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.

Political Musical Chairs in Louisiana?

Thursday, November 3rd, 2011
New Orleans, Louisiana

MAJOR POLITICAL SHAKEUP ON THE LOUISIANA HORIZON?

In my home state of Louisiana, voters are about to witness a high stakes political game of musical chairs on both the state and national level. This could lead to new faces in the top three Louisiana political offices. We just could be talking about U.S. Senator Bobby Jindal, Governor David Vitter, as well as new Washington lobbyist, Mary Landrieu. The political posturing for these future offices is already underway.

Louisiana’s current governor, Bobby Jindal, continues to stay coy about his plans, and insists he will finish his current four year term. But once a politician experiences the national limelight, the lure of “moving on up” by seeking a U.S. Senate seat or a cabinet position is hard to pass up. Jindal will be half way through his second term as governor when the 2014 election for the Senate seat, presently held by Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu, comes up. And even though Jindal says he won’t run, many think he “protests a bit too much.” Just look at his recent campaign spending.

Jindal had a handful of no names running against him for governor, who spent virtually nothing in their campaign efforts. The Governor could well have received the same final vote total (64%), if he had not spent a penny. Yet he poured millions of dollars into his reelection effort. Jindal donated campaign funds in 193 separate legislative races, including 49 races where the candidate had no opposition. That’s $2,500 per candidate who was unopposed. Numerous robo calls, and door to door solicitations by Jindal campaign staffers were the norm throughout the state.

So why all the effort for an election where the incumbent was a cinch? Jindal has raised over $10 million for his reelection efforts. But under federal campaign laws, he cannot spend any of these funds in a campaign for a federal office. He has cleverly (and legally) used his state funds to build up major IOUs for his future political endeavors. If this includes a U.S. Senate race, so be it. The state money is legally used to lay a major foundation for what could well be a future federal race.

There has been talk of Jindal angling for a cabinet position in a new Republican administration, or even a Vice Presidential slot. But his ill advised endorsement of Texas Governor Rick Perry, whose presidential campaign seems to flounder more as each week goes by, has limited Jindal’s future choices. His options would seem to be either head back to the private sector, or go for the U.S. Senate seat.

What about the current incumbent, Mary Landrieu? She is serving her fourth term. But if she is making plans for a reelection effort, any close political observer would hardly know it. Her current campaign disclosure statement shows a little over $800,000 on hand for a 2014 race. That’s weekend walking around money for the Jindal campaign. She rarely comes home to Louisiana. And her actions in Washington are troubling to a number of Louisiana democrats.

Landrieu had the chance recently to hand pick a new 5th Circuit Court of Appeals judge. This was the first opportunity to make such a choice, since the present opening was the first with a sitting democratic president in office. Obama, as with past presidents from both parties, adheres to the wishes of the home state senator from the same party. One can imagine the number of democratic state and federal judges salivating over the opportunity for such an appointment. But Landrieu turned her back on a fellow democratic appointee, and adhered to a campaign supporter of Republican Senator David Vitter.

An obscure assistant prosecutor, Stephen Higginson, who had given Vitter multiple campaign contributions, was Vitter’s pick. Higginson might show up for work as a judge, but he had rarely bothered to vote in local and state elections. Since 2007, Higginson passed on voting numerous times, including in a number of judicial elections. And even though Higginson is not even a democrat, Landrieu apparently decided it was to her advantage, perhaps as a future Washington lobbyist, just to go along with Vitter.

I was in Washington a few weeks ago, and the consensus from a number of capitol political observers is that Landrieu isn’t looking much like a candidate for 2014. With Louisiana becoming a solid red state, and her chances for reelection questionable, Landrieu seems more focused on firming up her Washington relationships in both parties to set the stage to pass on reelection, and do what retired members of congress generally do -- stay in Washington and build a lucrative lobbying career.

This brings us to the final member of the triumvirate. Current Republican U.S. Senator David Vitter seems eager to come back home. He spent enormous resources in the recent gubernatorial election in support of two statewide losers. But both candidates were running against incumbents and were underdogs to begin with. Vitter’s effort tightened up the margins of victory, and allowed him to crisscross the state talking about others, and not be on the defensive as he has been in the past few years. He has raised money for a number of legislative candidates, and like Jindal, seems to be building up political statewide IOUs for the future.

Is it the Governor’s mansion for Vitter in 2015? The Senator enjoyed the political give and take when he was in the state house of representatives. But Washington is more disjointed, and Vitter’s current aggressive confrontations generally take place through press releases. In Baton Rouge, he can relish the infighting and be much more politically relevant again. So even though he has five years left on his current term, look for him to be back in Louisiana often in the months to come, submitting to the allure that enticed Huey Long, Edwin Edwards, Dave Treen, Buddy Roemer and Bobby Jindal, to come back home from Washington to the Governor’s mansion.
And then there is present Lt. Governor (and heir apparent if Jindal leaves office for Washington) Jay Dardenne. How does he respond to a Vitter candidacy? Remember that Vitter pummeled Dardenne during the recent Lt. Governor campaign. Dardenne had the audacity to consider running against Vitter in 2010, and Vitter neither forgets nor forgives. These guys could, along with popular state treasurer John Kennedy, create a real barnburner in a 2015 gubernatorial election. And if Dardenne is not successful in being elected governor? Well, there would be a special election for U.S. Senator just a short time later. Senator Dardenne? Governor Dardenne? There’s a nice ring to both.

So don’t despair, you enthusiastic Louisiana political devotees. Yes, 2011 was, with a few exceptions, a rather dull political year. But we’re just a few years away from what well could be one of the nastiest, most vicious, no holds barred political shootouts in many a year. I can hardly wait.

*****

“Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and all for the same reason.” ~José Maria de Eça de Queiroz, translated from Portuguese
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

Patriot Act Flat Out UnAmerican!

Wednesday, June 2nd 2011
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

CONGRESS BETRAYS BASIC AMERICAN FREEDOMS!

Since the founding of our country more than 200 hundred years ago, Americans have enjoyed core rights and liberties that made our country not just unique, but exceptional in protecting our basic freedoms. But no more. Just last week, The Congress of the United States sent a strong message to the American people that infringement on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself is just all part of the price we pay for “Big Government” to protect us. Thomas Paine warned us at the birth of our nation that “it is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” He would be stunned today to watch our Congress march in lock step with the President in renewing 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 this week, 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?

Not only does this unconscionable law rip at the very fiber of each and every American’s basic liberties, several courageous U.S. Senators are charging that federal agents are now twisting the law with interpretations that go way beyond the few limits infused in this unpatriotic act. 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.”

The President may have inadvertently given an opening to opponents of the act to void it when he “signed” the legislation by using an autopen to reproduce his signature in Washington while he was in France. The primary purpose of the autopen (a machine) is to replicate numerous signatures generated by one person signing with one pen. I used such a pen as Louisiana Secretary of State where my signature was required on virtually all official state documents. But the law is clear that I had to be in the state at the time of signing, and the autopen was merely a convenience so as not to have to sign and hundreds of documents, one after the other, in one sitting.

Now I know that the present mind set in Washington is to pay little attention to the Constitution. But if anyone in charge is remotely interested, Article 1, Section 7 of our founding document clearly states and requires that a proposed law “be presented to the President of The United States; if he approve he shall sign it.” Nothing here about giving the OK to reproduce his signature from 3000 miles away by telephone. It would be interesting how the “strict constructionists” on the Supreme Court would interpret this action.

A lighter anecdote on autopens concerning this extremely serious subject. During the time I was Secretary of State backing the mid 80s, I was in Atlantic City attending a convention, and bought tickets to see one of the last performances of two of my favorites -- Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin. The show was to be held that evening, and I received a call from the Louisiana Governor’s office around 4:00 in the afternoon. The Governor needed my official signature to call an emergency special session of the Louisiana Legislature, and the proclamation had to be signed by midnight.

No way to make it back, I said. I was 1500 miles away and I certainly didn’t want to miss the concert. Just use my autopen. But the Governor’s two lawyers insisted I had to personally sign and it was imperative and vital that I make it home by midnight. I reluctantly hailed a cab from Atlantic City to Philadelphia, caught a plane back to New Orleans, and landed at 11:50 pm. The lawyers had flown down from the state capitol in a police helicopter, and were waiting on the runway as the plane landed. I signed the required document with only minutes to spare. The President may want to take heed. At least follow the dictates of the Constitution.

The next time you have the chance to talk with your Senator or Congressman, you might want to pose a few questions for his consideration. The Patriot Act has, for all practical purposes, driven a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights. What I would like to ask my congressional representatives is just who will protect us from our government. Congressman, do you support the domestic surveillance of American citizens by authorizing (as you did by voting for the Patriot Act) far reaching authority for government agents to pry, without judicial authorization, into practically every aspect of a citizen’s personal life? Do you agree that government agents can now come to your place of employment and seize your personal and medical records, all without notifying you?

Congressman, do you have any problem with the FBI demanding customer records from a bank, the phone company, an internet provider, a doctor or your local library all without any notice or court approval? How about the monitoring of where one goes to church, clubs they belong to, or their lawful activities with any political organization? What about jailing American citizens indefinitely without allowing a trial? Is this the kind of country you want us to live in Congressman? Is this the kind of country we should ask our young men and women to fight and die for? Congressman, we would like to hear your answer!

*****
“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”
Edward Abbey

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 Primary Candidates Ignore Many States!

Thursday, May 26th, 2011
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

HOW CAN STATES LIKE LOUISIANA
BECOME PLAYERS IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

Last week, this column analyzed how only a handful of states will be both relevant and make any substantive difference in next year’s presidential election. Under the present system, it’s a “winner take all” contest, where the state’s electoral votes go to the top vote getter. In a red state, like Louisiana, a Republican voting majority is a dead cinch. So why should the candidate for president pay any attention to die hard red or blue states where campaigning is of little value? How about this? Maybe there is a way for my home state of Louisiana to become a major player.

There is no doubt about the Democratic nominee. The president is running for reelection, but has little chance for any gains in Louisiana and the Deep South. But the Republican nomination is wide open, with a number of candidates actively in the running. The primary season kicks off on January 16, with the Iowa caucuses. Here is what takes place before it is primary election day in Louisiana.

Monday, January 16, 2012: Iowa caucuses

Tuesday, January 24: New Hampshire

Saturday, January 28: Nevada caucuses, South Carolina

Tuesday, January 31: Florida

Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday): Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Montana Republican caucuses, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah

Saturday, February 11: Louisiana primary

Not only will there be a number of elections before Louisiana’s primary, the cost factor has become a big legislative issue. The cost for a primary in the Bayou State is $6 million, no chump change in a year with a real state budget crisis. The Louisiana Legislature is searching for ways to fill a void of some $1 billion less than was available last year. Some legislators are suggesting calling off the primary all together and letting the political parties choose delegates to their respective national conventions as they each see fit.

Louisiana political commentator John Maginnis wrote recently about why there is little enthusiasm for a state primary. “If like four years ago, only a quarter of Republicans who are about 25% of registered voters, vote in the presidential primary, overall participation will be about 6%. The arithmetic frames this question for our Legislature: is the opinion of 6 percent of Louisiana voters worth almost $6 million, or about $30 a vote, to find out?”

So is there anything Louisiana can do to save $6 million, yet still have a significant impact on who will be the next president? Yes! And at no cost. Louisiana is the only state in the country that has a late 2011 election already scheduled. It’s the regular gubernatorial election where many races will be on the ballot with a significant statewide turnout. Therefore, instead of wasting $6 million in election costs, the Bayou State could be the first in the nation to have a vote on who will be the respective party nominees.

It need be only a non-binding beauty contest. Both Republicans and Democrats could hold caucuses in the spring of next year to pick their respective delegates. But as far as giving the nation an indication of how voters are thinking nationally, Louisiana could, at no cost, be the first state to hold a presidential primary.
It would be an understatement to say that the candidates from both parties would flock to the deepest of the deep southern states. It is the first chance, particularly for the current long list of Republican presidential wannabes, to build momentum and show strength. It would be unwise for any candidate, particularly within the republican ranks, to pass up making a significant campaign effort in Louisiana.

A Louisiana presidential election tied to the gubernatorial election this fall would also put some additional heat on the candidates to focus on Louisiana issues. Put them on the spot when it comes to drilling in the Gulf, revenue sharing, and coastal erosion. Here’s what the speaker of the Florida House of Representatives had to say in commenting on Florida moving its primary up to next January: “Moving up the primary would force presidential candidates to pay more attention to issues that are important locally, like soaring property insurance rates.” Hello! Sounds like what Louisiana officials should be saying.

Iowa has the process of sucking in presidential candidates down to a science. The have the first of the nation’s primary voting through their caucus system that will take place in January of 2012. But they take gambit one step further by having a second “mini-caucus” this coming August. As Mike Murphy in Time magazine wrote this week: “It’s an essentially phony contest that forces the candidates to start earlier, visit more often, book more hotel rooms and put more friendly Iowans on the payroll to organize the vast logistics of getting all those would-be voters…” out to vote. Hillary Clinton spent $29 million in 2008 Iowa caucus, with other candidates spending millions more.

If Iowa can get the various candidates to genuflect all over the Hawkeye state and garner huge media attention over 10,000 voters at a caucus, it would seem for Louisiana to be a no brainer to tie in a straw vote for president at the same time as this fall’s gubernatorial election. The Louisiana legislature is in session right now. A simple minor change in the election law will allow the presidential straw poll in November, and pull millions of dollars into the state, and cost the taxpayers nothing. No other state has such an opportunity.

The Scots have a saying that opportunities are never lost; someone will take the one you miss. There is a win-win opportunity available for Louisiana if its political leadership is wise enough to seize the moment.

“Opportunity is often missed because we are broadcasting when we should be tuning in.” Jackson Browne

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 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.

Ole' Man River a Tough Challange!

Thursday, May 12th, 2011
New Orleans, Louisiana

SOUTH UNDER SIEGE BY
MISSISSIPPI RIVER!

Randy Newman’s song, Louisiana 1927, hit home to many residents up and down the Mississippi river this week. He was singing about the 1927 flood, where more than 23,000 square miles were inundated, hundreds of people died, and hundreds of thousands were left homeless. As of right now, predictions are that water levels up and down the river will exceed those reached in the 1927 disaster. And no one really knows how bad it will get.

It has been abnormally hot this spring throughout the south. A number of states have seen three times the normal amount of rain. But along with the downpours, there have been droughts and wildfires. Then came the tornadoes in all time record numbers that killed at least 309 people and caused massive destruction. Insurance losses are now projected to exceed $6 billon, with a similar amount for homes that were either under insured, or not insured at all.

