Our Views: Jindal barb misses target

We know that Gov. Bobby Jindal, a former member of Congress, knows as well as anybody in politics that sometimes you have to take the rough with the smooth — a vote for a measure containing many provisions, good and bad.

When the good outweighs the bad, you vote for the bill, even if you don’t like some of its provisions.

That is what happened with the Louisiana delegation in Congress last year, when it was presented with a highway bill that included many provisions beneficial to Louisiana. Above all, it included a requirement that the U.S. government apply 80 percent of the oil spill fines to restoration of the Gulf Coast.

This could mean billions to the state and the region. It was an immensely important legislative priority. Jindal’s own coastal authorities were all for it.

The rough part? The same bill, at the instigation of the House’s GOP leadership, slashed Louisiana’s Medicaid reimbursement rate.

That cost Jindal’s budgets big time. It was a harsh measure, forced on Congress after Louisiana’s Legislature had already adjourned and gone home.

Should the Louisiana delegation, without the votes to change the final product, have voted against it? Jindal did not lift a finger with his own party’s leadership to change the measure, but now he criticizes Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., for voting for the highway bill.

“Senator Landrieu voted to cut Louisiana’s Medicaid program by over a billion dollars and now she’s worried about Louisiana families?” Jindal said in a prepared statement during his latest public spat with Louisiana’s Democratic senator.

This is a misleading account of the Medicaid/highway bill vote.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., was on the highway bill conference committee, failed to block the Medicaid cut and voted for the final bill. He’s not mentioned by the governor.

If Landrieu is at fault here, should not every Republican in the delegation also be counted as guilty? They all voted for the final bill.

Jindal’s use of this argument suggests that he believes the public is completely ignorant. We think people can figure out that this was a trade-off, and a trade-off that the Louisiana delegation correctly made.

Comments

1) Comment by Thurston_Howell_III - 04/03/2013

*HYPOCRITE (typo)

2) Comment by Thurston_Howell_III - 04/03/2013

Jindal, BIG HYPOCRIT as well as the GOP that is bankrolling him.

3) Comment by DMJ - 04/03/2013

Yes, Jindal's a giant hypocrite. Something we all knew already.

4) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 04/03/2013

I concede your good points, Mildred C. I myself have an aversion to motive divining. It's fine for expressing an opinion, but it's not fact. An opinion, however, can well be news, when the opinion is expressed by a newsworthy person.

5) Comment by Mildred Citizen - 04/03/2013

Jindal pointed out a vote that Landrieu made, which is a fact. Landrieu went so far as to read the governor's mind to determine his motivations for his actions - not so factual. She said he was making his decision for purely political reasons, when it is very possible the governor was standing on principle. If calling attention to Landrieu voting for reduced federal funding for Louisiana Medicaid is considered a barb, well - it is also a fact. And the additional pertinent fact is the other elected federal officials for our state didn't criticize the governor for not helping Louisiana Medicaid recipients. So, he was justified in pointing out that she voted to cut funding for each and every one of those Medicaid users her very own self.

6) Comment by crazycajun - 03/03/2013

This will be L'il booby's last elected gig and u can take it to the bank. It's called KARMA.

7) Comment by Scrooge - 03/03/2013

Wouldn't the notion to "drown the government in a bathtub" ala Norquist amount to treason? What were those founding fathers thinking? Isn't there a word for exploitation of the ignorant for personal gain, evil, maybe?

8) Comment by Bouncer - 03/03/2013

Everything Jindal does misses the target. He couldn't hit the water if he fell out of a boat in the middle of a lake.

9) Comment by GardenVariety - 03/03/2013

Great editorial, Advocate. It highlights a tactic that the governor and his minions use on numerous occasions.

10) Comment by gjnyc - 03/03/2013

Of course not, that would show the GOP led hypocrisy

11) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 03/03/2013

tradewinns, while I agree with much of your post, I find it ironically pot-kettle-ish that you end with "... Congress ... exempt(s) itself from everything." Talk about your education via hyperbolic, disinformation email campaigns.

12) Comment by SuzanneMS - 03/03/2013

Of course Jindal has a choice. He can repeal his repeal of the Stelly Plan.

13) Comment by Maelstrom - 03/03/2013

Of course Jindal has a choice. Change the Constitution. We vote on new Constitutional Amendments every couple of years. If he wants it changed, he has the power to get it on the ballot.

14) Comment by gvm - 03/03/2013

@Postscript56: your analysis is spot on!

15) Comment by [e-mail] - 03/03/2013

I guess Senator Landrieu has the "Our Views" in her trick bag full of dupes; campaigning so openly for her does not violate journalism standards these days.

16) Comment by agagent - 03/03/2013

There is a difference between legislation and administration. Even if you agree that money should go to coastal restoration you do not want legislation to tie your hands in the budgeting process. For example all mid-year state deficits must be filled by cutting higher education and health and hospitals because of the restrictions of the state constitution. The Advocate has criticized Jindal for those cuts even though Jindal has no choice. The cuts cannot be spread over the vast majority of the state budget because of the restrictions of the state constitution. If you must administer the budget you have a different view on the matter than does Congress.

17) Comment by spqr - 03/03/2013

I wonder if Piyush can excercise the demons from his failing popularity. I look forward to approval ratings falling below 35 percent.

18) Comment by tradewinns - 03/03/2013

the average "public" IS stupid. as a starter the public allow less than a majority to rule the state because they do not vote. which probably isn't a bad thing because they do not keep up with "the people's business" even to a minor degree. the only thing they "know" is what they saw in a commercial; heared from a peer friend; or read on the internet. not all three though. most believe what they heard last and would not know if it was fact or fiction, nor really care. the activist for any cause can usually get it on the books because they connect themselves with a political candidate. politicians support whatever will bring them the most votes and know the public doesn't take the time to vote but activist do. and if you dislike jindal because you feel he exempted himself from something, you must dispise congress as they exempt themselves from everything!

19) Comment by postscript56 - 03/03/2013

Why wouldn't Jindal believe the public is completely ignorant? He exempted himself from ethics reform. He defunded public schools for five years but managed to blame teachers for eduction failures. He's about to raise taxes on thousands of people who voted for him so he can eliminate the tax burden of the only constituency he cares about. He uses "deliberative process" to keep secret everything he does. He encouraged the stupid birther movement. All without being held accountable by the people who voted for him. Of course he believes the public is completely ignorant. Wouldn't you?

20) Comment by Stephen - 02/03/2013

Senator Landrieu complained that Jindal does things that benefit his national political aspirations regardless of whether his positions are really best for Louisiana. I think she got that spot on. He is using us as a stepping stone, nothing more. He happily lies about not having pressing national political aspirations. It really is not very funny anymore.

21) Comment by ScotB - 02/03/2013

Yep. It is a bit of lame attack against Landrieu, but no more lame than Landrieu's against the governor.