forgotston.com

Rep. Neil Abramson, an otherwise intelligent attorney, has proposed a House Rule allegedly to prevent intimidation of leges. See HR 46 here.

What Abramson proposes is really an effort to intimidate the public and overrule our First Amendment Rights.

Here’s the abstract from the proposed rule:

Provides procedures for the House of Representatives to censure or discipline
nonmembers for behavior which constitutes an attempt by the nonmember to compel,
coerce, or intimidate the member with the intent to influence the member’s conduct
in relation to his position or duty.

No rule needed

There are already laws on the books to deal with intimidation of public officials. See R.S. 14:122.2.

No definitions

There is no definition in Abramson’s proposed rule as to what constitutes “compelling,” “coercion” or “intimidation.” There’s a fine line between what a lege may consider compelling, coercion, intimidation and what others of us consider grass-roots lobbying.

It could easily be argued that any citizen, grass-roots lobbying group, blogger, talk radio host and certainly every paid lobbyists could be charged with trying to influence a member’s conduct. Even a newspaper editorial writer, columnist or reporter could be charged with trying to influence a lege.

Upon a written complaint by a lege, a citizen can be hauled before a lege committee, put under oath, questioned, and judged. If the citizen is found guilty by the leges, they can be prevented from appearing before the lege.

Guilty as charged

I hereby plead guilty of attempting to influence the leges by compelling them to vote against HR 46.

C.B.

1 CB 7:00 am

At least he was being honest

“Please don’t ask me any questions; I don’t know what this bill does.” Sen. Danny Martiny, an attorney, presenting a House Bill on the Senate Floor.

There were no questions and the bill passed without a vote against it.

It’s how our laws are made, folks.

You can’t make this stuff up.

C.B.

1 CB 5:20 pm

He’s right; they’re wrong

Today, the Baton Rouge Advocate takes State Treasurer John Kennedy to task for pushing for fiscal responsibility and fiscal sanity in Louisiana. ( See editorial here.)

Reducing vacant positions

Kennedy wants to eliminate 5,000 vacant positions each year for 3 years. These are not warm bodies, but positions for which our tax dollars have been allocated.

The Advocate assumes that because the positions are funded that they are all needed. There is no evidence that every position in state government is needed. In fact, evidence is to the contrary.

The Advocate states: “[S]tate employment is now at its lowest level in 20 years,…”

So.

Impact on taxpayers

What the Advocate refers to is the number of jobs, not the payroll. Seventy percent of the cost of state government is payroll.

While the number of warm bodies drawing checks from the taxpayers has been reduced, (mostly due to the lack of recent disasters) the cost to the taxpayers, according to the Lege Auditor, since Jindal has been governor, has risen by over $600 Million.

The size of the payroll, not the body count is what affects we taxpayers’ wallets.

Based on the editorial writer’s thinking it would be good news if the state had only one employee even though the payroll increased.

He’s right

I could go on, but it would be useless since the Advocate buys ink by the barrel and paper by the ton; they can turn common sense into insanity if they choose.

Kennedy needs no defending. First, he is a highly-intelligent person who knows of what he speaks and can document it. Second, he’s right!

C.B.

1 CB 7:00 am