The heavy spring rains have been incessant up and down the river, and there are projections for more Midwest thunderstorms later on this week. And all this water has, over the years, been channeled in tight levee systems that are right now under massive pressure. Author John Barry, who has been a guest on my radio show on several occasions, documented the dangers of flooding on the Mississippi in his award winning book, “Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi river Flood of 1927 and How it Changed America.” I asked him about his concerns today. “I know the power of this river, and quite frankly it makes me nervous to see this much water on the move,” he says

Barry also points out that “there will be a lot of backwater flooding going up rivers that are normally tributaries flowing into the Mississippi. They won’t be able to empty into the Mississippi, so the main line River will back up these streams causing a great deal of additional flooding.”

I know his scenario well from living through back water problems during the 1973 flood, where water levels reached their highest point to date. I was a newly elected state senator in Louisiana living right on the Mississippi in Ferriday, across the river from Natchez, Mississippi. I could go up on my roof and see across the main line levee as the waters continued to rise.

The water got so high that the Red and Black Rivers in that area that it began to back up, flooding many communities throughout my district. Some towns, like Jonesville, were surrounded by water and local residents had to get to and from their homes by boat. At the lower end of Catahoula Parish (other states have counties, but in Louisiana they are called parishes), some homes were buried under twenty-five feet of water.


When the river along the mainline levee came within four feet of overtopping, the local sheriff emptied the jails putting prisoners to work filling sandbags to build up the levees. For four days, I occasionally catnapped while working alongside neighbors and prisoners as we tried to raise the levee with sand. When the river finally crested, there was a little over a foot to spare that kept the Mighty Mississippi from pouring into our neighborhoods and destroying our homes.

Fast forward 38 years and the river levels look to be even higher and the flooding worse. Some three million acres will go under water in Louisiana alone, and almost half of the parishes here have been declared disaster areas. The River is approaching dangerous heights right now, yet the projected crest in Louisiana is not until May 23.

There are three major spillways along the river in Louisiana, and each has floodgates that can be opened to divert the raging waters. Opening these gates lessens the chance of flooding many inhabited areas, but the process is not a panacea. The millions of tons of sediment in the waters that are diverted will wipe out any crops in the water’s path along with many homes.

Roy Dokka, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and director of the Center for Geoinformatics at Louisiana State University, says Louisiana farmers are in for a long hoe. “Any existing crops are going to be toast when you look at the damage caused to corn, sugar cane and soybeans that will be covered with sediment,” he stated. “Plus, God knows what’s in the water and what gets deposited.”

And what if the levees collapse as they did during Katrina? “That’s the worst case scenario,” says Dokka. “If levees break, weeks could pass before engineers could reseal them. If wide-scale flooding occurs, the resulting economic damage will be felt for years, he said. “Any city that ever floods never really returns economically to where it once was because people don’t have confidence, people don’t want to put businesses there. New Orleans is the big example.”

So the south is taking on Mother Nature with a wing and a prayer. Living in this part of the country is a gamble that has consequences. Newman’s lyrics for a flood 84 years ago could just as well apply to what many residents who live along the Mississippi are facing right now, as each day passes.

The river rose all day
The river rose all night
Some people got lost in the flood
Some people got away alright

Louisiana, Louisiana
They're tryin' to wash us away
They're tryin' to wash us away

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.

Reapportionment Blues

Thursday, February 24th, 2011

Shreveport, Louisiana

GET THE POLITICIANS OUT OF REAPPORTIONMENT

It’s redistricting time for legislators, both in Louisiana and throughout the country. Criticism that decisions are being shaped behind closed doors is raining down on this politically sensitive process. Lawmakers in my home state have scheduled a number of meetings to discuss the process of divvying up the various political boundaries including congressional, public service commission, and their own legislative districts. Many of the sessions are not open to the public. “Wrong!” cry the press and the good government groups. But the question should be, why are legislators meeting at all?

By federal law, all election districts must be reapportioned every 10 years to reflect the latest census figures. This puts Louisiana elections officials in a bind because census figures have just become available that reflect changes over the past ten years, and the state is just months away from a gubernatorial election. But should legislators, who have a vested interest in how the redistricting lines are drawn, actually be the ones to do the drawing, anyway?

The problem is one of gerrymandering, where district lines are not drawn to reflect geographical or political balance, but to favor the incumbent or some other partisan choice. When legislators do the redistricting, the norm seems to be that the state ends up with meandering footprints meticulously designed, it would seem, to ensure that no incumbent will face serious opposition, regardless of how the political winds are blowing. As one local political observer said, “Think about it this way. In elections, people choose their legislators. In reapportionment, legislators choose their people.”

Gerrymandering, by the way, means to manipulate the electoral boundaries for political gain so as to give undue influence to an incumbent or other favored candidate. The name comes from Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, who in 1812 created winding districts that looked like salamanders to favor incumbents. Thus the convoluted word – “gerrymandering.”

What most voters want to avoid is the self-dealing by legislators where voting districts slash across communities of interest and geography. A blatant example of winding, disjointed gerrymandering is the Louisiana third congressional district. It winds from the Mississippi border south of New Orleans though the southern part of Jefferson Parish and all the way through south Louisiana up to Lafayette, some 300 miles in length.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger led an effort in his home state to get legislators out of the redistricting business. “The politicians have divided a neighborhood”, he says. “They have divided cities, towns and people, and this is what we what to eliminate. And this is why we need redistricting, because the district lines were drawn to favor incumbents rather than to favor the voters.”
So the question for Louisiana voters is this: Are they that concerned that the legislature is, for all practical purposes, creating their own voters? Is this healthy in the Bayou State -- or in any other state? Many think it’s not.
“The self-dealing quality of legislators drawing districts for themselves or for their partisans has basically collapsed the enterprise,” says Samuel Issacharoff, a law professor who is an expert on redistricting. “There’s an increasing sense of revulsion among voters at this self-dealing. It is somewhat scandalous that there are few competitive elections anymore.”

So what are the alternatives? What are other progressive states doing to transfer the power of redistricting to a system less driven by self-interest? Fourteen states have assigned the task to officials or panels outside the state legislature. And independent redistricting wears the cloak of good-government reform, as long as a consensus can be built on just who will serve on such panels. How do you pick the members? How can such a system be put in place that assures voters the final result will be fair, non-partisan, and keep local interests balanced?

Louisiana and every other state in the country have a number of bright people with solid business and educational backgrounds that are capable of taking on this controversial task. There are several respected demographers in the Bayou state, and a number of well-qualified professors at Louisiana universities. Retired judges fit the category as well as representatives of some of the state’s good government groups.

When I was first elected to the Louisiana legislature back in 1971, legislative redistricting had taken place just months before. But the reapportionment plan did not pass federal court muster, and was thrown out just weeks before the primary election date. Ed Steimel was head of the Public Affairs Research Council at the time, and was appointed by federal judge Frank Polozola to serve as a “special master” to redraw the district lines. Based on Steimel’s rework, the old plan was thrown out and the new court ordered plan put in place. There was general agreement that the Steimel Plan was fair and kept the district more cohesive and less spread out. (It must have been good as I won my senate seat easily in the first primary.)
One idea would be to create a Louisiana Fair Reapportionment Practices Commission made up from a cross section of various recommendations. Let nominations come from the legislature, the Supreme Court, the good government groups like PAR and CABL, the various college boards, and perhaps a key business group or two. Then put all the submissions in a hat, and draw out eleven names to serve as members to begin their work right after the new census data is made available.

