Monday, March 18, 2024

Haitian Prime Minister Henry Agrees to Resign as CARICOM Announces Formation of Presidential Council

By Jake Johnston

In a prerecorded message released on social networks just after midnight, Ariel Henry, who has held de facto power in Haiti since shortly after the 2021 assassination of Jovenel Moïse, agreed to resign. Sort of.

Henry has been holed up in Puerto Rico for a week, unable to return to Haiti as coordinated attacks from armed groups shut down the airport. Once the US pulled its support last week, he was left in limbo and had not issued any public statements until early this morning. It is unclear to what extent he was under pressure from the US to remain out of the country and to stay quiet.

Henry’s announcement came shortly after the conclusion of a series of political negotiations among dozens of Haitian stakeholders, CARICOM heads of state, the US Secretary of State, the Canadian prime minister, and other foreign diplomats held in Kingston, Jamaica. A proposal, agreed to by those foreign powers and accepted by a number of Haitian political parties and civil society organizations who participated via Zoom, calls for the formation of a seven-member presidential transitional council that will name a new prime minister to replace Henry.

Henry made it clear that he intended to resign once the presidential council had officially formed. Those with a seat on the council have 24 hours to name their representative. It is likely that Henry will stay until the new council has picked an interim prime minister to replace him, delaying his ultimate resignation further, depending on how long it takes the new council to reach consensus.


The seven representatives on the council will reportedly come from the private sector, the January 30 Collective (a grouping of political parties), Fanmi Lavalas (the party of former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide), the Montana Accord, the December 21 Accord (allies of Henry), les Engagés pour le Développement (the party of former PM Claude Joseph), and Petit Dessalines (the party of former senator Moïse Jean Charles). There will also be two observer members, with one representing civil society and the other the religious sector.

Notably, Moïse Jean Charles appeared in the capital two weeks ago, as the coordinated attacks against government institutions began, to announce a political accord with former police officer and paramilitary leader Guy Philippe. He has previously criticized the internationally backed process to select a new government, and it is unclear how the party’s inclusion in the new council will affect the situation on the ground or if it will offer Philippe a path to influence the new structure. Réveil National pour la Souveraineté Nationale, the political coalition backing Guy Philippe, released a statement this morning rejecting the CARICOM-backed presidential council.

After a period of intense attacks beginning in late February targeting the airport, police stations, and other government institutions, the situation in Port-au-Prince has calmed over the last two days as the political negotiations played out in Kingston. But it is unclear if the new government will do anything to appease the disparate armed groups that have come together in recent weeks.

Though there has been no explicit alliance, multiple sources close to both factions said that Guy Philippe was working directly with the armed groups in the capital in his effort to seize power in Henry’s absence. Who ultimately is in control of that alliance, however, remains to be seen. Much remains in flux.

What is clear is that the announcement in Kingston late last night is unlikely to lead to a solution to the current crisis by itself. After criticizing Henry for relying on the support of the US and other foreign powers, an agreement pushed by those same foreign powers is likely to face legitimacy concerns from the moment it forms. Though negotiations have been taking place for the better part of a week, none of the participants or discussions have been made public, leaving the vast majority of Haitians in the dark. Notably, CARICOM set conditions for participation, including accepting deployment of a Kenyan-led intervention force.

An initial proposal of a five-member council was rejected by some CARICOM members, who instead pushed for the inclusion of additional political actors in an attempt to break the armed anti-government mobilization in the capital.

If the inclusion of Moïse Jean Charles and allies in the presidential council is not enough to convince the capital’s armed groups to lay down their arms — and there is little indication it will — violence is likely to continue, forcing the new council to rely on external security assistance to function.

It was US and foreign support for Henry that pushed the situation to its dire state. But rather than letting a truly Haitian-led process play out, those same foreign powers have opted for a stability pact that, it would seem, is likely to lock in an unsustainable status quo at least in the short term.

This article originally appeared in Center for Economic and Policy Research on March 12th, 2024.  

Please support the news you can use and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news!   

Take a look at my brief bio about my writing life and on social media:

Facebook pageThe Brooks Blackboard

Twitter@_charlesbrooks



Thursday, March 14, 2024

Columbia Sued Over 'Retaliatory' Suspension of Pro-Palestine Student Groups

By Brett Wilkins

"Universities should be havens for robust debate, discussion, and learning—not sites of censorship where administrators, donors, and politicians squash political discourse they don't approve of," said the head of the NYCLU.

The New York Civil Liberties Union and Palestine Legal on Tuesday filed a lawsuit on behalf of members of two pro-Palestine student groups at Columbia University which avocates say were illegally suspended for engaging in peaceful protests and other events protected under the First Amendment.

The suit—filed on behalf of the Columbia chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP)—seeks the groups' reinstatement. Under pressure from people including wealthy pro-Israel donors, Columbia officials unilaterally suspended the school's JVP and SJP chapters in November, claiming the groups repeatedly held "unauthorized" events including protests and teach-ins since October 7, when Hamas-led attacks on Israel prompted genocidal retaliation against the people of Gaza.

"Universities should be havens for robust debate, discussion, and learning—not sites of censorship where administrators, donors, and politicians squash political discourse they don't approve of," NYCLU executive director Donna Lieberman said in a statement.

"These student groups were peacefully speaking out on a critical global conflict, only to have Columbia University ignore their own longstanding, existing rules and abruptly suspend the organizations," Lieberman added. "That's retaliatory, it's targeted, and it flies in the face of the free speech principles that institutes of higher learning should be defending. Students protesting at private colleges still have the right to fair, equal treatment—and we are ready to fight that battle in court."

Maryam Alwan, an organizer with Columbia's SJP chapter, said that "Ivy League institutions should not attract students who value justice and equality if they do not want to be held accountable for the ideals that they claim to uphold."

"As a Palestinian American student, I should have the same right to speak out on my campus as everyone else—and no amount of targeted policy changes or illegitimate suspensions will prevent us from advocating for the Palestinian people," Alwan added.

Cameron Jones, a JVP organizer at the school, argued that "Columbia must protect all Jewish students and voices, not just those adhering to a specific political belief."

"The university's decision to suspend a Jewish group sets a concerning precedent for safeguarding free speech on college campuses," Jones added. "It not only took away our rights as a club, but told us that our university does not support or respect anti-Zionist Jews or their beliefs."

Palestine Legal staff attorney Radhika Sainath noted that "for decades, Columbia students have been at the forefront of speaking out against segregation, war, and apartheid and SJP and JVP sit squarely in this tradition."

"It is precisely because these principled students pose a threat to the status quo that they are being targeted for McCarthyist censorship, but the law does not allow it," Sainath asserted. "Universities must abide by their own rules and may not punish student groups speaking out for Palestinian rights in the moment when they are most essential—even if donors and lobby groups complain."

"For decades, Columbia students have been at the forefront of speaking out against segregation, war, and apartheid and SJP and JVP sit squarely in this tradition."

The Columbia suspensions came amid a nationwide campus crackdown on criticizing Israel or advocating for Palestinian rights. Some students have fought back. In November, the University of Florida SJP chapter sued state education officials and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis over their move to deactivate the group over its support for Palestinians' legally enshrined right to resist Israeli occupation, apartheid, and other crimes.

Conversely, five Jewish students and two organizations last month sued Columbia and Barnard College alleging "particularly severe and pervasive" campus antisemitism, while a Jewish student at Columbia's School of Social Work filed a separate discrimination lawsuit last month.

There has been a dramatic increase in reports acts of both antisemitism and Islamophbia on U.S. campuses and in wider society since October 7.

This article originally appeared in Common Dreams on March 12th, 2024.  

Please support the news you can use and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news!   

Take a look at my brief bio about my writing life and on social media:

Facebook pageThe Brooks Blackboard

Twitter@_charlesbrooks


House Votes Against TikTok—and for More Cold War

 By Ari Paul


A bipartisan effort to effectively ban the social media network TikTok in the United States has taken a great leap forward. The House of Representatives voted 352–65 that the network’s parent company ByteDance must divest itself from Chinese ownership.

Lawmakers contend that “TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses a national security risk because Beijing could use the app to gain access to Americans’ data or run a disinformation campaign” (New York Times3/13/24). While proponents of the legislation say this is only a restriction on Chinese government control, critics of the bill say this constitutes an effective ban.

The bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate. That doesn’t make its passage in the House any less chilling, especially when President Joe Biden has said he will sign it into law if it reaches his desk (Boston Herald3/13/24).

‘Profound implications’

Politico: The Chinese government is using TikTok to meddle in elections, ODNI says

Below the scary headline, Politico (3/11/24) acknowledges that “there have been no concrete examples publicly provided showing how TikTok poses a national security threat.”

I have written for almost four years (FAIR.org8/5/205/25/2311/13/23) about how the US government campaign against TikTok has very little to do with user privacy, and everything to do with McCarthyism and neo–Cold War fervor. Before the vote, a US government report (Politico3/11/24) said that the “Chinese government is using TikTok to expand its global influence operations to promote pro-China narratives and undermine US democracy.”

Sounds scary, but fears about TikTok‘s user surveillance, or platforming pernicious content or disinformation, apply to all forms of social media—including US-based Twitter (now known as X) and Facebook, which let political misinformation flow about the US elections (Time3/23/21New York Times1/25/24). And the Chinese government point of view flows freely on Twitter: Chinese state media outlets CGTN and Xinhua have respectively 12.9 and 11.9 million followers on the network owned by Elon Musk.

The Global Times (3/8/24), owned by China’s Communist Party, predictably called the legislation a “hysterical move” against Chinese companies. But the American Civil Liberties Union (3/5/24) was also alarmed:

The ACLU has repeatedly explained that banning TikTok would have profound implications for our constitutional right to free speech and free expression, because millions of Americans rely on the app every day for information, communication, advocacy and entertainment. And the courts have agreed. In November 2023, a federal district court in Montana ruled that the state’s attempted ban would violate Montanans’ free speech rights and blocked it from going into effect.

Bipartisan support

CNBC: Former Treasury Secretary Mnuchin is putting together an investor group to buy TikTok

“There’s no way that the Chinese would ever let a US company own something like this in China,” Seth Mnuchin told CNBC (3/14/24)—as though the Marxist-Leninist state should be the model for US media regulation.

We can’t write this off as MAGA extremist paranoia. In fact, 155 Democrats voted for the bill (AP3/13/24), joining 197 Republicans. Democratic Rep. Ritchie Torres  (Twitter3/12/24) said TikTok “poses significant threats to our national security,” and that the “entire intelligence community agrees.” While the bill may not pass the Senate, it does enjoy some bipartisan support in the upper house (NBC3/13/24).

Former President Donald Trump reversed course, and now opposes new restrictions on TikTok (Washington Post3/12/24), in part because of his hostility toward TikTok competitor Facebook, which would benefit from a TikTok ban. Trump might have been hyperbolic in calling Facebook “the enemy of the people,” but it is true that Facebook owner Meta is behind the political push against its competitor (Washington Post3/30/22).

Former Trump Treasury Secretary Seth Mnuchin is enthusiastic about the bill, however—because he hopes to be TikTok‘s new owner. “I think the legislation should pass and I think it should be sold,” Mnuchin told CNBC’s Squawk Box (3/14/24). “It’s a great business and I’m going to put together a group to buy TikTok.”

Mainstream conservative outlets like the Economist (3/12/24) and Wall Street Journal, at least, have united signed on to the crusade. The Journal editorial board (3/11/24) wrote:

Xi Jinping has eviscerated any distinction between the government and private companies. ByteDance employs hundreds of employees who previously worked at state-owned media outlets. A former head of engineering in ByteDance’s US offices has alleged that the Communist Party “had a special office or unit” in the company “sometimes referred to as the ‘Committee.’”

The Journal’s editors (3/14/24) followed up to celebrate the House bill’s passage. “Beijing treats TikTok algorithms as tantamount to a state secret,” it wrote. This is another way that TikTok resembles US-based social media platforms, of course—but for the Journal, it’s “another reason not to believe TikTok’s denials that its algorithms promote anti-American and politically divisive content.”

WSJ: Tackling the TikTok Threat

The Wall Street Journal (3/11/24) complains that on TikTok, “pro-Hamas videos trend more than pro-Israel ones”–which is also true of Facebook and Instagram (Washington Post11/13/23). (By “pro-Hamas,” of course, the Journal means pro-Palestinian.)

In other words, while the US government can’t legally block content it deems politically questionable on Facebook and Twitter, it can use TikTok’s foreign ownership as means to attack “anti-American” content. The paper ignored the issue of censorship and anti-Chinese fearmongering, and denounced “no” votes as either fringe Republicans swayed by Trump, or left-wingers whose political base is younger people who simply love fun apps.

The National Review‘s Jim Geraghty (3/3/23) earlier scoffed at Democratic lawmakers who continue to engage with TikTok:

Way to go, members of Congress. This thing is too dangerous to carry into the Pentagon, but you’re keeping it on your personal phone because you’re afraid you might miss the latest dance craze that’s going viral. And if the last three years of our lives have taught us anything, hasn’t it been that anything that comes to us from China and “goes viral” probably isn’t good for us?

Republican Rep. Mike Gallagher, a major backer of the legislation, took to Fox News (3/12/24) to say that Chinese ownership of TikTok was a “cancer” that could be removed, that the problem wasn’t the app itself but “foreign adversary control.”

Vehicle for anti-Chinese fervor

Wired: A TikTok Army Is Coming for Union Busters

It’s important to remember that people use TikTok to educate and organize, not just amuse—boosting efforts to unionize workers at Amazon and Starbucks, for example (Wired4/20/22).

This anger toward TikTok—which, just like other social media networks, is full of brain-numbing content, but has also been used as a platform for social and economic justice (NPR6/7/20Wired4/20/22TechCrunch7/19/23)—is not about TikTok, but is rather a vehicle for the anti-Chinese fervor that infects the US government.

Think, for example, how Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) embarrassed himself by repeatedly asking TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew in a Senate hearing if he had ties to China’s Communist Party—despite repeated reminders that Chew is Singaporean, not Chinese (NBC2/1/24). Is Cotton ignorant enough to think Singapore is a part of China? Or was the lawmaker using his national platform to make race-based political insinuations, in hopes of bolstering the fear that Chinese government agents are simply everywhere (and all look alike)?

That fear is already potent enough to bring together a coalition of Democrats and Republicans to line up against the First Amendment. are doing just that, using a social media app to ramp up a Cold War with China. The targeting TikTok is an attack on free speech and the free flow of information, as the ACLU has argued, but it’s also part of a drumbeat for a dangerous confrontation between nuclear powers.

This article originally appeared in FAIR.org on March 14th, 2024.  

Please support the news you can use and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news!   

Take a look at my brief bio about my writing life and on social media:

Facebook pageThe Brooks Blackboard

Twitter@_charlesbrooks



Friday, March 8, 2024

Biden warns ‘freedom and democracy are under attack’ in fierce State of the Union address

 BY:  AND 

WASHINGTON — In remarks pivotal to his reelection this fall, President Joe Biden in his State of the Union address Thursday night portrayed himself as the defender of democracy, touted the bipartisan deals he’s brokered during his first term in office and appealed to Congress to support Ukraine in its battle against the Russian invasion.

“My lifetime has taught me to embrace freedom and democracy,” Biden said. “A future based on the core values that have defined America: honesty, decency, dignity, equality. To respect everyone. To give everyone a fair shot. To give hate no safe harbor. Now some other people my age see a differently: an American story of resentment, revenge, and retribution. That’s not me.”

Without ever uttering his name, Biden rebuked likely Republican opponent Donald Trump by calling him “a former president” and said that Trump’s recent comments at a rally in South Carolina about allowing Russia’s military to attack NATO allies were outrageous, dangerous and unacceptable.

“History is literally watching,” Biden said. “If the United States walks away, it will put Ukraine at risk. Europe is at risk. The free world will be at risk, emboldening others to do what they wish, to do us harm.”

Biden said that “what makes our moment rare is that freedom and democracy are under attack, both at home and overseas, at the very same time.”

The president promised to seek the restoration of reproductive rights — speaking to a chamber full of Democratic women dressed in white, intended to show their support for such rights — and with a heavy emphasis on an economic agenda he vowed to reduce health care costs, impose higher taxes on the wealthy and bring back an expanded child tax credit.

Back and forth over immigration

Trump has made immigration a main theme of his campaign, and the Republican-led House earlier Thursday passed legislation named for a murdered college student from Georgia, Laken Riley, whose death has been tied by conservatives to White House immigration policies.

As Biden walked down the House aisle before the speech, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who was wearing a t-shirt bearing Riley’s name, attempted to hand Biden a button with Riley’s name on it. And when Biden mentioned immigration during his remarks, Greene continued to interrupt the president.

Biden’s address to the joint session of Congress was part campaign speech, part legislative agenda and part victory lap on the laws enacted during his first term. But it was also significant because it was the largest audience he is likely to have to himself all year, both in person and watching on television.

The speech marked an especially important moment for Biden’s reelection bid after dozens of Republicans questioned his mental faculties following Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report on classified documents, which said the president “would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

Biden will have dozens of opportunities to take the message in his State of the Union speech directly to voters in the months ahead, beginning with a visit to the Philadelphia area on Friday and a trip to Atlanta on Saturday.

On foreign policy, Biden used the address to call for the protection of civilians in Gaza and for Hamas to release the hostages that militants have held since attacking Israel in October.

He pressed Congress to approve aid for Ukraine and Israel as well as the bipartisan border security and immigration bill that senators negotiated earlier this year — and that Republicans then dropped under pressure from Trump.

FDR reference

Biden began his speech referencing one that President Franklin Roosevelt gave in January 1941.

“President Roosevelt’s purpose was to wake up Congress and alert the American people that this was no ordinary time. Freedom and democracy were under assault in the world,” Biden said.

“Tonight I come to the same chamber to address the nation. Now it is we who face an unprecedented moment in the history of the Union,” Biden added. “And yes, my purpose tonight is to wake up this Congress, and alert the American people that this is no ordinary moment either.”

Biden assured lawmakers who think that Russian President Vladimir Putin will stop if he successfully overtakes Ukraine that he will not end his military campaign there.

Biden criticized Trump and Republican lawmakers in statehouses throughout the country for restricting or banning access to abortion in the last two years after the Supreme Court’s conservative justices overturned the constitutional right to end a pregnancy that had stood for nearly 50 years.

“My predecessor came into office determined to see Roe v. Wade overturned,” Biden said. “He’s the reason it was overturned and he brags about it. Look at the chaos that has resulted.”

Biden then called on voters to flip the U.S. House back to Democratic control while keeping the Senate blue during November’s elections.

“Clearly those bragging about overturning Roe v. Wade have no clue about the power of women in America,” Biden said. “But they found out when reproductive freedom was on the ballot and won in 2022, 2023, and they will find out again in 2024.”

“If Americans send me a Congress that supports the right to choose, I promise you: I will restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land again,” Biden added.

Popular policy issues

Biden’s address touched on many of the policy issues that Americans view as important areas for lawmakers to address, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.

About 73% of Americans view the economy as a top policy priority for the Biden administration, followed by defending against terrorism at 63% and reducing the influence of money in politics at 62%.

Reducing health care costs, improving education and making Social Security financially sound all tied at 60% in the poll.

Dealing with immigration received 57% while reducing the availability of illegal drugs got 55% in the survey.

Biden also called on Congress to pass a so-called Unity Agenda that includes issues he believes Republicans and Democrats can agree on.

Those bills, he said, should increase penalties for people who traffic fentanyl, provide protections for children online, bolster artificial intelligence while protecting people from “its peril” and find new ways of treating cancer.

Israel-Hamas war

Biden also discussed the war in Gaza, saying that Hamas’ attack on Israel was the “deadliest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust.”

Biden added that more than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed, “many of whom are not Hamas.”

“Israel has an added burden because Hamas hides and operates among the civilian population, like cowards – under hospitals, daycare centers and all the like,” Biden said. “But Israel also has a fundamental responsibility to protect innocent civilians in Gaza.”

Biden said the United States would lead an effort to get more humanitarian assistance through a temporary pier installed off the coast, but he called on Israel to “do its part” and allow more aid into Gaza.

“To the leadership of Israel I say this: Humanitarian assistance cannot be a secondary consideration or a bargaining chip,” Biden said. “Protecting and saving innocent lives has to be a priority.”

“As we look to the future, the only real solution to the situation is a two-state solution over time,” Biden said.

Democratic Reps. Cori Bush of Missouri, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan held up small posters that called for an immediate ceasefire.

Hours before the president’s address, pro-Palestinian activists blocked roads leading to the U.S. Capitol, according to media reports.

Many activists have pushed for Biden to call for a permanent ceasefire, as Israel’s assault on Gaza since October. Voters across numerous primary states in this week’s Democratic 2024 Super Tuesday cast “uncommitted” ballots as a protest of Biden’s continued support of Israel’s bombardment in Gaza.

GOP blowback

Republican Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama delivered the traditional Republican response to Biden after he spoke, blasting his handling of immigration, the economy, crime and foreign policy, while questioning if the 81-year-old is up to the challenge of leading the country.

“The American people are scraping by while the President proudly proclaims Bidenomics is working,” she said, seated at a kitchen table. “Goodness, y’all. Bless his heart. We know better.”

Other Republicans, such as Greene, yelled at Biden to “say her name” during his speech, referring to Riley. Greene and Troy Nehls of Texas wore pins with Riley’s name on their clothes. Greene also wore a shirt that read: “Say Her Name,” followed by Riley’s name.

The “Say Her Name” is a social movement spurred by intersectional feminist Kimberlé Crenshaw that specifically raises awareness for Black women who are victims of police brutality and gender based violence.

Biden expressed his condolences to Riley’s family, saying he knew how it felt to lose a child, talking about his son, Beau, who died of cancer.

After the outburst from Greene, Biden took another swipe at Trump. He called out how the former president has used dehumanizing language to describe migrants claiming asylum at the southern border.

“I will not demonize immigrants saying they are ‘poisoning the blood of our country,’” Biden said. “I will not separate families. I will not ban people because of their faith.”

House Republicans have repeatedly clashed with the Biden administration on its policies at the southern border, as the White House deals with the largest number of migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border in 20 years.

That disagreement has continued to escalate, first with the walking back of a bipartisan border security deal that would have resulted in the overhaul of U.S. immigration law. It reached a crux with the recent impeachment of U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in February.

Since Republicans walked away from that immigration deal, Biden has pressed for them to reconsider it, so his administration can adequately address migration at the southern border.

“Unfortunately, politics has derailed this bill so far,” Biden said. “I’m told my predecessor called members of Congress in the Senate to demand they block the bill.”

Republicans have argued that Biden can take executive action to address the border — however, immigration law is set by Congress. So far, the Biden administration has taken 535 executive actions related to immigration compared to the 472 executive actions under the Trump administration, according to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute. 

Democrats celebrate

Following the speech, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer pumped his fists up and down and shouted, “We are exhilarated.”

Sen. Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, said that “the whole world is watching” what the U.S. does. He also dismissed worries about Biden’s age.

Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia said he was pleased to hear Biden’s support for a six-week ceasefire in Gaza, and wants to see humanitarian aid delivered quickly to the region.

Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan said she felt optimistic after Biden’s speech, especially how he touched upon conservation and climate initiatives. She said she believes he’ll be supportive of the Senate’s work on the delayed farm bill.

“Our farmers need it, our families need it and our rural communities need it,” Stabenow, who chairs the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, said.

Louisiana’s GOP Rep. Garret Graves said he felt Biden’s speech was more of “a campaign speech” rather than a “sincere sort of message to the American people.”

“This administration thought it was a good idea to double and triple down on stupid,” Graves said, talking about some tax proposals Biden mentioned. “The very policies that got us into this quandary that we’re in right now.”

This article originally appeared in the South Carolina Daily Gazette on March 8th, 2024


Please support the news you can use and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news!   

Take a look at my brief bio about my writing life and on social media:

Facebook pageThe Brooks Blackboard

Twitter@_charlesbrooks


Wednesday, March 6, 2024

Legislature approves $26M in spending during crime session. Here’s where the money’s going.

By Greg Larose


It was difficult for lawmakers and fiscal experts to pinpoint an exact cost of the stricter crime prevention measures Republican Gov. Jeff Landry called on the Louisiana Legislature to approve during a special session on criminal justice policy that concluded Thursday. 

Just how many more people will be incarcerated and how much longer they will stay in prison as a result of the new laws is a moving target, meaning so is the price tag.   

But what we do know is that legislators approved nearly $26 million in spending in an  appropriations bill authored by Rep. Jack McFarland, R-Jonesboro, the top budget architect in the Louisiana House. He and other GOP members of the Legislature countered arguments from Democrats that the unforeseen cost of higher incarceration rates won’t be justified.   

“I think people want to be safe and people are willing to spend money to be safe,” McFarland said this week. “I’m inclined to think the benefits will outweigh the costs.” 

The spending lawmakers backed will include money to send 150 Louisiana National Guard members to assist with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s immigration enforcement at the border with Mexico. Landry has committed the support over a three-month period, which didn’t sit well with some Democrats who consider it a political expense rather than a practical, crime-fighting one.

By far, the largest portion of the appropriations bill — more than $22 million — will go to Louisiana State Police. 

The specific line items in the bill are split into two sections:

Executive branch

$ 3 million: This will cover the cost of Operation Lonestar, the Louisiana National Guard mission to assist its counterparts in Texas with border security for the next three months. Abbott’s efforts to prevent migrants from crossing into his state have clashed with federal immigration enforcement, which a court has confirmed has jurisdiction over local authorities. 

This hasn’t dissuaded Landry and other Republican governors from sending National Guard members to Texas. They insist states have a sovereign right to defend their borders. 

In a Feb. 20 House Appropriations Committee meeting, McFarland referred to the Louisiana Guard’s mission in Texas as a “military training exercise.” The state money will be used for payroll, training and operational expenses, he said, adding that the military nature of the expense meant details could not be shared.

Louisiana is sending 150 National Guard members to Texas. The first 50 troops have been requested.

$600,000: Lawmakers approved an allocation to the Office for the State Public Defender, a new entity placed under the governor’s authority through legislation approved in the special session. The proposal in question gives Landry the power to pick the state’s chief public defender, a task the Louisiana Public Defender Board has handled.

The board will still have to approve the governor’s choice, who will also need state Senate confirmation. But even the changes in a watered down proposal add muscle to the executive branch’s influence over policy and pay for local public defenders. 

The money is intended for distribution to local public defender offices, according to the Public Defender Board. But the final language of the appropriation bill and changes made to the public defender legislation left the exact use of the money in doubt. Some lawmakers questioned whether the new Office of the Public Defender will filter all of that money down to the local level. State law calls for local defenders to receive at least 65% of allocations to the Public Defender Board, but that might not apply to the new offshoot of the governor’s office.

State Police

Landry has committed to spend more than $19 million to set up and staff a Louisiana State Police troop in New Orleans, but the special session spending only covered some of that expense. According to McFarland, the following money could be used statewide, including for what’s being called Troop NOLA. 

McFarland said the governor’s budget proposal for the regular session, which starts March 11, includes more money for the New Orleans troop. 

$9.2 million: This isn’t new spending but money being moved from one fund to another so the state can cover the remaining balance for a pay raise promised to State Police last year, State Budget Director Ternisa Hutchinson said. The money expected to fund that increase, from taxes on vape products, didn’t meet forecasted expectations. 

Additional allocations from the state general fund for a raise the Louisiana State Police Commission approved last May are detailed below. 

$3.23 million: This general fund allocation will also go toward fulfilling last year’s raise for State Police, directed to its Traffic Enforcement Program.   

$2.74 million: The money will increase the uniform allowance for dry cleaning and cover additional overtime pay for troopers who are relocated to New Orleans. 

$2 million: The expenditure description says the money will be used for an “operational review” of Louisiana State Police. Landry announced before taking office the state had hired an outside law firm to conduct a review into the law enforcement agency’s policy and practices. Public records the Illuminator requested show the legal services will cost the state a maximum of $300,000.    

$1.75 million: This will be spent on an evidence room in New Orleans and trooper overtime to supplement “local law enforcement capabilities.”

$1.08 million: This line item covers ballistic plates, which are placed into bulletproof vests, and safety leg restraints. 

$812,350: This will be spent on “bomb suits and robotic platforms,” ostensibly to respond to bomb threats.

$617,500: This is another general fund allocation to the State Police Criminal Investigation Program to cover the raise lawmakers approved in 2023.

$522,500: Another portion of the promised raise, directed to the Operational Support Program.

$380,000: Another portion of the promised raise, directed to the State Police Gaming Enforcement Program.


This article originally appeared in the Louisiana Illuminator on March 2nd, 2024

Additional Posts that are related to this topic: 

Bill to make juvenile crime records public advances to Louisiana House

New sheriff in town: Gov. Jeff Landry ready to reverse Edwards’ criminal justice policy 

Bill to make juvenile crime records public advances to Louisiana House

Please support the news you can use and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news!   

Take a look at my brief bio about my writing life and on social media:

Facebook pageThe Brooks Blackboard

Twitter@_charlesbrooks