Issue 2

April 2012

OCCUPY BATON ROUGE

OccupyBR.com

Free

EXCLUSIVE!!!!!!!! For-profit, self-appointed “Independent Voice of South

Louisiana” apparently has area monopoly on [censored]ing

BY BEN VITELLI Occupy Baton Rouge On January 23, only one day after the release of the first issue of Occupy Baton Rouge’s monthly newsletter “The People’s [Censored],” the OBR email account received a message from the head editor of the [Censored]--the Baton Rouge daily newspaper, not the gay rights magazine (just so you’re not confused). An excerpt of his email: "While I am flattered that you have copied The [Censored]’s banner and, to an extent, our standard front page design, I must ask you to come up with a new format for your newsletter. As currently presented, your newsletter could cause confusion among your readers that The [Censored] newspa-per and the Occupy Baton Rouge movement are somehow connected. I believe it infringes on our copyright and trademark. While we support free speech and free press, we also must maintain our position as a publication that is not aligned with any particular group or movement.” While it seemed almost impossible that anyone would confuse our online monthly newsletter with the Baton Rouge daily, one of our editors replied to their request, stating that though our independent paper was largely pro-tected as parody, we would add a dis-claimer to our front page. To be per-fectly frank, we were a bit surprised the people at the [Censored] were still aware of our existence, let alone regu-

The People’s [Censored] is a publication produced by participants in Occupy Ba-ton Rouge. The People’s [Censored] does not—and could not—represent any-one except its participants. We are in no way affiliated with the [Censored] or their corporate overlords Capitol City Press. The views of the authors are their own.

The biggest threat to paid speech is free speech.

larly checking our website and Face-book page for updates. Since our at-tempted “Move-In Day” last Black Fri-day, when half the Baton Rouge Police Department decided to use their holi-day weekend and LSU-Arkansas game day to monitor the couple dozen pro-testors hanging out at Arsenal Park, there had been a considerable ab-sence of coverage of our many actions in the [Censored]. This is sadly the way the goldfish-attention spanned mainstream media works, folks. Something is “In” for awhile—it’s fresh and exciting and new, and then suddenly The Next Big Thing comes along and whatever was so important three weeks ago is forgot-ten about and left by the wayside, con-tinuity be damned. It’s a travesty, and it’s a phenomenon that unfortunately stretches far beyond the reaches of our friends at the [Censored]. While we were initially somewhat thrown off by the [Censored]’s com-plaints against our paper, we found being back on their radar for such a trivial technicality slightly flattering. Our newsletter, which hadn’t been up for more than a week, was already receiv-ing threats from high places. The com-mon consensus amongst our members was that we must be doing something right if our modest efforts were still pissing off the Old Guard. Then, the following week, the [Censored] attacked again. Our email account received a letter from some-one introducing himself as a lawyer for

Capital City Press, the owners of the [Censored], and was accompanied by a formal demand letter. The three page letter was a threat addressed to one of our members specifically by name. The lawyers spent a lot of time defining “parody” (as well as condescendingly referring us to the Onion which, apparently, is the pin-nacle of parody) and ended with the demand under legal threat that we do the following: “(i) immediately and permanently terminating any further marketing, promotion and/or use of the term ‘The [Censored],’ including any and all confusingly similar or related deri-vations of the mark; “(ii) immediately and permanently removing any and all references and/or use of the ‘The [Censored]’ trade name/trademark on your website located at http://occupybr.com/, in-cluding all associated webpages, and/or elsewhere on the Internet; “(iii) immediately and permanently terminating any and all further use, display, circulation or distribution of any promotions, advertisements, publications, content and/or market-ing that includes any reference to ‘The [Censored]’; “(iv) signifying your binding ac-ceptance of these terms by signing and returning this consent agree-ment to undersigned counsel by no later than February 14, 2012...

☛ See CENSORED, page 7

Letter to the editor: Education reform

With enthusiasm, a ‘yes’ for CATS

Bobby’s world

State classified employees’ lobbying rights

More inside...

☛ PAGE 2

☛ PAGE 2

☛ PAGE 3

☛ PAGE 6

Louisiana’s hidden state budget ☛ PAGE 5

What we’re watching: Freakonomics: The Movie ☛ PAGE 7

censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

2 April 2012 The People’s [Censored]

BY SOPHI KUNEN AND BRYAN PERKINS Occupy Baton Rouge Many of you may have read the [Censored]’s editorial against the CATS tax. This really shouldn’t come as a surprise. Why would a business that’s owned by one of the richest families in town—the Manships, literally THE 1% in Baton Rouge—want to pay for something that doesn’t give them an immediate and direct return on their money? Ok, so it’s really not surprising that the corporate-owned newspaper is against a tax that would sustain a public service. But, the reasoning be-hind their “reluctance” to support the CATS proposal is fallacious at best. The [Censored] complains that the taxing districts are unfair because not every single area that will benefit from transit will get taxed. They imply, cit-ing supporters of the tax, that the vot-ing districts were gerrymandered, all the time ignoring the fact that holding the election parishwide—as has been done in the past—would mean that there is only a 60% correspondence between the CATS service areas and

the voting/taxing areas. Holding the election in the cities of Baton Rouge, Baker, and Zachary—as it is being done this time—gives a 95% corre-spondence. But, the [Censored] won’t tell you that. They won’t tell you that the CATS board has no control over the city lim-its. They won’t tell you that 40% of vot-ers who don’t even live in the service area would still have to pay the tax if it passed parishwide instead of citywide. No, they aren’t really concerned with fairness, they are concerned with their own bottom line. Now, would it be great if we could include the Mall of Louisiana in the tax-ing district? Sure, we’d love to give them the opportunity to help supply Baton Rouge with a much-needed pub-lic service. But that’s simply not an op-tion at this point in time, and it’s cer-tainly not a reason to vote against this tax and for the death of CATS. As you can see, our friends at the [Censored] really have no argument against the tax. In fact, they explicitly state that they have “long supported the idea that Baton Rouge’s public transit system needs a dedicated source of funding in order to reach its potential”, citing their support of the

previous CATS tax proposals. It’s funny, though, that they thought hav-ing 40% of those voters pay for a pub-lic transportation system that doesn’t even reach their city was fair, but this one isn’t. Beyond that, their argument amounts to nothing more than hand waving about the mechanics of the plan. They are afraid that having a separate measure in each city might “further balkanize parish government”. If you ask us, it’s not really that “puzzling” of a plan. The altruism ex-pected of Baker and Zachary voters by the [Censored] is what’s confusing. Why should Baker and Zachary still receive full services if they don’t pass the tax? And, since the vast ma-jority of CATS riders live in Baton Rouge, if it fails here how would it make financial sense to continue ser-vices in Baker and Zachary? That’s all the [Censored] has. No to the CATS tax because it’s not a fair taxing area, even though it better cor-responds with the ridership than previ-ous CATS tax measures they have already supported...

