ePaper Login  |  Tour  |  Sample  |  Help  |  Subscribe        Day Pass BYOC: Build Your Own Classified

AmericanPress.com

  Ads from the print edition: Today's New Ads | All of Today's Ads
  Local Restaurant Guide: Bon Appetit | SW La. Moms
  Buy Photos: Get prints by our photographers | Fuel: Local prices

SWLA Rec Sports

   • Start Home Delivery
   • Contact Us
   • Advertise

Auto Parts Warehouse

POLITICS AND PEOPLE

Retired American Press editor Jim Beam has covered politics and people for more than 40 years.

He is the author of Positively Beaming a hardbound collection of favorite columns.

 Meet the Blogger

Nobody wants to pay freight

Posted November 19, 2009 at 7:08 am
Filed Under By Jim Beam | Leave a Comment

    The banner headline on Wednesday’s front page of this newspaper jumped into my head, and I couldn’t shake it loose.

    “Health survey: Tax rich,” it said.

    Americans who don’t have it want health care insurance coverage, but they want the rich to foot the bill.

    I have been feeling for some time now that this country is losing its sense of direction and that headline pretty much confirmed my suspicions. What could be more socialistic than having the wealthy pick up the entire tab?

    Give those who want to soak the rich their due. They clearly understand that paying for health care any other way puts the monkey on their backs.

    Organized labor, for example, is opposed to taxing insurance companies on those “Cadillac” health insurance plans. Union leaders are afraid their benefits could be hurt under that possibility.

    Another idea floating around would levy new taxes on insurance companies, drug manufacturers and medical device makers. Consumers oppose that because they realize those new taxes would simply be passed along in the form of higher premiums and more costly products.

Let wealthy pay

    So the only guarantee that many Americans won’t have to spend their own money for health care coverage is to have the wealthy finance the whole thing.

    The health care reform bill that passed the House by a close margin calls for imposing a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on people making more than $500,000 a year and households making more than $1 million.

    That survey conducted by Stanford University went one better. It showed that 57 percent of those polled had no problem with placing the same surcharge on people making more than $250,000 a year.

    How about this response from Mary Pat Rondthaler, 60, of Menlo Park, Calif.?

    “You know, I mean, why not?” she said. “If they have that much money, it should be taxed. It isn’t the same way that the guy making $21,000 is.”

    Coming from a resident of a liberal state like California, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised.

    The Stanford survey found that 57 percent of those surveyed had no problem with socking it to the wealthy.

    The news that $250,000 was an acceptable figure played right into the hands of Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid of Nevada. Reid is expected to propose an increase in the Medicare payroll tax for families earning more than $250,000 a year to finance health care for others.

    Why not have everybody in this country above the poverty level help pay for health care reform? Wouldn’t that be fair?

    Forget it. The survey showed 75 percent oppose that idea, and only 19 percent were in favor.

    Senior citizens who oppose health care reform have been under attack since this debate began because they benefit from Medicare or Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for the poor.

    The belief seems to be, “You’re getting a free ride, so why not me?”

    Well, for starters, Medicare isn’t a free ride. My wife and I are on Medicare, and we participate in the Prescription D drug program. We also have supplemental insurance.

    Total premiums for that coverage add up to nearly $9,000 a year, and other costs not covered add to the total health care bill. We are thankful for the coverage and for the ability to be able to pay the premiums.

    If you live at or near the poverty level and Uncle Sam wants to help you pay for health insurance, that is understandable and acceptable. However, the bills under consideration would subsidize premium payments for individuals and families making four times the poverty level, or $88,000 a year for a family of four.

    Another part of that survey was also disturbing. It showed that 72 percent of those polled said insurance companies made too much profit. And 74 percent said drug companies made too much profit.

Cures are expensive

    That conclusion is open to argument, but in that same newspaper was a story about new vaccines on the horizon designed to cure serious diseases. Some of those vaccines could be on the market in five years or less. Here’s what the story said:

    “Malaria. Tuberculosis. Alzheimer’s disease. AIDS. Pandemic flu. Genital herpes. Urinary tract infections. Grass allergies. Traveler’s diarrhea. You name it, the pharmaceutical industry is working on a vaccine to prevent it.”

    What is driving the pursuit of vaccines to cure these diseases? Profits, pure and simple. That is what our capitalist system is all about. Do we want to snuff out this kind of research?

    Pardon me for getting on my soap box, but I hate to see my country get so far off the beaten path. Yes, we need health care for those who can’t afford it, but everybody should be willing to share the load to make it happen.

    What we don’t need are Robin Hoods in Congress who want to steal from the rich to give to the poor.

Ethics rules don’t curb abuse

Posted November 15, 2009 at 8:00 am
Filed Under By Jim Beam | 1 Comment

    Aren’t ethics laws designed to improve the behavior of public officials? If so, the new ones in Louisiana flat out aren’t working.

    A recent rash of wrongdoing in the southeastern part of the state makes you wonder whether our new and supposedly tougher code of conduct is worth the paper on which it is written.

    New ethics laws that were approved during a special session early in 2008 initially improved the state’s national image. However, it appears to have been more hype that substance.

    Gov. Bobby Jindal continues to tout those ethics changes, but his praise is wearing thin in light of recent convictions and charges against public officials.

