Hypocrisy in the Nation's Capitol!

Thursday, March 1st, 2012
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

CONGRESS SHOULD CLEAN UP THE MESS IT CREATED!

Two time presidential contender Adlai Stevenson had a quote concerning two-faced public officials. “A hypocrite is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.” Well said, and there should be little doubt as to where the greatest concentration of hypocrites can be found in America, today. Just look toward the nation’s capitol. Prognosticating in favor of proposed legislation, then voting against it, or vice versa, has become increasingly commonplace in Washington.

No better example can be found than by observing members of congress trying to “cover their tracks” by reversing a section in the recently enacted National defense Act. The Act itself is the vehicle to allow military spending of $662 billion for 2013. The U.S., with the approval of Congress, will continue a number of “everywhere and forever” military actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq (we’re still in Iraq?) and possibly enter into a confrontation with Iran. Well, OK, so far, I guess. You just gotta trust our leadership -- right?
But now, with the overwhelming approval of Congress, the battlefield has come back home. A legislative atrocity now gives to this president, and any future president, the power to give an order to the military to detain and arrest American citizens, and indefinitely hold them without charges. That’s right. No charges, no trial, and hold them indefinitely. What happened to the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments that were supposed serve as checks and balances, giving guaranteed protections to every American?

We hear admonitions from Republicans and Democrats alike, about “big, intrusive government.” What we hear little of is the constitutional guarantee, found in the Fourth Amendment that confirms “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…” Any school kid knows this is nothing new. English legal doctrine set the tone for the Fourth Amendment when Sir Edward Coke stated back in 1609 that: "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose." Translated for members of Congress: If you don’t have specific charges to bring, leave us alone.

Right after he was sworn in to office, President Obama asserted: “Our values have been our best national security assets in war and peace; in times of ease and eras of upheaval.” Good rhetoric, but his performance in defense of basic individual liberties has been in direct contradiction to this.

President Obama began his assault of basic constitutionally guaranteed liberties by signing the so called Patriot Act. Simply put, the Patriot Act is one of the most egregious acts against basic rights and liberties that we have witnessed in our lifetimes. The President and many members of Congress will argue that they have a job to keep American safe. But that’s not the starting point. Their job is to see that the Constitution is enforced, and that means keeping us free. As Judge Andrew Napolitano said on his Fox News program recently, the job of these federal officials is to keep us “Free from tyrants who sought and claimed power from thin air; free from prince-like federal agents who could behave without constitutional or legal restraint; free to live with a government that obeys its own laws. Any president who keeps us safe but unfree is ignoring his oath to the American people.” And doesn’t keeping us safe include keeping us safe from the tyranny of our own government as well?

The President gave lip service to concerns over the recent Defense Act: “Despite having serious reservations with certain provisions,” I am signing this legislation.
Months before, The President had said, “my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” Hey, Mr. President, that’s not what this law you signed says. It says just the opposite. You signed into law your complete authority to detain and indefinitely jail American citizens. No amount of rhetoric will obscure this fact.

A number of members of Congress apparently are feeling the heat of their outrageous and blatantly unconstitutional actions. There is an effort, led by Louisiana congressman Jeff Landry, to reverse parts of the National Defense Act that allows American citizens to be subject to indefinite detention. Landry says he was “hoodwinked” by California Congressman Bob McEwen, who handled the defense legislation on the House floor. Landry was assured by the house Republican leadership that American citizens were not subject to being held indefinitely, when in fact the opposite was true.

To his credit, Landry is trying to make amends. He has introduced new legislation making it clear that American citizens are not subject to the provisions of the Defense Act, and so far he has obtained 59 co-sponsors with Republicans and Democrats joining in his effort. But he still faces an uphill fight since he is being opposed by both the Republican and Democratic leadership in the House. You see, it’s election year and the leadership just doesn’t want to go back and open up old wounds. “Let it be,” they say. “The President said he wouldn’t enforce the law, so let’s just leave well enough alone.”

Hopefully, Landry’s repeal efforts will be successful. But troubling questions are still are being ignored by a majority of Congress as well as by the President. Does the Bill of Right mean anything anymore? Are Americans now guilty until proven innocent? Does the accused still have the right to defend himself? Or do we continue to follow the current mantra of “indefinite detainment,” in defiance of the constitution and the principals on which the United States was founded? These questions need to be raised to those who want to represent us in Washington.

