|
Bobby Jindal on Government Reform
Republican Governor; previously Representative (LA-1)
|
|
|
Cuts to reclaim American dream & end European-type nightmare
Why not cut spending? Why not a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? $18 trillion dollars of debt. Record low participation rate in the workforce, record number
of Americans on food stamps. We are going the way of Europe. The left is trying to turn the American Dream into the European Nightmare.
Source: GOP "Your Money/Your Vote" 2015 CNBC 2nd-tier debate
, Oct 28, 2015
It's time for term limits; fire them all
Q: Can anyone from inside of Washington win this election cycle?JINDAL: No. And it's not only whether they can win. They shouldn't win this election cycle. One of the things Donald Trump was right about was to say nonsense to the D.C. establishment.
It is time to fire all of them. You've got a choice between honest Socialists on the Left, like Bernie Sanders, and lying conservatives on the Right. We have got the majority; what good has it done us? See, they said they were going to stop amnesty.
They said they were going to repeal ObamaCare. They didn't do either. Now they're not even willing to fight to defund Planned Parenthood. [Senate GOP leader] McConnell has already waved the white flag of defeat. They are not willing to stand
up to fight for the issues that count. I think it is time to have term limits. I think it's time to have part-time citizen legislators. Let's pay them a per diem instead of a six-figure salary, stop them from being seven-figure lobbyists.
Source: 2015 Republican two-tiered primary undercard debate on CNN
, Sep 16, 2015
I will have lots of litmus tests for Supreme Court justices
You've never had a Democratic judge wake up and say, surprise, I've evolved, I've become a conservative. It's always the Republicans, because we have presidents that try to find judges with no records, no rulings, no writings.
I'll tell you, I am going to have a litmus test. I'm going to find judges that are conservative, judges that are going to be pro-life, judges that are going to follow "The Constitution."
Source: 2015 Republican two-tiered primary undercard debate on CNN
, Sep 16, 2015
Enacted comprehensive ethics reforms in state government
In Washington, politicians fight over "fiscal cliffs," "debt limits," and "sequesters." In the states, we are focused on improving education, caring for the poor, reforming government, lowering taxes, fixing entitlements, reducing dependency, and
creating jobs and opportunities for the unemployed.Just look at what some of our nation's Republican reformers have accomplished at the state level. In Louisiana, Governor Bobby Jindal took on his state's long history of corruption and enacted
comprehensive ethics reform that restored integrity to state government--while at the same time closing a $341 million budget shortfall and giving $1.1 billion back to the hardworking taxpayers across his state over 5 years.
In Indiana, Governor Mitch
Daniels inherited a 2-year deficit of $800 million, and left Indiana with a $500 million annual surplus and $2 billion in reserves, without raising taxes.
Source: Unintimidated, by Scott Walker, p. 3-4
, Nov 18, 2013
If it's worth doing, then block-grant it to the states
Jindal hinted that his growth strategy might involve shifting Republican political efforts back to state governments instead of Washington, to build the prosperity he spoke of one community at a time.
This would build the political capital and general popularity necessary to take another shot at winning Washington, coupled with a realistic chance of building a sustainable federal government after electoral victory.
He spoke strongly in favor of returning power and money from D.C. to state capitals. "If it's worth doing, then block-grant it to the states," said
Jindal. "And if the states can't be trusted to do it, then, well, maybe Washington shouldn't be doing it at all."
Source: 2013 Conservative Political Action Conf. in "Human Events"
, Mar 16, 2013
Federal government has become too expensive & too expansive
Government has become too big. By too big I mean not only too expensive, but also our federal government has become too expansive and strayed too far from what should be its core competency. Today we have the federal government in
Washington trying to run car companies, banks, and our entire health care system--rather than sticking to its core job of protecting America from all enemies foreign and domestic. What we really need is for the federal government to do those things it
should be doing with excellence, and stop trying to take over the pieces of the private sector that it has no business in and no reasonable chance of running well. The federal government's response to the oil spill would not adjust to respond
adequately to a crisis of this magnitude. We ended up writing our own plans. And some of the federal plans were, how can I say it? Crazy. If oil entered the marshes, the plan was to... burn the marshes! What? How about some Napalm?
Source: Leadership and Crisis, by Bobby Jindal, p. 4-5
, Nov 15, 2010
Make being a Congressman a part-time job
First step to remaking Congress: make being a congressman a part-time job. When Congress meets, a lot of bad things happen. Elected officials inevitably feel the need to do something, and they crave the media coverage that accompanies big proposals, no
matter how wasteful or destructive. Making Congress a part-time job would fundamentally change Washington, forcing congressmen to spend much more time back in their districts interacting with regular people. It would also encourage greater independence
by young members of Congress. Most crucially, under a part-time Congress, congressmen would no longer regard politics as their career.Why not pay members of Congress to stay out of Washington? For decades we have paid farmers not to grow crops.
We should pay congressmen a decent salary and then deduct money for every day Congress meets in session. This would certainly be cheaper to the taxpayer than the cost of the schemes Congress concocts in Washington.
Source: Leadership and Crisis, by Bobby Jindal, p.102-103
, Nov 15, 2010
Full financial disclosure for both legislators & lobbyists
During my 2007 campaign, I introduced a detailed plan for ethics reform based on five pillars:- You cannot be both a lobbyist and a legislator. In my view, this was an inherent conflict of interest that cost us business and hurt our reputation.
-
Legislators should be required to submit to financial disclosure. The best way to prevent corruption is to mandate transparency.
- You cannot serve in government and do business with the government at the same time. You are elected to serve the public,
not yourself.
- Lobbyists must fully disclose all their actions. The public has a right to know who is lobbying whom and for what.
- Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. When the penalty for breaking ethics laws is a small fine or a slap on the
wrist, the whole system becomes a joke. Severe offenses must be punished by expulsion and/or criminal charges.
The Center for Public Integrity says we have gone from 44th to 1st in the country in terms of legislative disclosure laws.
Source: Leadership and Crisis, by Bobby Jindal, p.148-150
, Nov 15, 2010
Line-item veto & single-item legislation
The Republican Party needs to commit itself to something I call the Grandchildren Debt Relief Package, but what you could just as well call A Promise to the American People. That promise would be that every Republican elected to Congress would work to
restore America's future with a 7-step recovery program. Here it is:- INSTITUTE TERM LIMITS, to force members of Congress to think of our nation's future rather than their own reelection.
- MAKE CONGRESS A PART-TIME LEGISLATURE. Congress does less
harm when it's not in session, so it should be out of session more often.
- PASS A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
- GIVE THE PRESIDENT A LINE-ITEM VETO, to prevent sneaking in pork barrel projects. Most governors have it, so should
the president.
- FORCE CONGRESS TO HAVE SIMPLE UP OR DOWN VOTES ON SINGLE-ITEM LEGISLATION, to prevent Congress from hiding bad policy in "must pass" legislation.
- LEGISLATE PAY-AS-YOU-GO BUDGETING.
- REQUIRE A SUPER MAJORITY TO RAISE TAXES.
Source: Leadership and Crisis, by Bobby Jindal, p.278-279
, Nov 15, 2010
Fighting big government is conservative missionary work
To fight big government, I do not believe conservatives should roundly condemn the very concept of government service, as is often the case today. We should consider the possibility that government service might in fact be a noble calling.
It shouldn't be viewed as a way to get rich or to make a comfortable life-long career with great employment benefits. We need conservatives in government positions who are devoted to changing government without letting government change them.
We need people of strong resolve who will resist the temptation to go native in Washington, DC. You don't have to do it as a career, but you might consider giving some time to it. Consider it missionary work. I want you to get in the game.
We will not take our government back by sitting on the sidelines. Do it now--your country needs you.
Source: Leadership and Crisis, by Bobby Jindal, p.280-283
, Nov 15, 2010
Strength of America is not in government but in our citizens
Let me tell you a story. During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good friend of mine. He was yelling into the phone: "Well, I'm the Sheriff and if you don't like it you can come and arrest me!" He told me that he had put out a call
for volunteers to come with their boats to rescue people who were trapped on their rooftops by the floodwaters. The boats were all lined up ready to go, when some bureaucrat showed up and told them they couldn't go out on the water unless they had proof
of insurance and registration. I told him, "Sheriff, that's ridiculous." And before I knew it, he was yelling into the phone: "Congressman Jindal is here, and he says you can come and arrest him too!" Harry just told the boaters to ignore the
bureaucrats and go start rescuing people.There is a lesson in this experience: The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and the enterprising spirit of our citizens.
Source: GOP response to the 2009 State of the Union address
, Feb 24, 2009
Legislator salary increase should be smaller & post-election
Q: You have said that you will not stand in the way of a doubling of Louisiana legislators’ pay. Allowing legislators to double their pay, how does that jibe with your role as a conservative?A: Well, I still think the pay is excessive.
Q: But why
wouldn’t you block it, then, if you think it’s excessive?
A: We’re actually working with legislators to show them that this is wrong. There is still time to make sure this doesn’t happen. They can still sign affidavits to turn down this pay raise. I do
think it’s excessive. I think it’s wrong. I don’t think any pay raise should go into effect until after the next election.