    Ethical conduct on the national scene isn’t much better. Congress treads lightly when it comes to holding its members accountable. And some of them have stretched the bounds of what’s right and wrong almost beyond limits.

    The granddaddy of all cases, of course, is the conviction of former U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, D-New Orleans. The ex-congressman was found guilty in August on 11 public corruption counts.

    Jefferson picked up the nickname “Dollar Bill” when $90,000 in cash was stuffed into his refrigerator freezer. It helped federal prosecutors prove he took payments from U.S. businesses to help arrange deals with West African officials.

    A federal district judge sentenced Jefferson Friday to a 13-year prison term, calling his crimes “a cancer on the body politic.”

Feds aren’t hesitant

    We can thank our lucky stars there are federal prosecutors around when we seek justice. The feds have to carry the load in Louisiana because the state attorney general’s office and local district attorneys avoid public corruption like the plague.

    Some public corruption cases in the southeastern part of the state tell a sordid story about ethical conduct. Consider these recent examples:

    A federal grand jury just over a week ago returned a 63-count indictment against Greg Meffert, the former technology chief for the city of New Orleans, and his wife. They were accused of taking $860,000 in kickbacks from a city contractor.

    The payments were allegedly made after the technology chief steered $4 million in no-bid city work to the contractor’s companies.

    Elias Castellanos, former chief financial officer for the Housing Authority of New Orleans, has admitted stealing almost $1 million from his agency. A fellow HANO worker has been indicted for reportedly giving himself $45,000 in illegal vouchers.

    A specialist has been appointed to fix the problems at the Housing Authority of New Orleans. If he is successful, he could bottle the cure and make a legitimate fortune in that part of the state.

    Jelpi Picou of New Orleans, former director of the Capital Appeals Project of the Louisiana Public Defender Board, resigned abruptly when it was reported $100,000 in state and other public funds were unaccounted for. The matter is under investigation by three different agencies.

    The Public Defender’s Office in Baton Rouge is having its problems. A longtime chief investigator admitted to bribing a senior city prosecutor and other court officials to fix criminal and traffic cases in both city and state courts in Baton Rouge.

    The prosecutor and a police sergeant have admitted they took bribes to dismiss criminal charges in City Court.

    U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous of New Orleans could be impeached for judicial misconduct. He reportedly took money from attorneys on both sides of a case he was hearing.

    A St. Bernard Parish state district judge admitted he took money to reduce criminal bonds.

    Kickbacks were at the center of charges against persons involved in an Interstate 10 project scheme. One was a former state highway engineer.

    Bill Hubbard, former St. John Parish president, and former Mandeville Mayor Eddie Price both resigned after admitting to bribery and fraud charges.

    The latest scandal is an insurance commission splitting deal involving Tim Whitmer, chief administrative aide to Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard. The commissions came from West Jefferson Medical Center when its employees signed up for optional insurance plans.

    Andrea Shaw of the New Orleans Times-Picayune said, “Jefferson Parish has always held its head up high as an example of how government, good government, should work.

    “Its leaders often point out how Jefferson Parish isn’t mired in the ongoing budget battles and bickering and backroom wheeling-and-dealing that consumes neighboring New Orleans.”

Trust betrayed

    Shaw said the latest incident “knocked the wind out of those folks who admired what appeared to be a rare example of integrity in government.”

    The rest of Louisiana isn’t pure and spotless when it comes to public corruption, but it pales in comparison to wrongdoing in the New Orleans area.

    Maybe those of us who live in other parts of the state should count our blessings more often. We have cleaner political skirts and the vast majority of our public officials take their oaths of office seriously.

    Unfortunately, whatever happens in the New Orleans area also affects the image of the entire state. Maybe if our ethics laws were as tough as they ought to be, errant public officials might think twice before engaging in questionable conduct.

Few ready to make hard choices

Posted November 12, 2009 at 7:14 am
Filed Under By Jim Beam | 1 Comment

    A special commission created to streamline Louisiana state government is talking a good game. However, you can’t help but wonder whether it will accomplish its goal of reducing state spending by $1 billion a year.

    State Sen. Jack Donahue, R-Covington, chairman of the Commission on Streamlining Government, said this week his group had approved about $300 million in cuts. That includes $124 million a year that could be saved over the next two fiscal years by cutting the state budget by 2 percent.

    While that sounds like real progress, there is still a reluctance on the part of some participants in this process to take bold action to get a tough job done.

    Take the latest recommendation, for example, on putting more money into state road construction. State Treasurer John Kennedy wanted to spend at least 75 percent of the state’s construction budget on roads and bridges.

    Kennedy said some of that money in recent years has financed golf courses, a baseball stadium, an opera house and parish courthouses.

Roads equal progress

    Any public official worth his salt knows road construction is the best economic development tool in a government’s arsenal. There are examples all across this state of development along new roads where officials had the vision to build them and watch activity accelerate along those routes.

    A shining example is the service road constructed along Interstate 10 at the Scott-Carencro exit. That area has become a small boomtown along one of the nation’s busiest highways.

    The same thing has happened along McNeese and Common streets in Lake Charles, and there is more road construction under way here that will see the same rapid economic development once the work is completed.

