Louisiana’s Hidden State Budget

April 23, 2012 in The People's [Censored]

Louisiana Budget Project

Louisiana Budget Project

This article was originally printed in the second issue of the People’s [Censored]. It contains portions of this blog post written by Jan Moller and a full reproduction of the Louisiana Budget Project’s article “Louisiana’s Hidden State Budget” [PDF].

It didn’t get much attention, but at the end of February Gov. Bobby Jindal made what appears to be a dramatic policy shift. Speaking to WWL-TV in New Orleans on the day that President Obama released a plan to cut corporate taxes, Jindal said:

“The reality is, I’m certainly in favor of taking away all of the different subsidies and loopholes in the tax code, but let’s treat everybody fairly. Let’s do that across the board. I think just picking and choosing industries is not the way to go… and that’s what’s gotten us into the trouble in the first place.”

To which the Louisiana Budget Project says: Welcome to the party, governor! What took you so long?

As governor, there isn’t much Jindal can do to Obama’s plan to lower corporate tax rates while eliminating loopholes. If that was his goal, he could have stayed in Congress and joined the debate.

But there is quite a lot Jindal can do right here in Louisiana to fix a tax code that is riddled with loopholes and special-interest exemptions that are worth a combined $4.8 billion. As luck would have it, there is a document put out each year by Jindal’s own Department of Revenue called the Tax Exemption Budget. The latest version was released just this week.

In Louisiana, this hidden state budget receives little scrutiny from the public or their elected representatives, though you can be sure the interest groups that benefit from these breaks are paying close attention.

And while the governor is now sending positive signals about the need to end loopholes and special-interest giveaways, the record shows the exact opposite has occurred on Jindal’s watch.

Perhaps the most illuminating section of the tax exemption report is the one devoted to corporate taxes. Here, we learn that in 2010-11, companies paid $198 million in state taxes and received exemptions worth $1.459 billion, for a “tax loss” percentage of 88.1 percent.

Compare this to the previous year, when companies paid $435 million in taxes and were exempted from $1.333 billion, for a loss percentage of 75.4 percent. The year before that, corporations paid $586 million, with a loss percentage of 67.8 percent.

The fact is, the percentage of corporate taxes that are actually paid, compared to the revenues lost to the state through exemptions and loopholes, has gone down each of the last four years. Not coincidentally, these years have also seen sharp cuts in what Louisiana invests in education, health care and other services that citizens depend on and help create a prosperous future for everyone.

The following is an article printed by the Louisiana Budget Project in May of 2010 concerning Louisiana’s Hidden State Budget. While some of the numbers have changed—thanks to changes in accounting methodology not any policy reversals on the part of Jindal’s administration—the general message behind the piece remains the same:

Louisiana will spend approximately $8 billion in state revenues next fiscal year through the state
budget. The state also will spend another $7 billion-plus through what might be called the hidden budget.

What is this hidden budget? It’s the total of more than 440 separate pieces of legislation, each of which exempts someone or something from some form of taxation. While the regular state budget is made up of money the state takes in and then sends back out, the hidden budget is money the state decides to forego in the first place. This form of spending is called “tax expenditures,” and in Louisiana it has grown dramatically in recent years, even as regular state revenue has declined.

To more efficiently manage its finances and build a stronger future, Louisiana needs to shed more light on its hidden, tax-side spending.

Why is tax-side spending hidden, and growing?

The regular state budget is proposed each year by the Governor and adopted by legislators who get the chance to scrutinize and debate how every penny is spent. The public, too, has the opportunity to comment on the state budget, and people can go online any time and look up any item in the budget at the Legislature’s website.

But the hidden budget works differently. After a specific tax break is approved, the money flows freely year after year–with little chance that this spending by the state will ever be evaluated. If the cost of a particular hidden budget item soars beyond original estimates, it’s likely no one will even notice. In the hidden budget, there’s no need to set priorities or weigh the value of state spending on one thing compared to another.

And once spending in the hidden budget starts, it’s almost impossible to stop. That’s because, unlike the regular state budget, the hidden budget can’t be reduced by even a penny unless a full two-thirds of legislators vote to save the money. That’s an unrealistically high bar.

Today, with the state in a fiscal crisis, shedding light on Louisiana’s hidden budget is particularly important. As the state is preparing to reduce important services that Louisianans rely on, planning to lay off employees, considering increases in college tuition, and proposing reductions in access to health care in order to make up for declining revenues the hidden budget remains largely untouched and immune to any reductions.

How much is the state spending through the tax code?

In fiscal year 2011, Louisiana projects spending $7 billion through tax expenditures, nearly as much as it will take in from revenue. Since tax expenditures are largely ignored in the regular budget process, this means the legislative policy debate encompasses only about half of the state’s total spending.

And, spending through the tax code is growing. It’s projected that revenue lost to tax expenditures from 2006 through 2011 will have increased 28 percent – to $7.1 billion from $5.6 billion. State revenue, by contrast, is expected to decrease 3 percent.

Are there examples of tax expenditures that deserve more attention?

Some spending from the hidden budget makes sense. For example, Louisiana exempts medicine and groceries from the sales tax. Most Louisianans probably would agree that’s the right thing to do, even if it means the state gives up potential revenue. Louisiana also exempts residential utilities, including electricity, natural gas, and water, from the sales tax. But with 441 tax breaks on the books, and no systematic review process in place, there’s little doubt that some of tax-side spending is overblown, outdated, or otherwise wasteful. If tax-side spending were prioritized alongside regular budget items, it is unlikely that all of the existing tax breaks could be justified.

Here are two examples of tax-side spending that deserve more attention:

• Spending to help energy companies make profits: Louisiana provides a two-year moratorium on severance taxes to encourage the drilling of horizontal oil and natural gas wells. This tax break was enacted in 1994, when the oil and gas industry was economically weaker due to lower product prices and horizontal drilling was in its infancy. Neither is true today. In the Haynesville Shale in north Louisiana, projected to contain one of the largest accumulations of natural gas ever discovered in the U.S., energy companies don’t have to pay severance taxes for two years on wells they drill. But companies don’t need additional incentive to explore and mine in the Haynesville Shale, given the enormous profit potential. In fiscal year 2011, tax exemptions on severance taxes are projected to cost Louisiana $189 million. Drilling in the Haynesville Shale could drive this cost considerably higher when fully developed. That’s money that’s not going to our depleted university or health care systems.

• Spending to increase the incomes of the wealthy: In 2007 and 2008, the state rolled back key portions of the 2002 Stelly Plan that resulted in the largest income tax cuts in the state’s history and left in effect the sales tax exemptions passed in the original bill. In 2007, the Legislature began a phased-in reinstatement of the state deduction for federal itemized deductions, which effectively lowered income taxes for those who itemize their deductions – primarily upper-income taxpayers. This became fully effective in 2009. In the 2008 legislative session, the incometax-bracket changes were repealed, so the top 6-percent income tax rate once again applied only to income over $100,000 for joint filers, not $50,000 as had been the case under Stelly. The total projected cost of these tax cuts by fiscal year 2012 is $2.2 billion, according to estimates by the nonpartisan state Legislative Fiscal Office.

What’s wrong with Louisiana’s annual report on tax-side spending?

Louisiana has taken an important initial step to track tax-side spending. Each year, by statute, the Louisiana Department of Revenue must produce a “tax exemption budget” that estimates the cost of each tax expenditure and assesses its effectiveness.

The tax exemption budget provides useful information, but not enough to get a handle on the revenue being spent through the tax code. For example, even though the law requires it, the Department of Revenue does not provide estimates of the cost of many tax expenditures. The Department says in its tax exemption budget that it lacks the data to estimate these costs accurately, but other states have found ways to make reasonable calculations of lost revenue. Because Louisiana fails to employ these other methods, its tax exemption budget leaves legislators and the public with no idea how much certain tax expenditures are costing the state.

In addition, the Department’s assessments of the effectiveness of tax expenditures lack the depth to inform meaningful legislative decisions or public debate. The law requires the Department to assess who benefits from each tax expenditure and whether each tax expenditure:

(1) Has been successful in meeting the purpose for which it was enacted.

(2) Is the most fiscally effective means of achieving its purpose.

(3) Has unintended or inadvertent effects, including whether it conflicts with other state laws or regulations.

(4) Simplifies or complicates the state tax statutes.

The tax exemption budget provides very minimal, if any, information in answer to these statutory concerns. The budget provides no assessment of the success of each expenditure, no details about the beneficiaries of expenditures (such as a break-out of beneficiaries by income category), no assessment of unintended effects, and no description of whether an expenditure simplifies or complicates state statutes. The budget’s assessment of whether a particular expenditure is the most fiscally effective means of achieving its purpose is so minimal as to be useless. In every case, the budget simply repeats the line, “The purpose of this [tax expenditure] is achieved in a fiscally effective manner.”

What should Louisiana do?

At a time of severe budget crisis, Louisiana can no longer afford to put nearly half of its spending off limits from public scrutiny. To let the public into the debate, the state needs to do three things.

• Improve the tax exemption budget report. The report should follow the requirements of the law. It must estimate the cost of all (or nearly all) tax expenditures and assess each expenditure based on a variety of criteria.

• Incorporate an evaluation of tax-side spending into the regular budget process. Determining precisely how to do this will require legislative and public debate. One step would be to consider increasing the number of tax expenditures that include “sunsets” — end-dates that force the legislature to choose whether or not to extend a particular expenditure in its current form. Only 20 percent of the tax expenditures Louisiana has created in the past 10 years include a sunset.

• Reduce the unrealistically high bar for repealing or reducing tax expenditures. Legislators may cut spending on items in the regular budget by majority vote, but it takes a two-thirds vote of both houses to repeal or reduce a spending item on the tax-side. This disparity makes it difficult for legislators to prioritize state spending. It allows a minority of legislators to continue allocating scarce state resources to a low-priority or even obsolete tax expenditure, at the expense of more important state services.

Every penny Louisiana spends should have a purpose; and every purpose should be scrutinized by the public and elected officials. The needs of the state are too great to allow billions of dollars a year to be spent without any evaluation of whether it is doing the job intended or taking away from a higher priority need.

Jan Moller is Director of LANO’s Louisiana Budget Project, which monitors and reports on state government spending and how it affects Louisiana’s low- to moderate-income families. He is an award-winning journalist formerly with the New Orleans Times-Picayune Capitol Bureau.

Don’t let lil’ Bobby scare you: State classified employees’ rights

April 23, 2012 in The People's [Censored]

Originally printed in Issue 2 of the People’s [Censored].

Early in February of 2012—in response to a flood of state employee inquiries concerning Gov. Bobby Jindal’s pension legislation—the Louisiana Department of State Civil Service published a document outlining the rights of state classified employees in regards to talking with lawmakers, testifying at legislative hearings, attending public rallies, and otherwise expressing their political views. The following is a reproduction of that document.

Seal of Louisiana

DATE: February 9, 2012
TO: Heads of State Agencies and Human Resources Directors
SUBJECT: State Classified Employees’ Rights to Address Members of the Legislature

As the 2012 Legislative Session approaches, there are many bills that are being filed that may have an impact on state employees, both classified and unclassified. Questions have arisen such as does a state classified employee have the right to address members of the legislature.

Classified employees are prohibited from engaging in efforts to support or oppose a candidate, party or faction in an election. These constitutional restrictions do not prohibit a classified employee from expressing themselves either privately or publicly on issues that may be pending before the legislature or other public body.

However, the Lobbying Act, R.S. 24:56 does prohibit any state employee classified or unclassified “in his official capacity or on behalf of his employer” from communicating with a legislator in an attempt to influence the passage or defeat of legislation. This prohibition does not apply to an elected official or his designee, nor does it prohibit the giving of factual information to the legislature, whether the employee is acting in his official capacity or not.

The act of expressing matters of personal concern in a personal capacity are not prohibited, but if an employee wishes to express these matters during duty hours, it must be done while on annual leave.

Below are a few questions we have recently received from employees and answers that I believe will be helpful.

Do I have to tell my supervisor (appointing authority) why I am requesting annual leave?

No, you do not. However, a supervisor (appointing authority) is not required to approve a request or requests for annual leave. If you do not have approved annual leave in advance of your absence, your appointing authority may place you in a leave without pay status.

Can I go to the legislature or other public body or public official to express my view on matters?

Yes, you can. You must be on approved annual leave status if you want to go and express your views during normal duty hours.

Can I get in trouble for expressing myself publicly?

Maybe. The United States Supreme Court has held that although government employees have a right to free speech like any other citizen, when the government is the employer it (the government) has an interest in regulating the speech of its employees that differ significantly from the interest it has in regulating the speech of the citizenry in general. The standard that the Supreme Court has set to determine if the government can regulate the speech is “If an employee’s speech does not relate to a matter of public concern then the government’s interest in efficiency, work place harmony and satisfactory performance will usually trump the employee’s interest in free speech.” Therefore, when speaking publicly, make sure you are addressing matters that are of public concern and not personal to your particular work environment.

Can I write a letter to the editor of a newspaper to express my views on an issue?

Yes, you can. However, as stated above, make sure your letter concerns a matter of public interest and not your personal work environment.

Can I go to public rallies on issues and carry a sign, cheer and boo?

Yes, you can. But the same standard applies to expressions at rallies as it does before a public body.

Can I contact my legislator, personally, by letter or email?

Yes, you can. As a private citizen you have the right to contact your legislator concerning any issue that is of personal concern to you or concerning any issue before the legislature. Do not use your state issued work equipment to communicate matters of public concern to a member of a public body. Please use your private equipment.

Can I be a member of an organization that lobbies before the legislature?

Yes, you can. You as a state employee cannot lobby before the legislature in your official capacity as a state employee, but that does not prevent you from being a member of an organization that lobbies the legislature on matters of public concern, such as the American Federation of State, County or Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Retired State Employees Association (RSEA), State Employees Association of Louisiana and the Louisiana Association of Public Employees’ Retirement Systems.

If the Retired State Employees Association were holding a rally on the steps of the State Capitol, could active state employees who are RSEA members participate?

Yes, you can. However, if the rally is scheduled during normal duty hours, you must be on approved annual leave. Additionally, the standard stated above concerning expressions will apply at rallies.

Would attending a rally be considered lobbying?

No, it would not. A rally is a gathering of people to inspire enthusiasm for a cause.

Can I place a sign in my yard supporting or opposing proposed legislation?

Yes, you can. Proposed legislation that you may support or oppose is an issue and not the support or opposition of a party, candidate, or faction seeking an elected office.

Can I sign a recall petition?

Yes, you can. However, due to the prohibition of supporting or opposing a candidate, party or faction, you cannot start a recall petition, solicit signatures for a recall petition or actively participate in a recall of an elected official.

Can I use my work computer to express my personal opinion on an issue of public concern?

No, you cannot. Your work computer is for work purposes. If you wish to communicate a matter of public concern to a member of a public body via electronic mail, please use your private computer.

If you have any questions about what you can or cannot do, please contact your Human Resource office.

s/Shannon S. Templet

What we’re watching: Freakonomics: The Movie (2010)

April 22, 2012 in The People's [Censored]

Occupy Baton Rouge

“In 2005, journalist Stephen Dubner partnered with rogue economist Steven Levitt to write a book that promised to explore the ‘hidden side of everything’. A surprise literary sensation, Freakonomics became a global phenomenon, selling more than 4 million copies and introducing readers to a new way to view the world.”

Freakonomics: The MovieIn 2010, enter Freakonomics: The Movie. Starting off with an explanation of a real estate agent’s interest in your home’s sale price and finishing it up with “Can You Bribe a 9th Grader to Succeed?”, Freakonomics covers a myriad of topics in between.

Ok, so maybe not a myriad, but more than a couple. Some, admittedly, more surprising (like links between legalized abortion and a reduction in crime rates) and some a bit more covert than others (such as corruption throughout the Sumo culture). But all the topics, ranging through cheating, real estate, parenting, incentives, and cause and effect, are sure to keep you interested.

The film mostly ends up being a series of documentary shorts used to further explain the two Ste(ph/v)en’s statistical worldviews. One of my favorite shorts was A Roshanda By Any Other Name, written by Morgan Spurlock—of Supersize Me fame—and Jeremy Chilnick. (Just a note for transparency’s sake, I happen to love Morgan Spurlock!) It covers all the connotations of a child’s name and the effects those names have on children’s life outcomes.

One of the most interesting comparisons is between historically white names as compared to the Afrocentric names that entered the scene starting with the black power movement of the late 1960s. One study involved the creation of 5000 resumes sent out in Boston and Chicago with half having names considered white and the other half having historically black names. The likelihood to receive an interview was about 33% less for those with African-American names, despite the resumes being identical. As the conductor of the study, Dr. Mullainathan puts it “It means that if a white person is searching for a job for 10 weeks, an equally skilled African-American will be searching for a job for 15 weeks. And those are 5 long weeks if you are unemployed.”

So if you want to know why there was a suspicion of polio being caused by ice cream, or have always wondered what percentage of crime reduction can be attributed to innovative policing tactics, put this one on your instant queue and learn a thing or two about Freakonomics!


Originally published in the People’s [Censored], Issue 2.

EXCLUSIVE!!!!!!!! For-profit, self-appointed “Independent Voice of South Louisiana” apparently has area monopoly on [censored]ing

April 22, 2012 in The People's [Censored]


The People's [Censored]

The People’s [Censored] is in no way affiliated with the [Censored] or their corporate overlords Capital City Press.


Occupy Baton Rouge


On January 23, only one day after the release of the first issue of Occupy Baton Rouge’s monthly newsletter “The People’s [Censored],” the OBR email account received a message from the head editor of the [Censored]–the Baton Rouge daily newspaper, not the gay rights magazine (just so you’re not confused). An excerpt of his email:

“While I am flattered that you have copied The [Censored]’s banner and, to an extent, our standard front page design, I must ask you to come up with a new format for your newsletter. As currently presented, your newsletter could cause confusion among your readers that The [Censored] newspaper and the Occupy Baton Rouge movement are somehow connected. I believe it infringes on our copyright and trademark. While we support free speech and free press, we also must maintain our position as a publication that is not aligned with any particular group or movement.”

While it seemed almost impossible that anyone would confuse our online monthly newsletter with the Baton Rouge daily, one of our editors replied to their request, stating that though our independent paper was largely protected as parody, we would add a disclaimer to our front page. To be perfectly frank, we were a bit surprised the people at the [Censored] were still aware of our existence, let alone regularly checking our website and Facebook page for updates. Since our attempted “Move-In Day” last Black Friday, when half the Baton Rouge Police Department decided to use their holiday weekend and LSU-Arkansas game day to monitor the couple dozen protestors hanging out at Arsenal Park, there had been a considerable absence of coverage of our many actions in the [Censored].

This is sadly the way the goldfish-attention spanned mainstream media works, folks. Something is “In” for awhile—it’s fresh and exciting and new, and then suddenly The Next Big Thing comes along and whatever was so important three weeks ago is forgotten about and left by the wayside, continuity be damned. It’s a travesty, and it’s a phenomenon that unfortunately stretches far beyond the reaches of our friends at the [Censored].

While we were initially somewhat thrown off by the [Censored]’s complaints against our paper, we found being back on their radar for such a trivial technicality slightly flattering. Our newsletter, which hadn’t been up for more than a week, was already receiving threats from high places. The common consensus amongst our members was that we must be doing something right if our modest efforts were still pissing off the Old Guard.

