Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal:  The growing dictator or the more mature administrator?    

Before Governor Jindal took office, many of us believed in what he told us.  He was “Bobby the Magnificient”, a man who could do no wrong or utter no falsehoods.

Then fast forward.  Last year, at this time, Bobby Jindal had been called spineless by almost all media for not vetoing the legislative pay raises.  His poll numbers dropped faster than a stone.

After intense pressure from the public, he finally vetoed the pay raise and then smashed the non-governmental organizations left and right claiming they had not met his criteria.  It did not take much courage to hit the legislators at that time since they were on the public’s “hit list”.  He did what was the popular thing to do and the public responded favorably and his poll numbers soared.

This year, a very contentious issue cast serious doubt over his claims of being a reformer.  Most good government organizations and media claimed that he was hiding behind a wall of stone and was stonewalling on his own Administration’s disclosures. 

A number of respected officials including House Speaker Jim Tucker disagreed with him on a major Administration disclosure bill, which ultimately passed the legislature.  Those disagreeing with Jindal said the Administration was playing double standards.—legislators and courts should disclose virtually everything but the Administration had to disclose nothing or very little.  One respected Senator, Robert Adley alluded to the notion there was more government disclosure in Cuba than in the Louisiana  Governor’s office.

Last week, I wrote that a number of elected officials felt that the Governor vetoed money for Algiers to get back at Tucker and Representative Jeff Arnold who favored administration disclosure.  Over five hundred thousand dollars in economic development was vetoed from their districts.  The money would indirectly serve a critical project called the Federal City that could bring in hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions.  Still, it got the Jindal ax.

Today, another legislator is claiming retribution for also favoring Administration disclosure.  One project was approved in Shreveport that would seem to have similar economic development benefits to that which was vetoed in Baton Rouge. 

Yesterday, Charlie Buras of The Old River Road outlined how millions were spent on economic development in various parishes but only two economic development agencies received the Jindal ax.

Buras said, “Much has been made about Gov. Jindal's decision to veto $500,000 earmarked for the Algiers Development District, with many speculating it was retaliation against House Speaker Jim Tucker. If you'll remember during debate on the House floor, Tucker tried to add teeth to SB 278 (the governor's faux-transparency bill).

So I went back through the supplemental appropriations bill HB 881 one more time. Here are similar projects that were in the original bill sent to the Governor:

• $15,505 for each of the following: DeQuincy Downtown Development District, Vinton Downtown Development District and New Llano Downtown Development District.
• $135,000 for the Iberia Economic Development Authority.
• $200,000 for the Northeast Louisiana Economic Authority.
• $75,000 for the Greenwell Springs-Airline Economic Development District.
• $25,000 to the City of Gretna for economic development.
• $10,000 to the City of Winnsboro for economic development.
• $95,000 to the Livingston Parish Council for economic development.
• $120,000 for the St. Bernard Economic Development Foundation.
• $50,000 for the East Feliciana Parish Economic Development District.
• $130,000 to the City of New Orleans for economic development and neighborhood revitalization initiatives. (An additional $1.13 million was earmarked for "economic development" as well as other initiatives.)
• $350,000 to the City of New Orleans Economic Development Department.
• $200,000 for the Algiers Development District for blight remediation and infrastructure improvements.
• $300,000 for the Algiers Development District.
• $25,000 to the City of St. Gabriel for economic development.
• $4,431 for each of the following for downtown development: Delhi, Clayton, Delta, Ferriday, Lake Providence, Newellton, Rayville, Richmond ($8,862), St. Joseph, Tallulah and Waterproof.
• Over $4.1 million earmarked to cities and towns around Louisiana for "infrastructure improvements" and "capital improvements."

That's over $7 million in earmarks for economic development, downtown development and infrastructure improvements. So out of all of that what did Jindal veto? The $500,000 for the Algiers Development District and $120,000 for the St. Bernard Economic Development Foundation.

Funny, I didn't realize reform looked so much like the politics of old...

-Charlie Buras”

It is possible, but doubtful, that the legislature will override the Governor on these cuts or on any other matter.    Given that assumption coupled with the lack of Jindal’s requirement to disclose how or why he has acted in the manner that he has, we will never know if he acting out of vindictiveness or whether he was exercising a heavier and legitimate governmental hand.

When Jindal was first elected Governor, he repeatedly said he was not going to be a dictator.  Now, some legislators and others will disagree with his earlier claim.  They will say he is clearly telling the legislature and others outside the state he will not be pushed around. 

If he is acting out of vindictiveness or staking a line in the sand with the vetoes, I admit it might not be politically wise to state the reasons he is so acting.  However, it would be morally honest.    

Over the past year, perhaps Governor Jindal has gained that backbone to help him govern.  Then, maybe, he has grown an iron sword that rules to get what he wants although he said he would not dictate to the legislature.  He also said he would be the most transparent governor in Louisiana history.  Due to his unwillingness to disclose Administration information, we can disbelieve what the Governor says or we can accept him on face value.  But, for now, there is one thing that is crystal clear.  We will not know for certain why he acts the way he does until we are allowed to see records he claims are off the record.