    Angele Davis, Gov. Bobby Jindal’s commissioner of administration, said Kennedy’s recommended 75 percent for state road construction was too high. She suggested instead that “a substantial portion” should be spent on roads.

    Davis said money needs to also be spent on economic development, coastal protection and repairs at higher education institutions and agreed 60 percent was a better figure for roads.

    Kennedy eventually went along with a 60 percent compromise. Of the rest, 20 percent of capital outlay spending would go for maintenance at colleges and universities and the remaining 20 percent on other needs.

    Then Davis said something that gives you pause about whether even the compromise has a fighting chance. She noted that it was “only a recommendation” and the final word rests with the governor and the Legislature.

    Legislators don’t like to rock the boat too much. We have seen that over the years when it comes to spending state money on local non-government organizations, commonly known as NGOs.

    The streamlining commission rejected another suggestion by Kennedy that the state quit financing NGOs with state taxpayer dollars.

    State Rep. Brett Geymann, R-Moss Bluff, a member of the commission, said there are some worthwhile NGOs like volunteer fire departments, food banks and the Special Olympics.

    Kennedy said, “I am not saying these are bad projects; the issue is whether they are priorities.”

    Geymann also came up with a compromise. He wants the NGOs accredited by a national agency, monitored by the legislative auditor and state inspector general and be required to provide full disclosure of what they are and who is involved in their operations.

    The compromise was approved 8-2.

    Gov. Jindal has improved the NGO process, but legislators willing to speak up on the issue will tell you there are still too many appropriations that are questionable that should have never been funded in the first place.

    Influential legislators can always manage to get some extra money for a favored few back home. State Sen. John Alario, D-Westwego, is the champion when it comes to directing state money back to Jefferson Parish. He is never challenged by his colleagues about funding for his favorite NGOs.

Major changes derailed

    On another front, no one was really surprised when the streamlining commission rejected a suggestion that some state departments be merged or reconstituted. Donahue said major changes take time and the commission’s time is limited.

    Yes, it is, but that doesn’t mean some of these drastic recommendations should simply be discarded. There may be some value in giving them a second look.

    Our state’s financial woes are serious. Personal and corporate income taxes, sales taxes and severance tax revenues are all down. The future looks awfully bleak.

    Pardon our pessimism, but everyone involved in this streamlining process seems to think extra oil and gas money or some other bonanza is going to rescue Louisiana from its financial woes. It appears our luck has run out.

What’s the latest on health care?

Posted November 8, 2009 at 8:16 am
Filed Under By Jim Beam | Leave a Comment

    Debate on a national health care reform plan got under way in the U.S. House of Representatives Saturday morning after abortion opponents won a minor concession. The odds are a House bill will be approved by the time you read this or shortly thereafter.

    This is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s baby, and you can be sure the California Democrat will do whatever it takes to save face.

    “We will,” Pelosi said when asked if she had the votes.

    Approval of a House bill would only be a first step toward final passage because the Senate has to pass its health care reform package. However, it would mark a major victory for President Barack Obama and the Democrats.

    Republicans are united against the Pelosi-backed bill, but the Democrats don’t need their votes. They picked up two more seats in elections last week and now have 258 votes, 40 more than the 218 it takes to pass the legislation.

    A group of 40 anti-abortion Democrats don’t like the current language in the House bill. It would let the secretary of health and human services decide whether the public insurance option covers abortions.

    Abortion opponents won a chance to knock out that language during debate, but it is apparently a long shot. The House Democratic leadership hopes they will still support the bill even if they lose that effort.

    Obama went to Capital Hill Saturday to put the full weight of his office behind the House legislation by trying to sway hesitant Democrats.

What’s in bill?

    The time of the House vote may still be in doubt, but what do we know for sure about the bill at this point?

    Health care reform picked up a head of steam last week when the House bill was endorsed by the AARP and the American Medical Association. Both organizations have a number of members who oppose the pending legislation, but apparently not enough stroke to call the shots.

    Nancy LeaMond, AARP executive vice president, told Tribune Newspapers her organization likes the House bill.

    “We can say with confidence that it meets our priorities for protecting Medicare, providing more affordable insurance for 50- to 64-year-olds and reforming our health care system,” she said.

    Critics of the AARP position claim there is a conflict of interest because the organization is in the business of promoting health insurance policies. AARP is expected to pick up more Medigap policies when cuts are made to Medicare Advantage.

    The Washington Post in October said AARP and its subsidiaries collected more than $650 million in royalties and other fees last year from the sale of insurance policies, credit cards and other products that carry its name.

    The AMA admitted the House bill isn’t exactly what doctors like but is close enough to get its support. However, Dr. J. James Rohack, president, said the bill needs to be tied to legislation that reverses planned reductions in Medicare payments to doctors.

    You can see why health care opponents insist both organizations will gain something from a new federal health care program.

    The House bill would provide health care insurance to 96 percent of Americans. Those who can’t afford it would get government subsidies beginning in 2013 to help them buy it.

    House legislation also includes a government-run public option.

    Persons who are self-employed and small businesses could buy coverage through new insurance exchanges, either from a private insurer or the government. 

   Individuals would be required to buy health care insurance or pay a fine of up to 2.5 percent of their income. Large companies would have to insure their employees or pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of total revenue.

