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

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.

Columbus our latest victim

Posted October 15, 2009 at 6:46 am
Filed Under By Jim Beam | Leave a Comment

    OK, maybe Christopher Columbus wasn’t a nice guy. But getting fourth graders to put him on trial is taking the debunking of American history much too far. 

Is nothing about this country’s great past no longer sacred?

    As a student of American history, I’ve had my fill from those who are determined to focus on the shortcomings of great men and women who made valuable contributions to our heritage.

    Who among us hasn’t done something shameful in our past that really doesn’t sum up who we really are? Are those who come after us supposed to use those failings as the only criteria for judging our worth?

    Take the case of the late President John F. Kennedy, for example. Yes, he was a womanizer, but is that history’s final judgment about JFK? I don’t think so.

    I have a 1961 textbook I used when teaching American history in high school and it gets to the real contribution Columbus made. It acknowledged he wasn’t the first to reach the shores of the Americas.

    “Other Europeans may have also ‘discovered’ the New World before Columbus,” one passage said. “If so, no written records have remained. In any case, Columbus was not first. It is more nearly correct to say that he ‘rediscovered’ the New World. The important thing is that after Columbus’ great voyage the Americas stayed discovered.”

Correctness gone haywire

    What is being taught about Columbus in today’s classrooms? Consider what a kindergarten teacher in Tampa, Fla., said.

    “I talk about the situation where he didn’t even realize where he was,” the man said. “And we talked about how he was very, very mean, very bossy.”

    Wow! Isn’t that a wonderful way to have kindergarten students remember Columbus?

    A recent Associated Press report said fifth graders in Texas are learning about the “Columbian Exchange.” It talks about gold, crops and goods being shipped back and forth across the Atlantic. It also says diseases were carried by settlers that decimated native populations.

    Much has been said about the early settlers bringing diseases to this country. And indeed they did. However, there were some diseases here already. And Europeans didn’t consciously say, “Let’s take diseases with us to America.”

    One account I read said Europeans brought smallpox to the New World, but Indians gave Europeans syphilis and tobacco.

    Should we judge the contributions of Native Americans solely on the basis on those last two realities? Certainly not.

    A fourth grade teacher in Pennsylvania where students put Columbus on trial said, “In their own verbiage, he was a bad guy.”

    Where do you suppose those fourth graders got all of the bad stuff on which they voted 9-3 to find Columbus guilty?

    One writer agreed the voyages and many accomplishments of Columbus should be remembered. Then came the bombshells.

    “Columbus was a colonizer, a bigot and a thief on the grandest scale,” the writer said. “He forcefully took the local inhabitants’ land, he treated the natives as if they were animals, and he enslaved natives for his and others’ profit … ”

    A spokesman for the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, said the pendulum has swung too far in the wrong direction. He talked about an experience in a New Jersey school.

    Students were forced to stand in a cafeteria and were not allowed to eat while other students teased and intimidated them. The idea was to help them better understand the suffering native populations endured because of Columbus.

    What would you and I think about Columbus if we were put in a similar situation?

    Overlooked in this emphasis on the downside are some facts about Columbus and his contributions. Vanessa Cortez writes about those in a story for WeeklyUniverse.com.

    Columbus was a keen astronomer who knew the earth was round. He was simply looking for a sea route to India and China when he ended up in the Americas.

    The voyage to the New World was smooth-sailing, and it paved the way for other explorers who followed.

    Did many of them have some wrong ideas about what it was they were supposed to do when they got here? Probably, but it’s unlikely they realized the errors of their ways at the time.

Times do change

    We should try to judge history in terms of the times in which we are dealing. It is folly to make judgments based on today’s morality and understanding.

    That textbook from the 1960s says Columbus died in 1506, without knowing the New World he rediscovered “would, in time, have more influence upon Europe than all the riches that he had dreamed of finding in Asia.”

    Maybe someone else would have eventually discovered this great country, but history can’t ignore the fact it was Columbus who led the way. Can’t we give the man his due and not judge him strictly on his weaknesses?

    The shortcomings of other leaders have been widely publicized in recent years. And Christmas and other observances have been under assault. Who or what do we tear down next?