How many congressmen will stand up for the premise that each and every American has basic constitutional freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights? From what we have witnessed recently, the numbers in support of these freedoms are dwindling.
*****

“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.” ~Abraham Lincoln

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers and websites throughout the country. You can read all is past columns and see continuing updates at www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also hear Jim’s nationally syndicated radio show each Sunday morning from 9 am till 11:00 am, central time, on the Genesis Radio Network, with a live stream at http://www.jimbrownusa.com.

Bring Congress Out of the 18th Century!

Thursday, February 23rd, 2012
New Orleans, Louisiana

A MAJOR SHAKE UP NEEDED IN CONGRESS!

The approval rate for members of Congress seems to be in free call. Few constitutients approve of the dysfunction taking place in the nation’s capitol. Just 10 years ago, Congress had an approval rating of 65%. But no more. The most recent Harris and CBS polls show approval rates dropping to an all time low of 9%. Like the guy sings in the Limbo Rock song, “How low can you go?”

Let me tell you just how bad it is. More Americans approve of polygamy than they do of Congress in Washington. At the height of the gulf oil spill, BP had a shockingly low 16% approval rating. Even Paris Hilton has a 15% approval rating. And would you believe that 11% of those surveyed are OK with America becoming Communist? Just about every low life trend or person you can think of does better than the folks you and I send up to Washington.

When these polls are taken, usually there’s a distinction between how voters view their own congressman compared to how they view Congress as a whole. But even that favorable local feeling is dropping. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed a strong majority of voters want to clean house, including their own congressman.

Apparently public criticism is falling on deaf ears, and we hear nothing but excuses from the Republic-can’ts and the Demo-don’ts. There are tough decisions to be made regarding entitlement programs and raising revenues that require urgent action, that are getting little more than a wink and a nod from Washington. So it comes as no surprise to most of us that the favorable support of Congress continues to plummet.

Lobbyists rule the roost. They are there from the new congressman’s first day in office, and the solictitation of campaign funds -- the mother’s milk of political survival -- starts from day one. In my home state of Louisiana, newly elected Congressman Jeff Landry was the Tea Party’s poster boy for opposing the Washington culture of bowing to special interests. On election night, he told his followers that it’s going to be a new day in Washington, and “we need to get our country back on the right track.” Three weeks later, Landry was in the heart of Washington at the posh Capitol Hill Club on the hunt for Washington campaign dollars. So Landry’s two months away from being sworn into office, and he’s already asking for money from K Street lobbyists and other Washington power brokers.

A visit with Landry doesn’t come cheap. The “meet and greet” with the new Louisiana 3rd District Congressman is priced at $5,000 for the “PAC Gold Level; $2,400 for the individual Gold Level; $2,500 for the PAC Silver Level, and $1,000” just to get in the door. All of a sudden, just weeks after getting elected, many new congressmen like Landry find that Washington changed miraculously from a “cesspool” when they were campaigning, into a “hot tub” once they got elected. This is not a personal knock at Landry so much as an example of how “business is done” in Washington.

How can the system dispense with the influence of lobbyists? One suggestion, that I think makes sense, is to bring our congressmen home. The idea was shared with me this weekend on my “Common sense” radio show. My guest was Tea Party founder Jenny Beth Martin from Atlanta who was named by Time Magazine as the 15th most influential world leader of 2010. Jenny Beth simply wants to get Congress “out of Washington and back to the people.” She proposes that we use the new technology of telecommunications to create a “virtual Congress.”

The lady makes good sense. She says: “That way, elected officials would spend more time in their communities. Constituents should be the ones with fulltime access to their members of Congress, and lobbyists should be the ones forced to stand with their hats in their hands in order to gain access.” She further makes the point that if millions of Americans can telecommute, why can’t members of Congress attend committee meetings by video conference? If I can regularly Skype my grandkids, why can’t my congressman add the big screen to his or her office, tune in meetings, the go back to handling problems of constituents right out of the home district?

During the time following the American Revolution, it was necessary for the original Congress to meet under one roof. But why should a twenty-first century legislature be constrained by eighteenth-century technology? Why should congressional members have to rush away from their constituencies back to Washington just to cast votes? They belong in close proximity with those who elected them, not at high priced cocktail parties in Washington at the behest of rich special interest promoters.

As it is now, we might catch a glimpse of our members of Congress when they are interviewed on television. How refreshing it would be to see your congressman at various school events, or run into him or her at your local coffee shop. As Jenny Beth told me: “Back in their districts most of the time, these congressmen will be surrounded by skeptical constituents, rather than fawning supplicants. And they’ll continually have to justify any political decision they make that’s contrary to the will of the voters.”

There are a number of other proposals out there to make Congress more responsive to those who elected them. Texas Governor Rick Perry, during his short run for president, suggested a part time Congress. Term limits is an idea that continues to have high favorable support. Others are saying that congressional districts have grown too large, and more members of Congress should be added. All these ideas have merit.

But there’s nothing more important than reestablishing a closer relationship between the congressman and the people he or she represents. In the old days, it was called “retail politics.” A handshake and face to face interaction. Let a voter blow off steam, or bring up what could be a good idea.

There certainly is no patent for good “Common sense” emanating from Washington these days. So come back home, Congressman, and listen and learn from those who elected you. And maybe, just maybe, your popularity will rise above being a polygamist.

*****

Members of Congress should be compelled to wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers, so we could identify their corporate sponsors. ~Caroline Baum

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers and websites throughout the country. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also hear Jim’s nationally syndicated radio show each Sunday morning from 9 am till 11:00 am, central time, on the Genesis Radio Network, with a live stream at http://www.jimbrownusa.com.

Birth Control vs Freedom of Religion?

Thursday, February 16th, 2012
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!

I’m confused about the controversy surrounding the debate over the President’s new birth control rule. Some religious leaders, especially U.S. Catholic Bishops, as well as a litany of republican politicians, have criticized the White House proposal that all health insurance plans have to offer birth control options. But is it the birth control requirement that has engendered so much animosity, or is really more an issue of government interference in church related policy? Is it pelvic politics or religious freedom?

The White House has offered a birth control alternative that allows a religious employer to decline contraception options, but requires that the employer’s insurance company make these same options available directly to the employee. If any employee of such an institution desires the birth control option, the insurance company has to supply it free of charge to the employee. But no service is free. Somebody has to pay for it. If the insurance provider cannot charge additional cost to the religious based plan, the new charges will end up being paid by the other policyholders buying health insurance. Like you and me. There’s no free lunch.

To say that a religious institution is not supplying contraceptives to their employees under such a plan is nothing more than an accounting gimmick. If you’re the boss and you make arrangements for your employees to be covered by some outside source, you’re the one making the decision. Call the process what you will, but under this new plan, religious institutions are not really exempt from the new federal rule.

So should any institution be exempt from the birth control rules? It may be reasonable, as a guideline for any future legal challenge, to consider the purpose of the institution. The mission of a church is to teach religion. Therefore, any employee of a church would come to work knowing that the focus of such a religious entity is to teach religious doctrine. And part of that doctrine may be the prohibition of contraception.

But the primary purpose of a hospital is healthcare. In my hometown of Baton Rouge, we are fortunate to have a first rate catholic hospital called, The Lady of the Lake. It is an outreach commitment of the Franciscan Missionaries. The medical care is excellent. I’ve visited The Lady of the Lake Hospital numerous times, and never once have I gotten the impression that there is an effort to spread catholic doctrine. The mission of Lady of the Lake and other religious affiliated hospitals I have visited is to provide healthcare.

Remember that these religious affiliated hospitals operate on more than just insurance and patient proceeds. In addition, Medicare, Medicaid, as well as federal, state and community grants, provide funds and are all from public resources. So with so much public money involved, how do you justify giving certain institutions exemptions from the rules? Shouldn’t there be uniformity where tax dollars are involved? If the rules are unfair, throw out the politicians who voted for and implemented such rules, and then lobby to change the rules for all.

Offering birth control to employees by any business, church related or not, is certainly not a new precept. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that, “Contraception is the single most prescribed medicine for women between 18 and 44 years old, and nine out of ten insurers and employers already cover it.” Twenty-eight states already have mandated the same contraception availability healthcare coverage that is proposed in the new federal plan.

The Guttmacher Institute, a non partisan research organization, released a study last year that concluded 98% of American Catholic Women have used artificial birth control. The Public Religion Research Institute reported last week that 52 % of Catholics back the new plan and believe that birth control should be part of any insurance option offered by Catholic universities and hospitals. So it would seem that a majority of Catholics oppose the special exemption from the new plan being demanded by Catholic institutions.

So now we continue down this “slippery slope.” I would doubt that Catholic bishops believe they alone are entitled to exemptions when their beliefs are at odds with public policy in regard to health care. So what about Christian Scientists who traditionally oppose medical procedures? And the Jehovah Witnesses who believe human blood transfusions are wrong.

