Huey Long Lives!: Gov. JBE discussion thread

[BigSkyBob]

JBE is dealt something if a blow on his first day, as his choice for Speaker, Walt Leger, will stay as Speaker Pro Temp instead. Taylor Barras (R) will be Speaker.

I think the truth falls much closer to "humiliating defeat" or "devastating defeat" than "something of a blow."

Now, Edwards does not control who is offered what committee assignment. There goes his leverage. Edward's has argued that his train was left the station and that Republican legislators had better get on board, or face the prospect of being crushed. That train has been derailed.

Given Republican control of the House, its large majority in the Senate, and the current projected shortfall, JBE starts a bit of a caretaker.

Leger received a number of Republican votes on both ballots. I wonder what side deals they made for themselves. Hopefully, they'll serve on the committee overseeing dogcatchers, or such. Ideally, the Republicans will not be gracious in victory, and, each and every one of them will face recall, or worse.

[BigSkyBob]

Republicans have nothing to gloat - if neccessary JBE can always use veto pen. And it will always be sustained. In addition - Vitter's camp, that wanted Henry, was defeated much more convincingly then Edwards, and Barras, as former conservative Democrat and now "moderate" (by Louisiana standards) Republican, is acceptable to him. But he could do better offering as his candidate for speaker somewhat more conservative and more rural Democrat. Gisclair, Hill, Thibaut and Danahay come to mind immediately...

Again, it isn't about the ideology of the Speaker. It is about the ability to dole out committee assignments as a system of rewards and punishments. That threat held over the head of every Republican is over.

[BigSkyBob]

If I were Barras, I'd be mad that Cameron Henry will still be essentially running the House. I'm not sure how JBE will pull the state out the mess its in if he's working with these fools:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have to take strong exception to Rep Gene Reynolds claim that, "anything coming out of the Appropriations Committee will be no more than a rubber stamp of GOP talking points."

The basic presumption ought to be that all 105 member of House have agency. That is, they are human beings with free will whose actions are subject to moral accountability. If four members ran on a platform of,  "No new taxes, no way, no how," then they ought to strive to keep their campaign promises. If they keep their campaign promise, then, their actions exhibit integrity. To characterize acting with integrity as merely "rubber stamping GOP talking points" is profoundly denigrating those individuals as moral agents. The false, and repugnant, premise of that line of attack is that moral agency can only be achieved by agreeing with Gene Reynolds.

Louisiana has a substantial deficit. There are five basic approaches to solving it: lowering taxes while lowering spending even more, lowering spending, lowering spending while raising taxes, raising taxes, and raising spending while raising taxes even more. Jindal favored the first, while Edwards, judging by the agenda he laid out, favors the last. If some members were elected on a platform of no new taxes, I would only note that their position was ratified by the voters back home.

[BigSkyBob]

I have to take strong exception to Rep Gene Reynolds claim that, "anything coming out of the Appropriations Committee will be no more than a rubber stamp of GOP talking points."

You sound a bit more optimistic than I'd be, but I really hope you're right. Despite the committee being woefully stacked in favor of the people's enemies, hopefully they'll put their talking points and partisanship aside.

Great observation!

Again, you make the same error as Rep Reynolds. The members of the committee are as much agents as other members of the House. Their agency ought to be respected. Part of what gives human being agency is their having principles and beliefs. If a candidate stands for office by saying that X, Y and Z are his principles by which he will govern, then, I for one, think that he ought to keep his commitment to his constituents back home. When they stood for office they had position that they stated to the voters [their "talking points,"] and they aligned themselves to the perceived ideologues of certain parties [their "partisanship."] Either, they were sincere, or, they were not.

When four members of the committee stood for office on a platform of, "No new taxes, no how, no way," either they were being sincere, or, they were not. I, personally, hope they were being sincere. And, if some Democrat ran on the platform of, "no cuts, no how, no way," I, likewise, hope they were being sincere. Being honest and sincere with the voters increases the efficiency of our democracy.  Asking them to "put aside their 'talking points' and 'partisanship' is, in the last analysis, asking them to put aside their constituents. Either their constituent's vote mattered, or it didn't.

Your comment above indicates you misunderstood what I was saying. I hope the above paragraphs clear up your misunderstanding.

When JBE proposed Walt Legier as Speaker, he did so with the understanding that Legier in turn would skew that committee towards JBE's position on taxes and spending. Someone else was elected Speaker, and, that person skewed that same committee against JBE's position. That's how politics works. JBE's whole pitch for Legier was to note to individual members that you can hop on the bandwagon or else be crushed by it. More specifically, you can support Legier or be assigned to insignificant committees. Now, certain members are finding out that hopping onto that bandwagon only made sense if it won.

What I see happening in Louisiana is the JBE wants taxes to increase, and, wants Republicans to take the political hit for raising taxes. If he wants to lead, then he ought to propose a budget with specific cuts, and specific tax increases, to balance out his proposed spending increases.

[BigSkyBob]

^ Yeah, I see where you're going with that.

Its hard not to blame Barras for this mess. He stacked the committee with legislators that he knew would either have to do the people's work and support JBE or go back on their campaign promises. Its a really unfortunate and unfair situation to them, but I guess that what happens when you have hacks like Barras and Henry calling the shots. They should have respected JBE's agency more.

Its seems that our best hope, given that everything, is that the partisan Republicans on the committee end up being insincere when it comes to their Norquistian campaign promises.

Oh, its "Leger," by the way, not "Legier."

First of all, you have completely failed to understand the concept of "agency." "Agency" is necessary to have free will. Someone who has agency has moral accountability.  The same action committed by a teenager may warrant punishment while punishing a five year-old for the same offense would be completely unfair and unjust. No one has in the slightest denied JBE agency.  When you call duly elected Representatives the "people's enemies" you at least acknowledge their agency. When Gene Reynolds called duly elected Representatives "rubber stamps" for keeping their campaign promises he did not.

I have to say that your characterization that the member of the committee have to either, "...support JBE or go back on their campaign promises" is simply wrong. They have a third option, which is to do nothing at all. Then, the budget will be balanced by spending cuts. One merely has to ask which side is hurt worse? Personally, I don't think it is the Republican side. They can simply do nothing until JBE is more willing to take cutting spending seriously.