What do you want to know beyond their dealings with the state? How does knowing their credit card balance help the state for example?
First, I didn’t say that I, personally, needed to know it. That’s why I’m advocating some privacy in the disclosure. But as an example:
Say the Creole household discloses employment and other financial receipts per year of $45,000 total this year, debts of $70K on a house, credit cards of $100k. Savings and investments worth $50k.
Now, next time the Creoles report they show financial receipts of $45,000, no mortgage, and no credit card balance, savings and investments worth $200k. Perhaps they just forgot to put it on the report--but perhaps they no longer have a mortgage or any credit card debt.
The retiring of $170k worth of debt in one year on a $45k income, along with the substantial increase in savings and investments at the same time, on the same income, might indicate that something else is going on.
So that’s why I might not find having such information disclosed, but again, I don’t think it necessarily needs to be in the public domain, so to speak.
Make no mistake. The financial disclosure reporting was pushed from the very beginning by the lazy journalist crowd. (Remember the CPI and the BGA? The scales that we used to declare ourselves the gold standard--both are funded by journalists). Jindal successfully co-opted the issue for his own gain, but these types of laws are designed to make a reporter’s life easier. As evidence, I offer yesterday’s article in the Advocate that listed, without context, some of the financial interests held by some legislators. Poorly written and edited, as are many pieces in the Advocate, the article was simply a listing of figures with names of legislators. It did not go into detail of the financial interests, leaving the unobservant reader to believe that there was some sort of foul play, even though everything listed was legal and fully disclosed.
What do you want to know beyond their dealings with the state? How does knowing their credit card balance help the state for example?
First, I didn’t say that I, personally, needed to know it. That’s why I’m advocating some privacy in the disclosure. But as an example:
Say the Creole household discloses employment and other financial receipts per year of $45,000 total this year, debts of $70K on a house, credit cards of $100k. Savings and investments worth $50k.
Now, next time the Creoles report they show financial receipts of $45,000, no mortgage, and no credit card balance, savings and investments worth $200k. Perhaps they just forgot to put it on the report--but perhaps they no longer have a mortgage or any credit card debt.
The retiring of $170k worth of debt in one year on a $45k income, along with the substantial increase in savings and investments at the same time, on the same income, might indicate that something else is going on.
So that’s why I might not find having such information disclosed, but again, I don’t think it necessarily needs to be in the public domain, so to speak.
If you were engaged in criminal activity why would you ever present truthful information on your reports in the first place?
If you were to be investigated for a criminal activity then certainly there are tools investigators can use to compel the release of the information anyway.
What these laws have done is to make a mistake in reporting a crime itself. Anyone who serves that happens to be an enemy of the Governor could conceivably be forced to spend lots of money simply defending his reporting whether he has profited from his position or not. See what I mean? The Governor could say Cerole I want to see 10 years of your monthly bank statements and a copy of every check just to make your life miserable and your position on a board uncomfortable. Or tell me who was at this dinner on January 15th at Ruth Chris that appears on your credit card. All kinds of ridiculous scrutiny that no one should have to endure.
What’s wrong with making reporters’ jobs easier? We need more information, not less. And we don’t need the paper to explain things but sometimes it helps if they do.
It was not the reporters that voted for the legislators pay raise. Reporters did not vote to teach non-science in school as if it were science.
Reporters did not cause Louisiana to be last or near last on every list of good things at at or near the top on lists of bad times.
We should have laws that make it easier for the press, not harder.
The more sunshine on the government’s activities, the better.
The constitution recognizes that the press is needed to counter the government attempts at corruption. And if voting for a big pay raise out of the public’s hard earned money isn’t corrupt, what is?
What do you want to know beyond their dealings with the state? How does knowing their credit card balance help the state for example?
First, I didn’t say that I, personally, needed to know it. That’s why I’m advocating some privacy in the disclosure. But as an example:
Say the Creole household discloses employment and other financial receipts per year of $45,000 total this year, debts of $70K on a house, credit cards of $100k. Savings and investments worth $50k.
Now, next time the Creoles report they show financial receipts of $45,000, no mortgage, and no credit card balance, savings and investments worth $200k. Perhaps they just forgot to put it on the report--but perhaps they no longer have a mortgage or any credit card debt.
The retiring of $170k worth of debt in one year on a $45k income, along with the substantial increase in savings and investments at the same time, on the same income, might indicate that something else is going on.
So that’s why I might not find having such information disclosed, but again, I don’t think it necessarily needs to be in the public domain, so to speak.
If you were engaged in criminal activity why would you ever present truthful information on your reports in the first place?
If you were to be investigated for a criminal activity then certainly there are tools investigators can use to compel the release of the information anyway.
What these laws have done is to make a mistake in reporting a crime itself. Anyone who serves that happens to be an enemy of the Governor could conceivably be forced to spend lots of money simply defending his reporting whether he has profited from his position or not. See what I mean? The Governor could say Cerole I want to see 10 years of your monthly bank statements and a copy of every check just to make your life miserable and your position on a board uncomfortable. Or tell me who was at this dinner on January 15th at Ruth Chris that appears on your credit card. All kinds of ridiculous scrutiny that no one should have to endure.
The governor should not be in charge of the Ethics board. They should be nominated in staggered terms and independent of the government and legislature.
What’s wrong with making reporters’ jobs easier? We need more information, not less. And we don’t need the paper to explain things but sometimes it helps if they do.
It was not the reporters that voted for the legislators pay raise. Reporters did not vote to teach non-science in school as if it were science.
Reporters did not cause Louisiana to be last or near last on every list of good things at at or near the top on lists of bad times.
We should have laws that make it easier for the press, not harder.
The more sunshine on the government’s activities, the better.
The constitution recognizes that the press is needed to counter the government attempts at corruption. And if voting for a big pay raise out of the public’s hard earned money isn’t corrupt, what is?
Because reporters tend to skew the facts to sell more papers/magazines. If you ever see an UsWeekly at the grocery store you would know that. So an actress gains 5 pounds, they report that “sources” say she is pregnant. You really don’t think that she is, but are willing to spend the $5 to find out.
So I’m guessing you want to recall all of the legis and then elect all of the reporters huh?
What do you want to know beyond their dealings with the state? How does knowing their credit card balance help the state for example?
First, I didn’t say that I, personally, needed to know it. That’s why I’m advocating some privacy in the disclosure. But as an example:
Say the Creole household discloses employment and other financial receipts per year of $45,000 total this year, debts of $70K on a house, credit cards of $100k. Savings and investments worth $50k.
Now, next time the Creoles report they show financial receipts of $45,000, no mortgage, and no credit card balance, savings and investments worth $200k. Perhaps they just forgot to put it on the report--but perhaps they no longer have a mortgage or any credit card debt.
The retiring of $170k worth of debt in one year on a $45k income, along with the substantial increase in savings and investments at the same time, on the same income, might indicate that something else is going on.
So that’s why I might not find having such information disclosed, but again, I don’t think it necessarily needs to be in the public domain, so to speak.
If you were engaged in criminal activity why would you ever present truthful information on your reports in the first place?
If you were to be investigated for a criminal activity then certainly there are tools investigators can use to compel the release of the information anyway.
What these laws have done is to make a mistake in reporting a crime itself. Anyone who serves that happens to be an enemy of the Governor could conceivably be forced to spend lots of money simply defending his reporting whether he has profited from his position or not. See what I mean? The Governor could say Cerole I want to see 10 years of your monthly bank statements and a copy of every check just to make your life miserable and your position on a board uncomfortable. Or tell me who was at this dinner on January 15th at Ruth Chris that appears on your credit card. All kinds of ridiculous scrutiny that no one should have to endure.
The governor should not be in charge of the Ethics board. They should be nominated in staggered terms and independent of the government and legislature.
That is Stonecipher’s point except Jindal has made it even worse. Jindal has taken most of the enforcement away from the board and put it in the hands of a Governor appointed administrative judge. One man. It could be like the Soviet Union.
There are only a handful of reporters (Robert Scott at the TP and a couple of others on their good days) that are worth their salt in this state. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the value of having the most minute detail of a voluntary board members’ financial portfolio pasted on the public square.
The true impact of these draconian laws won’t be felt until the next election cycle is finished, when, I predict, it will be difficult to find quality candidates for many positions because they don’t want everyone in the world to know the value of their house, or how much money their wife has in her savings account, or--and this is the most aggregious--any time they spend more than $5,000. “Sorry, honey, we can’t renovate the kitchen or buy new furniture for the living room because it’ll be reportable.”
What’s wrong with making reporters’ jobs easier? We need more information, not less. And we don’t need the paper to explain things but sometimes it helps if they do.
It was not the reporters that voted for the legislators pay raise. Reporters did not vote to teach non-science in school as if it were science.
Reporters did not cause Louisiana to be last or near last on every list of good things at at or near the top on lists of bad times.
We should have laws that make it easier for the press, not harder.
The more sunshine on the government’s activities, the better.
The constitution recognizes that the press is needed to counter the government attempts at corruption. And if voting for a big pay raise out of the public’s hard earned money isn’t corrupt, what is?
Because reporters tend to skew the facts to sell more papers/magazines. If you ever see an UsWeekly at the grocery store you would know that. So an actress gains 5 pounds, they report that “sources” say she is pregnant. You really don’t think that she is, but are willing to spend the $5 to find out.
So I’m guessing you want to recall all of the legis and then elect all of the reporters huh?
Did I say that? Why distort what I said? What is your purpose for that?
By the way, you don’t have to buy a newspaper or magazine but you and I do have to pay the taxes the legislators wanted for their pay. There is a major difference, one being voluntary and one being mandatory. Does that make sense?
There are only a handful of reporters (Robert Scott at the TP and a couple of others on their good days) that are worth their salt in this state. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the value of having the most minute detail of a voluntary board members’ financial portfolio pasted on the public square.
The true impact of these draconian laws won’t be felt until the next election cycle is finished, when, I predict, it will be difficult to find quality candidates for many positions because they don’t want everyone in the world to know the value of their house, or how much money their wife has in her savings account, or--and this is the most aggregious--any time they spend more than $5,000. “Sorry, honey, we can’t renovate the kitchen or buy new furniture for the living room because it’ll be reportable.”
Are you suggesting that we now have “quality” politicians? if so, why is Louisiana last or near last on any list of good things like children’s healthcare and job creation and first or near first on lists of bad things like AIDS, crime and the like.
Perhaps we need less “quality” of the kind we’ve had and more that want to be in public service for its own merit, not for their personal benefit.
What we’ve been electing certainly hasn’t worked.
yes, elected officials should report all their financial dealings. They are public employees, not working for private companies. It’s nothing different than what investors require of people whose company they’re being asked to invest in.
It’s no secret that politicians skew the truth; just look at our esteemed governor. And, by the way, your analogy about the pay raise being costly is not exactly without skew. The reality is that the pay raise would have cost you and me and other taxpayers just under an additional 70 cents a year, which is roughly what you are paying now. So, from 75 cents to about $1.45 per person to employ the legislature. That’s still less than half a gallon of gas, or a third of a jar of peanut butter, or one frosty cold Bud. The raise (warranted or not) was not going to break anyone’s bank account, and to keep perpetuating that myth is the height of spin.
It’s no secret that politicians skew the truth; just look at our esteemed governor. And, by the way, your analogy about the pay raise being costly is not exactly without skew. The reality is that the pay raise would have cost you and me and other taxpayers just under an additional 70 cents a year, which is roughly what you are paying now. So, from 75 cents to about $1.45 per person to employ the legislature. That’s still less than half a gallon of gas, or a third of a jar of peanut butter, or one frosty cold Bud. The raise (warranted or not) was not going to break anyone’s bank account, and to keep perpetuating that myth is the height of spin.
Is it spin that these and prior politicians have put Louisiana at or near the bottom of every list of good things and at or near the top of nearly every national list of bad things?
Why should they get a raise? They have accomplished nothing. They certainly should not be voting themselves a pay raise for no accomplishments?
Why should I and every other taxpayer pay 45 cents a year for their ineptness?
If they want the taxpayers’ 45 cents, they should do something good for the taxpayers, not for themselves?
How much money will they have wasted passing a law that allows the teaching of religious beliefs in public schools? The cost of legal fees will be in the millions and in the end the courts will nullify a law so out of synch with the constitution that no other state has passes a similar law.
Let’s focus on better education, better roads, more productive state bureaucracy, lower taxes and less government interference, not such silly laws.
