The 2009 Regular Session of the Legislature is approaching its conclusion, and it probably will not generate fond memories in the minds of most individuals. Gertrude Stein once described Oakland, California by saying: “There is no ‘there’ there.” It is difficult at this juncture to capture the “there” in this convocation of the Legislature.
Granted, the budget shortfall usurped almost every other potential topic during the session. Trying to plug a billion-dollar-plus hole in the operating budget was acts one, two, and three of the three-act play that was this legislative session. And, as with most acting performances, there was a lot of posturing and over-playing of roles.
The current battle of the budget centers around the House that wants to make a significant amount of cuts now (believing that there is more fiscal pain coming in the next two budgets), and the Senate that feels the amount of cuts proposed by the House is too severe. The Senate wants to take a significant amount of money from the Rainy Day Fund and to increase tax revenues to supplement the budget. Many members of the House have concerns about tapping the Rainy Day Fund at this juncture and are dead set against raising taxes. The two chambers are on a collision course with only a week left in the session.
Fiscal disputes such as the current one are somewhat rare. Why? Because the Legislature usually follows the governor's lead on budget matters. Governor Jindal has been a player but not necessarily a dominant one thus far in the budget debate. Yes, he said he would not allow any taxes to become law, but that didn’t stop the Senate from (illegally) trying to advance one. Perhaps that was just posturing on the Senate’s part so they could appear to be funding unfunded elements of the budget and jamming the House with the issue.
But the House wasn’t in the mood for a jam. In an interesting move, the House concurred with the Senate amendments to the budget instead of sending the legislation to a conference committee. The Senate then loudly protested that the House had the audacity to adopt the amended version of the budget that the Senate had sent them. (Talk about audacity!) Now the Senate is amending House bills to send more revenue raising measures back to them in order to put pressure on the House to lessen the amount of cuts in the budget that is now sitting on the governor’s desk.
The clock is ticking and the outcome of the battle over the budget is still up in the air. One of two scenarios is going to prevail in some fashion: Either the House’s view (serious budget cutting needs to begin now because the news only gets worse in subsequent budgets) or the Senate’s plan (raise more money now and hope for better times going forward) will become dominant. The outcome could be resolved fairly quickly if Governor Jindal sold the public on exactly what he thinks the solution to the problem should be–and why. He has stated in the past that he is not for raising taxes or tapping the Rainy Day Fund (except for perhaps $50 million) to address the budget shortfall. If that is where he still is in the deliberations, a forceful statement by him would likely conclude the issue. If he has changed his mind, it is time to let the world know.
I cannot help but believe that with the txes currently paid - or even with a tax cut - that government can provide both education and healthcare if they would only stop spending money on non-essential budget items. Fund what's necessary, eliminate the rest. These legislators do that with their personal finances, so it is not a concept they are totally unfamiliar with. Too many want to keep the pork and simply make the private sector pay more and more. That's counter productive as the privae sector provides the funds for government to function and provide such things as public education. Either we find the correct balance or we fund the wrong things, it's our choice. Written by kpf
on 6/30/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that there are those who apparently see taxes as the main issue "afflicting" them and then there are the rest of us who are concerned with basic needs such as education and health care and being squeezed with such costs and availability of such services. The virtues of pulling one's own weight, working hard and gaining education, etc. are in the best of American tradition and noble indeed, but still higher education is very, very important. At some most everyone and/or their children will make use of it. Of course, some are well off and can afford to send their children to private schools (more than a few of those, however, make use of government loan and grant programs, for sure). So where are the governor's priorities? He apparently does not identify at all with those in the working classes as much as he does with certain millionaire special friends and colleagues. Remember that he was even willing to let the legislators get their goodies with the pay raise until the public pressure compelled him to change his stance. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/30/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
You seem to see taxes as afflicting the wealthy - whereas I know that the wealthy can easily afford tax increases. It is how our high rate of taxation affects the upper middle class and the small business person that concerns me more. When I see how the plan for healthcare is to not tax the union Democratic Party faithful in taxing company provided healthcare benefits (and OF COURSE - Congress will also not be taxed for this, "bless their hearts") then I realize that - yet again - the middle class will have to pay even more to cover costs while the faithful of the party currently in power gets a pass. You trust government to do the right thing (despite all evidence to the contrary), I do not. Written by kpf
on 6/29/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that the intelligent approach is, yes, to look how higher education has been funded over time, how Louisiana's funding and higher education structure compares to other states and so on. It's been said very often that Mississippi is at least one state that makes strong use of junior colleges by comparison to Louisiana. OK, that's something to consider. Does Louisiana have took many duplicative programs? Perhaps so. There's not anything wrong with looking at that but what's needed is strong leadership from the top to make the kind of strong statement and "global planning." What's needed is strong leadership in regard to making the statement that "tough decisions" have to be made. But does one ever hear the governor make any mention of a desire to have a strong higher education system in the state? No. He also has not ever said anything about trying to take an intelligent to identifying waste and duplication? What exactly is Jindal's priority? It does seem to be holding the line on taxes. OK, great. It's not that that is wrong in itself, OK? The issue is in getting there, as in making a priority out of holding the line on taxes but not caring where the budget cuts fall and who has to feel whatever pain. No, the priority should be operating higher education so that every Louisiana student can get a quality education and not feel like that they have to leave the state and then look to trim the waste and duplication within that context. What's really wrong is if the rank-and-file have to suffer and if the average working person has to be the one to feel the brunt of the impacts of these decisions while the country club set gets to stay in their same life of comfort. Fighting the waste is fine and noble, but what the overall context is is of prime imprtance. The problem with rigid fiscal conservative-ism is in how, no matter the rhetoric, it's too much all about just trying to bring more comfort to the already-comfortable and leaving the afflicted to stay afflicted (rather than comforting the afflicted and afflicting the already-comfortable). Letting people have access to the education will pay off in the long run and that is the context that should be in place. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I'm not labeling those who earn less as "unproductive" people - perhaps they are simply "underpaid." Perhaps Jindal should tell the lawmakers to leave the education budget alone and make whatever cuts are needed elsewhere. I'd have to see just what the budget has been annually over the last 20 or so years for our state funded universities, how it comapres to other states, inflation, the number of students each year, etc. to make an informed decision about that. I do know - based on what I CAN find out about funding for D.C. public schools - that the quality of the product of education - high performing students - is not directly proportional to how much money is spent per pupil. I also think that a program which would identify those students who would benefit more from a Vo-Tech education - although better for them and the state, IMHO - is not a path that many in the existing state-funded university system would welcome. Written by kpf
on 6/27/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that waste and fat should be trimmed but the governor should be standing up to make that education still has what it needs instead of just calling for budget cuts across the board. It's NOT so simple as just saying "just cut the waste." There's been no leadership, no sort of "global planning" and priority-setting from his office. There were bills passed calling for special commissions to analyze what can be cut in higher education and where the duplicative programs are but I find that a cop-out. If the governor does not stand up for higher education then the cuts will come and impact those areas by default. To the contrary, the state flat out needs to make sure that there's quality higher education and that should be a priority, especially at a time when there is so much pressure to cut budgets. When the better students and the better faculty have to leave the state in the long run we will be all worse off -- and -- this is key -- there will definitely be fewer "productive people" around here. Really, if someone insists that there are already too few who actually produce and too many who are living off what the few who produce provide. well, then that's precisely the product of the Louisiana that has for far too long thought that it could just make do on mediocre higher education funded at for a bare bones existence -- because when budgets had to be cut no one stood up for it. When will we learn and stop robbing Peter to pay Paul? Written by The Real Story is
on 6/27/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The tax system breaks down this way: the top 5% of wage earners earn 33% of income and pay 56% of income taxes; the top 25% earn 33% of income and pay 85% of income taxes; the bottom 50% of wage earners earn 13% of income and pay 3% of income taxes. Make of that what you will. I too wish those in the bottom half can earn more to have better lives and lessen the tax burden that upper middle class wage earners such as myself have to pay. Not so I can go to the Rivera, just so I don't have to eat dog food when I'm old. I do not wish "hard times" on anyone by advocating government be as cost conscious as the majority of the governed - including myself - have to be. You seem to equate a desire to see government not waste money with "holding down the poor" and "denying folks a chance at education" - that simply is not the case. Written by kpf
