Jindal’s philosophy questioned Thursday, Apr 16 2009 

head-up-ass

If nothing else, Bobby Jindal has a very flexible fiscal philosophy.

Bobby’s hypocrisy is so obvious that even a lege can see it. Now, that’s transparency!

Tuesday, Speaker Pro-Tem Rep. Karen Carter Peterson, D-New Orleans, questioned Jindal’s latest one-eighty on spending one-time dollars.

Excerpts from a report ( here) by “Watchcat” (a complimentary term) Caroline Moses, WAFB-TV, Carter said:

“We ad nauseam, ad nauseam,” she said. “I sat here and listened to this. I want to know where the philosophical change came from and how we’re calling it transition funding?”

Last year, Governor Jindal and his team told legislators not to use any temporary money on long-term projects because the funds may not be there in the future. “I don’t think it would be fiscally responsible,” Jindal said. “It would create bigger problems in future years.” Now, Jindal’s cabinet wants to use temporary money to fund long-term DHH programs. Peterson wants to know what gives. “We are prudent. We are responsible. We are not going to move forward in this way. We are going to be fiscally responsible.

If more of our leges had the courage to question “policy shifts” that defy even common sense, our state would not be in the position of cutting Higher Education and Healthcare.

Thus far, Democrat Peterson has my nomination for the most fiscally-conservative member of the House Appropriations Committee.

Kudos to Karen for having the courage to question Bobby’s “inconsistencies.”

C.B.

1 CB 7:02 am

 

Showdown at the Capitol Wednesday, Apr 15 2009 

ok_corral_1957

Rep. Karen Carter Peterson, D-New Orleans, Speaker Pro Tem of the House of Representatives is setting up a showdown with Bobby Jindal.

In a December 15, 2008 statement Bobby Jindal said:

Raising taxes is not an option, and would be the worst thing we could do in an economic downturn so we will make government work more efficiently and we will do our jobs while spending less money.

Increasing the current tax will require a two-thirds vote of the leges. If Jindal’s words mean anything (They haven’t so far.) it is assumed that he will veto the tax increase should it get to his desk.

If Jindal vetoes the tax, then the leges can override his veto by the same two-thirds vote it took to pass it.

It’s going to be an interesting showdown at Capitol between Jindal and the person he personally selected as the number two person in the House.

C.B.

1 CB 7:43 am

 

How LA can save $868 Million, annually Tuesday, Apr 14 2009 

cut-the-fat

The leges claim they are looking for solutions to avoid “devastating cuts” (their term) to Higher Education and Healthcare.

Monday, LA Speaker of the House Jim Tucker, R-Algiers told the Baton Rouge Press Club that the state has 14,000 more employees than the Southern Average.

Interestingly, we are last in every good category among the southern states. But, I digress.

If LA would simply reduce the number of state employees down to the Southern Average the state would save $868 Million annually in payroll alone.

That amount of savings in recurring funds would totally eliminate the need for cuts to Higher Education and Healthcare with money to spare.

It’s all nice to talk about, but when are the leges going to do something about cutting the fat.

C.B.

1 CB 2:03 am

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »