Spineless legislators cry foul

I’m sure most folks are aware of the old proverb, “You reap what you sow.”   Apparently our esteemed legislators in the state House of Representatives need a refresher course on its full meaning.  When given many opportunities in special sessions to deal with the ludicrous tax break incentives offered to industries and corporations in this state, coupled with an inadequate individual income tax system, they chose to do nothing.

Republican House representatives further choose to continue to absolve themselves of all fiscal responsibility by producing a budget during this session that they admit is seriously flawed, but passed anyway.  Their cry was “Let the Senate fix it.”  The only problem is the budget is so flawed it can’t be fixed by the Senate.

  

The House passed budget plan would nearly defund the state's safety-net hospitals; a move that the Louisiana Department of Health predicts would shutter hospitals in New Orleans, Shreveport, Monroe, Lafayette and Bogalusa.

The budget only funds 80 percent of the money needed for the Taylor Opportunity Program for Students, which would lead to cuts to scholarships for college students.  It would also drastically reduce funding for medical education programs in the state, potentially leaving Louisiana with no functioning medical schools. Additionally, it would eliminate funding for thousands of nursing home residents.

As a defense for passing such a ludicrous budget House Republican Caucus Chair, Lance Harris, of Alexandria, stated, "This is what a responsible budget looks like – dealing with the actual figures, the actual money that's available to the state today. The state cannot spend money that it doesn't have." Certainly no one can argue against this statement, but what Rep. Harris conveniently omits is the fact that House GOPs had three special session opportunities to develop a plan to generate more revenue without putting these consequences on the backs of individual tax payers.  They lacked the spines to do it.  Instead, they once again allowed the LABI, headed by the former chief of staff for Bobby Jindal, Stephen Waguespack, and other powerful corporation lobbyists to call the shots in the legislature.  Yes, Jindal’s influence lives on in many of our illustrious legislative proceedings.

Ironically, now our esteemed Baton Rouge leaders are upset with Governor Edwards over the budget because he has shown the public the real world impact their budget would have.  Letters have gone out to the elderly and disabled telling them to be prepared for loss of their state funded care.

House GOPs can’t stand this move because it created the worst case scenario for them, a negative ground swell from their constituents. If there’s one thing a Louisiana representative hates, it’s to hear from those they represent. Over the years I have written many times to our representatives and only received an acknowledgement of my correspondence from four individuals, one being our present governor.  Joyfully, their offices are now flooded with constituents’ feedback about their ludicrous budget and they literally can’t stand the heat.

House Republicans “Reaped what they sowed.”  This couldn’t happen to a more deserving group of individuals.

TOPS has lost it way

It is obvious that our state legislators lack spines when it comes to making recommendations about TOPS.  Perhaps a solution to the problem would be to treat the review of the program as a murder trial.

The first step would be the selection of an unbiased jury (committee).  No one selected could have any connection with the program.  Members could not have benefited from TOPS with their own children, grandchildren, or have any relatives or friends that benefited. They also could not have dealt with any legislation involving the funding or defunding of TOPS.

Furthermore, members of the committee would only be permitted to pass judgement on TOPS based upon facts relating to its initial historical creation.

If held to these standards I’d bet we’d be lucky to find even one legislator that could serve on the committee, and therein lies the problem with any group of legislators summoned to make recommendations about changes to TOPS, total bias.

TOPS was created and paid for by Mr. Patrick Taylor as a reward for low income children performing well above average academically.  The reward was a paid college education.  He chose an inner city school population in New Orleans to implement his program. 

Over the years the program was bastardized when funding was taken over by the state and turned into a college welfare program for the masses.   The demonstration of high academic achievement has been intentionally pushed to the side and discussions now are totally focused on providing the greatest number of students possible with a free college, jr. college, or trade school education at the taxpayers’ expense.  There are other options for the masses including student loans, grants, work study subsidies, etc.

If one examines the FACTS, this was never the intent or mission of Mr. Taylor’s program.    Its factual intent was crystal clear, to be privately funded and serve low income students demonstrating high academic performance.

Sadly, even the Taylor Foundation has lost sight of this intent by repeatedly backing the current structure of TOPS and resisting any changes which would return TOPS to its true mission.

Quantity vs quality is now the motto for a great deal of the products and services we as a society now rely on.  Let’s  not permit TOPS to be just another example of that paradigm; TOPS needs to be returned back to its roots, private funding for lower income, high performing students. The problem is who will have the courage to do this?

First Lady's Baggage Weighs Heavily on her Cause

With the continual media drama that has surrounded our TV reality star President since the first day of his inauguration, there appears to be little room for others in the White House to establish themselves as important voices in shaping America.   I am referring to the position of First Lady.  Over the years the presidents’ wives have always served as strong advocates for change in our society.