on 6/27/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
While not disagreeing with you, I do not see the difference - as it effects essential eduaction and healthcare services - between a dollar wasted by government or a dollar of tax reduction. Actually there is a difference, as the needless spending is taking money from working people that they could use for the high cost of education and healthcare, as well as denying a better use of these funds by government. I am currently reading about the enactment of the Federal income tax and the Federal Reserve (both ~ 1913), it's amazing how the government did without any income tax (tarrifs were 50+% on most imports, supplying funds to government and protecting manufacturing here) but now with "free trade" and having the upper middle class pay 50% (taking into account ALL federal and state taxes) government simply doesn't have enough money. Maybe their trying to do too much nonessential things? In addition to needless spending - I may sound like an echo here - a good, necessary government job is still government overhead, we need a strong private sector to pay for all government overhead, including the salaries from the President to the postman. So a job "created" by government "stimulus" is not going to ADD to government coffers as would the taxes collected from a job created in the private sector. When economic downturns are CREATED by government (primarily the Federal Reserve making an "oops") having the government and Federal Reserve "ride to the rescue" is akin to having an arsonist coming back to the fire he set with an extinguisher. You could say that I'm "less than grateful." Written by kpf
on 6/27/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that this constant rhetoric that there's, say, 40 percent of the people who are productive providing for the 60 percent of the people who are not productive and don't want to be productive is BS. Yes, those of us who are not in the rigid fiscal conservative set do want for more people to be able to be more productive and/or have more and better opportunities in life. The truth is that many people work very hard and are looking to do the right thing but just don't have that much to show for it and find it very difficult to get ahead because of limited job opportunities and onerous health care costs -- not because of onerous taxes beyond their fair share. There's the working poor and squeezed working class and then the country club set who care about nothing except for their taxes. If CEO's are making hundreds of times what the average worker is making, how on earth are they somehow hundreds of times more productive? Over the past 25-30 years the benefits of economic growth have gone disproportionately to the country club set and less and less have trickled down to the rest of us. And then here's Jindal with his rigid stance on taxes and budget ("cut that volcano-monitoring pork...who cares if some people get killed by the lava flow?") who has yet to get it that being a governor is different from being a congressperson. A governor has to lead and work for the best interests of all of the people of the state and not just advocate for the single perspective like a congressman can do. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/27/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that rigid fiscal conservatives, e.g. the current Louisiana governor, are typically insensitive to the legitimate needs of a lot of people. It always seems that the misdeeds of the few "welfare cheats" and some pork-loving politico's (Republicans are NOT innocent in this game) outweigh the needs of the many in their minds. When there's an economic downturn and layoffs happen and new, good-paying jobs are scarce what are people supposed to do then? Turn to life on the street? The attitude seems to be "I don't care at all about what happens to anyone else, just let me have my tax cut and make that budget cut to correspond it...." Education is a waste? As has been said before, "we don't need no stinkin' education...." Yes, ignorance is surely bliss. That's the whole problem with this kind of rigid fiscal conservative-ism. It essentially boils down to shutting the door in the faces of people legitimately looking to do the right thing and better themselves or try to adjust when their place of employment closes or lays them off and also putting more and more of a squeeze on the middle class who find it harder to afford, say, higher tuition and higher health care costs. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/27/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
That when there's an economic downturn that's precisely when the need for the services that government provides is the greatest, is not a view shared by all. Taxes can be too high or too low, each has its attendant drawbacks.Budget cuts in higher education won't have to happen if the legislators cut the unnecessary spending that is merely "bragging rights" to aid their re-election. The Federal Government doesn't want full employment, or no inflation, they manipulate the economy for the benefit of their big campaign contributors (who-the-flock are the "investor class" anyway?)"...when budget cuts cut into services that are needed and not just waste" simply means that they didn't cut enough waste - including the waste in education or anything else. If we are slaves to anything it is government. Government wants to provide either jobs, welfare, or other entitlements to a majority (60% or so) so that this majority will allow government to ride roughshod over the remaining 39.8 percent. The top .2% are the leaders of government and their backers, they'll do just fine. Sort of a coalition exists between the high living mayor of New Orleans and its poorest citizens. The middle class is expected to provide for both the high living of the uber wealthy and the welfare of the poor. Perhaps that's as it should be, but it think there's a better answer. The path in tax cuts and education Jindal is taking may just be that "way." Written by kpf
on 6/27/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that when there's an economic downturn that's precisely when the need for education and other services that government provides is the greatest. Second, tax cuts, despite being the religion du jour of this gubernatorial administration, do not always translate into more and better job opportunities for everyone. Third, budget cuts in higher education can definitely translate into fewer good job opportunities for people and quite possibly into layoffs. We know that the investor class loves layoffs because they see that those benefit earnings and earnings per share but there comes a point when layoffs mean less productivity, not more, when budget cuts cut into services that are needed and not just waste. We must not be slaves to tax cutting and budget cutting just for the sake of tax cutting and budget cutting but rather try to run the government for the best benefit of the most people. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/26/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Two points. First, the ups and downs of the private sector is outside of how much the people are taxed. Not totally unrelated as the government needs to provide essential services and also not take so much in taxes that people have too little to spend on products or taxes being so high that fewer jobs are created. In other words taxes can be either too high or too low. Second, the responsible thing for government to do is fund essential services and eliminate those expendatures that are enacted primarily for the benefit for those making the laws, not those who elected them. Lastly, many see government as a source of income and job creation, however it is important to understand that the private sector sends money to government to fund these jobs, whereas those who work for government do not provide funds to government but rather are "government funds." That doesn't make them "leeches" but it does make them "overhead" and so there must be a balance between the money left in the private sector vs. the money taken by government. Written by kpf
on 6/26/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that while of course many don't care to hear it there IS a responsible way to go about tax cutting and budget cutting and there IS an irresponsible way to go about it and if it's the latter course that we are following we will not be any better off and quite probably worse off than we were before. Plant closings, layoffs, threats of layoffs, losses in the thousands of non-farm jobs statewide are all still happening in spite of Jindal's wondrous tax cuts and those should not be music to anyone's ears. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/26/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"Tax cutting and budget cutting" - sounds good to my ears. Written by Go Bobby Go!!!
on 6/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that Jindal essentially, however, was campaigning for governor for the entire Blanco term on top of having campaigned for the 2003 election and then for Congress. Not only that but almost of the major media in the state strongly endorsed him. Thus he came into office with a mandate, having won in the first round, to go with how the state constitution grants enormous power to the office and historically the state has called upon the governor to lead. And of course, much of his mandate was to enact a solid right-wing approach with an emphasis on tax cutting and budget cutting. Thus, there is no reasonable way for him to not be largely responsible for whatever transpires and whatever impacts people feel. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
You may be completely correct about Jindal's character and motivations. Again I will say it "a governor is not a dictator." our representatives are not elected to bow and do the bidding of the governor. To properly represent us means they should be willing to fully fund what is essential, cut what is not. They do have the power to override any veto by the governor. Jindal is not "King." Doesn't representative government work properly? Doesn't our form of government represent the will of the people? Written by kpf
on 6/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that whether or not the governor should be the one to identify the specific areas to cut the governor is still the one responsible for the overall priorities being set. If he just says "cut across the board" then that amounts to him shirking his duty and that's the whole point. If he isn't at least trying to protect what's important -- again, the idea is to "scrub" out the duplication and the waste, etc, but not to deal a crippling blow to the entire apparatus as these are OUR state universities which should be our pride and our state working for our good -- then one has to assume that he cares only about his own power and prestige within The Party ranks. Again, it's my understanding that there was still plenty of pork in the budget. Whether Jindal has vetoed it or is going to is anyone's guess, but what he did not is put his tail on the line to at least try to stand up for higher education when there's obviously immense pressure to on the legislators to go after it as it remains one of the more easily accessible targets at budget-cutting time. What does that say about what Jindal's vision for the state apparently is? One would have to conclude that he doesn't have much pride in the state. He doesn't want to be here. Already he travels too much of the time, especially considering the work needed to be done here at home. He just seems to want to get his resume polished by tax and budget cutting without much concern as to the longer term impact of those budget cuts on the state and then try to move up. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
While I agree completely with the need to prioritize I do not think it is the executive branch's job to identify the "nitty-gritty" of either cuts or spending, let the legislators fund what is necessary, THEN see if there's any left over for their pet projects. Written by kpf
on 6/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that Jindal is nothing special and not quite the Knight in Shining Armor promised and advertised. Moreover, if someone is upset about pork, there is still plenty of that in the budget. Let's see if Jindal vetoes it. We have simply got to establish priorities. Scrub what should be scrubbed but protect what should be protected. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Jindal is a politician - therefore you may be correct about his "don't care I'm only passing through" attitude. Then again, you may be wrong. If Jindal can improve the product of the public grade and high schools, move those who will not benefit from college they way they will from Vo-Tech training (and align the training with industry's needs), and force the higher education system to be more cost effective for the taxpayers and also get more industries into the state (which is necessary to KEEP those with this "high tech" education) then he will in fact be moving our state forward in a way than simply "keeping higher education's budget intact" would never do. But he is a politician, so you may be correct in your assessment. We'll see. Written by kpf
on 6/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that 4 former governors, 3 of them conservative Republicans and the other a moderate Democrat i.e. none of them liberal, agreed that slashing the higher education budget was bad policy. Jindal and friends had started out, actually, recommending a 15 percent budget cut and then later, under pressure, said that a 10 percent budget cut would be acceptable to him, although he maintained his firm opposition to freezing the excess itemized deductions allowed (just as he had maintained his firm opposition to even a modest increase of tobacco taxes to aid cancer research and health care). What Jindal has not done is fight FOR protecting what's needed when there is pressure to cut budgets and looking to establish a set a priorities. If there were no pressure on him from the former governors, from business leaders and from several of the editorial boards of the major newspapers in the state then which direction would Jindal take? It seems as though while he seems to care about chicken plants in rural areas the question is what kind of overall vision he has for the state's future. How do we set up the state to be able to compete in the higher-tech world of the future? Are we perfectly content to let the other states who have invested in their higher education and use their higher education institutions to incubate high-tech stay well ahead of our state and continue to see peopel leave our state for better job opportunities elsewhere? Jindal's vision is short-sighted. Why should he care? He's only planning on being around for a quick stop himself. Louisiana has been down this road before of continually cutting back on higher education and having to make do with mediocrity or worse with its higher education product. It's bad policy for everyone and will leave everyone worse off in the long run, economically and otherwise, even if in the short-term it may mean a few extra nickels and dimes in one's pocket of taxes not being paid. The proper remedy is to scrub the budgets that ought to be scrubbed while at the same time making sure that priorities are set with a vision for the future. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that the populist demagogues in the Louisiana legislature and their legion of political wannabes live off of negative campaigning whenever a conservative votes against any waste. Every vote to save a taxpayer dollar is described by democrats as shoving old ladies out of wheelchairs, or starving children, or turning off electricity for babies, or whatever other made-up BS that they know the ignorant voters will believe. Any vote to move funds to highest needs will be met with only a smear on what "vital" service the fiscally responsible legislator has abandoned in his district. The people of this state are just too politically stupid to succeed in self-government. We've been a joke since the Huey Long days, and nothing has really changed significantly since then. Written by The answer to the real question is
on 6/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
While being open to hypocrisy and even outright stupidity by legislators of any stripe at any level of government, your assertion that a 10% cut in our education for FY 2010 will result in a future where our education system is permanently crippled with dire consequences for the state's economy from this point on is merely conjecture on your part - or a repeat of the all-too-typical fear mongering proclaimed by those who receive public funds when these funds are threatened to be cut. Jindal's plans to increase discipline in public schools, steering those who are better served by Vo-Tech training to trade schools and forcing the state education system to be more cost efficient by reducing their budgets may in fact turn around this state's education system for the better. Having those who directly benefit from taxpayer dollars proclaiming dire consequences if these funds are reduced is in no way shape or form "proof positive" that their assertions are correct. While they may in fact be correct, their direct ties to the funds does make them a bit suspect. No different than doctors in the "reform healthcare" debate - while one desires their input, one also knows they are not likely to say "we need less money." Written by kpf
