Louis R. Avallone

Category: 2018

  • The Truth Shall Set You Free

    Watching a magic trick can make us feel like a kid again. It might be as simple as the disappearance of a coin from our hand, and having it appear again behind our ear, but it still delights us. It’s thrilling because we’re all attracted to things we cannot explain logically. How was it possible to cut the magician’s assistant in two and then see her safe and sound minutes later?

    Interestingly, some people don’t want to know how a magic trick is performed. Maybe that describes you. “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary,” said a famous magician with a grin, and “for those who do not, none will suffice.”

    Maybe it’s because we prefer illusion to the truth, and that we often see what we want to see – like a magician making someone look like they are levitating on stage, or someone so clairvoyant that they know the exact number you are thinking in your head. Is it really magic?

    The trouble is when we find out how the trick is performed, many aren’t amazed by it any longer because the attraction is now gone. That’s the main reason why magicians don’t reveal their tricks. And, if you ask me, this is why so many (who claim to protect the freedom of speech) are rushing to shut-up Kanye West – they don’t want him to reveal their tricks…and for the very same reason the magician won’t because, when that happens, the attraction to whatever they’re selling is lost.

    That’s why you have folks like British journalist Piers Morgan tweeting, “Shame on you, Kanye West, for betraying all black Americans with your disgustingly offensive garbage.” And you have Representative Maxine Waters saying that Kanye “…talks out of turn and perhaps he needs some assistance in helping him to formulate some of his thoughts.” And then the band leader for The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon tweets out himself wearing a t-shirt reading, “Kanye doesn’t care about black people.” And this is just a sampling of the disapproval he’s received, from so, so many.

    Even his wife, Kim Kardashian distanced herself from her husband, explaining “I have no idea what Kanye’s tweets mean either.”

    And what, you ask, did Kanye do to receive such dishonor and disdain? He began tweeting that Americans ought to think for themselves. Yeah, how dare he? He even tweeted a picture of himself wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat. He tweeted quotes from Thomas Sowell, such as “It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” And then quoting Thomas Sowell again, he posed this idea to his 27 million followers on Twitter: “The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best. The welfare state is not about the welfare of the masses. It’s about the egos of the elites.”

    But why are these ideas so offensive to so many? Isn’t Kanye just like the millions of other Americans who are tired of being told what is politically correct? Isn’t Kanye’s recent cultural epiphany emblematic of anyone in our country who is simply tired of being told what to do?

    And while I’m thinking about it, who does Maxine Waters think she is to tell Kanye (or anyone else, for that matter) when it’s their “turn” to talk? Because he’s black, and he shouldn’t be saying what he’s saying? Should Kanye have waited until Maxine Waters helped him to “formulate some of his thoughts” first, before voicing any alternate opinion to hers?

    It’s an Orwellian-irony that many modern “liberals” want to silence dissent when it goes against their preconceived opinions. How can one be liberal and yet not fully support the freedom of speech? This fundamental liberty is a cherished conservative value and the founders knew exactly what they were doing when they put it at the top of the list.

    But for liberals, folks like Kanye represent an erosion of the idea that black Americans should be treated as one dimensional, or as a monolithic “black” voting block, instead of as the independent thinkers they are, with beliefs as diverse as our country.

    The liberals’ fear of free speech is not irrational, however, because “their” voters may very well be abandoning them right now (and not coming back). In fact, we see that support for the President among black men has doubled since Kanye started tweeting about Trump and these approval numbers are the highest Trump has enjoyed in the survey among black men all year.

    Coincidence? Maybe. But just to be clear, what’s exciting here is not Kanye’s celebrity. No, these issues are so much larger than any one individual. Frankly, it doesn’t matter whether his name is Kanye West, or Kanye South. It’s about seeing someone excited about an idea, and who challenges the notion that we all prefer illusion to the truth or the stereotypes peddled by those who want to keep our nation divided.

    For as it says in the Bible, won’t the truth set us free? If so, who gets to decide who goes free, the Maxine Waters of the world, or you and me?

  • 15 Minutes of Fame

    We’ve all heard the phrase, “In the future, everybody will be famous for fifteen minutes.” Along with radio, television, and the growing affordability (and accessibility) to Internet technology, combined with our instinctive appetite for the urgent and dramatic, there are now billions who have the opportunity to seek the attention of billions of others. But for most of us, it’s more about the attention we’re giving others (e.g. what they said, what they did, etc.), rather than seeking from others.

    Unfortunately, many times it’s the whiny, rude, selfish, defiant, and violent to whom we give our most attention to. Does any one really care, for example, about what a Fresno State English professor said recently, following Barbara Bush’s passing, when she called Mrs. Bush an “amazing racist” who “raised a war criminal” and that she was “happy the witch is dead?”

    Does it really matter that millions pay attention when Jim Carrey tweets about White House Press Secretary Sara Sanders that her “only purpose in life is to lie for the wicked?” Or when Rosie O’Donnell says that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is going “straight to hell?”

    Or how about when Jimmy Kimmel makes fun of Melania Trump’s accent when she speaks? Or when Joe Biden says “Republicans don’t want black folks voting?” Or when Joy Behar says on national television that hearing from Jesus is actually called “mental illness?”

    Yes, in fact, this does matter. A lot. And it’s because freedom of speech, or free speech, is the single biggest influence on our society, and it is guaranteed to each one of us, regardless of our gender, sex, religion, race, nationality, or any other identifying factor – regardless of how ridiculous, illogical, hypocritical, vile, or plain-stupid sounding your speech may be (there are exceptions, of course, present company excepted).

    Well, at least that’s the current popular opinion in our society. That may be changing, though. A study just last year says only 59% of Americans believe that you, or me, should be allowed to express unpopular opinions in public, even those that are deeply offensive to other people.”

    But for anyone wondering why so-called offensive speech should be free, the first question you should ask yourself is who gets to decide what’s offensive? You see, free speech enables the truth to emerge from diverse opinions, even if those offering those opinions are insatiably seeking their own “15 minutes” of fame, whether on social media or on national television. And having the government decide the “truth” of any matter is censorship, plain and simple. And as George Washington once said, “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” Who’s got time for that?

    The real issue isn’t as much what others say, but what we’re paying attention to, instead.

    Consider the disruptive behavior of school children who repeatedly leave their seats without good reason. Typically, the teacher interrupts the lesson to reprimand them. But researchers found reprimanding often increases the frequency of wandering, and that when the teacher ignored children who wandered, and “paid attention to those who worked hard, the frequency of the problem behavior usually fell sharply.”

    In other words, threats and criticism seemingly reward bad behavior, but when children got attention by behaving well, they did.

    But as adults, we can’t help ourselves. We are far more likely be attracted to annoying behaviors, than the desirable ones, especially if you’re a “problem solver-type” In fact, adults typically ignore 90 percent or more of the good things children do, but then pay lots of attention when children are behaving badly.

    Perhaps the most recent generation of parents can’t help it, though, because they have been raised in a culture that only paid attention to them as young children when they were complaining, and then were made to feel better by blaming someone else, becoming a victim, and giving them a trophy for just participating.

    This is more than just anecdotal evidence to make a point. You see, our misplaced adult attention may be creating the next generation of whiny, rude, selfish, defiant, and violent personalities because this is what we have taught them we pay attention to. It’s like the old saying, “Tell me to what you pay attention and I will tell you who you are.”

    The bigger question going forward is this: “Is what you pay attention to consistent with who you want to be?”

  • Polarization of America

    Nearly halfway into President Trump’s first term, there are some who might say that America today is more polarized than at any time in its history. And this goes behind mere partisan disagreements, or bickering, regarding any number of subjects – taxes, healthcare, immigration, education – or even more fundamentally, the role of government itself.

    Although many Americans are divided on the issues today, the fact is we have always been. Going back to the election of 1824, no President has ever been elected with more than about 60 percent of the American people’s support. It is expected (and encouraged) that Americans will disagree on what candidate should occupy the highest office in the land, but that alone doesn’t necessarily mean that America is polarized, which is altogether more sinister to our union. Here’s what I mean:

    You see, the polarization of America is defined by the extent to which public opinion is divided into the extremes, often encouraged by factions, within a political party, or by special interest. The casualties of a polarized nation are those moderate voices, in the middle, which often lose much of their power and influence within the political process.

    But in 2016, these moderate voices (sometimes referred to as the “silent majority”) reclaimed their power and influence, just long enough to elect Donald Trump as President, defying the conventional wisdom of those “who knew better.”

    And ever since, “those who knew better” have strained their minds, wrung their hands, pulled out their hair, and lost countless nights of sleep trying to explain what happened in the 2016 election. In fact, the coverage of President Trump by the “Big Three” broadcast networks — ABC, CBS and NBC — has remained 91 percent negative.

    It’s almost as if the media is working off the same script and afraid to report any thought, idea, or reality that is outside their own confusion. For example, if you’re a reporter, and your circle of contemporaries believe that President Trump is racist, sexist, greedy, heartless, and elitist, then it would strain credulity for you to report anything else, right?

    And this is much of what is polarizing our country.

    It’s why comedian Kathy Griffin thought it would be a good idea to pose with the bloodied, severed head of Donald Trump, and yet she still sold out her show at Carnegie Hall within 24 hours. Or why a crowd of marchers in Washington, DC erupted in applause when Madonna said that she’s “thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.”

    You see, partisanship is healthy in a free society because it promotes the debate of ideas.

    Polarization, on the other hand, is more about silencing ideas with which you disagree. It dehumanizes those whose opinions are different than yours, and doesn’t allow compromise, whatsoever.

    But a great example of the difference between being partisan or polarizing is the recent re-boot of the television show, Roseanne, which continues to draw a record number of viewers, more than anyone expected. While many say that Roseanne is a mouthpiece for conservatives and the millions of Americans who were so backwardly hillbilly-ignorant to vote for Trump, the show’s success is really a good example of how to disagree without being disagreeable.

    Actor Rob Lowe saw it immediately, and tweeted, “The secret to [Roseanne] massive ratings is that it celebrates people with huge political differences who are able to laugh and love together as they passionately disagree.”

    But we don’t do that any more, do we?

    How can you “laugh and love together” as a liberal, if you believe every conservative would like to reinstate segregation, pollute the drinking water, and take food out of the mouths of starving children? How can you “passionately disagree” as a conservative, if you believe every liberal only wants to grow the government, then tax the rich, and weaken our military?

    So whichever side of the aisle you may sit, or stand, it is more important than ever that we return to a healthy partisanship, not polarization, and come together as one nation, under God, and indivisible.

    You see, a divided America only encourages our enemies and weakens our courage And yet, we have Democrats traveling to foreign countries and disparaging the American voter, late-night talk show hosts demeaning the President and the First Lady, and a press corps that focuses on our differences and the trivial, rather than those principles that bind us together as a nation.

    And Abraham Lincoln was right, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. This was a valuable and costly lesson of history and the real question is why aren’t more of us heeding it?

  • “Caring”

    “Have you ever written anything about helping the needy among us,” began an email I received from a reader, in response to a recent column I had written. “Democrats are trying to help our people who need help,” the reader continued, “not the ones who party at Mar A Lago and have plenty of money.”

    And there you have it.

    Democrats are “trying” to help (according to the reader above) and because of that, they necessarily “care” more about the needy than I do – or you do, or anyone else – who feel that supporting programs to help the needy is much more important than politicians who merely “care” more for the needy.

    Here’s what I’m talking about: Often times, those who “care” the most aren’t really helping. Consider this is the 54th year of Lyndon Johnson’s unrelenting war on poverty and yet after $15 trillion dollars in spending over these many years, the poverty rate today is virtually the same as it was in 1964. It’s become generational poverty, for all intents and purposes, and we are now spending close to $1 trillion per year on government assistance, with 43 million Americans still living below the poverty line. Yet, there’s no doubt those elected officials in Congress, back in 1964, cared very much for the poor.

    And there’s also no question that millions of Americans “care” deeply today about the poor (including the reader who wrote to me), but if “caring” was enough, we would have already solved most of the issues facing our communities, right? “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.

    Good intentions simply aren’t enough when you want to make a difference.

    For example, do you care enough to make sure people are earning a “living wage,” rather than a “minimum” wage? If you do, I hope you also care enough to find at least 6.6 million Americans a new job, because that’s how many jobs will be lost, by hiking the minimum wage to $15 per hour (according to the Congressional Budget Office).

    The “Fight-for-15” campaign (as many call it) is a strong one – spanning all across the country – shaming anyone who opposes a minimum wage increase, as being inhuman, greedy, and heartless, for even considering the idea of denying millions of Americans a “living wage.”

    But on the other hand, though, how compassionate is it to increase unemployment among the least skilled and poorest among us? That’s exactly what a 2017 study of Seattle’s minimum wage hike showed: Just after nine months about 5,000 low-skill jobs had just disappeared. Not only that, but the number of hours worked (by those still employed) dropped by 3.5 million hours and overall wages dropped by $6 million.

    This was all consistent, also, with the results of a study from the University of Washington, which found that for every $1 worth of increased wages, there are $3 worth of lost employment opportunities.

    So with all of the data pouring in, regarding minimum wage increases from all across the country, you would think that even a “conservative Democrat” like Governor John Bel Edwards would see the handwriting on the wall, and steer our state clear of the rough waters that every other state has experienced when raising their minimum wage.

    But no, he doesn’t see it that way. In fact, he doesn’t understand why there is any opposition to “very modest” minimum wage increases, in the first place. And thus, he is urging approval of Senate Bill 162 in the state legislature, which would raise the minimum wage in Louisiana.

    So, this bring us back, full circle, to the question from the reader about Democrats “caring” more for the needy. But just look around to see what decades of politicians have done to our nation in the name of “caring” and you’ll see why “caring” is not nearly enough, if you want to truly help those in need.

    As economist Thomas Sowell explained, “If there is any lesson in the history of ideas, it is that good intentions tell you nothing about the actual consequences.”

    This should be the standard to which we hold our elected leaders accountable: Not by how much they care, but by how much good they actually accomplish.

  • Blame it on the Rain


    Perhaps not since 1989, when the number one song that year was Milli Vanilli’s “Blame it on the Rain,” has there been a more grand fraud, perpetrated upon the people of Louisiana, than the incessant and child-like reasoning of Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards. He blames anyone, everyone, and anything – but himself – for EVERYTHING.

    From our state’s economic woes to our criminal justice system, he has plenty of blame to go around. But is that consistent with his oft-mentioned, campaign mantra of “duty, honor and country,” as he proclaimed to voters, all around the state, back in 2015?

    We know that one of the mechanisms of denial is blaming others for our problems, and with the latest “done-nothing” special legislative session called by the Governor – which cost the taxpayers a million dollars – there’s more blame than ever being passed around. But most folks realize it for what it is – a lack of leadership from the Governor.

    “He’s trying to almost circumvent his leadership role by getting everyone else to tell him what to do,” says Representative Cameron Henry, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, but “that’s not how governors work.” In fact, that’s not how effective leadership works, anywhere, whether you are an elected official, a department manager, or head of your household.

    That’s because none of us can improve our situation unless we accept responsibility for ourselves, and reject the idea that someone else, or something else, is to blame for our circumstances in life – whether it happened last week, or from when you were a child, or even 150 years ago.

    But that hasn’t stopped John Bel Edwards.

    He has repeatedly blamed Bobby Jindal for the state’s nearly $1 billion “shortfall” and other budget problems, calling Jindal, “the most irresponsible governor who has ever governed Louisiana.”

    When he went before Congress last April, he blamed partisan politics for the tough questioning he received, during a Congressional hearing examining the response to 2016’s historic flooding. He said, “I can only attribute it to politics, but quite frankly I wasn’t surprised.”

    Then, last summer, the Governor continued his blame campaign and blamed House Republicans for not surrendering to his efforts to raise higher and higher taxes, even though Louisiana already has the highest sales taxes in the country, and the Governor has all but ignored solid recommendations from experts who had studied our state’s budget options for almost a year.

    With all that, he was just getting started with the blame game. In fact, after just one year in office, the Governor had corralled the major oil and gas companies into a room for a meeting, and demanded that they pay him now, or pay him later. You see, he was planning his most expensive blame ever – blaming the energy industry for eroding our state’s coastline. Nevermind that most folks attribute erosion to a lack of flood waters, not to mention that the oil and gas industry generates $73.8 billion in economic impact and provides jobs to nearly 300,000 Louisianans. Blame them anyway.

    And then just this month, the Governor blamed the House, for the special session failure that wasn’t “special” at all, saying, “Simply put, the failure of this special session is the result of a total lack of leadership and action in the House of Representatives – a spectacular failure of leadership.”

    But even if this were so, wasn’t he elected to lead our state? In the Bible, it says, “Where there is no vision, the people perish,” and we are indeed perishing. Where is his vision which he laments is so very absent within everyone else?

    You see, none of us can lead – and neither can John Bel Edwards – when we resort to blame, and won’t accept responsibility for our circumstances. In fact, when we blame, we hand over the power to others – the control of our very destiny – as if other “people” or the government will fix everything for us, like a genie in a bottle.

    Yes, liberals tend to blame. A lot. President Obama blamed America for ISIS because when we send in our military and occupy a country, like we did in Iraq, Obama said we “end up feeding extremism.” When the story broke about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky in 1998, Hillary Clinton blamed a “vast, right-wing conspiracy.” When Obama’s approval ratings declined, he blamed racism, saying, “There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President.”

    And while blaming others makes some people feel better about themselves, in the end they are simply avoiding honest communication and accountability for their own actions.

    John C. Maxwell has a saying that goes like this: A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way.

    So why do we keep electing folks who know only how to blame the way? It’s a question, in this mid-term election year, we must know the answer to, or else we’ll only have ourselves to blame.

  • Cause and Effect

    There’s a lot of debate over gun control these days, especially after the Parkland, Florida murders. And let’s call it “murder” because that’s what it is…yes, it was also “shooting” (as the media prefers to put it), but that doesn’t adequately describe the unjust, cowardly, selfish, and evil act of taking an innocent life.

    Why does the media always characterize these tragedies as mere “shootings?” They did it at the Mandalay Bay concert in Las Vegas last October. They did it at the movie theater in Aurora in 2012, and at the Orlando nightclub in 2016. It was just a “shooting” at Columbine in 1999 (according to the media), as well as when churchgoers were murdered in Charleston in 2015, and then again, just last year, in Sutherland Springs.

    To describe it as a “shooting” glosses over the fact that a person was the ultimate cause of the murder and the “shooting” was merely the end of a chain of decisions that started with that person deciding to murder.

    Those who are calling for Congress and state legislatures to “do something” about gun control are starting with protests and marches. A nationwide school walkout is being organized for March 14, by the same people behind the Women’s March (you know, the one where Madonna said she’s been thinking about blowing up the White House). They’re asking students and faculty members to walk off their school campuses at 10 a.m. for 17 minutes ― one minute for each person killed in the Parkland shooting.

    And then there are the schools across the country who are planning a march on Washington, D.C. with sister marches in other cities also ― to demand more gun control legislation. That’s taking place on March 24. Then on April 20, there will be a “National School Walkout” on the 19th anniversary of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting murders in Colorado.

    From reading the headlines, and the protesters signs, it seems more gun control legislation is the answer. After all, if the “wrong” people in our country had less accessibility to guns, then these shootings murders would decline, and that’s why we just have to “do something,” regardless of whether it actually achieves the intended result.

    But what if the intended result we’re seeking isn’t an elementary, cause-and-effect? What if our accessibility to guns was unrelated to the causation of people murdering one another? For example, did you know that only the United States and Yemen have more guns per capita than Switzerland, and that despite 2 million guns in circulation in Switzerland, guns were used in less than 120 murders over the past 10 years? That means the murder rate is 17 times more in the U.S. than in Switzerland, where there is also wide accessibility to guns.

    What if our murder rate is not a result of a single “cause” (accessibility to guns) but an “accumulation” of factors within a society that increasingly views human life as subjective and revocable? Or that condones and funds abortions, looks the other way on euthanasia, and glorifies violence in movies and video games, while diminishing our ability to empathize with the plight of others, and to choose convenience over preserving and protecting life?

    And just because a person murders “after” acquiring a gun does not always mean they murdered “because” of the gun. That’s like saying where there is punishment, there must have been a crime.

    And look, government cannot “fix” all things for us. Government cannot make us content, make us feel respected or accepted, confer achievement upon us, build our self-esteem or eliminate life’s inevitable ups and downs.

    The bottom line here is that whatever you call it, a “murder” or a “shooting” or whatever, pretending that passing another law will somehow make it all better is precisely what got us here, in the first place.

  • Doesn’t Make Sense

    None of this fits together. None of it. It’s like Mark Twain said, “It’s no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.”

    So, here’s the truth: Last month, 183 members of the House of Representatives voted against a bill in Congress that would have imposed penalties on abortion providers who didn’t give medical care to any child who was born alive, after an abortion procedure. These 183 elected officials chose to make the intentional killing of a born-alive child inconsequential, insofar as there are currently no criminal penalties, or even fines, for such an unconscionable, immoral, and brutal act.

    Those 183 men and women opposing this bill (called the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act) would not subject abortionists to even a fine. I mean, if you’re late with a payment to your credit card company, you pay a late fee. If you don’t return your library book on time, you have to pay a reconnection fee. But if you intentionally kill a born-alive child, while in the commission of an abortion, you get to go home for the day, pick-up some dinner, watch some Netflix, AND come back the next day, where you will likely do it all over again, and get paid, too.

    In fact, this happens more often than you may have ever considered. According to the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”), between 2003 and 2014, 588 infant deaths were reported by abortion clinics with the cause of death being “termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn.” And that’s just the numbers from the clinics who reported these killings at all. After all, as doctor for Planned Parenthood explained, reporting born-alive, infant deaths depends on “who’s in the room” when the baby is born, and who will keep silent about it all.

    But you remember Planned Parenthood, right? Back when they admitted that babies born alive, after an abortion procedure, were sometimes being killed, and then sold to medical research firms? You remember when Planned Parenthood’s medical directors admitted to Congress that their abortionists were sometimes altering their abortion procedures, just to increase the likelihood of a live birth, because intact babies can be sold for even more money than if they weren’t?

    But whether the CDC’s numbers are understated or not – if there’s 1 child lost, that’s too many. The fact that 183 members of the House of Representatives voted to allow this conduct, without even so much as imposing a fine to be paid is gut-wrenching.

    Nevermind that all 183 opposition votes were Democrats. They are children of God, nevertheless. They are the same ones that ran for Congress and stopped by one afternoon to wedge their campaign flyer into your front door. They had the slick websites which showed them kissing babies, craving apple pie, and posing for idyllic portraits with their family, all to say, “You can trust me.”

    But who among those 183 Democrats would possibly try to justify the killing of a born-alive child? Or would even tell their children that you shouldn’t try and help someone when they are in need?
    It’s not clear whether such a bill will advance in the Senate. It would likely require at least 60 votes to break a filibuster there. President Donald Trump has already praised House Republicans for passing the bill, saying “I call upon the Senate to pass this important law and send it to my desk for signing.”

    You see, being pro-life is more than being anti-abortion. It’s not just supporting a political candidate who shares your views. Being pro-life means we are advocates for life because there is greatness within each of us, and we are created in the image of God.

    But when we stop protecting the weak and the vulnerable, we’re extinguishing them – instead of caring for the least among us all.

  • Drain the Bayou

    Drain the Bayou

    “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck,” right? This is often said when you are making a point you can identify an unknown situation by merely observing the characteristics of that situation. Well, in 2015, 56% of conservative Louisiana voters believed John Bel Edwards looked, swam, and quacked like a “conservative Democrat,” which is really an oxymoron – kind of like being an “honest thief” or a “wise fool,” because there’s really no such thing. No, John Bel Edwards, is just a plain old-fashioned, bitterly partisan, tax-and-spend liberal, and there’s nothing accidental about him, or Louisiana’s “fiscal cliff.”

    Yes, it’s true that the state budget was around $25 billion when Edwards was elected into office. But today, under Edwards, he’s grown Louisiana’s budget to $29.6 billion. Even if you make the point that Bobby Jindal underfunded many state departments and programs, in order to maintain state services, fund TOPS, etc., and that Edwards had no choice but to restore the necessary financing, should that be nearly $4 billion? I mean, not only did the budget grow nearly 20%, in a state whose population growth is among the lowest in the nation, but he added insult to injury by raising $2 billion with sales tax increases.

    Louisiana now has the highest sales tax rates in America, an “accomplishment” that only Edwards can lay claim to, because that wasn’t true before he took office.

    With the 2018 legislative session on the horizon, and a $1 billion plus deficit in the state’s budget, what is Edwards’ plan? Well, businesses and wealthier folks will pay higher taxes, if Edwards gets his way, and one way he’ll do it is by limiting tax deductions.

    Really? But look around the country. Since President Trump signed tax reform into law on December 22, over 80 companies have publicly announced bonuses, wage increases or other kinds of benefits they’re offering employees. AT&T: $1k bonuses for 200,000 U.S. employees, Southwest Airlines: $1k bonuses for 55,000 employees, Waste Management: $2k bonuses to 34,000 eligible employees, and the list goes on, and on.

    Governor Edwards, don’t you realize that decreasing the tax burden on the American people – the promise of cutting unnecessary regulations and reducing the size of government – has resulted in the lowest unemployment rate in over 18 years? The stock market has rallied, home prices are rising, and manufacturing jobs have rebounded – across the country.

    And yet, here in Louisiana, our Governor is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, instead of looking at what is ALREADY working around the country, and then just doing more of that, instead. After all, we can‘t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them, can we?

    Oh…it’s more complicated than that? But why does it have to be? Because some old-fashioned, big government, tax-and-spend legislators in Baton Rouge say it is?

    Okay, that’s fine, then. Keep your decades of charts, Excel spreadsheets, and long lunch meetings in Baton Rouge that have produced little more than bowel movements, and let’s just feed off common sense for a moment.

    You know what strengthens an economy, and creates jobs? The free market economy and small businesses. When you REDUCE taxes and regulations, businesses hire more employees, they expand their facilities, and then purchase new goods and services to meet the market demand.

    That means they go out and buy trucks and tools and computers, and anything else needed to meet the demand. And when those businesses start hiring, that means folks from out of state will come (home) to Louisiana because they want a good job, and not just another government check from the state.

    Governments do not create wealth. They can influence the distribution of wealth, by providing financial incentives, but they do not create it, regardless of how much they spend. They just move it around.

    And the reason government spending does not create wealth is because the source of government spending is tax revenue, right out of the pockets of taxpayers.

    This deluge of poor fiscal management, and higher and higher taxes, from the Governor on down, isn’t just running off our backs any more, like it would on any good duck – and unless we’re willing to drain the bayou here at home, it’s surely going to drown us first.

  • Skin Deep

    In his 1957 speech entitled, “Give Us The Ballot,” Martin Luther King, Jr. did not advocate for the right to vote simply because he wanted to see more black people in office. No, not at all. He wanted more than that – he wanted to be able to choose men “of good will” who would “do justly and love mercy.” He wanted to be able to select men and women based on their character, and who exhibited “strong, moral, and courageous leadership.”

    Even after 60 years, it’s timeless advice that still rings true today.

    And yet, the voters in Shreveport will still spend most of this glorious new year talking about the skin color of their mayoral candidates in their upcoming election this fall. They’ll talk about why this color candidate or that color candidate can’t win, shouldn’t win, and ought not even try.

    Before considering the content of a candidate’s character, or deciding which candidate is best suited to lead our city, most Shreveporters will look first to the color of the candidate’s skin, instead. Although this may not be shocking to you, it’s just not right.

    I mean, you’ve overheard the conversations about how a white candidate cannot possibly be elected Mayor of Shreveport. It’s the “city’s demographics,” they say, and about how black candidates will be universally supported by the lion’s share of black voters anyway. Whomever is mayor, according to these folks, won’t need much support from white voters, at all, to get elected into office.

    But is it just me? Isn’t it immoral to disqualify a candidate based on the color of their skin? I mean, it’s 2018, for goodness’ sake. Instead of finding common ground, learning from one another and coming together, we’re still dividing ourselves in the most uncivilized, elementary, and ignorant way – by our skin color.

    In essence, we’re discouraging candidates, however qualified they may be, from running for Mayor – based simply on the color of their skin. Aren’t there countless, real reasons that ought to disqualify candidates, instead? Like are they decisive or wishy-washy? Do they get the right things done, or do they just make a lot of noise? Do they follow-thru on their commitments, or is it just all hot air?

    But if all you need to know is only skin deep, why bother talking about any of this?

    Why ask if a candidate has the attention span or the dogged determination needed to concentrate on the details (and not just the “big picture”) of the large-scale changes needed so desperately in city government?

    Why bother to find out if the candidates are persistent enough to see those changes through to completion, even in the face of great opposition? Are they transparent in their dealings? Are they capable of gaining a detailed understanding of their elected position, and how it works? Will they act prudently for the long-term needs of our citizens, or will they choose short-term popularity, instead?

    If all you see is the color of my skin, none of that really matters to you.

    And while that is not to say most black Americans think alike – they have voted alike, historically. For example, blacks have backed Democrat candidates almost 90% of the time since 1980. And this is why most folks, from the coffee shop to the barbershop, say white candidates for mayor simply “need not apply.”

    There’s a University of Chicago professor, Michael Dawson, who thinks he understands why, though. In his book, Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African-American Politics, he calls it “black utility heuristic” and it’s basically how, when you belong to a group, you often feel your individual prospects for success are ultimately tied to the success of your group.

    This is referred to as “linked fate” and you can see this principle at work in your family, your company, your church, etc. Linked fate is also one of the reasons why 2 out 3 black Americans, according to a Pew Research Survey, see their black community as a single group (or a monolithic voting bloc), even though political views among blacks are as diverse as any other group.

    While we’re all in this together, how can we be sure we’re choosing men “of good will” (in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.), if we’re sorting them first by race?