Senatron Vitter and The Talking Points

I think my Senator might be an automaton.

This past summer, I emailed Sen. Vitter what I thought were two simple questions: "Could you please explain your reasons for voting NO on the nomination of Richard Cordray for Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?  Who do you think would have been a more appropriate choice for this position, someone you could have voted for?" 

A little over two weeks later, he responded:

Dear Friend,
 
Thank you for contacting me in opposition to Majority Leader Harry Reid's planed "nuclear option" to change procedures in the Senate. I appreciate hearing from you, and I completely agree with you. 
 
As you know, Senator Reid was advocating ending the 60-vote threshold currently needed to confirm Executive branch nominees. He was considering a "nuclear option" to lower the threshold to 51 votes, which would have drastically changed the rules and norms of the Senate. I am vehemently opposed to this hypocritical idea that would severely hamper a minority party's constitutional right to advise and consent. A last minute deal was reached to defuse this current crisis, but Democrats could still attempt this maneuver in the future. 
 
If Senate Democrats insist on changing how the Senate operates, it will not be because Senate Republicans have forced their hand. Of the 1,564 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate over the past four and a half years, only four have been rejected. Also, according to the Congressional Research Service, President Obama's cabinet nominees are, on average, moving from announcement to confirmation faster than nominees from the last two previous Presidents. Majority Leader Reid's plan is based on false premises, not on facts. Democrats would do permanent damage to the Senate for immediate and temporary political gain. Rest assured that I will hard to oppose this "nuclear option." 
 

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about other issues important to you and your family.

__________________________ 

OOOOOOK, Take 2.  Although I should have been pleased over the personalized comment tacked onto the end of his email in a totally different font, I ungratefully wrote back:

Senator Vitter,

I do appreciate your taking the time to respond to my message.  It appears, however, that you responded to questions different from the ones I asked.  My questions were:

Senator Vitter, Could you please explain your reasons for voting NO on the nomination of Richard Cordray for Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Who do you think would have been a more appropriate choice for this position, someone you could have voted for?

Could you please answer those questions?  Thank you.

_________________________

That was two months ago.  

Could the appropriate staffer please reboot the Senator in order to complete the installation of his most recent talking points?  It's not like y'all are doing anything else.  

An Open Letter to LA State Treasurer John Kennedy

Dear Mr. Kennedy,

I would like to begin by lauding your tireless efforts in ensuring that Louisiana's tax dollars are spent wisely and, specifically, your vocal advocacy for sensibly balancing the needs of our citizens with those of individuals and companies who contract with the state.  Because of the credibility you've established in addressing such matters, I urge you to ensure that the money received from pharmaceutical settlements finds its way back into the healthcare services budget from which it originated and to which it belongs. 

$38.8 million from Allergan, Covidien, United Research Laboratories, Merck, and Pfizer 

+

$258 million (+ $70 million for attorneys' fees) from Johnson & Johnson

+

$8.5 million from Watson Pharmaceuticals  
+

$45 million from GlaxoSmithKline (+ $7 million for attorneys' fees) 

_________________________________________________________________

= $350.3 MILLION DOLLARS FOR MEDICAID 

Attorney General Caldwell and DHH Secretary Kliebert acknowledge that these monies are "the result of Caldwell's office aggressively pursuing the recovery of Louisiana taxpayer's vital Medicaid dollars."  One of the attorneys for the state also stated that the money "will go directly to Louisiana’s Medicaid program."  By my estimate, at least $258 million of this money (from the J&J settlement) should specifically go back into the state's mental health budget.  

Mr. Treasurer, please make sure that happens.  

A jury found Janssen’s marketing campaigns violated the state law 35,542 times at a cost of $7,250 per violation, resulting in $258 million in fines. It awarded the state another $70 million in counsel fees.  The Louisiana Supreme Court will decide whether the verdict will stand. - See more at: http://www.whistleblowerlawyernews.com/2013/03/07/anti-marketing-fraud-statute-used-to-prosecute-johnson-and-johnson-in-risperdal-case/#sthash.6ee2lzso.dpuf

A jury found Janssen’s marketing campaigns violated the state law 35,542 times at a cost of $7,250 per violation, resulting in $258 million in fines. It awarded the state another $70 million in counsel fees.  The Louisiana Supreme Court will decide whether the verdict will stand. - See more at: http://www.whistleblowerlawyernews.com/2013/03/07/anti-marketing-fraud-statute-used-to-prosecute-johnson-and-johnson-in-risperdal-case/#sthash.6ee2lzso.dpuf

 A jury found Janssen’s marketing campaigns violated the state law 35,542 times at a cost of $7,250 per violation, resulting in $258 million in fines. It awarded the state another $70 million in counsel fees.  The Louisiana Supreme Court will decide whether the verdict will stand. - See more at: http://www.whistleblowerlawyernews.com/2013/03/07/anti-marketing-fraud-statute-used-to-prosecute-johnson-and-johnson-in-risperdal-case/#sthash.6ee2lzso.dpuf

 A jury found Janssen’s marketing campaigns violated the state law 35,542 times at a cost of $7,250 per violation, resulting in $258 million in fines. It awarded the state another $70 million in counsel fees.  The Louisiana Supreme Court will decide whether the verdict will stand. - See more at: http://www.whistleblowerlawyernews.com/2013/03/07/anti-marketing-fraud-statute-used-to-prosecute-johnson-and-johnson-in-risperdal-case/#sthash.6ee2lzso.dpuf

 A jury found Janssen’s marketing campaigns violated the state law 35,542 times at a cost of $7,250 per violation, resulting in $258 million in fines. It awarded the state another $70 million in counsel fees.  The Louisiana Supreme Court will decide whether the verdict will stand. - See more at: http://www.whistleblowerlawyernews.com/2013/03/07/anti-marketing-fraud-statute-used-to-prosecute-johnson-and-johnson-in-risperdal-case/#sthash.6ee2lzso.dpuf

 A jury found Janssen’s marketing campaigns violated the state law 35,542 times at a cost of $7,250 per violation, resulting in $258 million in fines. It awarded the state another $70 million in counsel fees.  The Louisiana Supreme Court will decide whether the verdict will stand. - See more at: http://www.whistleblowerlawyernews.com/2013/03/07/anti-marketing-fraud-statute-used-to-prosecute-johnson-and-johnson-in-risperdal-case/#sthash.6ee2lzso.dpuf

A jury found Janssen’s marketing campaigns violated the state law 35,542 times at a cost of $7,250 per violation, resulting in $258 million in fines. It awarded the state another $70 million in counsel fees.  The Louisiana Supreme Court will decide whether the verdict will stand. - See more at: http://www.whistleblowerlawyernews.com/category/false-advertising/#sthash.VVI5MdXy.dpuf

A jury found Janssen’s marketing campaigns violated the state law 35,542 times at a cost of $7,250 per violation, resulting in $258 million in fines. It awarded the state another $70 million in counsel fees.  The Louisiana Supreme Court will decide whether the verdict will stand. - See more at: http://www.whistleblowerlawyernews.com/category/false-advertising/#sthash.VVI5MdXy.dpuf

K +8

Budgeting for Little Outcomes

The little things in life really are important, probably because those little things -- a child's smile or embrace, a joke told in passing by a friend that lifts your spirits on a shitty day -- eventually end up playing a big role in the quality of your life.

The same holds true for the little things that bring not joy but irritation, and eventually, high blood pressure if you're not careful.  Take light bulbs and dollar-store paint, for example. 

At 4:36PM yesterday during school zone hours, the school zone lights in front of KIPP Believe on S. Carrollton were not flashing, but I saw the speed camera flash on at least 5 different drivers who couldn't have been driving more than the regular posted speed limit of 30mph due to the volume of traffic at the time.  As was the case THREE MONTHS AGO when I reported this issue to my Councilwoman whose office then notified 311 and Dept. of Public Works Traffic Engineer Allen Yrle of the issue, the school zone lights were flashing on the opposite (lakebound) side of S. Carrollton, but not on the riverbound side.   New school year, same problem.  

Another little thing that bothers me in New Orleans are parking tickets, especially the ones for parking within however many feet ordained by city law from an intersection or crosswalk.  Now maybe it's just me hating on the meter maids for their amazing ability to eyeball distances with such pinpoint accuracy, but folks like me who were not blessed with that talent would appreciate a visible demarcation of the forbidden parking zones.  Every other city I've lived in has accomplished this through the modern miracle of painting white, sometimes yellow, lines on the pavement.  Yes, we are New Orleanians, and we pride ourselves on marching to the beat of a different drum; but maybe doing this one thing the way other modernized Western civilizations do it isn't so bad.  Just this once.  I SWEAR, just this ONE THING, and that's it.  And only temporarily, just until we come up with parking stripes more representative of our unique culture that have something to do with Mardi Gras Indians, or second lines, or the Saints or something.

It just so happens that we are once again upon that most wonderful time of year <*cue Johnny Mathis*> when the mayor requests citizen input regarding the next year's budget.   "Budgeting for outcomes," I believe he likes to call it.  Well, here's my advice, Mayor Landrieu: How about we start with budgeting for easily achievable, even cheap, outcomes like replacement bulbs for school zone signs and heavily discounted gallons of paint?  Nothing says RE-ELECT ME like a list of accomplishments!  Yes, even if it's just a list full of the little accomplishments.