The goal for such a commission is simple – put the important issue of redistricting into the hands of those with non-partisan interests, instead of those who in the past have been allowed to define the terms of their own cartel. Simply put, it’s just wrong for legislators to draw these districts and then run in them. There needs to be a better way.
*****
“If you’re hanging around with nothing to do and the zoo is closed, come over to the legislature. You’ll get the same kind of feeling and you won’t have to pay.” Sen. Dudley LeBlanc

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.

Lessons to be learned from Green Bay

Thursday, February 3rd, 2011
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

WHY LOUISIANA SHOULD BE
FOR THE GREEN BAY PACKERS!

So who ya’ rootin’ for in the Super Bowl game on Sunday? It’s an easy choice for me living down here in Louisiana. The Packers are one of the best examples of how a sports franchise should operate. They don’t go to the state capitol hat in hand, looking for a handout. The team is owned by citizen stockholders all over Minnesota, and the Packers’ management doesn’t regularly try to blackmail public officials into giving more handouts under threat of picking up and moving the franchise.

Recently, when it came time for Green Bay to revamp and refurnish legendary Lambeau Field, the state of Wisconsin didn’t put up one penny. All proceeds to pay for the renovations came from the private sector. Season ticket holders were charged a one-time user fee of $1,400, which fans can pay over several years. In addition, the Packers did a stock offering, just like many corporations do for capital improvements. And finally, the packers took out a team loan to be repaid out of yearly revenues. No sweetheart deals from the state, no special considerations, no coming to the public trough for taxpayer money.

What happens in some states, including my home state of Louisiana, is that team owners cry wolf saying that they will have no choice but to move their franchise elsewhere if, the tax incentives and outright dollars are not bountifully offered. But a review of the NFL team financial arrangements will show that team income is structured in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to run a profitable franchise even in a small location like my old home town of Ferriday.

Unlike other professional sports operations, television revenues are not sold by individual teams. In baseball, the New York Yankees get broadcasting revenues significantly greater that what a smaller market team like the Kansas City Royals receives. In pro football, every team shares in one gigantic pie. Little Green Bay receives the same television revenues as does a team in New York or Chicago.

The other major factor that lets a small market stay competitive without taxpayer dollars is the National Football League salary cap. Not only is the incoming revenue approximately the same for each team, expenditures are also more or less the same, as each team shares the same parameters as to just how much can be spent on team salaries. This means salary limits, which allows a small market team like Green Bay to stay competitive year after year.

Finally, the Packers have bought up 28 acres spending more than $27 million to develop an entertainment district. This would give the team revenues that it would not have to share with other clubs. It is a business strategy that a number of NFL franchises are undertaking. Yes, the New Orleans Saints are following this diversity approach. But here’s the difference. The Saints get it all paid for by Louisiana taxpayers.

The Saints receive $6 million in direct funding, from the state of Louisiana, each year. But there is much more the Saints will receive that is every bit as valuable as direct payments. $85 million will come out of the state treasury to upgrade the Superdome. But the upgrades greatly benefit the Saints and mean significantly more profit. Most of the money will go towards building new luxury boxes and new club lounges, all which mean more high priced tickets for the Saints to sell. The state pays the cost, and the Saints get the income.

Then there is the agreement for the state to lease office space in a downtown office building adjacent to the Dome being purchased by the Saints owners. The state is to lease more than 320,000 feet at $24 dollars square foot, which is one of the highest rental rates in the state today. So the Louisiana taxpayers are basically paying the cost of the building the Saints ownership is buying.

But what about all these projections of how much the economy in New Orleans will be positively impacted, with millions more in tax revenue. Figures are being wildly thrown around, with little study, indicating a $500 million economic impact. A University of New Orleans study, quoted in a New Orleans Times Picayune editorial, estimated some $22 million in state revenue is produced by the Saints. Here’s the fallacy. Any such study assumes that all of the dollars spent at Saints games are dollars that are new to the region’s economy. Most dollars spent going to the Superdome are dollars that would have been spent on other leisure activities in the area. There are numerous choices as to how to spend leisure dollars. Going to a football game is just one.

The Brookings Institution’s recent 500 page study titled, Sports, Jobs and Taxes, concluded that professional sports teams “realign economic activity within a city’s leisure industry rather than adding to it. Professional sports,” they write, “are not a major catalyst for economic development.” They are saying, in effect, that all the public subsidies accomplish is to help shift spending from other forms of entertainment to stadiums like the Dome, with little net employment gain or significant increase in new tax dollars.

A later report by Brookings found that numerous other studies have concluded the same thing. “Independent research by a number of independent groups has uniformly found that there is no significant positive correlation between sports facility construction and economic development.” Consultants, often hired by team owners who say otherwise, according to the Brookings study, “are peddling snake oil.”

So I’ll be pulling for Green Bay on Sunday. They got to the Super bowl as a wildcard team, and played some outstanding playoff football. But more important, the Packers represent the best of the American free enterprise system. They built a championship team by paying their own way without trolling for taxpayer dollars. It’s the way a franchise should be run. Go Packers!
*****
“The Green Bay Packers never lost a football game. They just ran out of time.”

Vince Lombardi

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.

New Orleans is Murder Capitol of America!

Thursday, January 27th, 2011
New Orleans, Louisiana

BOB DYLAN AND THE MURDERS IN NEW ORLEANS!

New Orleans is off to a fast start in this New Year to maintain its perennial title of being the murder capital of America. When the city celebrated Martin Luther King Day last week, five people were shot down. Just a few killings often seem to be a good day. The first violent death took place on day two of the New Year. In the few short weeks since then, 16 more murders have been chalked up. At this rate, could a new record high be in the making?

Any murder is tragic, but one can weave through the crime lore of the Crescent City to see some deaths that just can’t be explained. The locals often seem to shrug and accept the blood flowing as a price you pay for living in what always ranks as America’s “most interesting city.” Violence seems to be an integral part of the gumbo that blends a different genre of street smells, music, spices, poverty, and minions of eccentric characters. But then, the killings continue and grow in numbers.

The brutal execution that got to me the worst was the tragic death of a little boy a few years back. Ja’Shawn Powell was two years old, and lived in New Orleans with his mother. His father, a guy named Danny Platt, came to pick up Ja’Shawn for a weekend visit. The boy, according to his mother was really excited. “Oh, my daddy’s here,” he beamed as he ran to the door. “Daddy, daddy, daddy.” His mother said: “He was so happy.”

Then his daddy drove off….. took a knife….. slit this little boy’s throat….. and allowed the toddler to bleed to death.

It’s impossible to make any sense, or even find the words to define such a ghastly act. Horrifying, shocking, sickening, abhorrent, repugnant; no thoughts can describe such a dastardly deed of unspeakable horror. Platt claims he had “a whole bunch of reasons” for taking this little boy’s life. He said “I had a lot of pressure on me.” But he denied that one of the reasons was the $4000 in back child support he owed to the boy’s mother. Hogwash. He did it to keep from paying the money.

In a city that has the highest per capita murder rate in the nation, where multiple killings often happen on a daily basis, a town that is rated as one of the five most dangerous cities in the world, it is still incomprehensible to imagine that a father could take a knife and plunge it into the throat of his two-year-old child.

