Where are the fiscal conservatives? Monday, Oct 27 2008 

According to a story in Saturday’s Baton Rouge paper, our leges are cautiously contemplating ways to spend the newly-discovered $800 Million plus surplus from the fiscal year that ended on June 30. (Story here.)

How nice to be cautious.

The reason for the caution is because there may not be a surplus at the end of the current fiscal year. Also looming (or so we are told) is a $1.3 BILLION revenue shortfall for the next fiscal year which begins on July 1, 2009.

No fiscal conservatives

Virtually, everyone who runs for public office in Louisiana claims while campaigning that he/she is a “fiscal conservative.” None, that I know of runs on a platform of increasing your taxes.

Yet the leges’ current contemplations about the state’s fiscal future are focused entirely on where to spend. Not one lege is talking about how to reduce the current budget so as to prepare for the shortfall in advance of the 2009-10 fiscal year budget.

That’s because we don’t have a single fiscal conservative in the lege.

When we mullets know we will not make as much money next year as we are making this year, we don’t contemplate how to spend all the money we have in the bank. We try to figure out how to reduce our current expenditures so when our income is reduced, we will still be able to make ends meet.

If the leges were contemplating their personal incomes and budgets under similar circumstances they wouldn’t be considering spending their savings either. Of course, this isn’t their money. It’s OURS!

Unlike our leges, we mullets don’t have the option of reducing existing tax breaks, increasing tax rates and fees to make ends meet. All of those options are on the table for them in the 2009 Regular Session.

Additionally, the leges can simply borrow more money and continue to defer paying down the Unfunded Accrued Liability (“UAL”) of the state retirement systems. That puts the fiscal burden on the next generation of mullets.

If it is true (It’s hard to trust the politicians when they tell us the “sky is falling.”) there is a looming $1.3 BILLION shortfall, be prepared to hear a lot of scare tactics about a reduction if government services unless we mullets cough up more of the money we don’t have.

Options

If you don’t want your taxes increased next year, start telling your lege now to stop talking about more spending and start talking about less spending.

The first place to look for reductions is in state revenues that are given to local governments and NGOs.

Another place to look for savings is by not passing a “stand-still” budget for 2009-10. What, you say.

A “stands-still” budget in LA government vernacular is one in which each agency of government is given the same amount as it was given the current year, plus an “inflation factor.”

The “inflation factor” includes things such as the auto-magic annual Civil Service pay raises plus increased utility, gasoline, health care, insurance costs, etc. You know those expenses that we mullets face that the leges haven’t done a damn thing about.

That “inflation factor,” because of the huge growth in state government, could be as high as the $1.3 BILLION that is projected as a “shortfall.”

Why wait?

Why wait until we have a fiscal crisis. START CUTTING NOW!

If your lege says it’s too early to cut, ask him/her if the looming “shortfall” is a lie. They can’t have it both ways.

It’s all just common sense, which is not very common when it comes to OUR money and our elected officials.

C.B.

Absentee governor Friday, Oct 24 2008 

I just got the note below about Bobby Jindal being out of the state campaigning for himself today and Saturday.

Lt. Governor Mitch Landrieu subs as governor for Bobby whenever Bobby is out of the state.

It begs a question: Will Mitch have enough playing time this year to letter as governor?

C.B.

NOTE: Governor Bobby Jindal will travel to Washington, D.C. tomorrow, Friday, to attend a fundraiser for the Jindal campaign, and then to Greenwich, Connecticut, Saturday, October 25th, to attend another Jindal campaign fundraiser. (The Connecticut fundraiser for the Jindal campaign was rescheduled due to the two back-to-back hurricanes in September.)

Thanks, M
Melissa Sellers
Communications Director
Governor Bobby Jindal
225-342-8006

The Amendments Wednesday, Oct 22 2008 

By UN-popular demand I am offering my thoughts on the seven proposed amendments to the state’s constitution on the November 4 ballot.

Originally, I had planned to not opine on these amendments. I have an ever-declining cache of brain cells and thought none of the amendments important enough to use up the few remaining cells.

After getting many individual requests for advice or comments on the amendments I decided the easiest thing for me to do is to get it over with and put my personal thoughts out in public.

Overview

For the most part, the amendments are corrective measures or afterthoughts to fix recently passed amendments that were poorly written or poorly thought-out. None of which will even negate the need for future amendments for those sections of the constitution.

In other words, the laws should be statutes, except that we can’t trust our elected officials.

One amendment benefits only one politician. Philosophically, I have a problem amending the constitution to benefit an individual politician. That is a philosophy not shared by our leges.

Disclaimer

Mine are not objective, scholarly or even well-educated, explanations, opinions and observations.

If you want objectivity and scholarly observations you should read them for yourselves. Despite what the leges think, the voters in Louisiana are not stupid.

You can find all the factual information necessary to decide how to vote here: http://www.legis.state.la.us/election2008/amendments.htm

What they DO

Amendment No. 1: Imposes future terms limits (grandfather’s all current members) on certain appointed and elected boards in the state.

It doesn’t preclude jumping from one board to the other, but unlike lege term limits requires the appointees to wait two years before jumping to another board.

Amendment No. 2: Increases the number of days that leges must be given notice by the governor of a Special Lege Session from 5 to 7 days.

Because leges can’t figure what a “day” is (I’m not joking.), it spells it out for them.

It still doesn’t require the leges to actually read, much less understand, the bills on which they vote.

Amendment No. 3: Gives members of the lege a “property right” in their office.

If a lege is called up for active military duty, he can submit 3 names for a temporary replacement to his office, one of which will be appointed by either the Speaker of the House or President of the Senate to temporarily fill his office while he is on duty.

The person so appointed cannot later run against the “owner” of the office.

It begs the question of who is accountable for the votes of the temp? The incumbent “owner” of the office? The Speaker? The President?

Amendment No 4: Would increase the amount of state severance taxes on certain minerals returned to the parishes.

Sound familiar? It should. It was just increased by another constitutional amendment in 2007.

This serves to increase the local governments dependency on mineral revenues and to put pressure on the state to raise state taxes in the future to fund state services.

Amendment No 5: Would allow certain persons 65 and older whose property is expropriated by the government to transfer to the “frozen” property tax assessment to new property purchased by the individual.

It doesn’t keep the amount of property tax paid from rising, only the assessment value of the property.

Has this ever happened? I don’t know.

Amendment No 6: Would eliminate the right of “first refusal” (to original owner) for the original property owner for certain blighted property expropriated by the government.

This amends an amendment that was passed in 2006. And, you wonder why we have so many amendments each year.

Amendment No. 7: Would allow the state to dabble in the stock market with funds set up for certain post-employment, non-pension, funds of government retirees.

Talk about your good timing!

What they DON’T do

None of them address the myriad of problems faced daily by individual citizens of LA such as:

1. The high cost of insurance.

2. The high cost gasoline.

3. The high cost of utilities.

4. The high cost of health care or its lack of availability.

5. The high cost of taxes and fees.

6. The poor public education system.

7. The ability for leges to give themselves pay raises.

8. The poor roads.

9. The bloated state government.

10. The eroding coastline or flood control.

11. The preparation the state for the next round of hurricanes or the evacuations from them.

12. The poor workforce or the ability to do business in Louisiana.

Finally, none of these amendments, if passed, will improve the quality of life in Louisiana.

If you’ve read this far, I hope it helps or not.

PLEASE GO VOTE!

C.B.

Next Page »