Feeds:
Posts
Comments

My platform for the 2011 governor’s election

November 11, 2010 by tomaswell

Okay, after much deliberation, soul-searching, and with encouragement from family and friends (and co-workers who just want me go somewhere, anywhere else), it is with tongue planted firmly in cheek that I announce my candidacy for governor of the gret stet of looziana.

I am offering my services with a fairly simple no-frills platform. Some of the individual planks in my platform are certain to offend some very influential people—and that’s a good thing. So, without fanfare, frills or equivocation, and with the promise of no compromise, here is that platform:

No out-of-state campaigning for any Democrat or Republican candidate. My first responsibility will be to the citizens of Louisiana, not some two-faced, lying parasite who has never held a real job. Besides, I’m an independent. Plus, I don’t trust any politician. And no out-of-state travel for book signings, either;

Merge several universities and junior colleges throughout the state and convert some four-year schools to junior college status. Failing that, at least merge some of the programs—such as the law schools at Southern University and LSU in Baton Rouge. With the help of a reluctant legislature, this will cut duplication in athletic scholarships, salaries of coaches and university administrators, and in replicated programs;

Turn over all operations of the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security (otherwise known as the Governor’s Patronage Department) to the State Police where it was originally and should be again. If you recall, the administration pushed through a constitutional amendment in October that changed the Office of Homeland Security from classified (civil service) to non-classified (appointive) so that Homeland Security employees may receive any size pay raise the administration deems appropriate. Civil service employees, meanwhile, have their merit raises frozen indefinitely;

Eliminate the lieutenant governor’s office and assign the duties of that office to the secretary of state. Hey, it worked with the elections commission;

Have the Office of Contractual Review do its job by reviewing ALL contracts, including consulting contracts, to determine need;

Use the governor’s line-item veto to cut wasteful spending and to balance the state budget instead of laying off employees who have families to support, college tuition and home mortgages to pay, and who need health insurance;

In lieu of layoffs, offer state employees the option of accepting a pay cut of 7.5 to 10% for those making $50,000 to $100,000; 15% for those making up to $200,000; 20% for salaries of $200,000 to $300,000, and 25% for anyone making more than $300,000. Most employees would opt for a pay cut if it meant saving their jobs but sadly, the present administration has never even considered this option. Legislators would also be required to take a 25% cut. In fact, cut cabinet level salaries altogether;

Sell off all state golf courses. No additional explanation necessary;

Revisit the sacred Homestead Exemption (see? It’s even capitalized.);

Increase tobacco and alcohol taxes to at least the national average. If people are going to kill themselves with their indulgences, at least make ‘em pay for the privilege and make ‘em pay for the use of our charity hospital system when they develop catastrophic illnesses related to their vices;

Pass a constitutional amendment that future budget cuts, when necessary, won’t affect education or health care (someone needs to do this.);

Block computer games and internet access to legislators on Senate and House floors during legislative sessions;

Require all lobbyists to register with the Secretary of State (they already register with the House Speaker, but that’s too close to the center of power) and assess a hefty registration fee for all lobbyists except for non-profits;

Discontinue publishing legislative acts and other legal news in the Baton Rouge newspaper. This practice is cost prohibitive now that we have the free internet;

Enact a tough ethics code with real teeth. Bar any gifts to legislators, including meals, drinks, parties, etc. Any lobbyist violating said act shall be subject to severe fines and shall be barred from all future legislative sessions. Any legislator violating said act shall be subject to heavy fines and forfeiture of legislative pay for duration of his/her term of office.

Consolidate investigative agencies. Louisiana currently has five investigative agencies: the attorney general’s office, the ethics commission, the inspector general, the state police investigation program and the legislative auditor. Total budget for the five agencies: $55 million. Because the present administration has already gutted, stripped, and otherwise neutered the ethics commission. I suggest the state police absorb the auditor’s office, the inspector general, and ethics commission and that any investigations now pending with the latter three agencies be turned over to the state police. You may have noticed that the attorney general was left out of the loop. That’s because the AG is elected and as such, is a politician and not to be trusted with any investigation of state officials.