Can Jewish orthodox businesses restrict what medical procedures their employees can receive? Can ultraconservative Muslim businesses demand that medical clinics be segregated by gender? Can certain treatments be banned from being offered to employees of exempted special groups? Does religious freedom mean that religious institutions have the right to restrict or interfere with public policy, in this case regarding healthcare?

The founders of our country felt quite strongly about the importance of the separation of the church and state. The government should not choose favorites, and allow religion to practice outside the constraints of public authority. But this separation works both ways. George Washington clarified this distinction by saying: “The United States should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.”

Thomas Jefferson continued Washington’s dialogue by pointing out that there are obligations on both church and state to maintain responsible separation. “The United States government must not undertake to run the Churches. When an individual, in the Church or out of it, becomes dangerous to the public interest he must be checked.” What Jefferson is saying is that there are freedoms to believe and freedoms to act. There must be a fine, but firm line between supporting religious beliefs and protecting all citizens in an equal manner. According to our founders, it should be
a hard line to cross.

******

“The problem with writing about religion is that you run the risk of offending sincerely religious people, and then they come after you with machetes.” Humorist Dave Berry

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers throughout the South and on websites worldwide. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at http://www.jimbrownusa.com. . You can also hear Jim’s nationally syndicated radio show each Sunday morning from 9 am till 11:00 am, central time, on the Genesis Radio Network, with a live stream at http://www.jimbrownusa.com.

Why The Reluctance to Endorse?

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

WHICH REPUBLICANS ARE NOT ENDORSING
IN THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE?

Endorsements are coming right and left from major party officials in the Republican primary presidential race. Even so, The Wall Street Journal ran an opinion page column last week that concluded endorsements don’t make all that much difference in the final outcome. Nevertheless, the three current major Republican candidates continue to seek out anyone they can get to join their campaigns.

A number of evangelical Christian ministers have endorsed former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Newt Gingrich has picked up recent support from Herman Cain, who dropped out of the presidential race last month. Sarah Palin has given a wink and a nod to Gingrich. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has garnered the most endorsements and continues to be the front runner and gather momentum. But just as interesting is the list of major Republican heavyweights who are sitting on the sidelines.

Florida’s U.S. Senator Marco Rubio has close ties to both Romney and Gingrich, and finds himself in a political triangle. Going back as far as 2006, Gingrich has shared suggestions for Rubio’s book, 100 Innovative Ideas for Florida’s future. Romney perceptively endorsed Rubio for Senator in the early stages of his campaign when few gave the then Florida Speaker much of a chance. And though Rubio says he has no interest, both candidates have put him on their candidate for Vice President short list. So Rubio is playing it coy to shore up his options in this current campaign.

One of the most sought after endorsements is that of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. His father, the former president, has endorsed Romney, while his brother, also a former president, is officially staying neutral. Governor Bush may now be more inclined to endorse Romney following his big victory in Florida this week. However, Bush seems more interested in promoting his educational initiatives rather than in becoming involved in someone else’s presidential race.

Governor Bush rolled into my hometown of Baton Rouge this past Monday to speak at a conference on educational reform. But he didn’t just show up. An advance team was sent in three days ahead to plan the Governor’s itinerary. VIP receptions were arranged, with photo opportunities for the party faithful. A private jet delivered Bush and his traveling staff to Baton Rouge, and a contingent of security guards were in attendance as the Governor arrived and made his way to the podium. The only thing missing was Air Force One.

Until recently, many republicans were hoping that Bush would jump into the race for President. Some were even dreaming of a brokered convention, where no consensus occurs, and Bush would become the go to guy. Not likely. To many of the party faithful, there still is the stigma of the Bush name being associated with the failing economy and the Iraq War. But time passes and people forgive and forget. Four years from now, if President Obama is re elected, the timing could be just right for a third Bush to emerge. Jeb Bush would be just 62 when the next presidential election rolls around. I pressed the Governor on his future plans when we visited here in Baton Rouge, but he just smiled and talked about his education initiatives.

The Sarasota Tribune says Former first lady Laura Bush wishes there were one more candidate in the Republican presidential primary. Speaking to a sold-out audience in Sarasota on Wednesday, when asked if Jeb Bush will run for president someday, Laura Bush said, “George and I wish he would, we wanted him to this time.”

