Louisiana Voice

BATON ROUGE (CNS)—Among the 16 bills vetoed by Gov. Bobby Jindal thus far was one that must have raised a few eyebrows, especially with four members of the Louisiana House of Representatives.

HB-533 by Rep. Richard Gallot (D-Ruston) would have made various, mostly cosmetic changes to the election code, including one that Jindal said he found “problematic.”

“House Bill No. 533, provides that a candidate who is neither a Republican nor a Democrat and who does not belong to any other unrecognized party shall be listed as ‘Independent’ on an election ballot,” Jindal wrote in his veto message.

Gallot said some Republicans are fearful of right-wing conservatives campaigning as being “more conservative than they are” and that many unaffiliated voters and candidates believe it unfair that they can only be called “No Party.”

“Nonaffiliated voters are the fastest-growing segment of registered voters,” Gallot said. To ignore the fact that some people are fed up with all the parties is doing them a disservice,” he said.

Three members of the House are listed on the state legislative web page as Independents: Jerome Richard of Thibodaux, Joel C. Robideaux of Lafayette, and Ernest Wooten of Belle Chasse. Additionally, Rep. Michael Jackson of Baton Rouge now may have to change his plans to change his registration from Democrat to Independent.

Jindal said in his veto message that state law stipulates that candidates who do not belong to any unrecognized party shall be listed as “No Party.”

He said that state statute says, in part, “No political party shall be recognized in this state which declares its name solely to be ‘Independent’ or ‘The Independent Party.’”

Therefore, the governor said, that provision in Gallot’s bill was “in conflict with current law.”

That may leave some voters wondering what the law says about a candidate choosing his first name from a network television sitcom and running for governor under that nom de plume.

Piyush Jindal selected his Americanized first name of Bobby from the television show The Brady Bunch and has run for office under that alias–twice for Congress and twice for governor, winning all but his first run for governor.

If he were to apply the same logic to his own candidacy as he did to Gallot’s bill, then shouldn’t he run as Piyush and not Bobby?

Equally curious and more than a little inconsistent was Jindal’s veto of SB-21 by Sen. Neil Riser (R-Columbia) that would have exempted from state sales taxes water, mineral water, carbonated water and flavored water sold in containers.

Jindal said the exemption would result in state revenue losses of $8.3 million in the upcoming fiscal year and a total state revenue loss of $52.7 million over the next five years.

“I am concerned this could cause our budget for the upcoming year to be out of balance,” he said. “It is important that we protect scarce resources for priorities like healthcare and higher education.”

The veto of a tax break is unusual enough, given Jindal’s propensity to offer tax incentives whenever and wherever possible. Of course, he prefers giving those breaks to political allies of the corporate stripe as opposed to individuals.

Riser was somewhat confused by the governor’s actions. “Most people don’t realize there are zero taxes on soft drinks, but yet we tax water,” he said.

“Water delivered to the home through pipes is already exempt from sales tax,” Jindal said.

But still, as noted earlier, the veto was curious and inconsistent. On June 12, Jindal vetoed a renewal of a 4-cent cigarette tax that would have meant $12 million additional to the state in direct tax revenue, plus another $36 million in federal Medicaid revenue. Annually.

That’s $48 million per year the state stood to lose because of Jindal’s bull-headedness over his promise not to impose “tax increases.” The only problem with that is it wasn’t a “tax increase,” it was a tax renewal. College tuition increases? Now, that’s a tax increase. But apparently he’s okay with making it even more difficult to afford a college education.

And that $48 million per year is almost six times the $8.3 million he was so concerned about losing to the tax exemption on the sale of water. He said the water tax exemption would have cost the state $52.7 million over five years. Try a five-year loss of $240 million over failure to renew the cigarette tax.

And how was the cigarette tax revenue to have been used? Healthcare. And what was his expressed concern over the tax exemption on the sale of water? “It is important that we protect scarce resources for priorities like healthcare and higher education.” His words, not ours.

At least the House, while not possessing the stones to override his cigarette tax veto, did include the tax renewal as an amendment to the TOPS bill that will be put to voters this fall in the form of a Constitutional amendment.

And, as he hits the campaign trail in the weeks leading up to October’s election, he can truthfully and oh-so-sincerely tell voters that it was not he who opted to attach that 4-cent tax to the TOPS bill.

After all, it apparently is all about saving face.