-norquist-holding-compromising-videos-of-louisiana-legislators-bobby-jindal/

So why should we expect a different outcome now?

For one thing, we no longer have a delusional governor hell bent on leaving Louisiana in the broad daylight for the White House. Now we have a grownup on the fourth floor and not a gaggle of adolescent Milton Friedman theorists who refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

LouisianaVoice offers a guest column by Dayne Sherman on the threat to higher education as well as this link to Stephen Sabludowsky’s Bayou Buzz political blog: http://www.bayoubuzz.com/bb/item/1061467-jon-bel-edwards-dogged-by-kill-lsu-save-the-tigers-mentality

Dayne Sherman resides in Ponchatoula. He is the author of two novels and he blogs at http://talkaboutthesouth.com/

Below is his guest column:

Don’t blame the messenger for TOPS crisis

Similar to Rip Van Winkle, Louisiana just awoke from a long sleep. Eight years to be exact. While Jindal wrecked the state, the citizens snoozed, except for a few political watchdogs here and there howling in the night to no avail.

The moment Louisiana resurrected was Thursday, Feb. 11 at 4 PM. Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards announced TOPS payments to universities were being suspended. TOPS, college scholarships, is the most beloved socialist welfare program in Louisiana history.

Residents went from deep slumber to screaming in minutes. With college football also on the chopping block, we now know the dead can indeed rise from the grave.

It’s time to face the facts. Louisiana has an enormous structural deficit, approximately $1 billion this year, and $2 billion next fiscal year.

However, despite a Republican governor in Jindal and a Republican dominated House and Senate who created this fiscal crisis, some are incredibly, amazingly, and even ignorantly blaming the new governor—just a month in office—for these cuts.

It can’t be said enough, as everyone should realize, Jindal and the senators and representatives we elected are to blame for this fiasco. John Bel Edwards was one of those heralding voices who fought the foolishness, and he was elected to fix the mess.

Look, Edwards wants to protect TOPS and higher education. But Louisiana can’t cut its way to prosperity, nor can the state print money. The special legislative session ironically starts on Valentine’s Day, though love will not be in the air.

This budget crisis can be fixed with responsible tax increases and realistic cuts, which is all Edwards has suggested. It’s simple but will take intestinal fortitude.

The Republicans in the House, led by Taylor Barras (the figurehead Speaker) and Cameron Henry (the real Speaker), have done nothing but try to hamstring the Edwards administration in order to score political points. Sources say plans have been crafted to end the session as soon as it starts and go home with nothing accomplished as a way to cripple the new governor.

Therefore, I am calling for a new Speaker vote on the first day of the session. Remove Barras and send Henry to the kiddie table where he belongs. I don’t care which Republican takes the helm, as long as he or she is willing to work with Edwards and quit playing obstructionist games detrimental to Louisiana.

My advice for those who care about Louisiana is to go see their legislators. Look them straight in the eye and say the Washington-style politics is over. Fix the budget and protect TOPS or resign. Raise taxes, craft a responsible budget, and save the state. No more failures. No more excuses. Put Louisiana first.

Posted in Contract, Contracts, Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Finances, Governor's Office, Guest Columnist, Higher Education, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Politicians, Revenue, Taxes, Transparency | 35 Comments »

Guest columnist calls for moratorium on new strip clubs in New Orleans French Quarter following Louisiana Voice story

February 13, 2016 by tomaswell

Recently, LouisianaVoice ran a story concerning reported pressure on New Orleans strip clubs to make contributions to political candidates. Following the meeting with club owners and their subsequent contributions, a number of strip clubs were hit with surprise inspections by agents from the Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control. Several clubs lost liquor permits for violations including sales to minors, drugs and prostitution. None of the clubs who made political contributions were visited in the French Quarter sweep by ATC agents.

That story, however, did prompt the following contribution by guest columnist William Kahn. Kahn is a resident of the French Quarter a voter and entrepreneur.

By William Kahn

New Orleans should limit new strip clubs in the French Quarter

On Tuesday, February 23rd, 2016, the New Orleans City Planning Commission (CPC) is going to hold a public hearing on strip clubs in the French Quarter. Pending the CPC study and proposed reforms, the New Orleans City Council enacted a one-year temporary moratorium on strip clubs after Louisiana State Police and state authorities documented illegal drug sales, prostitution, and lewd conduct at several strip clubs and a stripper who worked at one of the Bourbon Street venues was brutally murdered by her pimp [1],[9],[10].

After the one-year moratorium on new strip clubs expires, what’s next for the French Quarter and the image of New Orleans? The French Quarter already has the nation’s highest concentration of strip clubs on a per capita basis and per square mile. According to an urban research study, Portland, OR is the city with the highest number of strip clubs per capita in the country with nearly 9 strip clubs per 100,000 people. With approximately 4,000 residents, roughly 20 strip clubs, and an area of only 0.66 square miles, the French Quarter has 56 times more strip clubs per capita than Portland (which is 220x larger in land area). The concentration of strip clubs in the Vieux Carre on a per capita basis sadly rises whenever a resident of the French Quarter permanently leaves because he or she cannot raise a family and enjoy a normal life in an increasingly unbalanced neighborhood [2].

