Media Clips

Louisiana Officials: Jindal Veto Was Punitive

Bayou Buzz • Stephen Sabludowsky
Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Political Payback, future warnings or good government?

Specifically were Governor Jindal’s two line-item vetoes totally $500,000 for the Algiers Development District a message to House Speaker Jim Tucker and other legislators such as Rep. Jeff Arnold--a message not to cross the Governor or was Jindal's action "good government"? Based upon various anonymous sources in good positions to know the budget process, a conversation with Rep. Arnold and considering the language and circumstances behind the Jindal veto, there are facts that various officials believe strongly raise the probability that the Algiers veto was political “payback” or “future warnings” that you “don’t mess with Bobby”. Also, as a result, some believe the Algiers veto will hurt an important segment of the New Orleans area while satisfying Governor Jindal’s “pure political objectives”.

Among the items that were vetoed by Governor Bobby Jindal on Tuesday in House Bill No. 881 was $500,000 which line item vetoes items were $200,000 to the Algiers Development District for blight remediation and infrastructure improvements and for $300,000 for the Algiers Development District “Payable out of the State General Fund (Direct)”

Jindal’s veto message for both line items was: “These savings will be applied to ensure a balanced budget. Therefore, I am vetoing this item.”

According to these sources, and according to Rep. Arnold who chairs the Algiers Development District, Jindal’s veto message for both of these requests were clear indications that the Governor was getting back at Tucker and him for opposing the Governor on various transparency legislation instruments especially one recent bill HB 278--that many in the media and good government groups felt would cloud the very transparency Bobby Jindal once claimed he was so eager to create.

According to these sources and Arnold, the budget was actually balanced and the veto language “These savings will be applied to ensure a balanced budget” was unnecessary and obvious that the lack of specificity could only mean “payback” or future notice not to cross the Governor.

In fact, Rep. Arnold told Bayoubuzz that prior to the veto being disclosed, the Governor’s office called Tucker who then called Arnold. Arnold tried to reach the administration including Chief of Staff, Timmy Teepell (on his cell), but the top Jindal aide did not returned Arnold’s phone call.

Arnold said he feels that the Governor’s action was targeted against him also since he is loyal to House Speaker Jim Tucker who also opposed Jindal on HB 278. Both Arnold and Tucker are Republicans as is Governor Jindal. Arnold said he also opposed the governor on other Administration transparency legislation that Arnold felt that if the bills had passed, it would have put much more sunshine upon the governor’s office.

Ironically, some believe that based upon the passing of HB 278, it will be very difficult, if not impossible to obtain more information from the Governor concerning the very budget deliberations by the Governor such as the reasons he vetoed the Algiers project. They also feel that the Administration transparency bill pushed by Jindal might also be a double-edge sword. Their argument is that since it is now very difficult to obtain documents showing reasons for such vetoes, it allows the public and legislators to speculate the worse about the Governor’s motives.

Separate from the transparency issue, there is the specific issue regarding the benefits of these specific budget items that were vetoed. The Development District is in close proximity to the well-sought “Federal City” which is expected to be a boon for the New Orleans area, Jefferson Parish, Plaquesmines and for the state. Arnold said that there are specific buildings in the area that needs remediation and major improvements which would only enhance the area close to the economic development engine (Federal City) and would improve possible residential and commercial areas for the military and others living and doing business in this district .

Jindal could have allowed the line items to stay, or reduced one item and kept the other. Instead, he slashed both which one public official said is strong indication that the motive was punitive in nature.

Arnold and others involved in the process believe the budget was balanced and this cut was absolutely not necessary. Unfortunately, they feel “payback” and “future warnings” is the ultimate message the Governor sent to the public and when it is coupled with what they consider to be Administration tepid transparency, it will be easy to see the worse when the Governor fails to fully explains his actions to the public who want to use government money wisely and effectively.