An intrepid YRHT source alerted us to a scoop from a newspaper in Eunice[!] that the big blogs have already picked up. Here's how
Steve Benen ably summarized it:
There are 14 states (and counting) launching odd lawsuits against the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, and 13 are the result of conservative Republican state attorneys general. The exception is Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, a Democrat.
...
Amanda Terkel and Matt Yglesias have flagged an interesting report from a small Louisiana paper that suggests there may be more going on behind the scenes with this case.
It also turns out [Caldwell] may have been reluctant to become what he described as the "token Democrat" in the litigation, but was backed into a corner by Gov. Bobby Jindal. [...]
In a subsequent address to employees of his office, the Attorney General said the decision was made more out of the necessity of saving jobs in his agency than any real hope -- or desire -- of overturning the health care law.
One employee said Caldwell, in a candid admission, claimed that a deal was made with Jindal. Under terms of that agreement, the governor would not make additional cuts in the attorney general's budget if Caldwell joined in the litigation. Caldwell agreed to be the "token Democrat," he said, so that he might save additional job cuts by an administration whose state goal is to reduce the number of state employees by as much as 5,000 per year over three years.
...
[I]f the report is accurate, it would not only be a pretty significant scandal for Jindal, it would also put the notion of a "Louisiana Purchase" and controversial, secret "backroom deals" in a whole new, bipartisan light.
Developing...
===
Update: Thx to T-P for the link in this political
news digest, and to commenter laone who linked to Olberman awarding Jindal (yet another)
"Worst Person in the World".Labels: health, Jindal
14 Comments:
Meh. This makes Caldwell looks worse than Jindal. Jindal simply wants the state to join the litigation against the healthcare legislation, as a symbolic gesture if nothing else, as he was willing to hold off on cuts to the attorney general's office to get what he wanted in that regard. After all, any cuts to the office would probably be trivial in comparison with the size of the shortfall anyway.
Caldwell, on the other hand, appears to be sacrificing his own principles for the sake of avoiding any cuts to his office, protecting his tiny empire while allowing himself to be trotted out as a Democrat who opposes Obama's health care plan.
I'd also note that Caldwell probably isn't telling the whole story -- he knows that roughly two-thirds of Louisianans oppose the new health care law, and that it's good politics for him to appear to oppose it. He's probably just touting his deal with Jindal to provide him cover with other Democrats. Again, this looks much worse for Caldwell than Jindal.
Jindal has done so much already that this one event cannot make Caldwell look worse than Jindal.
However, even if you look at this in a vacuum, what Jindal has managed to do is neuter the office of AG in what might be another way to shield himself and his office from further scrutiny.
If I was Caldwell, I would have come out and explained what Jindal did in the first place. Unfortunately, not many people in Louisiana government has the spine (or grapefruits) to stand up to the Governor. This is why his office is opaque.
I just don't think it really looks bad on Jindal's end. Jindal has influence over budget cuts, which are necessary, and of course he wouldn't spare an office that he views as politically antagonistic. However, he's willing to spare said office if it pursues a lawsuit that he thinks is right and proper. Also, sparing the office from budget cuts doesn't affect the bottom line too greatly.
It's just a trade off, the kind of thing you would normally expect in politics. The real question becomes whether one of the participants is selling out, or whether there's waste involved. Now, if the AG's office is truly bloated, Jindal may be selling out a little here. On the other hand, if Jindal is simply sparing a small, efficient office from across-the-board cuts in exchange for assurances that it will pursue a lawsuit he believes in, I don't see the problem.
However, if Caldwell believes that this suit is nonsense and doesn't further the public interest, then he's not only choosing to waste taxpayer dollars pursuing it, he's also betraying his own principles. As I said, it's Caldwell that looks bad if this is true, not Jindal.
The Eunice News says the page is no longer available. Hmmm. Think Progress reports:
Jindal’s Press Secretary Kyle Plotkin contacted ThinkProgress and said that the Eunice News story on the deal with Caldwell is “completely false.” “There’s no truth to it,” he said. “The attorney general joined a lawsuit, and we supported it.”
That could be why the page is unavailable. Whatever. The lawsuit, however much it costs, is frivolous and a waste of money for a state that is broke.
Grandmère Mimi,
In all fairness, the lawsuit will cost very little. I'm more up in arms about the health care bill pushing unfunded mandates on an already broke state.
Owen, in all fairness, I'm more up in arms about folks who don't have health insurance and can't get it. There you are. We don't agree on what we should be up in arms about. In truth, I am not armed at all, nor do I wish to be.
Grandmère Mimi,
Certainly, if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of this legislation, you could write a book about the portions I'm up in arms about. And I doubt we'd agree on any of it.
My only point is that talk of the state being broke doesn't quite ring true when you're speaking of a lawsuit challenging, in part, a major unfunded mandate. The guys in Washington didn't give a whit about our budget issues when they passed this mess.
No nitty-gritty on health care, Owen. My point is that I believe the lawsuit is frivolous, and even a little money wasted on it is too much. A good many Republican governors and AG's won't touch it for that reason.
If you believe that we shouldn't waste money on the lawsuit, I'd be even more worried about the cost of Healthcare.
I guess you're making it clear you're more worried about a fractional-by-comparison cost of a lawsuit.
Glad to know you're focused on what's really important when it comes to fiscal issues.
Who cares about billions Healthcare could cost average Louisianians. We need to stamp out one frivolous lawsuit. That's what we should all be really focused on!
GO: The point about the frivolity of this lawsuit is that it is not likely to succeed and because of this it is a waste of money because nothing gets accomplished.
Even if you think we will go broke with the new healthcare reform law (I love saying law when referring to it, btw) you have to admit that the money spent will be going towards patient care and will provide preventive care to those who otherwise wouldn't have gotten it. It does accomplish something good, even if you disagree with the way we went to accomplish it.
Now, I have argued since 2004 that providing preventive care to people instead of having them use the ER (and when they cannot pay having the costs get pushed on to the paying customers anyway) is fiscally responsible. Yes, there will be some costs to start up everything and no I do not like every single part of this bill and I think it could be improved upon.
But doing nothing and keeping the status quo was not a good option. Neither was the idea that the way to fix healthcare would be to allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines (mainly because insurance companies already do sell insurance across state lines).
Mimi: I am sure Jindal thinks that we will all just believe him, since he has been SO truthful about things previously. And with some people, he is probably right.
Daniel, I like saying the health care reform LAW, too. It is the law, and it will remain the law until it is repealed, which certainly won't be soon. The lawsuit is nothing more than quixotic tilting at windmills, and Jindal knows that, as does the AG. Our governor is grandstanding, because he lusts after being president.
Was that kind of like Obama lusted after the Presidency by voting "Present" so many times?
The mark of a true leader...
GO, Obama's picture is back up on my sidebar, partly to piss off folks like you. I'm just saying.
Daniel Z,
I don't know -- a symbolic stand may accomplish something. Even cases doomed to failure sometimes set the groundwork for later decisions. If this goes to the Supreme Court, it provides an opportunity for a well-argued dissent from the Court's conservative members.
Moreover, it's hardly impossible that some part of the legislation could be struck, although it is highly likely that the most significant portions will survive.
Even then, though, this is a striking example of overreach in the federal government. Refusing to purchase a good or service is the absence of commerce, so how can the government claim to be regulating commerce by requiring everyone to purchase health insurance? With the exception of Lopez and Morrison, the Court has been loath to find any limits to the interstate commerce clause, but there are limits and this legislation clearly pushes them, IMO.