    Insurance companies couldn’t deny coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions. They also couldn’t charge higher rates to older citizens. And a cap would be set for out-of-pocket expenses.

    The cost of the health insurance program would be financed with a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans and by reducing spending on Medicare and Medicaid.

    Democrats made the proposed health care reform bill available to the public 72 hours before the final vote. Unfortunately, reading and understanding the nearly 2,000-page bill would be a formidable task.

Tough road ahead

    A vote in the U.S. Senate on its health care reform bill had been forecast to take place before the end of the year, but it may not come until early in 2010. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., conceded last week it could be December or later before debate begins.

    If the Senate manages to get a bill approved, the two versions would then have to go to a conference committee where they would be merged. Congress doesn’t have a reputation for solving crucial issues in a timely fashion.

    The situation became even more complicated when Republicans won two major gubernatorial elections last week in New Jersey and Virginia. All U.S. House members and a third of the senators will have to run for re-election next year, and Democrats aren’t sure yet what to make of Tuesday’s outcome.

    However you may feel about health care reform, it’s obvious the wait is far from over. And delay doesn’t bode well for the Democrats who have enjoyed most of the momentum thus far.

Just what is cap-and-trade?

Posted November 5, 2009 at 7:36 am
Filed Under By Jim Beam | 1 Comment

    “Did you know that the cap-and-trade bill that passed the U.S. House will require you to get an environmental inspection before you could sell your home?”

    An acquaintance asked me that question this week during an exercise session. I had to plead ignorance on that one, but I promised him I would check it out. I did, and he’s right.

    The U.S. Senate still has to approve the legislation for it to become federal law. If it does, I would have to get my home inspected, have any defects repaired and then have a follow-up inspection before I could sell it.

    Exactly what is this cap-and-trade issue we have been hearing so much about? I had an inkling of what it is, but I did some research to get a better handle on the subject.

    Cap-and-trade is a method being proposed to regulate the amount of pollution released into the atmosphere. It is considered a means of reversing global warming and climate change.

    The federal government wants to set a cap on the amount of pollutants companies or others could release into the air. Then it would issue credits that allow companies to pollute a certain amount as long as it falls below the set cap.

    Trade comes into the picture when companies that can reduce pollution easier than others are allowed to sell their credit permits to those that can’t.

House moves first

    A cap-and-trade bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives on June 26 by a narrow margin — 219 to 212. Its chief sponsors are U.S. Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Edward Markey, D-Mass.

    A U.S. Senate committee held its first hearing on cap-and-trade legislation on Oct. 27, but it won’t move as quickly as the House version.

    Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., a co-author of the Senate bill, said it’s the best climate-change legislation to get the job done, according to a report in The Dallas Morning News.

    You can understand why oil and gas companies that dominate the economies of states like Texas and Louisiana are concerned about cap-and-trade. All states that are producers of coal, steel and gasoline are also affected.

    The Morning News talked about a recent Congressional Budget Office analysis that said cap-and-trade would result in lower economic output over the life of the legislation. That would translate to high employment losses and not enough green jobs would be created to replace those losses.

    OK, you can see why companies that rely on fossil fuels are skeptical about cap-and-trade legislation. Employees of those companies are also worried about losing their jobs. But what about average Americans?

    That is where homeowners come into the picture. Ryan Young, a fellow in regulatory studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, talked about inspections that would be required of those Americans who want to sell their homes. Young’s story appeared on Politico.com.

    “Inspections are not free,” he said. “Nor is fixing inevitable violations. Compliance with new energy-efficiency standards would make homes, especially older ones, more expensive. Selling one’s home would become even harder than it already is in this down market if Waxman-Markey-style cap-and-trade becomes law.

    Young said it would mark the end of “fixer-upper homes,” those purchased by buyers who want to upgrade the houses themselves. Home sales would also decline, he said.

    “If you don’t sell your home, then you don’t have to run the inspection gantlet,” Young said. “If you’re going to move, why not just rent out your old home instead of selling it?”

    Young said there are also problems with the other 396 new regulations and 1,100 mandates in the House version of cap-and-trade.

    “ … Social engineering schemes never work quite like they’re supposed to,” he said. “Better for Congress to stay out of our homes.”

    It should be pointed out that not all companies oppose cap-and-trade. Business Week magazine talked about companies like General Electric, Shell and New Orleans-based Entergy that support the effort.

    “Many in industry have come to believe that, given what science is learning, the costs of inaction are far greater than the price tag of the legislation,” the magazine said in a June 26 report.

What about others?

    There is another side to this picture, of course.

    China and India are major polluters of the environment, and Business Week said there will be no solution to the global climate problem unless both countries agree to cut their own greenhouse gas emissions. However, their leaders said they won’t come on board until the United States makes a serious effort to curb its emissions.

    You can see how this amounts to a “who’s going first” situation.

    We can’t continue to ignore damage to our environment. However, cap-and-trade is another emotional issue coming awfully close on the heels of efforts to reform the nation’s health care system.

    Some citizens feel swamped by more proposed and drastic changes in their everyday lives than they can handle at one time. Others believe we have already waited too long to take corrective action.

    The proposed home inspection system caught me off guard. I’m also wondering about those other 1,496 regulations and mandates in the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House.

    You can see why many Americans find the current situation unsettling.

