Bobby Jindal: Fresh Face, Same Old Arguments

President Barack Obama is a youthful, well educated son of an immigrant, and Republicans are clearly trying to get some of his magic to rub off on them, so they asked Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal -- the youthful, well educated son of immigrants -- to give the response to Obama's speech last night. Good idea to have a fresh face given the GOP brand is in such disrepair. The problem is that he gave the same old arguments Republicans and conservatives have been giving us for a very long time.

Republicans made those arguments the last eight years, saying that tax cuts and smaller government would lead to prosperity. The results were, well, shall we say, less than delightful.

They clearly made those arguments in the 1993 budget/economic package fight. As I recount in my book, The Progressive Revolution:

Typical of the hysterical Republican arguments against the economic plan was the one from Newt Gingrich, when he said, "The tax increase... will lead to a recession...and actually increase the deficit." Dick Armey, the then House Republican conference chairman, said that the "impact on job creation will be devastating." And Senator Bob Packwood even said he would bet his mortgage that the deficit, unemployment, and inflation would all go up as a result of Clinton's economic plan. If Packwood had bet his mortgage on that, he would have lost this house: all of those Republican predictions turned out to be 100 percent wrong.

Republicans also urged vehemently against the New Deal. Just as every Republican in the House and all but three in the Senate voted no on Obama's economic recovery plan, and just as every Republican in both houses voted no on Clinton's economic plan, Social Security, the minimum wage, and most of the rest of FDR's highly successful New Deal (and yes, contrary to conservatives' claims, the banking system recovered and unemployment dropped more than 60% in six years; the New Deal was a big success). Conservative Republicans argued in the 1930s that ideas like Social Security and minimum wage would cause more unemployment, waste money, and that "business and industry are already operating under very heavy burdens." Does that sound familiar?

The fact is that conservatives from the beginning of our American experiment in the 1700's have argued against bold economic programs like Obama's that directly invest in jobs, education, and health care for working people. They have argued instead for giving more resources to big business and the wealthy -- if we do that, they suggest, the benefits will eventually trickle down to the rest of us. That's why when Jindal's list of solutions were simply yet another list of tax cuts, mostly to business, and it sounded awfully familiar: the conservative Republican solution to every economic problem is more tax cuts targeted to wealthy corporations, along with that wonderful elixir of less regulation and smaller government. The problem is that these ideas just don't work. They have been wrong every time.

It doesn't matter that we are in the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression, a crisis brought on by the same economic policies conservatives like Jindal are pushing. It doesn't matter that most economists think these kinds of tax cuts don't work to stimulate the economy. Conservatives just keep calling for the same policies over and over again: more tax cuts. Smaller government. And as Jindal did last night with his Katrina Story, they tell the same anecdotal stories about stupid bureaucrats (or welfare queens, or whatever) to make their hackneyed points about the dangers of government. I'd like to remind Gov. Jindal that it was his party that ran the Katrina rescue operation so poorly in 2005. It's pretty sad for a political party when their best argument for their philosophy is their own government's incompetence.

So thanks, Gov. Jindal, for offering a fresh face to conservative Republican policies. Too bad the ideas themselves are so incredibly stale.

Mike Lux is the author of The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be.

Comments

[quinniebear]

Guess what? Tax cuts aren't always good or bad. Deficit spending isn't always good or bad. When times are good, we should raise taxes and work to decrease the deficit. When times are bad, like now, we should lower taxes (as is being done on 95% of Americans; the ones who actually will spend the $) and increase spending. Reciting historical instances where spending worked or tax cuts worked doesn't mean anything unless you tie it in to the economic situation at the time.

[j-stl]

Spoken like a true Keynesian. Problem is, our government tends to be only half-Keynesian (the half that spends more - not the half that pays down the deficit), and so the less you give it, the less harm it can cause.

[toje]

fo shizzle

[cherry33]

The GOP is scrambling. That was pretty obvious when they got Jindal to do his Mr. Rogers rendition this week.

[j-stl]

The tax cuts did not lead to this - just another myth.

Fact: Federal tax revenues increased 26.4% during the first 7 seven years of President Bush's term. The problem over the his term was out of control spending. The debt increased 5 trillion, which is 3 to 3.5 trillion of just spending after servicing the debt and the Iraq war are removed.

Before you bash Speaker Gingrich and praise President Clinton, please note that in President Clinton's first two years, the defict grew 20% (the 9.5% annual rate is greater even than the 9.1% annual rate during President Bush's term) . During the next six years when Speakers Gingrich & Hastert worked together with President Clinton, the debt grew at an annual rate of 3.2%. I would say that Speaker Gingrich saved Bill Clinton's legacy and forestalled his own dire predictions.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histab18.xls
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

[murf 1 98]

I wouldn't expect any debate. As soon as you "cheat" by using facts, they get awful quiet.
Well done.

[trumpetman]

Well it is obvious why that happened- because Bill Clinton came into office during a recession where the debt grew exponetially during the Reagan and Bush years. Once the economy began to grow at a high rate with those tax increases- the defict began to decline. So you cons need to stop with the manipulation of facts, the fact is that the tax cuts for the wealthy that you advocate have been proven to not be effective based on studies, and every time a republican has been in the White House since Reagan the defict climbs high !

[j-stl]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story...

Fact: The Bush-41 recession ended well before President Clinton took office - that recession lasted from1990-07-01 to 1991-03-01.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/help-faq/#graph_recessions

Care to try another explanation?

[trumpetman]

And anyway the spending in the first two years of any administration will increase because the political party that takes power is spending up it's political capital.

[j-stl]

What a load - they are not spending political capital, they are spending money we don't have to pay off a new set of cronies.

[toje]

Your arguments, right or wrong, are nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black. I had much higher hopes for how the Obama Administration, with their campaign call to arms of sacrifice and service, and their incredible internet connectivity and media savvy.

The Obama Administration's New Deal/Great Society Redux is just as tired as the author claims the Republican ideas to be.

Their website (www.recovery.gov) is a useless propaganda tool. Why can't an administration who holds such messianic sway over such a large percentage of the populace use its vast internet data base, lists, etc. to get its disciples who are "haves", to offer direct, citizen to citizen, help to those disciples who are either "have nots" or (as the current case may be), "used to haves"? With 50 million of these people out there, surely a dent could be made in the problem, without the country going deeper into debt.

Or what about building a few factory cities in the desert? Model them on a hybrid of a kibutz, but set them up to build green technologies and the solar panels that Obama wants to put on every roof (not a bad idea, by the way, in the right geographic areas). Let people move there. House them in the mobile homes that can't be sold. Let them build their way up, and create new models for sustainable cities.

These are new ideas. Obama hasn't come up with one.

[AirForce Vet]

The one thing I noticed that was different in your televised reply was that the elephant in the room had changed, but the load that it was carrying was the same old run of the mill junk. Barack Obama, Mr. Jindal, you're not. A Barack Obama want-to-be Mr. Jindal is just a pipe dream. Can you not see, that they want you to be something you're not? Do something for desperate Louisiana and maybe you will be a position to throw a few stones.

You are following the same old ideologue that has been hashed out and failed. Try to come up with some new innovative ideas. All that I hear from your side in criticism and course it is not constructive. If you don't have any thing constructive to say, then don't say anything.

[toje]

And just who is Barack Obama? I mean other than an extraordinary politician who hasn't proven his worth outside of proving his machine was better than the Clinton's machine? He whines about inheriting a trillion dollar debt, then jams a 3 trillion dollar, 4 part spending package down our throats.

I for one hope that Jindal is NOT Barack Obama. Hoop skills are an over-rated presidential resume item, anyway.

[Dandywalker]

Average republican . Run the country into the ground, blame someone else, and get upset when someone complains about acquires it ( the deficit). I hope that high cortical functions were possession of all thinking people. You are definitely a exception. Bobby Jindal is not Barack Obama, I and millions of Americans are thankful for this. the GOP thinks if they get any people of color, and let them recite your thier old stale ideas, people will listen.

[LeeHInAlexandria]

The author wrote:
"It doesn't matter that we are in the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression, a crisis brought on by the same economic policies conservatives like Jindal are pushing. It doesn't matter that most economists think these kinds of tax cuts don't work to stimulate the economy."
==================
It cracks me up each time a progressive or liberal utters the phrase 'worst crisis since the Great Depression'. Let me see if I can educate you a minute on this subject. This current crisis isn't even as bad as the 1980-1981 recession. In 1980 the prime rate was 20.5%, it is now 3.25%. Inflation was 14.8%, it is now near 0%. The jobless rate in 1982 was 10.8%, it is now 7.6%. The 30 year mortgage rate was 18.5%, it is now 5% and falling. Don't let anyone fool you that this is the worst crisis since the great depression.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SZoeacBhYqI/AAAAAAAAJRo/Lgyy8QAAJzA/s1600-h/1980s.bmp

The liberals in this country (and yes that means liberal Repubicans as well...) have got business and the financial markets so over regulated its not funny. Even the Dems own Chuckie Schumer and the liberal Mike Bloomberg mentioned this very fact in their joint WSJ opinion back in 2006.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116234404428809623.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

[metroretro]

Funny, when I remember 1980 and 1981, I don't remember corporate giants like Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, GM, Chrysler, Bank of America, Citigroup, AIG, GE, Merrill Lynch, Sears and Macy's either bankrupt or on the verge thereof. No, this is a walk in the park compared to then.

We are in a deflationary cycle that is potentially far more damaging than an inflation rate of 14.8%. The true number of unemployed is much higher than 10.8% and we may well enter an inflationary cycle that zooms past 14.8% before this is over.

The thing about 1980 and 1981 is that cycle has ended. We don't yet know how this cycle will end.

This is the worst financial cycle since the Great Depression. Have a nice laugh.

[exoevolution]

The Conservatives keep going to the same TOXIC well. Conservatives are led by the "Jim Jones" of politics i.e. Rush Limbaugh - they can not stop themselves from drinking the poison kool-aid of TAX CUTS, TAX CUTS & unbridled, unregulated Corporate GREED & the SUPREMACY of the WEALTHIEST Americans!

The Conservative "kool-aid" Republican Party have wrought a DISASTER on our country - YET they can not stop themselves - they keep offering the same failed, deadly solutions - the same failed, deadly TOXIC kool-aid!

The Conservative Limbaugh "kool-aid" Republican Party are suicidal lemmings that are only concerned about conserving "THEIR" power, "THEIR" insane "kool-aid" drinking world - that as we are now seeing all around us - the end results of this INSANITY!!

ENOUGH!!!!!!

[hippie chucker]

So, we could assume that you're giving extra money on your tax return every year towards Mommy Government?

If you feel that tax cuts are bad, are you yourself giving extra money to the government?

Because if you're not paying extra money into the treasury, you're being hypocritical.

Because private property, in this case money, is really the right of the State, that about correct?

This country was founded in part against high taxation, with the founders realizing that private property rights are sacrosanct, whether they involve money or physical property. Without the right to private property, free from government seizure, we are not a free people.

I agree with Milton Friedman, I always support a tax cut because it starves the beast.

[exoevolution]

Hippie Chucker - look around - what do you see - can you see? WE are experiencing a CATASTROPHE!!!

The tax increase will be for people making MORE THAN $250,000 per year - people making less than $250,000 will get a TAX CUT!!

If I was making MORE THAN $250,000 - YES I would be happy to pay more taxes & help the less fortunate people - WE are all in this boat TOGETHER!!

GREED IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!

Government is NOT the "beast" - The Limbaugh "Corporatist" Republican Party IS THE BEAST!!!!

[laocoon]

where does it make "sacrosanct" government enforcement of property rights? In nature people have possessions. it requires government interference to have property rights.

[rbenjamin]

The differences between Obama and Jindal transcend mere politics. Republican strategists can't comprehend the rise of Obama because they can't see past the similarity in melanin.

Jindal appeals to the Republican Party's dream of universal cultural assimilation of all immigrants, who should: renounce their name, language, and religion and act like somebody whose ancestors are from Northern Europe. Cultural stasis. Bobby Jindal has taken this path.

Obama stands for cultural fusion. He is multiracial. He tried on Barry, but is more comfortable with Barack. He blends elements of the US mid west, Hawaii and Africa. Obama represents the path of change and adaptation. He also represents the formula for political success in the early 21st century. Keeping it real. Like it or not, US culture is highly adaptive. Think Korean Tacos.

[hippie chucker]

Every successful immigrant group has assimilated into our country. To say that its a Republican dream is silly-assimilation was just what people did here historically.

Obama is just a guy from Chicago. He doesn't "represent" anything more than what's projected onto him. He's just a run of the mill liberal with above average political skills. The same could be said of Reagan, similarly.
What's important is his ideology, not his cultural blending....

Most conservatives can't get excited about the "historic" nature of his presidency, because we believe a free society will always elect people of color. If we've had a black Secretary of State, then it shouldnt come as a shock that we have a black President. If you believe in free markets, then you're not surprised by anything the market does, because it represents the will of the people.

In the end, he'll be judged not on the color of his skin, but on the content of his character-
just as Rod Blagoyavich's downfall is not representative of Polish Americans in the least, right?

[rbenjamin]

I partly agree with you, but not the part about Obama being from Chicago. That' s fairly late in his life. He's from Hawaii, Indonesia, New York, Chicago, and of late, DC. Being comfortable across different cultures is helpful in forming coalitions across factions, which is useful if you want to win elections in an increasingly multicultural country. Alternatively, you can play to a relatively narrow party base, win your primary and lose the big one. Like you say, it's basically free market, and Obama knew how to market himself. Ideology is over rated in politics. Voters value competence, confidence and clarity. They like to throw rascals out.

[rbenjamin]

Every successful immigrant group assimilates. Absolutely true. What tends to get ignored is that the assimilation goes in both directions. The Republican view tends strongly towards the old, nativist, unidirectional assimilation. We will convert you. Perhaps, but my bet is the GOP just gets smaller every year.

[Pupadup4oBama]

well said!

[toje]

So now we're picking presidents by their degree of cultural fusion? I thought it was because of their ideas and leadership ability. Obama hasn't really put forth one new idea. Universal Health Care, Tax the Rich, Borrow Trillions of Dollars, Fight the War on Terror. These are nothing new. The only thing new is that he is now passing trillion dollar spending packages on the fly without even reading them.

And regarding leadership; he has delegated all of the big decisions to others. He is merely the pitchman for products that shouldn't have to be pitched, considering that he owns Congress.

[rbenjamin]

Your opposing views, none of them new either, lost. That's elections for you. See you in 2012.

[GranE]

Bobby Jindal has indeed taken the path Republicans have laid out. The frame of his speech was a jumble of how he sees America, starting at the beginning with the point that the nation watched a speech delivered by our President in the same chamber where Slaves were freed. What was the purpose of that, to remind citizens that President Obama is black and he is not, he's just a little "brown"? He needs his Rhodes Scholar diploma revoked, he has no pragmatic smarts, or socratic experiences to go along with it, not even any street smarts. He is too young and inexperienced to be where he is, he won't be ready for prime time until he solves Lousiana's problems, which he has not been able to do with his own party in power. He's simply confused, in a country he doesn't understand.

[hippie chucker]

Wow, devastating critique./sarc

Mike,
Perhaps, you may want to do a little research on Reagan's reversal of Carter's 70% upper income tax bracket, and its effect on the economy.

Or, your own John Fitzgerald Kennedy's tax cuts.

In each case, they lead to an economic boom.

Could you honestly say that the Carter years were gravy, or does 10% unemployment and 13% interest rates strike you as progressive?

The only thing Carter did that was right was to sign a bill that allowed people to home brew beer, up to 200 gallons a year. It spawned the entire craft brew industry. You might call that "deregulation", Mike.

[MacTheBlogger]

Mr. Hippie Chucker, please do not criticize the new government. They know what's best for you. You are required to appreciate everything & anything the government will allow you to have in the future. Your government cares.

I'm sure you didn't mean it. Please be prepared to apologize and show your papers to the appropriate authorities.

[realpolitic]

The GOP has been anti-intellectual for years. This anti-intel­lectualism has finally reached its nadir. Jindal sounded last night like Mr. Rogers of "it's a Wonderful Day In the Neighborhood" fame talking to a room full of of second graders. Jindal seemingly did not use any words over four letters long. Is a politician's role to make us all feel warm and fuzzy like children or to lay out alternatives like an adult and build a case for what would work? The GOP war on book learnin' has reduced them to a party of children without a vocabulary or the ideas necessary to deal with complex problems.

[hippie chucker]

Yeah, being a Rhodes Scholar means you are anti intellectual. Got it.

[Jamchinadian]

That's a simple-minded non answer - typical! He may be a Rhodes scholar but it doesn't mean he is pragmatic. In his own words, it's "philosophical differences" that he has. That's code for he doesn't really care about the effectiveness of policies, he just simply is against any government action - also typical. That posturing provides cover for not doing anything to address problems.

[realpolitic]

He is a Rhodes scholar who believes in Intelligent Design and does not believe in man-made global warming. That is the definition of anti-intellectual!

[mcantwell]

I don't why the MSM paint Jindal as being 'fresh faced' or 'charasmatic'. That is far from the truth. There is absolutely NOTHING appealing or charasmatic about this guy.

[originalprice]

I agree - just because he's a young southern governor of Indian descent doesn't make him "charismatic". I watched his "response" to Obama's speech with a stomach-twisting mixture of revulsion, offense, and embarrassment (for him).