Q: But you could stop them, couldn’t you? You could veto this.
A: Well, there is still time to stop them. We still have a week.
And we still have many options to make sure that we don’t see legislators take a pay raise that would be more than double what they currently make. I don’t think any pay raise should go into effect until after the next election.
Source: CNN Late Edition: 2008 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer
, Jun 29, 2008
Voted YES on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.
Amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require a registered lobbyist who bundles contributions totaling over $5,000 to one covered recipient in one quarter to:- file a quarterly report with Congress; and
- notify the recipient.
"Covered recipient" includes federal candidates, political party committees, or leadership PACs [but not regular PACs]. Proponents support voting YES because:
This measure will more effectively regulate, but does not ban, the practice of registered lobbyists bundling together large numbers of campaign contributions. This is a practice that has already taken root in Presidential campaigns. "Bundling" contributions which the lobbyist physically receives and forwards to the candidate, or which are credited to the lobbyist through a specific tracking system put in place by the candidate. This bill requires quarterly reporting on bundled contributions.
We ultimately need to move to assist the public financing of campaigns, as soon
as we can. But until we do, the legislation today represents an extremely important step forward.
Opponents support voting NO because:
This legislation does not require that bundled contributions to political action committees, often referred to as PACs, be disclosed. Why are PACs omitted from the disclosure requirements in this legislation?
If we are requiring the disclosure of bundled contributions to political party committees, those same disclosure rules should also apply to contributions to PACs. Party committees represent all members of that party affiliation. PACs, on the other hand, represent more narrow, special interests. Why should the former be exposed to more sunshine, but not the latter?
The fact that PACs give more money to Democrats is not the only answer. Time and again the majority party picks favorites, when what the American people want is more honesty and more accountability.
Reference: Honest Leadership and Open Government Act;
Bill H R 2316
; vote number 2007-423
on May 24, 2007
Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress.
Bill to provide for the treatment of the District of Columbia as a Congressional district for representation in the House of Representatives, and in the Electoral College. Increases membership of the House from 435 to 437 Members beginning with the 110th Congress. [Political note: D.C. currently has a non-voting delegate to the US House. Residents of D.C. overwhelmingly vote Democratic, so the result of this bill would be an additional Democratic vote in the House and for President]. Proponents support voting YES because:
This bill corrects a 200-year-old oversight by restoring to the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to elect a Member of the House of Representatives who has the same voting rights as all other Members.
Residents of D.C. serve in the military. They pay Federal taxes each year. Yet they are denied the basic right of full representation in the House of Representatives.
The District of Columbia was created to prevent any State from unduly influencing the operations of the Federal Government. However, there is simply no evidence that the Framers of the Constitution thought it was necessary to keep D.C. residents from being represented in the House by a voting Member.
Opponents support voting NO because:
The proponents of this bill in 1978 believed that the way to allow D.C. representation was to ratify a constitutional amendment. The Founders of the country had the debate at that time: Should we give D.C. a Representative? They said no. So if you want to fix it, you do it by making a constitutional amendment.
Alternatively, we simply could have solved the D.C. representation problem by retroceding, by giving back part of D.C. to Maryland. There is precedent for this. In 1846, Congress took that perfectly legal step of returning present-day Arlington to the State of Virginia.
Reference: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act;
Bill H R 1905
; vote number 2007-231
on Apr 19, 2007
Voted YES on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination.
Expands the types of whistleblower disclosures protected from personnel reprisals for federal employees, particularly on national security issues. Proponents support voting YES because:
This bill would strengthen one of our most important weapons against waste, fraud and abuse, and that is Federal whistleblower protections. Federal employees are on the inside and offer accountability. They can see where there is waste going on or if there is corruption going on.
One of the most important provisions protects national security whistleblowers. There are a lot of Federal officials who knew the intelligence on Iraq was wrong. But none of these officials could come forward. If they did, they could have been stripped of their security clearances, or they could have been fired. Nobody blew the whistle on the phony intelligence that got us into the Iraq war.
Opponents support voting NO because:
It is important that personnel within the intelligence community have
appropriate opportunities to bring matters to Congress so long as the mechanisms to do so safeguard highly sensitive classified information and programs. The bill before us suffers from a number of problems:
- The bill would conflict with the provisions of the existing Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, which protecting sensitive national security information from unauthorized disclosure to persons not entitled to receive it.
- The bill violates the rules of the House by encouraging intelligence community personnel to report highly sensitive intelligence matters to committees other than the Intelligence Committees. The real issue is one of protecting highly classified intelligence programs and ensuring that any oversight is conducted by Members with the appropriate experiences, expertise, and clearances.
- This bill would make every claim of a self-described whistleblower, whether meritorious or not, subject to extended and protracted litigation.
Reference: Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act;
Bill H R 985
; vote number 2007-153
on Mar 14, 2007
Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections.
Requires that to vote in federal elections, an individual present a government-issued, current, and valid photo identification. After 2010, that ID must require providing proof of US citizenship as a condition for issuance. An individual who does not present such an ID is permitted to cast a provisional ballot, and then present the required ID within 48 hours. Exempts from this requirement the absentee ballot of any eligible overseas military voter on active duty overseas.Proponents support voting YES because:
The election system is the bedrock that our Republic is built on and its security and oversight is of paramount concern. Only US citizens have the right to vote in Federal elections, but our current system does not give State election officials the tools they need to ensure that this requirement is being met.
This bill is designed to increase participation by ensuring that each legitimate vote will be counted and not be diluted by fraud. There are many elections
in this country every cycle that are decided by just a handful of votes. How can we be certain that these elections, without measures to certify the identity of voters, are not being decided by fraudulent votes?
Opponents support voting NO because:
There is something we can all agree on: only Americans get to vote, and they only get to vote once. But what we are talking about in this bill is disenfranchising many of those Americans. It is already a felony for a non-American to vote. We had hearings and what we found out was that the issue of illegal aliens voting basically does not occur.
The impact of this will disproportionately affect poor people and African Americans, because many are too poor to have a car and they do not have a license. We have no evidence there is a problem. We have ample evidence that this will disenfranchise many Americans. This is the measure to disenfranchise African Americans, Native Americans. It is wrong and we will not stand for it.
Reference: Federal Election Integrity Act;
Bill H R 4844
; vote number 2006-459
on Sep 20, 2006
Voted YES on restricting independent grassroots political committees.
A "527 organization" is a political committee which spends money raised independently of any candidate's campaign committee, in support or opposition of a candidate or in support or opposition of an issue. Well-known examples include MoveOn.org (anti-Bush) and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (anti-Kerry). Voting YES would regulate 527s as normal political committees, which would greatly restrict their funding, and hence would shift power to candidate committees and party committees. The bill's opponents say: This legislation singles out 527 organizations in an effort to undermine their fundraising and is a direct assault on free speech.This bill would obstruct the efforts of grassroots organizations while doing nothing to address the culture of corruption in Congress.H.R. 513 is an unbalanced measure that favors corporate trade associations over independent advocates. Corporate interests could continue spending unlimited and undisclosed dollars for political purposes while independent
organizations would be subject to contribution limits and source restrictions.H.R. 513 also removes all limits on national and state party spending for Congressional candidates in primary or general elections--an unmasked attack on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and clear evidence that the true intention in advancing H.R. 513 is not reform, but partisan advantage in political fundraising.The bill's proponents say: - 527s' primary purpose is to influence the election or defeat of a Federal candidate. They have to file with the FEC because after Watergate in 1974 this Congress passed a law that said if you are going to have a political committee whose primary purpose is to influence an election, then they have to register with the FEC.
- The FEC ignored 30 years of congressional actions and Supreme Court jurisprudence in allowing 527s to evade the law. In short, the FEC failed to do its job and regulate 527s as required under the Watergate statute.
Reference: Federal Election Campaign Act amendment "527 Reform Act";
Bill H.R.513
; vote number 2006-088
on Apr 5, 2006
Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers.
The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act ("The Cheesburger Bill") would prevent civil liability actions against food manufacturers, marketers, distributors, advertisers, sellers, and trade associations for claims relating to a person's weight gain, obesity, or any health condition associated with weight gain or obesity. A YES vote would: - Prohibit such lawsuits in this act in federal or state courts
- Dismiss any pending lawsuits upon this bill's enactment
- Maintain an individual's right to bring a lawsuit to court for false marketing, advertising or labeling of food when such information led to injury, obesity or weight gain
Reference: The Cheesburger Bill;
Bill HR 554
; vote number 2005-533
on Oct 19, 2005
Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits.
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005: Amends the Federal judicial code to specify the calculation of contingent and other attorney's fees in proposed class action settlements that provide for the award of coupons to class members. Allows class members to refuse compliance with settlement agreements or consent decrees absent notice. Prohibits a Federal district court from approving: - a proposed coupon settlement absent a finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate;
- a proposed settlement involving payments to class counsel that would result in a net monetary loss to class members, absent a finding that the loss is substantially outweighed by nonmonetary benefits; or
- a proposed settlement that provides greater sums to some class members solely because they are closer geographically to the court.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Grassley [R, IA];
Bill S.5
; vote number 2005-038
on Feb 17, 2005
Page last updated: Mar 12, 2016