☛ See CATS, page 12

With enthusiasm, a ‘yes’ for CATS

BY BEN VITELLI Occupy Baton Rouge When Piyush Jindal was four years old, he nicknamed himself “Bobby,” after his favorite character on the Brady Bunch. But, based on the way he would run his dictatorship over Louisiana, little Piyush should have probably chosen Jan--the bratty, self-centered middle-child--as his Brady Bunch model. Like many politicians, Jindal has an enormous ego. And, like many politicians, Jindal is highly ambitious--

his plans for the presidency in 2016 (or vice-presidency this winter) are no secret to anyone. Indeed, one could view Jindal’s entire tenure as governor as the ultimate exer-c i s e o f s e l f -promotion, his goal always being a seat in The White House. Even the title of his

book Leadership and Crisis reeks of presidential ambition. Jindal climbed to the top of Louisi-ana government on the backlash against the corruption and mismanage-ment which plagued post-Katrina Lou-isiana. The image he likes to present of himself is that of a capable and vision-ary leader, willing to take any course of action if it means doing What’s Right. Yet, the image of Jindal propped up by the media and his administration is far from that of the reasoned, well-thought out conservative figure he cuts himself out to be and more attuned to that of a

young bully not used to not getting his own way. Jindal takes his media ascribed status as future Republican frontrun-ner very seriously, and whatever he views as a threat to his future candi-dacy is not taken lightly. Time and time again, voices within his admini-stration who publicly disagree with his politics are quietly shoved out the door, while those he cannot directly control (like the teachers who were prevented from testifying in mid-March) are just not given a voice at all. His almost-Stalinlike purge of any-one willing to speak out against him and his policies has created an envi-ronment of fearful silence within the halls of Louisiana state government. And, like most tyrants, this silence and fear to speak up are precisely what Jindal needs for his plans to suc-ceed. Jindal’s propensity for firing any-one who disagrees with his policies has become such a common phe-nomenon that it’s necessitated the creation of a word: Teague...

☛ See BOBBY, page 8

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

The People’s [Censored] April 2012 3

The following was submitted to the Peoples [Censored] on March 22. With our recent censorship troubles, it took us until today to finally get it printed. What you are about to read is a letter that Lottie Beebe, a board-member from district 3 on the Louisi-ana Board of Elementary and Sec-ondary Education (BESE), submit-ted to her local newspaper. That newspaper refused to print the let-ter. We here at the People’s [Censored] believe in giving every-one a voice, and as such here is her letter in full. PREFACE: Out of professional courtesy, it was my intent to ad-dress you directly, Senator Appel, and present this information to the Senate Education Committee on March 15

th; however, I was not

afforded the opportunity to ad-dress SB 603. Other BESE mem-bers who were proponents of SB 603 were indeed allowed to speak. I have chosen this venue to communicate my concerns. Dear Editor: While much has been said about accountability regarding traditional public schools, I think it is time for accountability in areas outside of the education arena. To quote Senator Appel, Senate Education Committee Chairman, in a letter to his Senate colleagues, “crime, broken families, drugs, poor health, poverty, high insurance rates—these social ills pervade our society and our state!” He further states, “we, as represen-tatives of the people, take our jobs seriously; and no matter how much

we spend, no matter how much we legis-late, we can do little or nothing to solve these problems”. (This declaration ap-pears worthy of a letter grade F-). Well, Senator, welcome to the world of educators. You are the very people who create the laws that have tied the hands of those within the public educa-tion arena. Yet, you continue to legislate when you have acknowledged you can’t solve the problems! So the solution is to attack traditional public schools and blame educators for the ills that plague our society. Senator, education reform could have been a win-win for all stakeholders if traditional pub-lic schools remained in the equation. There are no solutions offered other than school choice, vouchers, and charters. What happened to traditional public edu-cation? Often it is said, there are those who complain without offering solutions. I will offer the following: a responsible ap-proach is to address student apathy, family dynamics in the home, lack of re-spect for education, and attempt to change a culture that has perpetuated poverty and a dependence on entitle-ments for years. Another approach is to fully fund ef-fective pre-k programs—the research reveals the achievement gap between at-risk students and their more affluent counterparts can be reduced by 50%. Another is the reinstatement and re-imbursement of the 2.75% funding of the MFP for the last three years to school systems which would allow districts to continue after school tutorial programs, pre-k programs, and maintain much needed personnel to assist with school improvement efforts. Another is to collaborate with univer-sity personnel to assess their needs for

strengthening teacher preparation programs. Another approach to achieving student success is to approve legisla-tion that allows for quality substitutes who are retired veterans and are will-ing to contribute to our society as opposed to outsourcing this responsi-bility to non-educators imported from coast to coast. So what if the retired teachers receive a retirement bene-fit? They are the trained experts who will effectively impact learning. Often substitute teachers, lacking the ap-propriate credentials due to the non-availability of certified applicants, are hired to teach for six weeks or longer. One does not need rocket science to determine the impact this action has on student achievement. In closing, as a human resources director, I recognize there is room for improvement in education. I don’t embrace charters as the silver bullet, nor do I believe vouchers are the so-lution, particularly when equal access is not available to all students. I per-sonally believe that once parochial and private schools take public money, these learning institutions will end up having the same concerns as traditional public schools. The edu-cation reform being touted is a band aid approach to a much greater prob-lem. The sad reality, Senator, is you have acknowledged our society is broken and you can’t fix it. So why are you experimenting within the education arena? Sincerely, Lottie P. Beebe, BESE District 3 Breaux Bridge, LA

Letter to the Editor

Dear readers, After seeing the title of this article you may be asking yourself, “Why is there a letter to readers of the [Censored ] in the Peop le ’s [Censored]?” If so, let me congratulate you. You’re not as easily confused as Capital City Press—the corporation behind the [Censored]—would like to think. If that wasn’t the first question that popped into your mind, perhaps you thought to yourself, “The [Censored]? You mean the world’s leading gay news resource?” <advocate.com>

Or, “Why would I read a New Eng-l a n d N e w s p a p e r ? ” <advocateweekly.com> Maybe even, “I don’t live in Clifton. Why is th is in my People ’s [Censored]?” <cliftonadvocate.com> But, my friends, let me assure you, you are indeed reading the People’s [Censored], not a corporate shill. Perhaps our “brazen” attempt to wish you a good morning in our first issue left you wondering if Capital City Press somehow endorses our effort to provide a truly independent voice for Louisiana. After all, anyone who prints “Good Morning, Louisiana” must be

affiliated with Capital City Press. Am I right? And, not only did we wish you well in the early hours of the day, we had the extreme audacity to use Times New Roman as our banner font. I mean, how dare us, using a standard font that comes with one of the most widely used word processing systems in existence. Or, maybe you have a rare brand of color blindness wherein you cannot see the color red. Maybe you see white instead...