Then, the following week, the [Censored] attacked again. Our email account received a letter from someone introducing himself as a lawyer for Capital City Press, the owners of the [Censored], and was accompanied by a formal demand letter. The three page letter was a threat addressed to one of our members specifically by name. The lawyers spent a lot of time defining “parody” (as well as condescendingly referring us to the Onion which, apparently, is the pinnacle of parody) and ended with the demand under legal threat that we do the following:

“(i) immediately and permanently terminating any further marketing, promotion and/or use of the term ‘The [Censored],’ including any and all confusingly similar or related derivations of the mark;

“(ii) immediately and permanently removing any and all references and/or use of the ‘The [Censored]’ trade name/trademark on your website located at http://occupybr.com/, including all associated webpages, and/or elsewhere on the Internet;

“(iii) immediately and permanently terminating any and all further use, display, circulation or distribution of any promotions, advertisements, publications, content and/or marketing that includes any reference to ‘The [Censored]’;

“(iv) signifying your binding acceptance of these terms by signing and returning this consent agreement to undersigned counsel by no later than February 14, 2012

“And (v) agreeing to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees to Capital City Press if a court should subsequently find that you have breached your obligations and/or commitments to Capital City Press hereunder.”

One of the main ideas behind the “Occupy Movement” is to reclaim the public sphere. For longer than many of us have been alive, a war has been waged by the 1% on public property and public services. Private influences poison everything with money and the mainstream media has actively taken on the role of the hired nurse administering the toxins into the arms of our so-called democracy. As a people, we’ve been robbed of our future, and the media—the supposed watchdog for our democracy—has been a willing accomplice for this massive historical graft. A true democracy cannot function without a functioning media, and our media, which is driven by a will to power and profit, has thus made a mockery of us and our democracy.

Inspired by the Occupy movement, then, many individuals across the world took the initiative to create their own newspapers based on the idea of spreading free knowledge. Papers such as “The Occupied Wall Street Journal” popped up all across the nation, parodying their local newspaper and reporting on the news and stories that they saw as most important. Independent journalists from all over came together to report on what they saw was wrong in the world and to help [censored] for the change they want to see.

While we live in a country based on freedom of speech and freedom of the press, many of the parodied papers did not take kindly to being called out as the bloated protectors of the 1% that they are. The Occupied Chicago Tribune and the Occupied Oakland Tribune were the first to be threatened by their local “non-occupied” paper. Later came the Occupied Wisconsin State Journal, followed by us.

As an interesting side-note, Rupert Murdoch has yet to threaten the Occupied Wall Street Journal, which shows that though he doesn’t have enough sense to not hack into a dead girl’s phone, he’s at least smart enough to sniff out some bad PR moves in advance.

While Trademark Laws are written in such a way that some businesses are legally required to protect their Trademark lest they lose it, the odds that any reader of these publications would confuse the ad-soaked drivel of the 1% found in the mainstream news with our independently voiced not-for-profit paper is so minimal it’s beyond comprehension.

What is most likely happening here, at least in our case, is that the [Censored], a long established fixture of the Baton Rouge community, is flexing its muscles against any paper that threatens its status as expert on all matters Baton Rouge. While they would certainly not take steps to outright attack or censor our paper, the ambiguity of Trademark Law as well as the for-profit [Censored]’s significantly larger budget compared to ours, allowed for the perfect set-up for some good old fashioned bullying.

So, as a way of demonstrating how the mainstream media works–and how it doesn’t work–we at the People’s [Censored] have made several noticeable changes to our newsletter. Hopefully, this will both free us up to continue with our independent journalism, as well as free up the lawyers of the [Censored] to work on cases that are hopefully a bit more important. And while the name of our paper may be different, we see this as an excellent opportunity to continue on with the same mission as when we started out–giving voice to The People and not the 1%, unlike those [censored]ers who run the [Censored].

Originally published in Issue 2 of the People’s [Censored].

