Robert Mann, who holds the Manship chair in journalism at Louisiana State University and is an author, political blogger and longtime congressional staffer, will be writing a weekly opinion column for NOLA.com and The Times-Picayune. His column, which will focus on state politics, will debut this Sunday (May 26) in the Reflections section. He also will be participating in regular online chats with readers at NOLA.com.

Read more

Here are some excerpts:

Higher education is critical to economic development, especially as we see global shifts to a knowledge-based economy. Further, it takes talent to breed talent, and it is critical for our higher education institutions to have the funding and latitude necessary to attract and retain talent among their ranks. Unfortunately, Louisiana’s higher education systems are facing a funding crisis, and are not equipped with the mechanisms necessary to fill the gap with self-generated revenue. As such, BRAC maintains its policy position to pursue reforms that return control over tuition and fees to higher education management boards.

Sharp Funding Declines

Since fiscal year (FY) 2008-09, state funding for higher education has decreased by 36.7 percent, a reduction of $570 million, as shown in Figure 1.1. Furthermore, over the same period, mandated costs have increased 26 percent. In FY 2008-09, mandated costs were $428 million, and in FY 2012-13, costs expanded to $607 million.  Louisiana’s higher education system has been kept from the brink through self-generated funding, mainly in the form of tuition and fee increases. The outlook for FY 2013-14 is expected to continue the trend of reductions in state funding and increases in self-generated funding.

These cuts not only make it more difficult to retain talented professors, researchers, and staff, but also put Louisiana further behind our fifteen Southern state peers. As of 2011, Louisiana ranked fifteenth (out of sixteen) among peers in total funding per full-time enrollee (FTE). . . . Total funding for Louisiana students enrolled in four-year universities ($10,867 per FTE) still falls significantly below the Southern average ($14,189 per FTE). Louisiana’s total funding for two-year institutions, such as community colleges, ($5,485 per FTE) is also lower than the Southern average ($6,878 per FTE).

Tuition Controls

While state funding continues its downward trend, Louisiana’s higher education institutions lack autonomy over their tuitions and fees. While the GRAD Act of 2010 (Granting Resources and Autonomies for Diplomas) provided limited tuition and fee autonomy for up to 10 percent increases per year, Louisiana is still the only state that requires a two-thirds vote of the state legislature to approve college tuition increases.

As such, Louisiana’s net tuition and fee revenue per four-year college or university student ranks fifteenth (out of sixteen) compared to Southern peers, as shown in Figure 4. Furthermore, Louisiana’s net tuition and fee revenue ($5,783 per four year FTE) is approximately two-thirds of the Southern average ($8,035 per four-year FTE).

In fact, the highest-ranking Southern state (Delaware) generates almost four times as much revenue from tuition and fees as Louisiana. Louisiana’s two-year academic institutions similarly face low tuition and fee revenues. Louisiana ranks tenth (out of sixteen) in net tuition and fee revenue per two-year college or university ($3,231 per two-year FTE).

Louisiana’s two-year academic institutions similarly face low tuition and fee revenues. Louisiana ranks tenth (out of sixteen) in net tuition and fee revenue per two-year college or university ($3,231 per two-year FTW), and is below the Southern average ($3,291 per two-year FTE).

Impact on Louisiana’s Flagship University

The combined effect of state cuts and lack of tuition control is evident at the flagship university, Louisiana State University (LSU). When compared with other premier public research universities, LSU’s core revenues ($30,500 per FTE) lag significantly behind the average ($56,800 per FTE), as shown in Figure 5.8

Furthermore, LSU’s tuition and fee revenue per pupil for 2011 ($7,000 per FTE) is approximately one third less than the average tuition and fee revenue per pupil ($10,500 per FTE) of top Southern research universities. LSU has the second lowest tuition and fee revenue of the eleven schools. While the average U.S. News and World Report ranking for aspirational peers in 2012 was 51, LSU’s ranking was 134.

Summary of Higher Education Funding Analysis

In an environment with diminishing state funding for higher education, tuition and fees are the primary alternative for higher education funding. One might expect states with strong state support to offer low tuition, and states with minimal state funding to have higher tuition. However, Louisiana exerts price controls over the higher education marketplace because it is the only state where the legislature requires a two-thirds vote to increase tuition and fees. This political handle artificially suppresses tuition at below market rates. The funding framework leaves Louisiana’s higher education system in an uncompetitive financial position. For those desiring to see LSU become a premier public research university, this current funding structure presents a significant challenge.

Related articles

• How low can we go? Louisiana higher education leaders decry deep budget cuts (bobmannblog.com)
• LSU fee bill advances, other tuition bills linger (sfgate.com)
• They can’t handle the truth: Why the LSU Board won’t let Fred Cerise testify before the Legislature (bobmannblog.com)
• Bill would allow colleges to set their own tuition (sfgate.com)

By Robert Mann

If you observe the Louisiana Legislature long enough, you might become inured to the narrow-minded, selfish view of the world that too often pervades the place.

Louisiana State Capitol, Baton Rouge, Louisiana (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I will never forget watching a 2003 Senate committee debate on an ethics bill during which a senator berated the legislation at length, not on its merits, but because parts of the proposed law would harm him financially.

I had been around politics for more than 20 years then, so the idea of self-serving politicians was not an alien concept. What was new to me was the brazenness of this senator’s self-interested discussion of the bill, and the utter lack of shock or contempt in the room after he was done.

No one seemed to think anything was wrong when a senator voted against an ethics bill purely because it would make him a bit poorer.

Over time, I came to realize that such statements were not at all rare among legislators.

I recalled that disgraceful episode when I read about the Senate’s narrow defeat last week of Senate Bill 153, “The Equal Pay for Women Act.”

This bill is needed more in Louisiana than almost anywhere else. As the New Orleans Times-Picayune recently noted,

Only Wyoming, at 67 cents, has a wider gender pay gap than Louisiana, according to the most recent statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor. The average man in Louisiana makes $46,313 a year, nearly $15,000 more than the average woman in the state, according to the American Association of University Women, or AAUW.

It’s a nationwide problem, of course. A 2012 report by the AAUW found that

just one year out of college, women [nationally] are paid, on average, 82 cents for every dollar paid to their male peers. The report further shows that women are paid 7 percent less than men even when they work in the same job, major in the same field, and work the same number of hours per week. By some estimates, women could lose up to $1 million over a 40-year career because of the pay gap.

But all of this is apparently news to Republican Sen. Conrad Appel of Metairie who, according to the Baton Rouge Advocate, said

he could see the [equal pay bill] “opening the door for litigation” for small businessmen like himself.

Appel said his wife asked him to vote against SB153 because “it’s not fair to the women who are successful in this world, such as my wife.” She makes more than the men with whom she works and the law could prompt businessmen to pay everyone the same, he said.

Yes, you read that correctly. Appel voted against the bill because he’s concerned that someone might sue him, and because his wife — who apparently draws a very comfortable income — asked him to.

A more self-aware person, having just uttered such shocking words, might have apologized, saying something like, “My God, did I just say that out loud?”

A more principled and ethical group of senators might have hooted Appel off the floor for voting his self-interests and paying no mind to the greater good or even the substantive merits (or demerits) of the bill.

But, of course, nothing of the sort happened.

That’s because it’s just not unusual to observe a House or Senate member blatantly vote his or her interests.

They’re not all selfishly devoted to their own personal and financial wellbeing, of course. But far too many members seem to be — and too many others are apparently desensitized to the appalling greediness and ignorance in their midst.

If a member can safely stand on the floor of Louisiana’s Senate and announce his opposition to a bill based on how it personally affects him and his wife, something is dreadfully, terribly corrupt in Baton Rouge.

Is there any hope for an institution whose members do not know shame?

Related articles

• How low can we go? Louisiana higher education leaders decry deep budget cuts (bobmannblog.com)
• Louisiana senators vote to keep creationism in science class – again (richarddawkins.net)
• They can’t handle the truth: Why the LSU Board won’t let Fred Cerise testify before the Legislature (bobmannblog.com)

Dr. Fred Cerise

By Robert Mann

If Louisiana’s Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee wanted to learn more about the consequences of privatizing the state’s charity hospitals, it could not find a more knowledgeable and experienced witness than Dr. Fred Cerise.

Which, of course, is exactly why Gov. Bobby Jindal’s LSU Board of Supervisors won’t allow Cerise to testify.

Cerise is an internal medicine physician who spent 13 years teaching medical students and treating uninsured patients in the state’s public hospital system. Before then-Gov. Kathleen Blanco appointed him secretary of the state’s Department of Health and Hospitals in 2003, Cerise was an administrator at Earl K. Long Hospital in Baton Rouge. After Blanco left office, Cerise went to the LSU System, where he became vice president for Health Affairs and Education, in essence running the state’s charity hospital system.

Cerise cares deeply about expanding access to health care to the working poor, an issue very low on Jindal’s priority list. (Actually, it’s not on Jindal’s list, at all.)

Of course, Cerise’s integrity and his willingness to tell hard truths are qualities not valued by Jindal and his bosses on the LSU Board.

The board fired Cerise last August after it became clear he opposed Jindal’s plans to privatize the state’s public hospitals. Cerise also strongly supports accepting federal money to expand the state’s Medicaid program for the working poor.

Jindal administration officials denied that they ordered Cerise’s dismissal, but Jindal’s statement after his firing made it clear that the governor wanted him gone.

According to the Baton Rouge Advocate in a story last August,

When asked Friday for an interview about Cerise no longer being in charge of LSU’s hospitals, Jindal sent a prepared statement through his press office. “That’s a decision for the board and the LSU System President. With the changing environment in health care today, LSU’s health system needs a leader who can implement reforms that deliver services more efficiently,” Jindal said in the statement.

But here’s the problem for Jindal and the LSU Board: Cerise still works for them. They could remove him from his position as head of the health system, but they could not remove him from their payroll until his contract expires.

He still works for the state, which means when a legislative committee summons him, his employers really shouldn’t have any say about whether he testifies.

But that’s not how the LSU Board sees it, which should tell you a great deal about who is really running the LSU System.

According to Thursday’s Advocate, when the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee asked Cerise to testify about Jindal’s hospital privatization plan, the LSU Board denied the request.

State Senators told members of the LSU Board of Supervisors that they want an explanation for why the university system’s former hospitals chief, Fred Cerise, was directed not to attend a legislative hearing to discuss plans to privatize the LSU hospitals.

State Sen. Ed Murray, D-New Orleans, said he asked Cerise, who is still an employee of LSU, to come to a recent budget hearing. He said he was told that Cerise was denied his request to take a personal leave day to attend the meeting.

“That’s really disturbing,” Murray said Wednesday, during LSU board members’ confirmation hearings before the state Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee. “I think that sends a really bad message.”

Here’s the very clear message this telling little episode sends, beyond Jindal’s well-known disdain for dissent in his ranks: Jindal and his staff are fully in charge of the LSU Board, down to which employee is allowed to testify before the Legislature.

My evidence? It’s circumstantial, but allow me to make my case.

Can you imagine any truly independent board of state government having the audacity to blow off a legislative committee in this fashion, telling legislators that an employee is not allowed to testify?

If a body, like the LSU Board, was bold enough to prevent someone as prominent as Cerise from testifying, it’s apparent to me that they did so with the full confidence that a) the Governor’s Office has its back, or, b) this is what the Governor’s Office ordered them to do.

Beyond rank stupidity, there is really no better, more reasonable explanation for the LSU Board telling Cerise he could not take a leave day to testify before the board.

And, consider this: why would Cerise be required to take a leave day to testify about matters that concern his official duties?

It’s fairly evident that Cerise was first told he could not testify. He then decided that he would take a vacation day to appear before the committee. That, too, was denied by his bosses.

So why exactly is the LSU Board of Supervisors so afraid of allowing Cerise to testify before the Legislature?

It may have something to do with this op-ed Cerise published in The Atlantic in December.

But the bottom line is that Jindal is still fully in charge of the LSU Board.

And he and his handmaidens on that board have a problem with the truth.

To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, they can’t handle it.

Funding for Louisiana’s colleges and universities is lower than at any time since 1961, when John F. Kennedy was president.

According to the monthly research letter Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY (and reported in the Louisiana Budget Project’s Daily Dime), spending in 2013 represents Louisiana’s lowest investment in higher education since 1961 (the numbers compare spending based on $1,000 of personal income for each year).

Another way of looking at the data is described in a story in Friday’s Baton Rouge Advocate. Reporter Koran Addo writes,

State general fund support for Louisiana’s public colleges and universities has been cut more than 80 percent since the 2007-2008 fiscal year. Louisiana’s youth services have been cut 40 percent, Veteran’s Affairs has been cut 69 percent and the Department of Environmental Quality has had a 96 percent cut.

In Wednesday’s Lake Charles American-Press, columnist Jim Beam offered these observations on the same cuts:

[Gov. Bobby] Jindal for the last five years has submitted budgets that count on revenues that aren’t always dependable. And when the money doesn’t show up, higher education and health care take the hits.

Neither of those areas is protected from budget reductions, so they pay a heavy price when money comes up short. They have faced mid-year budget reductions every year Jindal has been in office. There have even been some year-end cuts.

Take higher education, for example. The state spent $1.4 billion for colleges and universities in fiscal year 2007-08. The budget Jindal proposed for the fiscal year starting July 1 contains $284.5 million for higher education. That is an 80 percent reduction in state funding over those years.

The governor always justifies the cuts by saying colleges and universities have been able to raise tuition to make up the difference. However, that just isn’t the case. While I am writing this, there are higher education officials in the state Capitol who are speaking in favor of bills that would give them authority to seek even higher tuition.

So, how have the deep budget cuts affected Louisiana’s colleges and universities? In testimony Thursday before the Senate Finance Committee, several state higher education leaders laid out the consequences in stark terms.

State Commissioner of Higher Education Jim Purcell described the cuts to LSU and Baton Rouge Community College. He said LSU has seen its state appropriations cuts by 53 percent ($125 million) since 2008. Jindal and the Legislature have slashed BRCC’s budget by 51 percent ($10.7 million) in the same years, he said. As the Advocate reported,

A major research institution like LSU can’t fulfill its mission with that type of year-after-year budget uncertainty, Purcell said. And BRCC can’t adequately fill the area’s workforce needs with that dramatic a decline in state funding, he added.

Louisiana pays its teachers the lowest rates among peer institutions in the South, all while cutting 9 percent of staff in recent years to save money and also grappling with the rising costs of unfunded mandates from the state, he said.

“We realize a highly subsidized higher education system will not be the case in Louisiana, but stable support is critical,” Purcell said. “Louisiana needs higher education to remain viable. This is your time to show your support when higher education is at its most vulnerable.”

LSU’s interim president, William Jenkins, had his turn at the microphone, painting a picture just as dire as Purcell’s, as reported by The Advocate.

Jenkins said LSU suffered the “steady attrition” of high-quality faculty members over the past several years as a result of the budget cuts.

“The strength of a university depends on faculty and support staff,” Jenkins said. “It’s hard to stay competitive when you start losing quality faculty.”

Jenkins said the student-to-faculty ratio at LSU has risen from 18-to-1 to 23-to-1 in recent years.

“I can’t look you in the eye today and tell you we are going to be able to hold our position,” Jenkins said. “It’s just not possible; it’s sad.”

By the way, the headline for this post was inspired by the editorial cartoon below. It’s by the great Fred Mulhearn and is featured in Friday’s Baton Rouge Advocate.

“The poor will always be with you.” –John 12:8

(Photo credit: Nationaal Archief)

By Robert Mann

Not long ago, I spoke with a friend about the sad state of Louisiana’s education system.

I mentioned a story in that day’s New York Times, citing studies that indicate a student’s performance in school is determined not as much by race, but by wealth. Students from affluent backgrounds simply do better in school, for all kind of reasons, which you can read about in the piece at this link.

We spoke of education and poverty for a minute or two — and then my friend said, “You’re right, I’m sure. But I don’t know what we can ever do about poverty.”

I nodded my head, and we changed the conversation.

My inability, or my unwillingness, to continue this conversation by going deeper into a discussion about the real causes of poverty and how to fight it has troubled me.

I know that our seeming impotence in the face of poverty is sometimes debilitating. We don’t know where to start, so we don’t start at all. Many of us help the poor in various ways; but I’m talking here not about acts of mercy, but rather about justice.

The questions are fairly simple: What can someone like you and me do that would address the root causes of poverty in our society?  What are the initiatives or programs we should get behind, the policies we should champion, the organizations we should support?

The answers, of course, are not quite so simple.

So, I reached out to more than a dozen friends, colleagues and students, and invited them to ponder these questions.

Here’s what I wrote:

What can we do by ourselves or together that would change lives in our community, our state or the nation? What could we do beyond becoming a reading friend, serving at a soup kitchen, or contributing to the food bank?  Or, are individual acts of mercy the very thing we should focus on (I think of that saying, “Everyone wants to save the world, but no one helps mom with the dishes.”)

Please give some thought to this very simple question, “What can we — I — do about poverty?”

In about 24 hours, I had an inbox full of responses, each of them thoughtful and insightful.

At first, I thought I would write a dazzling, brilliant post in which I synthesized the various comments. Instead, I’m allowing them to speak for themselves

Some respondents resisted my entreaty to set aside personal acts of mercy, insisting, correctly, that nurturing relationships with the poor is a very big part of attacking poverty.  One wrote,

Mentor a child in poverty.  Yes, that means reading to her and with her, but it’s more than that.  Find ways to help that child feel valued and worthwhile.  Talk to her, but more importantly, listen to her.  Convey the message that her thoughts and feelings matter.  Without lecturing, teach her about delayed gratification, encourage her, and talk about the necessity of perseverance in reaching a goal.  If she’s old enough, help her understand the concept of “the feminization of poverty” and what she can do to avoid that fate.  

Similarly, another friend told me,

In my personal experience, a “hand out” is not a “hand up.” As the expression goes — “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.  Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” I would take it one step further – ”Inspire a man to want to learn how to fish.” We are talking about value formation here, something that is transmitted at a very early age and is unfortunately limited by the normative culture of the generational poor. Change can happen but it needs to be a sustained one on one effort. The children of the poor should be, in my opinion, the focus of social change. Role models and mentors are powerful influences. Providing adults with skills to enable them to function productively in society will only be effective if their inherent cultural values are modified to the degree that desire for change is internalized. 

Most of my respondents, however, focused on acts of justice.

And each wrestled in profound ways with my questions.

One friend, in particular, responded with a message that expressed perfectly the frustration I sometimes feel when thinking about poverty:

Anais Nin has said, “And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.”

How much pain do I have to feel before I am willing to address the problem? Is the problem of poverty for me or a loved one or someone I work with causing enough pain that I want to do something about it?

Charity work is very important. It puts people close to the problem of poverty. It puts people close to people who are suffering. What transforms a person from someone who helps another through works of mercy to someone who wants to end the obstacles and systems that keep that person in poverty?

I see two types of people who respond in ways of charity. There is the person who feels good about their works of charity but continues to judge the person who takes charity. Then there is the person who allows herself to be changed by the person she serves. That opening of the heart to the “other,” without judgment, sets the stage for transformation that moves one from charity work to justice work. The acknowledgement that I have something to learn from the other in this experience, is the humility needed to realize that I am not the more important person in this transaction just because I have the resources and the other needs me. We are both children of God with gifts to bring to one another. This requires risk. When I acknowledge that others are gift to me and allow myself to be changed by this, then I can begin to look to the other as capable of working on the problems with me, determining solutions together to solve our problems of poverty. 

But this still begs the question: What’s the best way to attack poverty?

For one friend, it’s changing the political system:

My first thought was if we don’t get money out of politics so our representatives can address important priorities without an eye on the next election, poverty will continue to grow as a social problem.  Public officials are so focused on getting money to run again, and on enacting policies that please their donors that they have lost sight of any mission to work for the common good.  

Another friend pointed to the political system, as well, only from a different angle:

Louisiana has been going in the wrong direction in public investment, which is one reason our poverty rate is climbing while the rest of the country has stabilized. We keep hearing about a “spending problem” in state government, when in fact state revenues as a percentage of the overall economy (GSP) are at a 20-year low. We spend money on TOPS for average kids who don’t need the help, but refuse to boost spending on need-based aid even as the need increases during a deep recession. We subsidize film producers and frackers but freeze the MFP and cut money for the least among us. We get tax proposals from the governor that would make the rich richer and the poor poorer, and when that won’t fly we don’t think about raising revenue but instead devolve into a stupid, pointless battle over “one-time” money.  

Several noted the link of poverty to our poor education system:

I strongly believe that education is the strongest driver of social mobility, so naturally I would encourage individuals wanting to make a difference to get behind literacy campaigns, education reform, job retooling, job networking, etc. However, adequate public schooling does not address the issue of low-quality home and neighborhood environments. I think the best way to inhibit several of poverty’s pathways is to foster trust within communities and a sense of unity. I think that churches, local organizations, ministries, and charities give local people a chance to tackle the needs of the people around them without waiting on lawmakers to act for them. No one knows the needs of the poor in a particular area better than those that do life around them. Some pathways may be more prevalent in some regions than in others, so this decentralized strategy ensures efficient allocation of resources. Sadly, the culture of many impoverished regions discourages trust between groups/individuals. It prevents informal job networking from occurring and further progress from being made. Local groups can step in and often supplement gaps in government assistance to give people the boost they need to get a job or go back to school.

On education, another said:

Start as early as possible. Poor kids often start school without the same cognitive skills as kids from wealthier, more educated families because they simply don’t have the same atmosphere of learning and discovery at home. We know that money spent on things like high-quality child-care and pre-K programs have a strongly positive return on investment, compared to programs that help older kids or adults. One of the best, most proven anti-poverty tools is the Nurse-Family Partnership, which sends specially trained nurses into the homes of at-risk parents and teaches them basic parenting skills. Children whose parents participated in this program are considerably more likely to graduate high school, less likely to go to jail and more likely to become taxpaying, productive citizens. But the home visits in this program were eliminated as part of the mid-year cuts. Right now, the kids who are most in need of a high-quality child-care program from birth-3 are the ones most likely to be left with a neighbor or relative who puts them in front of the TV all day while mom goes to work at Wal-Mart. . . .

Stop devaluing teachers, and instead give them incentives to teach in low-income areas. Right now, the best teachers often gravitate to the best schools – i.e., the ones with the most high-achieving kids from wealthy families. The kids that most need an excellent teacher often get the dregs of the profession (my lovely wife being an exceptional exception to this rule). The simple fact is that it costs more money to educate a child from a disadvantaged background than it does to educate a kid who already has piano lessons, tutoring and a nurturing, book-filled home environment.

On education, another wrote,

An uninformed and disengaged citizenry works out well for those in power, so expose the child to different attitudes about what it means to be a good citizen, and the importance of being engaged in our political system.  It’s hard for these children to imagine a future, particularly one that looks any different from the present–with good reason.  The odds are stacked against them.  Sometimes, however, one person in a child’s life can make a huge difference.  Big Sisters and Big Brothers are organizations that can connect you with such a child.

Then, there is the problem of race and its connection to poverty. One friend wrote,

How useful is it to compare and contrast poverty with racism? I wish I knew more about this, but I remember hearing that at the time of MLK’s assassination, the Poor People’s Campaign had begun and some believe this was even more threatening to the status quo than his civil rights efforts – that poor whites aligning themselves with people of color (still to this day disproportionately living in poverty) could lead to a political revolution. Throughout US history, there are many examples where the fates of poor whites have been kept separate from poor people of color: indentured servant-hood vs. slavery; housing projects serving as a temporary stepping stone for Irish and Italians, but multi-generational for African-Americans; freedom to use GI Bill to buy (build equity, the cornerstone of wealth) a home in any neighborhood for whites, but not so much for Black veterans.  

 Imagine if all poor people organized, despite race/ethnicity.  But we’ve had the likes of David Duke convincing poor whites to support him even while the numbers of whites on welfare far exceeded the numbers of families of color. (Btw, Duke was the first I remember hearing in LA wanting to drug test welfare recipients. What about testing other recipients of public money, including legislators?!).  Is the tape of Romney talking about “the 47%” much different?  Isn’t it mostly the same language in slightly cleaner code?  If people of color are disproportionately living in poverty, then have anti-poverty measures disproportionately helped people of color?  If historically, poor whites have fared better, then maybe we simply cannot separate racism from poverty.  Sure affluent kids of all backgrounds do better, but what are the odds of becoming affluent?  It’s the same thing as saying individual acts of racism are unacceptable in modern society, and yet systemic racism continues with bi-partisan support.  For example, they will erode our tax base, but throw vouchers at some kids.  Then others cherry-pick the kids and push out anyone not conforming to the system.  Maybe one of those kids with a golden ticket becomes the next Oprah, and then they can say they were successful – that experimenting with public education isn’t racist, just look at Oprah.2.  So the others were what? Too lazy?

I was surprised that only one person mentioned drugs and our deplorable criminal justice system:

We have the world’s highest incarceration rate – and more than 60 percent of state inmates are locked up for nonviolent crimes. About 15,000 felons get released from jail each year in Louisiana and once they have that criminal record they become less employable for the rest of their lives. Simply ending the war on drugs, and the Draconian penalties that it brought, would enable tens of thousands of our fellow citizens to become productive adults once their high-crime, high-risk teens and early 20s are behind them. Recognize drugs as a public health problem.

Perhaps most challenging, to me at least, were my friends who stressed the importance of activism, of throwing oneself into the work of ridding our world of poverty.

[K]eep having conversations with people and writing about economic justice and poverty as moral issues, because they are.  The Occupy movement hasn’t received sustained media attention, and they don’t have a good political strategy, but they serve a good purpose nonetheless.  I don’t for a minute believe Obama and the Dems would have made inequality a campaign issue last year absent that movement.  Poverty hasn’t been atop anybody’s agenda since LBJ and RFK, and still isn’t.  We hear concerns mostly about the shrinking middle class. We need to keep poverty and inequality on the front burner, because, as odd as it may sound, alleviating those injustices would benefit us all.

Nothing happens quickly in Washington unless it involves getting Congress on a flight home for a recess, so we should all be prepared for the long haul in terms of keeping a spotlight on the immorality of poverty/inequality.  Christians, in particular, might want to think about how much time Jesus spent on addressing poverty as opposed to other issues.

More methodical about activism was this friend:

1. Acknowledge that individual acts of kindness, mercy and compassion, as laudable and helpful as they are, will never be enough

2. Acknowledge that corporate action is necessary.  By “corporate” I mean collective, societal action

3. Recognize that our society faces two problems–(1) those who, by reason on age or other conditions, are simply beyond being equipped to rise out of poverty and (2) those who are young enough or otherwise capable of being equipped to change their circumstances.

4. Recognize that we must offer aid to those who are beyond change while at the same time equipping others to change in good ways that will lead them out of poverty. 

5. We need programs for both sets of people (remembering always that these are people)

6. What programs? For those who are past a certain point, basic services for basic needs; for the others, education (e.g., LA 4), job training, employment (by government as a last resort) and the list goes on.  There are plenty of studies that show what works.  What we lack is the collective will to act.

7. What is paradoxical is that despite compelling evidence that it is much cheaper to equip than it is to support, we continue to reject equipping and complain about the cost of supporting.

When it comes to activism, how do we know which program or solution we should be fighting for?  One particularly wise friend had a suggestion that some activists never consider:

We need to hear each other’s stories. We need to learn from the wisdom that comes from suffering. People closest to the problem have some good ideas about how to solve the problems that most impact them. But our policy makers tend to try to come up with solutions based on their own notions of why people are in poverty. That is why people who are apt to “blame the victim” are not the best judge of how to solve the problem of the oppressed. Listen to the oppressed. Listen to the person in poverty.

First step to solving the problem of poverty: listen to those closest to the problem. Build relationships together that will withstand the struggle of solving the problems together.

Step two, find out who among those struggling has the potential to be a leader, someone who tends to lead others, is passionate about people and their issues. Build their capacity.

Step three, look at their issues with them and tackle the issues with them. Start with winnable issues that can help teach the way of tackling bigger issues.

Much of this listening occurs within community organizations and churches, as one of my students noted:

I think the best way to inhibit several of poverty’s pathways is to foster trust within communities and a sense of unity. I think that churches, local organizations, ministries, and charities give local people a chance to tackle the needs of the people around them without waiting on lawmakers to act for them. No one knows the needs of the poor in a particular area better than those that do life around them. Some pathways may be more prevalent in some regions than in others, so this decentralized strategy ensures efficient allocation of resources. Sadly, the culture of many impoverished regions discourages trust between groups/individuals. It prevents informal job networking from occurring and further progress from being made. Local groups can step in and often supplement gaps in government assistance to give people the boost they need to get a job or go back to school.

Which brings me back to activism on behalf of justice. How and where to start?

So what does justice work entail? When we say justice work, what do we mean? Justice work entails changing systems that perpetuate injustice. Justice work entails maintaining systems that build people up to the potential that God has in mind. America is the greatest place in the world to work to end injustice, to grant people the freedom to make a good life for themselves and their children. How does this work? We can elect who writes the laws. We can tell them what we expect. We can vote them out of office if we don’t like what they are doing. We can talk to the most important leaders in one of the most powerful places on the world. We just need to regain our memory about our ability to do this. And we need to act again as a people who have such power. We need to vote again. We can do our own research about what matters to us, to inform ourselves and others who want change and those who make the policies that affect us. We need to make our democracy work for us again.

For some this work may seem too slow and tedious and laborious. It is. The world will not be changed swiftly. But there are graces along the way that are gifts to us to help us keep going. The grace of friendship is one. The grace of freedom of the spirit. The grace of becoming aware of one’s capabilities, capacity, dignity and belovedness. For me one of the greatest of these graces is a renewed hope in our future.

Speaking of stories, I will end with an eloquent one — shared by former Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco, for whom I worked for several years.

Years ago when I was a member of the Legislature, I hired a housekeeper/sitter who worked for me 5 days a week and helped me with my children, too.  She had six kids and a broken down car.  I had six kids and two broken down cars.  I paid her exactly half of my take home pay, so we were working for the same amount of money.  The difference between us was that I had a spouse who had a good job and she was a single mom.  She was determined that her kids would not think they could use welfare to live on (in the pre-Clinton reform days) and made that point to them quite often.

It has been many years since she worked for me, but we stay connected to her and the children who are now grown with kids of their own.  Only one of her six got into a bit of trouble with the law, which broke her heart.  Most finished high school.  Three or four made it into college and two or three are college graduates.   One is a high school graduate with a regular job who also organized a small family business with his brothers.  He works with them whenever he is off from his day job. 

Most are productive, hard-working children with solid goals for their own children. Some married college graduates. 

Through the years difficulties persisted and we were there to back them up, and still do.  She is just a few years younger than me, but says I am her mom.  If we had not kept our “adopted” family together — which was not always easy with our limited resources that had to stretch over our own large crew — that story would have a different ending.  If she had taught them to be lazy, a good ending would have been impossible. It took both efforts to have any success. 

We had to lend assistance just last week and feel so blessed to be able to do it.  Yes, we do have to wash the dishes with Mom sometimes.  If we can get young people properly educated, poverty can be dented.  I still firmly believe “Education is poverty’s mortal enemy,” my quote from my inaugural address.  

So, what about you? What’s your answer to my questions about attacking poverty?

Please leave your thoughts in the comment section below.

Related articles

• Why Does Poverty Exist? (dwrundod.wordpress.com)
• 1.1m children forecast to fall back into poverty – wiping out a decade of gains (telegraph.co.uk)
• Why is there Poverty and Suffering in the World? (sukkalili.wordpress.com)
• Understanding Poverty in the US (amyybobamyy.wordpress.com)

Come with me back to the good old days, when Gov. Bobby Jindal was a fearless crusader against the special interests and the obscene tax credits negotiated by their dastardly lobbyists.

Let us travel all the way to March 19, 2013.

“Believe in Louisiana” screen shot, April 2013

Here’s what our modern-day St. George had to say in Houma as he pitched his erstwhile tax “reform” plan:

As it stands today, we have over 460 loopholes on the books that make our system complex, volatile and unfair. That’s why I want to overhaul our tax code by eliminating income taxes and getting rid of loopholes that allow powerful special interests to game the system.

Under the current system, if you have a lobbyist and lawyer, you have a loophole. Let me put that a different way.  In 2011, we actually went in the hole on corporate income tax by some $76 million. 

In other words, we actually paid companies through loopholes to not pay corporate income tax. Think about that – we sent more taxpayer dollars to corporations than they paid in income taxes to the state. That goes to show you our tax system is unfair and riddled with loopholes and exemptions. That’s why along with eliminating income taxes, we’re going to eliminate over 200 loopholes. 

Powerful special interest groups will no longer be able to rig the system.  That means everyone will pay their fair share, but no more than that.

Remember the TV spots the Jindal-backed group, “Believe in Louisiana,” aired last month, attacking the special interests and their lobbyists for trying to protect their tax credits?

Now, fast forward to Monday (a mere seven weeks after his March speech in Houma), when an angry Jindal stood before the Capitol press corps, flanked by many of those same lobbyists who still represent the special interests he once disdained.

The source of Jindal’s anger?

Why, certain members of the Legislature want to temporarily cut by 15 percent some of the same corporate tax credits that Jindal once hoped to abolish.

As noted in Tuesday’s New Orleans Times-Picayune:

A $329 million cut in two dozen tax exemptions and a $106 million reduction in spending feature prominently in a bipartisan deal to strip $525 million in one-time money from Louisiana’s budget. The plan would use about half the money taken out of the $24.7 billion budget to fund non-recurring expenses in state government, including road construction, coastal protection and paying down the debt in the state’s pension system.

The details of the proposal, which were circulated to members of the media after Republicans and Democrats separately caucused on the plan, lay out a plan that would boost state revenues by shrinking state tax credits by 15 percent and rely on a[n] increase in existing projections of state tax revenue to balance the budget. The plan would also cut the amount retailers receive for collecting sales taxes and cut other deductions and exemptions. . . .

About $91.7 million would be plugged into the budget by shrinking tax breaks by 15 percent. The tax breaks to be trimmed are: the Motion Picture Investor Tax Credit; the Investment Tax Credit for insurance premiums; the Enterprise Zone program; tax credits for rehabilitation of historic structures; industrial tax equalization; the New Markets tax credit; the research and development tax credit; the Quality Jobs tax credit; tax breaks for wind and solar systems and the conversion of vehicles to alternative fuels; school readiness tax credits; the Louisiana Capital Companies credit; credits for musical and theatrical live performances, digital and interactive media and sound recording; credits for angel investors and investors in brownfields; credits for recycling manufacturing; credits for milk producers; the Sugarcane Transportation Credit; and the apprenticeship tax credit.

Jindal now hates this idea, of course. As reported by the Baton Rouge Advocate.

The governor called a news conference Monday afternoon to accuse legislators of working in secret on a $500 million tax increase that would impact families and businesses.

Surrounding Jindal were representatives for the farming, forestry, film, wind/solar system and health insurance industries. “I just want to call on the Legislature to open up the process. Let the people’s voices be heard,” the governor said.

The governor gave lobbyists, legislators and industry leaders each a turn at the microphone in front of print, television and radio media.

Joe Mapes, a lobbyist for the Louisiana Farm Bureau, said the organization needs to be part of the deliberations on a new budget plan. “When we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu,” he said.

This is the same Jindal, of course, who last month was busy pushing a tax plan that, by his own aides’ admission, would have raised taxes on Louisiana business by $500 million a year.

As the Times-Picayune reported on March 19:

Businesses will bear much of the burden of making Gov. Bobby Jindal’s tax swap plan revenue neutral, with higher and broader sales taxes on their purchases offsetting the elimination of the state’s personal and corporate income taxes and franchise fees, a top administration aide said Monday. Department of Revenue Executive Counsel Tim Barfield, who is serving as point man on the tax overhaul, acknowledged that many businesses will pay more under the proposal, which has been touted as a way to attract more business to the state.

“It’s very clear that business will be taking more of this burden,” he said.

Give Jindal credit for his breathtaking audacity. Most of us would have too much self-respect to run television spots attacking greedy lobbyists and their tax credits in April — and then hold a press conference in May with the very same lobbyists to defend the very same tax credits.

Most of us would shrink from proposing a $500 million tax increase on business in March — and then denounce a temporary $92 million in revenue increases on the same businesses in April.

The mind reels.

Anyone hoping for a sudden surge of progressivism from our hapless lawmakers in Baton Rouge is bound to be disappointed.

After all, these are people who last week embarrassed themselves and Louisiana by refusing to banish creationism – religion in the guise of science – from our classrooms.

When we have legislators who judge an issue like creationism based on personal experience with witch doctors, just how much enlightenment can we expect?

So, it’s clear we should lower our expectations.

Shall we settle for common decency?

There, we shall also be disappointed.

Of course, those legislators taking their marching orders from Gov. Bobby Jindal have thus far refused to extend health care insurance to more than 400,000 of Louisiana’s working poor.

On that issue legislators can, at least, assert that they’re concerned about cost.  Jindal and others claim that expanding Medicaid will cost hundreds of millions in additional expenditures over the next ten years, although the governor’s own Department of Health and Hospitals has suggested otherwise.

But at least the cost is debatable and, therefore, opposition to the program is marginally defensible.

Not so with workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

On Wednesday, a House committee rejected a bill by Rep. Austin Badon (D-New Orleans) that would have banned state officials from discriminating against gay and transgender employees.

House Bill 85 said simply,

It shall be unlawful discrimination in employment for any state employer to subject employees to different standards of treatment or otherwise discriminate in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.  Employment shall include recruitment, opportunity for employment, hiring, firing, a disciplinary action of any kind, promotion, tenure, compensation paid, and any other term, condition, privilege, or status of an individual’s employment.

The bill would have allowed state civil service employees to appeal their firing or mistreatment to the State Civil Service.

In other words, it is now unlawful for the state to discriminate against employees based upon age, race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. To that list, should Badon’s bill become law, would be added sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

Of course, so-called religious groups, including the Louisiana Family Forum, were out in force, testifying against the bill.

According to the Baton Rouge Advocate,

Opponents said the measure would advance a sexual politics agenda and would give special protections to people who choose a lifestyle that violates biblical teachings. They said existing laws provide adequate protection for state workers.

The proposal “does not remedy an existing problem, and it opens the gate for potential contentious and expensive litigation,” said Rev. Dale Hoffpauir, a Lafayette church pastor and chief operating officer of the conservative Louisiana Family Forum.

Hoffpauir said people can’t choose their race or gender, but can leave the “gay lifestyle.”

In his testimony, Hoffpauir cited an example of a gay African-American “friend” whom he counseled about leaving the gay “lifestyle.” This friend, he claimed, is now happily married to a woman. “He left one lifestyle,” Hoffpauir said, “and he is still an African American.”

In other words, you can’t choose your race, but you can choose your sexual orientation. (Listen to this heartrending story, and then tell me that gay children choose their sexual orientation.)

To Hoffpauir, the Badon bill is nothing more than “a political agenda in search of a problem” that “advance[s] an agenda of sexual politics.”

This is the same Hoffpauir who, along with dozens of other Louisiana pastors, signed an open letter to Baton Rouge Mayor Kip Holden asserting their strong objection to discrimination.

Prejudice is wrong. God hates it, we hate it, and it must be eradicated from our minds and lives. We are in total agreement that those who are born with certain inherent distinctions (race, gender, handicap) are Divinely protected in Scripture. We are told to respect and honor them as they are created in the image of God. Our difficulty, Mayor and Council Members, is jumping from those innate characteristics given to us by God to behavior God marks in Scripture as one way of falling short of God’s design for human sexuality.

The letter cites several scriptures, mostly from the New Testament, that appear to condemn homosexuality and one which also denounces, among others, the “effeminate,” “drunkards,” and “revilers.”  (That last one, I think, would include bloggers and Old Testament prophets.)

Look, in America, if you want to be a jerk and hate old people, minorities, the handicapped and gay men and women, that’s your right.  I won’t admire you for it, but I respect your right to be a rotten person.

But here’s the deal, and it’s really as simple as this: it’s disgraceful — and should be illegal — to hire and fire people based on their age, race, sexuality, gender, religion, or country of origin.

In all but one of these categories, Gov. Bobby Jindal and legislators agree.

But bullied by intolerant people who masquerade as followers of Christ, our leaders still allow discrimination against gays and lesbians. Jindal has also refused to renew an executive order prohibiting discrimination against gay state workers, which Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed in 2004.

Of course, the Bible thumpers protest that the Bible condemns homosexuality. We’re merely applying “God’s law,” they protest, which trumps everything else.

There is, however, an enormous problem with this reasoning.

If you wish to use a wooden, literal reading of the Bible to inform or guide the creation of public policy, how do you remain intellectually honest and stop with the Bible’s condemnations of homosexuality.

Why is it that the very people who cite the Bible’s injunctions against homosexuals are so selective in their reading of the rest of the scriptures? If you believe God is talking to policy makers via 1 Cor. 6: 9, then isn’t he talking in the rest of the Bible, too?

If you maintain the Bible is the literal word of God — and use that reasoning to influence public policy — then you must not be allowed to choose which verses to follow or which ones you bring to the public square. (Why is it that, when debating welfare or tax policy, these same people so rarely invoke scriptures that command compassion for the poor?)

By a literal reading of the Bible, God seems to have some issues with more than simply homosexuals.

Let’s keep our women quiet and out of sight.

I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent.  Timothy 2:11

Let’s outlaw divorce.

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Luke 16:18

The death penalty for extramarital sex (only for women, of course).

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22:20-21

The death penalty must be imposed on those who curse their parents.

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.  Leviticus 20:9

No more mercy for petty criminals.

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.  Mark 9:43

If your brother dies, you must marry his wife.

Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.  Mark 12:19

Stand your ground laws must be repealed.

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Matthew 5:39

You must never challenge a lawsuit filed against you.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. Matthew 5:40

In fact, it should be illegal to file a lawsuit.

When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. 1 Corinthians 6:1-20 

Women should be banned from wearing jewelry.

Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes.  Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 1 Peter 3:3-4

I could go on. There are many difficult verses in the Bible. Just spend an hour reading Leviticus.

But if you are a Bible literalist and you thump your Bible before a legislative committee in support of discrimination against gays, how is it that you get to single out only gays for condemnation?

Why shouldn’t it be permissible for Louisiana government to discriminate against adulterers or women who speak in public?

Common sense and intellectual integrity would seem to dictate that any Bible literalist worth his salt wouldn’t pick and choose among people who are deserving of his or her condemnation.

This, however, begs the question: Should lawmakers rely on questionable interpretations of obscure Bible passages when making public policy?

If someone sat before a legislative committee today, citing Bible verses in support of slavery, he would be tossed out and condemned as an ignorant, hateful bigot. The same would happen to anyone suggesting that government ban women from speaking in public.

So, exactly why aren’t the Bible thumping, anti-gay folks at the Louisiana Family Forum tossed out of the Capitol the same manner?

It’s a safe bet that every day someone advises Sen. Mary Landrieu to move further to the right if she wants to win re-election in 2014.

Rep. Bill Cassidy (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

But are any advisors telling her Republican opponent, Rep. Bill Cassidy, that he should move a bit leftward?

If they’re smart, they will.

It’s an article of faith that in a reliably red state like Louisiana, Democrats must run as “Light Republicans” to stay in office.

No doubt, Louisiana is a very conservative state. President Barack Obama lost the state’s nine electoral votes in 2008 to John McCain and again in 2012 to Mitt Romney, earning roughly 40 percent of vote each time. In his 2010 re-election bid, Sen. David Vitter trounced Charlie Melancon. Gov. Bobby Jindal, of course, cruised to victory in 2011 against token opposition.

So, it is reasonable to say that the surest way to win a Louisiana election is to move as far right as possible?

If you’re running for a U.S. House seat in Shreveport, Monroe, Metairie or Baton Rouge, that might be good advice. But in a statewide race, it’s not that simple.

This is a state, after all, in which Obama is now more popular than Jindal.

Jindal’s extreme version of conservatism appears to be wearing thin with voters who liked his conservative rhetoric but aren’t quite as fond of his conservative policies — like privatizing health care, blowing up the tax system and slashing education funding.

Of course, running for the U.S. Senate isn’t the same as running Louisiana government. The latter is much more difficult.

But Jindal’s recent experience with public opinion might offer Cassidy an important lesson: it’s easy to forget that voters aren’t always quite as conservative as some politicians assume.

For instance, consider the issue of universal background checks for gun purchases. When Landrieu announced her support for the Manchin-Toomey amendment, conservatives fiercely assailed her vote.

Typical of the attacks was this commentary in a Louisiana political site, The Hayride:

Louisiana is no less jealous of its gun rights than Alaska, Arkansas and Montana are. We just have a Democrat senator who’s a bit less in tune with our voters than those states do – despite Landrieu’s protestations to the contrary.

One suspects Mary will pay the price for that tone-deaf attitude when she goes up for re-election. After all, her vote didn’t decide the outcome; she did nobody any good with today’s “yes” on the Manchin-Toomey bill.

Cassidy himself commented on Landrieu’s vote, telling the New Orleans Times-Picayune

At this point in our history, when Americans feel their freedoms are under assault by the federal government, the Manchin-Toomey proposal should have been opposed. Law abiding citizens should not be treated as part of the problem. Therefore, Congress should act thoughtfully and not pass legislation that expands the scope and size of government.

So, was Landrieu’s vote that unpopular with her constituents?

Not at all. In fact, a statewide poll released this week by Public Policy Polling contained some interesting findings.

PPP’s newest round of polling finds that [North Carolina Sen.] Kay Hagan and Mary Landrieu helped their cause for reelection with their recent votes in support of background checks for gun sales. More than 70% of voters in each of their states support such checks, and their constituents say they’re more likely to vote for them next year because of their votes.

In Louisiana 72% of voters say they favor background checks to only 20% who are opposed. There is strong bipartisan backing with Democrats (81/13), independents (73/20), and Republicans (61/29) all expressing at least 2:1 support. 45% of voters in the state say they’re now more likely to support Landrieu for reelection because she voted for background checks, compared to only 25% who say they’re now less likely to vote for her. Landrieu has also seen a 6 point improvement in her net approval rating from the last time we polled the state in February, from +2 then at 47/45 to now +8 at 49/41.

The poll was really no surprise to anyone who follows public opinion on this issue. Even NRA members overwhelmingly support background checks.

So why do so many people believe Landrieu’s vote was so risky and potentially deadly to her re-election chances? (I argued strongly at the time that it was not.)

One explanation for this mistaken belief might be found in a fascinating new study, “What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents.” In their research, political scientists David E. Broockman and Christopher Skovron found that

[p]oliticians consistently and substantially overestimate support for conservative positions among their constituents on these issues [universal health care and same-sex marriage]. The differences we discover in this regard are exceptionally large among conservative politicians: across both issues we examine, conservative politicians appear to overestimate support for conservative policy views among their constituents by over 20 percentage points on average. In fact, on each of the issues we examine, over 90% of politicians with conservative views appear to overestimate their constituents’ support for conservative policies. This misperception is so large that nearly half of sitting conservative officeholders appear to believe that they represent a district that is more conservative on these issues than the most conservative legislative district in the entire country despite the fact that over half of these officeholders actually support positions more conservative than their own districts’ median voter. Comparable figures for liberal politicians also show a slight conservative bias: in fact, about 70% of liberal officeholders typically underestimate support for liberal positions on these issues among their constituents. These differences by elite ideology persist among all varieties of politicians: those from highly professionalized legislative bodies, those running in competitive elections, and those who have been in office for many years.

This does not mean that Cassidy and his supporters are wrong to believe that Louisiana a very conservative state. It is to suggest, rather, that Louisiana may not be quite as conservative as they believe.

For the same reason that I argue Landrieu should not move too far to the right, I would also argue that Cassidy cannot move too far to the left. Such moves by either would undermine support among their base voters, votes that make up the foundation of any electoral victory.

However, there are still enough swing voters, even in Louisiana, that the outcome of the 2014 Senate race is far from decided.

Whoever wins those voters will win the election. And those voters are not hardcore conservatives. They vote for the Democrat candidate one time, the Republican the next.

If Cassidy were smart, he would work hard to find issues on which he could declare some independence from far-right conservative orthodoxy and appeal to more moderate swing voters.

That he refused to give an inch even on background checks – a commonsense proposal that enjoys overwhelming support among Republicans and Democrats in Louisiana – suggests that Cassidy might be overestimating the conservatism of his electorate.

It might also suggest that he is incapable or unwilling to make the smart strategic decisions necessary to win a very tough race against Landrieu.

To be fair, it might be too early – and too costly — for Cassidy to support such legislation. Support for Manchin-Toomey might cost him precious NRA support and could lure into the race a more conservative challenger like Family Research Council President Tony Perkins or former U.S. Rep. Jeff Landry.

At some point, however, Cassidy will need an issue or two where he can exert a little independence from GOP orthodoxy.

Keeping the base happy while appealing to swing voters is a delicate balancing act. It also the hallmark of a successful candidate.

Related articles

• Hagan, Landrieu gun votes could help in 2014 (publicpolicypolling.com)
• Mary Landrieu’s politically smart vote on background checks (bobmannblog.com)
• Poll: Gun vote boosts Hagan, Landrieu (politico.com)
• Louisiana Politics: The next four years will be a wild ride (bobmannblog.com)

Amos (illustration by Gustave Doré from the 1865 La Sainte Bible) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Robert Mann

I’m amused by how easily some people are offended or shocked by my posts.

Admittedly, Louisiana higher education isn’t awash in professors who blog about public affairs, much less who regularly assail the governor or the LSU Board of Supervisors.

But still, it strikes me as more than strange that dissent – even my rather mild variety – seems so noteworthy, and even dangerous, to some people.

Recent posts on Gov. Bobby Jindal’s and the Louisiana Legislature’s treatment of the poor seemed particularly strong – and offensive — to a few readers.

Why do you have to be so negative about the governor? Aren’t you setting a bad example for your students? Why can’t you be more civil? What you say will not hurt you, but rather your school. You’re personally attacking good people, etc., etc.

So, today I have turned this space over to a guest blogger. His name is Amos Profeta. Perhaps he’ll approach the issue of poverty in a more civil and respectful manner.

(Warning: As you’ll see, my friend Amos is a little strange. For example, he thinks he receives messages from God.)

What God has told me about how our society
and its leaders are treating the poor

They buy and sell upstanding people. People for them are only things—ways of making money. They’d sell a poor man for a pair of shoes.

They’d sell their own grandmother! They grind the penniless into the dirt, shove the luckless into the ditch. Everyone and his brother sleeps with the ‘sacred whore’—a sacrilege against my Holy Name. Stuff they’ve extorted from the poor is piled up at the shrine of their god, while they sit around drinking wine they’ve conned from their victims.

Woe to you who turn justice to vinegar and stomp righteousness into the mud. Do you realize where you are? You’re in a cosmos star-flung with constellations by God, a world God wakes up each morning and puts to bed each night. God dips water from the ocean and gives the land a drink.

God, God-revealed, does all this. And he can destroy it as easily as make it. He can turn this vast wonder into total waste.

People hate this kind of talk. Raw truth is never popular.

But here it is, bluntly spoken: Because you run roughshod over the poor and take the bread right out of their mouths, you’re never going to move into the luxury homes you have built. You’re never going to drink wine from the expensive vineyards you’ve planted.

I know precisely the extent of your violations, the enormity of your sins. Appalling!

You bully right-living people, taking bribes right and left and kicking the poor when they’re down.

Justice is a lost cause. Evil is epidemic. Decent people throw up their hands. Protest and rebuke are useless, a waste of breath.

Seek good and not evil—and live!

You talk about God, the God-of-the-Angel-Armies, being your best friend.

Well, live like it, and maybe it will happen.

Hate evil and love good, then work it out in the public square.

I can’t stand your religious meetings. I’m fed up with your conferences and conventions. I want nothing to do with your religion projects, your pretentious slogans and goals. I’m sick of your fund-raising schemes, your public relations and image making.

I’ve had all I can take of your noisy ego-music. When was the last time you sang to me?

Do you know what I want?

I want justice—oceans of it.

I want fairness—rivers of it.

That’s what I want. That’s all I want.

(Adapted from The Message, Amos 2:6-8; 5:7-15, 18-24)

Related articles

• What the Book of Amos Says About Leadership and Poverty (christopherscottblog.typepad.com)
• Don’t J**** Me! (cedarhillsbaptist.wordpress.com)
• MLK’s “Two Americas” truer than ever (salon.com)