There you have it: my complete platform. Oh, wait. There is one more: No campaign contributions shall be accepted from any person, organization, foundation, PAC, or lobbyist.

I guess I should go ahead and write my concession speech now.

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Contract, Contracts, Ethics, Golf Courses, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Layoffs, Legislature, Legislators, Lobbyist, Taxes | 8 Comments »

Jindal: State economy is great but layoffs coming: Merry Christmas

November 11, 2010 by tomaswell

Even as Gov. Bobby Jindal insists that Louisiana’s economy is improving, another round of state layoffs, this one in the Division of Administration, has been announced in Baton Rouge. Scheduled to take effect only two weeks after Christmas, the latest round will impact positions in the Office of Information Technology, Office of Information Services, Office of Computing Services, and Office of Telecommunications Management.

The announcement was made by a Nov. 5 e-mail from Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater through appointing authority Steven Procopio and was sent to managers and supervisors in the Division of Administration. It was the second e-mail notification of layoffs to state employees. Two weeks ago, employees of the Department of Health and Hospitals received similar notification. DHH layoffs, like those in the DOA, are scheduled for early January.

The latest email was sent to department heads with instructions to distribute copies of the notice to employees by e-mail and to post copies on office bulletin boards. It contained the disclaimer that the message was “only for the specified individual or organization,” and that any unauthorized dissemination or copying of the e-mail “is strictly prohibited.”

“These layoffs are being proposed due to $4.1 million in budget cuts facing the Division of Administration and the need for cost savings for Fiscal Year 2010-2011,” it said.

The state is presently facing a budget deficit of $106 million for the current fiscal year and projections are for a $1.6 billion shortfall for FY 2011-2012, according to Jindal.

Jindal announced last month that as many as one-third of the Louisiana Board of Ethics staff would be laid off in efforts to draw down the current budget deficit. On Nov. 4 Jindal said on his web blog that Louisiana had one of the top 10 business climates in the nation and that Louisiana “was the most improved state in the country.” He said his Department of Economic Development “has certainly been able to do more with less.”

Posted in Civil Service, Economy, Ethics, Governor's Office, Layoffs, Politics | 1 Comment »

College mergers: the elephant in the room

November 11, 2010 by tomaswell

Perhaps, at long last, the time has come to talk about the elephant in the room.

Up to now, timid lawmakers have only dared whisper of the possibility of closing Louisiana’s two predominantly black universities and merging them with larger, mostly white schools. But now perhaps more serious, yes, even bolder consideration should be given not only to closing Grambling and Southern universities, but perhaps a few others four-year colleges in Louisiana as well.

Letter writers and bloggers have broached the subject more frequently as of late as the state’s economic plight worsens but as yet no member of the legislature, the Louisiana Board of Regents, nor the University of Louisiana System’s Board of Supervisors has summoned the political courage to address the issue.

Nor has Gov. Jindal or anyone else on the fourth floor of the State Capitol dared suggest what should be the obvious solution to erasing a substantial portion, if not all, of the state budget deficit.

The existence of three four-year public universities within 40-50 miles of each other, though a benign issue in better times, has suddenly become a topic that must finally be addressed in the interest of fiscal responsibility.

In north Louisiana, the University of Louisiana-Monroe (ULM), Louisiana Tech, and Grambling State universities are situated only about 40 miles apart on I-20.

In south Louisiana, Southeastern Louisiana University, LSU, and Southern University are in relative proximity to each other with Southern and LSU both in Baton Rouge and Southeastern only about 45 miles away in Hammond.

In the central part of the state, LSU-Eunice and LSU-Alexandria are a mere 50 miles apart. Granted, LSU-Eunice is a junior college, but does that justify the existence of two public institutions of higher learning so near each other serving essentially the same constituency?

