Feeds:
Posts
Comments

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.”

Guest Column: Waging War

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.

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.

If there’s a single word that could describe both the political and fiscal plight of Louisiana, that word would be chaotic. Absentee governor also comes to mind.

Gov. Bobby Jindal, when he’s not flying off to any of a growing number of other states to campaign for Republican candidates, is telling cabinet members and department heads to lead and to stop “whining” about proposed budget cuts that threaten to further stymie the state’s already stagnant economy and to gut higher education.

College presidents from one end of the state to the other are grappling with ways to keep from shutting down academic programs and laying off professors and teachers. The college presidents challenged Jindal’s Facebook criticism of the state’s colleges and universities for “underperforming” and for their “inefficiency.”

Professors also are entering the fray, openly criticizing the governor for everything from chronic absenteeism to insensitivity toward higher education as manifested by the administration’s deep budgetary cuts.

One legislator, perhaps with some measure of justification, or perhaps with an eye on the governor’s office in next year’s election, likewise accused Jindal of being absent from the state in a time of crisis.

Rep. John Bel Edwards of Amite described Jindal as absent without leave during “the most serious budget crisis in our history.” Edwards, a Democrat, said that Jindal “is not minding the store” and has been less than honest with Louisiana’s citizens about problems facing the state.

Edwards isn’t alone among legislators in offering criticism of the governor’s repeated optimistic proclamations on his statewide “Building a Better Louisiana for Our Children” tour. Press releases from the governor’s office quote Jindal as saying his administration is “doing more with less” and has “significantly cut government spending and reduced the size of government—while pursuing innovative programs that are more effective at providing services for our people.”

Several state senators, however, have called Jindal to task for what they feel is a lack of candor. The said he should be more straightforward about the types of severe budget cuts that will be necessary in order to balance next year’s budget. They said Jindal has been misleading the public in talking up cost savings and office consolidations while refusing to acknowledge the far-reaching budget cuts that will be needed to close the budget gap.

The president of the LSU student body gained national publicity recently when he wrote to a newspaper in New Hampshire where Jindal was campaigning. The letter asked the governor to return home and address the budgetary problems facing higher education. Only when J. Ryan Hudson’s letter got national attention did Jindal finally agree to meet with students to discuss cuts to higher education.

More recently, an LSU professor voiced similar sentiments, saying Jindal should do his job and “stop playing games.” A.R.P. Rau added that the governor, while critical of university sabbatical policies, failed to appreciate the irony that he is often “absent without leave from the state, neglecting it for his personal national aspirations.”

Perhaps the most significant criticism, however, came from Ed Steimel, retired president of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI). Steimel, calling himself a longtime supporter of Jindal, now describes the governor as “a major disappointment” and said he no longer supports him. Steimel-perhaps with tongue in cheek, but perhaps not-even suggested that Hudson and Jindal swap jobs.

State Treasurer John Kennedy, sounding more and more like a potential 2011 challenger to his fellow Republican, has offered his own plan to balance the state budget now estimated to be more than $100 million in the red. Kennedy said his 16-point plan would produce an overall savings of $2.6 billion.

The governor’s office, even as it was responding to the college presidents, launched a web page dedicated to criticizing Kennedy’s proposals, with Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater saying that the state treasurer’s ideas were “unworkable.” Kennedy angrily responded to Rainwater, saying, “Tell me you don’t want to do it. Tell me you don’t have the political courage to do it. But don’t tell me it can’t be done.”

When he became governor, Jindal increased the size of the Louisiana Board of Ethics by more than two-thirds, from 23 to 39 staff positions but now has directed the agency to cut staff by 35 percent. Ethics Board Chairman Frank Simoneaux said personnel cuts would be “particularly egregious to us.” He said the board already in understaffed for it to perform the duties it is charged by law to do.

Department of Health and Hospitals Secretary Bruce Greenstein sent an Oct. 22 agency-wide email in which he said Jindal was “committed to providing the core health-care services and programs that our residents need.” At the same time, however, Greenstein announced a reorganization that “will lead to a reduction in staff.”

Even as Greenstein was parroting Jindal’s commitment to needed health-care services, physicians and legislators alike leveled stinging criticism of Jindal’s decision last week to scrap CommunityCare, a program which mainly serves children in providing primary-care physicians for Medicaid patients throughout Louisiana. By eliminating the extra $3 per patient per month paid physicians to coordinate care of individual Medicaid patients, Jindal said he hopes to cut spending by $16 million.

Nor is the governor the only one to incur the wrath of some observers. The same growing feeling of general frustration was also directed at the legislature.

A Baton Rouge retiree offered a proposal which isn’t likely to get many takers. He suggested that whenever cuts are necessary, legislators should be first in line to sacrifice. Bill Fontaine of the Baton Rouge suburb of Central said that would mean that salaries, staff, perks, and any other costs of making the legislature run must be cut proportionate to any cuts to higher education. “….imagine the legislators working for free when there is no budget to pay them…..” he said.

“But you see,” he added, “I’m a pessimist about legislative courage. I don’t think they have the courage to forgo some pay and/or benefits for the good of the people. They are just cowards and greedy grabbers….”

Even the Associated Press is beginning to call attention to Jindal’s growing propensity to speak of Louisiana’s economy in more glowing terms than its citizens back home can see.

Saying that the governor seems more focused on his own political future than on problems back home, AP points out that Jindal conveniently leaves out the bad news about the state’s finances when describing his administration’s accomplishments during appearances in other states.

The latest example of Jindal’s apparent propensity to embellish his image of the state came as recently as Oct. 27 in Wisconsin.

Appearing on behalf of eventual winning gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker, Jindal and Governors Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Haley Barbour of Mississippi told Wisconsin voters that their strategies of cutting taxes and shrinking government worked in their states. Their pronouncements prompted Walker to call the three his inspiration when he is asked how he will create jobs and make government smaller. Calling them “great leaders,” Walker said, “They did it and we’re going to do it.”

Jindal boasted that Louisiana’s economy improved when he cut or repealed tax increases passed under his Democratic predecessor Kathleen Blanco, adding that Americans need leaders who can balance budgets, create jobs, and cut taxes. (Actually, the Stelly Plan to which he was apparently alluding, was passed in 2002, the final year of Republican Gov. Mike Foster’s administration.)

The “improved” economy of Louisiana is wrestling with the current budget deficit of $106 million. As if that were not sufficiently severe, next year’s deficit is pegged—by the Jindal administration itself—at $1.6 billion while others project an even bigger budgetary shortfall.

Back home in Louisiana, however, Jindal said it will be necessary for cabinet members and department heads to deliver better value with fewer dollars. “We don’t need whining. We do need leadership,” he said at a Capitol press conference. Then, apparently satisfied to leave the leadership to others, he immediately left for Pittsburgh to attend a fundraiser for the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Pennsylvania.

Political ads normally don’t generate much excitement among voters because for the most part, they are disingenuous at best and packed with blatant lies and half-truths at worst.

But there was a series of ads in Kentucky that can be found by connecting to the links below. In the first two ads, Republican challenger Mitch McConnell attempts to “find” the missing incumbent Democrat U.S. Sen. Walter Huddleston whom McConnell paints as AWOL on several key votes. Huddleston, it seems, is too busy making speeches to tend to the more mundane matters of Senate votes.

A team of bloodhounds is employed in futile attempts to locate the missing Huddleston in such places as Los Angeles hotels and on the beaches of Puerto Rico, places where Huddleston allegedly received generous speaking fees. That was in 1984 and McConnell defeated Huddleston.

Now fast forward to 2008 and Democrat Bruce Lunsford reprises the bloodhound ads and uses them against McConnell in an unsuccessful bid to unseat the four-term Republican.

Here are the links:

Perhaps this same tactic could be employed to find our own AWOL governor.

LSU student body President J. Ryan Hudson, he of the timely letter to the missing Gov. Jindal, could lead a team of bloodhounds out of the front gates of the university as he calls out, “Piyush, Piyush, where are you? Please come home.”

As a determined Hudson trudges through swamps and across Louisiana’s prairies, he encounters military veterans with recently-awarded medals given them by Jindal, but no Jindal. “He came through here, pinned this medal on me, said something really fast, and disappeared,” the veterans say, shaking their heads and adding, “That boy sure talks fast. Couldn’t understand half of what he said.”

Hudson labors on, going from church to church in north Louisiana only to find over and over that, “Yes, the governor was here. He popped in during our services, passed out some checks, and left.”

The bloodhounds pick up the governor’s scent at helicopter pads located near the governor’s mansion in Baton Rouge, but now he’s off to Florida, New Hampshire, New York, Missouri, Georgia, California, Ohio, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Iowa where he delivers staccato endorsements of fellow Republicans while condemning the federal stimulation money that he accepted anyway and then heads off to another fundraiser in yet another state.

Hudson, realizing the dogs are exhausted and in grave peril of suffering the same fate as the bloodhound in the classic movie “Cool Hand Luke,” finally gives up in the realization that Jindal may have the job he wants, but without a Hurricane Gustav or a major oil spill, he becomes bored rather quickly and must seek other venues to get valuable face time with the television cameras.

Reluctantly, he takes the bloodhounds home and returns to LSU to witness, along with the combined student bodies, administrators, and professors at all of Louisiana’s universities, the dismantling of Louisiana higher education in the interest of transparency. Meanwhile, Piyush can be heard from somewhere far away, as if through the fog of a bad dream, telling us to stop whining.