Credibility is Treen’s legacy

Posted November 1, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Filed Under By Jim Beam | 1 Comment

    The death of former Republican Gov. Dave Treen last week brought back some memories of his early days in office and the unusual relationship he had later in life with former Democratic Gov. Edwin W. Edwards.

    I wrote an open letter to Treen in a column on March 15, 1981, titled, “It’s time for Treen to take the bull by the horns.”

    My concern was that Treen’s slowness to act and a few perceived shortcomings were playing right into Edwards’ re-election plans.

    Edwards couldn’t run for a third consecutive term when Treen was elected, but he was always there on the sidelines and working behind the scenes against Treen. Edwards did the same thing when Buddy Roemer was governor from 1988 to 1992.

    Treen didn’t respond to my open letter, but I got feedback from John H. Cade Jr., one of his longtime friends and supporters. I also heard from Edwards, who didn’t like some of the comments I made about his administration in that open letter.

    The reaction was surprising, considering that Edwards had made a comment about Treen that gained national attention and touched on the issue many were concerned about. Edwards said Treen was “so slow it takes him an hour and a half to watch ‘60 Minutes’.”

Deliberation his style

    Treen was a hands-on governor who weighed things carefully before making a decision. Some complained that he even tried to open all of his own mail.

    Ed Steimel, director of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry at the time, said Treen’s “iron determination to do a good job has isolated you from your supporters and has hurt you politically.”

    Steimel said Treen also failed to keep legislators in the loop. And the governor’s supporters complained about losing touch with Treen.

    I had kept pace with legislative events over those years and offered this advice to Treen:

    “While we can understand your independence, you must remember that legislators are people, too. Sure, be tough, but pat ’em on the back, smile, consult with them now and then and soothe their hurt egos once in a while.

    “The same thing is true of those people who helped put you in office. You don’t owe them anything, of course. But you don’t have to send them form letters and be inaccessible by telephone or when you’re in their part of the state.”

    In his response, Cade said Treen had a great deal of humility, which he said was an uncommon trait in politicians. Cade added that Treen also had faith in public institutions.

    “He thinks Louisiana will survive with or without Dave Treen,” Cade said. “His career in elective office has been one of steady progress. It indicates that he may know a lot more about good politics than some of his panicky friends think.”

    Edwards was not so measured in his response. He especially didn’t like my description of his way of governing. I called it the “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” system.

    After “Dear Jim,” it was downhill the rest of the way. Here is part of what Edwards said:

    “Typical of people of your mentality who are never happy with whatever is happening, you have no appreciation of the practical aspects of running things or any understanding of the fact that public officials are human, and we, too, make mistakes and certainly cannot be expected to please everyone.”

    Edwards said he hoped my open letter to Treen would get me a raise or a pat on the back from the publisher “since I can assure you it doesn’t merit any accolades in the field of political analysis or any accurate analysis of the political situation … ”

    I supported Treen’s re-election in 1983, saying the citizens of this state deserved more of the good government they had enjoyed over the previous 3 1/2 years. The credibility Treen brought to the Louisiana governor’s office may be his greatest legacy.

    Unfortunately, the odds were stacked heavily against him. Edwards had been highly visible during Treen’s term and he raised $11 million for his campaign for an unprecedented third term. It was more than any other gubernatorial candidate in history.

    Edwards defeated Treen by a 62-36 percent margin to become the first three-term governor in the state’s history. He told his supporters after the election he would do his best to become an even better governor than he was the first time.

    One writer said of Edwards, “He may be flamboyant, outspoken and cocky, but that’s how the state likes its politicians. As in the past, personalities — not issues — decide most of the state’s elections.”

Image improves

    That political reality began to change with the 1995 election of former Republican Gov. Mike Foster after Edwards’ fourth term. Foster and those governors who followed him have improved the image of the office.

    Edwards was eventually convicted of rigging the riverboat licensing process and is now serving a 10-year federal sentence. Surprisingly, it was Treen who became Edwards’ champion by trying to get his sentence commuted. It didn’t happen and Edwards’ term won’t end until 2011.

    “He was a worthy adversary and an absolute honorable man,” Edwards said after Treen’s death. “In spite of the different roads we traveled, we had become very good friends.”

    Treen’s efforts on Edwards’ behalf were puzzling to some, but they say more about the man than probably anything he said or did during a long life of public service. While Treen’s actions may be hard for some to understand, it is what the Good Book teaches.

Citizenship question legitimate

Posted October 29, 2009 at 6:32 am
Filed Under By Jim Beam | 3 Comments

    U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., has apparently delivered the death blow to efforts by a number of people to save one of Louisiana’s seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    Elliott Stonecipher of Shreveport, a population expert, believes that seat could be saved if persons counted in the census next year are asked whether they are citizens of this country. Everyone could be counted, he said, but only those who are citizens would be used to reapportion seats in the House.

    The latest American Community survey done by the Census Bureau indicates there are 22 million noncitizens living in this country.

    If noncitizen numbers are used to realign the House, states like California and Texas, where two-thirds of them live, would be the big winners. Louisiana and six other states don’t have large numbers of noncitizens, and they face the loss of House seats. The other states are Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

    U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., agrees with Stonecipher and offered an amendment to a spending bill for the Census Bureau that would add the citizenship question to census forms. He and others had hopes Landrieu would support the effort, but she declined Tuesday.