Bobby’s World

April 22, 2012 in The People's [Censored]

Bobby's World

Occupy Baton Rouge

Originally printed in Issue 2 of the People’s [Censored].

When Piyush Jindal was four years old, he nicknamed himself “Bobby,” after his favorite character on the Brady Bunch. But, based on the way he would run his dictatorship over Louisiana, little Piyush should have probably chosen Jan–the bratty, self-centered middle-child–as his Brady Bunch model.

Like many politicians, Jindal has an enormous ego. And, like many politicians, Jindal is highly ambitious–his plans for the presidency in 2016 (or vice-presidency this winter) are no secret to anyone. Indeed, one could view Jindal’s entire tenure as governor as the ultimate exer-cise of self-promotion, his goal always being a seat in The White House. Even the title of his book Leadership and Crisis reeks of presidential ambition.

Jindal climbed to the top of Louisiana government on the backlash against the corruption and mismanagement which plagued post-Katrina Louisiana. The image he likes to present of himself is that of a capable and visionary leader, willing to take any course of action if it means doing What’s Right. Yet, the image of Jindal propped up by the media and his administration is far from that of the reasoned, well-thought out conservative figure he cuts himself out to be and more attuned to that of a young bully not used to not getting his own way.

Jindal takes his media ascribed status as future Republican frontrunner very seriously, and whatever he views as a threat to his future candidacy is not taken lightly. Time and time again, voices within his administration who publicly disagree with his politics are quietly shoved out the door, while those he cannot directly control (like the teachers who were prevented from testifying in mid-March) are just not given a voice at all. His almost-Stalinlike purge of anyone willing to speak out against him and his policies has created an environment of fearful silence within the halls of Louisiana state government. And, like most tyrants, this silence and fear to speak up are precisely what Jindal needs for his plans to succeed.

Jindal’s propensity for firing anyone who disagrees with his policies has become such a common phenomenon that it’s necessitated the creation of a word: Teague. The word comes from the story of Mr. and Mrs. Teague, a husband and wife duo who were both coincidentally fired not long after publicly criticizing Jindal’s policies. In late 2009, Melody Teague was a contract grants reviewer working within the Department of Social Services. In a public forum, Mrs. Teague spoke out against Jindal’s privatization plans for state services. The next day, she was fired. The reason given? For mishandling food stamps. Four years earlier. During Hurricane Katrina. Six months later, she was able to get her job back, but her husband was not so lucky.

In April 2011, Tommy Teague, then executive director of the Of-fice for Group Benefits, criticized Jindal’s privatization plans for his office. Under Tommy’s direction, the OGB, which provides health care to more than 250,000 state workers, retirees, and their dependents, had turned a 36 million dollar deficit into a half-billion dollar surplus. “The program is running very, very, very well,” Teague then told reporters at the Times-Picayune.

Jindal’s “raid” on the OGB was likely used to fill in the 1.6 billion dollar gap in the state budget. While the sale of the OGB would temporarily earn the state some money, like all of Jindal’s plans the goals are decidedly short term. Studies show that the privatized services would cost the state, its workers, and the taxpayers much, much more in the long run and would basically only be used to line the pockets of the wealthy, including banking giant Goldman Sachs, who helped broker the deal. Unlike his wife, Tommy Teague did not get his job back.

Jindal’s “Teague-ing” of state employees who stand in his way did not begin or end with the Teagues. As early in his administration as 2008, Jindal “Teagued” James Champagne, 12 year executive director of the Louisiana Highway Safety Commission, after the two disagreed over the state’s motorcycle helmet safety law.

The most recent case of Jindal firing an employee over a disagreement was when the head of the Of-fice of Elderly Affairs criticized Jindal’s plans to merge her office with the Department of Health and Human Services. Ms. Martha Manuel, who had been appointed by Jindal in February 2011, spoke at a House Appropriations Committee hearing last March, saying that these plans would cut needed services for the elderly and would increase ineffective bureaucratization. As a Jindal spokesman said of the subject, Manuel and Jindal “decided to go in a different direction.” Obviously.

