This millage requested would have
increased from 1.55 to 1.75, because of failure to roll forward in the past,
and the parish was sitting on over twice the overall authorized amount of $23
million in uncommitted funds. It came up with a list of modest, uncritical
projects to take most of that money. It narrowly
failed when on last October’s ballot when placed with some other unrelated matters,
but was obliterated
three-to-one earlier this month by a slightly smaller voting public when joined by just two small measures on the ballot.
Members of that public who voiced
an opinion to me or to others mentioned several reasons why they rejected it.
Besides the fact it represented a tax increase, others included that it was
unnecessary given the surpluses, that it was arrogant of the parish to try again
after the people spoke the first time, and that they didn’t see the list of
wants as compelling.
But none of this seemed to be
picked up by Democrat Commissioner Michael Williams, who stated
“those on the other side got their message out better than we did.” While this
is a possibility and actually does serve as a valid explanation from time to
time, it’s delusional to think that, as in this instance, something which got
the approval of roughly 2,000 out of 9,000 votes suffered from a messaging
problem. It’s wasn’t the messaging that was at fault, but the message itself.
Another commissioner whose
remarks on the subject make the intelligent voter want to go rap him on the
forehead and ask if anybody’s home is Republican John Escudé. He seemed to
think it was all the fault of the Internet for the landslide loss, opining that
the “social media and the blogosphere is [sic] a powerful, powerful tool.”
Williams added that he thought opponents used these and other tactics misled
voters. Hard to mislead even a portion of 77 percent that would have mattered,
don’t you think?
Still, that doesn’t matter, because
whatever and however voters decide about something, that’s what they decide.
And it’s not like Escudé or Williams don’t know how to shoot off an e-mail
message or make social media post of their own, so either they are dunderheads
when it comes to plotting out a campaign – and that seems unlikely since they’ve
managed to win multiple elections for their posts – or, again, the truth simply
is if the message against renewal was not so compelling in the first place, it
never would have had the traction to attract seven-ninth’s of the vote.
Yet the award for the most
brain-dead comment about this went to Escudé. Mr. Sour Grapes defiantly
declared that, because of the outcome that means potentially dipping into the ample
free reserves, “we’re just going to have less money to pursue economic
development …. We won’t be as competitive as Texas, for example, but it’s not
the end of the world.”
Note the worldview on display here.
In Escudé’s mind, government spending, not the market, drives economic
development. To him, bigger government is better while you don’t get that kind
of return by letting the people keep more of what they earn. He sees government
as a necessary central planning tool that is superior over the decision-making
of individuals when it comes to producing economic growth. While that attitude might
make the Republican cozy with Democrats on the Commission, it certainly runs
against the grain of his district, and apparently of a lot of parish-wide
voters as well. And in a nutshell explains why he is so clueless about it all.
Perhaps had the parish asked for
renewal at the present amount, or dropped it lower, the proposition might have
passed. But if this pair of clowns stands in for most of the Commission’s
inability to learn a lesson (Commissioner Stephanie Lynch did speak against the measure, and others may have sobered up since), it seems clearer than ever that the only thing
that will stick with them would come in next fall. By booting them out of
office.
No comments:
Post a Comment