Seven House Republicans last
week, in a special joint meeting of Appropriations and the Senate Finance Committee
ruled to have the power to approve of the contract, voted for moving the matter
to a vote which well may have lead to its defeat on the House side. Their
Senate colleagues refused to bring up the matter that would have led to a vote,
prompting withdrawal of the contract as is presumably to be reintroduced in
modified form in the near future. With six of them having put together
demonstrably conservative/reform records over the past five years, their votes
came more as succumbing to constituent and public relations pressures than as any
signaling of repudiation of their political beliefs.
Of those seven, four held spots appointed
through election by members from their 2000-10 U.S. House districts,
meaning leverage against them could come only from their other committee
assignments made by Kleckley. One, state Rep. Jim Morris,
already had been stripped of a position he coveted on another committee, so there
wasn’t a whole lot of inducement to be directed against him. Another, state
Rep. Brett
Geymann, has no other committee assignments since he declared himself in
reclusion earlier this year (and is a pal of Kleckley’s so is allowed presently
to have just the one House assignment). A third, state Rep. Rogers Pope, has
been an inconsistent supporter of Kleckley’s agenda so punishment by removing
him from another committee would not produce much leverage. The fourth, state
Rep. John
Schroder, has been perhaps the most consistent conservative voice in the
Legislature in the past five years, and got a pass as a result.
This left only three where stripping
them of a committee spot on that committee could work for power projection
purposes. These appointees of Kleckley included state Rep. Henry Burns, who
also had proven valuable for the conservative/reform agenda, which earned
overlooking his rebellion. Another, state Rep. Joe Harrison,
had not been so helpful in his bucking of Kleckley so he merited reassignment.
Harrison responded
by calling Kleckley in essence a puppet of Gov. Bobby
Jindal and further assigned mesmerizing powers to former gubernatorial
aide, now getting contracted work from Jindal, Timmy Teepell, in the matter. He
then equated them all with “bullies … taking … lunch money.” Elaborating, he charged
that something like “[w]hen we can't
speak our mind as elected officials, there's something wrong. There's something
inherently wrong with the system as it exists today. We're no longer a third
branch of government.”
More seriously came the departure
of state Rep. Cameron
Henry, who, with one exception, had been a loyal Kleckley ally – so much so
he had been the committee’s vice chairman. He said he
correctly expected this reaction, because committee leaders above all
should be loyal to the guy that put them there, and in this position going
counter to the leader’s agenda begs for punishment if that leader is to
demonstrate to the rest of the body that he will use power to promote his agenda.
He also accused the Jindal Administration of behind-the-scenes maneuvering over
this, and concurred with Harrison that “the
governor and the speaker are one and the same.” He also said “We didn't get
elected to trust people. We got elected to ask questions.”
Reviewing these comments, they provide ample instruction in how to
channel selective outrage and to produce blame-shifting. Part of the latter
comes in the irrelevant assertion that Jindal controls the legislative
leadership, which somehow is supposed to give their commentary on their
sackings credibility and simultaneously provide an exculpatory rationale to make
them look like some kind of martyrs. For one thing, there’s plenty of evidence
to show that House speakers act quite independently of governors, as the end
of the previous speaker’s term showed. Further, because Kleckley and Jindal
act in an associated manner does not equate to a correlated manner, i.e. Jindal
causes Kleckley’s behavior. Highly congruent public policy agendas arrived at
independently will produce remarkably similar behavior in their pursuit.
But let’s go whole hog here and assume that Jindal has become a
Leviathan sovereign and when he tells Kleckley to jump the speaker asks how
high. Why would Jindal become so powerful in this regard relative to the
Legislature when the state’s Constitution doesn’t give him a whole lot of power,
much less over the Legislature? Because he can flex power in other informal ways;
to use as one example, line-item vetoes against specific spending aimed at
benefitting a legislator’s district. And why can he use this kind of leverage
to entice legislators to back him? Because
they let him get away with it.
Any time Harrison and Henry want to rally the House to fight back, such
as by getting the body to overturn any line-item veto (as well as the Senate
concurring), they are free to do so. Or, they could send a message of “legislative
independence” by fomenting rebelling against the presumed extension of the
governor, as they claim the speaker is. It’s worked before: in 1990, the state
Senate replaced its president backed by then-Gov. Buddy Roemer. If the will is
there, they will succeed.
However, what we know and they know is that won’t succeed for the very
reason that destroys their argument: the
majority of the Legislature agrees with the Jindal agenda, not theirs. The
Legislature condones gubernatorial influence because its majorities see more
congruence than not with Jindal’s agenda. Knowledge of this, in fact, leads the
pair to make, upon inspection, some unhinged arguments.
Starting with simple hypocrisy, Harrison and Henry condemn their fates
manufactured by a system from which they
benefitted in their prior appointments. They didn’t get there, and
certainly not Henry in his leadership position, out of the goodness of Kleckley’s
heart or because of coin tosses. They got them because Kleckley thought they
would help his agenda; Harrison even said Kleckley assured him he could speak
his mind – which is not the same thing as acting in a way that subverts
Kleckley’s desires. So we hear not a peep out of them about the presumed system
flaws when it helps them, but we sure get an earful when they run afoul of its
rules. Nor did we get a peep out of them when Morris fell victim to it
previously. Where was the outrage then?
Yet the most stupid implication
they made in their comments is that the system somehow stifles opposition. They
may correct me if I’m wrong, but according to the Louisiana Constitution they
each have a vote in the House, and they get opportunities subject to House
rules to speak on legislation on the floor, including asking questions. Nor is
there any constitutional or legal provision preventing them from communicating
directly to constituents and indirectly through the media. So in what way do their
dismissals constitute any extra-constitutional, extra-legal limitation on their
rights as legislators to have input into the policy-making process?
3 comments:
Watching Jeff Sadow whine about crybabies is really rich. Jeff is the biggest crybaby in the world. Every post on this blog is a whiney defense of Bobby Jindal while lashing out at all opposition with a bunch of teary-eyed vitriol.
What is a "Plutocrat?"
Oh, yes, also, kudos to Messrs. Henry and Harrison.
When you have this guy viciously attacking you, you are doing something sensationally right.
Please keep it up.
You state that "... former gubernatorial aide, now getting contracted work from Jindal, Timmy Teepell ..."
This appears to be a clear violation of the Louisiana Ethics Law, i.e. La. R.S. 42:1121.A, that provides:
"No former public employee shall, for a period of two years following termination of his public employment
... render any service which such former public employee had rendered to the agency during the term of his public employment
on a contractual basis,
regardless of the parties to the contract,
to, for, or on behalf of the agency with which he was formerly employed."
OOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Post a Comment