The Cane Truck

Customer Service is Everything

2012-01-05T02:19:59Z

Customer Service is everything. Anyone who has been in business for more than three hours knows that to be true. The funny thing, is that customer service seems to be falling away. The first time you go into a store and see a self-checkout register, you go to it for the novelty of it. The second time you do it because the service at a human check-out register is lacking. Not all self-checkouts are created equal. At WalMart, they are nearly as useless as a human check-out if you have more than a few items. Home Depot is a little better, but you better not have any big items. Sam's Club, who just rolled theirs out in November 2011 are the absolute best. So, your mileage will vary depending upon where you are shopping Every national chain, especially franchises, now have only surveys where they want to know what kind of experience you had. This means it should be even easier to keep track of the service level of individual stores and workers. Unfortunately, either they are not getting enough people to fill out the surveys or they are ignoring them. I am a mystery shopper. I get paid to visit different businesses as a customer and report back about my experience. The report I have to give is detailed. In fact, I am instructed on specific things to look for. I know what the uniform code is, how displays are supposed to be arranged and how long I should wait in line. However, I don't think I would need this knowledge to recognize the level of bad service that is rampant, especially at fast food restaurants. With the level of service you find at a McDonald's or Burger King, could they have grown from a few stores to the international chains they are today? The same goes with some of the younger chains like Subway. Do we, as the paying public, accept the mediocre service in exchange for moderate prices and hopefully fast service? The cost of a "value meal", or whatever they want to call it, for one person is close to $7.00. For another few dollars, you can often get better food and better service, but at a slower pace. Now that I think about it, maybe the old business sign is truer today then it ever was.

Ray Garofalo Exposes Chad Lauga - Master Plan on Coastal Restoration

2011-11-17T13:30:37Z

Ray Garofalo exposes Chad Lauga's distortions regarding the State's Master Plan on Coastal Restoration.

The Cost of Labor Compared to Materials

2011-10-29T01:19:21Z

I suppose this is one of those things that has been gnawing at me for a while and it has finally reached some point of manifestation. It may not be completely formed out yet, but it's time to get it down on pen and paper, even if it is electronic. Even with the economic down turn of the last four years, the wealth of the world is constantly growing larger, but it seems as if the richer the world gets, the less we can afford. Take a look at some of the old Catholic Churches from around the world. St. Joseph Co-Cathedral in Thibodaux, La., constructed from 1923-1925, is relatively modern, but a church of this grandeur would never be built today. It would be considered too expensive. If this church could be built not even 100 years ago, with the world richer today then it was 100 years ago, why would a church of style be considered too expensive? Take a good look at your next car repair bill. I'm willing to bet the cost of the labor will be three to four times the cost of the parts. In my own field of computer repair, it is getting to the point where sometimes I think it is cheaper to tell a client to buy a new PC rather than have me do any type of repair on it (what deters me, besides sabotaging my own livelihood, is knowing the amount of time that it takes to set up a new PC is not brief either). All of this is a prelude to an interview with Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee about their new book, Race Against The Machine: How the Digital Revolution is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy. In the book, Brynjolfsson and McAfee argue that technology is reducing the ability to create new jobs for humans. They contend that as the economy recovers, employment levels will not return to where they were just a few years ago (could this be the "new normal" President Barack Obama spoke about back in November 2010?). In the interview, Andrew McAfee talks about how technology is changing the way customers interact with businesses. Consumers no longer need clerks, cashiers, or salespeople. Computers are taking over most of those jobs. The one thing I think McAfee is leaving out of his equation is the loss of common respect within these customer interactions between both the consumer and clerk or cashier. How often have you walked into a Walmart or McDonald's and received lousy service? Have you ever had to walk around forever looking for someone in Walmart to help you find a particular item? The wait staff in service organizations has gone down in quality at the same time some consumers expectations have risen to celestial levels. When I walk into a McDonald's I expect to get a hamburger, fries, and a drink prepared correctly and in a reasonable of time. Others seem to think that all employees in the restaurant should stop whatever they are doing and wait on them exclusively. It is a double-edge sword here. As some customers attempt to ratchet up their demands, without ratcheting up the amount they are will to pay, businesses will attempt to lower their costs to meet those demands, no matter how ridiculous they may be. Besides lowering the cost of producing, computers also take another human factor out of the equation: expectation. Several years ago, Danny & Clyde's, a New Orleans convenience store that also has a po-boy sandwich shop inside, installed kiosks in their stores for you to place your sandwich order. You could completely customize the sandwich to your tastes. As a result, the number of orders that were made incorrectly went down. I think a strong reason for that is because the computer has no preconceived notion of how a sandwich should be dressed. A human order-taker knows how they like their po-boys and find it difficult, even if subliminally, to write the order exactly as given (how many people have to have cheese on their sandwich and automatically question the person who asks for no cheese?). Is it no wonder Danny & Clyde's would install these? Computers work 24/7 with no smoke or coffee breaks. They take the order down correctly. They don't ask for vacation time, health insurance, or retirement. I think Brynjolfsson and McAfee are right. Those at the lower and upper end of work force will have no fear of unemployment. Those in the middle, especially the lower-end of the middle, should be very afraid. If they cannot find a way to make consumers demand that businesses give them a human to interact with, they will find that an iPad has replaced them in the workforce.

Mike Bayham - Taking Credit Where None is Due

2011-10-06T12:45:12Z

This is Bayham's latest newspaper ad. Does he really think people believe he's responsible for all he claims credit for? Anyone who has ever worked on a major project can tell you many people are involved in its planning and execution. How shallow of him to try and take credit as if he was a "one man show" of sorts. Besides, I can tell you for a fact that all that post-Katrina grant money he claims to have gotten for the parish was coming here automatically. Who does he think he is taking credit for all that? And when it comes to attempts to get Congress to close the MRGO, in June of 2004 I attended the MRGO Symposium out at the Gulf Outlet Marina, sponsored by the St. Bernard parish government. That event was orchestrated by John Scurich, who at that time was an executive assistant to Junior. They had the colonel form the Corps of Engineers, Mary Landrieu, Vitter, several state and federal agencies, and several state legislators. They took all of us out on the water to show them the damage caused by the MRGO. Following that was a thorough presentation done by Professor John Grimm with Multi-Quest International Research showing how little economic impact we were getting out the MRGO. I recall John Scurich telling the crowd of better than 150 the Symposium was a direct result of two previous visits he and Junior made to Washington DC that year. Mike Bayham was not seen at this event. I can't imagine what little, if any, he had to do with the closure of the MRGO. But now that it's election time, he appears to have been responsible for everything that's gotten done. I think if Jesus returned for the second coming, Bayham would claim credit for arranging it.

Oppose Louisiana House Bill 1287: Battle of New Orleans Bicentennial Commission

2010-06-07T13:57:48Z

By John Scurich Once again, there's that word again to be afraid of - "commission." This time it's to form a commission for the Battle of New Orleans Bicentennial. I do believe an organizing-commemoration committee should be formed, but not on the state level. Frankly, I'm surprised Nita and Reed are going along with a bill originally and solely authored by a New Orleans legislator from the Lakeview area. So what's the harm in this? Ah, you have politicians creating this beast and setting the rules who will make up this committee - need I say more? Better yet, can you say "what a wonderful opportunity to rub shoulders and a photo op with Washington elites and foreign dignitaries while some volunteer schmucks actually do all the work?" Yep, you got it right! Of course what will get lost in the process is the sincere meaningful reason why this is all supposed to take place. Think I'm getting way ahead of myself? Unfortunately my working several years in Baton Rouge exposed to me to way too much of this. Believe me, I can see how this is going to play out because I've seen it too many times prior. Okay, I'll back what I'm saying with just a snip from the bill showing how the "commission" is to be comprised (see attached pdf of the bill): (1) The commission shall consist of members appointed as follows: (a) Two members appointed by the governor. (b) Two members appointed by the lieutenant governor. (c) Two members appointed by the president of the Senate. (d) Two members appointed by the speaker of the House of Representatives. (e) Three members shall be appointed by the state legislators whose districts include any part of the Chalmette Battlefield or the Chalmette National Cemetery. The legislators shall act jointly in making such appointments. Any one seeing St. Bernard parish getting strong representation on this commission? I say we'll be lucky if five of members of this commission end up being from the New Orleans vicinity. If I'm wrong, just look at who gets to make appointments to the commission: the Governor, Lt. Governor, House Speaker, Senate President....why? Oh, and earlier you thought I might be a littel overboard in this thing becoming a PR highlight for those appointed. Based on my past experience let me tell how this thing is going to work. You'll have some big names appointed, probably some notable politicians - past and present. Naturally they will only be "front" men. They'll bring in volunteers to form "subcommittees" - you know, the people who actually do all the work. But when the event arrives, along with all the D.C. politicians and possible British dignitaries for the photo ops, trust me when the champagne corks start popping and h'orderves are being served, these people who did all the "real" work won't be allowed anywhere near the party or a media camera. The real workers will be lucky to get an acknowledgement (only as a group) in the ninth paragraph of a post-event press release. I've seen it all before. If I come across a bit skeptical about this - you know why. The politicians trying to create this commission aren't stupid - they know there's a very good chance the President of the United States will likely come down for this, as well as the Prime Minister of the UK. Talk about your ultimate photo op and shoulder rub! Let me now interject the common sense question: Why couldn't this commission be comprised entirely of locals from St. Bernard and New Orleans who long standing ties to the Chalmette Battlefield. Locals who have a love and passion for the Battlefield and the history of the event. Oh sure, they could possibly get appointed to the commission - but don't hold your breath on it. A commission made of these type of local enthusiasts could report directly to the Governor's or Lt. Governor's Office without having one of their designees apointed to the commission - taking up a valuable seat that could easily be better filled with a local who is excited about serving for this important event. So, what would I do if I were an Battle of New Orleans enthusiast and wanted to make sure local state politicians didn't ruin this? I would contact each of the candidates seeking Charlie Melancon's congressional seat this fall, as well as Landrieu and Vitter. I would speak with them and get commitments from each that the winner will propose a bill in Congress setting up a committee on behalf of the local interests and that this committee is the "only" committee the Department of the Interior and National Parks will officially recognize to coordinate activities related to the event - and this would also secure federal funding for the event. The federal bill would specify only locals with historian interest backgrounds to comprise the committee who are not elected or previously elected officials. This way the committee remains a committee truly of "the people." Of course the Interior and Park Service would work closely with the committee, as well as the White House and State Department. While all this makes sense, it's probably a long shot - probably because it does make sense.

Would You Like a Free House?

2010-04-19T13:14:48Z

by Clifford A. Wright I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the successful passing of the recent health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued: They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard the young man exclaim, Isn't Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick. The young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, "Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market would work for health care. They are all crooks and thieves and don't deserve all that money." Another said, "The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate." At this, I had had enough. I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. "Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?" They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment. "I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?" They looked at each other in astonishment. "Why would you do something like that?" asked a young man; "There isn"t anything for free in this world." They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point. "I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money what so ever. Anyone interested?" In unison, a resounding "Hell yeah" fills the room. "Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money-free bargain." I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust. "I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules." Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces. The perky young woman asked, "What are the rules?" I smiled and said, "I don't know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you." They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, "What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man." I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. "I am serious, this is a legitimate offer." They gaped at me for a moment. "Hell, I'll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?" boasted the youngest among them. "Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms?" I asked. The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table. "Oh, hell yeah! Where do I sign up?" I took a napkin and wrote, "I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction." I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature. "Where are the keys to my new house?" he asked in a mocking tone of voice. All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner. "Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere to from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys." I extended the keys forward, and the young man looked at me dumb-founded. "Are you out of your freaking mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?" the young man appeared irritated. "You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement" was all I said. The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people. "You can shove that stupid deal up your a**, old man; I want no part of it" exclaimed the now infuriated young man. "You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends; you cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your master." At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal. After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent. "What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn; that you are entitled to that which you did not earn; that you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance for freedom is if your new master gives it unto you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away; therefore, it is not freedom." With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. "This is the nature of your new health care legislation." I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation and was surprised by applause. The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, "Thank you, sir; these kids don't understand liberty these days." He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, "You earned this one; it is an honor to pick up the tab." I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled, and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country. Use reason, Clifford A Wright Feel free to share

Don't Be a Stage Mom!

2010-03-29T00:04:15Z

After eight hours of auditions staged over three days and 70 people trying out, I am happy to say that the casting of the Thibodaux Playhouse production of Annie is just about over (we still need a few more guys for some supporting roles). There was a lot of good talent that showed up, as well as some "what we're you thinking" talent. In the end, we went with what we thought was the better talent for the role we cast them in. Some really great talent was cast in supporting roles because we felt they would fit better in those roles. Although trying to decide who was going to play what role took a lot of arguing back and forth, it was great to see the cast start to come together. Even more fun was to call those who were given roles, especially Bethany Martinez, who got the part of Annie. I don't think she stopped screaming for five minutes. The not so fun part was calling those who didn't get a part. Even worse, was the mom who had to call me back to ask what her daughter did "wrong" and then to start explaining to me how her daughter was going to be on Broadway and that we were missing out. Talk about feel like Simon Cowell. The girl did nothing wrong, we just felt there were other people that were a better fit. Yes, we did cast some people in double roles. No, we didn't do it out of spite. Rehearsals will last for three months and take a big commitment. In fairness to those that are giving of their time, we felt it better to put them in multiple roles so that they would have more time on stage to show for their efforts. Who would really want to spend three months of rehearsal time for two minutes on stage? Even on Broadway, they would do the same thing. So give it up already! For those that are interested, here is the cast of Annie: Announcing the cast of Annie! Bethany Martinez - Annie David Gauthreaux - Daddy Warbucks Nicole Webb - Grace Farrell Molly (Orphan) - Michala Torres Kate (Orphan) - Lauren Rhodes Tessie (Orphan) - Sophia Galey Pepper (Orphan) - Sarah Delhaye July (Orphan) - Karra Rodrigue Duffy (Orphan) - Anna Dauaine Unnamed Orphan - Jessica Galey Unname Orphan/Homeless Person - Dayla Rich Unnamed Orphan - Hannah Adams Unnamed Orphan/Sandy - Rebecca Bourgeois Miss Hannigan - Laura Templet Rooster/Homeless person - Joey Pierce Lily - Julia Chauvin Bert Healy/Mr. Bundles/Howe (Cabinet member)/Homeless Person - Don Bourgeois Annette (Servant)/Usherette - Tiffany Galey Mrs. Greer/Homeless Person - Hannah Marcotte Cecille (Servant)/Boylan Sister - Kami Ellender Mrs. Pugh (Servant)/Homeless Person - Nikki Allemand Boylan Sister/Homeless Person - Alison Schreckengast Apple Seller/Ickes (Cabinet member)/Judge Brandeis - Blake Petit Perkins (Cabinet member)/Homeless person/Fred McCracken - Treva Breaux Boylan Sister/Star-to-be - J'Leigh Chauvin

Is it the "American Way?"

2010-03-25T11:46:37Z

Is it the "American Way?" by John Scurich The historic vote by a progressive, liberal Democratic Congress on what they are calling "healthcare reform" has definitely caused a reaction among many Americans. Many member of Congress, all Democrats, have received threatening phone calls. About a dozen Democratic Congressmen have had rocks and other objects thrown through their office windows. Naturally, members of Congress have made statements condeming the acts saying "this is not the American way." Or is it? I consider myself a decent student of early American history and you know the old saying - those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it - or in the very least "see it repeated." In the years leading up to 1776 and the American Revolution, British soldiers and diplomats were taken from their quarters - by American colonists - stripped naked, tarred, then feathered. It was brutal torture in the very least. Thousands of everyday, hardworking, puritan American cheered as the tortured British were paraded through the streets, in this particuar case, Boston. Several of the colonists leading this violent act were of the family of John and Samuel Adams. Those who apprehended the British and tortured them - to their deaths I might add - were heralded as heroes. To this day some history books still do. Keep in mind these were people of an age where today's historians label them as being more "civilized" then our American society today. Yet, these Americans who made up those mobs in the 1770's tortured and murdered British soldiers who apparently had done nothing wrong. But they were of the enemy to freedom and liberty - they represented an armed King George III who the American colonists had labeled an evil tyrant because he repressed the freedom and liberties of the colonists. History teaches us that everyday, nice, civilized people will resort to violence when they feel their freedom is at risk of being loss to an oppressor. Human nature, human behavior's constant, has never changed through the centuries going back to before the time of Christ. So why would anyone expect people to act differently today - espcially when reminded that "we" are less civilized than our founding fathers. For anyone to be shocked by such a reaction is a poor student of history. While breaking the windows of Congressmen's offices cannot be condoned, it can certainly be understood considering millions of Americans are feeling the very same way our founders did. In all honesty, how many of you when hearing of it were glad? Admit it, deep down some of you were a little happy to hear of it - not that you condone such behavior, but you could relate to those people's frustration - the very same frustration of our founders who committed the very same acts, if not worse, over 235 years ago. Oh, but that was to gain our freedom and liberty! So, taking such actions today to preserve our freedom and liberties is "different?" If a liberty loving American feels threatened today, what constitutes a different, but acceptable behavior? After all, we've already established human nature has never changed. So why expect anything different. I can't believe Democrats were so naive to think Americans would not react that way. Several Democratic Congressmen said they are living in fear. Well, when you no longer represent want "we the people" want, then you are going to get the same kind of behavior our founders displayed. But what about doing this through the election process? Obviously for many Americans the general elections in November are too far away to let their fears and discontent be known.

Lafource Parish Council Gets it Wrong. Again.

2009-10-30T20:08:23Z

Once again the Lafourche Parish Council gets it wrong. After 33 years of having a Council-President form of government, they still think Lafourche Parish is using a Police Jury system, like our neighbors in Assumption Parish. At its regularly scheduled meeting on October 27, 2009, the council decided to push for an amendment to the parish charter that would reduce from seven to six, the number of council votes needed to fire parish department heads. The proposition, heavily pushed by District 9 Councilman Daniel Lorraine, would make it even easier for the council, which is a legislative body, to encroach on the duties of the parish president, who is the administrator of the parish. This would, in effect, change the parish government structure to a police jury system in every way but name. As a quick Cliff's Notes lesson, under a police jury system, each district is overseen by a police juror who has full administrative authority over the work done in their district. They can have projects started and stopped without having to consult with any of their fellow police jurors. This also means every parish employee has multiple bosses and leads to confusion and public waste of tax payer monies and resources since employees will start responding to the last police juror who gave them a directive. Under the council-president form of government, the council is a legislative body, much like the United States Congress, and their only authority is enact laws and tell the parish president how much can be spent in certain categories. The parish president, as the administrator of parish government, takes the broad directives from the council, and establishes an order of priority in which projects are to be completed based on the amount of monies that have been directed by the council. By consolidating all project requests, the parish president can better direct parish resources to the most pressing and optimal need. The Daily Comet quotes Councilman Daniel Lorraine saying, “This needs to be done. The deck is stacked in this charter. It's not fair, the parish president can fire a department head as she wishes, but the council needs two-thirds plus one.” Yes, Mr. Lorraine, that is correct. Department heads serve at the pleasure of the parish president, not the parish council. If the council is allowed to easily dismiss department heads, no one would ever want those positions since they would be subject to many bosses instead of just one. If a department head were truly derelict in their duties, you should not have to worry about even getting seven votes, it should be a unanimous decision. It is hypocritical of the council to put this up for a vote proclaiming, as Councilman Rodney Doucet did, “Give it to the people to decide.” This council refused to “give it to the people to decide” when the subject of term limits came up. Kudos must be given to Councilmen Phillip Gouaux and Jerry Jones for voting against this measure and shame on every other council member.

First Tuesdays: Spirituality in the City

2009-10-07T04:03:43Z

I had the opportunity today to attend the opening session of First Tuesdays : “Spirituality in the City” Co-sponsored by Jesuit Church, Loyola Institute for Ministry, and The Catholic Book Store, the sessions are “an annual interfaith series promoting dialogue and understanding on topics of spirituality” The speaker today was Reverend Henry Hudson of Trinity Episcopal Church. He had a number of quotes that I found quite intriguing and wanted to share. In the order he said them, paraphrased since I was taking notes on a PocketPC:

If you know where you are starting from and where you are ending, have the courage to make the journey.
Be doers of the word not just hearers. James 1:22
When God asks “Where are you?” how do you hear it?
Are you fishing for God or is he fishing for you?
How would you answer Jesus when he asks “What do you want me to do for you?” Mark 10:46
We don't believe there is enough to go around. The Original Sin
Have you ever prayed for someone else by name?
All things needed for salvation are non-confrontational.

Why the Homestead Exemption Must Go

2009-09-20T23:02:40Z

The Louisiana Homestead Exemption is an antiquated piece of legislation that hinders the ability of Louisiana to attract new businesses and fund government services. Created back in the days of the Great Depression, the Homestead Exemption has helped make parish assessors some of the strongest government officials within their local parish. Since property taxes were based on the value of someones home, assessors could raise or lower a persons assessed value based on political patronage. Before todays world of instant database searches into previous and current home sales, assessors could do so with almost pure impunity. Under state law, all homes are to be reassessed every four years. Once the assessor has released the new assessed value, local governments are suppose to reduce their property tax millages so that they collect the same amount of monies as they did before homes were reassessed. The idea is that homeowners should not have to pay more in property taxes just because of an increase in property values. The reality is much different. State law allows local taxing bodies to roll forward their property tax millages up to the amount that was approved with the original millage was voted on by residents. Although the monies collected in this manner are usually dedicated, the local taxing bodies often roll the millage forward, creating, in effect, a tax increase without a vote of the people. This is one of the methods used to skirt around the homestead exemption. Another method used is to collect fees from residents, often by attaching them to the water bill, and usually as a flat fee. Most local governments run their own water department, so they found the easiest way to collect money from residents is to attach a fee to the water bill. There are several problems with this method. Depending upon your perspective, it may or may not seem as an equitable way to collects monies from the people who may be utilizing the service. As an example, a garbage fee. With a flat fee, a water &ldqui;customer&rdwuo; in a single-family residence, will pay the flat fee. However, a landlord with a fourplex, is still small enough to continue using parish garbage, and he includes water in the rent he charges his tenants, so he gets one water bill for the four families living in his fourplex. Let's pretend the garbage fee is $10. That means the family in the single-family residence is paying $10 a month for garbage pickup, but the families in the fourplex or only paying $2.50 a month for their garbage pickup. On average, I think we can assume that a family in the fourplex will generate just as much trash as the family in the single-residence, but only has to pay one-fourth to receive the same service. If the fee was done based on the amount of water usage, it would more accurately reflect the usage, or the amount of services being required. Four families should use more water than one family and generate more garbage. If the garbage fee was based on property values rather than water usage, it means every property owner would pay towards garbage services, including the guy that just owns an empty lot. Although the lot is empty, he still needs to cut the grass and dispose of the clipped grass, utilizing the garbage pick-up service. This would also clean up the water bill so residents can look at their water bill and the only thing on that bill is their water usage. Another advantage is that property taxes are deductible on your Federal Income tax returns. Granted, not everyone exceeds the standard deduction to be able to take advantage of it, but that is not a reason to discount it. Another advantage is that all property owners, whether private or business, would pay their fair share in funding government services. With the homestead exemption, businesses have to pay property taxes on the full value of their property, while residents get a break on the first $75,000 on the value of their property. This means property taxes have to be higher to get businesses on the hook for the taxes that would be collected from citizens if the homestead exemption did not exist. This also means that businesses will charge more for their goods and services to make up this difference. It is almost cliché, but some people do not realize it. Businesses do not pay taxes. They are simply a conduit for government to collect taxes while placing the blame on someone else. You can see this clearly with sales taxes, it's a little harder with property taxes since the business has to “hide” the property tax inside the retail price of their goods or services. That is part of the overhead figure businesses use when calculating how much to charge. I cannot think of one good reason to continue to hold on the homestead exemption. I only hope that someday, we will elect politicians to our state offices that start taking steps to eliminate it.

Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana captured a great article from BayouBuzz.com about the recent attempts to increase the Homestead Exemption.

Alert the CDC - Maureen Dowd is Contagious

2009-09-18T00:23:00Z

Alert the CDC - Maureen Dowd is Contagious The Centers for Disease Control needs to be alerted - there's no doubt Maureen Dowd has come down with a dangerous and contagious affliction . In her latest syndicated editorial, she states Congressman Joe Wilson's blurted interruption of Obama's speech was a “racist” comment. Now, besides the “fact” that Congressman Wilson's outburst never referenced anything to do with race, you have to realize that Ms. Dowd has been victimized by contracting “Chicken Little” Syndrome. This is a terrible disease that seems to spread among liberals more than anyone else to the point where it looks like a pandamic could be starting. It would appear this disease causes well-educated adults to bypass simple common sense and logic, and jump to absurd conclusions based on little information - or none at all. So, if you were walking under an oak tree and an acorn falls on your head, then surely you would immediatley conclude the sky is falling. Likewise, if you, a white person, accuse a president of lying, who just happens to be black, then you must be a racist. This is all besides the fact that Congressman Wilson was correct in his accusation of Obama. The one thing his outburst caused was for the nation to look up and read what the Obamacare Bill (HR 3200) actually says. Upon reading it, the reader learns what the bill says is no one seeking medical care can be asked to provide proof of his/her citizenship - and once they receive any kind of care they would immediately be enrolled into the program. That means an illegal alien could walk into any hospital or clinic, not even be able to speak a word of English (to where it's obvious they are likely illegal), yet the hospital staff are forbidden by law to inquire to their residency or citizen status. So, while HR 3200 might not specifically say illegal aliens are included in the bill's medical coverage, in effect they are. And if Congressman Wilson or I am wrong, then why is it that the Senate (in their version of a healthcare reform bill) specifically states that a person “must prove citizenship” to receive care? Clearly, the Senate caught on to what the language of the bill implied. Oh, but let us not forget on countless occassion when Democratic members of Congress - many of them black - used to call President Bush a liar. Where was Ms. Dowd then? I guess Chicken Little Sydrome didn't kick in until a black man was elected to the White House. John Scurich Lacombe, Louisiana

The AARP's Attack on Truth: Debunking the AARP article on the Opposition to Healthcare Reform (HR 3200)

2009-09-06T23:57:24Z

The below commentary has been written in response to an article by Patricia Barry in the current issue of the AARP Bulletin. The article by Ms. Barry claims to be an unbiased account of what's really in the proposed healthcare reform legislation, also known as HR 3200, and how opposition to the bill is based on lies and hype to mislead the general public.

The AARP's Attack on Truth: Debunking the AARP article on the Opposition to Healthcare Reform (HR 3200)

by John Scurich

In the latest issue of the AARP Bulletin, which can be read online, Patricia Barry writes a scaving article criticizing the opposition to the Obama proposed Healthcare Reform Bill (HR 3200). Her article is titled "The Assault on Truth" - and boy is she right - but it's not an assault on truth by opponents as she would have you believe, but by the very proponents of the bill.

I could easily write a "War and Peace" in my response to Ms. Barry's article. That's because it is flawed with incorrect facts, misleading comments and outright lies from start to finish. To spare you hours of reading I'll just pick on only a few comments made by her which these alone destroy her credibility and the article by demonstrating how her article is written from a biased, pro-Obama healthcare reform position.

First, the perspective and assumption in which the article is written. Ms. Barry immediately begins her article from the standpoint that "anything" opponents say about the bill "must be" lies, hype, slurs and rumors. By virtue of the fact that she claims lies and rumors can "only" come from opposition means it is only the opposition that is "assaulting the truth" of the bill and attempting to mislead the public.

If I'm wrong about this assumption then why is it throughout her long article does she not mention once that it's possible at least some misleading information could also be coming from the proponents of the bill. In other words, she would have you believe that "everyone" affiliated with supporting the bill are perfect, little, truth-telling angels and "anyone" affiliated with its opposition are clearly evil-doing demons. Ms. Barry conveniently leaves out of her article that many members of Congress, both in the House and Senate, who strongly oppose this bill are members of the Democratic Party - it's not just those evil conservatives/Republicans who are against it and going around "spreading all these lies, hype, slurs and rumors."

But wait, Ms. Barry tries to provide some credibility to her position by quoting a "supposed" unbiased organization who claims to have scrutinized the proposed bill and given her (and us) their unbiased opinion. And which organization is this? None other than the Annenberg Policy Center. While this might sound all too legit and unbiased, I'll bet you didn't know the Annenberg Policy Center is also known as FactCheck.org, an organization well known for being liberal to the point of "left wing."

Though claiming to be nonpartisan, it only takes a few minutes of internet research on the organization to come across countless articles about its liberal bias - just read how they defended Obama against just about every attack during the 2008 presidential election - and you'll see they didn't even bother trying to do a good job of hiding their liberal bias. Even liberal media like the New York Times have questioned the analysis and findings of FactCheck.org. This is not surprising considering where the organization is based, the University of Pennsylvania, which has a reputation for being an extremely liberal institution of higher learning. It's an Ivy League school - need I say more?

Funny how Ms. Barry never sought an opinion from someone like the Heritage Foundation? And would it not have made sense to seek the opinion of the American Medical Association on its interpretation of HR 3200? Here we have the biggest medical/healthcare bill in history yet no medical professionals were sought for an opinion. Strange.

Next, she states Obama left it to Congress to work out the details of the reform bill - as if to imply he (Obama) really didn't have anything to do with some of the atrocious details of the bill. Yet, it has been well known for several months that the lead person who put the bill together was Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the chief health advisor to the President, as in "it came from the White House." If Dr. Emanuel's last name sounds familiar, he's the brother of Obama's White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, the former Congressman from (you guessed it) Chicago who recently made news for calling the "progressives" (blue dog Democrats opposing the Obama Plan) "f***ing stupid." Are you starting to see the dots connect here? Google Dr. Emanuel's name and you'll also come across many articles on him - most citing other reputable doctors describing Dr. Emanuel's medical beliefs from "extremist" to "down right bizarre."

One thing's for sure, we know most members of Congress aren't knowledgeable of HR 3200's contents since the supposed bill's author, Congressman Henry Waxman of California, was caught red handed during the committee hearing admitting he needed assistance from a staffer as to what various sections of the bill actually said. Yes, that's right, this is the bill's author who doesn't even know what's in his own legislation. Well, someone had to write this absurd bill - at least we know it wasn't anyone in Congress. That only leaves the White House as the guilty party, i.e. Obama.

Next, comes the most damaging blow to Ms. Barry's and the AARP's credibility with her article. She addressed the question "Will the government take over health care so we end up with socialized medicine?" Absolutely not, she says. She goes on to say "Obama has specifically rejected the idea of a 'single-payer' system, like Canada's, in which the government insures all citizens." Clearly, Ms. Barry is a poor researcher.

At this point I encourage everyone to go to YouTube. There are two video clips you need to watch. In the YouTube search box key in "Obama on single payer health insurance" and the other is "Shock Uncovered - Obama in his own words." These clips do not edit the video of Obama's spoken words. There is no scheme or plot here, as Ms. Barry might suggest of the opposition, to present Obama's very own words out of context. You get to hear what Obama says leading up to his position on "single payer universal health care" and what he says after the comment. Like I said, no editing or tricks are in this video. I can't help but wonder what Ms. Barry and AARP have to say after seeing this video - if they didn't already but was hoping the rest of America wouldn't find out about it. There are more videos of Obama supporting universal healthcare. How did Ms. Barry miss these?

Ms. Barry claims the healthcare systems in Canada and Britain are outstanding and the locals are happy with it - she also claims the same for our Medicare system saying it's "popular and successful." Let me also suggest you don't forget to Google what Canadians and British citizens think of their universal healthcare system - trust me it'll curl your hair and make you wonder why in God's creation would we ever consider such a system for the United States. You'll learn that the socialized medicine systems in these countries do in fact "ration" health services - because it absolutely has to remain fiscally afloat. This is something Ms. Barry claims is a lie promoted by the HR 3200's opponents - I say go ask a health administrator in Canada or Great Britain if this is a lie.

Not to mention Ms. Barry must not read many public opinion polls in the U.S. on what Americans think of our Medicare system. Oh well, so much for being for being popular and perceived as successful.

There's so much more I could easily correct in Ms. Barry's article, but this is long already. I will close on the following points she "fails" to talk about in her article. Ms. Barry failed to address what Obama and the Democratic Party claims to be the main reason for this reform legislation - to control the growing cost of healthcare in America. Funny, but there's not one mentioning in her article to refute both the claims of opponents and the Congressional Budget Office report that HR 3200 ("the Obama Plan") would result in a significant cost increase in national healthcare and significantly increase the national deficit for at least the next ten years. I guess I would have conveniently left out this part, too. You can read the actual letter from the CBO to the House Ways and Means Committee chairman, Congressman Charles Rangel, dated July 17, 2009.

She also forgot to clear up the supposed misconception as to whether or not President Obama is speaking correctly when he says "the AARP stands behind his plan (HR 3200)." Obama has stated this several times in public speeches, as seen on CNN, Fox, etc. This article would have been the perfect time to set the record straight. I'm glad to see we now know where the AARP stands on this - with Obama and the Democratic Party leaders.

In closing, the only assault I see on truth taking place here is by Ms. Barry's article and the AARP. How shameful it is on their part to try and mislead millions of senior citizens that HR 3200's opposition is based on lies and hype. I've never met Ms. Barry and don't know much about her, but I can tell you one basic difference between us - I've read most of HR 3200, clearly she hasn't.

Media stories report as of late AARP has taken a serious hit in its membership. I can't wait to see how this article will make even more flies start dropping to the floor.

You are Responsible

2009-09-02T02:13:04Z

I manage an email list of current and former residents of St. Bernard Parish. Although the list is predominately about the people and events of St. Bernard, we do veer off into state and national politics. St. Bernard is a very much a “red” parish and most of the commenters on the list have problems understanding the mindset of Democrats and liberals. In a recent post, someone sent along this PDF file that uses Buddhist doctrine to teach self-responsibility. The poster even commented how things have changed within the Democratic party from the 1960's when everyone was against “the man” i.e., the government. Now the Democratic leadership wants to become “the man” while the Democratic brethren seem to want to be controlled by “the man”. [Dhammananda - You are Responsible](http://www.TheCaneTruck.com/archives/2009/09/01/Dhammananda_You_are_Responsible.pdf)

North versus South, Again.

2009-08-10T13:03:58Z

In a special election to fill State Senate District 20, recently vacated by former Senator Reggie Dupre, State Representative Damon Baldone (District 53), wants to use the difference in voter turnout between those north of the Intracoastal Waterway and those south of it.

In an interview with the Tri-Parish Times newspaper, Baldone is claiming low-voter turnout and being the only candidate from north of the Intracoastal Waterway as his excuses for failing to make the run-off election scheduled for August 29 (you would think the powers that be would have avoided using the 29th as an election date, being that it is the anniversary of Katrina).

Perhaps Rep. Baldone needs to a look a little closer at how he has responded to his current constituents.

I sent an email to Rep. Baldone on May 7, while the state legislature was in session regarding HB389. Floor debate was scheduled on May 29, the House voted on it on June 4, the Senate voted on it June 22, and send to Governor Bobby Jindal's office on June 23. The session adjourned on June 25 and Governor Jindal signed the bill on June 30.

In the six weeks from the time I sent the email until the 2009 legislative session ended, not once did I receive any communication from Rep. Baldone's office.

Today, August 9, 2009, a week after he loses the election for state senator, I finally get an email from him telling me the status of the bill.

Perhaps if he had been more responsive to his constituents, he would be out campaigning instead of waiting for the start of the LSU football season.

Thank you for writing to me concerning HB 389. This bill has passed in the House and the Senate and became ACT 206 upon the signature of the Governor. The ACT went into effect June 30, 2009. To view a copy of the ACT use the following link. http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=667494

Representative Damon J. Baldone

162 New Orleans Blvd.

Houma, LA 70364

985-876-8872

________________________________________

From: Westley Annis [westley@da-parish.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 11:20 PM

To: Baldone, Rep. (District Office)

Subject: HB 389 - Save the Tax Exemption on Educational Materials

Representative Baldone:

For the past 13 years private schools in Louisiana have had a state sales tax exemption when purchasing textbooks, computers, and audio visual materials. This exemption expires on June 30, 2009; unless the Legislature renews it.

Without either a permanent tax exemption, or the renewal of the one currently in place, our schools would have to start paying $1 Million in new taxes. They simply cannot afford to do this without impacting my tuition.

The public schools have a permanent tax exemption on these same educational materials. The private schools deserve that same permanent tax exemption.

Please vote YES in support of Rep. Hunter Greene's HB 389, which would provide a PERMANENT tax exemption on these materials.

Sincerely,

Westley Annis