Category: Healthcare

  • The Shepherd Tends His Flock

    The Shepherd Tends His Flock

    Pope Francis is only the fourth Pope to visit the United States. As he visits Washington, D.C., New York City, and Philadelphia, the crowds who come to see him stretch for as long as the eye can see. Many say that millions will crowd out one another to merely catch a glimpse of the Pope because our country, as well as across the world, are starving for spirituality. In fact, Mother Theresa once said that the poverty in the West is a different kind of poverty – one of spirituality, adding that “there’s a hunger for love, as there is a hunger for God.”[br]

    After all, Jesus had said the same, saying, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty….” And it is perhaps this point that explains why so many millions, even those who are not of the Catholic faith, will get up at 4:00 a.m. in the morning, or travel thousands of miles, if only to be in the presence of the Pope.[br]

    And as Catholics, we believe that whenever the Pope teaches a doctrine on faith or morals, and asserts his official authority as leader of the Church, he is to be held infallible, or otherwise incapable of error. But when the Pope makes statements about what many feel are political matters, and not of faith or morality, many say that the Pope is still infallible, and should not be questioned, especially by Catholics.[br]

    Recently, the Pope advocated for the U.S. to open its borders to refugees from around the world, saying, “When the stranger in our midst appeals to us, we must not repeat the sins and the errors of the past.” Is this a truth? Or is that his opinion?[br]

    Surely he knows that 80% of our population growth is already from immigrants that are in our country, and we spend $113 billion on the effects from illegal immigration, and that we’ve even set-up sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants by immunizing them from the laws of our very own country.[br]

    And surely he knows that our country is nearly $20 trillion in debt, and that unchecked illegal immigration has continued to overcrowd our schools and made learning more difficult for our children, since we know that smaller schools tend to have higher attendance and graduation rates, less violence, higher grades, and test scores.[br]

    I’m sure he knows that continuing to allow illegal immigration to grow chaotically, without a plan, means that our nation’s ability to care for the sick, regardless of their citizenship, will continue to decline, as hundreds of hospitals are now closing or reducing treatment services because the uninsured number of illegal immigrants continues to grow. The average wait time in a California emergency room, for example, is now 4 hours (and growing).[br]

    When he blames the Syrian refugee crisis on the “the god of money” or on a “bad, unjust” socio-economic system, but doesn’t comment on the Islamic State that has now taken over half of Syria, a third of Iraq and is expanding out into Gaza, Libya and Afghanistan – is this a truth, or is that his opinion?[br]

    He has criticized global leaders for their failure to combat climate change. But is it his opinion that the earth is warming, or it is a truth? Surely he knows that in 2014 there was record ice in Antarctica, record snowfall, record cold, and that the oceans are rising much less than predicted (95% less). Surely he know that nature produces much more CO2 than man, and that 99% of scientists don’t believe in man-made global warming.[br]

    Despite this all, how can we question the Pope if he is infallible? This illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and imperfection. After all, there are many Popes that even disagree with one another. Infallibility does not make a Pope’s private, theological opinions become “truth”. He learns the “truth” as we all do – through careful study. His infallibility, according to the Catholic Church, applies to “solemn, official teachings on faith and morals.”[br]

    Whether you believe or not that the Pope is infallible on matters such as immigration or global warming, we simply cannot have it all. Life is a series of trade-offs. You can’t have all of the joys of having children, and then have lots of time for yourself, or your career. You can’t eat poorly, and then have good health. You can’t speak up and remain silent.[br]

    So when the Pope offers his comments, surely he also expects us to consider there are trade-offs to achieve the great works we are called by God to accomplish, such as extending mercy to those who are suffering and coming to our country, while making sure we have a sustainable system in place to transition them from pain to prosperity.[br]

    After all, we are not called to merely accept our circumstances, but to change the things we can change. As Pastor Joel Osteen wrote, “You were not created to just get by with an average, unrewarding, or unfulfilling life. God created you to leave your mark on this generation.”[br]

    And we can do that. The path we take to do so may be different than Pope Francis imagines today in his speeches, but I’m sure he won’t mind how we do it – not because it may reveal his infallibility – but because it reveals the teachings of Christ truly are.

  • Out of Sight, Out of Mind

    Out of Sight, Out of Mind

    There are not many readers who would encourage smoking, drinking alcohol, or taking drugs while pregnant. In fact, many people become angry – and sad – when they see reports on television, or read stories in the newspapers about women who abused alcohol, or ingested methamphetamines, for example, during their pregnancies, and their babies suffered, as a result.

    Recently, there was a story of a 22-year old mom from Tulsa who gave birth to a premature baby while she was high on drugs, and then placed the infant on a pile of trash and did nothing while the baby turned blue. Or the heart-wrenching stories from hospitals, where often a baby’s first experience of the world is the slow withdrawal from drugs, as they suffer vomiting, diarrhea, low-grade fevers, and seizures, because their mom abused heroin, for example, during her pregnancy (heroin use by women alone, incidentally, is up 100% since 2009).

    Even the unapologetically, pro-choice magazine, Cosmopolitan, recently tweeted out that it was “REALLY disturbing” to see how unborn babies react when their mothers smoke and that “nicotine is terrible for unborn children”.

    On one hand, then, there are those whose hearts hurt for the babies in the neonatal intensive care units, or the addicted babies whose pain can be viewed through the monitor during an ultrasound scan.

    And on the other hand, many of these same people remain silent on – or even promote – the matter of abortion or the selling of fetal body parts for science, which are harvested from those abortions.

    The trouble for those whose hearts cry out for the newborn child suffering in NICU with tremors and sweating, and not for the unborn child killed in a way that would best preserve its body parts for sale, is that – for too long – out of sight has been also out of mind.

    But as technology continues to make more visible the life of the unborn (and no longer out of sight) remaining silent is becoming more difficult to reconcile with one’s conscience. After all, for many, abortion is a private decision only between a woman and her doctor, as part of a Constitutional right to privacy. If that’s true, then none of us have any standing to object to how many drugs or how much alcohol a pregnant woman ingests, which may be slowly killing her unborn child, since none of us have any standing, in the first place, to object to her killing the unborn child altogether, all at once.

    It’s insincere and inconsistent to express disapproval at a pregnant woman who is abusing drugs or alcohol, while at the same time we are condoning the killing of their unborn child. And until we reconcile this contradiction, the problem will only get worse.

    In fact, Louisiana already performs worse than nearly every other state in the nation for infant mortality rates, preterm births, low birth weights, etc.

    And that is saying a lot, because nationally the number of addicted babies admitted to neonatal intensive care units has nearly quadrupled – with a new addicted baby being born every 25 minutes.

    There are some people that say the dangers of alcohol or cocaine to the unborn child, for example, are exaggerated, and that calls for concern are merely the invention of pro-life supporters who are wanting to find ways to criminalize abortion, and interfere with the relationship between a woman and her doctor.

    The problem with that is the federal government’s own studies, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which indicate that the suffering to both the mother and unborn child are real. They concluded that smoking during pregnancy can cause tissue damage in the unborn baby, particularly in the lung and brain, and babies whose mothers smoked are about three times more likely to die from SIDS.

    They found that mothers who drink alcohol can cause the baby to develop issues in learning and remembering, understanding, and following directions, controlling emotions, communicating, and socializing. And their statistics show that taking drugs during pregnancy also increases the likelihood of birth defects and stillborn births.

    But all of this is only important if you end giving birth to the child in the first place. Otherwise, if the unborn child is killed and its body parts are sorted for sale, it’s just another day at the abortion clinic.

    For the pro-choice crowd, however, that’s seems more desirable, since for them it is more painful to see a child suffering on life-support, than after an abortion and on the inventory sheet.

     

  • The Fixer

    The Fixer

    We all know the “fixer”. That’s the 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. In fact, maybe you’re a “fixer”, yourself.

    We tend to vote for “fixers”, too. Our government is filled with them. These are the candidates that promise everything to everyone. The ones that promise to reduce our national debt, even as it has doubled since 2008. The ones that promise to decrease income inequality and poverty, even though there are more Americans receiving food stamps now, and more Americans unemployed, than at any time in our nation’s history.

    Most times, “fixers” are not bad people – just misinformed. They’re people pleasers. And people pleasers have been around a long time. In fact, Rome’s greatest orator, Marcus Cicero, received this campaign advice from his brother in 64 B.C: “Candidates should say whatever the crowd of the day wants to hear.” That advice is equivalent to our modern-day, quintessential political correctness.

    But the political correctness has gotten out of hand. You see, we can’t even ask someone from another country, “Where are you from?” these days for fear of them feeling you are calling them a “foreigner”. Or saying that “America is a melting pot” because that could be considered racist in that you are denying a person their own racial/ethnic experiences. Or expressing that you believe “the most qualified person should get the job”, because that might be taken that minorities are given extra, unfair advantages because of their race. Or saying that “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough,” could be offensive to some because they might think you are saying the poor are lazy and/or incompetent, and just need to work harder.

    And it’s getting more ridiculous by the day. In New York City, Mayor de Blasio just signed a law that will prohibit employers from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal record prior to any job offer. Of course, it is already illegal to not hire someone based solely on their criminal convictions (unless they pose a clear threat to persons or property), but under the new law in New York City, businesses can’t even ask any questions to assess that threat until AFTER they offer the applicant the job. Really?

    Apparently, our court system wants in on the “fixing” of things too because last month the U.S. Supreme Court “fixed” Obamacare (for a second time) by allowing federal subsidies in all 50 states, even in states that did not set-up health insurance exchanges – and even as Obamacare is failing. The Congressional Budget Office now expects that 10 million workers will lose their employer-based coverage by 2021 and that there will be 31 million uninsured under Obamacare, up from its 23 million forecast made in 2011. Unbelievable.

    Another recent example of our government “fixing” something are the new proposed rules from the Department of Labor (introduced last month), affecting “exempt” workers and overtime pay. According to the Department of Labor’s website, the new rules are intended to “transfer income from employers to employees in the form of higher earnings”. This “fix” could not come at a worse time for businesses in our country, since businesses are shutting down at a higher rate today than they are being opened up, which is the first time this has happened in over 35 years, shuttering future job growth now, as well.

    We could go on and on, but the bottom line is that our government cannot “fix” all things for us. Government cannot make us content, make us feel respected or accepted, confer achievement, build our self-esteem, or eliminate life’s inevitable ups and down.

    Despite how much politicians may care about others, they cannot keep anyone from experiencing tough times, mainly because our happiness (or unhappiness) depends on our own actions, and not the hopes or wishes of any government, regardless of how many laws they pass to step in and “fix” this or that – or to make sure everyone is happy.

    “Fixing” our problems by being politically correct, or being all things to all people, has not worked, and perhaps if we stopped trying to “fix” everyone’s problems, we could solve our most important ones for good.

  • Faithfully and Impartially

    Faithfully and Impartially

    By Louis R. Avallone

    Elected Officials Should Do Their Own Work.

    Imagine you were in the hospital to have an important, life-altering medical procedure. As you are being wheeled into the operating room, your doctor informs you that he isn’t actually familiar with the relevant procedure needed to treat your condition. In fact, he doesn’t really understand the surgery he is about to perform on you. However, he tells you that he had a really smart, young nurse study up on it, and that the nurse has given him a good enough idea of what needs to be done and that he’s sure that everything will be fine. How comfortable would you be knowing that your life depended on how well the nurse was able to explain to the doctor a complex surgical procedure, step-by-step, as well as the risk factors involved?

    You probably would not be very comfortable at all. Yet, very similarly, the officials we elect to serve us on our school boards, in our statehouses, and in Congress, are increasingly voting on legislation which they have not read, nor fully understand the risks involved. The responsibility for doing so, instead, is delegated to staff – all whom we haven’t elected whatsoever.

    Remember the 2,700 pages of the Affordable Care Act? Nancy Pelosi famously urged lawmakers to “pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Then Congressman Conyers jumped in and said it was pointless to read that bill unless you had “two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you’ve read it.” And even our own Congressman Fleming, who actually did read the bill, said that the 10,535 pages of final regulations are “incomprehensible.”

    Then there was the $790 billion stimulus package in 2009. It was voted on without a single member of either chamber reading it before voting on it. After all, the 1,073-page document wasn’t posted on the government’s website until after 10 p.m. the day before the vote was taken in Congress to pass it.

    The cap-and-trade bill in 2009 had a 300-page amendment added to it at 3:09 a.m. – and amazingly it still passed when it came up for a vote – on the very same day.

    Even here in Louisiana, the only required “reading” for a bill to become a law is that the title must be read, on three separate days in each house. And that’s it.

    Many contend that our elected officials are simply too busy to read the legislation themselves. After all, many officials say that if they spent all their time reading legislation, they would never get anything done. But impossible for every elected official to merely read the actual legislation itself? C’mon now.

    If your elected official is not able to do that, they should resign or be removed from office, because they’re incompetent.

    We can easily see how important this is in our legislatures, but the same is true in our parish commissions, city councils, and school boards. Consider that the Caddo Parish School Board recently voted to ask voters for $108 million in tax revenue, which effectively doubles the outstanding debt of the school system, even though the Census Bureau shows the population of school-aged children in Caddo Parish continues to decline.

    Even though one-half of the school board members were reporting for duty for the first time since taking their oath of office, the staff of the Caddo Parish school system put this debt-doubling tax before them anyways.

    There was no public debate amongst the newly elected board members that night. No reference to how many hours the school board members themselves had already studied the matter, the finances, or the demographics.

    Instead, the school system staff, like legislative staffers who read and interpret bills for our elected officials in Congress, simply said to each school board member, “sign here”. And they did, unanimously.

    For the veteran school board members that night, they know the history, and this wasn’t their first rodeo. But for the 50% of the brand-spanking new board members who just showed up the night of the vote for the first time, maybe they would have appreciated a little more time to consider the matter before voting to spend $108 million of taxpayer money on their first day on the job. Shame on the school system, though, who put them in that position to begin with.

    Regardless of whether you support the tax proposition or not, that’s not the point here. The bottom line is that our elected officials should understand what they are voting on, before they get ready to go into the chamber to vote, and not just before they go on television to be interviewed. No, we can’t fix our government solely by forcing our elected officials to read the bills. But we can start by voting for folks who actually will do the job to we hired them to do to begin with.

     

  • Democrats and Denial – Not Just a River in Egypt

    Democrats and Denial – Not Just a River in Egypt

    Psychologists call it “confirmation bias”, which is the tendency to search for, or otherwise interpret information in a way that confirms what you already believe, regardless of the facts. You may call it “rationalizing”. Others may call it “missing the forest for the trees”. I call it “denial”, and as the old saying goes, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

    You see, almost 50% of Americans say the mid-term election results were a vote against the President’s policies. And almost every poll shows it too. At least 3 out of 4 of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, not to mention that the President’s approval rating with the American people – and within the black community, as well – is at the lowest level of his presidency. In fact, black voter participation this year increased from the last midterm election, and yet Democrats now hold less elected offices, at both the federal and state level, than at any time since the 1920s.

    Considering that the Obama administration has lost control of both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, Democrats are turning to a familiar, but worn out explanation: It’s not the President’s policies being rejected by the voters. It’s that white people don’t like having a black man in the White House.

    Really? Yes, really. And be prepared to hear a lot of that in the next couple of years whenever Republicans stand in the way of the President’s agenda or oppose his executive orders, from immigration to gun control.

    Nevermind that it was white voters, in a largely white nation, who elected a black man to its highest office in the land. In fact, it was Iowa – which is 95% white – that made him into a contender for 2008. Still, he stirs the pot by telling reporters earlier this year that, “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.”

    Seriously? Nevermind that folks might not really like the idea that their President told them, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your healthcare plan,” while, almost 100,000 Louisianans have had their health insurance policies cancelled this year. Nevermind that you deliberately allowed American guns to make their way illegally into Mexico, where they were used by drug cartels to kill dozens – including a U.S. Border Patrol Agent. Nevermind that you promised Americans an administration filled with “transparency and the rule of law”, even though you issue executive order after executive order, thereby escaping the glare of the legislative process, the need to debate the issues, or to humbly ask for support from the 319 million Americans in this country.

    Race is just about the only song that the Democrats have left to sing now, but it will be completely out of key, though. You only need to look across the country to understand why. In Utah, they just elected young Republican Mia Love to the U.S. House of Representatives (she also happens to be black), and in South Carolina, Republican Tim Scott was elected as the first black U.S. Senator since reconstruction, and is the only black have also been elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.

    Then here at home, there’s State Senator Elbert Guillory from Opelousas. He also happens to be black, and he switched to the Republican Party, after years of seeing the continued plight of blacks in America, who traditionally vote Democrat every time, without any measurable improvement to their communities. Or how about Rev. C.L. Bryant, former NAACP leader and host of America on the Edge radio show here in Shreveport, who says that there is no reason for blacks or Latinos to support this president, when you look at the economic numbers.

    And he’s right. Since 2008, black poverty is up, and unemployment is down. 40% of black males are incarcerated, and 72% of black children are still being born to unmarried mothers. There are fewer blacks participating in the labor force and the unemployment rate among blacks is more than double than it is in among whites.

    This is, in part, why black Republicans are being elected to so many statehouses, city halls, and to Congress. People are voting for these black Republican candidates because of what they believe, not because of the color of their skin. Go ahead Democrats, sing the race song, but the rest of America is humming a different tune these days.

    Mary Landrieu, and Democrats everywhere, can rationalize both hers and the President’s diminishing popularity with the voters by saying that “(t)he South has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans,” but the truth of the matter is that the South is no longer the friendliest place for empty suit politicians that leave any communities – black, white, or otherwise – with little more than empty hands.

    Democrats have paddled minority communities up this river of denial one too many times. And the problem now for Democrats, more than ever before, is that an increasing number of folks in these communities are simply tired of being taken for a ride.

  • Tell Me Lies, Tell Me Sweet Little Lies

    Tell Me Lies, Tell Me Sweet Little Lies

    By Louis R. Avallone

    You probably have heard the song, “Little Lies” by Fleetwood Mac. You know the one. It goes, “Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies…” Well, there’s nothing sweet about this, and frankly, there’s almost nothing that makes me more angry.

    You see, in a recent radio interview with MSNBC host Al Sharpton, President Obama said it did not matter that Senate Democrats didn’t want him campaigning for them in their home states. He explained that those incumbent Senators, many whom are fighting for their political lives, “are all folks who vote with me” and “have supported my agenda in Congress”. We get it. You’re the President and folks need to go along to get along with you.

    But what he said next reveals such an utter disrespect for the truth that it represent one of the greatest threats to democracy everywhere, and an affront to every man and woman who has fought and died to preserve our liberty: He said he told these Senate Democrats running for re-election, “…you do what you need to do to win. I will be responsible for making sure our voters turn out.”

    That’s right, just say whatever you need to say to the voters to win, and I’ll be waiting here at home in Washington, where we can resume my agenda when you get back.

    In other words, it doesn’t matter that the latest polls consistently reflect that almost 3 out of every 4 of us believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction, or that Obama’s approval index is in negative territory.

    It doesn’t matter to Obama how much the American people disapprove of his agenda for America. He only needs the Senate Democrats to further that agenda along – and not you, or me, or the sanctity of truthfulness in democracy.

    But there was a time in our nation when elected officials subordinated their own partisan interests for the greater good of our national interests. There was also a time when there was shame for not following through on your promises, or respecting the will of your constituents. And when you didn’t, there was honor in accepting the consequences.

    These principles were, in large measure, what brought about President Nixon’s resignation in 1974, when both Republicans and Democrats agreed that he had crossed the line. In fact, it was the most prominent of conservative Republicans – not Democrats – who eventually convinced Nixon to resign. And this was after Nixon had been reelected by the largest margin in U.S. history.

    Today, however, doing “whatever you need to do to win” seems to be the moral compass of our politics, and it pays homage to the belief that the ends really do justify the means, even though this is the antithesis of what our founding fathers believed.

    Not sure? Remember Obama promised that, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” Meanwhile, almost 100,000 Louisianans have had their health insurance policies cancelled this year.

    He told us that the “Fast and Furious” program was started under the preceding Bush administration, but it wasn’t. In fact, the Obama administration, in October 2009, deliberately allowed American guns to make their way illegally into Mexico, where they were used by drug cartels to kill dozens – including a U.S. Border Patrol Agent.

    Obama said there was, “Not even a smidgen of corruption,” when questioned about the IRS targeting political groups, such as the Tea Party. But now we know that wasn’t true, and that the IRS “did not follow the law”.

    We were told by Obama that the attack on our embassy in Benghazi was because of a “shadowy character” in our country who made an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam that sparked a “spontaneous riot”, but we now know that wasn’t true either. In fact, the original CIA talking points were revised at least 12 different times by the White House, just to fit their narrative – instead of the truth.

    On Obama’s first day in office, he proclaimed to his staff and the press, “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.” Well, you can see from these few examples, nothing could be farther from the truth.

    So while Mary Landrieu feigns disapproval of Obama, considering the 6-7 score she gave Obama during the Senate debate in Shreveport recently, she still votes 97% of the time with him, and his agenda for America – despite how 3 out of 4 of us feel about that.

    You see, widespread lying simply makes it hard for citizens to make the best choices in the voting machines. And if our culture embraces a “do whatever you need to do to win” philosophy, then voting becomes a sham, and our democracy only an illusion.

    But if the future of our nation is a choice between citizens voting on lies and those who care more about the “ends” than they do the “means”, then you’ll have to forgive me for getting up and leaving when the President starts singing, “Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies…” just to get Senate Democrats elected. That’s a performance – and so out of tune with what we believe as Americans – I just can’t listen to it anymore.

  • Original Ideas

    Original Ideas

    By Louis Avallone

    The trouble with too many elected officials is that there is no idea too stupid for them to subsidize with your money. After all, these bureaucrats have more of your money than they do any original ideas of their own. In fact, many of them would not recognize an original idea if it bit them on the butt.
    [br]
    Instead of leading, our elected officials prefer to be more chameleon-like, and simply be what others want them to be.
    [br]
    But that’s backwards, right? Authentic leaders don’t watch polls to win popularity contests, or calibrate their convictions to win elections. They do the hard work of first setting goals, and then taking initiative.
    [br]
    They spend money on projects that are for the public good, and not merely on projects that help them while they are in office. Genuine leaders are transparent and they cut costs first, instead of raising your taxes. They set examples of good behavior for us, instead of merely legislating what’s good for us. They don’t blame, and they take responsibility for their actions.
    [br]
    As long as government has more of our money than good ideas, this type of leader will become more nostalgic in today’s “modern” world – and increasingly rare among elected officials everywhere.
    [br]
    In fact, Margaret Thatcher once wrote, “Do you know that one of the great problems of our age is that we are governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas?” Maybe that’s why our federal government spent almost $600,000 to study where in a chimpanzee’s brain they get the idea to throw feces. Or why they spent $200 million to fund a reality television show in India to advertise U.S. cotton.
    [br]
    Or why Congress spent over $1 trillion in economic stimulus spending, when the results were record unemployment rates and the highest number ever of Americans collecting food stamps. Is there really any question that it was a good idea?
    [br]
    Or was it really a good idea for the President to propose a $1.5 trillion health care expansion and a $15 billion Medicaid bailout, when over 93,000 of our fellow Louisianans are still receiving cancellation notices for their health insurance, and premium costs are expected to rise, even for healthy citizens of our state, by an average of 266 percent this year?
    [br]
    Is there really any question that $3.7 billion in emergency spending on immigration is a good idea right now, when the current administration is encouraging the very activity that makes $3.7 billion in spending necessary in the first place? If this President won’t enforce immigration laws, aren’t we are only encouraging more illegal activity, and the billions in spending needed to deal with it?
    [br]
    These are all proof-positive examples of a system of government that has more of your money than they do good ideas. If the government spending more of your money was all that was needed to reduce the unemployment rate, pay down the federal debt, decrease the poverty rate, lower healthcare costs, and increase national security at our borders, wouldn’t we have achieved all of this long, long, long ago?
    [br]
    Especially in this election year, the leadership model for our elected officials, which currently measures leadership success by money and power, must be retired, and sent off to the scrap yard of history. We must elect leaders now who have more ideas – and not just more of our money – to solve our country’s most pressing problems.
    [br]
    Perhaps it is true that politics is the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary. But if this remains the conventional wisdom, then how can we really be surprised with the results?

  • 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”.

  • 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”.