After a House committee advanced legislation that would triple lawmakers’ salaries Wednesday, Gov. Bobby Jindal announced during a news conference that he would not veto the proposed boost should it gain legislative approval in what promises to be a vote heard around the lower chamber Friday morning. Jindal, a Republican, called the increase “over the top,” but he deferred to the Legislature as an independent body that should be free of administrative fiddling.
Yet as governor and, due solely to his constitutional obligations, Jindal is charged with the power of veto, one of the many checks and balances that exist among state government’s branches. The political reality might be that Jindal is looking to avoid a fight, especially as many of his key bills remain on the legislative calendar as the session approaches its June 23 climax. "I don't want to give anybody any excuse to slow down any of the important reforms going through the Legislature," Jindal said in an Associated Press report.
Senate Bill 672 by Sen. Ann Duplessis, D-New Orleans, functions as a link between what full-time members of Congress make and what part-time Louisiana legislators pull down. More specifically, the bill stipulates that lawmaker’s salaries should equal at least 30% of what congressional members are taking home, which comes to roughly $70,000 when a $6,000 reimbursement account and per diem payments of $143 are added to the equation.
Lawmakers are mounting detailed defenses to push the salary increase through the process. In particular, Sen. Butch Gautreaux, a Morgan City Democrat, has been central to the cause of lawmakers. During Tuesday’s Senate debate, Gautreaux handed out a list of anonymous “testimonials” to senators penned by their colleagues. Gautreaux provided the list to Daily Report. A sampling includes testimonials:
—From a Capitol Region legislator: "I represent the poorest urban district in the state and I am probably the poorest legislator in the body. It is quite a financial hardship to serve, yet I do it because the people I serve are far worse off than I am.”
—From a southwestern legislator: "My net monthly check from the state is $1,277. When I came to Baton Rouge, I had to increase my manager's salary and my bookkeeper's salary to fill the gap I left. The net effect is that I am losing money by serving in Baton Rouge."
Advertisement | Advertising
—From a coastal senator: "Being a state senator requires as much or more time than any sheriff, district attorney, clerk of court, assessor, parish president, or judge in my district. Even if this pay raise goes through, legislators will still make considerably less pay than these other individuals. We are requested to vote almost every year for raises for these other officials with no public input."
—From a south central representative: "I have spent a total of 12 days in my (business) office this year. I have had to borrow money more than four times to keep going. I know it doesn’t make sense but my constituent need me to be here for them."
Gautreaux has also compiled a list of more than a dozen office that received pay raises in last year’s state budget, none of which his constituents called his district office to oppose. The Legislature deserves the same treatment, he adds. “Given the proper information, no fair minded person would want you to give four years of your life without honest compensation,” he says.
Bill Dore, president of Dore Energy Corporation in Lake Charles, sent a letter to lawmakers supporting their drive for a salary increase. Dore, who also serves on the board of trustees of Blueprint Louisiana, a nonprofit of business interests pushing governmental reform, writes that state government should be run like a business, with top-level policymakers making a salary that’s in line with private sector executives who also manage multi-million dollar budgets. “How can we ever expect to become the progressive and successful state we all aspire to become without retention of the best qualified leaders to get us there?” he asks.
The bill raising lawmaker’s pay will next be heard on the House floor Friday morning in what could be its final debate.
Comments
Posted by jteldridge on June 12, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Everyone who runs for an elected office in this state knows (or should know) what the salary is for that position. They knew that the pay was low and yet they still chose to run for office. I find their complaints to be baseless and insulting. If their salary is going to be increased then the taxpayers should be compensated by a lowering of any retirement benefits these knuckleheads get. It’s time for John Q. Public to stop acting as if a politician is a wonderful individual whose mission in life is to represent the voter. Politicians only serve themselves but expect us to be grateful when they fund projects with money extorted from the taxpayer. Politicians and those that admire them are scum.
Posted by Chasa on June 12, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jteldridge stated it very eloquently. These people ran for office for their own advantage and the advantage of their financial backers. Now they would like us to believe that they serve altruistically. I suggest that we remove any remuneration other than a per-diem when in session and impose severe criminal penalties on any public representative caught abusing his office. I also believe that the governor has a responsibility to use his veto power to protect us from abuse by other publicly elected officials.
Posted by TBDupree on June 12, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I disagree with previous comments. Currently, the pay for legislators is so low, only the most affluent members of society can run for office and still make ends meet. If we are ever to rid ourselves of the "good ol' boys" network, we must allow the common man (i.e. middles class cogs like myself) to run for office without risking the family home. Too many legislators are already tempted to take money where they can get it, to run for office and live once they are elected. We need legislators who are well paid and can focus on serving Louisiana with dignity and grace. Given what we've had in the last 20-30 years, allowing new people to run for office would be a great thing.
Posted by PhatLipMagee on June 12, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TB - That is a false argument. There will be no lower income people running for office because they can't afford to campaign, regardless of how much the position pays. At $16,000, Louisiana Legislative pay may not be much, but it is substantially more than our closest neighbors. This pay increase would catapult them far away from any "common folk" in this state. When our teachers, police, firefighters and other public service members need a raise, they have to fight tooth and nail to get even a slight bump in pay. Our Legislators are TRIPLING their salary! There is no argument to justify that. It is absolutely disgusting to see this type of display by people who CHOSE to run for PUBLIC SERVICE seize the tax payers money for their own selfish needs. I would like to know what laws permit them to make such bold advances in pay. How is this even legal? I'm not opposed to giving them a raise when it is warranted, at a reasonable level. This pay raise is far from reasonable. It is despicable.
Posted by TBDupree on June 13, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I suppose my argument is not popular, but I cannot help but notice many people are using the phrases, “knew what the pay was” and “chose to run.” I will always believe that the lack of adequate pay is what keeps good people from “choosing to run” for office. Good people can raise money and run for office if they know they can support their family once they get there. And while the legislators may be part-time, I think many of them put in a full days work. Lastly, I’ll say this, why don’t we focus on getting good people in the legislature who deserve the pay, that way we don’t have to continually worry about the bad legislators receiving pay they don’t deserve.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)