However, our present First Lady, Melania Trump certainly deserves all our sympathy as she struggles to establish her role as a social advocate.  It must be an extremely difficult task for her in light of the extra baggage she has inherited by having Donald Trump as her husband.  She really can’t pursue advocacy for the empowerment of woman as Michelle Obama did, for she is married to a repeated adulterer who continually objectifies women.  Being an immigrant she might have even pondered advocating for this group in our society, but with all the stereotyping and demonizing of immigrants by her husband’s tweets she must have thought better of it.

This week the media reported that our First Lady has finally settled on an advocacy cause, the problem of cyber bullying of children. While this is certainly a much needed advocacy, it may prove to be an extremely risky choice.

Everyone is well aware of President Trump’s illustrious tweets and I have to shamefully admit I have laughed at a few of his belittling tweets.  However, in reality, these tweets by the leader of the most powerful nation in the free world are a blatant form of cyber social bullying.  The extend of this bullying far exceeded  even my wildest imagination when it was reported last week that our president has maligned over 425 people, places or things since beginning his run for the office of president and his year in that capacity.   He would have obviously made it into the Guinness Book of Records if such inane, aberrant behavior was categorized by that group.

So I guess First Lady Melania will have her work cut out for her.   She will have to advocate for the stoppage of childhood cyber bullying, while at the same time accepting cyber bullying by her husband

To use a term recently thrown around by our Republican members of Congress regarding the recent school gun violence in Florida, she has my “prayers and deepest sympathy.”

Gun Rights ??

I came across an interesting quotation the other day.  The first part of it stated, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.”  It seems to be referencing some historical times when the infancy of some type of government was being established.   Actually it refers to the birth of our nation, during Revolutionary War times and its exact meaning was clearly defined for 70 years prior to 2008.  During that time the Supreme Court and federal courts held that the statement only applied in the context of militias, the rights of states to protect themselves from federal or international interference by the formation of such entities. 

However, most scholars agreed that as our nation continued to evolve this statement had outlived its usefulness and was no longer relevant.  For most, the notion of formulating militias to protect states from federal government interference had no relevance in the 19^th, 20^th, or 21^st centuries.

By now I’m sure those astute readers have guessed that I have quoted the first part of the Second Amendment of our nation’s Constitution which is the sacred cow of all gun advocacy groups.  Unfortunately this part of the Second Amendment is curiously seldom quoted in the defense of an individual’s Constitutional right to own a firearm.   Instead only the last part “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed upon” is the supportive evidence professed as justification for the right to gun ownership. 

So basically what we have is a Constitutional amendment written almost 250 years ago, which most scholars agree is now totally irrelevant, but according to the NRA, and other gun advocacy groups is relevant based upon only its second part which advocates the right of gun ownership even though that second part is intrinsically connected to the previous irrelevant part.  In fact, the entire amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed upon."  You cannot selectively take parts of the Second Amendment out of context.  It must be applicable in total.

I have no problems with some gun ownership but let’s stop tying it to the Constitution as God given justification for that right.  It was, in fact, the 2008 Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 decision, in the case of the District of Columbia vs Heller, which attempted to interpret the original intent of the Second Amendment and apply it to an individual’s right of gun ownership.

In that 2008 decision, the conservative justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion in which for the first time in this country’s history, the Second Amendment was systematically altered by separating the possession of a firearm from the requirement of being a member of a militia and the Supreme Court explicitly affirming an individual’s right to keep a weapon at home for self-defense.

Gun advocates need to stop hiding behind the Second Amendment as justification for gun ownership for in reality the justification comes from the Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 OPINION, not an amendment that is clearly archaic.

How low will we go?

A newly released Quinnipiac poll finds that 72% of Republicans surveyed consider President Donald Trump a “good” role model.

Apparently they have no problem with their children growing up to emulate someone who is a bully, who instead of intellectually interacting with those who disagree with him, takes great delight in demeaning them with childish name calling, berating them as ”losers,”  and deriding their family members.

These folks don’t care if their children grow up to model someone who thrives on using "hyperbole" and "exaggeration" to earn the respect of his peers, lacks a moral compass and has a history of adultery and objectification when interacting with women.  Additionally, someone who is hard to work with because he is impulsive, narcissistic, takes ill-advised risks, downplays his mistakes, can’t accept criticism, feels entitled to special treatment, has no regrets, overestimates his capabilities, and  egotistically considers himself the best at everything.

I truly don’t believe that deep down inside most Republicans consider our President a “good” role model.  I give them more credit than that.  Instead they are simply trying to somehow justify President Trump’s boorish behaviors as he implements their desired agenda.

He’s basically accomplishing a great deal of that agenda, and as long as he continues on that path, it simply doesn’t matter to those Republicans surveyed that they have to continue to “lower the bar” on their own moral and social values.  After all, the only alternative to their present dilemma was a Democrat or a Socialist; to them both totally repulsive, unacceptable choices.

President Trump is our President and we all must accept the total package.  However, the question remains as to how much more will the bar be lowered during the next three years?

Donald Trump might be successful as President, but no way will he ever be a “good” role model.