This column publishes every Sunday through Thursday after noon (sometimes even before; maybe even after sundown on busy days) U.S. Central Time except whenever a significant national holiday falls on the Monday through Friday associated with the otherwise-usual publication on the previous day (unless it is Independence Day or Christmas when it is the day on which the holiday is observed by the U.S. government). In my opinion, there are six of these: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas.
With Friday, Jul. 4 being Independence Day, I invite you to explore the link above.
4.7.08
3.7.08
Flawed arguments show LA legislators still don't get it
By remarks made after Gov. Bobby Jindal vetoed a doubling of Louisiana legislators’ salaries to full-time pay, at least a pair of state lawmakers shows they still don’t get it, lending clues as to why legislators as a whole were so incredibly myopic on this issue.
Facing constituents, House Speaker Jim Tucker, widely viewed as the driving force behind the effort to boost annual pay for a position defined in the Constitution as part-time to a level higher than the annual median family income in the state, and state Rep. Jeff Arnold defended their actions to vote for it through a mishmash of curious if suspect supportive arguments, sob stories, and actual dissembling.
Tucker argued that such a large raise was needed because the Legislature needs people from all walks of life. He cited a story about how educators, attorneys, professionals, and those in medicine turned him down as he solicited candidates for last year legislative races, allegedly proving higher pay as needed.
Facing constituents, House Speaker Jim Tucker, widely viewed as the driving force behind the effort to boost annual pay for a position defined in the Constitution as part-time to a level higher than the annual median family income in the state, and state Rep. Jeff Arnold defended their actions to vote for it through a mishmash of curious if suspect supportive arguments, sob stories, and actual dissembling.
Tucker argued that such a large raise was needed because the Legislature needs people from all walks of life. He cited a story about how educators, attorneys, professionals, and those in medicine turned him down as he solicited candidates for last year legislative races, allegedly proving higher pay as needed.
2.7.08
Contradictions catching up to Cazayoux Congress career
Rep. Don Cazayoux, he who rode an “I’m a Democrat but don’t really vote like one” mantra to a narrow special election win for his current job, is finding he can’t dance fast enough to obscure the contradictions inherent in that strategy.
As his state legislative record indicated, Cazayoux is a conventional liberal who tries to cast a conservative vote here and there to make his conservative district think he isn’t. In a low-stimulus special election last month, it was enough to win. But as we approach the more-followed regular election season with qualifying for it just a couple of weeks away, attention is being brought to what he says and what he does come a-cropper.
Republican groups and sympathizers are running ads and messages pointing out how the Democrats who run Congress in the House are using procedural votes to defeat Republican attempts to consider commonsensical means by which to increase U.S. energy independence and to bring down high gasoline prices. Cazayoux is voting with Democrats to prevent these measures, which include increasing ability to extract oil from U.S. resources, from coming to votes amended to legislation.
Like always, Cazayoux tries to have it both ways. Despite these votes he claims he really is for things like increased domestic drilling capacity as evidenced by a recent vote, but that is misleading if one doesn’t understand how business gets conducted by the House Democrat majority. Essentially, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gets a vote count on legislation that matters to her. As long as she can get a majority (preferably 218) on a matter, she then allows for enough Democrats to vote against their leadership so that it does not endanger the party’s victory on the issue. Cazayoux had permission to vote that way because she had the votes to spare on S. Con. Res. 70 – barely.
Otherwise, he toes her line like the obedient lapdog to liberalism that he is. He follows the standard party line that “drilling is not a short-term solution,” (which is not entirely accurate) knowing full well that a long-term solution is needed as well but would rather put his eggs in the basket of all sorts of impossible alternative solutions (except, of course, the one alternative that has any realistic chance of providing in the intermediate term, nuclear power). This is the tactic of liberals to create an energy crunch and then blame it not on their own intransigence in matters of supply sacrificed on the altar of misguided environmentalism, but on the free market economy as a backdoor means by which to bring greater government control over the people’s resources.
In the end, it doesn’t matter whether it is by choice, because it’s the result of the vote that counts. And the fact is, despite all his words denying it Cazayoux’s actions show he is more interested in voting for a liberal agenda critically out of step with his district, Louisiana, and the country, than he is in doing what’s correct.
Even having been in office less than two months, astute political observers knew he could not hide such votes for long and now opponents are exploiting the internal contradiction. While this fell flat during the special election campaign because it was a vote Cazayoux wouldn’t have to make, the charge that Cazayoux’s first vote if reelected would be to install the ultra-liberal Pelosi as Speaker will ring very true in this fall’s campaign, and Cazayoux is busy verifying that statement with his current voting behavior. It will not amuse a majority in the 6th District. No matter how many symbolic votes Cazayoux casts, as long as he casts his lot with Congressional Democrats, he supports a self-defeating energy policy for America.
As his state legislative record indicated, Cazayoux is a conventional liberal who tries to cast a conservative vote here and there to make his conservative district think he isn’t. In a low-stimulus special election last month, it was enough to win. But as we approach the more-followed regular election season with qualifying for it just a couple of weeks away, attention is being brought to what he says and what he does come a-cropper.
Republican groups and sympathizers are running ads and messages pointing out how the Democrats who run Congress in the House are using procedural votes to defeat Republican attempts to consider commonsensical means by which to increase U.S. energy independence and to bring down high gasoline prices. Cazayoux is voting with Democrats to prevent these measures, which include increasing ability to extract oil from U.S. resources, from coming to votes amended to legislation.
Like always, Cazayoux tries to have it both ways. Despite these votes he claims he really is for things like increased domestic drilling capacity as evidenced by a recent vote, but that is misleading if one doesn’t understand how business gets conducted by the House Democrat majority. Essentially, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gets a vote count on legislation that matters to her. As long as she can get a majority (preferably 218) on a matter, she then allows for enough Democrats to vote against their leadership so that it does not endanger the party’s victory on the issue. Cazayoux had permission to vote that way because she had the votes to spare on S. Con. Res. 70 – barely.
Otherwise, he toes her line like the obedient lapdog to liberalism that he is. He follows the standard party line that “drilling is not a short-term solution,” (which is not entirely accurate) knowing full well that a long-term solution is needed as well but would rather put his eggs in the basket of all sorts of impossible alternative solutions (except, of course, the one alternative that has any realistic chance of providing in the intermediate term, nuclear power). This is the tactic of liberals to create an energy crunch and then blame it not on their own intransigence in matters of supply sacrificed on the altar of misguided environmentalism, but on the free market economy as a backdoor means by which to bring greater government control over the people’s resources.
In the end, it doesn’t matter whether it is by choice, because it’s the result of the vote that counts. And the fact is, despite all his words denying it Cazayoux’s actions show he is more interested in voting for a liberal agenda critically out of step with his district, Louisiana, and the country, than he is in doing what’s correct.
Even having been in office less than two months, astute political observers knew he could not hide such votes for long and now opponents are exploiting the internal contradiction. While this fell flat during the special election campaign because it was a vote Cazayoux wouldn’t have to make, the charge that Cazayoux’s first vote if reelected would be to install the ultra-liberal Pelosi as Speaker will ring very true in this fall’s campaign, and Cazayoux is busy verifying that statement with his current voting behavior. It will not amuse a majority in the 6th District. No matter how many symbolic votes Cazayoux casts, as long as he casts his lot with Congressional Democrats, he supports a self-defeating energy policy for America.
1.7.08
On line items, Jindal shows consistency and resolve
Lost in all the hoopla about Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal’s veto of the legislative pay raise, an issue on which he made contradictory promises, appeared to take the side of 76 legislators instead of 2.8 million voters, then reversed himself to veto, was in contrast the unswervingly decisive way in which he handled certain line items tucked into HB 1287, the supplemental appropriations bill concerning which his veto decisions were announced along with that of the failed raise. On Apr. 30, he set out standards by which many of these items would be judged. Two months later, judgment day came for some of them based on those criteria.
Several items he excised arguing there were alternative ways using existing pools of money to fund them. Some others (with Republican Livingston Parish state Rep. Rogers Pope and state Sen. Dale Erdey bearing the brunt) he axed because they were purely local government concerns and should get funding from that source. Most of the others, dealing with nongovernmental organizations, in his mind failed at least one of his four-part test outlined previously: the item (1) must have statewide or substantial regional impact, (2) must have been presented/openly discussed during the legislative session, (3) must be a state agency priority, and (4) must have the proper disclosure form published online prior to consideration for funding (consistent with information provided in the House disclosure form).
A couple of items appeared out of nowhere without any disclosure. The Gulf South Research Institute, a private contractual firm based in New Orleans for decades, got its $300,000 stricken, and a $750,000 gift that would be passed along by an LSU unit to the private firm TransGenRx met the same fate (maybe it was included to make up for the nearly $400,000 it has spent on lobbying in the in past three years).
Several items he excised arguing there were alternative ways using existing pools of money to fund them. Some others (with Republican Livingston Parish state Rep. Rogers Pope and state Sen. Dale Erdey bearing the brunt) he axed because they were purely local government concerns and should get funding from that source. Most of the others, dealing with nongovernmental organizations, in his mind failed at least one of his four-part test outlined previously: the item (1) must have statewide or substantial regional impact, (2) must have been presented/openly discussed during the legislative session, (3) must be a state agency priority, and (4) must have the proper disclosure form published online prior to consideration for funding (consistent with information provided in the House disclosure form).
A couple of items appeared out of nowhere without any disclosure. The Gulf South Research Institute, a private contractual firm based in New Orleans for decades, got its $300,000 stricken, and a $750,000 gift that would be passed along by an LSU unit to the private firm TransGenRx met the same fate (maybe it was included to make up for the nearly $400,000 it has spent on lobbying in the in past three years).
30.6.08
Jindal, others win with pay raise veto while others lose
In a defining moment in his early executive political career, Gov. Bobby Jindal showed that he got it when he vetoed SB 672 that would have given a huge pay raise to legislators to some of the higher levels in the nation. Who won and lost as a result?
Big winners: The original handful of legislators not only who opposed the raise but then refused to take it. They come out with their integrity intact and tremendous moral authority to offer themselves as true servants of the people, eschewing privilege at the people’s expense. They were able to stick to principle and will be seen as heroes, giving their careers a boost.
Winners: Jindal. Yes, he may have in the future on some occasions rough times with the Legislature since he appeared to allow many of them to endanger their own political careers by permitting them to go the record as being for a raise and they will smart over that. But public opinion solidly on his side as a result of this veto will buttress his power to get his agenda through. It allows him to keep a campaign promise to oppose raises he called “excessive” and demonstrates he understands that as governor it also is his power and responsibility to prevent undesirable policy to be made when he can. Jindal’s news conference, in justifying his veto and retraction of his vow not to interfere in legislative affairs thereby signaling he intended not to veto it, showed he understands these points and has the political maturity and wherewithal to make the right decision, even when difficult.
Ethics Board resignations likely to bring improvement
In the past week, most of the members of the Louisiana Ethics Board have resigned. This is no accident, and it is a positive, healthy development for enforcement of government officials’ ethical practices in the state.
This year, three major changes, for the most part without qualification beneficial, have occurred concerning ethics administration in the state. First, board members must comply with ethics standards of increased rigor, which, while onerous, vitally assure the public that those who bring ethics charges against others themselves appear to be above reproach. Second, the board’s adjudication power was spliced off, thereby removing it from the hands of political appointees into a professional system of trained bureaucrats which is considered best practice in other states. Third (and perhaps the only change that may not be for the better if the Louisiana Ethics Administration Program does not get the increased resources needed to pursue this; so far it has been), the standard of proof has been strengthened for bringing a case before administrative law judges which again aligns the state more in the direction of others.
To put it another way, the costs perceived for serving by existing board members have gone up and the benefits in their minds of serving have gone down. They now must take on the burden of extra reporting on financial information, and simultaneously they have lost the ability to visit punishment on officials and their discretion has been lowered in their ability to bring cases in any event. More bluntly, the position is less fun to them because they have lost political power and it requires more revelation of their personal lives.
Resignation explanations have not addressed this, of course, because none want to admit that an attraction of the job was the exercise of power. One member, a political opponent of Gov. Bobby Jindal who as chief executive appoints a majority on the board, attempted to deflect attention away from the obvious by implying that Jindal somehow was making life rough on the Board because it hit his 2007 gubernatorial campaign with a fine. But the absolute vacuity of that opinion is evident when considering Jindal immediately admitted fault (in fact, correcting the error on its own which made the matter open-and-shut) and tried as quickly as possible to take its punishment and move on. It makes no sense that Jindal would waste resources to bully and badger members to resign in retaliation when he had far bigger fish to fry over three legislative sessions, so this assertion by its weakness in fact verifies the idea that this is a cover story to deflect attention from the reality that the resignations are a result of serving on the board becoming less suited to its former members’ political needs.
That’s fine because nobody is forced to serve, and that they are happening now right as most of the changes to ethics administration are getting ready to come into effect is because those resigning may have hoped the Legislature in its recently-concluded regular session might have altered some of these things – another sign that resigning occurred because board service no longer fits their individual objectives. And it’s positive for the state, because the members that will filter onto the board over the coming months hopefully will have a different attitude. With much less allure of power from board service, with the increased handicap of reporting requirements, new members won’t be there so much so that they can exercise power, but so that they can serve the public in an important but potentially less-aggrandizing way than their predecessors did.