Should new strip clubs or adult entertainment venues be allowed to proliferate in the Vieux Carre after the moratorium ends? In contrast, new hotels, T-shirt shops, and food carts (other than Lucky Dog) are prohibited from ever opening in the French Quarter. Why has city hall ignored or tolerated the harmful impacts of strip clubs in New Orleans’ oldest neighborhood for decades?

In 1977, Mayor Moon Landrieu established the Bourbon Street Task Force with a blue-ribbon panel to study the strip and suggest improvements. The panel visited the adult-entertainment districts of Boston’s “Combat Zone,” New York City’s Times Square, and Atlanta’s red-light areas. Modeled on other cities but tailored to New Orleans’ unique flavor, the Vieux Carre Entertainment District (otherwise known as Bourbon Street from Iberville to St. Ann) was created shortly thereafter. At the time, Bourbon Street’s adult-entertainment venues were not dominated by the out-of-town owned and corporate chains of strip clubs that currently line the strip. [3]

From its outset, the Vieux Carre Entertainment District offered vaudeville, burlesque shows, and theatrical glamour. The 1977 Bourbon Street Task Force’s permissive rules, which were intended to encourage the street’s creativity and individuality, have been abused, leading to the present-day marketing of lap dances and private champagne rooms. Since 1977, the cities that the task force considered as benchmarks for New Orleans have reformed their respective adult-entertainment districts. Boston’s Combat Zone was transformed by civic activists into a family-friendly and mixed-use district. [4] New York City’s clampdown on sexually-oriented businesses in the 1990’s has been widely praised for launching the city’s revival, making it a more decent place to live and to visit. Atlanta’s strip clubs today are not allowed to sell alcohol. [5]

New Orleans should update and modernize its 40-year old regulations for strip clubs in the French Quarter. The negative effects of strip clubs on quality of life are clear. In 2012, City Councilmember Kristin Palmer specifically pointed to the number of strip clubs in the French Quarter as a justification for tightening the curfew for minors in our city’s oldest neighborhood. On the 300 and 400 blocks of Bourbon Street, there are at least seven strip clubs flanking the Royal Sonesta Hotel, and reportedly at least one convention rejected New Orleans as a destination because strippers were visible from the sidewalk. [6],[7]

Mayor Mitch Landrieu has set a goal of attracting 13 million visitors annually to New Orleans by 2018. How can New Orleans achieve such a goal without promoting a cleaner and more balanced brand that appeals to more families, children, and ordinary people? It’s time for some common-sense restrictions on how close new strip clubs could open near existing ones in the French Quarter. [8]

The need for a buffer from strip clubs is not a foreign concept under current New Orleans zoning rules. Outside of the French Quarter, the New Orleans Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance prohibits strip clubs and nude cabarets from opening within 1,000 feet of residences, churches, schools, and parks. The exposé of prostitution, drug-related crimes, and lewd/improper acts at French Quarter strip clubs led to a temporary moratorium, but city hall should strive for more substantial reforms. To revamp the worsening environment of the French Quarter and to bolster the neighborhood’s livability, the city should permanently limit how close future strip clubs can open near current ones.

If you want to help in cleaning up New Orleans and do not want to see any more strip clubs opening in the French Quarter that ruin the image of the city, you can submit written comments to the Planning Commission by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, February 15, (use cpcinfo@nola.gov and CC cdbonnett@nola.gov) and you can also attend the public meeting that will be held on Tuesday, February 23rd at 1:30 p.m. in City Council chambers.

William Khan

French Quarter resident

Sources:

[1] Moratorium on new strip clubs approved for French Quarter

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/moratorium_on_new_strip_clubs.html

[2] “Why Does Portland Have so Many Strip Clubs?” http://priceonomics.com/why-does-portland-have-so-many-strip-clubs/

[3] History and analysis of the 1977 Bourbon Street Task Force:

Richard Campanella, Bourbon Street: A History (2014), pp. 222-224, 238-239.

[4] The cleanup of Boston’s Clean Zone (one of the cities used by the 1977 Bourbon Street Task Force in creating the Vieux Carre Entertainment District–Bourbon Street): http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/print-edition/2013/03/08/new-projects-wipe-away-more-vestiges.html

[5] Atlanta’s ban on liquor in strip clubs: http://www.atlnightspots.com/alcohol-banned-in-fulton-county-strip-clubs/

[6] City Councilmember Kristin Palmer NOLA.com Op-Ed which referred to the number of strip clubs in the neighborhood as a justification for a harsher curfew for minors: http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2012/01/modified_new_orleans_curfew_ne.html

[7] Strip clubs repelled at least one convention from selecting NOLA: http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/09/bourbon_street_strip_clubs_cou.html

[8] Mayor Mitch Landrieu’s goal of 13 million visitors by 2018: http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2012/05/mayor_mitch_landrieu_calls_on.html

[9] Prostitution, drug crimes, and lewd/improper conduct at strip clubs: http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/11/4_more_bourbon_street_clubs_bu.html

[10] History of violations at Bourbon Street strip clubs: http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/11/in_bourbon_street_strip_clubs.html

Posted in Politics | 2 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »