Search This Blog

Loading...

15.10.12

Jindal acing Landrieu on relief issue portends challenge?

Maybe if he had let the barb go by without reaction the incident wouldn’t tell us anything. But because Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal didn’t issue a pass to Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu, the idea that Jindal will bail out of office a year early to contest and take her seat continues to simmer.


Given the dynamics of national politics, if he wishes an extended future in that arena, as previously noted Jindal should make his pledge that he has the job he wants look a bit hollow by challenging her. And if he contemplates such plans, he nudged their way towards implementation with his exchange with Landrieu over government relief funding for the impact of the recent Hurricane Isaac.

Landrieu started this when she complained about linkage that Republicans had placed upon replenishing funds for the Federal Emergency Management Administration after the hurricane. They wanted commensurate cuts in other areas to shift money to FEMA. Rightfully so, because, contrary to Landrieu’s belief, the federal government isn’t made of money and with deficit spending far beyond the pale over the past nearly four years, a crisis situation (perhaps intentionally so) has been created on this issue.

But Landrieu did not want to see anything like that, because of the fundamentally different view of government that she has. Republicans believe that government ought to perform a few core tasks, such as disaster relief, distinguishable in that they can be done only with great difficulty without the coercive powers that government has. By contrast, Landrieu conceives of government as the main shaper of people’s lives, built to imprint a certain desirable set of outcomes she thinks that combat an otherwise-rigged system if individual abilities and willingness to contribute to society and the inevitable differences they bring in outcomes are allowed to flourish.

That view of hers requires a lot more confiscation of the people’s resources, either now or in the future through debt, hence her unwillingness to budge in allowing cuts. This opposes Jindal’s view, joined by the state’s Republican Sen. David Vitter, who supports his party’s and as such has asked that, as the operating statute will allow with presidential authorization, waiver of any state responsibility to pick up costs, which (depending upon the level of matching) might come in at over $100 million.

Apparently, Landrieu’s staff was asleep when they let her respond by saying the state could dip into the Budget Stabilization Fund to cover these costs, clearly never having read the constitutional provision that makes it clear disaster spending cannot be funded out of it and permits its use only with revenue shortfalls, not with increased expenditures. The partisan nature of her response gets magnified in that, at a much higher level of money involved, Republican former Pres. George W. Bush waived all such requirements relevant to the 2005 hurricane disasters to aid a state then with a Democrat as governor while now Democrat Pres. Barack Obama seem disinclined to do the same when it has a Republican governor and whose people will vote heavily against his reelection bid next month.

(At least Obama is consistent in action, if not verbiage. Congress must approve of these waivers and did so for the 2005 hurricane disaster picking up of all costs. But one of the few Senate votes against was cast by Obama, who then a couple of weeks later gave his infamous speech about how Bush had discriminated against New Orleans, implying because of its majority-black population, by not granting a waiver when none of that was true and Obama himself had voted against it.)

Jindal naturally reminded her of this fact. Perhaps has he not an eye on a future in national politics he would have left it at that. Instead, he also delivered for public consumption the practical consequences of any forced state matching – more cuts to higher education and health care, where the latter has recently undergone severe downward adjustments.

Thus, Landrieu’s unforced error created a tailor-made issue for a putative 2014 campaign against each other. Jindal easily can claim that Landrieu is more beholden to her national party than the state by not just failing to fight vigorously for a waiver, but also that she cripplingly recommended the state suffer further budgetary difficulties as the preferred alternative. Jindal’s response brought the issue into focus and sets it up ready-made to become part of the campaign narrative, if that happens.

Maybe this is the shape of things to come. The denying of Obama of a second term, with Republicans in the White House and (particularly one living) in the Naval Observatory, would put additional pressure on Jindal to take on Landrieu. This incident may prove the last informal skirmish before a more dedicated campaign begins.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your nontransparent Governor's paranoia is growing and becoming more public.

The latest victim (it didn't take long, did it?): His Executive Counsel, Elizabeth "I didn't know there is a state constitution" Murrill.

Under the bus. Dispatched to the Division of Administration.

Wonder what her background and qualification for that job is?

Why would anyone work for this guy? Or, support and be loyal to him?

Did you hear his Press Secretary's comments when asked about Ms. Murrill? Under the bus.

Why don't you, Professor, enlighten us on this???????????????

Mr. Harris Plutocrat said...

This is Sadow at his most offensive. Notice the deep hatred, expressed so casually and also indirectly because he's too cowardly to say something plainly. Here's what he says (and it's only part of a post that is riddled with hatred and delusional belief that Obama and liberals are evil): "contrary to Landrieu’s belief, the federal government isn’t made of money and with deficit spending far beyond the pale over the past nearly four years, a crisis situation (perhaps intentionally so) has been created on this issue."

It is the staple of neocon extremism to bitterly accuse the other side of the exact thing you are guilty of. So you have the suggestion that Landrieu the liberal thinks that the fed govt is "made of money" and supporting suddenly massive deficits. But the real kicker is the "perhaps intentionally so". This is the dogwhistle to the most extreme fanatics, who (less secretly than jeff) believe that Obama is deliberately wrecking the economy in order to teach america a nasty lesson, and to consolidate power to institute power over every aspect of our lives. It is a professionally stupid belief without any meaningful basis, and it says everything about the accuser, and nothing about the accused. Of course, there's also the teary claim by Jeff that Bush was nobly even-handed and Obama is punishing a red-state for being red out of spite. What an absolutely disgraceful thing to say, even for a Kool-Aid drinker like Jeff. This man has no shame.

Here's the reality: Obama is getting the economy out of the ditch, after the neocons like Jeff ruined it. The massive deficits this country faces are almost entirely created by wasteful-spending-prone neocons like Jeff. No reasonable person thinks that Obama crashed the economy while Bush was in office. Jeff, you live in a bubble of unreality that is outrageously funny to the vast majority of people on this planet.