on 6/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
whatever the overall case nationwide may be, what's been going on in the state legislature is this: the ones calling themselves fiscal conservatives and also taking the staunchest hard-line stand on tax cuts and budget cuts to higher education happen to be Republicans, e.g. Jim Tucker. That's where the issue is: these people who supposedly might stand to gain if indeed a better education state population would engender voters being more inclined to vote for fiscal conservatives, as indeed one can discern that these politico's would seem very much to want to call themselves and be considered as such, nevertheless have been the ones pushing the hardest to slash the higher education budget. A contradiction? Can't be. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The proper expenditures by government is that which benefits all people both short and long term. If you are calling the GOP "fiscal conservatives" I suppose you are making a joke. I'm sure a Libertarian would have no problem cutting 50% or more of either our state's or the Federal Government's budget. Let's see, the helium reserve for our fleet of dirigibles - CUT; the mohair subsidies .. no all subsidies on commodities (that cause all consumers to pay more than the commodity is worth in a free market) - CUT; each and every government job that is not ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL - CUT; golf courses (you must be kidding) - CUT. .. and to be sure, there's much, much more spending that favors the few without being necessary. What you cannot seem to grasp is there are some of us who despise BOTH political parties and could care less which one is "better" than the other. As you point out (indirectly) they BOTH play the same games, they BOTH take campaign contributions from the same sources (in many instances), they BOTH are made up of self-serving egotistical opportunists who care more for their career advancement than the public good. The GOP seeks power by favoring the wealthy; the Democrats seek power by creating government dependency. Neither one is the friend of the middle class working taxpayer. Written by kpf
on 6/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that if there's so much waste in other areas besides that if funds were shifted around education would get what it needs then why are the conservatives, fiscal or otherwise, still apparently content with to leave the pork in place while higher education is made to suffer? If helping to engender a better-educated population would actually suit the fiscal conservatives' agenda and doom the "Big Guv'mint" Democrats' agenda, then why is it that the fiscal conservatives are not the ones fighting for higher education while the "fiscal liberals" are? Written by The Real Question is
on 6/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"A better educated populace will be one with less crime and less need for government services to support the indigent." - Oh, I "get it." A better educated populace would be more interested in having their taxes cut than hoping for more "free" goodies from the Nanny State. A better educate populace would desire to see waste in government eliminated so government could better do their essential tasks. So just who benefits from a large portion of indigent people, taxpayers or the political party who supports expanding government benefits? All government employees and all those who get subsidies and all those who are on welfare and all foreign nations that receive money from Uncle Sugar are funded by the taxpayers (no?). However, I did not call them leeches. Since I am in favor of abortion, gay marriage and the legalization of drugs, I'm not certain I would be popular in conservative circles (don't think they'd want me on "the ticket" actually). In any case, the opinions expressed by me are mine alone, I do not claim to speak for any group. Written by kpf
on 6/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
That's exactly right, there is enough needless spending in our state's budget to fund education as well as it need be funded. "Real Story" sees things in absolutist terms; no "gray area" - it's all or nothing ("limited government" = "no government" therefore = "chaos" is one oft referenced conclusion). What many fail to take into consideration is if we didn't pi$$ away money on needless expenditures there would be ample money for essential services. Then again .. I'm sure they don't buy so much ice cream or lottery tickets that they can't make the rent or mortgage, so I guess what many "don't get" is that government - just like their own selves - must "budget" their budget (a simple concept, or so one would think). Of course, those in D.C. have the option of either/or printing money (causing inflation and robbing from those on fixed incomes) or deficit spending (robbing from babies as yet unborn). No, the state doesn't have those options (Thank Gawd Almighty for that). Written by kpf