For that matter, is there really a need for the University of New Orleans and Southern University-New Orleans to be located in the same city with Nicholls State less than 50 miles away in Thibodaux?

Three junior colleges, Bossier Community College, Southern University-Shreveport, and LSU-Shreveport sit within shouting distance from one another in the adjacent parishes of Caddo and Bossier.

That many junior colleges and four-year universities as close to each other as these schools do not represent the wisest investment of taxpayer dollars. When the state was flush with oil and gas money, it didn’t seem to matter. Political expediency was the order of the day and every part of the state wanted its own four-year school.

But that was before the existence of today’s $106 million state budget deficit. The combined budgets of ULM and Grambling were $126.3 million in 2009-2010 and the combined proposed budgets of the two schools for 2010-2011 approach $135 million. Add Northwestern to the mix and the numbers jump to $198.1 million and $210.3 million, respectively. Throw in the three junior colleges in the Shreveport area and, well, you get the picture. Strategic mergers in north Louisiana alone could wipe out the state’s budget deficit.

Merging two or more of the institutions would not produce an automatic savings equal to the combined budget of one or more of the schools being phased out because one school would have to absorb many of the displaced students, professors, and instructors.

But the elimination of athletic programs, (coaches’ salaries, athletic scholarships, and facility upkeep), administrative fees, including salaries for university presidents, the various vice presidents, deans, assistant deans, department heads, etc., by reducing the number of four-year institutions from the dozen we now have to only three or four would result in slashing expenditures by perhaps as much as several hundred million dollars.

Athletic programs and college administrations are not the only duplications that could be eliminated by a well-planned merger of universities. Curricula at many schools are nearly identical and replication could be eliminated in these areas as well. While some schools specialize in certain degree programs—the pharmacy program at ULM comes to mind—there is considerable overlap in curricula from school to school with many of those schools only a few miles from each other. The two existing law schools at LSU and Southern, for example, are located less than 10 miles from each other in Baton Rouge.

Why has this issue not been addressed by the powers that be? The answer is simple. Louisiana’s black political leaders and educators understandably want to protect their heritage at all cost and a big part of that heritage is represented by the two predominant black universities, Southern and Grambling and Southern’s Shreveport and New Orleans campuses. To close the black schools is to flirt with political disaster. The issue is an emotional powder keg that no one wants to ignite.

Even in cities like Lake Charles, Thibodaux, Alexandria, and Hammond, where the issue is not one of black heritage, the local political leaders, chambers of commerce, and legislators will do all in their power to retain their four-year institutions as part of their own identity. They would never agree to turning Nicholls, Northwestern, McNeese, UNO, LSU-A, or Southeastern into junior colleges. Most of those have already been there and they don’t want to go back.

Nor would they be likely to agree to merge Bossier Community College, Southern-Shreveport, and LSU-Shreveport even though virtually every economic consideration suggests it would be the fiscally prudent action to take.

That’s not to say it can’t be done. Gov. Dale Bumpers did it in Arkansas in 1971, when Arkansas A&M, a predominantly black school, was merged with the University of Arkansas and the planets and stars remained in alignment. Nationally, more than six dozen college and university mergers have taken place. One of the most notable was the merger of Marymount College and Loyola University in 1973 into what today is known as basketball powerhouse Loyola-Marymount.

But as one political observer said years ago, “They’ll close LSU before they close Grambling.”

Posted in Budget, Economy, Governor's Office, Higher Education, Regents | 2 Comments »

Guest Column: Waging War

November 7, 2010 by tomaswell

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

By John Sachs

Never has there been a greater capability to WAGE war than what the United States possesses. However, have we lost our ability to WIN a war? And what do I mean by “win?” Not what you may think.

Our nation designs and produces the most powerful of weapons. Our brave soldiers fight with unmatched discipline and dedication. We pour enough of our nation’s wealth into waging war that if spent on ourselves would lead to our solving almost every ill our nation faces. Yet with all of this power, we still do not win wars.