Looking through a list of all those who Jindal fired or asked to resign (like Tammie McDaniel, who was asked to resign from the BESE board after she disagreed with Jindal’s support of No Child Left Behind) is like reading a Who’s Who Guide to Jindal’s Corruption. But his doesn’t end there. The list of Jindal’s misdeeds is endless. His dictatorship over Louisiana oozes with corruption, the very subject which he was elected to expel, and the scariest part about it all is not that this is a man who has dedicated the majority of his adult life towards becoming the next president, but that the mainstream media and the Republican Establishment tout him as the same.

In his heart of hearts, Governor Jindal probably relishes the comparisons made between his administration and Huey Long’s. Yet, unlike the firebrand Long, Jindal is at best a bland, mediocre, small-minded bureaucrat.

One of the sources of Long’s controversial legacy was his convincing oratory skills and his championing of the causes for the lower classes. Governor Jindal—to say nothing about his wretched speaking ability— has no empathy for the poor and disenfranchised. While Long responded to the Great Depression by building schools, hospitals, roads and other public services to help those suffering most, Jindal responds to the current Recession by handing these same public services over to the highest bidder. Whereas Huey Long poetically described the hardships of the lower classes, Jin-dal mechanically drones on and on about the so-called “State Budget Deficit” and explains to us the necessity of again cutting taxes for the top 1%.

In other words, Long wanted to Share the Wealth–Jindal just wants to pocket his portion and give the rest to his friends.

Yet the strong brotherhood between the two remains in their reckless desire for unbridled power. Both men sought the White House, and were willing to crush anything in their path along the way. While Huey Long’s grab for power in the Thirties drew comparisons among his critics to the fascist movements rising concurrently in Europe, Jindal’s anti-democratic austerity measures and his pillaging of the public till at the behest of the 1% promises for Louisiana the destroyed public sectors seen today in Greece or Spain. As Hunter S. Thompson said in 1972:

“A career politician finally smelling the White House is not much different from a bull elk in the rut. He will stop at nothing, trashing anything that gets in his way; and anything he can’t handle personally he will hire out–or, failing that, make a deal. It is a difficult syndrome for most people to understand, because few of us ever come close to the kind of Ultimate Power and Achievement that the White House represents to a career politician.”

Dr. Thompson’s words were as true then as they are today. Jindal, like a mad beast in heat, is a man willing to do anything and screw over anybody, to get what he sees as rightfully his: The Presidency of The United States.

If you are a state classified worker who is afraid to speak up or sign the petition to recall Bobby Jindal, information on which can be found at <recallbobbyjindal.com>, click here to read your rights when it comes to talking with lawmakers, testifying at legislative hearings, attending public rallies, and other-wise expressing your political views.

The People’s [Censored], Issue 2

April 19, 2012 in The People's [Censored]


The People’s [Censored] is a publication produced by participants in Occupy Baton Rouge. The People’s [Censored] does not—and could not—represent any-one except its participants. We are in no way affiliated with the [Censored] or their corporate overlords Capitol City Press. The views of the authors are their own.

Uploaded Articles:

David comes clean: Why I oppose the 1% of the 1%

Louisiana’s Hidden State Budget

Don’t let lil’ Bobby scare you: State employees’ rights

What we’re watching: Freakonomics: The movie

EXCLUSIVE!!!!!!!! For-profit, self-appointed “Independent Voice of South Louisiana” apparently has area monopoly on [censored]ing

Bobby’s World

More to come. Check the newsletter above for the rest of the articles.

The People’s [Censored]: Issue 1, January 2012

January 22, 2012 in The People's [Censored]

This post has been censored by your corporate overlords. Free press you say? Ha!

Edit: The issue is back up. It’s still censored, but all the pertinent information is there. Enjoy.


The People’s [Censored] is a publication produced by participants in Occupy Ba-ton Rouge. The People’s [Censored] does not—and could not—represent any-one except its participants. We are in no way affiliated with the [Censored] or their corporate overlords Capitol City Press. The views of the authors are their own.