Louis R. Avallone

Category: Economy

  • Thank You, Candidates

    By the time you are reading this, the results from the November 6 election will be known, and those campaigns, whose candidates who are now in the run-off election on December 8, will have re-doubled their efforts and are back at work to earn your vote.

    So, for just a moment, let’s take this opportunity to thank all of the candidates – from all the political parties (including those who are “no party,” as well). They all deserve our respect, not necessarily because we all agree, politically, but because they understand the principle, as many of us do, that life is a fight for territory, and that once we stop fighting for what we want, what we don’t want will automatically take over. And that’s what these candidates did for months on end, leading up to election day — and they fought for what they wanted, instead of just wringing their hands; they sought to be the change they so very much wanted to see.

    Of course, the Book of James tells us that “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”. And while many worry about the erosion of our religious liberty, the decline of our education system, the deterioration of the family, and the fiscal irresponsibility of our elected officials, they often don’t go any further than worrying. Candidates go further — much further, and this is why I believe candidates deserve our respect, even when we greatly disagree.

    From neighborhood association meetings to church groups, from walking miles upon miles down city streets and country roads, knocking on doors and putting up signs – the candidates themselves do embody the old-fashioned, pioneer-like grit and determination that is the American way. The candidates are the “man in the arena,” as Theodore Roosevelt put it, and the credit belongs to him or her:

    “The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena…who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

    Furthermore, remember, as Thomas Jefferson’s said, “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” While Jefferson was referring to the electorate, I believe it applies equally to candidates, as well. And every candidate has certainly done their part to “participate,” and sacrificed much to do so.

    No, losing is no fun, of course, and being criticized for losing, or ridiculed for one’s opinions, isn’t either. But there is no shame or dishonor in losing an election – so long as the campaign was run with honor and integrity.

    There have been – and will be – lots of “I told you so” opinions, which will point out this reason or that reason; this issue or that issue, that made all the difference in one race or another, this election cycle. And there will be plenty of time for looking in the rear-view mirror.

    But for now, whatever our politics, and however elated or disappointed we may feel about the election results from Tuesday, we remain grateful to those candidates who, at least, gave us a choice, and those thousands souls who paid the ultimate sacrifice for there to be one, in the first place.

  • Bright Shiny Objects

    There’s an assumption here, among many mayoral candidates, that the problems Shreveport is dealing with is a lack of new ideas. For example, Adrian Perkins says it’s time for Shreveport to become a “smart city” and set-aside around $400 million to construct a city-owned broadband network.

    Then, Steven Jackson wants to establish a “universal Pre-K” program for kids, at an estimated cost of $30 million per year, plus gunshot-detection technology that costs nearly $500,000. Mayor Tyler is already forking out $3 million for a new 2.4-acre park between Texas Avenue, Crockett Street and Cotton Street, and she wanted the city council last year to spend $30 million for a new sports arena complex on Cross Bayou.

    The “pie-in-sky” political promises aren’t new, of course. Former mayor Cedric Glover spent nearly $10 million on slick “high-tech” water meters, and yet many are not even in operation today. Former mayor Keith Hightower borrowed $110 million for a new convention center and hotel 15 years ago, and the city still subsidizes its operations – to the tune of almost $2 million this year alone.

    You see, as experience shows, Shreveport does not need more bright, shiny objects, like the examples above. That’s not innovation. It’s the pursuit of the make-believe. It wastes time and energy, and produces little in return

    Sure, I understand the appeal of it, though. It’s like seeing the sheer happiness on a child’s face after handing him a brand new, shiny wrapped toy at Christmas. And indeed, to hear many of the mayoral candidates, it must be Christmas morning around here – everyday.

    But even Christmas morning is more than just about getting stuff. It’s about focusing on what matters most, and what lasts; not so much about what we want, but about what others need most. And the next mayor of Shreveport must be mature enough, and lived here enough years, to know the difference between what we need in Shreveport for everyone’s sake, and some cockamamie idea or scheme that “sounds” good, but only a select few

    This is important because we’re facing rising violent crime, a diminished tax base, plus over $200 million in underfunded pension plans, nearly $500 million in water, streets, and sewer improvement projects (in part to satisfy a consent decree with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice), and a convention center that is generating zero net revenue for the city, while costing taxpayers about $5,000 per day to keep the doors open.

    No, no, no, there’s no single, bright, shiny object to fix it all, and frankly, we don’t have time for all of that childishness.

    And while there’s no panacea, we can start by electing a new mayor that has more gray hairs than wild ones; who realizes the most successful, thriving cities are those that are really efficient at doing just the basics, like sewer, water, trash pick-up, issuing building permits, repairing roads, fire, police, etc.

    And someone who knows that when we get good at doing just the basics, we’ll also get good at being fiscally responsible (unlike Detroit where they can’t pay their bills, or Chicago, where 60% of their tax dollars go to fund just their debt and pension payments alone),

    It doesn’t sound particularly dazzling or sexy, and it may not catapult you into some higher office in the future, or get you on the cover of any magazine, but mastering the basics – the fundamentals – still remains a hallmark of responsible government.

    Now, I’ve heard some candidates say, “Look at what they have done in Chattanooga,” or “see what Plano is doing” for economic development, or “how it’s done in Los Angeles” or in Atlanta, or “we’ll try what they’ve done in Baton Rouge.”

    Yes, it’s important to look at best practices, wherever they may be, but with so many Shreveporters living below the poverty line, the lack of affordable housing, the lack of feeling safe in your own home, and more and more Shreveporters choosing to leave, we need a mayor who has great regard for the long-term maintenance of what we ALREADY have, and commitments ALREADY made – before we start chasing new ones.

    As it is often said, the devil is always in the details – and it is in this mayor’s race. But the devil doesn’t necessarily come dressed in a red cape and pointy horns, either. He comes as everything you’ve ever wished for, if you’ll only give him your vote, or yet another tax, to pay for yet another bright, shiny object.

    But we’ve collected a closet full of those now, over the past 20 years, and now is the time to elect a mayor who will get city government back to the basics first – because they’ve lived here long enough to know that all that glitters isn’t gold.

  • Sit and Think

    Sit and Think

    Would you rather sit and think, or give yourself a mild electric shock? As ridiculous of a question as that may seem, research from the University of Virginia suggests some people are so uncomfortable being alone with their thoughts that they would choose to give themselves mild electric shocks, rather than just sit and think. In fact, the complete study confirmed most people would rather do almost anything else than think alone and quietly.

    This aversion to just “sitting and thinking” through solutions to life’s daily challenges may explain a lot of life’s regrets: The one who got away, the job you didn’t take, the money you didn’t save, the fight you wish you hadn’t had, ordering just one more drink etc. – but there’s always going to be something that you’d wish you’d done differently, right?

    But when we are in that moment of making a decision, however, we all tend to believe we know what we’re doing. I mean, most people believe they are above average drivers, or possess above average intelligence or humor – but obviously not everyone can be above average (even though we can all have the illusion that we are).

    So when Shreveport City Council voted this month to give 10,000 taxpayer dollars to an individual who was organizing a film festival, I suppose these elected council officials thought they knew what they were doing, but had they sat and thought about it? The resolution before the City Council, authored by Councilwoman Stephanie Lynch, suggested that directing $10,000 from the City’s checking account to the Shreveport Urban Film Festival (“SUFF”) served an “overriding public purpose.”

    SUFF’s stated purpose is to “showcase the developing talent of the next generation of African-American filmmakers,” and it’s a worthy ambition, just as the Louisiana Film Prize has done an admirable job of attracting diverse filmmakers to our community. But that’s not the point here.

    It’s not that the organizer of SUFF should allow all filmmakers to enter this competition for the prize money – after all, there are film festivals, and other community events, that cater to this group or that group, which are held throughout the year, with great fanfare. No big deal.

    After all, any of us has the right to associate with anyone else – or not to. This is an inseparable aspect of liberty that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    But the reason that this $10,000 gift from the taxpayers to an unnamed person, belongs in the “what were they thinking” category is because the City Charter seemingly doesn’t allow it. In fact, Sec. 26-53(a) of the City Charter prohibits public funds to be donated to any “for-profit” organization, but this film festival is not organized as such, nor is it authorized to receive tax deductible contributions, which the City Charter also requires, per Sec. 26-53(c). Nor does the City have a contract with the recipient of the $10,000, which the City Charter likewise mandates. And finally, the City Charter doesn’t permit use of City funds, whatever the source, to support any activity that discriminates by reason of race, color, etc. and yet the City Council has.

    $10,000 is a lot of money. Consider how many potholes could be filled, or tall grass that could be cut, and trash collected off the streets with $10,000, or overtime for police officers to patrol our streets at night, compared to the allegedly “overriding public purpose” of publicly funding a one-day film festival where only 2 of the 17 films being featured were even produced in our community.

    Some say this is an example of “take care of those who take care of you,” pork-barrel type politics, where the rules don’t apply equally to everyone. Some say this practice has single-handedly eroded the prosperity out of this community, and hallowed out any trust in local government for far too many years. And yet we continue electing these politicians into positions where it’s far easier for them to simply keep doing what we’ve been doing.

    Even though some City Council members may not have wanted to “sit and think” about this last-minute request for cash, Mayor Tyler certainly should have vetoed this resolution, and return it to the City Council clerk, with a statement of her disapproval, all per Sec. 4.21 of the City Charter.

    It would have been the right thing to do – if you just sit and think about it.

  • Get Back to Basics

    A 4-year-old is killed in a late night Shreveport shooting. A 15-year old is found murdered next to a bullet riddled SUV. Deadly shootings continue night after night at nondescript apartment complexes and along streets with names that most in Shreveport couldn’t locate on a map if their lives depended on it, and in neighborhoods some wouldn’t consider visiting even with a police escort.

    All the while, these members of our community continue to be pronounced dead at the scene, or at the hospital, night after night. Shell casings are collected, the crimes are investigated, and city leaders wring their hands helplessly into the night – until the next morning – when the headlines remind us that it’s happened all over again.

    They are found dead in parking lots, or on the stoops of their front doors; perhaps an argument over money, or a lover, or no good reason at all. They are the youngest among us, as well as those who age would suggest they should have known better, and others who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. The details of who or why are usually then reduced to a 10-word or less blurb on the morning news, as the rest of the city pours their first cup of coffee, and the lives of those lost become largely forgotten.

    As one Shreveport resident said, “It’s sad, but as long as it’s in our community and it’s not down on Youree drive, no one will be concerned about it.” That may or may not be true, but the irony is those most affected by violent crimes in their neighborhoods keep electing politicians who don’t effectively represent the immediate needs of their constituents.

    Instead of spending their time on reducing violent crime, many elected officials are spending their time proposing multi-million dollar land deals at Cross Bayou, instead. Or talking about how to provide high speed Internet to everyone. Does anyone really care how quickly a web page loads when you’re worried about whether the police can get to you in time?

    Unchecked rampant violent crime results in an outmigration of families, declining property values, and erodes our tax base, making it ever more difficult for us to maintain the law enforcement presence needed to address the violent crime, in the first place.

    Yes, we need more police officers, and we need better leadership for them.

    But as important as that is to reducing crime, we also have to focus on the basics. We need City Hall to deliver basic services efficiently and effectively, such as police, waste management, water, issuing building permits, repairing roads, etc. so that businesses want to locate here, and families feel secure here, and so wages can grow here. We need City Hall to be free from corruption and are fiscally responsible (unlike Detroit where they can’t pay their bills, or Chicago, where 60% of their tax dollars go to fund just their debt and pension payments alone). 

    We need City Hall to realize more beautification projects or economic “revitalization” won’t save Shreveport, whether it’s a dog park, or a money-pit Shreveport Convention Center, or a poorly performing Red River District. Turns out, we have to focus on the basics, first, not the shiny objects.

    It all goes back to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: Once our most basic needs are met, like feelings of security (and protection from crime), we are freed up to seek higher needs like belonging (to a community), and we’re willing to work at a job, or start a business, or move across state or across the country, to wherever meeting these basic needs is easiest for us to do.

    But it’s not Shreveport that’s distressed; its people are, because they don’t feel safe. And investing city resources into anything other than delivering the best city services is akin to putting a fresh coat of paint on a house while it’s on fire.

    We need a City Hall to get back to basics, before we get down to virtually nothing.

  • “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.

  • 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.

  • Kept Equal

    Kept Equal

    Think about it: There’s not a single day that passes where the headlines don’t include a story of growing racial tensions, such as the removal of civil war monuments. Or the NFL players protesting during the singing of the National Anthem. Or reporters and Hollywood-types calling out President Trump (and all of his supporters) as racists and bigots. You could go on and on, with example after example.

    Many had hoped that the 2008 election of the nation’s first black president would improve race relations, especially among black voters – but it didn’t. Today, nearly 3 out of 4 Americans say race relations in this country are bad. Compared to 2008, this this number has more than tripled.

    For some, this uncomfortableness in our country is what what we need right now, if we are going to achieve meaningful change – especially if you listen to San Antonio Spurs coach, Gregg Popavich. Just last month he said, “There has to be an uncomfortable element in the discourse for anything to change…People have to be made to feel uncomfortable. And especially white people, because we’re comfortable.”

    But are white people really “comfortable?” Then why would whites commit suicide at twice the rate of blacks? And why do white men, who are presented as the most privileged of all in America, commit 70% of all suicides and yet they represent only 30% of our population? Whatever the reasons, clearly more whites than blacks consider life not worth living.

    From protest to protest, though, it’s inequality of outcomes at the heart of our racial tensions. Unequal justice in our courts. Unequal education. Unequal pay. Unequal footing.

    But is inequality of outcomes inherently wrong? If you are a Christian, or otherwise religious, you may remember Jesus’ “Parable of the Talents” in Matthew 25. In this parable, each of the workers was given money to manage, “according to their abilities,” and as the parable unfolds, the results were different for each of them. So, if Jesus recognizes that we all have different abilities, and therefore we will all have unequal outcomes, then are we trying to make equality of outcomes into what it never was, and never will be?

    Consider this: During the 19th century, and especially after the Civil War, equality meant everyone should have the same opportunity to make what he or she could of his or her capacities, regardless of race, religion, belief, or social class. But later, into the 20th century, this changed.

    Equality became more about the idea that we should all be equal in terms of income or living standard. In other words, more and more folks began thinking that life should be arranged so everybody will end at the finish line at the same time, instead of just making sure everyone begins at the starting line at the same time.

    But can we remain a free people if we guarantee equal outcomes? I mean, if we are all going to end up at the finish line at the same time, some people will need to be held back after the race starts, because no two of us are the same, and this raises a very serious problem for freedom. Most times, whenever societies have put equality before freedom, they end up with neither, and yet “equal outcomes” seems to be the objective of the racial discord in our country.

    Some of you may not be convinced that we can’t end up at the finish line, all at the same time, and still remain a free people. But think about this: Would you take much pleasure in watching sporting events if the players were not among the best in the world? Or would you enjoy movies as much if they didn’t cast the very best actors?

    Of course not. That’s the same reason why there’s no equal opportunity for me to play guard alongside LeBron James with Cleveland Cavaliers, or co-star alongside Harrison Ford in his next movie. The fact is, life is not fair, and I’m okay with that because I’d rather it be free, than fair.

    You only need to look at societies like China and Russia, where equality of outcomes has been their basic goal, and you’ll see the tyranny foisted upon their people, in the absence of putting freedom above all else.

    If liberty is embodied in the creed, “all men are created equal,” does that likewise mean that we shall all be kept equal, as well?

  • The Power of Taking a Stand

    The Power of Taking a Stand

    Are you a people-pleaser? If you’re not, I bet you know one.

    You know the person I am talking about, right?

    That person in almost everyone’s life who tries to make sure that everyone is happy – or that no one is disappointed. It’s the person in your life that intervenes whenever something is wrong, and tries to make peace wherever there is conflict.

    And we tend to vote for “people-pleasers,” too. Our government is filled with them. These are the candidates that promise everything to everyone.

    And while we may differ significantly on our opinion of President Trump (pick any subject), virtually every Presidential tracking poll confirms he is not a “people-pleaser,” at least when it comes to his job approval rating by most Americans. Nearly 54% of Americans “disapprove” of Trump’s job performance as President, and the polling shows it’s because he’s taken a stand on so many politically incorrect issues.

    For clarification, though, what does it really mean to take a stand? It means that one must take a firm position on an issue. For example, the demonstrators in Tiananmen Square who protested for greater freedom in China, or Martin Luther King, Jr. who sought to end racial discrimination and segregation in our country.

    Well, President Trump has definitely taken a stand on the issues, and it’s making a difference.

    He took a stand against illegal immigration, and within 60 days after he was inaugurated, the number of people apprehended while crossing from Mexico fell to its lowest level in 17 years (according to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly).

    He took a stand for “America first” and that he would create good jobs for American workers, and the jobless rate is now the lowest since 2001. In fact, our country is almost at full employment today (the best in 16 years), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    He took a stand that he wanted lower tax rates for Americans in every tax bracket, and to simplify the tax code for businesses, and now the stock market has hit record highs. In fact, the market has hit new closing highs 23 times during during the Trump administration.

    He took a stand to defeat radical Islamic terrorism, and now ISIS has suffered severe losses recently, including the recapture of the Iraqi city of Mosul by Iraqi government forces, plus the U.S. led coalition forces have now regained close to a third of the territory previously controlled by ISIS in Syria.

    Trump also took a stand against wasteful government spending, explaining in his inaugural address that the days of “reap[ing] the rewards of government” were over. And today, regulatory costs imposed on Americans has been reduced by $70 billion.

    The bottom-line to all of this is that sometimes in life you just have to take a stand and say “no.” “No” to continued deficit spending by the federal government, “no” to government-run health care, “no” to higher and higher taxes, “no” to the redistribution of wealth by the government, etc.

    Taking a stand may be hard for people-pleasers. Or the optimists who see the glass as half-full and that every cloud has a silver lining. I get it.

    But I figure it like Martin Luther King, Jr. put it: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.” And whether that’s immigration policy, or an election, or deciding whether your town will build a multi-million dollar sports arena, it all matters. After all, as they say, if you don’t stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.

  • Dear Shreveport…

    Dear Shreveport…

    Dear Shreveport,

    I know you have been through some really tough stuff. The drop in oil prices in the 1980s, the bankruptcies and foreclosures – you have really never been the same since then. The 7,500 jobs lost at the Western Electric plant – that was a rough patch, too, I know. I mean, so many good people have left you behind for greener pastures, and after 40 years, some just never came back.

    I was happy to hear the news, though, about your discovering the Haynesville Shale in 2008, and just couldn’t believe when the drop in oil prices came so fast, and caused so many rigs (and jobs) to leave for other states. Then you had to cope with the GM Plant closing in 2012. I was so sorry to hear about those thousands of jobs disappearing – good paying ones, too, I know. And even though you knew it was coming, you’re really never prepared for something like that.

    But enough of all that talk…it’s important to remember the good times, too, right? Like when the census came out in 1970 and it showed no growth in population? That’s when you came up with a plan to develop an interstate highway from Shreveport to south Louisiana (I-49), and to complete the Inner Loop, and get graduate courses at LSUS – and population did grow.

    But before that, in the late 1960s, remember how you would go down to Baton Rouge to meet with Governor John McKeithen, over and over? That’s how LSU-Shreveport and Southern University got started here, and most importantly, that’s how you got the medical school started. And none of that would have happened without you believing in you.

    Now, I know you are probably feeling hurt, angry, frustrated, or shut down with how everything is around you today. Maybe there’s not much that could make you feel better at this point. But I know this: you have to start treating yourself better, like the best Shreveport you’ve ever been.

    And from what you’ve been saying about yourself recently, it makes me very sad.

    Ever since this Pelican’s “G-League” proposal has been out there, you’ve let everyone know how much you stink.

    You’ve posted on social media about how “the people that sit on the selection committee have sense not to select such a crime ridden city for any new ball team” and that you’ve “never fully understood what creates a successful venue.” And then you posted, “Get out now, folks. It ain’t gonna get better in Shreveport!”

    Look, you can’t keep talking to yourself this way. I don’t know if this Pelican’s “G-League” is a good idea or not, but this stinking thinking has to stop. All that stinking thinking does is make you feel defeated, discouraged, and depressed. Haven’t you ever heard that you are what you think about?

    Instead of all this negative talk, how about asking, “What can I do differently this time, to make sure I don’t mess up again?” Yes, over the last 20 years, seven semi-professional teams tried to make Shreveport-Bossier their home. But again, the question is not how horrible you think you are or unworthy. The question is, “Can it be done differently, this time, to get a better result?”

    Perhaps this just isn’t the right time for you to do this basketball deal. That’s okay, but that’s no reason for you to bad mouth yourself to the world. How you speak to yourself is important. The Bible tells us this also, “For as he thinks in his heart, so is he.” (Proverbs 23:7).

    And I do think some of it is the people you are hanging around. You keep letting people lead you around every 4 years or so who don’t have a plan, and it has to stop. They may intend to do good, but if intentions are all that were needed to be successful, or to stop smoking or to lose weight, then we’d all be a lot happier and healthier.

    You had a plan of action back when you were going to Baton Rouge and meeting with Governor McKeithen in the late 1960s. And you had a plan when you wanted to build I-49 and make the Red River navigable in the 1970s, and attracted General Motors.

    You have been at your best when you’ve had a game plan, and players on your team who could execute the strategy. Right now, you simply don’t believe you can win.

    For too many years, I know you feel like you have been living in the shadow of your more successful brother in Dallas, and that you’re not as fun and pretty as your sister, south Louisiana, but it doesn’t have to be that way, Shreveport.

    I know there is greatness within you, and you should remind yourself of the same, because it’s time to change not only how you talk to yourself, but the way you look and your so-called friends, because you’ll never become what you need to be by remaining what you are.