Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Does SB# 2224 require community service from parents of children with Down's Syndrome?

Senate Bill #2224 requires 20 hours of community service per week from Medicaid recipients. Paul Gallo discussed the bill last week with the authors. The comments were fairly predictable. Yeah, buddy, we going to put them welfare bums to work. That will make these moochers get off their duffs and get a job. Yeaaaaaah buddy. Well, there are a few questions I have about this bill after reading it. Yes, I called the author of the bill, Senator Nancy Collins of Lee County. I sent her emails. No reply. Thus I will use this forum to ask some questions about SB# 2224. Bill

The bill states anyone who is above the age of 18 "who has applied for state or local public benefits... shall be required to participate in a community service program administered by by the Mississippi Department of Human Services. " Section 1(1). The bill then lists the following penalties for those who do not perform the community service:

1. First violation: 90 day suspension of benefits
2. Second violation: 180 day suspension of benefits
3. Third violation: one year suspension AND required to submit to a mandatory community service program before regaining eligibility.

Section 2 then defines Medicaid recipients. Yeah, I know, going to make them pull them up by their bootstraps. Well, I do have one small tiny little question: what about parents whose children are enrolled in the Katie Beckett program*? Earlier post on Medicaid hearing on Katie Beckett.

The Katie Beckett program is administered through Medicaid and is for children who should be institutionalized but are instead cared for in the home. The children suffering from conditions such as Down's Syndrome and spinal bifida require a great deal of care. This program is very important to parents of Down's Syndrome children as there are no facilities in Mississippi that can accept such children on a full-time basis. It is hard for both parents to work as most if not all child-care centers will not accept children with such disabilities. While there is no income limit for these Medicaid benefits, the parents are still suffering as the costs are enormous and at least one parent has to care for the child instead of working. Some single parents have been forced to go on public assistance because there is literally no one else to care for the child while they worked. These parents are not bums. They are not welfare cheats. They don't need to pull the wagon or hitch up their britches. They work their butts off every day caring for a child who is severely disabled and probably will never be able to live a normal life. They do without just so their child can survive. They would love to work or get a job but unfortunately, it is very hard to find someone else to care for the child. These parents do not fit a stereotype. They are just parents trying to do what is best for their children and play the cards they were dealt.

The question thus much be asked if SB# 2224 applies to Katie Beckett parents. Are they considered to be applicants even though the benefits are only for the child? Tell me Senator Polk and Senator Collins, while these parents are doing their community service, who will care for that child? You want to tell them you are "helping" them? Do you think you are helping them become productive citizens? Did you even consider this problem when you drafted the bill?

One would think Senator Collins, a speech therapist, would have addressed this problem when she wrote the bill but apparently, appearing on Paul Gallo and getting right-wing kudos was more important than doing what is best for the children. Now, I can be wrong and if the law does exempt these parents, then fine. If I am wrong in my interpretation, then I am wrong and will say so on this site. However, someone better take a long look at this bill and figure out where Katie Beckett fits into the new Republican workfare.




*Katie Becket program guidelines as codified:
a) The agency may provide Medicaid to children 18 years of age or younger who qualify under section 1614(a) of the Act, who would be eligible for Medicaid if they were in a medical institution, and who are receiving, while living at home, medical care that would be provided in a medical institution.
(b) If the agency elects the option provided by paragraph (a) of this section, it must determine, in each case, that the following conditions are met:
(1) The child requires the level of care provided in a hospital, SNF, or ICF.
(2) It is appropriate to provide that level of care outside such an institution.
(3) The estimated Medicaid cost of care outside an institution is no higher than the estimated Medicaid cost of appropriate institutional care.
(c) The agency must specify in its State plan the method by which it determines the cost-effectiveness of caring for disabled children at home." 42 CFR 435.225

61 comments:

Bill Dees said...

And what about the single mom with 2 kids, who will have to pay for day care for the 20 hours each week of community service? Suppose she can arrange that for $8.50 an hour (a low rate I would think). That's $170 after-tax dollars a week. And just where is she supposed to get this money, even if she has a job? This bill is just knee-jerk Republican/Tea Party BS.

Anonymous said...

This bill is just knee-jerk Republican/Tea Party BS.

And your comment isn't knee-jerk?

Anonymous said...

I know a fellow who's wife, in her late forties, is a quadriplegic dependent on a ventilator. After private insurance wouldn't pay for her care, he was able to get her on Medicaid which pays for the very special nursing home required for her survival.

What about elderly people? Surely there's an exemption for disabled and elderly that wasn't included in this article.

Anonymous said...

Interesting question. I'm not sharpest tool in the shed, but it looks like Katie Becket program applies to those under 19 years old and the benefit is under the child's name, not the parent's name so I don't think it would mean the parents would fall into this bill because the benefit is payable under the child's name. The bill says it applies to recipients 18 years and older.

My question would be: according to the Katie Beckett info you posted, it states that the child will age out of this program and would need to reapply for benefits. There's the issue to be addressed: Once this child has become 19 years old and applies for benefits, he would fall into the eligibility of this SB.

I dont think it would be a hard issue to correct, but its definately worth bringing to the legislators' attention to ensure that those who have these disabilities are addressed in the language of the bill.

Thanks for thinking of those being helped by the Katie Becket program, KF. And its just a bill in the first stages right now, hasn't come out of committee, now is the perfect time for you to ask the questions you have.

And it may already be addressed in the bill's language, I just didn't see it. But like I said, sharpest tool i aint.

Anonymous said...

"One would think Senator Polk, a speech therapist . . ."

I think you meant Senator Collins. Senator Polk is a picky person who makes Polk's Sausage.

Anonymous said...

This will require a federal waiver, which I dont think we'll get.

Kingfish said...

Section 2(6)(d) states if there is no income limits AND its necessary to protect the life then they are exempt. So your example is probably covered under that section.

You are right, now is the time to ask this stuff, not when it comes out of committee and then everyone goes into hysterics.

Shadowfax said...

Why not just spray-paint these people so they'll be easily recognized and appropriately humiliated? This is just as stupid as the "drug screen to receive welfare" crap. And the reason THAT is crap is because of the associated costs that would be never ending.

Anonymous said...

So my 30-something-year old brother, totally disabled and on Medicaid, on 4 medications for bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia and depression, has to perform community service? I don't think you want him around anyone.

wade overstreet said...

Shadowfox: Amen! Great comment

Anonymous said...

"..everyone goes into hysterics..." Made me giggle. Good catch on the 2(6)(d).

And don't be perterbed that they didn't return your call. The numbers of calls, emails, postal mail, and stuff that's put in their box is probably incredibly high. I know the idea of the parents being harmed got to you. Nice you're looking out for them. Get a copy of the stuff you posted and get it to them, make them aware of this program in case they don't know about it. I didnt know about it until you brought it up because its simply an issue that is currently not in my life. Just tell them that you wanted to be sure they knew about it before the bill comes out of committee and that you're concerned. What I dont believe will work is trying to screw this concern into a political fight between parties. Disabilitiess such as down syndrome don't attach to a person or family based on politics. The remedy to your concern shoudln't either. Good job, KF.

Anonymous said...

Isn't the largest single item of Medicaid spending nursing home support for the elderly and impoverished? Where would they work?

Anonymous said...

Sorry Shadow but I don't see the equivalency between this legislation and drug testing welfare recipients.

Anonymous said...

KF - look at the comments given at 2:42. That is exactly what I suggested to you before you ever posted this column. The only difference I gave was that it didn't need your grandstanding by posting here - just carry the issue to the authors and/or the committee chairman. Make them aware of the problem. Would bet that this would get corrected. That is the purpose of committee hearings - to look to see what the drafters of legislation might have missed.

Here it looks as if you are trying to make this a 'partisan hotball' to be tossed around for folks to bitch about. But its not. Almost any piece of legislation that is drafted needs tweaking while it is being examined - both by legislators and by the interested public. You fit into the second catagory - and I would bet you could solve your concerns without trying to exploit it on your blog.

As to the other issues (elderly, disabled, etc.) I believe there are exceptions in the bill that cover these issues. Just as exceptions could be created for KF's Katie Beckett concerns if they are valid.

Anderson said...

"And your comment isn't knee-jerk?"

No, Bill's comment wasn't "knee-jerk." He gave a cogent reason why this bill is absurd. I suggest you consult a dictionary before using the word "knee-jerk" or any other word whose meaning is unfamiliar to you.

... I am curious whether any other state has enacted such a requirement; I don't know what conditions the federal Medicaid laws permit, but I am not confident that this is one of them.

Anonymous said...

knee jerk is two words. so break out your calculator while he looks for his dictionary

Anonymous said...

3:35 you have a touching trust in the benevolence and competence of our politicians, presumably based on some history of Mississippi with which most of us are not aware. I think reminding them forcefully that we are watching them, as KF has done, is a much wiser way to deal with our "public servants". If the state wasn't dead last in the rankings for anything except stupidity, religious hypocrasy, etc, I'd give them a slightly longer leash.

Anonymous said...

@3:35, this is 1:45 and 2:42. I do not agree that KF shouldn't have posted this issue here. He was concerned and he put it out there. If he hadn't done that, we wouldn’t have had the chance to see the bill, the info about the organization, and we wouldn't have had the chance to exchange thoughts and ideas. He did the right thing by posting it. And my references to this not being political were not directed at him. In reading through the comments, I thought it was sad that the downs syndrome issue had been reduced to political party name calling. It’s their right to do so, but whenever I see stuff like that from any side of the aisle, I just normally roll on past.

Nothing’s cooler than being given info and research and being able to have a discussion about it. That’s one of the reason’s JJ is a damn good website.

Anonymous said...

Anderson I also found the highlighted last sentence as knee-jerk. It would have been a great comment without the partisanship.

Anonymous said...

Stop overreacting February 1, 2012 3:35 PM.

Anonymous said...

UH...would this bill require paraplegics over 18 to do community service? How about brain damaged people over the age of 18?

And,yes, I'd like to the bill's sponsors to get a reality check on how much day care costs and how much more expensive sitter costs are for those with special needs.

Some people need to get into the real world and out of their ideologue isolation.

Anonymous said...

Betcha neither Gallo nor Collins can describe the kinds of disabilities and percentages of those categories on the current medicaid recipient list.

Though, THAT kind of information seems basic BEFORE one drafts a bill. You know...that knowing what the hell you are talking about thing?

Bill Dees said...

@4:36- My opinion of current Republican/Tea Party poitics is anything but knee-jerk. It's a long considered, deliberative opinion, based on unfortunate fact.

KaptKangaroo said...

2:48PM I was thinking the same thing.

Aware of some who are milking the system, I agree that there is a need to ensure that everyone who has chosen to live off the state give back in some way. For instance, if you have a back injury and cannot sit, stand, lift; but you can dance, party, and engage in risky behavior - you can contribute something. How about lick envelopes (you can kiss right), how about answer a phone (in a reclined position of course). There is SOMETHING that can be contributed.

As to the situation KF is speaking of, when you have a loving family that is literally giving up everything to care for a loved one who requires this great care and for those who truly need a break given their circumstances; this bill should exclude them. Period. I can only imagine a Spinal Bifida child and the great love parent's have, but I am not remiss in recognizing the tremendous toll it takes on each parent, their marriage, their family, their lives. It is not discriminatory, it is good moral fortitude, or maybe we've lost sight of that.

meople said...

Knee-jerk reaction
Meaning
An automatic response to something.

Origin
From the tendency of the knee to jerk involuntarily when hit sharply, properly called the patellar reflex. That was recorded by Sir Michael Foster in his Text-book of physiology, 1877:

"Striking the tendon below the patella gives rise to a sudden extension of the leg, known as the knee-jerk."

The term began to be used figuratively from the early 20th century onwards. O. O. McIntyre, in his New York Day-By-Day column in The Coshocton Tribune, October 1921, wrote this:

"Itinerant preacher stemming Broadway on a soap box. And gets only an occasional knee-jerk."

Anonymous said...

Sorry to hear Dees about your long struggle with derangement. Have you considered seeking professional help?

bill said...

Bet she returns your call next time. Those north MS folks don't know about the power of the Kingfish...

This is a bad bill for many of the reasons posted here. Additionally, it's virtually unenforceable without the addition of who knows how many caseworkers to manage it, and the Department of Medicaid will probably be taking a budget hit along with everyone else so no new positions will be available. I don't think this bill will make it out of committee, but Senator Collins can tell the folks back home that she tried. Bill Billingsley

Anonymous said...

3:35PM we have seen what happens when situations with legislation are left to the confines of the committee room... animal cruelty ring a bell?

Shadowfax said...

2:48; The correlation between this bill and the "drug test for welfare" notion is that they are both dumbass ideas, poorly thought out and only designed to appeal to a gaggle of vultures.

How is it that you are unable to notice the similarity?

We can discuss if there's interest.

Anonymous said...

Please Shadow. Share with us the societal virtues, as you see them, to having welfare recipients consuming illegal drugs.

Anonymous said...

I know. I know. If we keep them down with welfare AND illegal drugs, maybe, just maybe, they will become productive zombies. Most excellent dude.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Nancy can get them locked up and even build a real nice lockup on land her late father the Hiway Commish might have left her in the Hill Country of Tishomingo County.

Anonymous said...

Seems there are quite a few examples of Sir Mike's 1877 physiological knee jerk observations on both sides of this issue. Kangaroo seems to sum up the most logical argument.

History Lesson said...

3:35PM we have seen what happens when situations with legislation are left to the confines of the committee room... animal cruelty ring a bell?

Only the naive believe that bad legislation gets derailed or changed for the better quietly behind the scenes.

Isn't This Called Secession?

Senate Bill 2991: The Redneck Green Zone

Anonymous said...

Maybe we can get Gunn's new lackey to look into this. At least we might get some real work out of him for 112k.

Shadowfax said...

Anonymous said...
Please Shadow. Share with us the societal virtues, as you see them, to having welfare recipients consuming illegal drugs.

February 1, 2012 6:57 PM

Shadow sez: There are none of which I'm aware.

Anonymous said...

Besides the governmental and technical issues involved, obviously the sponsors of this bill have not employed or supervised dysfunctional/unemployables. Isn't there something about those earning below the poverty level that receive benefits? Hasn't the Govt. subsidized the likes of McDonalds for years?

Anonymous said...

I worked at a Mcdonald's while attending college and so did my children. Don't recall the government ever subdizing it. And if you've hired and 'supervised dysfunctional unemployables', whose IQ level is brought into question?

Anonymous said...

Re: drug testing welfare recipients - if thisis such a studid, money-wasting, unproductive practice, don't you think you ought to educate all the private employers who follow this practice? They spend their own money (i.e., their investment) to make sure the workers they will be paying (with their own money, again) are not F---ed up when they come to work. For some peculiar reason they believe that having sober workers makes them more productive, therefore a better return on investment.

Shadowfax should relieve them of their ignorance - apparently there is some fairly unknown data out there showing that drug users are maybe even more productive on the job, and they should stop wasting their own money in making their hiring decisions based on this factor.

But when it comes to the taxpayers money Shadow apparently thinks it's a smart move to subsidize crackheads, crystal meth heads, winos, etc, so they can continue making their contributions to society....

Anonymous said...

So if you're working for the likes of McDonalds and receive food stamps or any other benefit because you are earning below the poverty level, that is a subsidy in my mind, directly or indirectly benefitting the employer. You can hardly go to work for minimum wage.

Anonymous said...

I just want to know how come a person with an E.B.T card can drive a brand new Mercedes.. I don't get it. I work everyday to feed myself and I'm feeding people I don't evn know?
The whole welfare system is broken , people get rewarded for having children they cannot feed let alone raise.. its time to stop all this waste.

meople said...

shadowfax is of the influence that piss testing these welfare recipeints would cost too much money... hey shadowfax i sell a nine point drug screen kit for $5.50 a piece. shadowfax is alson under the influence most of the time...

Anonymous said...

If you're a momma with 10 illegitimate kids, receive a check for each one, food stamps, rent subsidy, medicaid, utility/phone subsidy, etc you may be dysfunctional/unemployable. You become entitled to a new Mercedes.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for bringing this bill to our attention. I don't understand how someone can advocate for the "tweaking" of a bill by the "interested public," then chide you for "grandstanding" when you disseminate the bill to the very same "interested public."

What 3:35 really seems to be saying is, "Please point out my ignorance privately. I would hate for the people who voted for me to find out I am not informed, intelligent or remotely qualified for this job."

bill said...

There's no comparison between employers drug testing their employees and the state drug testing welfare recipients. The former has willing workers who are volunteering to take the test because they want the job. The latter, while some may be drug abusers, are simply trying to survive. Drug testing them, while a popular political idea on paper, would be a nightmare that wouldn't save us a cent. $5.50 a pop? That's the first $3-4 million. Retests for positives? State funds for lawsuit defense? More caseworkers and facilities to conduct the tests? In the final analysis are we really going to refuse some little kid to be treated in the emergency room because the mom has a positive drug test? Take drug testing - and community service for that matter - out to its logical conclusion and you see they're both bad ideas. Bill Billingsley

Anonymous said...

Bill summarized it eloquently. I wonder if the sponsors got an opinion from General Hood??

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your capitulation Bill. Is your favourite bird an ostrich and an emu?

Anonymous said...

Bill - I am profoundly disappointed.

The point that is easiest to dispell is the threat that a child would be denied treatment in an emergency room because of the parent's behavior. Google EMTALA and read about it - a hospital would close down that refused anyone appropriate treatment in an ER (and yes, that information is widely available in Spanish, in case you've missed demographic changes in the last 20 years).

The other point is that I (and presumably you) are forced to pay money to support someone who spends all day laying around smoking doping and swigging 40 ouncers (if that's a racist sterotype, change it to moonshine or crystal meth). Where in the US or MS constitution is that responsiblility placed on me?

Every penny they take from me to subsidize this behavior is one more I no longer have to support my own children.

Two simple rules of life: you want less of something, tax it; you want more of something, subsidize it. It's not rocket science.

Curt Crowley said...

Nancy Collins wouldn't know a working man if one kicked her in the a**. Or a poor one either. Ms. Collins may bill herself as a "speech therapist," but she is married to one of Mississippi's wealthiest moneychangers. She married onto third base and thinks she hit a triple.

If she had ever been broke and wondered how she was going to buy baby formula she wouldn't sign her name to crap like this.

Shadowfax said...

I thought I'd let a comple of you ignoramuses run for awhile with your assinine comments.

First, I'm as in favor of pre-employment, randoms and post accident drug screens as anybody and have sent thousands for a combination of the three.

Second, the goob selling six dollar drug screen kits is a scam artist at worst and lacks knowledge at best. You can piss all day long in those cheap-assed kits and may or may not hit a positive. When you DO hit one, there's still the extra cost of confirmation testing, so don't give me that crap about how cheap it is.

Now, let's take a look at my reasoning.

1) The federal government, with the ACLU riding shotgun is not about to let a state snatch the entitlement rug out from under the democrat base due to positive test results on drug screens.

2) Anybody with minimal understanding of how a liberal democrat's mind works knows that a positive test result will require referral for counseling, follow up testing, continuation of benefits, cessation program enrollment, further counseling, attendance at multiple "How can I help you" sessions, untold transportation costs running the leeches all over the county, home visits to ensure the protection of children and various others (including lazy assed uncles) living in the home, yada yada ad infinitum.

To summarize; the reason I think it's a goofy idea is that we simply cannot afford the unending costs associated with such a program.

As much as I'd like to require every recipient of handouts (at my expense) to pee in a cup (and wait for results prior to benefit receipt), it's a pipe dream jumped at by the yahoo congregation and the peanut gallery. It's not quite a perfect parallel to the suggestion that unwed mothers be sterilized but equally as impractical.

bill said...

Sorry to disappoint you, and I'm certainly not capitulating - I'm not even sure what you mean by that, 12:02. I'm just being practical. It hasn't worked elsewhere, and 30 states are looking at it. Seems like someone would have at least the beginning of a working model at this point. As far as the child is concerned, of course he won't be turned away from the emergency room - that was my point. The state will continue to pay for the his medical care regardless of whether his mom tested positive, and no savings will be realized. Even the mom who tested positive will continue to receive free medical care by going to the emergency room, and either the hospital or the state will have to absorb the cost. So much for saving money by throwing the drug users off Medicaid.

This is more a political issue than a practical one, and it's being brought up by Republicans who are pandering to a certain segment of their voters. Drug testing welfare recipients will increase the cost of taking care of the poor, not decrease it. Yes, there are plenty of drug users, black and white and everything in between, who are on public assistance, but there are also plenty of people in that situation who don't use drugs. However, under a blanket drug testing program they all have to be tested, and retested, and then put on a random testing program in the future, and on and on until the legislature wakes up and suspends it for costing more than the state is saving and not having an impact on drug use among those on public assistance. Don't get me wrong - I'd love for there to be a financially feasible way for us to drug test welfare recipients. Legislators too, and other public officials. Anyone who is paid from our tax dollars should be fair game. No one likes the notion of subsidizing drug use among any of these folks. I just think the scope is too massive to be addressed by blanket testing. Why not give some latitude to the eligibility workers who are supposed to be in contact with the recipients at some point? Maybe require testing of people who receive benefits for a certain period of time to make sure that's not the reason they can't get off the rolls. There's probably a way to address this, but spending more money than we'll save isn't the answer. BB

Anonymous said...

To the guy selling the El-Cheapo pee cups....I can't begin to tell you how many people passed those tests with flying colors yet as soon as a random hit, bammo, positive.

meople said...

well shouldnt all pee test be random... i think we learned that giving your opposition the heads up never works...Afghanastan war! plus i think it is just the incentive of me not losing my welfare would defer me from experimenting with drugs in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Bill Billingsley made an important point that all voters should remember.
Legislators, including those in national office, will introduce bills they do not expect to pass and will not effectively support simply to placate one or more constituents,no matter how idiotic or insane that person(s) may be.
The problem is that something like this that is so simplistic that morons will support it can gather momentum among to equally moronic whose numbers are becoming legion.

Anonymous said...

February 2, 2012 5:17 PM must have JJ confused with either the JFP or the Cottoncandyblog.

Shadowfax said...

No, Meople, all pee tests should not be random. How could you possibly justify that suggestion? Pre-employment is never randon. Post-accident is always required but never random. A couple more of your idiotic posts and a few of us are going to suggest a mandatory urinalysis for YOU.

Anonymous said...

February 2, 2012 5:17 PM

In English, please? What are you trying to say, spit it out will ya'?

Anonymous said...

7:11pm, that is English.
Legislators manipulate the intellectually bereft. Does that help?
I doubt it.

Anonymous said...

Drug testing is probably a moot question due to legal precedence. The idea of "community service" is absurd, for a variety of reasons, some of which have already been pointed out.

Anonymous said...

Have them perform community service at the state capital bldg and/or governor's mansion.

Anonymous said...

State properties would meet federal handicap requirements, and could more easily provide transportation, meals, security, etc



Recent Comments

Search Jackson Jambalaya

Subscribe to JJ's Youtube channel

Archives

Trollfest '09

Trollfest '07 was such a success that Jackson Jambalaya will once again host Trollfest '09. Catch this great event which will leave NE Jackson & Fondren in flames. Othor Cain and his band, The Black Power Structure headline the night while Sonjay Poontang returns for an encore performance. Former Frank Melton bodyguard Marcus Wright makes his premier appearance at Trollfest singing "I'm a Sweet Transvestite" from "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." Kamikaze will sing his new hit, “How I sold out to da Man.” Robbie Bell again performs: “Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be Bells” and “Any friend of Ed Peters is a friend of mine”. After the show, Ms. Bell will autograph copies of her mug shot photos. In a salute to “Dancing with the Stars”, Ms. Bell and Hinds County District Attorney Robert Smith will dance the Wango Tango.

Wrestling returns, except this time it will be a Battle Royal with Othor Cain, Ben Allen, Kim Wade, Haley Fisackerly, Alan Lange, and “Big Cat” Donna Ladd all in the ring at the same time. The Battle Royal will be in a steel cage, no time limit, no referee, and the losers must leave town. Marshand Crisler will be the honorary referee (as it gives him a title without actually having to do anything).


Meet KIM Waaaaaade at the Entergy Tent. For five pesos, Kim will sell you a chance to win a deed to a crack house on Ridgeway Street stuffed in the Howard Industries pinata. Don't worry if the pinata is beaten to shreds, as Mr. Wade has Jose, Emmanuel, and Carlos, all illegal immigrants, available as replacements for the it. Upon leaving the Entergy tent, fig leaves will be available in case Entergy literally takes everything you have as part of its Trollfest ticket price adjustment charge.

Donna Ladd of The Jackson Free Press will give several classes on learning how to write. Smearing, writing without factchecking, and reporting only one side of a story will be covered. A donation to pay their taxes will be accepted and she will be signing copies of their former federal tax liens. Ms. Ladd will give a dramatic reading of her two award-winning essays (They received The Jackson Free Press "Best Of" awards.) "Why everything is always about me" and "Why I cover murders better than anyone else in Jackson".

In the spirit of helping those who are less fortunate, Trollfest '09 adopts a cause for which a portion of the proceeds and donations will be donated: Keeping Frank Melton in his home. The “Keep Frank Melton From Being Homeless” booth will sell chances for five dollars to pin the tail on the jackass. John Reeves has graciously volunteered to be the jackass for this honorable excursion into saving Frank's ass. What's an ass between two friends after all? If Mr. Reeves is unable to um, perform, Speaker Billy McCoy has also volunteered as when the word “jackass” was mentioned he immediately ran as fast as he could to sign up.


In order to help clean up the legal profession, Adam Kilgore of the Mississippi Bar will be giving away free, round-trip plane tickets to the North Pole where they keep their bar complaint forms (which are NOT available online). If you don't want to go to the North Pole, you can enjoy Brant Brantley's (of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance) free guided tours of the quicksand field over by High Street where all complaints against judges disappear. If for some reason you are unable to control yourself, never fear; Judge Houston Patton will operate his jail where no lawyers are needed or allowed as you just sit there for minutes... hours.... months...years until he decides he is tired of you sitting in his jail. Do not think Judge Patton is a bad judge however as he plans to serve free Mad Dog 20/20 to all inmates.

Trollfest '09 is a pet-friendly event as well. Feel free to bring your dog with you and do not worry if your pet gets hungry, as employees of the Jackson Zoo will be on hand to provide some of their animals as food when it gets to be feeding time for your little loved one.

Relax at the Fox News Tent. Since there are only three blonde reporters in Jackson (being blonde is a requirement for working at Fox News), Megan and Kathryn from WAPT and Wendy from WLBT will be on loan to Fox. To gain admittance to the VIP section, bring either your Republican Party ID card or a Rebel Flag. Bringing both and a torn-up Obama yard sign will entitle you to free drinks served by Megan, Wendy, and Kathryn. Get your tickets now. Since this is an event for trolls, no ID is required. Just bring the hate. Bring the family, Trollfest '09 is for EVERYONE!!!

This is definitely a Beaver production.


Note: Security provided by INS.

Trollfest '07

Jackson Jambalaya is the home of Trollfest '07. Catch this great event which promises to leave NE Jackson & Fondren in flames. Sonjay Poontang and his band headline the night with a special steel cage, no time limit "loser must leave town" bout between Alan Lange and "Big Cat"Donna Ladd following afterwards. Kamikaze will perform his new song F*** Bush, he's still a _____. Did I mention there was no referee? Dr. Heddy Matthias and Lori Gregory will face off in the undercard dueling with dangling participles and other um, devices. Robbie Bell will perform Her two latest songs: My Best Friends are in the Media and Mama's, Don't Let Your Babies Grow up to be George Bell. Sid Salter of The Clarion-Ledger will host "Pin the Tail on the Trial Lawyer", sponsored by State Farm.

There will be a hugging booth where in exchange for your young son, Frank Melton will give you a loooong hug. Trollfest will have a dunking booth where Muhammed the terrorist will curse you to Allah as you try to hit a target that will drop him into a vat of pig grease. However, in the true spirit of Separate But Equal, Don Imus and someone from NE Jackson will also sit in the dunking booth for an equal amount of time. Tom Head will give a reading for two hours on why he can't figure out who the hell he is. Cliff Cargill will give lessons with his .80 caliber desert eagle, using Frank Melton photos as targets. Tackleberry will be on hand for an autograph session. KIM Waaaaaade will be passing out free titles and deeds to crackhouses formerly owned by The Wood Street Players.

If you get tired come relax at the Fox News Tent. To gain admittance to the VIP section, bring either your Republican Party ID card or a Rebel Flag. Bringing both will entitle you to free drinks.Get your tickets now. Since this is an event for trolls, no ID is required, just bring the hate. Bring the family, Trollfest '07 is for EVERYONE!!!

This is definitely a Beaver production.

Note: Security provided by INS
.