How could anyone kill their own son? That’s the question posed in the book of Genesis as to whether a father could kill his own son, even at the urging of God himself. According to the scripture in the first book of the Bible, the Jewish patriarch Abraham was told by God to kill his son Isaac to show obedience to God. It was a test, and when God was apparently satisfied that Abraham would undertake such an appalling act, he called out for Abraham to stop.

How does a believer, like Abraham, respond if he had been asked to sacrifice his one and only son? And then there is a separate question. How could a loving God even put one of his followers to such a test? Why would any being, God or man, force such a horrendous choice?

Bob Dylan poignantly and pointedly asked the same question on the title track of his “Highway 61 Revisited “album that came out in 1965. Now follow the symbolism here. Highway 61 runs from Duluth, Minnesota all the way down to New Orleans. It was a major transit route to get out of the Deep South, particularly for African Americans traveling north to Chicago, St. Louis and Memphis, as the highway followed the Mississippi River Valley for most of its 1400 miles. The song puts to the test the moral dilemma of killing one’s own son at the request of the Almighty.

Dylan raises the same concerns about God’s actions that I have felt for years. The lyrics say:

Oh God said to Abraham, Kill me a son”

Abe says, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”

God say, “No.” Abe say, “What?”

God say, “you can do what you want Abe but
The next time you see me comin’ you better run”

Well Abe says, “Where do you want this killing done?”

God says, “Out on Highway 61.”

So when America’s poet troubadour picks a location to symbolize one of the most heart wrenching choices posed by God to man, a choice by the way that I personally think was dead wrong for God to pose in the first place , the heart and soul of the dilemma runs right through the Crescent City, on Highway 61.

Since the killing of little Ja’Shawn, there have been a series of other family murders in New Orleans. Just a few days after Ja’Shawn was knifed to death, a son killed his 73 old mother, who was a member of her church choir. He stabbed her repeatedly with a butcher knife and robbed her. Why? He needed money to buy drugs.
New Orleans is a city where I was educated, where I have worked and lived off and on for some fifty years. It’s a real tragedy to see the will and the hopes of so many locals seem to slowly drift away. And let’s face it. No outside help is going to sweep in to solve the city’s massive list of problems.

New Orleans needs political leadership, increased community activism, more public dollars into law enforcement, and a renewed focus on juvenile delinquency. But there also needs to be a will. All this can make a difference and all this needs to be done. But it all begins right here at home, on Highway 61.
********
“There are many things worth living for, a few things worth dying for, and
nothing worth killing for.” Tom Robbins

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.

The Return of Edwin Edwards!

Thursday, January 20th, 2011
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

EDWIN EDWARDS-THE PRODIGAL SON COMES HOME!

After eight and a half years in a federal prison, Louisiana’s prodigal son has come home. And far from quietly slipping back into home confinement, the former Louisiana governor was greeted with the fascination generally reserved for a rock star. There was the kind of media coverage and public fascination generally reserved for a President or the Pope. Even the Kingfish would have been envious. Edwin Edwards is back.

I played a minor role in the Edwards homecoming, being the publisher of his recently released biography, “Edwin Edwards-Governor of Louisiana.” Written by my colleague, Leo Honeycutt, it became an immediate best seller. On the day of Edwards’ release last week, ten Louisiana television stations came by my office for interviews. The entire state seemed to be consumed by the frenzy of the return of the most controversial public figure in the state’s history. Love him or hate him, only a few were not caught up in the fascination of the state’s longest serving governor.

I had been approached in 2008 by B.I. Moody, a friend and supporter of mine over many years, who built Moody Publications into the largest newspaper chain in the state. B. I. and Edwards had shared office space when they first started out in business back in the early 1950s, and they had remained the closest of friends over the years. B.I. felt that a balanced legacy of Edwards had not been fully presented.

“Anyone born after the late 1970s would only know of the controversy surrounding him. History so far has not highlighted his many accomplishments,” B.I. had told me. He had read my first book about my time in public life, and asked if I might find an author to take on the task of writing a more balanced and fairer presentation of the Edwards story. I had formed a publishing company called The Lisburn Press, using the name of my old plantation home in Ferriday, Louisiana.

I accepted the task, and interviewed a number of local and national authors. Leo Honeycutt lived in Baton Rouge, and had been a television personality locally and up in Monroe, La. for a number of years. As a newsman, he had covered and talked with Edwards extensively. I read his 15 year old novel, “Over the Edge,” and knew that Leo had a descriptive writing style full of expression and understanding of the nuances of Louisiana. After several interviews, from a field of other well qualified writers, I decided on Leo to collaborate with the former governor, who continued to captivate while sitting in a federal prison.

Leo spent weeks at a time in solitude immersed in the project in a cabin on Lake St. John up in Concordia Parish. His first draft was 1600 pages, with over 3000 footnotes. I sent him back to the drawing board for rewrite after rewrite. I also spent a great deal of time reviewing some of the legal ramifications of many of the charges made by both Leo and EWE. It took the better part of the year to get the book in final form. Designing a cover and selecting photos from the thousands available that reflected Edwards’ time in public life took more months. Our hopes for a one year project extended four fold.

So how many copies of the first edition should we print? After all, the guy had not been governor for 16 years and had been in prison going on eight years. Was there really all that much interest left in the “Silver Fox?” Or was he a has been, and would all this effort be just for the history books? Start with 5000 copies? Knowing that he would soon be out of prison and there would be some spike of interest, maybe a 10,000 copy run? OK, let’s go with 10,000 books, since we did have a warehouse large enough to store the entire inventory.

The truckload of the Edwards biography arrived in the bookstores less than two weeks before Christmas. The first printing of 5000 copies sold out in two days. A quick call was made to the printer in Canada requesting another 10,000 copies. We paid overtime for the printer to work the weekend around the clock, and another truckload arrived a few days before Christmas. That run sold out in a week.

With approximately 50,000 copies sold, the Edwards Biography is well on its way to being the largest selling Louisiana book in the state’s history. With the former governor back home, we are projecting sales of another 50,000 books before year’s end. And how about the new Edwin Edwards autobiography? He says that he has his own take on what transpired during his investigation and trial, and that he has many insights that so far have not been revealed. Edwards Redux? Stay tuned!

The colorful Cajun has been roundly roasted by some editorial writers for years, as the cause for Louisiana’s sad state of affairs. Louisiana is close to the bottom on many quality of life lists. He has not been in public office for sixteen years, and three other governors have followed in his path. Yet, according to some, it’s all his fault. Fifty years from now, there will be those who still point to Edwin Edwards’ influence as the state’s major problem.

But could it be that this charismatic character represents the pulse of Louisiana? Is it possible that most public officials in the Bayou State are no better and no worse than the voters who put them in office? That’s a subject for another book. And I could be just the guy to publish it!

*****
“People say I've had brushes with the law. That's not true. I've had brushes with overzealous prosecutors.”
Edwin W. Edwards

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. The show is televised at http://www.justin.tv/jimbrownusa.

Politics of a Killer?

Thursday, January 13th, 2011
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

HOW TO EXPLAIN THE SHOOTER IN TUCSON!

Are there political lessons to be learned from Saturday’s tragic shootings in Tucson? The talk show pundits on both the left and right would have us believe that the other side’s hyper-partisanship has been the catalyst for a growing vehemence and hatred that led to the terrible violence by one deranged killer. Are there underlying causes to explain this shocking event that can be directed towards either side of the political spectrum? Many talk show hosts would have you believe so. But killings tragically happen, and birds fall from the sky. And often, the cause is not political.

Two tragedies took place last week. A highly unstable punk kid did have some political misgivings. But they were not influenced nor directed from viewpoints on the left or the right. On the Internet, he ranted about government thought control, and how the country should return to the gold standard -- hardly partisan issues. Few of us trust the government’s involvement in our personal lives, but almost none of us reacts with violence. No, the cause of this tragedy in Tucson appears to be exclusively the shooter’s internal demons.

The news media that claim neutrality had no problem inflaming the debate al this week by assuming there was a political angle to the shooter’s actions. What part of the political spectrum was Jared Lee Loughner coming from? He just had to have an agenda we were continually told.

Some said the attack was linked to the bull’s eye directed at some twenty democratic congressmen including last week’s victim, Rep. Gabriele Giffords. The popular political website, The Daily Kos wrote: “Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin.” How unfair and offensive were both the comments and the bull’s eye. It was tasteless on both sides. News commentary has become segmented by political philosophy and as such it has become shamelessly irresponsible.

Conservative columnist David Brooks pointed out, these “were vicious charges made by people who claimed to be criticizing viciousness. We have a news media market in which the rewards go to anybody who can stroke the audience’s pleasure buttons.”
There is a great deal of anger in the country now. I hear it each week on my national radio show as callers vent from coast to coast across the political spectrum. And they vent with justification. A recent survey by the Pew research Center found there is “a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust in government -- a dismal economy, an unhappy public, bitter partisan-based backlash, and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials.”

Members of Congress are the most accessible branch of our national government and like it or not, they represent symbolically what many voters see as an out-of-control and out-of-touch federal government. Most constituents are just plain angry. But in the mix, there are a few who are deranged, and in them, the anger that most of us keep under control, explodes in violence.

In our democracy, any nut case can walk into a town hall meeting and confront their representative or senator face to face – and Congresswoman Giffords was always having small meetings in grocery stores and other retail establishments and this made her vulnerable to the walking time bomb, Jared Loughner.

Despite what pundits on both the left and the right continue to pontificate, Jared Loughner had no political agenda. Jared Loughner’s actions were driven by the psychotic delusions of his mental illness. He could not protect himself from his demons inside, and our society could not protect those slaughtered last week from his deadly outbursts.

There can be a link between derangement and politics. Jared Loughner lives in the epicenter of hatred, resentment -- all distorted by what seems to be an extreme mental illness. He is not alone in this country. In a book by research psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey called “The Insanity Offense,” he concludes that some one per cent of seriously mentally ill in this country, some 40,000 people, are violent. Fuller says they account for about half the rampage murders in the United States.

Yet a number of states, including my home state of Louisiana, are proposing deep cuts in mental health treatments. Of particular concern are disturbed inmates who are soon to be released, but who have been given little treatment for their unstable condition. There is a low priority in this country for aggressively providing treatment to the mentally ill who are becoming increasingly disruptive. How do you stop such individuals from owning guns? What are the standards for involuntary treatment? Many tough questions need to be addressed.

Jared Loughner posted his favorite books on his YouTube page. Their general and similar themes centered on government stripping an individual of their own free thinking. “Animal Farm,” “Brave New World, “Mein Kampf,” and “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” to name a few. But the book on Loughner’s list that summed him up best was Harper Lee’s, “To Kill a Mockingbird.”

“He was out of his mind,” said Atticus. “Don’t like to contradict you, Mr. Finch-wasn’t crazy, mean as hell. Low-down skunk with enough liquor in him to make him brave enough to kill children.” I don’t know about the liquor. But Harper Lee got it right in regard to Jared Loughner. He has to be both crazy and mean as hell. The polarizing ideology here is not on the left or right. It’s in the jumbled mix of a ground up dysfunctional character and conscience in the psychotic mind of Jared Loughner.

A larger question is what will happen after all the political hysteria dies down? Can we as a country do more to prepare for another day when one of our communities is thrust into a confrontation of disorder, cruelty and horror? The answer is that there is a way. Whether or not there is a will; that is the question.

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. The show is televised at http://www.justin.tv/jimbrownusa.

Hypocrisy and Tea Party Candidates

Thursday, December 9, 2010
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

ARE TEA PARTIERS, ESPECIALLY IN LOUISIANA,
SELLING OUT FOR CAMPAIGN MONEY?

It was just a few months ago when we listened to Tea Party candidates across the country declaring that they were going to Washington in order to shake up the political establishment. No more “politics as usual” was the battle cry. But in a matter of a few weeks, these new guys and gals on the block have rapidly embraced the Washington culture of big-money fundraisers. Special interests galore and numerous lobbying groups are falling all over themselves to host fundraisers for these progressive agents of change. And the new so-called reformers are taking the bait and gathering up the big bucks for their campaign war chests. The more we hear about change in Washington, the more things stay the same.

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. He’s two months away from even being sworn into office, yet Landy is asking for money from K Street lobbyists and other Washington power brokers.

Getting to visit with Landry doesn’t come cheap. The high priced “meet and greet” with the new Louisiana 3rd District Congressman carried a price tag of $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 congressman like Landry found that Washington went from a “cesspool” when they were campaigning, to a “hot tube” once elected.
A guest on my weekly nationally syndicated radio show this week will be Gabriela Schneider, who tracks political fund raisers for the Sunlight Foundation, a watchdog group. She observes that “the lobbyists are all saying, ‘Welcome to Washington -- let me help pay off your debt.’ It’s particularly interesting when so many of this year’s freshman congressmen were running against Washington. But as soon as they get elected, they come to Washington and put out their hand.”

Another guest on the program this Sunday will be Meredith McGehee, who serves as policy director at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington. She told me this week that debt-retirement events and other post-election fundraisers “are God’s gift to special interests,” that allows corporate PACs and lobbyists to curry favor with grateful congressmen. And she says these early fundraisers for newly elected lawmakers are a way to get an inside relationship for some lobbyists who had ignored or even opposed the congressman-elect back during the campaign.“If you were on the wrong side or just AWOL during the election, this is your chance to make it up,” McGehee told me. “It’s a great way to get in good with members of Congress.”

The good news for Landry and other new Republican congressman is that, with the Republicans now in control of the U.S. House, the campaign money spickets have opened and are abundantly flowing. These new GOP Tea Partiers strongly oppose earmarks, unless the earmark is a campaign donation sent in their direction. The bad news is that many states like Louisiana could well become the “wild, wild west” for political fundraising with candidates no longer in control of their own campaigns.

Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court declared that corporations and unions can now spend money on political advertising. In the future, corporate boardrooms will soon become political cockpits for plotting the success or demise of candidates like Landry. Better tow the special interest line, or guess who just might come after you?
It’s no secret that in the majority of elections there are two key elements in getting elected to a major political office. The first is money. I’ve forgotten the second. My home state of Louisiana is often the most expensive for campaign spending, per capita, in the nation. Out of state corporate and special interest money regularly flood into the campaign coffers of Louisiana candidates.

Current Governor Bobby Jindal has raised over $10 million for his re election campaign. The New Orleans Times Picayune reported this year that Jindal has more contributions from outside Louisiana than from within. One might wonder why almost 1000 California contributors are so interested in Louisiana issues.

How do Louisiana citizens benefit when large amounts of campaign cash flood into the state to influence Louisiana elections? The same question could be asked about out of state dollars being sent in to any state. Isn’t there a built in conflict of interest as to where an official’s loyalties lie when large, out of state donations are accepted?

