Well, Jindal should know about such "sprees", since he was a willing participant in one of the most pork- laden, spendthrift congresses in history. The GOP "bridge to nowhere" Congress was actually proud of their spending excesses during Jindal's first year! He was also a part of the infamous Do Nothing 109th Congress-- perhaps the worst ever-- which thought it prudent to defer $500 billion in spending bills to the new Democratic Congress. The funny thing is... given their horrible "guns and butter" track record, it probably was prudent to let Pelosi's Democratic Congress handle the spending.
Where was Jindal's principled outrage during these world-historic Congressional excesses?
Do you remember Jindal's cute little 2005 SOTU purple finger gesture he made in solidarity to the Iraqi people, celebrating their transitional assembly elections (which removed pro-US interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi)? Back then, Jindal thrust his purple finger in the air, and said "we believe in [the Iraqis'] cause and we will stand beside them". Then in 2006 (only months after voting for H.R. 861, which declared that the U.S. "is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq") Jindal flip flopped and started talking about how he had been reminding Bush "for quite a while" that American troops shouldn't be used for nation-building. He expressed his support for a timetable for withdrawal, and an openness to the Iraq Study Group Report's recommendations. The ISG report advanced the goal of a total removal of American troops from Iraq by 2008. Also, the report warned of the dangers inherent in an alternative "surge" strategy:
Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation... adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As [an American General said] if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.” Meanwhile, America’s military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world.Then in 2007, Jindal did an about-face and supported Bush's dismissal of the Study Group's recommendations, as well as Bush's escalation of American involvement in Iraq. He described Bush's "Surge" as a "sea change" in strategy. Jindal proceeded to vote against H.R. 1591 which would have set up benchmarks for the Iraq government to meet, and which would have begun the redeployment of American troops out of Iraq. The bill also included billions in aid for the stricken GulfSouth. Jindal voted against it, and President Bush vetoed it. I attempted to get an explanation from Jindal's office about his position on the matter, and was told an explanatory letter was forthcoming. It never arrived. So, after all of Jindal's policy contortions and flip flops on the Iraq issue in the past few years, Jindal has somehow successfully avoided publicly discussing the issue.
Jindal doesn't even utter the word "Iraq" if he can help it. When I think about his refusal to say the word "Iraq" or explain his continued support for Bush's hideously expensive and counterproductive misadventure, I'm reminded of the time when the perpetually naive Jindal suggested to Bush that Colin Powell should be named Gulf Coast Reconstruction Czar. Presumably, Jindal liked Colin Powell's integrity and good judgement about massive reconstruction projects. Of course, Bush ignored this suggestion and filled the position with one of his Texas cronies instead. Interestingly, Powell is now talking about Bush's handling of the reconstruction of Iraq. He's says that Iraq is in a "civil war" and that
"We have to face the reality of the situation that is on the ground and not what we would want it to be." [Powell] believes that, even if the military surge has been a partial success in areas such as Anbar province, where Sunni tribes have turned on Al-Qaeda, it has not been accompanied by the vital political and economic "surge" and reconciliation process promised by the Iraqi government.
Will the media ever ask Jindal whether he still respects Colin Powell's judgment on important matters like our ill-fated "democracy-building" effort in Iraq? Or will they let him continue sticking his purple finger into the political winds before he deciding whether he should continue supporting Bush's hopeless "Surge" effort.
Seriously, how can we possibly make sense of Jindal's remarks on the Iraq issue? Is he trying to be "pro-surge" but "anti-nationbuilding"? I guess so. From what he says, he's for completing the mission of a unified Iraq, but also thinks it's past time for the Iraqis to decide if they want to live together peacefully. He thinks Iraqis should be held accountable, but he doesn't support benchmarks or metrics to ensure accountability. He doesn't think troops should be in Iraq "forever", yet in every vote of consequence he follows George "Iraq4evah" Bush deeper into the morass.
When it is politically convenient, Jindal will vote with a spendthrift Congress and support a President's hideous nation-building project in Iraq. Then, when the political climate changes, Jindal will criticize others for their spending, and will avoid commenting about his anti-Louisiana votes that support a reckless President's failed foreign policy. Why does Jindal get to perform these policy gymnastics without any political consequences?
---
What set me off on this topic was a magnificently hypocritical post on Jindal's blog. In this post, Jindal has the gallstones to complain about the "fiscal insanity" in D.C. and Baton Rouge, while simultaneously championing the ultra-larded farm bill giveaway to big corporations. He brags about voting against an appropriations bill that "would have added $4.3 billion more than last year’s budgeted amount", and in the next breath, Jindal "strongly" supports re-authorizing the gargantuan 2002 Farm Bill at a cost of nearly $200 BILLION. Apparently, he thinks it's a good idea to use Louisiana tax dollars to support those hardy, self-sufficient corporate farmers in the Red States, who get paid to drain their fertilizers into the Mississippi River, which empties into one of America's most important fisheries. Get a load of how Jindal justifies his support for this red state welfare:
[W]e must continue to help our farmers and ranchers in order to ensure that the aisles at our grocery stores remain full, and maintaining the Farm Bill is a very important step in that process.
I strongly support reauthorizing and improving the 2002 Farm Bill, but we need to do it right. We only get this chance once every five years. The government has made a commitment to farmers and agriculture industries and that promise ought to be realized.
What a little pliable man this Jindal is. Where is his conservative commitment to fiscal sanity here? Jindal shamelessly raises the specter of food shortages to argue for his support of the Farm Bill. Last I checked the shelves were full and crop prices were hitting record highs and Louisiana taxpayers were still contributing to the $20 billion in yearly handouts to those hardy, self-sufficient red state food producers.
According to the Wall Street Journal:
Farmers have received price supports and an annual "emergency" payout every year since 2001. In 2003, drought assistance went to farmers in hundreds of counties where investigators later discovered there was no drought. Farmers in Washington state received earthquake assistance even when their crops weren't damaged. Yet the farm lobby continues to push $7 billion in new "emergency" payouts this year for livestock, milk, fisheries and rural development aid.Ah, there we find the answer: Big Sugar. Jindal will rail against people who think money grows on trees, and then promptly abandon his fiscal conservatism to vote for a $200 billion bill that subsidizes farmers who grow corn and sugar.
The enduring myth is that all of this aid goes to needy family farms. In reality price supports have accelerated the demise of small farms because the benefits go to the most profitable growers. Citizens Against Government Waste has documented that three-quarters of the payments under the 2002 farm bill have gone to the richest 10% of farmers. More than half of the $1.9 billion sugar program lines the pockets of the wealthiest 1% of plantation owners.
So, like the nearly $200 billion farm bill Bush signed in 2002, Bush will sign another one in 2007, and Jindal has dutifully fallen in line, and signalled his strong support for another bloated corporate welfare giveaway. It isn't like there aren't conservative alternatives available. A bipartisan proposal by Reps. Ron Kind, D-Wis., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. would help
wean farmers from government payments. Kind won 200 votes for a similar plan during the debate on the 2002 bill. At the time, one supporter was Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., now the House speaker.
[Kind and Flake's] proposal would replace subsidies with savings accounts that farmers could use to cover losses when crop prices are low or yields are poor.
That sounds sensible to me versus a ludicrous farm bill, that serves as a buffet of pork to those large corporations who have the lawyers and the connections needed to exploit loopholes to the fullest. During a time of rising agflation and food prices, I don't think we should be subsidizing farmers who don't grow crops, nor should we be paying "farmers" like ExxonMobil, Chevron, International Paper and Caterpillar (all of whom receive farm checks from the government).
But the best part of the blog post is that Jindal recently crowed about his amendment to reduce the Dead Zone and help Louisiana fisheries, and then he voted against the measure like a GOP shill because of the overall cost. AND THEN he has the unmitigated gall to proclaim his "strong support" for a $200 Billion Red State Farm Welfare Bill that will help exacerbate the same Dead Zone he tried to reduce! Here's a summary of Jindal's machinations from Bayou Buzz via the ever-watchful We Saw That:
The bill, HR 2643 an appropriations measure for the interior, environment and related agencies passed yesterday on a vote of 272-155. Jindal's amendment, which doubled the $2.5 million for studies into the environmental "dead zone" currently threatening sea-life in the Gulf of Mexico, was accepted and added to the measure.
And yet, after President Bush declared his opposition to the bill and even after Bobby Jindal sent out a press release touting the addition to the amendment, the Congressman voted against it.
When asked about this, the Jindal administration said
“There is an epidemic right now of unbridled and out of control government spending, both in Baton Rogue and Washington. No family in America can act this way, no small business in Louisiana can act this way, and government should not act this way either. Bobby and the majority of the Louisiana delegation continue to take a stand and vote against this irresponsible and reckless disregard for the hard earned money of Louisiana taxpayers. Congress can and should fund our Interior and environmental needs without wasting billions of taxpayer dollars.
Where was this principled concern for waste two years ago? And where will it be when Jindal votes for the Farm Bill? Why does it arise when a bill containing his own amendment to reduce the Dead Zone is on the line?
After Iraq and his fiscal hypocrisy, perhaps Jindal's worst profile in cowardice was his CAFTA vote. Instead of voting on principle, Bobby voted against CAFTA only when the coast was clear, and he knew it would safely pass and he could have his symbolic "no" vote and still not anger the pro-CAFTA Bushies. His fealty to the GOP leadership, allowing them to "catch and release" his vote , while they twisted the arms of less pliant Republicans... is sickening.Jindal: you can count on him to stand up for Louisiana, unless it really matters. You can count on him to be a true fiscal conservative, even at the expense of his home state, unless Rove needs his vote or unless it will irritate Big Sugar.
The main issue about Bobby Jindal isn't whether it's ok to call him "Piyush", or his appearance, or whether he insulted some Catholics during a radio interview, or whether operatives are trying to discourage discussion about the essay Jindal wrote detailing his paralysis while a demon physically attacked his best friend*. The main issue about Jindal is not about him saying that he has "always been a closed and unemotional person" who once doubted his "capacity for feeling". It's not about him saying that he was an "anti-Christian" Hindu when he was younger.
It's not about those things. There are plenty of politicians with odd names, and many of them are emotionally removed people who wrote embarrassing things when they were younger, and who have had dramatic religious experiences that affected them profoundly. Yet, these politicians are able to competently serve their diverse constituency, even if some of the positions they take run counter to their Church (i.e., supporting the Iraq War and the death penalty).
The real issue about Bobby revolves around his true principles, and how those principles are translated into policy.
In my view, the evidence shows that Jindal is a "principled conservative" only when it's easy and convenient. He votes with his GOP Congressional colleagues when they spend into oblivion, and when they decide to "do nothing" he is also happy to comply. But now that he's in the minority, suddenly "excessive spending" becomes his focus. He rails against it... unless it requires some political courage. When it comes to easy criticism of Baton Rouge, he's quite the stalwart spirit. But when it comes to casting a vote against an engorged Welfare Bill for Corporate Farms, parsimony with tax dollars is no longer a concern. Most disturbing, however, is the fact that when the chips are down, Jindal maintains an unbroken allegiance to a horribly unsuccessful, radical Administration that has done lasting harm to this nation and to this state.
---
* Luckily he was able to regain his courage at a later date. Jindal wrote: "With holy water and blessed crucifixes, I have even given [my best friend] physical protection from the demons that have only once reappeared, and then for a mere moment". That paragraph, btw, is dedicated to the Dead Pelican's stated abhorrence for craftily-worded documents employing the "politics of implication".
Note: The oft-used Kos .pdf of Jindal's essay in the New Oxford Review titled "BEATING A DEMON, Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare" is no longer available.
Labels: Jindal
