Louis R. Avallone

Author: liz

  • Space Invaders

    Space Invaders

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Do you remember the game Space Invaders? Released in 1978, it revolutionized video games by allowing the players to “stay alive”, or to play the game longer on a single quarter or token – just as long as their high scores kept rising. In other words, the better you played the game, the more “bonus” time you were rewarded and you could continue playing the game, all on the same quarter.

    Most modern arcade games, however, no longer even keep track of the scores. There’s often not even an option to save the high score by entering your initials, and thus not much incentive to earn “bonus” time by playing the game exceptionally well.

    Unfortunately, and in this important election year, the same can be said for our modern day elected officials – there seems to be no incentive for them to perform exceptionally well to earn re-election. One reason may be that voters already, and overwhelmingly, re-elect incumbents, regardless of their “high scores”, or lack thereof.

    That’s a pattern, all the way from the White House to Congress and to any mayor’s office, in any town, and everywhere in between. You see, we continue re-electing folks, or rewarding them with “bonus” time, even when their “high scores” simply are not rising.

    And whether it was the criminal malfeasance of former Mayor Ray Nagin in New Orleans (who was re-elected to a second term), or the low public approval scores for the U.S. Congress (which are at historically low levels), we can’t help ourselves when it comes to incumbents, it seems.

    Incumbent candidates, seeking re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives, have won 80% of the time, over the past 40 years.

    This means that an incumbent candidate is almost guaranteed re-election, even while the public approval rating of Congress is in the basement at 15%.

    Consider also that three out of the last five mayors of Shreveport were re-elected to a second term in office, even while our population growth remained stagnant, our property taxes remained the highest in the state, our city’s public works infrastructure was crumbling, and now, just last week, we learned that the City of Shreveport’s Pension Plan Fund is $120 million short from being able to meet all of its obligations to city workers. Goodness. Gracious.

    Now consider also incumbent Mary Landrieu, who is seeking her third term in the U.S. Senate this year. She votes 97% of the time with President Obama, even though Obama lost Louisiana in the 2012 election. She told Louisianans in 2009 that if they liked their health insurance plan they could keep their plan, and of course, that turned out to be untrue (92,739 Louisianans actually received health insurance cancellation notices).

    And even still, with all of that dirty laundry, election polling indicates she, as the incumbent, is in a statistical dead heat with her leading challenger, Bill Cassidy.

    So what gives? Why do we keep re-electing incumbents, if their results are so poor and our approval of the job they are doing is so low? Maybe it’s because it’s easier for us to heap anger and disappointment upon an institution, such as Congress, rather than the guy or gal running for re-election who is also a member of your church and whom you see at the grocery store or at Little League. Maybe it’s also because the incumbent has more name recognition, or has easier access to campaign finances, or government resources.

    Whatever the reasons, we are electing more and more incumbents every year, and largely without justification. Since 1972, incumbents have enjoyed a 3-2 advantage over their opponents. Today, it’s grown to a 4-1 advantage.

    It’s time to keep score. And during this important election year, we would all be wise to only elect incumbents, or award those candidates “bonus time” only so long as their results, or their high score, is rising.

    And for most voters, that means re-electing candidates that are good listeners, intelligent, approachable, and are willing to work hard – candidates who are more interested in doing what’s best for their constituents, rather than in how they will get re-elected again.

    To elect any other candidate this election year calls to mind the old adage, “If you keep doing what you’re doing, you’ll keep getting what you’re getting.” In some instances, it may be time for another candidate to take a turn at “play”. And for those other candidates, it should just be “game over”.

  • Few uninsured Louisiana residents signed up for ACA coverage

    Few uninsured Louisiana residents signed up for ACA coverage

  • Settlement reached to ensure equal access and non-discrimination in Jefferson Parish schools

    Settlement reached to ensure equal access and non-discrimination in Jefferson Parish schools

  • Coastal Louisiana land loss worth price to fix, study will attempt to show

    Coastal Louisiana land loss worth price to fix, study will attempt to show

  • Federal Stalemate Not Yet Slowing Louisiana Highway Work

    Federal Stalemate Not Yet Slowing Louisiana Highway Work

  • Just Doesn’t Feel Right

    Just Doesn’t Feel Right

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Do you ever have a hunch or gut feeling…where you are convinced, almost instantly, by feelings that you cannot always explain? Some folks call this intuition, which comes from the latin word “intuir,” meaning “knowledge from within”. These are the times when we just “know”in our hearts and souls, irrespective of our five senses, that something feels right, or feels wrong.