☛ See LETTER, page 9

Open letter to readers of the [Censored] Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

4 April 2012 The People’s [Censored]

BY DAVID KIRSHNER Occupy Baton Rouge Recently I proposed an amend-ment to the U.S. Constitution to clarify the meaning of “Freedom of Speech” as a way to attack the legitimacy of private funding of public elections. “Whereas Freedom of Speech is the liberty to express one’s own opin-ions and ideas without hindrance, and does not include the right to amplify the speech of others, nor to dominate the discourse in political contests; and “Whereas a number of Supreme Court rulings have interpreted Free-dom of Speech to protect the right of private entities to fund election cam-paigns and otherwise to use private funds to influence public perception of candidates and issues in the context of political campaigns, “Be it Resolved that neither Free-dom of Speech, nor the Right to Peti-tion Government, nor any other exist-ing constitutional principle abridges the complete and exclusive right of We the People of these United States, through our legislatures, to control and regulate the financial re-sources through which messages with political intent are communicated to the electorate in connection with political campaigns at the national, state, and local levels.” The right of private entities—individuals or corporations—to give money to amplify the voice of a politi-cal candidate (i.e., to fund electoral campaigns) is most often defended as the constitutionally protected Free Speech rights of those entities. But the right to express controversial and unpopular opinions without fear of sanction—the true meaning of Free-dom of Speech—has nothing to do with amplifying the voices of others. Nor does it entail unlimited freedom to amplify one’s own voice during a political campaign, drowning out the voices of less well-funded candidates. We need to remove this fig leaf of legitimacy in order to expose private funding of electoral campaigns for what it is: a naked power grab, a way for the ultra-wealthy to ensure that politicians work for their special inter-ests rather than in the public interest. This raises the question of what role should the ultra-wealthy play in our society? It seems the American public is very much enamored of its

billionaires, quite convinced that what they give to society by way of national competitive advantage through the busi-nesses and industries they create enti-tles them to special privileges, perhaps even justifies their being able to run the show—what is in their interest surely must be in our interest. At the base of this sentiment is a sense of the rights of a “ruling class” that probably traces back beyond the origins of American democracy to the class system of Eng-lish society. Although the rhetoric of revolutionary America rejected the idea of a class system, we need to recognize that class-consciousness floats just be-low the surface of our national con-science. The idea of a national subconscious operating below the level of our es-poused ideals may be unsettling. Many of my fellow travelers on this road to political reform take their ideals seri-ously; they don’t want them sullied by talk of subconscious forces reflecting our true, underlying, mindset. But I do not share this hubris of pure ideals. I recognize in myself anxieties related to class consciousness: In a true democracy, one not domi-nated by the ultra-wealthy, would we fall prey to high ideals like “from each ac-cording to his ability, to each according to his need” and wind up in a totalitarian nightmare? Would we redistribute wealth to the extent that incentives to industriousness erode, and we become a weak nation? Might we not ultimately be better off with a political system controlled by the wealthy, even if the extremes of finan-cial inequality we are experiencing now seem excessive and unfair? I wish I could say that I have over-come these fears, answered these questions, and now wholeheartedly em-brace the ideals of true democracy. But I can’t. I share in class-consciousness. What impels me forward in the quest for fundamental political change is not cer-tainty that true democracy will save us, but a growing recognition that the ways of the ultra-wealthy will surely damn us. For, what has evolved over the past couple of decades of increasing domi-nation by the wealthy is pushing us away from the gains of the Enlighten-ment toward a new Dark Ages. The Way of the Wealthy When you think about it, the ultra-wealthy have an astonishingly difficult challenge posed to them by democracy.

‘How can we maintain an economy of amazing disparity between rich and poor within a political system wherein any schmo who happens to get elected by the rabble can pro-pose a new tax structure that confis-cates most of my hard-earned in-come and gradually reduces me to the norm of an increasingly mediocre society?’ This anxiety of the ultra-wealthy needs to be recognized as a relentless and ongoing dilemma; it is not a problem that ever can be fully solved. In a democracy, the rabble does truly have the power. Keeping them from using it in their own finan-cial self-interest is a never-ending struggle. The solution that the ultra-wealthy have pursued in recent decades—with amazing success!—has been to exploit the natural fault lines that ex-ist in any society between forces of stasis and forces of change. Socie-ties do not exist in a vacuum, but rather within a physical and social ecology wherein circumstances change, populations grow and shrink, food and energy supplies suf-fice or are insufficient, neighboring societies are aggressive or peaceful. Societies constantly have to modify themselves, their internal structure, to respond to the changing environ-ment they are part of. Nor is the opti-mal response evident or even unique. Neither are the impacts of change identical for all sectors of a society. As a result the process of change is one that is fraught with tensions. An excellent exemplar of such change dates back to the European Renaissance during the middle pe-riod of the last millennium. During that time, a scientific mentality was emerging that enabled new technolo-gies that could enhance our utiliza-tion of the physical world. However, adapting to these new possibilities required huge changes in the struc-tures of society. Construing the world objectively became a new locus of importance that engaged with indi-vidual consciousness. Thus the right to authorize knowledge had to shift from religious institutions governed by subjective matters of faith and observance to secular institutions governed by objective reasoning...

☛ See 1%, page 9

David comes clean: Why I oppose the 1% of the 1%

Censored

The People’s [Censored] April 2012 5

BY JAN MOLLER Louisiana Budget Project It didn’t get much attention, but at the end of February Gov. Bobby Jin-dal made what appears to be a dra-matic policy shift. Speaking to WWL-TV in New Orleans on the day that President Obama released a plan to cut corporate taxes, Jindal said: “The reality is, I’m certainly in fa-vor of taking away all of the different subsidies and loopholes in the tax code, but let’s treat everybody fairly. Let’s do that across the board. I think just picking and choosing industries is not the way to go… and that’s what’s gotten us into the trouble in the first place.” To which the Louisiana Budget Project says: Welcome to the party, governor! What took you so long? As governor, there isn’t much Jin-dal can do to Obama’s plan to lower corporate tax rates while eliminating loopholes. If that was his goal, he could have stayed in Congress and joined the debate. But there is quite a lot Jindal can do right here in Louisiana to fix a tax code that is riddled with loopholes and special-interest exemptions that are worth a combined $4.8 billion. As luck would have it, there is a docu-ment put out each year by Jindal’s own Department of Revenue called the Tax Exemption Budget. The lat-est version was released just this week. In Louisiana, this hidden state budget receives little scrutiny from the public or their elected representa-tives, though you can be sure the interest groups that benefit from these breaks are paying close atten-tion. And while the governor is now sending positive signals about the need to end loopholes and special-interest giveaways, the record shows the exact opposite has occurred on Jindal’s watch. Perhaps the most illuminating sec-tion of the tax exemption report is the one devoted to corporate taxes. Here, we learn that in 2010-11, com-panies paid $198 million in state taxes and received exemptions worth $1.459 billion, for a “tax loss” per-centage of 88.1 percent. Compare this to the previous year, when companies paid $435 million in taxes and were exempted from

$1.333 billion, for a loss percentage of 75.4 percent. The year before that, cor-porations paid $586 million, with a loss percentage of 67.8 percent. The fact is, the percentage of corpo-rate taxes that are actually paid, com-pared to the revenues lost to the state through exemptions and loopholes, has gone down each of the last four years. Not coincidentally, these years have also seen sharp cuts in what Louisiana invests in education, health care and other services that citizens depend on and help create a prosperous future for everyone. The following is an article printed by the Louisiana Budget Project in May of 2010 concerning Louisiana’s Hidden State Budget. While some of the num-bers have changed—thanks to changes in accounting methodology not any pol-icy reversals on the part of Jindal’s ad-ministration—the general message be-hind the piece remains the same: Louisiana will spend approximately $8 billion in state revenues next fiscal year through the state budget. The state also will spend another $7 billion-plus through what might be called the hidden budget. What is this hidden budget? It’s the total of more than 440 separate pieces of legislation, each of which exempts someone or something from some form of taxation. While the regular state budget is made up of money the state takes in and then sends back out, the hidden budget is money the state de-cides to forego in the first place. This form of spending is called “tax expendi-tures,” and in Louisiana it has grown dramatically in recent years, even as regular state revenue has declined. To more efficiently manage its fi-nances and build a stronger future, Lou-isiana needs to shed more light on its hidden, tax-side spending. Why is tax-side spending hidden, and growing? The regular state budget is proposed each year by the Governor and adopted by legislators who get the chance to scrutinize and debate how every penny is spent. The public, too, has the oppor-tunity to comment on the state budget, and people can go online any time and look up any item in the budget at the Legislature’s website. But the hidden budget works differ-ently. After a specific tax break is ap-proved, the money flows freely year af-

ter year–with little chance that this spending by the state will ever be evaluated. If the cost of a particular hidden budget item soars beyond original estimates, it’s likely no one will even notice. In the hidden budget, there’s no need to set priori-ties or weigh the value of state spending on one thing compared to another. And once spending in the hidden budget starts, it’s almost impossible to stop. That’s because, unlike the regular state budget, the hidden budget can’t be reduced by even a penny unless a full two-thirds of leg-islators vote to save the money. That’s an unrealistically high bar. Today, with the state in a fiscal crisis, shedding light on Louisiana’s hidden budget is particularly impor-tant. As the state is preparing to re-duce important services that Louisi-anans rely on, planning to lay off em-ployees, considering increases in college tuition, and proposing reduc-tions in access to health care in order to make up for declining revenues the hidden budget remains largely untouched and immune to any reduc-tions. How much is the state spending through the tax code? In fiscal year 2011, Louisiana pro-jects spending $7 billion through tax expenditures, nearly as much as it will take in from revenue. Since tax expenditures are largely ignored in the regular budget process, this means the legislative policy debate encompasses only about half of the state’s total spending. And, spending through the tax code is growing. It’s projected that revenue lost to tax expenditures from 2006 through 2011 will have in-creased 28 percent – to $7.1 billion from $5.6 billion. State revenue, by contrast, is expected to decrease 3 percent. Are there examples of tax expen-ditures that deserve more attention? Some spending from the hidden budget makes sense. For example, Louisiana exempts medicine and gro-ceries from the sales tax. Most Lou-isianans probably would agree that’s the right thing to do, even if it means the state gives up potential revenue. Louisiana also exempts residential utilities, including electricity, natural gas, and water, from the sales tax...

☛ See BUDGET, page 10

Louisiana’s hidden state budget

Censored

6 April 2012 The People’s [Censored]

Early in February of 2012—in re-sponse to a flood of state employee inquiries concerning Gov. Bobby Jin-dal’s pension legislation—the Louisi-ana Department of State Civil Service published a document outlining the rights of state classified employees in regards to talking with lawmakers, testifying at legislative hearings, at-tending public rallies, and otherwise expressing their political views. The following is a reproduction of that document. DATE: February 9, 2012 TO: Heads of State Agencies and Human Resources Directors SUBJECT: State Classified Employ-ees’ Rights to Address Members of the Legislature As the 2012 Legislative Session approaches, there are many bills that are being filed that may have an im-pact on state employees, both classi-fied and unclassified. Questions have arisen such as does a state classified employee have the right to address members of the legislature. Classified employees are prohib-ited from engaging in efforts to sup-port or oppose a candidate, party or faction in an election. These constitu-tional restrictions do not prohibit a classified employee from expressing themselves either privately or publicly on issues that may be pending before the legislature or other public body. However, the Lobbying Act, R.S. 24:56 does prohibit any state em-ployee classified or unclassified “in his official capacity or on behalf of his employer” from communicating with a legislator in an attempt to influence the passage or defeat of legislation. This prohibition does not apply to an elected official or his designee, nor does it prohibit the giving of factual information to the legislature, whether the employee is acting in his official capacity or not. The act of expressing matters of personal concern in a personal ca-pacity are not prohibited, but if an employee wishes to express these matters during duty hours, it must be done while on annual leave. Below are a few questions we have recently received from employ-ees and answers that I believe will be helpful. Do I have to tell my supervisor (appointing authority) why I am

requesting annual leave? No, you do not. However, a supervi-sor (appointing authority) is not required to approve a request or requests for annual leave. If you do not have ap-proved annual leave in advance of your absence, your appointing authority may place you in a leave without pay status. Can I go to the legislature or other public body or public official to ex-press my view on matters? Yes, you can. You must be on ap-proved annual leave status if you want to go and express your views during normal duty hours. Can I get in trouble for expressing myself publicly? Maybe. The United States Supreme Court has held that although govern-ment employees have a right to free speech like any other citizen, when the government is the employer it (the gov-ernment) has an interest in regulating the speech of its employees that differ significantly from the interest it has in regulating the speech of the citizenry in general. The standard that the Supreme Court has set to determine if the gov-ernment can regulate the speech is “If an employee’s speech does not relate to a matter of public concern then the government’s interest in efficiency, work place harmony and satisfactory per-formance will usually trump the em-ployee’s interest in free speech.” There-fore, when speaking publicly, make sure you are addressing matters that are of public concern and not personal to your particular work environment. Can I write a letter to the editor of a newspaper to express my views on an issue? Yes, you can. However, as stated above, make sure your letter concerns a matter of public interest and not your personal work environment. Can I go to public rallies on issues and carry a sign, cheer and boo? Yes, you can. But the same standard applies to expressions at rallies as it does before a public body. Can I contact my legislator, per-sonally, by letter or email? Yes, you can. As a private citizen you have the right to contact your legis-lator concerning any issue that is of per-sonal concern to you or concerning any issue before the legislature. Do not use your state issued work equipment to communicate matters of public concern to a member of a public body. Please use your private equipment. Can I be a member of an organiza-

tion that lobbies before the legis-lature? Yes, you can. You as a state em-ployee cannot lobby before the legis-lature in your official capacity as a state employee, but that does not prevent you from being a member of an organization that lobbies the leg-islature on matters of public concern, such as the American Federation of State, County or Municipal Employ-ees (AFSCME), Retired State Em-ployees Association (RSEA), State Employees Association of Louisiana and the Louisiana Association of Public Employees’ Retirement Sys-tems. If the Retired State Employees Association were holding a rally on the steps of the State Capitol, could active state employees who are RSEA members participate? Yes, you can. However, if the rally is scheduled during normal duty hours, you must be on approved an-nual leave. Additionally, the standard stated above concerning expressions will apply at rallies. Would attending a rally be con-sidered lobbying? No, it would not. A rally is a gath-ering of people to inspire enthusiasm for a cause. Can I place a sign in my yard supporting or opposing proposed legislation? Yes, you can. Proposed legisla-tion that you may support or oppose is an issue and not the support or opposition of a party, candidate, or faction seeking an elected office. Can I sign a recall petition? Yes, you can. However, due to the prohibition of supporting or op-posing a candidate, party or faction, you cannot start a recall petition, so-licit signatures for a recall petition or actively participate in a recall of an elected official. Can I use my work computer to express my personal opinion on an issue of public concern? No, you cannot. Your work com-puter is for work purposes. If you wish to communicate a matter of public concern to a member of a public body via electronic mail, please use your private computer. If you have any questions about what you can or cannot do, please contact your Human Resource office.

Don’t let lil’ Bobby scare you: State classified employees’ rights

Censored

Papers such as “The Occupied Wall Street Journal” popped up all across the nation, parodying their local newspaper and reporting on the news and stories that they saw as most important. Inde-pendent journalists from all over came together to report on what they saw was wrong in the world and to help [censored] for the change they want to see. While we live in a country based on freedom of speech and freedom of the press, many of the parodied papers did not take kindly to being called out as the bloated protectors of the 1% that they are. The Occupied Chicago Tribune and the Occupied Oakland Tribune were the first to be threatened by their local “non-occupied” paper. Later came the Occu-pied Wisconsin State Journal, followed by us. As an interesting side-note, Rupert Murdoch has yet to threaten the Occu-pied Wall Street Journal, which shows that though he doesn’t have enough sense to not hack into a dead girl’s phone, he’s at least smart enough to sniff out some bad PR moves in ad-vance. While Trademark Laws are written in such a way that some businesses are legally required to protect their Trade-mark lest they lose it, the odds that any reader of these publications would con-fuse the ad-soaked drivel of the 1% found in the mainstream news with our

independently voiced not-for-profit paper is so minimal it’s beyond com-prehension. What is most likely happening here, at least in our case, is that the [Censored], a long established fixture of the Baton Rouge community, is flexing its muscles against any paper that threatens its status as expert on all matters Baton Rouge. While they would certainly not take steps to out-right attack or censor our paper, the ambiguity of Trademark Law as well as the for-profit [Censored]’s signifi-cantly larger budget compared to ours, allowed for the perfect set-up for some good old fashioned bullying. So, as a way of demonstrating how the mainstream media works--and how it doesn’t work--we at the People’s [Censored] have made sev-eral noticeable changes to our news-letter. Hopefully, this will both free us up to continue with our independent journalism, as well as free up the lawyers of the [Censored] to work on cases that are hopefully a bit more important. And while the name of our paper may be different, we see this as an excellent opportunity to con-tinue on with the same mission as when we started out--giving voice to The People and not the 1%, unlike those [censored]ers who run the [Censored].

“And (v) agreeing to pay reason-able attorneys’ fees to Capital City Press if a court should subsequently find that you have breached your ob-ligations and/or commitments to Capital City Press hereunder.” One of the main ideas behind the “Occupy Movement” is to reclaim the public sphere. For longer than many of us have been alive, a war has been waged by the 1% on public property and public services. Private influences poison everything with money and the mainstream media has actively taken on the role of the hired nurse administering the toxins into the arms of our so-called democ-racy. As a people, we’ve been robbed of our future, and the media—the supposed watchdog for our de-mocracy—has been a willing accom-plice for this massive historical graft. A true democracy cannot function without a functioning media, and our media, which is driven by a will to power and profit, has thus made a mockery of us and our democracy. Inspired by the Occupy move-ment, then, many individuals across the world took the initiative to create their own newspapers based on the idea of spreading free knowledge.

CENSORED

Continued from page 1

BY VICKI BEECHLER Occupy Baton Rouge "In 2005, journalist Stephen Dub-ner partnered with rogue economist Steven Levitt to write a book that promised to explore the ‘hidden side of everything’. A surprise literary sensation, Freakonomics became a global phenomenon, selling more than 4 million copies and introducing readers to a new way to view the world." In 2010, enter Freakonomics: The Movie. Starting off with an explana-tion of a real estate agent's interest in your home's sale price and finishing it up with “Can You Bribe a 9th Grader to Succeed?”, Freakonomics covers a myriad of topics in between. Ok, so maybe not a myriad, but more than a couple. Some, admit-tedly, more surprising (like links be-tween legalized abortion and a reduc-

tion in crime rates) and some a bit more covert than others (such as corruption throughout the Sumo culture). But all the topics, ranging through cheating, real estate, parenting, incentives, and cause and effect, are sure to keep you interested. The film mostly ends up being a se-ries of documentary shorts used to fur-ther explain the two Ste(ph/v)en's statis-tical worldviews. One of my favorite shorts was A Roshanda By Any Other Name, written by Morgan Spurlock—of Supersize Me fame—and Jeremy Chil-nick. (Just a note for transparency’s sake, I happen to love Morgan Spurlock!) It covers all the connotations of a child's name and the effects those names have on children’s life outcomes. One of the most interesting compari-sons is between historically white names as compared to the Afrocentric names that entered the scene starting with the black power movement of the

late 1960s. One study involved the creation of 5000 resumes sent out in Boston and Chicago with half having names considered white and the other half having historically black names. The likelihood to receive an interview was about 33% less for those with African-American names, despite the resumes being identical. As the conductor of the study, Dr. Mullainathan puts it "It means that if a white person is searching for a job for 10 weeks, an equally skilled African-American will be searching for a job for 15 weeks. And those are 5 long weeks if you are unemployed." So if you want to know why there was a suspicion of polio being caused by ice cream, or have always wondered what percentage of crime reduction can be attributed to innova-tive policing tactics, put this one on your instant queue and learn a thing or two about Freakonomics!

What we’re watching: Freakonomics: The Movie (2010)

The People’s [Censored] April 2012 7 Censored

censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

censored

Censored

8 April 2012 The People’s [Censored]

The word comes from the story of Mr. and Mrs. Teague, a husband and wife duo who were both coinci-dentally fired not long after publicly criticizing Jindal’s policies. In late 2009, Melody Teague was a con-tract grants reviewer working within the Department of Social Services. In a public forum, Mrs. Teague spoke out against Jindal’s privati-zation plans for state services. The next day, she was fired. The reason given? For mishan-dling food stamps. Four years ear-lier. During Hurricane Katrina. Six months later, she was able to get her job back, but her husband was not so lucky. In April 2011, Tommy Teague, then executive director of the Of-fice for Group Benefits, criticized Jindal’s privatization plans for his office. Under Tommy’s direction, the OGB, which provides health care to more than 250,000 state workers, retirees, and their de-pendents, had turned a 36 million dollar deficit into a half-billion dollar surplus. “The program is running very, very, very well,” Teague then told reporters at the Times-Picayune. Jindal’s “raid” on the OGB was likely used to fill in the 1.6 billion dollar gap in the state budget. While the sale of the OGB would temporarily earn the state some money, like all of Jindal’s plans the goals are decidedly short term. Studies show that the privatized services would cost the state, its workers, and the taxpayers much, much more in the long run and would basically only be used to line the pockets of the wealthy, includ-ing banking giant Goldman Sachs, who helped broker the deal. Unlike his wife, Tommy Teague did not get his job back. Jindal’s “Teague-ing” of state employees who stand in his way did not begin or end with the Teagues. As early in his admini-stration as 2008, Jindal “Teagued” James Champagne, 12 year ex-ecutive director of the Louisiana Highway Safety Commission, after the two disagreed over the state’s

motorcycle helmet safety law. The most recent case of Jindal firing an employee over a disagree-ment was when the head of the Of-fice of Elderly Affairs criticized Jin-dal’s plans to merge her office with the Department of Health and Hu-man Services. Ms. Martha Manuel, who had been appointed by Jindal in February 2011, spoke at a House Appropriations Committee hearing last March, saying that these plans would cut needed services for the elderly and would increase ineffec-tive bureaucratization. As a Jindal spokesman said of the subject, Manuel and Jindal “decided to go in a different direction.” Obviously. Looking through a list of all those who Jindal fired or asked to resign (like Tammie McDaniel, who was asked to resign from the BESE board after she disagreed with Jindal’s sup-port of No Child Left Behind) is like reading a Who’s Who Guide to Jin-dal’s Corruption. But his doesn’t end there. The list of Jindal’s misdeeds is endless. His dictatorship over Louisi-ana oozes with corruption, the very subject which he was elected to ex-pel, and the scariest part about it all is not that this is a man who has dedicated the majority of his adult life towards becoming the next presi-dent, but that the mainstream media and the Republican Establishment tout him as the same. In his heart of hearts, Governor Jindal probably relishes the compari-sons made between his administra-tion and Huey Long’s. Yet, unlike the firebrand Long, Jindal is at best a bland, mediocre, small-minded bu-reaucrat. One of the sources of Long’s con-troversial legacy was his convincing oratory skills and his championing of the causes for the lower classes. Governor Jindal—to say nothing about his wretched speaking ability— has no empathy for the poor and disenfranchised. While Long re-sponded to the Great Depression by building schools, hospitals, roads and other public services to help those suffering most, Jindal re-sponds to the current Recession by handing these same public services over to the highest bidder. Whereas Huey Long poetically described the hardships of the lower classes, Jin-dal mechanically drones on and on

about the so-called “State Budget Deficit” and explains to us the ne-cessity of again cutting taxes for the top 1%. In other words, Long wanted to Share the Wealth--Jindal just wants to pocket his portion and give the rest to his friends. Yet the strong brotherhood be-tween the two remains in their reckless desire for unbridled power. Both men sought the White House, and were willing to crush anything in their path along the way. While Huey Long’s grab for power in the Thirties drew compari-sons among his critics to the fas-cist movements rising concurrently in Europe, Jindal’s anti-democratic austerity measures and his pillag-ing of the public till at the behest of the 1% promises for Louisiana the destroyed public sectors seen to-day in Greece or Spain. As Hunter S. Thompson said in 1972: “A career politician finally smelling the White House is not much different from a bull elk in the rut. He will stop at nothing, trashing anything that gets in his way; and anything he can’t handle personally he will hire out–or, failing that, make a deal. It is a difficult syndrome for most people to understand, be-cause few of us ever come close to the kind of Ultimate Power and Achievement that the White House represents to a career politician.” Dr. Thompson’s words were as true then as they are today. Jindal, like a mad beast in heat, is a man willing to do anything and screw over anybody, to get what he sees as rightfully his: The Presidency of The United States. If you are a state classified worker who is afraid to speak up or sign the petition to recall Bobby Jindal, information on which can be found at <recallbobbyjindal.com>, turn to page 6 to read your rights when it comes to talking with lawmakers, testifying at legislative hearings, attending public rallies, and other-wise expressing your political views.

