forgotston.com

Bobby Jindal is changing his story about last year’s veto of the lege pay raise as fast and as often as he talks.

Here’s what Bobby said when he was running for governor in 2007:

Prohibit Legislators from giving themselves pay raises that take effect before the subsequent election. Any increase in salary approved by the Legislature should take effect after the next election so the public can decide who deserves that compensation. Jindal Campaign Brochure entitled Government Reform: Controlling Runaway Spending

Here’s what Bobby said last year about the lege pay raise in his veto message:

That said, it is very clear that all of our great progress notwithstanding, the public is fast losing its confidence in state government because of the legislative pay raise bill. We can only effectively govern with the consent of the governed. If we do not have the support and confidence of the people, we might as well go home.

For that reason I have vetoed SB 672.

I had previously indicated that while I believe a raise more than doubling legislative pay to be excessive, I would not stop it, instead allowing the Legislature to direct its own affairs. I did not want to do anything that could slow down our reform movement or stop our march toward reform, growth, and progress in Louisiana. That decision was a mistake on my part. It is clear to me that this legislative pay raise is in itself a threat to our reform movement and our progress as a state.

Here’s what Bobby said recently:

Some lawmakers acknowledged that the governor recently told a meeting of the Republican legislative delegation that he regretted vetoing the raise. Alexandria Town Talk, April 28, 2009.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal says he does not regret vetoing a proposed pay raise for legislators last year, but regrets the way he handled the matter. WAFB-TV, April 28, 2009.

What is it Bobby regrets?

Does Bobby regret: a) Making a deal with the leges not to veto the pay raise? b) Vetoing the pay raise? c) Being forced by the public to veto the pay raise? d) Having made a campaign promise to prohibit such pay raises?

Standing by.

C.B.

1 CB 7:52 am

In a press release (see release here) today Public Affairs Research Council (”PAR”) asking for a delay in our Personal Income Tax reduction that was passed in 2008 and promised for 2009.
.
Here’s an excerpt from the cover letter accompanying PAR’s “report”:

Slashing revenue without presenting specific proposals for cost-cutting is a slick political maneuver that merely masquerades as a way to streamline government. Louisiana cannot afford to ignore either side of the budget equation.

PAR’s hypocrisy

That is pure unadulterated hypocrisy!

Where are PAR’s justification for not cutting the budget?

Has PAR studied the entire budget and found that every penny in it is absolutely essential? What about all the spending on NGOs? What about all the spending on purely local projects?

More questions

Does PAR know the country is in a recession (probably a depression)?

Does PAR know that people in LA are losing their jobs?

Obviously, PAR believes that the hardworking, non-government-employed, citizens of LA should suffer in order to keep government in LA at the current bloated level.

Where’s the evidence of the need for the current level of government?

Anecdotal evidence argues that state government is too big. The state currently has 15,000 more employees than the Southern Average.

Our money

Here’s what one very prominent citizen said in response to PAR:

It is as if PAR thinks the money is the state’s money in the first place and not taxpayers’ money. Same sentiment of Dr. Lombardi in yesterday’s Advocate op ed piece when he says now that we are no longer rich we should not be giving money away. Giving money away? Whose money? His money? He apparently thinks so. It’s not his money. It’s taxpayer money.

If PAR is going to criticize those who wish to return confiscated money to the rightful owners, perhaps it’s time for PAR to stop masquerading as a research (?) group.

This latest “report” is not only “not PAR”, it is in fact “sub-PAR.”

C.B.

1 CB 1:00 pm

I just read where Commissioner of Administration Angele Davis said there was a “design flaw” in the Budget Stabilization Fund (a.k.a. the rainy day fund). (See story here.) As a result there would be little to no net revenues for the upcoming state budget if the leges used $250 Million of the fund.

There is no “design flaw.” The fund was intentionally crafted to limit the flow of oil and gas revenues into the State General Fund (”SGF”) in hopes that the state would reduce its dependency on oil and gas revenues.

Alternative solution

If there is no desire to reduce the dependency on oil and gas revenues, there is alternative to refilling the fund.

The $250 Million taken out of the fund could be immediately replaced with $250 Million of the $860 Million 2007-08 surplus (per Const. Article VII, Section 10(D)(2)(d)) and thus all oil and gas revenues would continue to flow into the SGF and would be available for expenditure in the fiscal year that begins July 1.

This process has been used in the recent past to force more oil and gas revenues to flow into the SGF.

This scenario would increase revenues for the Operating Budget by $250 Million. There would, however, be less surplus money to spend on local and NGO capital projects.

If the goal is to forestall cuts to the Higher Education and Heathcare operating budgets this process accomplishes it.

Poor priorities not a flaw

Seems to me the only “design flaw” in the fund is the flaw that has always been in the state budget process — poor priorities.

The comments from the commissioner begs the question of why are we just now learning of the “design flaw” in a fund that was originally put into the constitution in 1990 and was actually used in 2002? This is not her first time to work for a governor in the Division of Administration.

What am I missing?

C.B.

1 CB 8:00 am