Jun 19 2008
Jindal is “sorry”
“I am very sorry to see the Legislature do this,” he said “More than doubling legislative pay is not reasonable and the public has been clear on that”.
He’s sorry! That’s it? Should we just accept his apology and turn our heads? Ignore this unprecedented legislative pay raise as it appears our state leader is prepared to do?
As stated in Jindal’s Action Plan pamphlet, one of his key points was “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 the compensation.”
The fact that Jindal mentioned legislative pay raises in his campaign brochure makes one wonder just how much discussion was going on about pay raises behind the scenes prior to the gubernatorial election.
Bobby, Bobby, Bobby…….exactly WHO is going to PROHIBIT it? The citizens of Louisiana obviously can’t PROHIBIT it.
Melissa, please find Bobby’s copy of “Governing For Dummies” and give it to him…….while you’re at it, look through those 5,000 pens on his desk and find the one that says “Veto Pen” and give it to him.
Loading ...
If the legislators are ethically prohibited from voting on issues that materially affect themselves, then how about we seek to file an injunction prohibiting this bill from becoming law?
How did this case turn out?
——————————————————————
Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Louisiana Law
Jack Thompson’s Louisiana video game law was supposedly written as to be immune from constitutional challenges.
But it’s not looking that way this morning.
Last evening Federal District Court Judge James Brady ruled in favor of the video game industry’s request for a preliminary injunction to keep the law from taking effect. Granting the preliminary injunction indicates that Judge Brady believes the industry is likely to win the case on its merits when a final decision is rendered at some future point.
The judge’s 30-page ruling took Thompson’s law apart piece-by-piece. Judge Brady wrote, in part:
“The State’s argument overlooks a line of cases holding that video games are protected free speech…”
“Defendants (Louisiana) contend that the legislative record contains social science evidence demonstrating that violent video games are harmful. It appears that much of the same evidence has been considered by numerous courts and in each case the connection was found to be tenuous and speculative…”
“The evidence that was submitted to the legislature in connection with the bill that became the statute is sparse and could hardly be called in any sense reliable…”
“Absent an injunction the statute will have a chilling effect on both video game developers and retailers.”
“Additionally, the state argues that the Act was specifically drafted to pass constitutional scrutiny and it is the most narrowly drawn statute of its kind to date. Plaintiffs obviously disagree…”
And so, apparently, does Judge Brady.
Industry reaction has been received from the Entertainment Merchants Association, representing video game retailers and renters. In a press release, EMA president Bo Andersen said, “We also hope that this ruling will cause the State of Louisiana to rethink its position and abandon its strident defense of this misguided and poorly drafted law. A less wasteful approach for the State and its citizens would be for the State to encourage parents to utilize retailers as a source of information and make effective use of the industry’s voluntary game ratings system.”
Doug Lowenstein of the ESA added, “Throughout consideration of this legislation… we said this outcome was inevitable and that given the well documented problems facing the state of Louisiana, resources could be spent in a more productive way… In the post-Katrina era, voters should be outraged that the Legislature and Governor wasted their tax dollars on this ill-fated attack on video games. The irony is that only a year ago the state enacted legislation to give video game companies tax credits to locate in the state, only to turn around and create an utterly inhospitable environment.”
Despite the near total dismissal of the legality of the Louisiana law, all was not rosy for the video game industry in Judge Brady’s ruling. The jurist granted the state’s request and dismissed Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti as a defendant.
Brady further ruled that the industry had failed to properly certify local district attorneys as a class of defendants. It therefore appears that the ruling, at least technically, applies only to East Baton Rouge Parrish, where District Attorney Doug Moreau was a named defendant. It is likely, however, that the industry will move to redress this deficiency. In the meantime, since the law itself has been more or less trashed by Judge Brady, its enforcement in other Louisiana parishes seems unlikely.
GP readers who want to check out Judge Brady’s ruling can download it
Uh Oh.
HERE IS THE NEXT SLIMY BILL TO WATCH.
The Senate rejected the Houses ‘minor’ amendments to their bill? WHY?
Date Chamber Page Action
06/18/2008 H Notice of Senate conferees appointed.
06/17/2008 S Senate conference committee appointed: Quinn, Murray, and Marionneaux.
06/12/2008 H 1 Notice of Senate rejecting House amendments.
06/11/2008 S 28 Amendments proposed by the House read and rejected, 35 yeas, and 0 nays. Motion to reconsider tabled.
06/11/2008 S 28 Rules suspended. Called from the calendar.
06/11/2008 S 26 Read by title. Returned to the calendar subject to call
06/10/2008 S 52 Received from the House with amendments.
06/10/2008 H 26 Read third time by title, amended, roll called on final passage, yeas 99, nays 0. Finally passed, ordered to the Senate.
06/06/2008 H Scheduled for floor debate on 6/10/08.
05/14/2008 H 28 Read by title, amended, passed to 3rd reading - regular calendar.
05/13/2008 H 43 Reported without Legislative Bureau amendments.
05/12/2008 H 26 Reported with amendments (10-0) (Regular). Referred to the Legislative Bureau.
04/10/2008 H 5 Read by title, under the rules, referred to the Committee on Civil Law and Procedure.
04/09/2008 H 3 Received in the House from the Senate, read by title, lies over under the rules
04/08/2008 S 13 The amended bill was read by title and finally passed by a vote of 35 yeas and 0 nays. The bill was ordered reengrossed and sent to the House. Motion to reconsider tabled.
04/02/2008 S 7 Read by title, committee amendments read and adopted. Ordered engrossed and passed to a third reading.
04/01/2008 S 8 Reported with amendments.
03/31/2008 S 52 Introduced in the Senate, rules suspended, read first and second time by title and referred to the committee on Judiciary A.
03/21/2008 S Prefiled and under the rules provisionally referred to the committee on Judiciary A.
We need to check out the floor video from 6/11/2008.
The chief archietect of trouble - Quinn (she lied to get it through the Senate) is one of the three conference committee members. That does not bode well.
Who is the House appointing.
This bill exempts these jokers from ANY court action.
N - I’m not clear what they are doing, can you explain? (Use small words, LOL)
Hi N, I am with admin…please explain…please be specific what Quinn is trying to do and what is the bill about?
LOL…….was wondering if I was the only one confused????
The following is an e-mail sent to my state senator and his reply. Thought you might be interested.
How dare you vote yourself a raise. You haven’t done anything yet. You represent me and my neighbors and what’s best for us, NOT yourself.
| After you have proved yourself in the Senate, then maybe, maybe you can consider an increase in salary and then, only then will your constituents consider voting you back in office.
| You better get off your duff and prove you are worthy of the increase you have voted for yourself. La is trying so hard to improve ethics and right off the bat, you go and prove to the rest of the U.S. it’s business as usual in the south. Shame on you.
Marionneaux’s response:
First, let me thank you for contacting me regarding the above
reference issue. You mentioned that you did think of contacting me prior to
the vote because you never dreamed I would vote for such a measure. As you
know, in 13 years I have never voted for a pay increase for the
legislature.I also realize that I will never be able to convince you or
others who have written or called since the vote as to why I felt it was
necessary, but I will do my best to offer my explanation.Legislative pay was
set at $16,800.00 per year on May 1, 1980. If legislators’ salaries had been
increased over that time to account for increases in the Consumer Price
Index (CPI), the current salary would be $43,834 and yes, to that there is
an allowance for per diem, which brings the average salary to approximately
$23,000.00 (depending upon the number of SPECIAL SESSIONS a Governor chooses
to call).A few years ago we established an Independent Commission to review
the compensation package of legislators. These citizen members recommended a
substantial increase after having spent more than a year reviewing and
comparing compensation packages around the region. Even with the
recommendation of the Commission, we still did not have the courage to
adjust the compensation due to the amount recommended (in large part due to
the passage of time since the last increase).I do realize that people will
say the following: “You knew what the job paid when you ran . . . ” . . .
” It is a part time job . . . ” . . . “The legislature may be due a raise,
but not one of such magnitude . . . ” To that I can only offer my
experience. Yes that is absolutely true, but I can’t imagine a person in any
profession/job who makes the same salary as he/she made 28 years ago. And it
is not, contrary to popular belief a part time job. As you know, this job
follows legislators to grocery stores, ball parks, weddings, church etc . .
. And when we don’t show up for a meeting (Police Jury, Town Hall, Port
Association, Ribbon Cutting, etc . . . ) at 6:00 p.m. following session it
is said that “I never see my legislator.”The legislature is cursed with
having to set its own salary. Nothing was said over the years when we voted
to raise Sheriffs, Clerks of Court, Assessors, Deputies, Statewide
Officials, Public Service Commissioners, etc . . . All of whom make more
than legislators. Legislators are charged with the construction the general
operating budget of the State of Louisiana which now exceeds $30 Billion
Dollars.The workload of the Louisiana Legislature has increased
substantially since the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In just
the past two and half years since the storms hit, the legislature has held 5
special sessions in addition to the work of the regular sessions each year
and the increased interim work necessitated by the recovery efforts. The
additional workload is expected to continue. LEGISLATORS HAVE NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE CALLING OF SPECIAL SESSIONS, nor were they anticipated when persons
ran for office.
Comparisons with Other States While critics of any pay increase for
legislature’s point to lower salaries for legislators in our neighboring
states, they are not comparing apples-to-apples. For instance, Texas has a
relatively low pay rate for legislators. However those legislators get a
sizeable office allowance that is used to boost their actual pay and they
only meet in regular sessions every other year. The Philosophy of Public
Service & Public Policy Those who argue that public service should be about
serving the public and not how much someone is paid to serve are not looking
at the big picture. The right to hold public office or seek such an office
should be available to anyone who feels they have talents to offer the
public regardless of their personal financial status.An adequate salary for
service in the legislature is necessary to make sure that men and women from
all economic and social situations have an opportunity to serve. Such
diversity is vital in shaping common sense public policy that meets the
needs of all citizens and builds a stronger state. Otherwise, small business
people will forever be lost to the halls of the Louisiana Legislature. Take
for instance the small business plumber who has 2 employees. Can he/she
afford to take 3-4 months per year away from their business, and should the
public expect him/her to do so? Consider the school teacher, an active
teacher cannot participate in the legislature due to the time required and
the time of the year called for by the constitution. Other small business
owners simply cannot make the commitment of service at $16,800 per year.If
we want the legislature to be only insurance agents, large business owners,
lawyers, doctors and the well to do, perhaps we should remove any
compensation from the books. Put to the voters I’m sure they would vote for
such a measure. I would prefer the legislature to represent a cross section
of Louisiana, representing every walk of life, every creed, religion, color,
socioeconomic background. Finally, with the legislative pay tied to Congress
this very divisive issue will no longer overshadow the good work being done
by this governor and legislature.By the way, I hope you saw (on the same day
as the pay raise vote) that we repealed the Stelly tax increases which will
return $370 MILLION DOLLARS to the taxpayers of the State of Louisiana.
With
warmest thoughts,
Senator Rob Marionneaux
Response to Mr. Marionneaux from C.B. Forgotson:
http://forgotston.com/2008/06/
Responding to statements by leges trying to justify their obscene pay raise has proved difficult. There are 142 politicians making up stories and they are all pros.
Below are some of the signs that the leges believe the people of Louisiana are stupid:
SIGN 1. THEY SAY THEY HAVEN’T GOTTEN A RAISE SINCE 1980.
RESPONSE: Many of those making that statement first took office Mid-January, 2008. The correct statement is: “I haven’t gotten a pay raise in 6 months. In other words, they knew the pay when they ran, but after working for 6 months, they want their pay doubled. What will they want after a year?
Other leges were elected 4 or 8 years ago make the same statement. Other than Sens. John Alario and Francis Thompson none of them have been in the lege continuously since 1980. What’s their point?
SIGN 2. THEY SAY THEY DON’T WANT TO HAVE THE LEGE FILLED WITH ONLY THE WEALTHY AND RETIRED.
RESPONSE: Since the pay raise was not in effect when these folks ran for office, we can assume all of the incumbents are either wealthy or retired. Why should the wealthy and retired, who knew the pay when they ran, get a raise.
SIGN 3. THEY SAY THE RAISE WAS NEEDED TO CONTINUE TO A DIVERSE GROUP TO THE LEGE.
RESPONSE: Continue to attract…. I thought they said the current group are all wealthy and retired. Doesn’t sound too diverse to me.
SIGN 4. THEY SAY THEY WANT THE “AVERAGE MAN,” I.E. THE POLICEMAN, FIREMAN, ETC., TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO SERVE IN THE LEGE.
RESPONSE: Okay, but why should this current group of obviously wealthy and retired folks get the raise now. If the incumbents sincerely wanted to attract the average citizen, they would made the raise effective in 2012 after the new “average men” get elected.
SIGN 5. THEY SAY THEY WANT THE “AVERAGE MAN” TO BE ABLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE.
RESPONSE: In the urban areas of the state it costs upwards of $100,000 to win a House seat and upwards of $250,000 to win a Senate seat. Some races have cost a million dollars or more. Anyone know a non-retired, non-wealthy, fireman who has or can borrow or raise a minimum of a $100,000 to enter the race?
SIGN 6. THEY SAY THEY HEARD THE CITIZENS SAY THEY DIDN’T WANT US TO GET “AUTO-MAGIC” ANNUAL PAY RAISES TIED TO THE CONGRESSIONAL PAY WITHOUT ANOTHER VOTE.
RESPONSE: Thanks a bunch. They now tied their annual “auto-magic” raises to the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) WITHOUT ANOTHER VOTE.
Unlike the Congressional increases the CPI increases have no limit. Congressional pay is limited by the annual increase for the Federal employees. (Recently raises were 2.5% to 2.8%.)
Additionally, if Congress develops a conscience (not likely, but hypothetically) they can vote to reject the raise and thus the leges would not get an increase at all for that year. Congress actually rejected an increase in 2005. Poor fellows, it must have been rough on their families.
There is no “cap” with the CPI. This year the CPI is already at 4.4%. If the CPI doesn’t rise any higher, on July 1, 2009 (The day workers in LA finally see an increase in their paychecks from the roll-back of the “Stelly Tax”.) the leges will get a raise of 4.4% or at least $1,500.
More signs later.
C.B.
[...] it’s identical to the letters that Sen. Marionneaux and Sen. Jackson sent to their [...]