Legislative pay has been 16,000 since 1980. How can we expect any average folks, which IMAO we need to have serving in elected positions, to miss work at their jobs, even if their employers will grant them leave without pay in order to spend time in BR during the sessions? The legislature is composed of professionals, insurance agents, lawyers, retired state employees, and a few small business owners. We recognize the need to pay for quality in LSu’s football coach, the college presidents, etc. Nobody here has offered any rational reason why legislative pay should NOT be raised at least by a factor equal to a cost of living adjustment since 1980…
Legislative pay has been 16,000 since 1980. How can we expect any average folks, which IMAO we need to have serving in elected positions, to miss work at their jobs, even if their employers will grant them leave without pay in order to spend time in BR during the sessions? The legislature is composed of professionals, insurance agents, lawyers, retired state employees, and a few small business owners. We recognize the need to pay for quality in LSu’s football coach, the college presidents, etc. Nobody here has offered any rational reason why legislative pay should NOT be raised at least by a factor equal to a cost of living adjustment since 1980…
Johnny, you knock on our company’s door every week seeking a job in the construction yard. You take a test. You pass it along with a couple of others. I interview you. You tell me you want this job more than anything. The pay is $16.50 per hour. I give you the job and you thank me. Three days later you’re all upset because you think you should make $49.50 an hour. I tell you you knew the pay rate when you begged me for the job.
Its funny how one argument to justify the pay raises claims we need it to keep the highly educated so they don’t go and another argument says we need to attract a more diverse population to the positions. What a bunch of crap these are. This is almost as bad as saying that Americans won’t do jobs that illegals will. I can tell you right now that there is no shortage of people who want the job that these legislators have and at the pay they currently have. The problem is not the pay its the smearing that people must go through to get the job and once they have it they are constantly looking over their shoulder to make sure someone is not going to stick a knife in their back and then they become exactly what they promised they wouldn’t. This increase in pay is not for anything else other than to line the corrupt pockets of legislators to get them to play ball so Gov Jindal can pass the legislation he wants. But now he has a problem himself, because he has greater political aspersions he has forgotten the people who elected him and is now trying to appease those that he believes (and wrongfully so) can propel him to the national level by passing legislation that may or may not help the state, he is just trying to put another notch on his political bedpost, not seeing that he is committing political suicide by allowing this pay raise to continue and possibly pass. Notice to the Gov and Legislators you can be recalled and you will eventually be replaced. How do you want to be remembered in this state.
They all knew what the pay was when they ran for the job. Right? And I never knew one who didn’t better himself while in the position. There’s just something about giving yourself a big raise that doesn’t set right.
Serving in the legislature has its perks. Some of these people get more business back home because of their perceived connections. Some of them get to name roads after their wives, and prisons after their fathers. Some of them shell out huge amounts of their own and their friends’ money to get into office. You don’t run a race for $100,000 hoping to finally catch that $16,000 job. You do it because there are many more incentives that aren’t exactly monetary.
They thought about all that, looked at the pay, and decided to go ahead and run ... to serve this year, holding themselves out to have the interest of the public as their mission. So they’ve gone in and said we need to hold the line on the budget, cut out some nursing home expenses here and some medicaid payments there, because that’s “reform.” EVERYBODY ran for office on “fiscal reform” and “get tough on ethics.” NOBODY ran for office on “Show me the money!”
The point is not what their salaries were in 1980. Not in 1981, nor 1982, nor 1992, nor 2002, nor 2003, nor 2005, nor 2006, nor 2007, did the need to keep legislators fed and clothed become so dire that they took the unusual step of voting themselves an increase. Those years are dead and gone, bills paid, taxes paid, and they somehow squeaked through. Why is it that THIS year, the Year of Reform, they suddenly need some $20,000 more than LAST year? The last La. teacher pay raise gave teachers something like 75 cents more per paycheck. It’s like the legislators are Crocodile Dundee, whipping out their knife to tell the all the “muggers” like our teachers, our medicaid recipients, our folks in nursing homes, our doctors, “You think that’s a pay increase? THIS is a pay increase!” It says we want it, we take it. You stand in line.
Legislative pay has been 16,000 since 1980. How can we expect any average folks, which IMAO we need to have serving in elected positions, to miss work at their jobs, even if their employers will grant them leave without pay in order to spend time in BR during the sessions? The legislature is composed of professionals, insurance agents, lawyers, retired state employees, and a few small business owners. We recognize the need to pay for quality in LSu’s football coach, the college presidents, etc. Nobody here has offered any rational reason why legislative pay should NOT be raised at least by a factor equal to a cost of living adjustment since 1980…
Serving the state is not supposed to be about pay it about serving the people and making this state the best in the country. If I thought that a person was running because of the pay I would never vote for them.
The main problem here is they just waited too long to go for a pay raise. I understand it was said that they didn’t go for one during election time because...well you know why. This is entirely their own shortcomings. Had they all along asked for something very, very reasonable...as are state worker and even private industry pay raises...this would have never happened. You don’t ever...EVER ask for a raise such as this without the Louisiana taxpayer and constituents having a say in it.
And one thing is for sure - had they been asked when they were running if they would vote for something like this...what would be their answer? My guess is 99.9% no…
Nothing wrong with a pay raise...in moderation like every one else gets. Sorry, they just missed the mark on this one. They’ll get what they want, but this will definitely hurt alot of them politically...Jindal very much included.
And haven’t they given themselves some sneaky like raises in different forms over the years? I’ve yet to see one whose family looks deprived financially, hungry or poorly clothed and they only drive around in older trucks when it’s close to election time. I wonder how they manage. Do you reckon people give them stuff out of the goodness of their heart?
Could it be because Tucker and Jindal demanded everyone to pay their fair share of taxes, knowing they were going to need that money for their 200 percent
pay raise.
Total Posts: 1127
Joined 2007-09-19 Legislators defeat Democrat amendements to Shaw’s anti-tax bill that would cut taxes even further. Tucker had to lecture silly Democrats that everyone must pay taxes.
************************
The most emotional debate focused on an amendment by Reps. Gary Smith, D-Norco, and Sam Jones, D-Franklin, backed by most Democrats that would have kept the top rates untouched while eliminating the bottom 2 percent bracket on the first $12,500 of net taxable income.
Supporters of the amendment said the bill as currently configured would apply to about half of all taxpayers and that the largest benefits would accrue for those with the highest earnings. Many of those at the bottom or middle of the income scale would see little or no benefit from a Stelly rollback, while Smith’s amendment would have ensured that everyone who pays income taxes would see some savings.
“We’re talking about nurses, firemen, policemen, teachers, support workers, concrete workers,” Jones said.
According to an analysis by the Legislative Fiscal Office, residents earning as much as about $70,000 would save more money by elimination of the 2 percent bracket than if the Stelly tax is reversed, while those making more than that would save more money if the top brackets are raised.
Opponents said Smith’s amendment would kill a deal crafted last month between legislative leaders and Gov. Bobby Jindal and threaten the prospect of passing any tax break in the current session.
Tucker said the amendment would have cost the state an additional $60 million a year and that a fair tax system demands that everyone, even those at the bottom, pay a share.
“It’s critical that everyone in this state help pull the wagon,” Tucker said. “It’s critical that all people help contribute a little ... to the taxation base in this state, because it engages people in government.”
Smith’s amendment failed in a 48-50 vote.
Legislative pay has been 16,000 since 1980. How can we expect any average folks, which IMAO we need to have serving in elected positions, to miss work at their jobs, even if their employers will grant them leave without pay in order to spend time in BR during the sessions? The legislature is composed of professionals, insurance agents, lawyers, retired state employees, and a few small business owners. We recognize the need to pay for quality in LSu’s football coach, the college presidents, etc. Nobody here has offered any rational reason why legislative pay should NOT be raised at least by a factor equal to a cost of living adjustment since 1980…
Because it can give people another reason for people to hate on Jindal. Please note, I oppose the raise and think he should veto it, but I am not going to throw a hissy fit like a two year old over it.
Legislative pay has been 16,000 since 1980. How can we expect any average folks, which IMAO we need to have serving in elected positions, to miss work at their jobs, even if their employers will grant them leave without pay in order to spend time in BR during the sessions? The legislature is composed of professionals, insurance agents, lawyers, retired state employees, and a few small business owners. We recognize the need to pay for quality in LSu’s football coach, the college presidents, etc. Nobody here has offered any rational reason why legislative pay should NOT be raised at least by a factor equal to a cost of living adjustment since 1980…
Because it can give people another reason for people to hate on Jindal. Please note, I oppose the raise and think he should veto it, but I am not going to throw a hissy fit like a two year old over it.
That’s because you and others like you only care about party labels. Those of us into more substantive depth are appauled at how he has acted in regards to this particular piece of legislation, as well as others.
Certainly a big let down, especially knowing how he could have come in and truly remade this state for the better, but since he is in perpetual campaign mode (for either reelection or vice-president) all we’ve gotten is superficial fluff and a refusal to stand up for his principles (whatever they may be).
Legislative pay has been 16,000 since 1980. How can we expect any average folks, which IMAO we need to have serving in elected positions, to miss work at their jobs, even if their employers will grant them leave without pay in order to spend time in BR during the sessions? The legislature is composed of professionals, insurance agents, lawyers, retired state employees, and a few small business owners. We recognize the need to pay for quality in LSu’s football coach, the college presidents, etc. Nobody here has offered any rational reason why legislative pay should NOT be raised at least by a factor equal to a cost of living adjustment since 1980…
Because it can give people another reason for people to hate on Jindal. Please note, I oppose the raise and think he should veto it, but I am not going to throw a hissy fit like a two year old over it.
That’s because you and others like you only care about party labels. Those of us into more substantive depth are appauled at how he has acted in regards to this particular piece of legislation, as well as others.
Certainly a big let down, especially knowing how he could have come in and truly remade this state for the better, but since he is in perpetual campaign mode (for either reelection or vice-president) all we’ve gotten is superficial fluff and a refusal to stand up for his principles (whatever they may be).
You are exactly right Leon.
Somebody post those Jindal principles when they figure out what they are.
This is a perfect image of our governor.