    This happened recently, as I watched Robert Bergdahl, father of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, speak in the Rose Garden at the White House. This is where President Obama made the ceremonial announcement that Sgt. Bergdahl had been released from the Taliban in Afghanistan, where he had been held in captivity for the last 5 years.

    Subject to an Executive Order, and without any Congressional involvement, President Obama released five (5) Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay in return for Sgt. Bergdahl’s release, and the deal was done.

    Even though the U.S. traditionally does not negotiate with terrorists, and even though each and every one of the Taliban men released from Guantanamo Bay is a hardened terrorist, and will likely participate in efforts to kill more Americans, the deal was done.

    And even though Sgt. Bergdahl reportedly left his command post in 2009 voluntarily, just before sending his parents an email explaining, “The horror that is America is disgusting,” even while hundreds searched, and as many as six (6) fellow soldiers lost their lives searching for him after he disappeared, the deal was done.

    And even though Sgt. Bergdahl is believed to have deserted the Army, proclaiming that he was “ashamed to be an American. And the title of U.S. soldier is just the lie of fools,” the deal was still done.

    And even while Taliban members have killed thousands of U.S. and NATO service men and women since their regime toppled in Afghanistan in 2001, following 9/11, the President still negotiated with them, and the deal was done.

    And even though negotiating with these very terrorists is demoralizing to the men and women in our military, who serve with honor and distinction, and to the memories of those soldiers whom have made the ultimate sacrifice, the deal was nevertheless done.

    SO…when Robert Bergdahl is standing in the Rose Garden of the White House, and he says the phrase, “bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim” (translated from Arabic, “In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate”), and when he posts online that, “Democracy is a cult in the West”, and that “I am still working to free all Guantanamo prisoners” and that “God will repay for the death of every Afghan child, amen!”, something’s out of wack.

    Whether you call it intuition or whatever, many Americans probably just can’t find the words to explain it either, because it just doesn’t feel right, as Americans.

    Arguably, “bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim”, is a common Arabic phrase. That’s not the issue. But when you place it against the backdrop of Robert Bergdahl’s online postings, and his son’s emails explaining “(t)he horror that is America is disgusting,” there’s not a good feeling to this. Not at all.

    The White House Rose Garden ought to be used, instead, to praise the truly honorable service of our U.S. military men and women, particularly those killed while searching for Sgt. Bergdahl in the first place, not to honor anyone, military or otherwise, who is “ashamed of being American”.

    From the Rose Garden press conference, to negotiating with the Taliban, to releasing prisoners from Guantonamo Bay, the Obama administration has undermined our national security. History clearly shows that terrorism decreases only with overwhelming military force. An an example, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, pirates regularly attacked American ships, then kidnapped our sailors, and held them for ransom. We were spending 20% of the federal budget to ransom our sailors in the year 1800.

    It was not until Thomas Jefferson took office that we aggressively went after the pirates and refused to pay any ransom money to them. Not surprisingly, the kidnapping of our soldiers by pirates soon ended, and proving again the wisdom of peace through strength.

    Mr. Bergdahl, you and your family have the freedom to live wherever you wish, but know this: democracy is not a “cult”, as you put it. It’s not at all.

    It’s a shining city on a hill, blessed by God, and more than 1.3 million free men and women have fought and died to protect the principles upon which it was founded, including to search for your son. It is a rare treasure, and as Ronald Reagan put it, “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.”

    Yes, there’s something very right about that. And it’s more than just a “gut” feeling.

  • It’s Not My Party, It’s Some “Other Party”

    It’s Not My Party, It’s Some “Other Party”

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    People of all ages are becoming less engaged with the political process. Unlike Thomas Edison’s adage that “genius is 99% perspiration, and 1% inspiration”, it seems nowadays that voter participation in the political process is wholly dependent on the reverse of that adage: it’s 1% perspiration and 99% inspiration. Here’s what I mean:

    There are ample reasons why folks don’t feel “inspired” by our politicians. In fact, 1 in 5 Americans don’t trust either the Democrats or Republicans. There is such broad dissatisfaction with both parties in Congress, in fact, that nearly 7 out of 10 Americans say they are inclined to look around for someone new this fall to send to Washington.