We all know what waging war is. Bombs and bullets, rifles and cannons, warships and bombers. Killing both combatants and non-combatants alike. Destruction of property. Disrupting the enemy’s commerce. Leaving a scorched earth in our wake. That’s what we do better than any other nation. We know how to wage war.

So what is winning a war? Winning is ridding our enemy of its desire to pose a threat to our nation’s security. If we can’t accomplish this, even though our enemy has surrendered, we have not won the war. What is left is a void, a vacuum into which disorder and chaos will surely return. Examples of wars that we have valiantly waged and yet not won include Korea, Viet Nam, Somalia, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

The United States is so inept at winning wars that it often doesn’t realize when the war has been won or lost. The latest tragic example is Afghanistan! The war in Afghanistan has been won twice and lost once. It was first won in 2002 by the United States when the warlord-led Taliban was neutralized, many of the Al Qaeda leaders had been killed, and a functioning central government had been established. Yet the United States did not realize that it had won and so is still fighting 8 years later, losing more and more each day, and has now indisputably lost the war. The threat to the United States grows each day we continue to wage war in Afghanistan.

So who won the second time? CHINA. Yes, even though they do not have a single soldier in the fight, they won the war.

How can that be? I will try to quickly explain and then encourage you to read more about this subject. Below is information obtained in part from the WORLD Blog from NBC News dated October 14, 2009.

Just outside Kabul, Afghanistan is the Aynak copper mine, which is believed to contain the world’s second-largest untapped copper deposit. This deposit was discovered in 1974 but until now has not been developed due to Afghanistan’s wars first with Russia and now the United States’ war against the Taliban and, ostensibly, Al Qaeda.

When China learned of this phenomenal copper deposit, it set about to negotiate a development pact with the Afghanistan government. In 2007, an agreement was signed where a Chinese joint venture would pay for the development and operating costs in exchange for 50% of the output. The remaining 50% would be available to the Afghan government to either use or sell. Note the equality of the split. In contrast, American developers have historically bribed corrupt foreign officials and then taken virtually 100% of the riches, leaving the general economy of the host nation no better off had the riches never been discovered or developed.

That’s why we are deservedly often referred to as “the Ugly Americans.”

When brought on-line, the Aynak mine will employ an estimated 40,000 Afghan citizens. And since the development is already well under way with production to begin in 2011, citizen excitement runs high, and China is viewed as a hero. Do you think that the Taliban would dare try to disrupt the Aynak development? NO! The citizen resistance would be unlike any that the Taliban has encountered.

Furthermore, the Chinese are building a road to Afghanistan for use in transporting their share of the copper to China. Imagine that. China is building a road to connect the two countries for common good. Yet the United States builds walled barriers to cut itself off from economic cooperation with its own neighbor. If we want to reduce illegal Mexican immigration, then we should help to create jobs in Mexico that will keep them there and in which we can share the economic bounty. That’s what is known as a win-win situation.

But the United States continues killing Afghan citizens, disrupting the economy, and destroying what little infrastructure the country has left. Are we removing the evil? Are we building long-term friendships where those on foreign shores will help to protect us from threats abroad? Are we helping to build an economy not dependent on the poppy trade and not controlled by warlords friendly to and financially supportive of Al Qaeda? Are we winning the war? Kinda hard to answer yes to those questions, isn’t it?

So what do we do now? First, for the future, clearly define what winning will look like. Then develop strategies and plans to accomplish winning. Learn by observing winners. Start with China. And most importantly, be slow to anger. Might does not make right. With might we can win battles, but not wars. Remember what we were all taught in kindergarten: Play Fair. Who knows, maybe, just maybe, we can learn to resolve arguments and live safely without so often resorting to war.

Posted in Politics | Leave a Comment »

Guest Column: A View from Pea Ridge

November 7, 2010 by tomaswell

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

By Judith Howard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »