- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Louisiana Constitutional Amendment
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:05 am
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:05 am
Yea or Nea and what is your reasoning?
14
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:08 am to dek81572
No.
They do not need more dedicated funding for anything.
Louisiana has received billions of $$$ from BP and what to show for it?
They do not need more dedicated funding for anything.
Louisiana has received billions of $$$ from BP and what to show for it?
This post was edited on 11/5/24 at 9:10 am
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:09 am to dek81572
I voted yes. Would rather the money be spent on coastal restoration than some of the other crap they'd likely spend it on.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:12 am to Roy Curado
The main issue I have with dedicated funding is that when it comes time to cut, it’s off limits to being cut, and that puts a state like Louisiana in a bad place, struggling to find areas to cut, leaving it up to health and hospitals and education to take the hit.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:12 am to Roy Curado
quote:
No.
They do not need more dedicated funding for anything.
This. They will waste any money they get their hands on.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:13 am to Dale Murphy
quote:
I voted yes. Would rather the money be spent on coastal restoration than some of the other crap they'd likely spend it on.
This. They’re going to get and spend the money regardless. I’d rather it have earmarks and guidelines/restructions on where it goes.
Not that that’s ever stopped them before from just doing what they want with it.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:14 am to dek81572
No to Rainy Day Funds marked as "Conservation Funds". Take the bullets away from them.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:14 am to dek81572
I voted in favor of it. Wasn't a huge fan of the idea of those monies going into the general fund to let politicians do whatever they want with it.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:15 am to dek81572
No
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:15 am to Dale Murphy
This.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:15 am to dek81572
No if they want us to put money there it just means it’s easier for them to steal it
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:17 am to Zap Rowsdower
quote:This is the problem with this state. Too many funds dedicated to areas preventing cuts.
I’d rather it have earmarks and guidelines/restructions on where it goes
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:17 am to Lsuhoohoo
I voted no for two reasons.
1. Constitutional amendments are a poor way to handle matters like this. It needlessly complicates the constitution with matters that should be handled by regular legislation. It is a lazy way for our representatives and senators to handle the matter. It puts it off to the general public who are even less informed than our legislators.
2. All that money would be spent in one part of the state without benefit to the other areas.
To say it won't be subject to the same abuse as any other funding is absurd.
1. Constitutional amendments are a poor way to handle matters like this. It needlessly complicates the constitution with matters that should be handled by regular legislation. It is a lazy way for our representatives and senators to handle the matter. It puts it off to the general public who are even less informed than our legislators.
2. All that money would be spent in one part of the state without benefit to the other areas.
To say it won't be subject to the same abuse as any other funding is absurd.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:18 am to dek81572
No.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:20 am to Dale Murphy
quote:
I voted yes. Would rather the money be spent on coastal restoration than some of the other crap they'd likely spend it on.
I voted yes for the exact same reason.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:20 am to Roy Curado
The BP money runs out in6-7 years. We need funding to operate and maintain the diversions that have been built, especially the Mid-Barataria diversion, if the lawsuits don’t stop it.
BTW, at this time the Feds aren’t sharing any of the wind farm lease or royalty money with the states. There is pending legislation in Congress to share it, so this is aspirational. But, it’s not taking any existing funding away from the state general fund, if that’s what you’re worried w.
BTW, at this time the Feds aren’t sharing any of the wind farm lease or royalty money with the states. There is pending legislation in Congress to share it, so this is aspirational. But, it’s not taking any existing funding away from the state general fund, if that’s what you’re worried w.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:25 am to Lsuhoohoo
quote:
Wasn't a huge fan of the idea of those monies going into the general fund to let politicians do whatever they want with it.
I would rather it go to the general fund where it has at least a chance of making it to an actual infrastructure project.
Sending it to the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) just means a smaller group of politicians gets to play with it. Not to mention CPRA is already the best funded department in State government; better than LDWF!
Its all bullshite though really. Voting yes just means any hypothetical windmills built offshore could send money to CPRA if the Federal government authorizes it.
Just vote no on this one.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:25 am to Jake88
quote:
This is the problem with this state. Too many funds dedicated to areas preventing cuts.
Oh I agree 100%. Louisiana is an odd bird. Heavily socially conservative but fiscally liberal as hell regardless of what letters are occupying the governor’s mansion and state house. This state loves its government cheese and spending the shite out of it. Which is why I said the money is going to be spent regardless, whether it be for costal erosion or something else. I guess it just makes me feel better about casting my vote to let them know I want it spent for X and only X.
But again, not that it is really going to matter in the long run. Until a constitutional convention happens and we can restructure it saying funds can be cut from any area at anytime nothing is going to change, and we’ll still keep getting plagued with a bevy of amendments to vote on regarding more spending every election cycle, bloating the state constitutional even more.
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:32 am to Zap Rowsdower
The only way to even put a dent in Costal Erosion is allowing the Mighty Mississippi to flow as she pleases.. not putting money in a separate account. No for me
Posted on 11/5/24 at 9:35 am to dek81572
I voted hell no
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News