While unfortunate that decisions will be delayed as a result of the many resignations, in the long run new members will see their jobs in a way more compatible to the goals of the reformed Board, and this cannot harm the quality of ethics administration in Louisiana.
This year, three major changes, for the most part without qualification beneficial, have occurred concerning ethics administration in the state. First, board members must comply with ethics standards of increased rigor, which, while onerous, vitally assure the public that those who bring ethics charges against others themselves appear to be above reproach. Second, the board’s adjudication power was spliced off, thereby removing it from the hands of political appointees into a professional system of trained bureaucrats which is considered best practice in other states. Third (and perhaps the only change that may not be for the better if the Louisiana Ethics Administration Program does not get the increased resources needed to pursue this; so far it has been), the standard of proof has been strengthened for bringing a case before administrative law judges which again aligns the state more in the direction of others.
To put it another way, the costs perceived for serving by existing board members have gone up and the benefits in their minds of serving have gone down. They now must take on the burden of extra reporting on financial information, and simultaneously they have lost the ability to visit punishment on officials and their discretion has been lowered in their ability to bring cases in any event. More bluntly, the position is less fun to them because they have lost political power and it requires more revelation of their personal lives.
Resignation explanations have not addressed this, of course, because none want to admit that an attraction of the job was the exercise of power. One member, a political opponent of Gov. Bobby Jindal who as chief executive appoints a majority on the board, attempted to deflect attention away from the obvious by implying that Jindal somehow was making life rough on the Board because it hit his 2007 gubernatorial campaign with a fine. But the absolute vacuity of that opinion is evident when considering Jindal immediately admitted fault (in fact, correcting the error on its own which made the matter open-and-shut) and tried as quickly as possible to take its punishment and move on. It makes no sense that Jindal would waste resources to bully and badger members to resign in retaliation when he had far bigger fish to fry over three legislative sessions, so this assertion by its weakness in fact verifies the idea that this is a cover story to deflect attention from the reality that the resignations are a result of serving on the board becoming less suited to its former members’ political needs.
That’s fine because nobody is forced to serve, and that they are happening now right as most of the changes to ethics administration are getting ready to come into effect is because those resigning may have hoped the Legislature in its recently-concluded regular session might have altered some of these things – another sign that resigning occurred because board service no longer fits their individual objectives. And it’s positive for the state, because the members that will filter onto the board over the coming months hopefully will have a different attitude. With much less allure of power from board service, with the increased handicap of reporting requirements, new members won’t be there so much so that they can exercise power, but so that they can serve the public in an important but potentially less-aggrandizing way than their predecessors did.
While unfortunate that decisions will be delayed as a result of the many resignations, in the long run new members will see their jobs in a way more compatible to the goals of the reformed Board, and this cannot harm the quality of ethics administration in Louisiana.
28.6.08
Legislative careers depend on Jindal's pay raise choice
As the legislative pay raise fiasco continues to evolve, political careers come under threat, and it’s interesting to see the different reactions, signaling career implications, lawmakers exhibit in the face of a changing political landscape many obviously didn’t predict and apparently didn’t understand.
First, there are those who don’t care what their constituents think because long ago they anointed themselves as a special political class they see as above their employers, the people. An example is state Rep. Juan LaFonta who whines that recently he has spent little time in his law practice and much more on legislative affairs so he needs more compensation for a “full time” job.
Why he feels this way, at first, is somewhat of a mystery because his district at best has partially recovered from the 2005 hurricane disasters, so there aren’t exactly a lot of constituents at this point for him to be worried about. But therein also lies the answer, among other reasons.
First, there are those who don’t care what their constituents think because long ago they anointed themselves as a special political class they see as above their employers, the people. An example is state Rep. Juan LaFonta who whines that recently he has spent little time in his law practice and much more on legislative affairs so he needs more compensation for a “full time” job.
Why he feels this way, at first, is somewhat of a mystery because his district at best has partially recovered from the 2005 hurricane disasters, so there aren’t exactly a lot of constituents at this point for him to be worried about. But therein also lies the answer, among other reasons.
26.6.08
Why Jindal won't veto pay raise becomes deeper mystery
More valuable than figuring out the Haynesville Shale play is discovering what’s going on in Gov. Bobby Jindal’s head regarding the legislative pay raise. As reasons principled and political scream at him to veto it, statements from he and his administration serve to keep digging deeper the political hole in which he finds himself on this issue.
One option that Jindal, who has stated he thought he can forget about legislative cooperation if he vetoed the bill and said he would not even as he promised during the campaign to not support this kind of raise concurrent with present terms in office, has which would fulfill both promises is to let the bill become law but then challenge it in court presumably for violating the state Constitution that defines legislators as “part-time public servants.” This is an uncertain therefore risky strategy, but one that could pay off big if successful.
Yet his executive counsel Jimmy Faircloth was trotted out to give remarks that implied that Jindal wasn’t thinking about this option and showed little enthusiasm for this interpretation of the Constitution. Even if for political purposes Jindal did not want to show public support for an effort he was backing behind the scenes, it would be odd that his chief legal officer would make such deflating comments about the enterprise. It certainly gives no ammunition for a veto, on the basis of unconstitutionality, that could justify a reneged promise not to veto.
Even more curious is the reason why this maneuver would make sense – trying to have an outcome pleasing to both supporters (not to veto) and opponents (not to have a raise) – seems by the statement of an assumed party involved to be irrelevant. For it to make sense we must presume that the non-veto promise by him was made to the Legislature in response to his avoiding some penalty. Many times Jindal has said things akin to his most recent metaphor, that he didn’t want legislators “to throw sand in the gears” of what he calls his reform package. In all, the implication is that down the road Jindal would be politically punished for an action taken now, the veto.
But House Speaker Jim Tucker released a noncommittal statement that implied he would not act vindictively in any way as a result of the disposition of the bill. It would make no sense that Tucker would have changed his tune on this, previously threatening but now accommodating, because he would lose everything by allowing a veto if he could stop it through threats of holding up future legislation – he wouldn’t get the raise and would face the wrath of constituents (who have gotten up a recall petition on him) and voters for the rest of his political career for his hand in passing the raise measure.
So what is Jindal afraid of? In light of recent comments, it seems the only thing could be breaking a deal of putting through legislation already approved. Does he not want the public to know he had to promise inaction in order to get things passed like ethics reforms, an income tax cut he accepted as fiscally prudent, workforce development legislation, a school scholarship/voucher program, and the like? Even if he did, breaking that to veto will make him more politically powerful, not less.
These revelations make an imponderable mystery to date only more obscure in explanation. And the longer he continues to baffle the public on this issue, the more difficult he makes it to deflect probing questions whose presence will make it even more difficult to reverse course. Meanwhile, capital continues to be withdrawn from his political bank account.
One option that Jindal, who has stated he thought he can forget about legislative cooperation if he vetoed the bill and said he would not even as he promised during the campaign to not support this kind of raise concurrent with present terms in office, has which would fulfill both promises is to let the bill become law but then challenge it in court presumably for violating the state Constitution that defines legislators as “part-time public servants.” This is an uncertain therefore risky strategy, but one that could pay off big if successful.
Yet his executive counsel Jimmy Faircloth was trotted out to give remarks that implied that Jindal wasn’t thinking about this option and showed little enthusiasm for this interpretation of the Constitution. Even if for political purposes Jindal did not want to show public support for an effort he was backing behind the scenes, it would be odd that his chief legal officer would make such deflating comments about the enterprise. It certainly gives no ammunition for a veto, on the basis of unconstitutionality, that could justify a reneged promise not to veto.
Even more curious is the reason why this maneuver would make sense – trying to have an outcome pleasing to both supporters (not to veto) and opponents (not to have a raise) – seems by the statement of an assumed party involved to be irrelevant. For it to make sense we must presume that the non-veto promise by him was made to the Legislature in response to his avoiding some penalty. Many times Jindal has said things akin to his most recent metaphor, that he didn’t want legislators “to throw sand in the gears” of what he calls his reform package. In all, the implication is that down the road Jindal would be politically punished for an action taken now, the veto.
But House Speaker Jim Tucker released a noncommittal statement that implied he would not act vindictively in any way as a result of the disposition of the bill. It would make no sense that Tucker would have changed his tune on this, previously threatening but now accommodating, because he would lose everything by allowing a veto if he could stop it through threats of holding up future legislation – he wouldn’t get the raise and would face the wrath of constituents (who have gotten up a recall petition on him) and voters for the rest of his political career for his hand in passing the raise measure.
So what is Jindal afraid of? In light of recent comments, it seems the only thing could be breaking a deal of putting through legislation already approved. Does he not want the public to know he had to promise inaction in order to get things passed like ethics reforms, an income tax cut he accepted as fiscally prudent, workforce development legislation, a school scholarship/voucher program, and the like? Even if he did, breaking that to veto will make him more politically powerful, not less.
These revelations make an imponderable mystery to date only more obscure in explanation. And the longer he continues to baffle the public on this issue, the more difficult he makes it to deflect probing questions whose presence will make it even more difficult to reverse course. Meanwhile, capital continues to be withdrawn from his political bank account.
25.6.08
Jindal's imprudence on pay raise imperils his agenda
Like zombies they seem to awake from the torpor of extended isolation (109 out of the last 135 days in session) in an artificial environment that bears no relationship to reality (the Capitol building, Pentagon Barracks, and a few Baton Rouge watering holes). But the one that hunkers down on the fourth floor who matters the most apparently still hasn’t cleared his head.
State Rep. John LaBruzzo has now recanted his support for the pay raise for legislators sitting on Gov. Bobby Jindal’s desk, adding to the printed pledge of state Rep. Frank Hoffman. Assuming no other changes that leaves just two votes over the minimum to have passed the bill in the House (and a single Senate defection would lose the majority in that chamber) and provides increased justification for a Jindal veto.
Yet Jindal repeated he will not veto it because he thinks it would endanger his future program. This goes to show Jindal continues to have a serious blind spot on some matters leading him to misjudge the political consequences of some of his decisions. We know this because we’ve seen it before – Jindal was way slow getting onboard the Stelly income tax reversal train and it nearly ran him over.
Jindal himself even is starting grasp this, indicated when he told an audience that next year he would keep closer watch over the Legislature. But this cannot help him in the near term in resolving this issue. And there seem to be a fantastic disconnection in his head if on the one hand he says he has "learned my lesson" but on the other is doing nothing tto stop what he has called consistently bad legislation. Why would he deliberately want to inflict bad policy on the state when he has the power to stop it?
What Jindal fails to realize is reminders about a failure to act are going to keep coming at least over the next couple of weeks, and maybe several months now that one conservative activist has said he will challenge the measure if it becomes law on the basis that Art. X Sec. 29.1 of the Louisiana Constitution defines legislators as “part-time public servants.” Meanwhile, he seems to underestimate the penalties by not vetoing and to overestimate the costs of vetoing.
He has to recognize that the greatest strength he can bring to bear to favor his program is public opinion. No matter how many muscles legislative leaders may try to flex, they cannot hold back a wildly popular governor, and that’s what he will return to if he vetoes. So when Jindal states that popularity is at loggerheads with his ability to pass his program, it reveals a shocking ignorance about how the political world works.
Added to the strength conveyed by popularity are a good minority of legislators who will back him on this whose numbers seem to be growing as they better detect the public’s revulsion at the size and scope of the raise – many of whom also support his ideas. His only cost is to break one promise to leaders at the expense of another he made to voters not to support a raise concurrent with the existing term in office, which this one does. And, he should make no mistake, not vetoing will be seen by the public as tacit support no matter how many times he says he really is against it.
Not vetoing destroys this public legitimacy he could have earned by keeping a promise and doing what was popular to voters, and forfeits support he could derive from opponents of the raise in the Legislature. Many in the Legislature may like him as a result but whether this would aid his agenda is debatable. He will be seen as a weakling and treated as such by them and, unless he can get it all through in the next three years, at this point it is uncertain whether he’ll be allowed by the voters to have four more years to finish, perhaps primarily because of a failure to veto. Penalties don’t get much higher than that.
The potentially fatal political miscalculations Jindal is making are he does not understand the ability to push his program is unlikely to be significantly improved by letting the bill go into law whereas his agenda likely will be by vetoing it. Why he does not get that he will come out weaker without a veto may be explained only either by some misguided belief in the absolute good of legislative independence, or just sheer ineptitude maybe hoisted on his own petard by keeping himself too insulated during this legislative session.
Perhaps the most difficult thing for a political figure to learn is prudence, figuring out when a minor retreat in upholding a lesser principle will lead to greater gains in implementing policy based on greater principles. If Jindal has not figured this out, his administration will go down in flames, and deservedly so.
State Rep. John LaBruzzo has now recanted his support for the pay raise for legislators sitting on Gov. Bobby Jindal’s desk, adding to the printed pledge of state Rep. Frank Hoffman. Assuming no other changes that leaves just two votes over the minimum to have passed the bill in the House (and a single Senate defection would lose the majority in that chamber) and provides increased justification for a Jindal veto.
Yet Jindal repeated he will not veto it because he thinks it would endanger his future program. This goes to show Jindal continues to have a serious blind spot on some matters leading him to misjudge the political consequences of some of his decisions. We know this because we’ve seen it before – Jindal was way slow getting onboard the Stelly income tax reversal train and it nearly ran him over.
Jindal himself even is starting grasp this, indicated when he told an audience that next year he would keep closer watch over the Legislature. But this cannot help him in the near term in resolving this issue. And there seem to be a fantastic disconnection in his head if on the one hand he says he has "learned my lesson" but on the other is doing nothing tto stop what he has called consistently bad legislation. Why would he deliberately want to inflict bad policy on the state when he has the power to stop it?
What Jindal fails to realize is reminders about a failure to act are going to keep coming at least over the next couple of weeks, and maybe several months now that one conservative activist has said he will challenge the measure if it becomes law on the basis that Art. X Sec. 29.1 of the Louisiana Constitution defines legislators as “part-time public servants.” Meanwhile, he seems to underestimate the penalties by not vetoing and to overestimate the costs of vetoing.
He has to recognize that the greatest strength he can bring to bear to favor his program is public opinion. No matter how many muscles legislative leaders may try to flex, they cannot hold back a wildly popular governor, and that’s what he will return to if he vetoes. So when Jindal states that popularity is at loggerheads with his ability to pass his program, it reveals a shocking ignorance about how the political world works.
Added to the strength conveyed by popularity are a good minority of legislators who will back him on this whose numbers seem to be growing as they better detect the public’s revulsion at the size and scope of the raise – many of whom also support his ideas. His only cost is to break one promise to leaders at the expense of another he made to voters not to support a raise concurrent with the existing term in office, which this one does. And, he should make no mistake, not vetoing will be seen by the public as tacit support no matter how many times he says he really is against it.
Not vetoing destroys this public legitimacy he could have earned by keeping a promise and doing what was popular to voters, and forfeits support he could derive from opponents of the raise in the Legislature. Many in the Legislature may like him as a result but whether this would aid his agenda is debatable. He will be seen as a weakling and treated as such by them and, unless he can get it all through in the next three years, at this point it is uncertain whether he’ll be allowed by the voters to have four more years to finish, perhaps primarily because of a failure to veto. Penalties don’t get much higher than that.
The potentially fatal political miscalculations Jindal is making are he does not understand the ability to push his program is unlikely to be significantly improved by letting the bill go into law whereas his agenda likely will be by vetoing it. Why he does not get that he will come out weaker without a veto may be explained only either by some misguided belief in the absolute good of legislative independence, or just sheer ineptitude maybe hoisted on his own petard by keeping himself too insulated during this legislative session.
Perhaps the most difficult thing for a political figure to learn is prudence, figuring out when a minor retreat in upholding a lesser principle will lead to greater gains in implementing policy based on greater principles. If Jindal has not figured this out, his administration will go down in flames, and deservedly so.
24.6.08
Focus now on Jindal to see whether he makes gutsy call
The line in the sand over legislative pay raises got drawn and became inerasable when the Louisiana Legislature adjourned sine die yesterday. Now it’s solely up to Gov. Bobby Jindal to deal with the issue, and whatever options he chooses can make or break his political career. And they are, in order of expected positive accumulation of political capital for Jindal:
Veto it with help. As mentioned previously, Jindal has plenty of ammunition by which to justify a veto – a campaign promise not to allow legislators to accept a raise concurrent with their terms, that it is the first in American state history to allow for automatic raises (and using a metric based on inflation rather than on economic health), or simply that it is excessive. But, he would really have a case if he could get some members of the Legislature to help him out.
Besides accusations that his legislation was held hostage to the bill, Jindal said he wished not to interfere with the Legislature and would respect its ability to manage its own affairs. But if just a few legislators begin to recant their support, he could claim that, before the Jul. 8 decision about signing it, vetoing it, or letting it become law without his signature, the actual will of the legislature had changed so he could add to the list above that he would felt compelled to assist the expression of this new majority will by issuing a veto. This is something Jindal could encourage by hinting at a few line-item or regular veto threats on certain appropriations or other matters to certain legislators known to be having second thoughts.
If he got some public recantations and issued the veto, while legislative leaders might be angered, he probably would be supported by at least a large minority of legislators who he could get to rein in any drastic paybacks the leaders might try to arrange in the future. If so, he actually gains political capital out of this near-fiasco.
Veto it. If he can’t swing a few repented legislative sinners, he still would make a wildly popular decision to veto it anyway, citing the above reasons. This would create a very rocky situation for him with the Legislature, however, and he likely would end up losing political capital with all the potential mischief that could be done to his agenda over the next three years.
Don’t veto it, but arrange for a legal challenge. Art. X Sec. 29.1 of the Louisiana Constitution, in reference to elected officials among others including explicitly state legislators and their abilities to earn credit in state retirement programs by their legislative service, explicitly defines them as “part-time public servants.” (Ironically, because there is a grandfather clause in this allowing anyone who served before Jan. 1, 1997 to be exempt from the prohibition, practically all of these veteran legislators who qualify to stay in a retirement system voted for the raise because it will dramatically increase their retirement earnings.)
In background, Jindal could be encouraging, if not arranging for a court challenge to the raise after he would let it slip into law on Jul. 8 on the basis that the suggested salary should be indicative of a full-time job and thus violates the Constitution. This is the last thing legislators would want, more publicity about the matter dragged on for months, if not years. It would allow Jindal to keep his promise to legislators yet maybe defeat the bill.
It would make Jindal appear to be champion of the people and generate positive headlines if he actually sued or joined a suit, but at the same time it is a highly uncertain strategy that Jindal cannot control, whereas he could control everything with a veto. Further, it still wouldn’t absolve Jindal of his broken promise to be against a pay raise concurrent which could be reminded of throughout the case’s disposition. Finally, it would embitter legislators who are raise supporters. It’s a highly risky strategy that might minimize the loss of political capital but, if it comes to naught, might really cause damage to his political career. In other words, if this is Jindal’s real strategy, he’s a bigger gambler than former Gov. Edwin Edwards ever was.
Don’t veto it. This is the worst option. Jindal would appear weak and untrustworthy to voters. It might make for the smoothest relations with the Legislature and he may hope that translates into policy home runs down the road, but he has to consider it would give the Legislature that much more incentive to push him around so these victories may never manifest. Plus, no matter how many policy victories he might score in the next three years, this issue will not go away and he will permanently lose some part of his base over it. While he might survive that to win reelection, all the flak he is catching over the incident may finish any aspirations for higher office.
He didn’t have to be in this position but he put himself in it. These are his options, and the one certainty is the gutsier call he makes on it, probably the better off he’ll be.
Besides accusations that his legislation was held hostage to the bill, Jindal said he wished not to interfere with the Legislature and would respect its ability to manage its own affairs. But if just a few legislators begin to recant their support, he could claim that, before the Jul. 8 decision about signing it, vetoing it, or letting it become law without his signature, the actual will of the legislature had changed so he could add to the list above that he would felt compelled to assist the expression of this new majority will by issuing a veto. This is something Jindal could encourage by hinting at a few line-item or regular veto threats on certain appropriations or other matters to certain legislators known to be having second thoughts.
If he got some public recantations and issued the veto, while legislative leaders might be angered, he probably would be supported by at least a large minority of legislators who he could get to rein in any drastic paybacks the leaders might try to arrange in the future. If so, he actually gains political capital out of this near-fiasco.
In background, Jindal could be encouraging, if not arranging for a court challenge to the raise after he would let it slip into law on Jul. 8 on the basis that the suggested salary should be indicative of a full-time job and thus violates the Constitution. This is the last thing legislators would want, more publicity about the matter dragged on for months, if not years. It would allow Jindal to keep his promise to legislators yet maybe defeat the bill.
It would make Jindal appear to be champion of the people and generate positive headlines if he actually sued or joined a suit, but at the same time it is a highly uncertain strategy that Jindal cannot control, whereas he could control everything with a veto. Further, it still wouldn’t absolve Jindal of his broken promise to be against a pay raise concurrent which could be reminded of throughout the case’s disposition. Finally, it would embitter legislators who are raise supporters. It’s a highly risky strategy that might minimize the loss of political capital but, if it comes to naught, might really cause damage to his political career. In other words, if this is Jindal’s real strategy, he’s a bigger gambler than former Gov. Edwin Edwards ever was.
He didn’t have to be in this position but he put himself in it. These are his options, and the one certainty is the gutsier call he makes on it, probably the better off he’ll be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)