There is a simple and constitutional way to keep Louisiana elected officials focused on Louisiana issues. A candidate for public office should only raise campaign funds in the district from where he or she is running. If a candidate is running statewide, he or she should raise all their financial resources within the state. If a candidate is running parish or countywide, the limits should be within the home district. Legislators would be limited to raising campaign dollars from within their respective districts. Simple. Keep fund raising local. Make the candidates focus and be responsive solely to the voters in the boundaries that put them in office.

To be sure, there would be loud protests from lobbyists who hand out the campaign dollars to gain their “special access.” And incumbents, who can work the system from day one in office, would object at having to forgo all the many out of district fund raising opportunities. The voters would be the beneficiaries. But don’t count on any groundswell of change. The recent Supreme Court decision was touted as a catalyst for major campaign changes. But as long as out of state money floods into any state, it’s going to be the same old, same old in both Baton Rouge and Washington. Yes, the more we hear about change, the more it’s just the same old song and dance.
*****


People used to complain that selling a campaign was like selling a bar of soap. But when you buy soap, at least you get the soap. In this campaign, you just get two guys telling you they really value cleanliness.”— David Brooks

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 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. The show is televised at http://www.justin.tv/jimbrownusa.

Louisiana Governor and sabbaticals!

Wednesday, November 24^th, 2010

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

GET OFF BOBBY JINDAL'S BACK

ABOUT TAKING A SABBATICAL!

So what’s with all the criticism about taking a sabbatical? It’s become a big issue in my home state of Louisiana with educators, legislators, and good government groups debating the value versus the cost of taking a little time off. A sabbatical let’s a person get away from pressures and responsibilities back home at the job they were hired to do. Traveling around the country let’s one do research to better focus on the job at hand when the time comes to get back to the real world of responsibility. So let’s quit all the criticizing. Let Bobby Jindal travel and take his sabbatical in peace.

The cost of sabbaticals for academicians has been an election focus for Jindal, as he crisscrossed the nation during the campaign season in support of Republican candidates. But Republicans running for office in Louisiana were not able to garner the Governor’s endorsement as he took a “hands off” approach and refused to endorse his incumbent U.S, senator as well as a fellow Republican’s bid to be second in command as Lt. Governor. But be a conservative leaning candidate in just about any other state from coast to coast, and Jindal has been glad to lend a hand in any needed fund raising effort. Louisiana incumbents who found themselves in political trouble, like New Orleans congressman Joseph Cao, were left to fend for themselves with no hopes of any help from the popular governor.

When the election season came to an end in early November, many expected Jindal to come home and face his gubernatorial responsibilities. After all, the state is facing a monumental deficit that now approaches $2 billion for the coming fiscal year. Education at all levels is on the chopping block with universities facing major cutbacks requiring wholesale layoffs to make up the shortfall. The state health delivery system is mired in controversy as the medical community raises troubling questions of how indigent healthcare needs will be met and paid for. Time for the Governor to come back home and take control.

But that’s like asking an LSU professor to cut his year abroad short by coming home and, God forbid, actually have to go into a class room and teach. You do have to set your priorities in both the business of teaching and government -- right? Look, when one is on sabbatical, problems at home will just have to take care of themselves. Professors and governors need a little break from the humdrum life of teaching and governing.

Remember the scene in “Animal House when the Delta Tau Chi fraternity is close to being kicked off campus for various shenanigans? The members turn to John Belushi for advice. What does he propose? Toga party! So we have Louisiana facing major financial and governmental service problems that continue to grow with no rational solution in site. And what does the Governor propose? Book tour!

Jindal is traveling the country, hyping his first book, on the talk show circuit. The book is titled “Leadership and Crisis.” Some cynics in his home state are suggesting that the Louisiana Governor drop the “and” in the title of the book. The focus of Jinadal’s book is to pound the inadequacies of the federal government and in particular, the short comings of the Obama administration. Personal comments by the President to Jindal are all put on the record.

In last week’s column, I listed a number of ambitious potential national office seekers from the South. In that mix were Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Texas Governor Rick Perry, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, and newly elected Florida Senator Marco Rubio. They each have harsh words for Washington politics, but they have shied away from direct attacks on the President.

As one Barbour aide told me recently, “Haley ain’t no fool. He’s still getting much more out of Washington than Louisiana is. You don’t personally bite the hand that’s pouring federal dollars into your state unless you’re an announced candidate against Obama.”

Jindal’s sabbatical will apparently last a while longer as national interview opportunities continue to pour in and book sales increase. So who’s running the state? Here’s an idea. While Jindal continues his sabbatical in the weeks to come, Sarah Palin brings her book signing tour to Baton Rouge next Tuesday. She bailed out of being Alaska Governor after only a year and a half in office.

But now Palin is rested, ready and full of vigor and venom. Maybe we could borrow her for a few months until Jindal finishes his sabbatical. Kind of like being a fill-in professor at LSU while the regular professor takes take a much needed leave with pay. She gets to know Louisiana. He can go up and sell books in Alaska. And who knows? It could be Jindal-Palin, or Palin-Jindal in 2012. Ain’t these sabbaticals grand or what?

*****

"Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book." ...Ronald Reagan

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 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. The show is televised at http://www.justin.tv/jimbrownusa.

Do Justices Really Make a Difference?

Thursday, July 8th, 2010
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

A NEW SUPREME COURT JUSTICE:
WHO CARES?

About the last thing on anyone’s mind right now, particularly in my home state of Louisiana, is whether or not Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan will be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. It’s pretty much a “done deal,” right? Whoever the President wants, the president gets, regardless of political party. Oh, in the Kagan case, the republicans will throw up some half-hearted concerns about Kagan being too liberal and not enough of a “strict constructionist,” whatever that is supposed to mean. So why should the average American care?

In recent polling data, two-thirds of the 1,000 American adults polled couldn't name a single current justice, and just 1 percent was able to name all nine sitting justices. Less than one-third of voters have any view of Kagan at all. This lack of governmental knowledge really is not all that big of a surprise when you look at other historical events that have most Americans perplexed.

• More Americans could identify Michael Jackson as the composer of "Beat It" and "Billie Jean" than could identify the Bill of Rights as a body of amendments to the Constitution.

• More than 50 percent of respondents attributed the quote "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs" to either Thomas Paine, George Washington or President Obama. The quote is from Karl Marx, author of "The Communist Manifesto."

• More than a third did not know the century in which the American Revolution took place, and half of respondents believed that either the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation or the War of 1812 occurred before the American Revolution
.
So it’s of little surprise that nominee Kagan registers so low on the national recognition scale. If you were one of the few that sat glued to C-Span through the Senate Judiciary Hearings last week, here is what you would have found out:

On TV cameras in the court room, that are presently prohibited, Kagan is for them. Good for her on this issue. Her colleagues have for years thrown up the hoary arguments the television would undermine the high court’s “ethos” and bring forth the justices’ faces to C-Span-watching terrorists. Bunk. TV court room coverage works well in many state judicial systems including Louisiana’s. In fact, I argued the first televised case before the Louisiana Supreme Court back in the mid 1990s. The issue involved the right of law enforcement officers to seize cars that were uninsured. I won the case, by the way, and the television broadcast was no big deal. So mark one for the nominee.