And then there is Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal. Many political prognosticators thought the second term Louisiana Governor made a big mistake when he early on endorsed Texas Governor Rick Perry for President. Perry quickly crashed and burned. But was Jindal also a loser? Hardly. He told any who inquired that Perry was a close friend, from a neighboring state that shares numerous issues along the gulf coast. Allies of the Louisiana Governor also point out that he built up some major IOUs in the second largest state in the nation, a state that generates big-time campaign contributions for someone who, say, might have an interest in a future presidential bid.

With Perry out of the race, Jindal, just like the Florida Governor, is withholding any endorsement. Interestingly, Jindal’s top adviser, former chief of Staff Timmy Teepell told a gathering of reporters that President Obama is well positioned for re election. “It’s going to be a much tougher battle than most people think for Republicans to beat Obama.”

So if Obama is reelected, the present bunch of candidates, most of whom are in there mid 60s or older, will be fading away. Jindal needs to chalk up some major state legislative successes to build a better campaign resume. But no close observer will be a bit surprised to see Bobby Jindal emerging early on as a top tier candidate in the next campaign. And guess what? That next presidential election is only 1730 days away.

*****

“When I was a boy, I was told that anybody could be elected President. Now I’m beginning to believe it.” Clarence Darrow

Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers and websites throughout the South. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also hear Jim’s nationally syndicated radio show each Sunday morning from 9 am till 11:00 am, central time, on the Genesis Radio Network, with a live stream at http://www.jimbrownusa.com.

And tune in to Jim’s NEW weeknight radio program, from 7:00 PM until 9:00 PM central time, Monday through Friday, on flagship station 1150-WJBO. You can listen live on the worldwide web at www.WJBO.com. Jim will also host a special three hour show this Friday evening, February 3rd, from 5:00 PM until 8:00 PM central time, filling in for nationally renowned talk show host Jason Lewis over the Genesis Communications Network.

Supreme Court Takes a Small Steps for Privacy and Feeedom!

Thursday, January 26th, 2012
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

SOME OCCASIONAL COMMON SENSE FROM THE SUPREME COURT

Is privacy dead in America? Many of us thought it was after a disastrous year of almost total usurpation of both freedom and privacy by the federal government. Since the founding of our country more than 200 hundred years ago, Americans have enjoyed the core rights and liberties that have made our country not just unique, but exceptional in protecting basic freedoms. But no more! Under the guise of protecting Americans from terrorism, congress and the past two presidents have stripped away many of the protections guaranteed to American citizens under the Bill of Rights.

Recently, Republicans and Democrats, alike have ignored Benjamin Franklin’s admonition made over 200 years ago when he said, “Security and freedom are not the same thing….in fact just the opposite. The more security you seek, the less freedom you have. The people with the most security are in jail. That’s why they call it maximum, security.”

First came the Patriot Act. Simply put, the Patriot Act is one of the most egregious acts against rights and liberties that we have witnessed in our lifetimes. The President and many members of Congress will argue that their primary job is to keep America safe. But that’s not the starting point. Their primary job is to see that the Constitution is enforced, and that means keeping us free.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano said on his Fox News program recently, the job of these federal officials is to keep us “Free from tyrants who sought and claimed power from thin air; free from prince-like federal agents who could behave without constitutional or legal restraint; free to live with a government that obeys its own laws. Any president who keeps us safe but unfree is ignoring his oath to the American people.” And doesn’t keeping us safe include keeping us safe from the tyranny of our own government?

The abuses under the so called Patriot Act began almost immediately. Two U.S. Senators have sent out early warnings. Senator Mark Udall from Colorado, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee warned: “Americans would be alarmed if they knew how this law is being carried out.” His concerns were echoed by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, also a member of the Intelligence Committee, who charged: “When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry.”

Then, during an unwatched hour on New Year’s Eve, when most Americans were focused on revelry and football, President Obama signed the latest assault on our freedoms. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 gives the President the authority to have American citizens arrested and detained indefinitely, without due process. We fought the British for our freedom, and as Judge Napolitano points out, even King George did not have the power to indefinitely detain any citizen. I gotta say it again. American citizens can be arrested on American soil and imprisoned indefinitely on the basis of accusations alone.

There is little good news, but every now and then, there’s a glimmer. Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court, often notoriously blind to the cause of individual rights, unanimously decreed that a search warrant is necessary before law enforcement officers can use a GPS device to track and follow a criminal suspect. The Court used a little common sense for a change in ruling that despite advances in surveillance technology, the Fourth Amendment still applies.

But what if the police can track an individual without installing equipment? Many new cars have GPS devices factory installed. Do the same privacy rules apply?
How about the fact that current technology allows the government to track the locations of millions of cell phones at will? The court “punted” on any clarification here, and said they would consider these issues at a later time. Is your cell phone activity and location being tracked right now?

The basic freedoms and protections of American citizens under the Bill of Rights have never before been under such assault. The stripping of these freedoms began following 9/11 under the Bush Administration. Under the Obama Administration, civil liberties have been further cut to the bone. Lenin summed up the direction our nation is heading, well, when he said, “It is true that liberty is precious, so precious that it must be carefully rationed.”

There was a small step towards the protection of privacy in the Supreme Court decision this week. But if the call for security smothers the rights of privacy, and the right to be free, then the terrorists do win. How can America issue a call for freedom in other countries, while deserting it here at home? Our freedom train is off the track. We have some adjusting to do. Before the essential principles on which our country was founded disappear right before our eyes. Edmund Burke said it this way, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

*****

“Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.” Benjamin Franklin

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers and websites throughout the country. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also hear Jim’s nationally syndicated radio show each Sunday morning from 9 am till 11:00 am, central time, on the Genesis Radio Network, with a live stream at http://www.jimbrownusa.com.

Who's To Blame for Rising Insurance Rates?

Thursday, January 19th, 2012
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

FEDS AND STATE REGULATION CAUSE HIGH INSURANCE RATES!

A headline in several regional newspapers caught my eye. “Homeowners Insurance Rate Increases Have Slowed,” said one front page banner. I guess that’s supposed to be good news. But in my home state of Louisiana, rates have skyrocketed since 2005 -- by an astounding 40%. No other state in the country has experienced such dramatic increases. And we continue to read that it’s all the fault of Katrina. There have been no major weather related losses in a number of years, but the rates continue to go up. There must be something rotten in Denmark. Hmmm – make that Louisiana.

Bob Hunter, director of insurance at the Consumer Federation of America, pulls no punches in laying the blame right at the feet of insurance regulators. He points out that insurance companies are using a number of tricks to eliminate their risk while the homeowner takes it on the chin with rates that continue to climb, hand over fist. “It simply requires regulation,” says Hunter. “Why haven’t rates gone down? Are they (insurance companies) gouging?” Ya’ think?

A significant factor in rates staying high is the continuing problems of AIG. This mammoth insurance conglomerate, that has a huge presence in Louisiana, was the first major insurance company to be bailed out as the recent Wall Street crisis evolved. Congress authorized an injection of more than $130 billion in taxpayer funds to AIG and its numerous subsidiaries. Not only were billions injected to pay off debts, the federal treasury plowed some $40 million of taxpayer dollars to take a partial stake in the ownership of AIG. As of today, the government owns 77% of AIG. So how’s your investment doing? The Wall Street Journal reported last week that AIG shares have declined 50% in this year alone.

Here’s why major international insurance groups like AIG are important to small states like Louisiana. T It’s not the population that matters. It’s where the risks are located. And there are a number of major companies operating in Louisiana that have significant exposure for insurance purposes. Just imagine the cost of insuring the offshore oil industry operating along Louisiana’s coastline. How about the nation’s largest chemical industry located up and down the Mississippi River? And there are major risks to insure in the first, third, and fifth largest ports in this country all located in Louisiana. In short, Louisiana is in the top five of states that have the highest industrial insurance risks. That means Louisiana is a major customer for many insurance companies both nationally and worldwide. Other large industrial states throughout the country share similar major industrial risks and need large national and international insurance companies to offer needed insurance protection, but none of them have had the excessive increases in insurance rates that Louisiana has.

There have been numerous press reports of widespread misspending at AIG using taxpayer funding. One investigation outlines a plush retreat by AIG executives at the St. Regis resort in California, including golf, massages, manicures, pedicures -- the works. These folks sure know how to show their gratitude. You can imagine the criticism the company received for this junket. But after getting roasted for the taxpayer – funded week-long retreat, far from learning a lesson, these same top executives keep thumbing their noses at taxpayers and continue to spend your money for their personal pleasure.

The question many people are asking is who is supposed to be watching out for these shenanigans? Who regulates companies like AIG? And why have these companies been allowed to get away with such outrageous and irresponsible behavior? But wait! In states all over the country, this is the era of little or no regulation. Keep government off the backs of the private sector. Don’t bog down insurance companies with all these regulations. You can trust them with your money…right? Let the free market reign.

