Jindal urged to veto legislative pay raise — by two legislators who voted for it
posted at 2:46 pm on June 26, 2008 by Allahpundit
No foolin’. Such is the outrage over the raise that four legislators are already facing recall petitions and requests for 30 more petition packets are being processed by the Secretary of State. It’s not purely symbolic, either: The Louisiana blogosphere, at least, means business.
Whether you think it’s overblown or not, as a display of public might and civic accountability it’s darned impressive.
Reps. Tim Burns, R-Mandeville; Frank Hoffmann, R-West Monroe; and John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, filed affidavits declining the raise.
LaBruzzo, who was a vocal advocate of the pay raise, is now calling on Jindal to veto the measure. His affidavit contained a qualification: He will not accept the higher salary until a $300 million tax cut Jindal signed into law goes into effect. The tax cut technically goes into effect Jan. 1, but new tax tables may not be ready until July 2009…
The three new statements bring to 23 the number of lawmakers who have declined the pay raise. A lawmaker can later rescind the affidavit and start receiving the pay, but not retroactively, House Clerk Alfred “Butch” Speer said.
LaBruzzo wrote a letter to Jindal saying, “It has become obvious to me that we — the Legislature — grossly misjudged the issue of legislative pay during the past session. As a result, I am recommending that you veto SB 672 so that we can come together with our constituents to determine a more reasonable compensation plan for legislators.”…
Hoffmann said he has gotten criticism from his conservative northeast Louisiana base for voting for the raise. “The timing was bad, the amount was too much,” Hoffmann said, confirming he submitted a late affidavit. “I spoke to Governor Jindal and recommended that he veto it. … I think there is movement to veto it” among lawmakers.
I’m sitting here wondering if even the great amnesty backlash of 2007 succeeded in intimidating anyone who publicly supported the bill before the vote into opposing it. Brownback switched his vote at literally the very last minute, but that was after he knew for sure the bill had been defeated. Cornyn also reversed himself, but that was weeks before the anger really started to mount, as I recall, so it was probably done on principle. Oh, and do recall that as thanks for his reversal, he got an F-bomb dropped on him by our nominee.
Incidentally, according to Louisiana blogger LegeWatch, the ploy to decline the raises is just that — a ploy. Statutorily, it’s too late. As for Jindal, he’s still promising that he won’t veto the pay raise, but if he’s worried that vetoing it will jeopardize his agenda by making an enemy of the legislature, that shouldn’t be much of a worry anymore if the legislature itself is begging him to get them off the hook, no? Seems like a moment that calls for bold, populist leadership, not … this. Oof.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air


Bobby Jindal: Paternalistic, big-government liberalism is the biggest loser here

Super Nannies: EU bans olive oils, Germany ponders Autobahn speed limit






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
What is with that horrible picture of Jindal on the main blog page?
I know it is still early, but put me on the Jindal train for 2016. I’m sure there will be other people I will also like, though.
bluegill on December 3, 2012 at 9:24 PM
You must not be from the Northeast. No, Northeastern liberals do NOT send their kids to Fordham, Loyola, Sacred Heart, etc. Liberals send their kids to Groton, Milton, Kent, Dalton, Horace Mann……
Maddie on December 3, 2012 at 9:45 PM
Another junk justice Judge Benedict “Egomania” Roberts wannabe who knows what’s best for the peons, or else. Surprise!
Ya gotta problem wit’ judicial tyranny? Shaddup, little people, or I’m gonna hold ya in contempt!
viking01 on December 3, 2012 at 10:54 PM
Wrong. Most voucher programs are directed at bad schools. These are the kind of schools that don’t educate, but by
Godgovernment you will send your children there to be uneducated, unless you can pay all your taxes and still afford to send your children to a private or Christian school, or home school.Yes, these are mostly lower income families. Higher income families typically move to whatever neighborhood has a good school, so their children can go there.
So technically, both upper income and lower income children are treated exactly the same: they both go to whatever public school is in their school district. But the end result is totally different.
Vouchers are not a giveaway. They divert some of the funding used for public schools to send children who were not learning at those schools to a school where they can actually learn. So the public school still gets a portion — maybe half — of the taxes raised to educate the child, while the charter school gets the other portion. Usually, the voucher completely covers the cost of the charter school tuition, because public schools waste so much money.
So why do public schools hate them: Because their funding is derived from how many students they have, and if even 100 children are home-schooled or private-schooled, they figure they’re losing that much funding.
And make no mistake: that is at the core of the issue. If vouchers were just a government giveaway, they wouldn’t care. But because it affects their own funding, they act like the money is being stolen from them. In spite of the fact that they are not entitled to funding to educate a student if that student is actually being educated elsewhere.
There Goes The Neighborhood on December 3, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Only an NEA-thug Obama voter would oppose the opportunity to move their kid to a competent private school where the teachers can actually speak English, inculcate hard science, understand addition, subtraction and the, er, higher math of multiplication and division and convey such knowledge to civilized students not cowering in fear for being shaken down for lunch money or molested (and worse) in the bathrooms.
viking01 on December 3, 2012 at 11:45 PM
Of course. People who are taught how to think don’t vote democrat.
Slowburn on December 4, 2012 at 12:37 AM
Here’s an explanation of the LA funding formula
http://www.coweninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/SPELA-2011-2.pdf
It appears to me that Jindal could pull some money out of the funding and apply that to the voucher program, or given how severely underfunded LA’s schools are, seek a new source of funding for the vouchers.
Charter schools are included in the funding formula, but are under hte control of local school boards – that might be an avenue to explore as well.
Daisy_WI on December 4, 2012 at 8:48 AM
.
SARAH PALIN ? … : )
listens2glenn on December 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM
If these kids are forced back into the public schools I fear their grades will suffer from retaliation by the teacher their parents rejected.
agmartin on December 4, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Liberals DO NOT LIKE children being educated PROPERLY! They have been fighting that for over 50 years now. With the large number of minority students involved, IT IS RACIST for liberals—and liberal Judges—to decide that such large numbers of minority students DO NOT DESERVE a better education! LIBERALS ARE RACISTS!!!!!!!
DixT on December 4, 2012 at 11:55 AM
Everyone is treated the same now (equality of opportunity) but voucher proponents want giveaways only to “lower income families” to reach the same end results for all (equality of outcome). Muddleheaded liberalism (no matter how well-intentioned) that is spending money we don’t have and destroying our country.
sauldalinsky on December 4, 2012 at 12:21 PM
If annoyinglittletwerp is still reading, here’s the key difference between Jindal (liberal) and Milton Friedman (conservative)
sauldalinsky on December 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2