Old ways face new challenges

Posted October 11, 2009 at 7:22 am
Filed Under By Jim Beam | Leave a Comment

    A number of new developments are taking place across Louisiana. Sometimes things are moving so fast it’s difficult to keep pace. Here’s an update that may help bring you up to speed:

    Charter schools are the latest wrinkle on the education scene. No one knew much about them before the devastating hurricanes of 2005, but now they have become the schools of choice in New Orleans. And a new twist has been added — online charter schools.

    The big attraction is the fact charter schools operate independently. Some offer courses that may not be available in public schools. However, charters are accountable to the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

    A committee of BESE approved plans last week to open as many as eight new charter schools in New Orleans. The final decision comes from the full board later this month.

    Those charters already operating are still too young to rate their success, but that hasn’t slowed the movement.

Baton Rouge in wings

    East Baton Rouge Parish appears to be the next hot spot for charter schools. The School Board there recently turned thumbs down on one and asked BESE to do the same, but organizers aren’t throwing in the towel.

    It’s no secret that local boards operating public schools don’t like charters, primarily because they siphon off state education money.

    BESE decided to delay a decision on approving online charter schools because they are pretty much an unknown quantity at this point. But you can be sure it’s a trend that can’t be ignored in today’s technological age.

    State legislators thought they had an answer to the school dropout program when they created a new career diploma. However, it’s been over three months now and few students are enrolled. Rules for the new diploma have been put off until December.

Sen. Robert Kostelka, R-Monroe, and Rep. Jim Fannin, D-Jonesboro, co-sponsors of the new diploma law, have complained about the delay.

“It is about using every opportunity to strangle this bill,” Fannin said.

Paul Pastorek, state superintendent of education, said, “I wouldn’t want to strangle anything that is going to be good for kids. And I think this can be good for kids.”

    We should have a better handle on the career diploma’s future when school starts next fall.

    The state’s civil service system is undergoing major changes, thanks to new laws approved at the last legislative session.

    One of those involves a new merit pay system affecting over 60,000 state employees. The proposal would wipe out what have become automatic 4 percent annual merit increases.

    The new plan calls for increases of varying amounts. Workers meeting job expectations could get up to a 3 percent annual pay increase. Anyone exceeding expectations could get up to 4 percent. And workers with outstanding ratings could get up to 6 percent.

    Opponents will use the same arguments they have used in the past. They insist their supervisors won’t be fair and the performance ratings are too subjective. However, supervisors won’t get increases if they don’t do a better job of evaluating workers.

    The Civil Service Commission could make a decision on the new pay plan as early as Nov. 4.

    Automation is making its presence felt in the state Department of Social Services. DSS got authority from the Civil Service Commission to create 63 new unclassified jobs, paying those who fill them an extra $10,000 a year.

    The goal is to create what spokesmen call a more customer-friendly operation. It will start by taking food stamp applications over the phone in the New Orleans area.

    Consolidation of social service offices is expected to result in the reduction of 270 positions within the agency and the saving of $12.4 million. Most of the job losses will come through attrition.

    The changes at DSS could serve as a model for other state departments that are facing a bleak financial future.

    A new federal census doesn’t take place until 2010, but Louisiana officials are already thinking about filing a suit to prevent the Census Bureau from counting illegal aliens.

    If they are counted, the state will definitely lose a U.S. representative to other states where illegal aliens are numerous.

    In a related development, two legislative committees that deal with redrawing election lines after a census yielded to public pressure and decided to open a two-day meeting after insisting it would be closed. Score one for good government.

Can state change?

    Commissions are still looking at ways to streamline state government and higher education, and some wonder whether they will make any practical and productive recommendations.

    State Treasurer John Kennedy, a member of one commission, continues to make waves with eight more suggestions on how to reduce the size of state government. The Advocate of Baton Rouge came down hard on Kennedy in an editorial last Sunday.

    “ … Kennedy has vast amounts of time to push such ideas in the legislative process and not clog the commission agenda with them,” the newspaper said. “Further, as treasurer he ought to be in a highly informed position to deal with the fiscal details of state government instead of broadbrush strokes that are better suited for talk radio.”

    Significant change doesn’t come without controversy, and every area we’ve talked about here has had more than its fair share. Nevertheless, state government has no other choice but to cut its costs and consider the recommendations of Kennedy and others.

    One way to do that is to think and act boldly. Change isn’t for the fainthearted, but it’s long past Louisiana’s time to get with the program.

Jindal, Landrieu on same page

Posted October 8, 2009 at 6:32 am
Filed Under By Jim Beam | Leave a Comment

    Gov. Bobby Jindal and U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., are making headlines in the national debate on health care reform. In an unusual twist, Jindal is suddenly a darling of the Democrats, while Landrieu is under fire from liberals in her own party.

    “Bobby Jindal embraces the Democratic plan for health care reform,” said Joanne Peters, regional press secretary for the Democratic National Committee. Her conclusion is based on an op-ed piece the governor wrote for The Washington Post.

    Meanwhile, Landrieu has been targeted by a coalition of civil rights groups because she doesn’t support a government-run health insurance program. The senator says why create another government program when there are already enough problems with Medicaid and Medicare.

    Medicaid is the federal health insurance program for the poor. Medicare provides health insurance coverage for the elderly and disabled.

    “I want to reform the system,” Landrieu told Gannett News.

    Jindal is pushing 10 ideas for health care reform, and Democrats say pending legislation contains nine of those 10 provisions. However, the one that isn’t among the governor’s recommendations — a government-run plan — is a biggie and it’s one on which he and Landrieu agree.

No public option

    “I think the American people have spoken loudly. They have said they don’t want a government-run plan that increases their taxes, that increases government spending,” Jindal told Fox News.

    Landrieu said she’s concerned that a public option would compete with and undermine the private health insurance system.

    President Barack Obama and Democrats pushing a government-run insurance program are counting on reforms in Medicare to help pay for the new health care system. They also want to reduce payments to those who provide health care under the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

    “Any Medicare savings accrued by reforms should stay in the Medicare system to extend the life of the program and not be diverted to other government programs,” Landrieu said.

    Both Jindal and Landrieu are concerned about how a health care reform plan would affect their home state. Some proposals, for example, would help the uninsured get health care coverage by adding them to the Medicaid rolls.

    Louisiana is having trouble paying for those already on the Medicaid rolls. Adding at least 260,000 more people to the system only compounds that problem. It would cost the state $612 million during the first five years.

    Alan Levine, secretary of the state Department of Health and Hospitals, said, “I can’t get my arms around how they expect us to pay for an expansion when we are literally talking about disenrolling people.”

    Four states may not have to worry about those increased costs. Under one Senate bill, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon and Rhode Island would get full federal funding for increases in their Medicaid rolls.

    Nevada happens to be the home of Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He says his state is in bad shape because of the recession and unemployment that is three points higher than the rest of the country.

    “I make absolutely no apologies, none, for helping people in my state and nation who are hurting most,” Reid said.

    Landrieu said states should have to prove they face unusual hardships before getting a pass on additional costs. If so, Louisiana could probably qualify, she said.

Fix current system

    Even though Jindal and Landrieu don’t support a government-run health care option, they agree the current system has to be reformed.

    “Neither the government nor families or businesses can afford the current system that we have,” Landrieu said back in September. “The rates are going through the roof, for small businesses, for families. We’re predicting in our state it could be as much as 50 percent of average household incomes are going to have to go to affording health insurance. We must do something.”

    Jindal told Fox News, “I’m not saying let’s throw the baby out with the bath water. I’m not proposing a $900 billion plan. I’m saying let’s improve the situation we’ve got.”

    In a Washington Post op-ed piece, he said, “The public is interested in solutions that will improve America’s health care system, not dismantle it.”

    Landrieu and Jindal seem to be in agreement where health care is concerned. And they have worked together in the past for Louisiana’s best interests.

    The Republicans and Democrats in Washington need to follow their lead and cooperate on a health care plan that is affordable, workable and productive for future generations.

    Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be in the cards. The men and women who serve us in the halls of Congress don’t seem to understand what it means to compromise and work together for a common cause.

Forget train ride anytime soon

Posted October 4, 2009 at 7:17 am
Filed Under By Jim Beam | 2 Comments

    Wouldn’t it be great to be able to hop on a high-speed train in Lake Charles and take a quick trip to Lafayette, Baton Rouge or New Orleans for $10, $20 or $30?

