Louis R. Avallone

Category: Columns

  • Bull Riding and Voting

    Bull Riding and Voting

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    A bull rider has 8 seconds to achieve a qualified ride, starting from when the bull’s shoulder breaks out of the gate, and usually ending when the rider’s hand comes out of the rope or the rider hits the ground.

    Well, if you are voter in Caddo Parish this November, saddle up, because 8 seconds will be more time than most are given to make their selections in the voting machines – on a ballot that seemingly stretches from here to Hammond.

    The usual elected positions are listed on the ballot, of course, ranging from the U.S. Senate to mayor to city marshal to district judge and city judge, and to school board, city council, public service commissioner, and everything in between. On top of all of that, there are also fourteen (14) Louisiana Constitutional amendments to vote on, as well.

    Since Louisiana voters only have three (3) short minutes to cast their vote once they enter the voting machine, they must either be informed about their ballot selections ahead of time, or they will hastily vote blindly – and what good is having elections if the latter is the result? Voting blindly means simply that you are being bossed around by those who are not voting blindly. And who wants to be bossed around with their vote, anyways?

    Perhaps this is why many of our elected officials can disobey the will of the people, and yet are re-elected to disobey them again and again. Bad choices in those voting machines can result in cities that become bankrupt, or in parishes with higher and higher property taxes, or in needless economic policies that increase our nation’s debt, and in foreign policies that weaken our national security.

    If you are going to vote blindly, just stay at home. If that doesn’t appeal to you, then let’s spend the next two (2) months getting educated on the candidates, and the issues.

    Depending in which districts you live, there are almost twenty-five (25) ballot items, and with only three (3) minutes to select all of them, you’ll have to make a selection every seven (7) seconds in that voting machine before it will be time for you to go.

    And if you haven’t read the fourteen (14) constitutional amendments ahead of time, you’ll never make it in three (3) minutes. There are 626 words describing those amendments on the ballot. And since the average adult reads 300 words-per-minute, that will leave most folks with less than 60 seconds, to make the remaining selections for all of the other elected offices listed on the ballot.

    Many say that a long ballot is one of the reasons that most eligible voters don’t vote at all. Voter turnout is continuing to worsen for the United States (42%). Even the Canadians have a higher voter turnout for their elections (60%) than we do, and we are the role model for democracy around the world.

    But if government is to be brought within the will of people, in an age of declining voter turnout, and low-information voters, then the ballot must be sufficiently short to allow the will of people to be exercised, or we must do our homework before going into the voting machine.

    Some folks might resent the allegation that they vote blindly. But ask many of them whom they voted for in the lieutenant governor’s race in the last election, or in the secretary of state’s race, or the race for state insurance commissioner. How about who they voted for as their parish commissioner or school board member?

    The bottom line, long ballot or short one, we must study the speeches of our candidates for public office, consider the arguments for and against them, and then know why we are supporting or opposing them, in the first place – before we go to vote.

    I’m not a professional bull rider, of course, but less than 8 seconds just isn’t long enough for anyone in a voting machine, particularly when there are so many important items on the ballot to consider.

    Depending on the election results in November, though, bull riding could be an attractive profession for many. I’m sure there is less “bull-you-know-what” being a bull rider than dealing with more government bureaucracy in our lives – any day of the we

  • 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”.

  • Just Doesn’t Feel Right

    Just Doesn’t Feel Right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Selling Out To Fear

    Selling Out To Fear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I could go on and on, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Walking Around Money: The Rich Get Richer

    Walking Around Money: The Rich Get Richer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • For Example: The Benefits of Caring

    For Example: The Benefits of Caring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

  • Crawfish, Dead Plants and Mary: The Season of Health Care

    Crawfish, Dead Plants and Mary: The Season of Health Care

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    I’m not sure if you have heard, but crawfish is so scarce this year that they are double in price, compared to this time last year. After all, crawfish farmers in southern Louisiana have had to endure twice the number of freezes this year, four wintry precipitation events, and one of the coldest months ever in January. During cold weather, crawfish tend to stay at the bottom of their ponds or streams, under dead plants, rather than swimming out and about, and eating and growing.

    Well, crawfish are not the only ones having a difficult time this year. 32,864 Louisianans have signed up for Obamacare, while nearly three times as many Louisianans – 92,739 – have received cancellation notices, not to mention the expected loss of over 35,000 jobs in Louisiana this year due to Obamacare’s implementation. Health care premiums for healthy Louisiana women are expected to increase by an average of 266 percent this year, making it harder for women to make their own health care choices. And to add insult to injury, health care costs continue to rise for everyone. Now comes news that Louisiana insurers, including the largest – Blue Cross – is not insuring all pre-existing conditions, even though that is a central tenet of the Obamacare law.

    Meanwhile, Mary Landrieu is hoping that her record – like Louisiana crawfish during cold weather – will remain out of sight, and covered up by dead plants at the bottoms of Louisiana’s many ponds and streams. After all, it was Landrieu who went to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2009 in support of Obamacare and claimed that, “I am voting for this bill because it achieves the goals I laid out at the beginning of this debate: It drives down costs and expands affordable health care choices for millions of families and small businesses in Louisiana …” But in reality, nothing could be farther from the truth.

    Out of the allegedly tens of millions of uninsured Americans that were supposedly dying in the streets, according to the Democrats in 2009, because there was no government subsidized health care, only a fraction of Americans (six million) have actually “signed up” for health insurance through the government’s website. It is estimated that just as many Americans have also had their policies canceled.

    Nonetheless, the White House is celebrating right now, despite the fact that they have no idea how many of those who “signed up” were already insured, or how many are simply replacing coverage because their previous insurer cancelled their policy due to Obamacare. And we don’t really know what “signed up” really means either. HHS officials say they have no idea how many folks who “signed up” have actually paid their premiums, thereby activating coverage. Really, they don’t know this? It is estimated, though, that as much as 20 percent of folks “signed up” have not paid any premiums at all, which means they will soon have their policies canceled, as well.

    Furthermore, for those six million already “signed up,” we don’t know how many were just comparison shopping online, and only added a plan to their virtual shopping cart to see what the cost would be. As crazy as it sounds, we know that the White House has counted folks as having “signed up” if they just made it to the last screen of the online purchase process. That’s like giving me credit for going to exercise at the gym just because I showed up and took a look around.

    But that’s typical liberal thinking: Focus on the intentions, don’t worry about the facts.

    Unfortunately, the facts speak more loudly here. It was Landrieu who told Louisianans in 2009 that if you liked your plan you could keep your plan. It was Landrieu who said she wouldn’t support a health care bill that had a small business mandate, even going as far as saying, on the floor of the Senate, that “the bill also has no employer mandate.”

    It was Landrieu who incredulously claimed, just this past December, that this “law is working well” and that anyone who said otherwise is part of the “intentional” misinformation campaign. But Louisianans see the handwriting on the wall. They understand the Congressional Budget Office has forecasted that the same number of Americans will be uninsured in 2016 with Obamacare as would have been uninsured without Obamacare, and that the Democrats in Washington have taken Landrieu, and all of Louisiana, for a joy ride through a little town called, “Ridiculous,” just outside of “Insanity City,” on their way to “Doesn’t Make Sense.”

    This leaves little doubt why Democrat party registration has dropped to 46 percent in Louisiana, which is a new low, and that Landrieu is the only Democrat left in statewide office. It’s why President Obama lost Louisiana by 18 percentage points in the 2012 election, and why it is even more incredulous Landrieu still voted 97 percent of the time with Obama last year.

    So as this election year progresses, and as more and more Louisianans learn the facts, let’s make sure that the crawfish won’t be the only ones getting out and about, and growing. If we don’t, we’ll all soon be paying double for a lot more than just crawfish.

  • Policy Disasters: Politicians Don’t Have to Follow the Path of “Learned Helplessness”

    Policy Disasters: Politicians Don’t Have to Follow the Path of “Learned Helplessness”

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    It’s called “learned helplessness.”

    It’s a state where you have given up hope and effort that your actions will affect your outcomes, even when later you’re in a position where control of the outcome is completely within your reach. It’s why women stay in abusive relationships, or why the poor feel that no matter how hard they work, or how much education they get, they will never escape their present lot in life. And it must be why so many folks don’t even bother to vote, or take part in our political process, because they’re discouraged that nothing gets done or will change anyway.

    It’s a problem in politics because the important issues facing our nation are so vast, and the solutions seem so monumental. For many, the mountain is simply too big to climb, or the hole dug is too deep to get out of, so why bother?

    But it doesn’t have to be this way. Today, our nation is buried under a mountain of debt, 5 million Americans have had their health insurance policies cancelled as a result this administration’s policies, the gap between the rich and poor has widened to a point not seen since the Great Depression, respect for our nation is dwindling as world leaders seemingly taunt the United States and unemployment is so rampant that there are three unemployed people for every job opening in our country today.

    With all of that said, it’s clear that too many Americans suffer from “learned helplessness” when it comes to electing the same politicians, election cycle after election cycle, even when real change, and the choice to send someone else to Washington or Baton Rouge, is plainly within their reach.

    For these folks, they say, “Why bother?” I say, “Hogwash.”

    You don’t have to be expert in all of the important issues of our day to escape “learned helplessness,” or to believe that what you do can make a difference. You only need to look at example after example of liberal policies that have caved in on themselves, and litter the scrap yards of life.

    The British tried appeasing Hitler in the 1930s, because they were convinced war was immoral, and that we must have “peace in our time.” That approach didn’t work out, of course. Hitler became stronger, and millions more died through appeasement, than would have otherwise. And what are we doing in the Middle East today? Appeasement.

    Or what about the administration’s proposal to raise the minimum wage? If you already know that unskilled minorities, aged 16 to 19 years old, are already experiencing a 37.8 percent unemployment rate, and you raise the minimum wage, how do you help these folks when they would be the first workers to be let go after the minimum wage is raised?

    Or how about this example? Liberals are always talking about unfettered, free access to contraceptives, and how abstinence is simply old-fashioned, foolhardy thinking. Yet, in example after example, the well-intentioned liberal thinking falls short, time after time. In New York City, for example, schools distribute thousands of the “morning after pill,” as well as prescriptions for birth-control pills, intrauterine devices, hormonedelivering injections, etc. to help to prevent pregnancies.

    However, and despite liberal intentions, one of every 10 abortions occurs in New York. More abortions are performed on minors, more late term abortions, and more repeat abortions, are performed in New York City than anywhere else in the country. If this is one of the most important issues for women in history, how can this debauchery be good for the very women these liberals are intending to help?

    We could talk about how, because of the Affordable Care Act now, and the rising insurance costs to employers, the most qualified candidate for a job may never get the job because the most attractive candidate may be the one already covered by their parent’s or spouse’s health insurance policy, saving the employer the cost of the premium altogether. Ridiculous.

    And we could talk about how fulltime employment, under the Affordable Care Act, is now defined as working 30 hours per work. At 30 working hours per week, you can see that we’re fast becoming a nation of under-achievers.

    We could also talk about how, in 1999, liberals prodded the Fannie Mae Corporation to ease the credit requirements, and encouraged them to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit was generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. And it didn’t take long for the housing market to collapse just a few short years later, of course.

    Here’s the bottom line: As a nation, we must re-learn that success is within our control, and that we can affect the outcome, but can’t keep doing what we’ve doing, or we’ll simply keep getting what we’ve been getting. Escaping “learned helplessness” is understanding that it is not the blowing of the wind that determines our destination; it’s the setting of the sail.

     

    And that starts by electing folks that “get” that idea and who see the promise, and are likewise willing to pay the price.