Louisiana Dems: Jindal has lost all credibility!
He didn't keep his word. >>pout<<
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Archived | Democrats | jindal | Louisina | pay grab | Veto — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Lawmakers in Louisiana wanted to lift their base salaries from $16,800 to $37,500, pegged to the salaries of the U.S. Congress. Governor Bobby Jindal had indicated that for the sake of comity and getting things done, he would not interfere with the legislature's money grab, least of all with a gubernatorial veto.
On Sunday, when CNN's Candy Crowley guest-hosted Late Edition, she asked Governor Jindal about this, indicating that his refusal to veto was not very conservative. The governor answered that he hoped that there were ways to talk to Louisiana legislature out of their pay hike, but if it came to it, the veto was not off the table. It was only 24-hours later that Governor Jindal vetoed the grab. And the affronted Louisiana legislators feel they've been affronted. It is, to them, a question of trust.
Senate President Joel Chaisson II, D-Destrehan, and House Speaker Pro Tem Karen Carter Peterson, D-New Orleans, said Jindal's sudden about-face on the pay raise will make it hard for some lawmakers to believe him in the future.
"He needs to rebuild trust and do a better job of articulating his position," said Chaisson, who promised he will continue to work with the governor on key issues for the state. "Just be honest with us."
So much whining.
Read On…
Speaker Peterson explained that they never would have passed the pay raise if the governor had told them that he did not support the pay grab. This means that they had believed that Jindal was, with a few nods and wink, in on the heist. It turns out that he was not, which they would have know if they had paid any attention at all to his campaign.
The pay raise bill was "one of the lessons learned" by a rookie governor and a largely rookie Legislature, said Barry Erwin, president of the Council for a Better Louisiana, a nonpartisan government watchdog group. He said if Jindal had spelled out what raise amount he could live with, the debacle may not have flared up.
But these folks had to know that the threat of a Jindal veto existed, even if not explicitly stated. They had to have known that it would be in Jindal's nature to veto it, and with pressure from Louisiana voters, he would go through with his better instincts.
Watching them complain, though, is comical. They have indeed been affronted.
« BREAKING: Bank Collapses. Feds cite Sen. Chuck Schumer as "immediate cause" of collapse — Comments (14) | Netrooters Oblivious to Direct Mail basics — Comments (3) »
Louisiana Dems: Jindal has lost all credibility! 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
would not interfere with the pay grab. He wanted some degree of comity with which to push his reform agenda.
But I'd counter with him that it is no way to start pushing such an agenda, by allowing the type of legislative activity you'd like to stop. Pay grabs are pay grabs.
but perhaps he vetoed the pay raise because he has been told he will be on McCain's ticket?
It makes sense, the pay raise could be an issue if he were the VP pick.
The liberal Times Picayune had an editorial urging the governor to veto the bill. They specifically told the governor not to use any threats from the legislature as an excuse not to veto. They said if the legislature tries to punish the governor for the veto, they and the people would back the governor 100%.
Every other day we hear from Democrats about how there is not enough money for Katrina victims. I say, calculate the pay raise, craft a bill and and parse it out if you are so concerned.
Economic conditions have drastically changed between current day and their intial pay raise discussion. For those slow on the uptake, this is called reacting to contemporary conditions. That actually requires one examines current status and make the correct decision; something Louisiana has in the past failed to do.
Overall, it actually sets a good precedent for conservative governance.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.
Exactly my attitude toward the mindset that places Comity™ and Get Things Done™ over political principle.
I personally think that Jindal acqueising to the pay grab would have weakened him a lot more with the legislature than it would have helped. It would have simply broadcast that he could be rolled.
"First you win the argument, then you win the vote." - MARGARET THATCHER.
So let's start winning the argument.
You wrote:
I personally think that Jindal acqueising to the pay grab would have weakened him a lot more with the legislature than it would have helped. It would have simply broadcast that he could be rolled.
As would the voters of Louisiana who trusted him as an agent of specific and positive change in the State government. And early display of weakness would have set the tone for the next four years. As it stand now, the State is on a track towards greatness.
And I also agree with the Baroness (as always).
Jindal put himself in this position by suggesting he would approve the salary hike as a way to get the more important aspects of his agenda through. Here's a message to Bobby Jindal. When you're the governor, and your legislature tries to bilk the taxpayer to the extent your legislature did with this egregious pay grab, there is nothing more important than you either talking them out of it completely, or vetoing it. There was nothing to discuss; there was nothing to be gained. This was an disgraceful display of legislative stupidity, and Governor Jindal had no business associating himself with it.
....is that while Jindal may have acted on principle, I hope he doesn't create so much bad blood between him and the legislature that he is unable to get anything serious done. I think that he has a very ambitious, conservative agenda, and I don't want it to be stymied over something like this.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”