Democrats call shots

    Landrieu’s support was considered critical because the Democrats have the votes to kill Vitter’s amendment.

    The census forms and their 10 questions have already been printed, and redoing them would cost $1 billion, Landrieu said. Changing them would be unconstitutional, she added.

    “Sen. Vitter’s amendment is a transparent political stunt that would do nothing to address the problem,” Landrieu said. “It would require a constitutional amendment to exclude noncitizens from congressional reapportionment decisions … It is an egregious abuse of taxpayers’ dollars that I cannot support.”

    Six of the state’s seven U.S. House members disagree. They wrote to Landrieu, pleading for her support.

    “This will result in Louisiana losing one congressional seat compared to if reapportionment were based on citizens only,” the six said. “So the impact on Louisiana could not be more direct or clear.”

    Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, R-New Orleans, didn’t sign the letter, but he also thinks noncitizens shouldn’t be counted.

    Stonecipher said the citizenship question has been asked in 11 previous census counts. He also had a quick response to Landrieu for failing to support the Vitter effort.

    “Whatever your opinion of your fellow senator from our state, please note that the work I and others outside the Beltway have done in this pursuit is anything but a stunt,” Stonecipher said. “I would suggest to you that what we are doing — inarguably, I would say — is working for Louisiana and our nation.”

    Stonecipher said refusing to help indicates to him that Landrieu won’t seek re-election in 2014. He is also convinced President Barack Obama and the Democrats will eventually grant legal status to undocumented residents in order to secure most of their 6 million votes in upcoming congressional and presidential elections.

    Some 75 percent of noncitizens are considered sympathetic to the Democrats, he said.

    The Census Bureau has bragged about this year’s census questionnaire being one of the shortest ever. People will be able to complete it in about 10 minutes.

    The argument by Landrieu and others that it would cost $1 billion to change census forms seems bogus since the Census Bureau is already spending $15 billion to conduct the count.

    James Gill, a columnist for the New Orleans Times-Picayune, said that is a lot of money to spend on a census that won’t even tell us how many noncitizens live in this country.

    “That doesn’t sound like value for money,” Gill said.

    One of the big puzzles of this campaign to ask people whether they are citizens is why there hasn’t been more support for the effort.

    Stonecipher said when we think back about the fall of 2009, we will wonder why key elected officials in Louisiana hid in the bushes when they could have united to protect their state.

Vitter is controversial    

 

The fact that Sen. Vitter spearheaded the effort turned some people off. On some issues — and too often — he quickly wears out his welcome.

    At first, Vitter also wanted to ask noncitizens about their legal status, and that would have kept many of them from participating in the census.

    Gill offered another explanation: “Civil rights and Latino groups are raising a ruckus, the New York Times has editorialized against him (Vitter) and neither the White House nor the dominant Democrats in Congress will have any truck with him.”

    The argument has also been made that public officials who want the citizenship question included had a lot of time to do it much earlier before the census forms were printed.

    Stonecipher said U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is expected to have the Senate kill the Vitter amendment before the week is out.

    What a shame. How hard would it be to simply ask a resident if he or she is an American citizen? One of the reasons we do a census every 10 years is to establish hard facts on which to base future actions.

    Someone dropped the ball here — big time.

Pay, retirement stir emotions

Posted October 25, 2009 at 7:06 am
Filed Under By Jim Beam | 2 Comments

    Start messing around with a state employee’s pay or his retirement and you are guaranteed a full-blown controversy. So you can imagine what an uproar has been created with both issues now on the griddle at the same time.

    The state Civil Service Commission could as early as Nov. 4 make a final decision on a new pay raise plan for state workers. It is designed to replace what have become almost automatic 4 percent annual pay increases.

    Joint meetings of the House and Senate retirement committees at the same time are beginning discussions on possibly changing the way state retirements are funded and handled.

    No one was surprised when The Advocate of Baton Rouge reported that state workers are opposed to the new pay raise policy. Why wouldn’t they be when they have been virtually guaranteed annual 4 percent increases?

    Employees are supposed to be evaluated under the current system, but it has become routine to give most workers the 4 percent boost.

More flexibility

    The new system would allow agencies to give employees anywhere from zero to 3 percent increases if they satisfy their job requirements. Workers doing better than expected could get up to 6 percent raises.

    Opponents of the new system insist supervisors aren’t trained to make unbiased evaluations. They believe nepotism and friendships will result in too much favoritism.

    However, supervisors are being held to a higher standard under the proposed changes. Merit increases for classified managers and supervisors will be contingent on them doing “proper, substantive and meaningful” evaluations of employees under their direction and supervision.

    Legislators who pushed these changes think the current system doesn’t give state employees the incentive they need to perform at a higher level. They said it is the primary motivation factor for those who work in the private sector.

    The retirement debate pits the current employee defined-benefit plan vs. a defined-contribution plan. The four largest retirement plans are those that cover State Police, state employees, teachers and school employees.

    Under the benefit plan, a worker retires after a certain number of years and draws his retirement pay based on years of service and highest salary during that time. Both the state and the individual contribute to fund a person’s retirement pay.