    That’s not a big surprise, though. For example, most Americans don’t want Democrats handling their healthcare, and fully 40% of Americans feel that neither the Democrats or the Republican parties are accountable enough to the people…or that either party has done enough to fix our immigration system…or reduce the national debt…or provide meaningful campaign finance reform…or decrease the partisanship in Washington, which they feel is now the biggest problem facing America.

    And here in Louisiana, we’re seeing the same. The number of voters registering as “other party” is increasing – now 1 out of every 4 registered voters. And even though Republicans are winning major state elections here at home, The Advocate also reported recently that voters “registered as ‘other party’ or not registered with any political party, are climbing too, as voters distance themselves from either of the mainstream political parties”.

    The problem here is that the data shows that “other party” voter turnout is historically lower, compared to those who are registered as Democrat or Republican. If this trend continues, both parties will likely continue to see their numbers decline, and we’ll have an electorate that will be even more detached from the political process than we do now.

    So what is really going on here? Voter participation in the political process has decreased, but the number of folks registering as “other party” has increased, and yet Louisiana voters have still elected Republicans to every statewide office. What gives?

    We could sit here and make a well-reasoned and analytical explanation, just to make sense of it all, of course. However, I think the migration trend of some voters to “other party” can be explained very simply: voters are not inspired.

    Voters increasingly are less and less inspired to follow any political party, it seems. In his book, Start with Why, author Simon Sinek explains that people don’t buy “what” you do, but they buy “why” you do it. For example, how many voters know “why” the Democrat and Republican parties exist? Or “why” these parties should matter to anyone?

    The answer may be fuzzy at first, but that’s the rub in all of this. You see, once a political party, or any organization for that matter, clearly communicates their “why” (their purpose, their cause, their belief), then (and only then) can they inspire others to follow.

    Contrary to conventional wisdom, though, the increasing number of “other party” voters is not because these voters are seeking some agnostic middle ground, where there is neither right nor wrong. Instead, these “other party” voters seem to be growing because they don’t feel like either party “gets” them, or understands their purpose, their cause, or their belief. These voters abandoned party labels because they saw their party as moving too far from its core values and couldn’t trust the direction it was headed.

    And that makes sense. It’s about trust for these “other party” voters. As in business, for example, when we choose one product, service or company over another, it’s because we feel we can trust them more. And when choosing a political party, the decision making process is exactly the same. But we must start with “why” if we are going to inspire others to action.

    Our state is served well by individuals who get involved in party politics, and don’t merely check off a box on their voter registration card. These are the volunteers that are the lifeblood to our democratic process. They are the ones walking the neighborhoods, calling supporters, and who spend countless hours organizing party events, speakers, luncheons, and rallies.

    They are the ones whose efforts are the least recognized, or appreciated, but perhaps are the most important. They do it because they believe the political process is meaningful and that their work makes a difference…they do it because they are inspired.

    Although it was the ethos of hard work and sweat that built this nation, perhaps right now we need less perspiration, and a great deal more of inspiration, to get voters involved in the very democratic process that has nourished our republic now for almost 238 years – before we lose an entire generation to some “other party”.

  • Selling Out To Fear

    Selling Out To Fear

    By Louis R. Avallone
    –
    Selling out is what you do when you don’t fully understand what you believe. It’s what you accept when you are more fearful than faithful. It’s the choice you make that’s less concerned with the greater good, and more interested in what feels good, right now. After all, if you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything, right?

    And falling is what we have done a lot of in recent years: The falling number of employed Americans, lower home ownership rates, declining legal immigration, fewer manufacturing jobs, smaller wages, and fewer small business start-ups – all are in precipitous decline. Even though such devastation to our nation has resulted from poor decisions on both sides of the aisle, and from multiple sessions of Congress, and through many administrations occupying the White House, perhaps it is time, as Abraham Lincoln once urged all Americans, to “put your feet in the right place, and then stand firm”.

    But that’s not the message, here at home, that Mary Landrieu’s campaign is sending out with their latest television advertisement, featuring a Republican who says he’s “with Mary”, and whom many feel is “selling out” because of fear.

    Here’s the scripted part of the advertisement that is airing on television stations across the state:

    “I have over 3,000 employees, and even though I’m a Republican and don’t always agree with her, Louisiana can’t afford to lose Mary Landrieu,” says ship builder Boysie Bollinger. “She’s chairman of the Energy Committee, the most powerful position a person can have for Louisiana.”

    However, here’s the part that probably got edited out of the commercial, I would imagine, and got left on the video editing room floor, instead:
    “I have over 3,000 employees, and even though I’m a Republican and don’t always agree with her, like when she:

    •donated $10,000 to re-elect Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,

    •or spent $10,000 supporting Senator Bob Menendez and legislation to repeal $24 billion in tax incentives for oil and gas companies,

    •or when she voted in favor of the Affordable Care Act, even though 70% of the Louisiana people didn’t support her doing so,

    •or when she said that The Affordable Care Act had some very good concepts and that she would support it again, including when she voted to fund it by cutting Medicare Advantage to do so,

    •or that she votes in line with President Obama 97% of the time.

    •or when she continues to vote 100% pro-abortion.

    I could go on and on, of course.

    But this Landrieu television commercial tells us everything we need to know about the Landrieu campaign, because it speaks to something far deeper inside all of us: The conflict between emotion and rational thought. Between what is good for us now, and the fear of what tomorrow may bring.

    You see, Mary has chosen fear to inspire Louisianans to support her – not her passion, not her principles, but cowardly fear to motivate you to vote for her. After all, as the star of her campaign commercial warns us all, “Louisiana can’t afford to lose Mary Landrieu.” The question on every voter’s mind should be, instead, can we afford not to?

    In a nation where our political leaders are more rudderless than ever before, choosing to focus on the insignificant, than on future generations, and more interested in their keeping their bags packed for an ego trip, than defending our ideas and institutions, this is no time in our nation’s history to choose fear over principles.

    History is littered with the regrets of millions who did so, including Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler. By not choosing principles, or not standing firm, and selling out, we become no better than the one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

    If you want to vote for Mary Landrieu, do it because she speaks to your purpose, your cause, or to some belief that inspires you to do what you do, but not because you are scared about what tomorrow may bring – even if it’s a U.S. Senate without her in it.

  • Walking Around Money: The Rich Get Richer

    Walking Around Money: The Rich Get Richer

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    The rich just get richer. If there was ever any question about that statement, the Caddo Parish Commission has certainly put it to rest now. And not only are the rich getting richer, they are doing so with your money, and more of it than ever before in history.

    It matters not to them about the hard-working people trying to get ahead, or to perhaps save a little money for a son or daughter to go to college. Or to put a down payment on a house for their family. Or to save a few dollars so they could help an elderly parent who is living on a very fixed income, or even save a few dollars for their own retirement.

    None of that matters to the rich. They seemingly are concerned with only getting richer. And who are the rich here? The Caddo Parish Commission.

    You see, there’s a special election being held on May 3 in Caddo Parish to increase taxes on every Caddo Parish family by $333, or $23 million overall, supposedly needed to make improvements to parish roads, parks, and other facilities.

    But that’s a false argument, because the premise is that without the $23 million, potholes will become deeper, and children will have no place to play. That’s simply not true, though.

    In fact, the Commission already has on hand $160 million in cash currently, according to demographer and pollster Elliott Stonecipher – and all the while, Caddo Parish families are still paying the highest property taxes of any other parish in Louisiana.

    With that much cash in hand already, and without increasing taxes, the Commission has enough walking around money now to last them 140 years.

    It doesn’t make sense. After increases in federal income taxes, rising Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, and higher state and local taxes, the average middle-class taxpayer pays nearly 50 percent of their income in taxes. Why ask Caddo Parish families to contribute more, especially when the Commission just passed a resolution acknowledging that Louisiana has the second highest poverty rate in the country.

    The May 3 ballot proposal to increase ad valorem taxes will boost property taxes – and history is littered with communities where higher property taxes have provided disincentives to start businesses, or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created, and declining population growth, as families migrate to those communities where there are jobs, and better opportunities.