And Louisiana, has been in the forefront of this laissez-faire approach to insurance regulation. In most states, companies selling automobile and property insurance have to apply for approval of any rate increase to the insurance department in any state where they want to sell insurance. Not in Louisiana. The Insurance Rating Commission, once a stronghold of watchdogs for taxpayers, was abolished a few years back, leaving insurance companies free to raise their rates on a regular basis.
In virtually every other state, there is a consumer protection office, often located under the office of the Governor or the Attorney General. The mandate of consumer protection office is to independently check and audit regulated companies to be sure that they are following the law. This mandate applies not only to insurance companies, but also to utility companies that have a monopoly operating in certain areas of the state. But in Louisiana, there are no independent checks and balances. And the loser, of course, is the policy holder, the ratepayer, the consumer.

Although the company has a major presence in Louisiana, insurance officials have chosen not to audit AIG’s activities. In years past, no insurance group was immune from being audited, particularly as financial problems began to occur. In 1993, Louisiana joined Texas in doing the first major audit of Lloyd’s of London, the world’s largest insurance company. But since the deregulation mode has obtained a firm grip on Louisiana, major companies like AIG have become free from state oversight.

New York state officials have undertaken what the Governor of New York says will be a “major investigation” of AIG mismanagement and abuses. Former Attorney General and present Governor Andrew Cuomo said in announcing his financial review of the company, “AIG’s belief is that they can have the party, and the taxpayers will have a hangover.”
The concern for Louisiana policy holders should be: why does it take an official in another state to initiate an investigation of potential mismanagement and misuse of funds that come out of the Bayou State? In Louisiana, there is no pre-approval limitation of increasing your insurance rates that are now the highest in the nation. So there is no more Insurance Rating Commission. And Louisiana law specifically prohibits giving its citizens separate insurance consumer protection by the Attorney General or any other official office.

So the bottom line is: thanks to the legislature, the Louisiana insurance policy holder has less protection than policy holders in just about any other state in America. And while the AIG shenanigans continue to be ignored in Louisiana, the politicians in Washington keep telling us that companies like AIG, for the good of the country, have to be saved no matter what, regardless of the huge burden on the taxpayers. The way the politicians see it, these companies are too big to fail. And the fleecing of you and me, the taxpayers? Well, that’s just collateral damage.

*******
“A government, for protecting business only, is but a carcass, and soon falls by its own corruption and decay.”
Amos Bronson Alcott
Peace and Justice.

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers and websites throughout the South. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also hear Jim’s nationally syndicated radio show each Sunday morning from 9 am till 11:00 am, central time, on the Genesis Radio Network, with a live stream at http://www.jimbrownusa.com.

Presidential Elections and the Bayou State!

Thursday, January 5th, 2012
New Orleans, Louisiana

LOUISIANA AND PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS

Governor Mitt Romney’s Iowa caucus victory this week drew nothing more than a few yawns down in Louisiana. For several reasons. First, presidential politics is not a front burner issue right now. For many Louisianans, there are more important priorities. LSU is playing for the national championship down in New Orleans, and the Saints are making a viable run toward another Super Bowl. It’s still duck and deer season, and Mardi Gras is just around the corner. But the main reason that folks in the Bayou State can’t get excited over Romney is because, as far as they know, he has not stepped a foot in the state. Romney seems to be well on his way to winning the Republican presidential nomination, and once again, Louisiana will be left on the side of the road.

Neighboring governor Rick Perry initially looked like “the man” to Louisiana politicos who gave any early attention to the presidential race. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal jumped into the Perry campaign with both feet, making a number of stops alongside the Texas governor. On paper, Perry looked pretty good to a number of Louisiana voters. The state has become more conservative in recent years, and is a cinch to stay in the republican column. Perry has been strongly supportive on the oil and gas issues that ring so well in Louisiana, where similar interests are shared. His positions on social issues make Tea Partiers and evangelicals jump for joy. But then his “oops” moment came, and he seemed to dig that hole deeper every time he opened his mouth. As a national candidate, Perry’s toast. He’s crashed and burned, and he’ll soon be out of the race.

Louisiana had a chance to be every bit as relevant in the presidential mix as was Iowa. It was the only state to have a major statewide election less than two months before the Iowa caucus. A few creative minds in the state suggested a “beauty contest.” Why not allow any of the presidential candidates to file and put their name on the Louisiana gubernatorial ballot, to give voters a chance to express their initial choice for president? The vote would be non-binding as far as picking delegates. But any serious presidential candidate could not afford to ignore the state. There would have been numerous campaign stops and media buys that would have been a boon to Louisiana. Perry particularly would have benefited, and Governor Jindal could have scored points for Perry and himself as they traveled the Bayou State campaigning. But Louisiana has never been on the cutting edge of looking out for itself, and true to form, the idea was ignored by legislators.

Some local political observers are saying that Jindal made a big mistake endorsing Perry, and that he’s hurt his chances for a national political move. But there just might be a method to Jindal’s perceived madness. Jindal knew well he was not the strongest candidate for joining the eventual nominee as a vice presidential candidate. Louisiana brings nothing politically to a national ticket. It’s not a “swing state” like either Florida or Ohio. And if Jindal’s heritage is a consideration, Hispanics far outweigh Indian Americans. That’s why we hear names like Sen. Marco Rubio, a Hispanic from Florida, and Governor Bob Portman from Ohio. Both are fairly new to office, and considered lightweights in the arena of governing, but you’ve got to get elected before you can run the country. And if Romney does get the nomination, as it seems he will, South Carolina’s popular Governor Nikki Haley would be a possible VP choice. She’s also an Indian American and she’s endorsed Romney, giving his campaign a big boost for the all important South Carolina republican primary in two weeks. So Jindal is realistically out of the picture as a serious candidate as part of a republican ticket.

Jindal has two future political choices, and his decision will no doubt be made based on who is elected president. If President Obama is re-elected, then there is a wide open opportunity for a Jindal presidential bid in four years. The Romneys, Pauls and Gingrichs of this campaign season will be older, and the party will be yearning for younger blood. In four years, Jindal will be winding down his second term as governor as the new campaign season approaches. The timing could not work better for him. And that’s where the Perry endorsement brings big dividends. The big bucks for national office are in Texas. Perry owes Jindal big-time, and is certain to return the favor by helping to raise big campaign bucks. So Jindal’s presidential bid, who some in Louisiana feel is his obsession, will receive bountiful benefits from the timing, and Jindal’s ability to “cash in” on all his campaign stops on behalf of number of other republican office holders around the country.

But what happens if Romney defeats Obama, which is certainly a strong possibility? Jindal won’t just wait around for four years without a base. We all know how quickly voters forget. He needs a platform. And he can gain such by taking on Louisiana incumbent Senator Mary Landrieu, whose term is up for renewal in 2014. Jindal will still be governor in a strong republican state and will be running against a democrat who has a good bit of baggage. It’s a lousy time to be a longtime serving incumbent, particularly in a red state when you are a mainstream democrat. Obama care, not returning home all that often, and a poor record of nominating federal judges, just for beginners, will be a few of the many issues that will be thrown back at Landrieu. When the Republicans smell the blood, Jindal will have the first right of refusal to take on the lady. So Louisiana voters won’t have to wait long. Jindal’s future plans will no doubt be decided in the election this November.
v. Rick Perry, Sen. Mary Landrieu, Louisiana Politics, Pres
Back to Mitt Romney. He barely won in Iowa, nudging Rick Sanatorium by a mere 8 votes. As my friend Andy Borowitz observed, the last time so few people decided a Presidential race they were all on the Supreme Court. But Romney wasn’t supposed to do all that well in Iowa. He now has solid momentum moving into New Hampshire for next week’s primary where he should win big. And the campaign contributions just keep rolling in at a pace far ahead of the all the other candidates combined. I was in New York several weeks ago where a friend invited me to be his guest at a Romney fundraiser. The former Massachusetts governor raised $10.5 million at that event, and this was just one of a series of such events Romney had scheduled on that day alone.

So we’re talking about a barn burner of a presidential race, a Louisiana governor anxious to move on to what he perceives to be bigger and better offices, and possible BCS and Super Bowl championships. Add to this gumbo a hint of “throw me somethin’ mister,” soon to be in the air and you have to ask -- Is 2012 going to be a great year or what?
*****
“When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it” ~Clarence Darrow

Peace and Justice.

Jim Brown

s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers throughout the South and on websites worldwide. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also hear Jim’s nationally syndicated radio show each Sunday morning from 9 am till 11:00 am, central time, on the Genesis Radio Network, with a live stream at http://www.jimbrownusa.com.