Redstate

tanked this one.

Here.

Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. - Frank Zappa

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

.....maybe Jindal knew that it wouldn't be popular and making the statement that he wouldn't veto it was the way to get the proposed raise and the details of the bill into the headlines - where the folks back home would surely go ballistic.

Jindal gets to say that he wasn't going to fight them on it, all the while getting constituents to scuttle the deal for him.

In the end, the issue of legislative pay can be tangled in the idea of a full-time vs. part-time legislature. I tend to think that part-timers leave open too many points of conflict (here in NY, legislators are full time but can maintain private law practices - the Assembly Speaker is of counsel to a major plaintiff's trial firm. We then wonder why tort reform never even gets introduced in Albany). Then again, I am not so naive as to think that full-time legislators are immune from such conflicts.

One point from the linked blog - there's a comparison in there to Texas legislators' pay - but I was under the impression that the TX Legislature only meets every OTHER year, rather than annually which means it's not much of a comparison for a bunch of folks that spend 3-4 months every year in Baton Rouge.

If their pay has not been adjusted in decades, it isn't really particularly fair. Given that (rightfully) the new ethics laws close off opportunities to supplement income that previously existed, there probably does need to be some sort of adjustment to legislative pay to account for reality.

I don't know the exact number of hours these guys spend on their jobs, and I don't know what it costs them to live in Baton Rouge for 3 or 4 months of the year. But if they're spending most of their time on their jobs, and it's costing more to travel to/from and stay in Baton Rogue than they get in allowances, adjustments should be made.

What the folks in Louisiana should vociferously object to is the explicit link being set up between congressional and legislative pay. The legislators are trying to absolve themselves of responsibility for pay hikes - they'll still get them regularly - sometimes at times they aren't deserved given conditions in LA - but they will be able to go home and say that they didn't vote for the increase - they had no control over it and the voters just need to accept that.

New proposal -- $37,500 with CPI adjustment
Eliminate tie to U.S. Congress pay
No debate

Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. - Frank Zappa

every two years, that is correct. Last time I checked they got paid maybe $8500 a year. Still say that if signing this pay raise is the worst thing Jindal does as governor, then we indeed have a conservative star.

Jindal in 2012!

The pay being debated here really pays these folks more than the average person in LA makes in a year. That sounds like a full-time job to me. Therefore, the raise should come with considerable restrictions on legislators having a "second job." If you're going to pay them like full-timers then they should be treated like full-timers.

$37,500 plus per diems, vouchers, and premiums for leadership.

Senate needs to sign off on the new number, but reading earlier posts on the Times-Pic blog it sounds like some observers think they might not have the votes to pass any amendments, which would mean a conference committee and a new set of votes (and probably a new number).

Jindal should probably just let it go without signature. A veto probably would create hostility when there are more important things that need to be done. Signing it makes it looks like he approves of it. Letting it become law without signature says (to me) that he accepts the deal and the political reality but he doesn't really like it.

Here in PA, our legislators are already paid much better than 16,900, and they circumvented the constitution to get the raise earlier.

I think Jindal's position on this was 100% correct. He said this was a matter for the legislature to decide, thus putting responsibility on them. If the voters had supported it, fine. If not, the ball was entirely in their court. I think folks in the legislature got the message from their voters, and put the pox on it.

At least voters in LA have a responsive legislature. We had a incumbent massacure in 2006, and they still by and large don;t get it.