BOBBY

Continued from page 2

Censored

The People’s [Censored] April 2012 9

This democratization of knowl-edge was hugely difficult and was met with huge resistance. But under-going it reshaped European societies as far more viable and competitive, enabling them to grow and thrive in the physical, geopolitical, and eco-nomic world of the time. In a similar way, societies always are responding to shifting circumstances which there-fore produce internal tensions. The strategy of the ultra-wealthy for political control centers on forming alliances in relation to social tensions so as to coopt vulnerable sectors of society to support desired fiscal poli-cies. This strategy involves magnify-ing and exacerbating existing social tensions to create the greatest base of support possible for regressive fiscal policy. That strategy has pro-duced “culture wars” that have be-come so virulent in the U.S. as to hobble government, and periodically even shut it down. Although the current crises of gov-ernment are troubling, the long-term damage to society comes not from decisions made in the heat of the political moment, but from the rebal-ancing of social strata based on the perceived viability of ideas and poli-cies. Broad shifts in the dominance of ideas and institutions are rarely marked by the elimination of social

institutions or the ideas they represent, but by the rebalancing of power in rela-tion to other institutions and ideas. Thus the Renaissance did not see the demise of religious institutions, but rather the shifting of some of their power and au-thority to secular institutions like univer-sities and governments. These new ar-rangements of power are not fixed, but remain continually open to revision and refinement as physical, social, and geo-political circumstances change. Here is where we can see the de-structive nature of the alignment of the ultra-wealthy with religion-based social conservatives. Political victories that support conservative social causes and associated religious perspectives create the illusion that those perspectives are viable and adaptive within the modern world. Thus when the ultra-wealthy move to protect their industrial interests by creating faux-science to raise public doubt about, say, the science of global warming, they not only endanger our planet, they also erode the cultural status that science has achieved over hundreds of years, a status earned ow-ing to the adaptive effects of a scientific perspective; this perspective really does enhance our survival. That’s where we are now. The stat-ure of scientific knowledge and scientific institutions is in decline. Even though, historically, only a small percentage of the population has understood the cul-ture of scientific objectivity, the institu-tions of science have enjoyed high

status and broad support. But in the current era broad sectors of the pub-lic see scientists as serving partisan self-interest, and therefore as un-trustworthy and unreliable. The faith that once accrued to science is being redistributed partly to religious institu-tions, but also to conspiracy theo-rists, Tarot card readers, and millen-nialists. The fabric of modernism is fraying as we flirt with resurgent pre-modern sensibilities. The scale of irresponsibility of the ultra-wealthy in their alliance with pre-modern institutions is too vast to contemplate. If unchecked, what will happen to America is easy to antici-pate: we will slip quickly into oblivion as a great world power. We already see tell-tale signs in a 10-year Middle-Eastern war entered into without any rational basis by a president who traded in characteristic American pragmatism and rationality for a delu-sional confidence in America’s Right and America’s Might. We can’t afford for this mentality to continue to domi-nate. Will a true democracy necessarily lead us to a great future? I still don’t know the answer to that one. But I do know that without doing something to break the hold of the ultra-wealthy over our political and cultural life, we will drift into superstition, distrust, and dissension as our standing in the world and our way of life disinte-grates.

1%

Continued from page 4

If so, we apologize for our insensi-tivity and we assure you that there is indeed the word “People’s” between “The” and “[Censored]” in our banner. To prevent further confusion we ask that you contact OccupyBRNewslet-ter@gmail.com to receive a free black and white issue of the People’s [Censored]. Now, if you are a reader of the [Censored] who somehow missed the front page disclaimer stating that the People’s [Censored] is a publication by Occupy Baton Rouge that does not—and could not—represent any-one but its participants, the authors, and you were confused into believing that we, a wholly independent news-letter, are somehow connected with or endorsed by the other [Censored], let me say emphatically, “We are not—and do not wish to be—affiliated

with the [Censored], or their corporate overlords Capital City Press, in any way, shape, or form.” Because, you see, we are not in the same bus iness as that other [Censored]. We do not ask you to pay for the information we provide. We are a free press. We do not force you to view advertisements to enjoy our news. We are wholly funded by small donors and the generosity of Occupy Baton Rouge. Whereas the other [Censored] de-pends on corporations to fund and print their newspaper, The People’s [Censored] is a newsletter for the peo-ple, by the people. We are, in fact, an [censored] for the people. We print the stories that the mainstream, corporate [Censored] will not and cannot print. And, for as long as we do so, we will remain The People’s [Censored]. Thank you for reading, The People’s [Censored]

LETTER

Continued from page 3 Send In Your Letters

Do you have a letter you wrote to your local newspaper which they refused to print? Do you have an opinion that you want to have read by tens, maybe even hundreds of people? Do you simply have a political rant that you want to get off your chest? If you answered yes to any of these questions, send your ideas to OccupyBRNewsletter@gmail.com and have your voice heard. But, please try to remember that we’re on a tight budget and we can only fit so many words into each issue. So, if you can keep it under 800 words we’d be forever grateful. Or, not. We’re flexible. Thanks for reading, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

censored

Censored

Censored

Censored

But with 441 tax breaks on the books, and no systematic review process in place, there’s little doubt that some of tax-side spending is overblown, outdated, or otherwise wasteful. If tax-side spending were prioritized alongside regular budget items, it is unlikely that all of the exist-ing tax breaks could be justified. Here are two examples of tax-side spending that deserve more attention: • Spending to help energy compa-nies make profits: Louisiana provides a two-year moratorium on severance taxes to encourage the drilling of hori-zontal oil and natural gas wells. This tax break was enacted in 1994, when the oil and gas industry was economi-cally weaker due to lower product prices and horizontal drilling was in its infancy. Neither is true today. In the Haynesville Shale in north Louisiana, projected to contain one of the largest accumulations of natural gas ever discovered in the U.S., energy com-panies don’t have to pay severance taxes for two years on wells they drill. But companies don’t need additional incentive to explore and mine in the Haynesville Shale, given the enor-mous profit potential. In fiscal year 2011, tax exemptions on severance taxes are projected to cost Louisiana $189 million. Drilling in the Haynes-ville Shale could drive this cost con-siderably higher when fully devel-oped. That’s money that’s not going to our depleted university or health care systems. • Spending to increase the in-comes of the wealthy: In 2007 and 2008, the state rolled back key por-tions of the 2002 Stelly Plan that re-sulted in the largest income tax cuts in the state’s history and left in effect the sales tax exemptions passed in the original bill. In 2007, the Legisla-ture began a phased-in reinstatement of the state deduction for federal itemized deductions, which effectively lowered income taxes for those who itemize their deductions – primarily upper-income taxpayers. This be-came fully effective in 2009. In the 2008 legislative session, the in-cometax-bracket changes were re-pealed, so the top 6-percent income tax rate once again applied only to income over $100,000 for joint filers, not $50,000 as had been the case under Stelly. The total projected cost

of these tax cuts by fiscal year 2012 is $2.2 billion, according to estimates by the nonpartisan state Legislative Fiscal Office. What’s wrong with Louisiana’s an-nual report on tax-side spending? Louisiana has taken an important initial step to track tax-side spending. Each year, by statute, the Louisiana Department of Revenue must produce a “tax exemption budget” that esti-mates the cost of each tax expenditure and assesses its effectiveness. The tax exemption budget provides useful information, but not enough to get a handle on the revenue being spent through the tax code. For exam-ple, even though the law requires it, the Department of Revenue does not provide estimates of the cost of many tax expenditures. The Department says in its tax exemption budget that it lacks the data to estimate these costs accurately, but other states have found ways to make reasonable calculations of lost revenue. Because Louisiana fails to employ these other methods, its tax exemption budget leaves legisla-tors and the public with no idea how much certain tax expenditures are costing the state. In addition, the Department’s as-sessments of the effectiveness of tax expenditures lack the depth to inform meaningful legislative decisions or public debate. The law requires the Department to assess who benefits from each tax expenditure and whether each tax expenditure: (1) Has been successful in meeting the purpose for which it was enacted. (2) Is the most fiscally effective means of achieving its purpose. (3) Has unintended or inadvertent effects, including whether it conflicts with other state laws or regulations. (4) Simplifies or complicates the state tax statutes. The tax exemption budget provides very minimal, if any, information in an-swer to these statutory concerns. The budget provides no assessment of the success of each expenditure, no de-tails about the beneficiaries of expendi-tures (such as a break-out of benefici-aries by income category), no assess-ment of unintended effects, and no description of whether an expenditure simplifies or complicates state statutes. The budget’s assessment of whether a particular expenditure is the most fis-cally effective means of achieving its purpose is so minimal as to be use-less. In every case, the budget simply repeats the line, “The purpose of this

[tax expenditure] is achieved in a fis-cally effective manner.” What should Louisiana do? At a time of severe budget crisis, Louisiana can no longer afford to put nearly half of its spending off limits from public scrutiny. To let the public into the debate, the state needs to do three things. • Improve the tax exemption budget report. The report should fol-low the requirements of the law. It must estimate the cost of all (or nearly all) tax expenditures and assess each expenditure based on a variety of cri-teria. • Incorporate an evaluation of tax-side spending into the regular budget process. Determining precisely how to do this will require legislative and public debate. One step would be to consider increasing the number of tax expenditures that include “sunsets” -- end-dates that force the legislature to choose whether or not to extend a particular expenditure in its current form. Only 20 percent of the tax ex-penditures Louisiana has created in the past 10 years include a sunset. • Reduce the unrealistically high bar for repealing or reducing tax ex-penditures. Legislators may cut spending on items in the regular budget by majority vote, but it takes a two-thirds vote of both houses to re-peal or reduce a spending item on the tax-side. This disparity makes it diffi-cult for legislators to prioritize state spending. It allows a minority of legis-lators to continue allocating scarce state resources to a low-priority or even obsolete tax expenditure, at the expense of more important state ser-vices. Every penny Louisiana spends should have a purpose; and every purpose should be scrutinized by the public and elected officials. The needs of the state are too great to allow billions of dollars a year to be spent without any evaluation of whether it is doing the job intended or taking away from a higher priority need.

Jan Moller is Director of LANO’s Lou-isiana Budget Project <labudget.org>, which monitors and reports on state government spending and how it affects Louisiana’s low- to moderate-income families. He is an award-winning journalist formerly with the New Orleans Times-Picayune Capitol Bureau.

BUDGET

Continued from page 5

10 April 2012 The People’s [Censored] Censored

The People’s [Censored] April 2012 11 Censored

Occupy Baton Rouge is a lead-erless, non-violent resistance movement. We see that money, not voting, shapes public policy, that the extremely rich are bailed out while the lower and middle classes are forced to bear the brunt of a failing economy, and that the needs of society are placed behind the profiteering of corpora-tions. In the simplest of terms, we want to end corporate bribery of our elected politicians and return our democracy back to the people.

To learn more, you can find our officially approved points of unity on the About section of our website at OccupyBR.com.

Email: OccupyBatonRouge@gmail.com

Twitter: @Occupy_BR @Occupy_BRLive

Facebook: on.fb.me/OccupyBR

Google+: bit.ly/occupygoogle

Phone: (225) 242-9901

Occupy Baton Rouge needs your help to continue to grow. There are plenty of ways to do your part. We paint banners. We need people to help organize and plan events. We need passionate people to join us in direct actions. We need personable people to outreach to the community. Essen-tially, there is a way for anyone and everyone to become involved.

Working Groups are where the real brunt of the work for Occupy Baton Rouge gets done. If you want to contribute to the move-ment, join a Working Group through the appropriate section on our website.

State Capitol Park

Saturdays @ 12

Wednesdays @ 6

Everyone is encouraged to attend and have their opinions heard.

No to a quality public transit sys-tem because they only care about their own self-interest. No to a better Baton Rouge because having three measures in three different cities is just too confusing. Of course, they try to pretend like they have a viable alternative. They demean other opponents to the tax for complaining without offering solu-tions, and in the same line call out the Metro Council and the Mayor for “sticking their heads in the sand” and remaining “noticeably low-key” about the issue. Then, two paragraphs later, their magic solution to losing

CATS is revealed: the Metro Council and Mayor should work together to find the money. Ha. That’s what you call a solution? Really? You don’t think the CATS board has been going to the Mayor and the Metro Council every year for years to shore up their budget? You think you were the first one to come up with that idea? You don’t realize that going to them will not produce a dedicated funding for CATS, leaving us in the exact same situation next year? Oh, you don’t think. That makes more sense now. The fact of the matter is that people depend on CATS to get to school, work, the hospital, and more. We, as a city,

should be working to help the poorest and most in need. We should be do-ing whatever we can to ensure that they can make a better life for them-selves. We should be building better public services, not killing them so they can be privatized. We should be looking out for the 99%, not the 1% like our corporate [Censored] coun-terparts.

Don’t forget to get out and vote “yes” to save Baton Rouge public transpor-tation on Saturday, April 21st. A “yes” vote is a vote for a new, better sys-tem which will lead to a new, better city for everyone. Even if you don’t personally ride the bus, you will reap the indirect rewards that come with living in a thriving, vibrant capital city.

CATS

Continued from page 2

Censored