    The contribution plan is patterned after 401(k)s. Both the state and individual contribute to the plan, but the account is managed by the employee. Under existing retirement systems, managers make those investment decisions.

    Contribution plans allow workers to take those plans with them if they want to work elsewhere. They aren’t locked into a state job.

Why change anything?

    The four major state retirement systems are underfunded by about $12 billion. That is how much it would take to cover benefits for everyone in the systems when they retire.

    Speaker of the House Jim Tucker, R-Algiers, came up with the contribution idea.

    “I think people want to manage their own money,” he added.

    If the retirement systems were changed, it wouldn’t affect anyone currently working for the state or who is already retired. Only new employees or teachers hired after July 1, 2010, would be affected.

    Those who oppose any changes in the retirement systems said a contribution plan wouldn’t change the fact that $12 billion would still have to be repaid. However, Tucker said it removes the state’s responsibility to come up with money to cover future shortages.

    State Sen. Butch Gautreaux, D-Morgan City, chairman of the Senate Retirement Committee, made perhaps the best argument against going to a contribution retirement plan. He talked about the national recession that is still being felt in many parts of the country.

    Many saw their 401(k) plans wiped out because of the economic downturn. And some who had planned to retire had to keep working.

    Gautreaux said he has stock market experience but still lost money during the downturn.

    “I haven’t gotten mine back, yet,” he said. “And I’m not entirely dependent on those dollars.”

    Rep. Joel Robideaux, No Party-Lafayette, is chairman of the House Retirement Committee. He doesn’t think any retirement change is imminent.

    “I don’t see a vote being taken,” he said. “But I do think we will get a good summary of the pros and cons on the two types of plans.”

Switch taking place

    Companies in the private sector have been changing to defined-contribution (401k) plans for some time now. They like the fact the cost of those plans is more predictable than it is under defined-benefit plans.

    Maybe so, but don’t look for any changes in state retirement plans for the time being. The memories of a national economy gone sour is too fresh in people’s minds. However, we can expect the issue to resurface in years to come.

    A change in the merit pay plan for state workers is a different story. It should have been improved a long time ago, but no one had the courage to take the bold steps that are necessary.

    People working in the private sector have to earn their stripes for promotions and pay increases, and the same should be true for state workers. The end result will be more efficiency in state government and better services for those who pay the taxes to keep it going.

Obama wows fans in New Orleans

Posted October 22, 2009 at 6:25 am
Filed Under By Jim Beam | Leave a Comment

    President Barack Obama’s toughest critics insist he is more show than substance. While it’s too early to tell whether he will be successful, Obama has proved he’s definitely a showman.

    Nowhere was that more evident than during the president’s four-hour visit to New Orleans last week. The trip was as well-choreographed as a Tony Award-winning Broadway play.

    No one doubted the president was the star of the show, but he had a great supporting cast that scored political points all over the city. Money and promises were also spread around to accent the occasion.

    The special day had its tense moments, particularly when the president introduced Gov. Bobby Jindal and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin at a University of New Orleans town hall meeting. Jindal was booed, and Nagin was booed and cheered at the same time.

    “This is a feisty crowd,” the president said.

    Obama seized the moment to be especially magnanimous.

    “Don’t worry, Bobby, I get that all the time,” the president said to Jindal. And Obama told the crowd the governor worked hard for hurricane recovery.

    It was a bold stroke. The nation’s No. 1 Democrat praising a Republican who has his eyes on the presidency.

Well-planned visit

    Looking back at the news coverage of the president’s trip, you couldn’t help seeing what tremendous power the free world’s greatest leader takes with him wherever he goes. And Obama hit all the right political notes as he sang the praises of New Orleans and its people.

    The headlines in the Times-Picayune said it all.

    “Together, we will rebuild this region, and we will build it stronger than before,” the president told what The Associated Press described as an “almost-gushing crowd.”

    Then came the words that had to tug at the hearts of his listeners.

    “It is always an inspiration to spend time with the men and women who have reminded the rest of us what it means to persevere in the face of tragedy and rebuild in the face of ruin,” Obama said. “That’s the story of this recovery, your unbending resilience. That doesn’t start in Washington, that starts right here.”

    While the president was winning over the hearts and minds of his listeners, members of his Cabinet were appearing at all the right places, saying and doing all the right things.

    Shaun Donovan, secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, brought news that as many as 19,000 New Orleans homeowners would finally be able to pay for their renovations. They will get up to $34,000 each in extra Road Home grant money.

    Arne Duncan, U.S. secretary of education, visited John McDonogh High School, a success story in the state-operated Recovery School District. He also said Louisiana had a shot at a share of $4.3 billion in stimulus spending in the “race to the top” fund.

    Jane Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, talked about a push to forgive loans issued to local communities after Hurricane Katrina.

    “Absent something extraordinary happening, we expect loan forgiveness soon,” Napolitano said.

    Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, promised to complete a review of Louisiana coastal restoration projects within months to determine which would become priorities for the Obama administration.

    Sutley spoke from a platform in the Lower 9th Ward, which was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. And she talked about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, not a favorite agency among many in New Orleans.

    “We are committed to making sure the corps does business in as responsible a way as possible,” Sutley said. “There’s new leadership with the change of the administration at the corps and I think they’re committed to modernizing some of the ways the corps does business.”

