If Louisiana Republican U.S. Senator David Vitter and Republican Louisiana Governor-elect are right, President George Bush’s veto of the WRDA or Water Resources Development Act (which has taken seven years to cobble together) will be overridden.
Both have publicly said there are enough votes in Congress to hand President Bush his first veto override.
In a sense, the Bush veto has put Jindal (who is also a Congressman) in an embarrassing position by the President’s veto of legislation that the Governor-elect advocates.On October 21, Jindal talked to President Bush about the election.
Jindal has also made public statements regarding his intent to join others to override the veto and said he felt the override would be successful.Vitter and all of the Louisiana delegation has also gone on board for the override.
Also, as reported by the Sunday’s Times Picayune, the WRDA bill appears critical for the viability of the Port of New Orleans which was hoping to acquire $160 million from the legislation.The port needs the money to help keep many of the businesses from fleeing to other locations, to help relocate other businesses along the river the Port and others feel were impacted by Katrina and to facilitate for the disruptions of the possible closing of an outlet to the Gulf of Mexico called MR-GO.Some of those business owners are major Republican contributors to election campaigns.
The President’s decision also puts his own Gulf Coordinator in an awkward position.Last week, Donald Powell referred to the Port as a “bright shining star”.Right now, without the federal assistance, the Port risks losing business related to Hurricane Katrina and that star might be fading--unless the veto is overridden. Unfortunately, due to the veto of the legislation, the Congressman Bobby Jindal will now be forced to go against and perhaps even help deliver an embarrassing vote against the President who hails from his own party.
While President Bush has labelled the legislation as being laden with too much "pork", others feel the current state of affairs has too little "port". Louisiana has been fighting too many bridges over troubled waters since Katrina and due to President Bush's decision, a Republican Governor-Elect and others must now fight a battle in Washington against a Republican President over important infrastructure needs that Congress has told this President that America deserves. In this case, Congress can prove it can be a "shining star" by working together and voting to override a veto that never should have occurred.
Governor Blanco and Governor-Elect Bobby Jindal discuss the WRDA bill at a news conference on October 26
Kerry: There is absolutely wastefull spending in Congress. However, lets say that Louisiana Congressmen did not want to vote for wasteful spending. Would any of our legislation get passed? We don't live in a perfect world where Congress votes for things because it is needed and not because it will help them get elected again. Written by Dan
on 11/7/2007
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
One definition of anything's value is "what alternative uses does it have." There's only so much money the government has to spend, much of this is needless (building planes the military no longer wants as with the A-7 some years back, expanding VA Hospitals in committee chairman's districts even though the VA said this was not where they needed the money spent.) This most certainly is wasteful in that this money could have been used elsewhere where it would do more good - rather than in a district where there is an influential congressman who use this as an "accomplishment" to help him get re-elected. Also, I'm sure most taxpayers would not have a problem with the government not taking this money out of their paycheck to begin with if all it's going to be used for is to help some "people's servant" get re-elected. Like I say I used to watch both C-Span channels to see the legislative process at work - so allow me to politely disagree - but there most certainly is wasteful spending by our government. Written by kerry fox
on 11/7/2007
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
One man's pork is another man's pig. Legislators try to get projects into bills that will benefit the people who elect them. Are such projects "pork"? These are projects that legislators want to show off, want to brag about to their constituents, not things that stink of corruption and cronyism. For that, you have to dig deeper into legislation, for obscure conditions and qualifications on spending or regulations that will, it just so happens, benefit a friend or contributor to a legislator. When someone bemoans that a bill is full of "pork," he just means that there's nothing in it that helps him. Written by David (neither Vitter nor Duke)
on 11/6/2007
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
In a perfect world, politicians would vote for something because it needed to be done and not because of what they got out of it. Unfortunately, congressmen need to go back to their district and explain their votes... so that means that in order for Louisiana to get certain things in a bill, other states will also need to get certain things in that bill. I wish it didn't have to happen like that but those people who think things will change after we keep electing the same people over and over again, well, they are just being delusional. Elect a majority of new Congressmen and women who will commit to voting for things because they are needed and not because of what they get back, and you will see a change. If you keep voting the same people into office, you will continue to get the same results. And even if you do elect one person into office that is different, that person will have to operate within the system. So if that person would want to bring home needed funding, that person would have to give other people a reason to vote for that funding. Written by Dan
on 11/6/2007
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I used to follow both houses of congress in D.C. on C-Span and C-Span II. For the benefit of lower blood pressure I stopped. We have career politicians who need to be “bought” with "pork" to support legislation that otherwise does not affect their district. Disgusting and pathetic - and very costly to taxpayers - but that’s the system we have. Not knowing the details of this bill (including its "pork") I cannot say whether I'd like to see it passed or not. I do know that often-needed pieces of legislation have SO MUCH added pork that it becomes unacceptable in its current form; that is too much needless spending on "pork" to be acceptable. Opinions will differ as to what is "too much." ("none" sounds ideal to me) Written by kerry fox
on 11/6/2007
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Rich, Raymond, et, al. You all raise very good points. Raymond, if you think this is Pork, then tell that to Senator Vitter and Bobby Jindal and everyone else in the Louisiana delegation which includes Landrieu, Jefferson, Baker and everyone else. Send them a message and tell them you favor the veto because you feel it is pork. Tell them you favor the veto although Louisiana and the other states that cannot afford federal obligations but we and other states should pay for them. Please don't just tell me or these buzzbacks. As far as Rich's comments, you obviously have not been reading Bayoubuzz. So, for the record, please be advised that other than one item about which I have wrote about about two weeks ago where I disagreed with the transition team, I have praised Bobby Jindal and his attitude, his selection process and every thing he has done so far as the Governor Elect. Do I think Congressman Jindal is embarrassed by this veto? Don't know but probably not. Do I think it places him in a situation that is embarrassing, yes. When you have a major state devastation and needy of major water infrastructure needs, and all of the delegation is in favor of the legislation and you are speaking on behalf of your state when you talk to the President and you are saying you are hoping there will not be a veto and there is one, I would think that if I were Mr. Jindal I would think that the President does not understand my state and what I am asking and what my state needs. Some people might say that if Mr. Jindal talked to him or his administration about this legislation and the President ignored his pleas, it shows that regarding the President and Mr. Jindal on this particular issue, the President and federal government is not helping Louisiana on this issue which Mr. Jindal obviously felt was very important. Congressman Jindal complained about on numerous occassions after being elected that the federal government needed to help pass this legislation and help Louisiana on certain matters, particularly the Road Home program. Does the veto put him in an embarrasing sitution considering all the circumstances of his election and converstions with the administration and statements about this bill, I think it does. But, again, Rich, let me be very clear, when he said the election was over, that was good enough for me. I wrote about an area that I disagreed with his transition team, but, as mentioned, everything i see so far has been very positive. I think he will be a very good Governor. I can be wrong, time will tell, but from what I see, that is what I think at this time. Will I disagree with him at times, yes. But, I will agree with him also which is what I have been doing. I think he is running a very good transition. I did not like his campaign. I think and hope he will be a very good governor but expect to disagree with him on some issues. So, thank you for your writings and I just felt I needed to set the record straight. Written by Stephen Sabludowsky, Publisher of Bayoubuzz.com
on 11/5/2007
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
It is time to sink or swim. The Bush administration has been trying to sink Louisiana, so that it can use it as a Liquefied Natural Gas National Import Center and guarantee a Republican lock on political power within the State by running out the black vote (a democratic constituency). This grandson of a yankee Senator from Connecticut has been revealing his true colors, and only the blind party followers of Louisiana have refused to see the obvious! Now even their own boy, P. Bobby Jindal, is doing the right thing by accepting the rally cry: "Louisiana first!" Reveillez vous la Louisianne! Written by Gen. P.G. T. Beauregard
on 11/5/2007
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Steve- I just say "amen" to most of the comments below, except the so-called Rhett's Wife comment, which simply reflects her (or It's) hate-Bush obsession. Written by Hermann
on 11/5/2007
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
You just can't let it go, can you Steve. Why is the veto embarrassing for Jindal? Does every bill that fails, when you've voted for it, considered an embarrassment. It's another example of a tabloid journalism headline that targets Jindal in you biased columns. Why isn't it embarrassing for Vitter, Landrieu and your beloved Blanco and Jefferson?
Written by Rich
on 11/5/2007
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
That is the whole problem with our current political system. Both men were forced to do what they did. Pres Bush could not, in good conscience, avoid of vetoing another prime example of Congress wasting the taxpayer's money. Bobby Jindal could not, in good conscience, avoid working to over turn the veto of a bill that is desperately needed by his state.
Both men are right in what they did and anyone who finds that embarassing just doesn't understand politics. (Or else is cynically using the situation for their own ends.) Written by Lew
on 11/5/2007
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Steve, so I assume, from your comments, that you are big supporter of "pork." You do need some clarity in your comments. First, I simply don't see how Bush's veto of the WRDA bill put Jindal in a "embarrassing position." They have a difference of opinion. That's all!
Second, the legislation is likely to get overridden because the authors of the bill were "wise enough" to spread the "pork" around to both democrats and republicans. However, "good politics," doesn't usually correlate well with "good policy."