But her score takes a justified hit on a whole host of other issues including her decision as dean of Harvard Law to bar recruiters from the school's career services office over the Pentagon's policy against openly gay soldiers. Kagan said she was trying to balance Harvard's nondiscrimination policy, which she believed "don't ask, don't tell" violated, with a federal law that required schools to give military recruiters equal access as a condition of eligibility for federal funds. But that was the law, later upheld in a legal challenge unanimously by the Supreme Court. With two wars going on at the time, Kagan would have seemed to have substituted her personal view rather than what the law required.

There are a number of positions Kagan argued before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General that undermine and impede basic freedoms, and that should concern those asked to promote her to the nation’s highest court. One such troubling case involves former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, convicted of bribery in 2006. The Supreme Court last week unanimously vacated Siegelman’s conviction, after ninety-one state attorneys general urged that the conviction was unjust and should be overturned.

Kagan filed a petition urging the Supreme Court to deny hearing Siegelman’s appeal. The facts showed that an Alabama business man made a large donation to support the creation of a lottery with the profits to go to public schools. The governor appointed the contributor to a spot on Alabama’s hospital oversight board. A tit for tat? Not even close. If governors were indicted for appointing a campaign contributor to a board or commission, there would not be one chief executive still serving anywhere in the country. Kagan supported a conviction where there was no crime.

The list of similar questionable actions by Kagan is long. Her positions are often detrimental to individual rights and freedoms. If she is the best the country has to serve on the nation’s highest court, then the cream is far from rising to the top, and it’s mediocrity that is on the assent.

So is there a chance she will not be confirmed? Absolutely not. The lady’s a cinch, for as even some republicans are saying: “Elections have consequences.” Though mediocre in qualifications, Kagan is the President’s choice, and the democrats will offer support in lock step. The same scenario would be playing out if the unqualified nominee were a republican under a republican administration.

In the meantime, enough about these trivial concerns. Who cares who interprets our laws and protects our basic freedoms? After all, the new season of American Idol is not all that far off. And that’s when the voting really matters.
*****

“So what if he is mediocre? There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?”

Senator Roman L. Hruska of Nebraska

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 is past columns and see continuing updates at www.jimbrownla.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.

Not Insurance Relief from Louisiana Legislature

Thursday June 11, 2009
New Orleans, Louisiana

LOUISIANA HURRICANE SEASON
DO YOU FEEL LUCKY? WELL DO YA?

A dangerous hurricane season this year? Forecasters are predicting nine to 14 named tropical storms with four to seven of them expected to be hurricanes. And three could be major. Or as Dirty Harry would say: 44 Magnum hurricanes, the most powerful hurricanes in the world. So what is the Louisiana Legislature doing to give homeowners protection and relief? Nothing. It’s every homeowner for themselves. So the only question you can ask is, do you feel lucky?

Thought out the gulf south, other states are scurrying to develop legislative strategies to hold the line on rising property insurance costs. In South Carolina, a number of new initiatives passed the legislature including the establishment of catastrophe savings accounts that are tax free, allowing new self-insured procedures for homeowners, and giving tax credits to those who make their homes more storm resistant. Georgia has beefed up its state property insurance association of last resort with the purchase of reinsurance to cover any major disaster.

Alabama is following the South Carolina model mandating companies to give cheaper premiums in exchange for structural improvements to homes. Mississippi is using federal funds to bolster their state run insurance company of last resort, so as to keep insurance rates down. Some $25 million in federal dollars were also obtained in initial funding for the state‘s wind damage mitigation program. Homeowners can get up to 75% of the cost of such improvements, and once the work is done, a significant reduction in premium costs, as much as 50%, is the immediate result.

Texas has adopted a long list of changes in recent years, and recently bolstered its windstorm insurance program to cover damages exceeding one billion dollars. What this means is that Bermuda reinsurers pay the bill instead of Texans. Taxpayers in Texas don’t get stuck like they do in Louisiana. Just last week, Texas legislators became so incensed at the lack of effort by the Texas Insurance Department to lower rates that they voted to abolish the entire department. A special session will have to be called by the governor, but lawmakers made no bones about their desire to get property rates reduced.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who has made insurance reform a front burner issue since the day he took office, continues to push an aggressive insurance agenda. Several years ago, Florida formed a Hurricane Catastrophe Fund that offered cheap backup coverage or reinsurance to private insurers. Since then, 40 new companies have flocked to Florida. Louisiana legislators keep hands off any such changes. The result? Just last week, the AAA Insurance group announced they were pulling out of Louisiana, becoming the latest company to do so.

Florida also brought in Warren Buffett’s company Berkshire Hathaway to develop a plan for responding to a massive hurricane hit. Buffett’s firm has pledged up to $ 4billion in state bonds if such a disaster would take place. Florida too has a Citizens Property Insurance Company. But while Louisiana’s similar company continually has raised their rates to the highest in the country, Florida legislators has frozen any such rate increase for at least the next three years.

What can be seen here is an aggressive approach by legislators and insurance departments all along the gulf coast to mitigate exposure, provide back up for private companies, and offer reinsurance to the private insurance market. But there is one exception, and that’s here in Louisiana. The legislature in the Bayou state is now in session, and so far, only two insurance proposals of any significance are making their way through the process. First, there exists a fund of some $100 million to attract new insurance companies to the state. The idea has proven to be a mistake and the present law says the leftover money, some $70 million, is to be refunded to policyholders. Paid back to you as a homeowner. Not so say current legislators. They are diverting this money back to the general fund, breaking their promise to the policy holders of the state.

The other proposal working its way through the process involves complicated legislation affecting take out companies that sell property insurance in south Louisiana. Bottom line is that under this new proposed law, many homeowners will see their yearly premiums rise by as much as 20%. So the best you can expect in Louisiana is to lose your promised refund and see your insurance rates go up. That’s it. Nothing else. NO creative thinking or even an effort to copy a number of good, working proposals in other gulf coast states.
So how do rates compare along the gulf coast when data is rev

iewed that is supplied by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners? In the latest figures available, Louisiana policyholders paid 3.31 percent of the state’s household median income for a homeowner’s insurance policy, the most expensive in the country. This was almost 40% higher than the nationwide average. Along the gulf coast, Florida pays 3.16%, Mississippi pays 2.81%, Alabama is at 2.31%and South Carolina comes in at 2.05%

When you look at the comparisons figures or cost per $100 of residential property insurance, Louisiana property owners again lead the nation by paying an average $1.006. Texas comes in second highest at 93.9 cents, Mississippi paid 79.8 cents, Alabama paid 71.5 cents and Florida paid only 69.3 cents. That’s right. Florida, the state that Louisiana insurance officials and legislators dismiss as being too pro active, is at the bottom of the gulf south list while continuing to attract new insurance companies to the Sunshine state.

Louisiana continues to have the highest property insurance rates in the country, and makes less effort by far than any other gulf coast state to get skyrocketing premiums under control. If another major hurricane hit the state, affordable rates would become, for most homeowners, nonexistent. About the best you can hope for during this hurricane season in Louisiana is to keep your fingers crossed and ask the basic question: “Do I feel lucky?”

Well do ya?
********

“The threat of hurricanes and the Ku Klux Klan; those two things made me decide not to build on the Alabama coast.” Writer Shelby Foote

Peace and Justice
Jim Brown

Jim’s syndicated column appears weekly in numerous newspapers and websites throughout the south. You can read all his back columns by going to www.jimbrownla,.com.