on 6/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Real story is such a trusting soul, at least as far as populist politicians go. Do you think it's a simple coincidence that our legislature has set up a system that cuts the budget of the sacred cow (education) as soon as any efforts arise to limit their pursestrings. It would be very simple to shift protected funds from other state expenditures to education, if education was really important to them. But they prefer the sham they have created. They want any hint of a tax cut, or any opposition to tax increases to immediately effect higher education and health care, two (bloated and inefficient) government programs with large sectors of public support. Louisiana voters are such idiots!!! Even if they all wised up, with our watered down term limits, and easily bribed voting blocks, there is no hope for this state. Written by
on 6/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that, also, apparently the conservative crowd equates all policemen, firefighters and teachers to being leeches on society. This is absolutely sickening. Police and firefighters...I'm sure that they don't mean that (even though in the case of firefighters maybe they do mean it as in Orleans the ones I know really don't make much $$ for what they have to do)..but since we're on the subject of education...if you can read these items today, you'd better thank a teacher. You owe him/her one! Written by The Real Story is
on 6/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
apparently the right wing crowd feels that higher education is just not very important. That's what it all boils down to. Slashing higher education to pieces and leaving it having to fight just to reach a status of mediocrity and leaving Louisiana well behind other states...apparently that's just a grand idea. That, however, is precisely what is short-sighted. In the long run, that kind of approach will serve only to leave a worse-off state economically and otherwise. Where the investor class frequently gets it wrong is that they focus only on the next quarter's earnings. They care not about peoples' lives and they care not about doing the right thing in the long-term. Education=investment. A better educated populace will be one with less crime and less need for government services to support the indigent. Get the picture? There's a long list of other states where they have invested wisely in their higher education where job opportunities are better than in Louisiana. Again, the whole problem is in these conservatives who simply have to have their tax cuts, budget cuts and layoffs and care not as to where the axe is falling. One can just picture it: a bunch of older guys in suits and ties protesting in front of the capitol "What do we want? Tax Cuts! When do we want 'em? Now! What do we want? Budget cuts! When do we want 'em? Now! What do we want? Layoffs! When do we want 'em? Now!" Instead of the investor class looking to take a larger slice of the same economic pie what's needed is investment in higher education to make the pie itself larger so that everyone can benefit (and if the higher education budget is slashed then the economic pie for the state will probably, to the contrary, grow smaller). Written by The Real Story is
on 6/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Funny how tax payers are outraged by the bailouts of the Wall Street "investors in both political parties through their campaign contributions" that were initiated by Bush but taken even further by Obama. That begs the question of just who is allied with the Wall Street tycoons, the politicians whose pockets are lined by campaign contributions from Wall Street or the taxpayers who are doing without to keep the fat cats from suffering the consequences of their greed. As far as the "investor class" - that's an interesting turn of phrase. Those who pay more in taxes than they receive back from government are the "investors" in all that government does. Those who get back more from government than they pay in taxes (which includes all government employees, all elected officials, the postman, the military, police, public school teachers, those on welfare, etc.) are "living off the sweat" of those "investors." I do not feel the least bit guilty about expecting government to cut unnecessary spending. I am wise enough about government's ways to know the only way this will happen is when they are forced to cut spending by circumstances. "Real leaders" would be responsible and prevent a budget crisis from occurring in the first place by spending only on essential services - that will not happen unfortunately as elected officials are very short sighted and do not even think of long-term consequences. If they did we would not have 11 trillion dollars of debt as a "gift” to our children and grandchildren. So ….. Bobby Jindal is not doing the right thing long-term for the citizens and is more interested in his political advancement than governing in the best interests of the people. REALLY! Just how does that make him any different from the vast majority of any other politicians in office, in either party at any level at any time in the past or present? "Politician is more interested in advancement that those who elected him!" What's the next revelation: "Dog bites Man"? Written by kpf
on 6/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that conservatives, with that good old Wall St. "investor class" mindset, seem to just want to see tax cuts and budget cuts and lay-offs. What's wrong with that mentality? The approach needs to be all about making sure that higher education is thriving and has the resources to be excellent. Trimming the fat is one thing but what the governor has proposed to do is beyond that but as much as it may constitute honoring the anti-tax hardline it's a short-sighted approach as regards the interests of the entire state, as opposed to just the investor class by itself. Besides, they have indeed left plenty of pork in the budget for other purposes. The problem is that these conservatives seem not to have any problem with the way that budget cuts are falling. Once again, a real leader would have a thoughful plan fighting for the protection, at budget-cutting time, of that which is essential to make sure that while the fat gets trimmed that the meat is not also chopped to the long-term detriment of the state's people. Prove to us, Piyush Jindal, that you care about something besides just your national ambitions and anti-tax idoelogy. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/21/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
While no entity can "do more with less" (Gov. Blanco was correct about that) however by eliminating any spending that is not essential (uh ... Mohair Subsidies and the Helium reserve are two examples at the Federal level - "essential" or not? you figure that out) government CAN do what is essential with less tax dollars. I am glad Jindal is sticking to his guns even if I think he should "give" a little on using the rainy day funds to provide time to restructure higher ed. Somebody needs to say "enough" as concerns government spending. Tax recipients may not like it, but taxpayers like me appreciate this enough to occasionally write them a check and cast our votes for them, even if they give lame speeches or get caught with their diapers down. Written by kpf
on 6/21/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Real Story - Only 13% of state funds are constitutionally protected. That leaves 87% of the state's revenue that legislatures can control without a constitutional amendment or a vote from the people. Now a large portion of that 87% is statutorily protected, but those statutes were passed by the legislature and can be modified by the legislature. Any and all of those dedications were there for the fixing this session if any legislator had the intelligence or courage to address them. As bad as our constitution is in Louisiana, a new one is a very risky proposition in a state full of crooked, pandering, self-serving politicians and voters who are generally ignorant, greedy, or both. Giving our legislature more money to buy time for them to fix things is like giving an alcoholic a drink to steady his nerves. Written by
on 6/21/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
While not disagreeing on the funding for education, I will say that taxes promoted as being only on "the few" or "the rich" fails to mention that many of these "few, rich" people own businesses and take one or more of the following actions to "share their pain": raise the price of the goods they manufacturer or sell to pass along the additional cost to the consumer, eliminate jobs, fail to provide as big of a wage increase as they would without the additional expense, fail to hire as many people as they would otherwise, shift more of the cost of healthcare to their employees, etc. So "taxes on the rich" are often passed down to many more people than just those who directly pay the IRS more money. The cost of taxes and regulation on businesses is simply an expense to a business and they raise the prices of their products and so it is the consumer who pays for it. That is not advocating "no taxes on business" or "no regulation" - rather it is pointing out "WHO REALLY PAYS" for these taxes and regulations, the end use consumer Like almost everything else government does the added cost is easily borne by the rich, while the middle class not only pays more for their consumption, but pays more for those who they support through government welfare due to the increase in price cause by the tax or regulation. This is also true for college tuition. College tuition is higher than it would be if government did not provide free tuition. So not only does the middle class pay more to send their children to college but they pay more in taxes to send the poorer children to college. The "rich" either easily bear this added cost or pass along the added expense to their customers. You spoke of Reagan's "something for nothing" lie, well the "only the wealthy" will pay for tax increases is a lie promoted by many an advocate of one tax or another. Written by kpf
on 6/21/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that this is a very partisan analysis. The state senate is not calling for any tax increase or even an elimination of anyone's tax cut but only a delay in the implementation of a tax cut and a tax cut at that that doesn't affect very many people, either. Why a delay? So that the state constitution could be amended and it would not always have to be the case that when budget cutting time comes around the cuts always have to fall heaviest on certain areas. Also, with time a thorough plan could be devised to make sure that what gets cut out is truly non-essential and that there is also enough focus on making sure that higher education has the resources that it needs to be able get the job done with mediocrity in higher education=Louisiana being a mediocre state economically and otherwise. All the while Jindal seemingly wants to take ownership of the tax cuts but not have to take ownership of all of the impacts that he knows that people will feel on account of the budget having to be cut. But that was not mentioned in this analysis. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/20/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Thanks for this article - sober, non-partisan and informative. Written by kpf
on 6/19/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