Third, vis-a-vis the Port of New Orleans hoping to acquire $160 million from the legislation, my comment here is simply: The Port of Houston expansion and the work at the Port of Mobile is being financed mostly by local and state funding. Now some of that funding-- for the Port of New Orleans-- is legitimate because the closing and moving of businesses, in the Industrial Canal, was caused by Federal action. However,the difference is just "handout." It is disturbing, with a reasonably large budget surplus looming in next years state budget, that Louisiana could not pony-up and pay its own bills. The welfare mentality here seems to permeate all levels: the rich, the poor, the businesses and government. It seems that solving our problems comes down to someone elses monetary responsibilty. Sorry about the soap box... but the begging gets too much sometimes! Written by Raymond
on 11/5/2007
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Chaubert, most bills are full of pork barrel spending as is this one. But I hear it is necessary for this bill to pass for LA. to get the money for levees and restoration. Sometimes one just has to hold one's nose and aim for the goal, knowing it includes other unsavory issues too. As in this case. Written by Watchdog
on 11/5/2007
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I agree with you Chaubert, the bill is full of "PORK" and that's why Bush voted it. I think what Jindal, Vitter and Landreau should do is work for a clean bill. I also agree that the levees in some areas should be open for highwater drainage back to the wetlands. The river built all this area to begin with. Oil companies should pay for some reclamation because of the canals they dug moving rigs into shallow water. I used to fly in over the Gulf area from Florida and points south and if looked like a hwy system years back but the last time I came that way most had disappeared, just water then and most the barrier islands were gone as well. Written by Ben
on 11/4/2007
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The whole bill is just pork-barrel spending that ought to get vetoed: when the House came up with $14Bil, and the Senate with $13B, they compromised on $25 Bil! Outrageous. If the states were paying for this stuff themselves, these would not make the priority list.
Levees to protect most of south Louisiana? Ridiculous. Levees are part of the problem, not part of the solution. We need wetland reclamation, diversion of Mississippi and Atchafalaya sediments to rebuild the marshes. Written by chaubert
on 11/4/2007
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I'm counting on Jindal to vote to override the veto as he promised. He also stated that he would not wait on studies, research, etc. re: coastal restoration and plans to have coastal restoration start asap and not wait on the studies,
for there is no time to waste. He's so right. Let's 'geterdone.' Written by Watchdog
on 11/4/2007
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
We worry about money, politics, companies, etc. We need to look at the steps we can take today. We are making mistakes by waiting on others. There are valves and gates we can open Today, right now that will start the steps we need to saving and rebuilding South La. Stop worrying about billion dolor ideas were some one is also trying to make a buck. We need to take steps (learn to walk before we run) that can be done now. The spillway water levels need to come up, Sorry hunters and farmers. They have politically stopped this from happening for years. This will push more fresh water (wich builds land) into the center of the state. The water level of Bayou Lafourche need to come up and the weir in Thibodaux needs to come out. This bayou provides fresh water to the area East of the area the Spillway will cover, to the Mississippi river. Next dredging, pump style dredging needs to stop in south La. for a while. Dredge companies need to use bucket stye, or some other compairable method. Put the mud in a barge and go build up land any where. Pumping a mudwater mix just out away from where you are working is a waste. We do this to keep a shiping channel open. Now for my pet peve, Rocks I hate rocks. This is the solution of some engineer, It doesn't work there are many examples of this in open water on our coast, but someone got paid alot of money for this. Threir using tons to close off the Mr. GO this will prove to be a disaster in 5 to 10 years. We don't have a rocks naturally in Louisiana, so when you put them in place they sink and the land around them goes away. In the Delta area we have mud(sediment), not even sand really. I'll let ya'll do the math on that one.
The little steps is where we need to look. Fresh water, replant, stop the pipeline canals, fill in the ones that are there, Fill in the old rig location canals.( If you don't understand or know what I'm talking about look at south La on Google Earth. You will see all these little dead end canals off of natural bodies of water, thats what I'm refering to) The Mississippi river is the largest trade route in the U.S. It is very important, but South Louisiana makes that route possible, so therfore we are more important. The U.S. government needs to treat us as important and take care of south La. and we'll take care of the River. Then we'll make sure the trade route stays open. Written by Andyman
on 11/4/2007
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Every member of Congress, including the governor elect, should be in D.C. to override this unbelievable act on the part of the President. Unfortunately, he has committed many unblievable acts and hopefully, we can get back some competent leadership in the Oval Office. It has been missing for decades, dears. Written by RhettsWife
on 11/4/2007
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