    Caddo Parish has had almost no population growth for almost 25 years, yet the Commission has increased its revenues by 42 percent to-date, or $23 million, according to research by Stonecipher. And the Commission wants to borrow more of our money?

    Let’s ask Detroit how that worked for them. They went bankrupt largely because elected officials continued borrowing money, even while population growth and property values declined. The same is true for Cleveland, Buffalo, St. Louis and even Washington, D.C.

    And in almost every instance, whenever government officials increase taxes in one city, parish or state, then new businesses expand, or start-up altogether, in another city, parish or state. Again, families move where the businesses are, and businesses locate wherever they can be the most competitive in a global economy.

    The May 3 vote is already costing our families $145,000, just to set-up the voting machines. And we already did this last October, less than six months ago, when parish residents voted “no” to this same bond proposition. Let’s not add insult to injury here, this time around, by giving Caddo Commissioners the equivalent of 160 years of walking around money.

    If it’s true, as Will Rogers said, “We should be thankful that we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for,” then the residents of Caddo Parish must consider themselves the most thankful citizens in our great state.

  • For Example: The Benefits of Caring

    For Example: The Benefits of Caring

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    “You should be more interested in doing the Lord’s work than in always criticizing those who are trying to help the less fortunate,” begins an email I received from a reader, in response to a recent column. “Who do you think really cares more for our fellow citizens?” continues the reader, “Senator Landrieu or the Governor?” And there it was. Staring me down, like the truth, in this namby-pamby, I’m-OKyou’re-OK, wishy-washy, pacifist-like society that we have become. Apparently, I don’t “care” enough about the less fortunate, as if that’s all that is needed in order to help. “Caring” may start us down the road to helping others, but we should hardly remain there. After all, we all know the road to you-know-where is well paved with good intentions.

    So does it really matter who “cares” the most about the less fortunate. If those who “care” the most really aren’t helping at all? Consider this is the 50th year of Lyndon Johnson’s unconditional war on poverty. Yet after $15 trillion dollars in spending, the poverty rate today is virtually the same as it was in 1964. We are now spending close to $1 trillion per year on government assistance, yet 46 million Americans still live below the poverty line. Is there any question that intentions simply aren’t enough?

    Or what about how much the Obama administration cared about making sure that you could keep your healthcare plan, if you liked it? But now, four million Americans (so far) have now lost their healthcare plan. Again, intentions simply aren’t enough.

    The Congressional Budget Office just reported that because of the Affordable Care Act, almost two million people would quit their jobs by 2017, figuring they can end up ahead by taking government benefits instead. Again, intentions, especially unintended ones, simply aren’t enough.

    Or how about the intentions of Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package to save our economy? Well, five years later and despite the good intentions, our labor market remains in horrible condition, the economy grew at less than 2 percent last year, and it is estimated that the stimulus package destroyed roughly one million private sector jobs – all while the workforce participation rate today is at a 36-year low.

    Do you care enough about people earning a “living wage,” rather than a “minimum” wage? Well, I hope you care as much about finding at least 500,000 Americans each a job also, because that’s how many jobs will be lost by hiking the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour by 2016 – and that’s according to the Congressional Budget Office. Again, intentions simply aren’t enough.

    Yet, intentions are powerful beginnings. They are the starting point for every dream. They provide a spark to ignite a purpose, launch a plan, and to direct the mind. But if intentions are all that are needed to be successful, or to stop smoking or to lose weight, then maybe achieving those goals are in fact easier done than said.

    One only needs to look around to see what decades of politicians’ good intentions have done to our nation, and our communities. As explained by economist Thomas Sowell, “If there is any lesson in the history of ideas, it is that good intentions tell you nothing about the actual consequences.”

    So while the reader who wrote to me valued “caring” or one’s intentions as the litmus test of whether to support a government program or policy, history abundantly proves that “caring” alone is inadequate to achieve genuine assistance, or a leg up, for those truly in need.

     

    The correct answer, I think, to the reader who wrote to me, is that all of our elected leaders, whether Landrieu or Jindal or the President of the United States, should be held accountable, not by how much they care, but by how much good they do in terms of meeting their original intentions. After all, in the words of Pablo Picasso, “What one does is what counts. Not what one had the intention of doing.”