    Everywhere the Cabinet members went, they stressed the positive and brought good news and goodies for all.

    Short though it was, Obama’s trip to New Orleans was an awesome display of Washington power politics. However, The Associated Press said “some in this still-suffering, hurricanestruck city wonder when platitudes and political speech will give way to greater progress.”

Wrong destination

    The Town Talk of Alexandria in an editorial said the president would have gotten a better handle on life and hurricane recovery in Louisiana if he had visited the Lake Charles area instead.

    “The recovery there and most everywhere outside of New Orleans is stunning by comparison,” the newspaper said.

    “The post-hurricane difference is simple and striking: After Katrina, New Orleans held out its hands, looking for others to do the work. After Rita, Lake Charles and other hard-hit communities did not wait for the government to show up with a check. Instead, they picked up their chain saws and mosquito repellent and got busy.”

    The Town Talk is right, of course. However, those of us who have lived and worked outside New Orleans all our lives have come to expect the Crescent City to get most of the attention. It always has.

    That’s OK, though, because the rest of us know who we are and what we are.

    Obama may have missed the real recovery story, but give the president his due. He stole the show in New Orleans and accomplished his political mission in a big way.

    Then it was a quick exit in order to play the star once again at fund-raising events around the country on behalf of his Democratic Party.

Health care plan getting close

Posted October 18, 2009 at 5:39 am
Filed Under By Jim Beam | 1 Comment

    President Barack Obama’s goal of signing a national health care reform bill by year’s end moved closer to reality last week when the Senate Finance Committee voted 14-9 to send legislation to the full Senate. Democrats, who control both the House and Senate, hope to get a bill ready for floor debate on Oct. 26.

    Obama and his party’s congressional leadership cheered a small victory when the first Republican voted for a health care plan. However, U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe’s support down the line is far from a done deal.

    Why did the senator from Maine do it?

    “When history calls, history calls,” Snowe said.

    Give the Democrats their due. This is about as far as a national health care plan has ever gotten in Congress.

    Except for Snowe, Republicans continue to be united in their opposition to health care reform. Their leaders insist the proposals being debated cost too much and will damage the existing health care system administered primarily by private companies.

    Where health care goes from here will depend largely on Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Closed doors next

    Reid will be merging the Finance Committee bill with one approved earlier by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. And the fact that exercise will take place behind closed doors has even some Democrats concerned about what kind of bill will emerge.

    Republicans believe Reid is going to insert a government-run health insurance program into the legislation. It would compete with private companies. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., talked about the outcome.

    “We know that the bill written behind closed doors here in the Capitol will be another 1,000-page, trilliondollar Washington takeover,” McConnell said.

    Meanwhile, Pelosi will be doing her thing over in the House. Three committees have approved health care bills in the lower chamber, and they will have to be combined.

    The House has 256 Democrats and getting a 218-vote majority isn’t expected to be a problem.

    Democrats will have more problems in the Senate where it takes 60 votes instead of the usual 51 to stop any delaying tactics the Republicans might put together. The party has the numbers, but some of those are moderate or conservative Democrats who won’t be an easy sell.

    U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., is one of those moderates, although she is considered more liberal by many Louisiana voters. Landrieu has said she opposes a government-run health care option. Some believe she will end up voting for a health care program, but not before getting some concessions for her home state.

    Although Obama is feeling good about health care at the moment, there is a lot of water to cross before reaching the shore. Floor debate is expected to take weeks during which many amendments to health care are expected to be considered.

    The major hitch in most of this centers around whether the final bills should include provisions for a government-run health insurance system, often called the “public option.” Conservatives don’t want it, and liberals say they won’t vote for a plan without it.

    Obviously, someone will have to give if a bill ever hopes to make it to Obama’s desk. The latest idea floating around is to let states decide whether to offer public coverage or an alternative like insurance co-ops.

    We can expect the bills that finally make it to the debate stage to be long and complex, but some features appear to be inevitable in the final outcome.

    Most Americans would be required to buy health insurance. Federal subsidies would be provided to people on low incomes so they can purchase coverage. And small businesses would get help in providing health insurance for their employees.

    Insurance companies wouldn’t be able to deny coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. And age or family size couldn’t be a major factor in determining the cost of premiums.

    The cost of this gigantic health care system would be covered in several ways. Billions would be cut in Medicare payments to health care providers in the Advantage system. And higher taxes would be levied on million-dollar wage-earners and on insurance companies selling expensive policies.

    One of the big surprises in this health care effort is the fact the major benefits don’t kick in until 2013. However, the taxes and Medicare cuts begin right away.

Seniors worried

    The fact that Medicare is going to play a major role in paying for a national health care system is the reason senior citizens are uneasy about what’s ahead. Obama and others try to calm those fears, but without much success.

    On the other side of the coin are the millions in this country who can’t afford health care coverage but would like to have it. They see those of us on Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security as citizens who are already enjoying the benefits of government-run plans.

    It’s a valid argument, but what happens if a government health care option becomes part of health care reform? Will it really foster competition or drive private health insurance companies out of business?

    Which system better serves the health care needs of all Americans — public or private? Each of us has to answer that question for ourselves. Meanwhile, Congress is awfully close to making that decision for us.

keep looking »