    A far-fetched idea? Maybe, but it sounds like something that has tremendous potential. Unfortunately, it may have to be an issue for another generation of Louisianians with more foresight than we are getting out of the current governor’s office.

    The state had a shot at getting $300 million in federal money to initiate high-speed rail service from Baton Rouge to New Orleans, but it’s too late now. The deadline to apply for the money was Friday.

    Why did we pass on this one? Two reasons have been put forward, so take your pick.

    Gov. Bobby Jindal’s administration passed on the grant, saying it didn’t have the $18 million it would take each year to maintain the proposed rail service. Officials said fares wouldn’t be sufficient to cover those costs.

    The initial service would have been between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, but Lafayette and Lake Charles would have been the next logical stopping points in years to come. It has been estimated that nearly 900,000 passengers would use the rail line in its first year of operation.

Was it politics?

    Presidential politics has been suggested as the second reason the idea was dropped. It’s no secret that Jindal has his eyes on the presidency some time in the future.

    Remember when the governor gave the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s first message to Congress? The speech bombed and Jindal specifically criticized the idea of federal grants for rail systems.

    Those remarks would come back to bite the governor after it was learned his state Department of Transportation and Development was trying to secure a rail grant. National commentators had a field day recalling Jindal’s earlier put-down of the high-speed rail program.

    DOTD dropped the plans like a hot potato. However, The Advocate of Baton Rouge reported a serious effort had been under way to secure the grant.

    “That effort was led by Tom Atkinson, acting assistant secretary of public works, hurricane/flood protection and intermodal transportation,” the newspaper said.

    Atkinson believed a rail line between Baton Rouge and New Orleans could be up and running by 2013. And a comment he made indicated other areas along the coast would eventually benefit.

    “Long-term, we see it as a very valuable economic incubator for the entire corridor,” he told the newspaper.

    The rail line would eventually include Houston, Mobile and Atlanta.

    The rail service possibility had widespread support from many quarters. Three of the state’s congressmen touted its potential.

    U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and U.S. Reps. Anh “Joseph” Cao, R-New Orleans, and Charlie Melancon, D-Napoleonville, pleaded with Jindal to reconsider his stand.

    “The proposed rail would stimulate economic development in the region and improve future hurricane evacuations,” they said in a letter to the governor. “Forfeiting this opportunity now could set the project back decades.”

    Cao told the New Orleans Times-Picayune he has been trying to come up with a plan to get alternate sources of money to pay the maintenance and operating costs. He is a member of the congressional Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

    The Capital Region Legislative Delegation also wrote the governor in support of the project.

    “There is significant interest and support within our delegation for continued pursuit of funding for and study of the feasibility of passenger rail service between Baton Rouge and New Orleans,” the letter said.

    New Orleans legislators said in a letter to Jindal, “It is shocking the governor and the (DOTD) secretary will not even put the application in.”

    All of those pleas fell on deaf ears.

    The state is going through three years of budget nightmares, so money is a problem. There isn’t $18 million floating around for the rail service maintenance.

    “We don’t think it’s responsible for the state to submit a request for a project we know we cannot afford,” Stephen Waguespack, Jindal’s deputy chief of staff, said. “The reality is that in the existing financial climate, the state does not have the dollars to support the project.”

Concession isn’t much

    Jindal did agree to a request to set up a group to study the feasibility of building such a rail system and ways to finance maintenance of the rail line.

    How many times have political leaders set up study groups that go practically nowhere?

    Having $300 million in hand to begin serious planning for a high-speed rail system would have been a great motivator to get concrete plans on the drawing board. It would have given planners money and time to come up with a possible solution for financing the rail service.

    Many states are seeking the rail funds, and there was no guarantee Louisiana would get any. However, we know it won’t now since the state didn’t even ask. And another state will end up with what might have been our money.

    Everything I have read on the rail line issue leads me to believe the decision to pass on the federal money was more political than financial. It was a face-saving move for Jindal since he opposed the idea in that ill-fated speech. State money woes appear to have been simply a convenient excuse for doing nothing.

keep looking »