I hope he's down in Disney World taking diction lessons from Goofy.

[MacTheBlogger]

Thank you so much for your comments, Mr. Lux. Jindal and his kind have no idea how good things will be now that the new government is here to take care of us, to make everything fair.

Jindal's tired & failed notions that hard work, sacrifice, discipline and personal responsibility should result in some kind of success have no place in the New America. He will soon learn that the various appropriate politicians and bureaucracies know what's best for us, because they truly care about us.

Mr. Jindal, it's time you and the other personal responsibility dinosaurs close your mouths and begin to appreciate what the new government will allow us to have. Hopefully they will continue their trend of shutting down opposition speech so that your silly ideas will no longer see the light of day.

And be sure to smile a lot, for this is good. Really.

[hippie chucker]

Yeah, it's weird. LA is the only economy adding workers to the rolls right now, in the entire country.

[hoper01]

I suppose there is only one place to go when you have reached the abyssmal rock bottom.

[ShinjiIkari]

Jindal-sahib also indulged in another one of the favorite GOP talking points in his response: claim that those conservatives who ran the ship of state onto the rocks weren't "really" conservatives. This is supposed to protect the ideological myth by saying that it would have worked right except for "human error". This is 100% pure circular logic: you don't need hard evidence if a belief "proves" itself. But then, the GOP hasn't been much on science lately.

You can put dogfood in a fancy can labelled caviar and, guess what, it's still dogfood.

[rosey101]

Right, but if I say that I am not a murderer, yet I murder twenty people, it would lead you to believe that I was lying (I hope). In the same way, if I said I was for small government, personal responsibility, etc., then went out and acted in the exact opposite way, it would appear that my purported belief was not actually so. Of course this principle is not hard and fast, but general.

[TRex86]

A definition of insanity is performing the same act repetitively expecting a different result. Hence after eight years of astonishing profligacy they amazingly recycle the same old "ideas" about small government, low taxes, etc. The truth is their words have never been genuine but rather empty blather to cover a strategy that has been in place for over 100 years: transfer wealth to the wealthy. All the rest is noise that issues from their lips, no more serious or factual than Rush Limbaugh's random grunting noises.
The Bush II version of the Republican kleptocracy was as follows: 1. prop up the stock market by cutting the top tax rate; 2. cook up an illegal war to line the pockets of your buddies; 3. screw black people (eg, Katrina); 4. screw the unions; 5. inflate the housing bubble with deregulation and low interest rates; 6. take lots of vacations (pre-9/11, when economy tanks, etc.); 7 step back and whine when the new president tries to salvage the country from their destructive policies.
CEO culture is an accurate picture of the Republican ethos. Rob, steal, loot, lie. Reward failure. Punish compassion. Time for the Republicans to join the Whigs in the trash can of history.

[toje]

You just argued against the entire stimulus package. Most conservatives agree that Bush way overspent. To think that we can now overspend our way out of the problem would pretty much fall under your definition of insanity. I wish that were the problem. This is not insanity. It is the cold, hard, calculated use of a fiscal crisis to cram policies and programs down the throat of the republic that, in more rational times, would never have seen the light of day.

[JC1c1]

--------Most conservatives agree that Bush way overspent.­----------­-----

Um yeah sure you did. Funny now that Obama is president I keep hearing this line over and over again, from every day people, to the republicans in the congress and senate. I hear gov like Jindal say it. I did not hear this ONCE in the last 8 years. Let me repeat NOT ONCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was all about how good Bush was doing, that we werent in a recession at all. That the democrats were the sky is falling rhetoric. That is what I heard. The republicans had the power, and they spent like there was no tomorrow. Not just Bush either. So dont give me that. The conservative republican party of yesterday is no more. Most of you just cant admit to it. It got hijacked by the evangalicals and Rush's of our country.
Dont give me this, oh we didnt like what Bush was doing, we didnt like what he was doing! That is bs and you know it.

[elsie900]

No, that was not an argument against the stimulus package. Government funding is to be used to safeguard, strengthen and maintain the nation. The GOP used it instead on projects and goals that lined their cronies' pockets but did nothing for the nation's infrastructure or constituency.

Picture this: a house gets seriously damaged by termites, but instead of calling a reputable exterminator and contractor, the homeowner listens to the pitch of a conman offering to get rid of the bugs and fix the house at a fraction of the legit cost. He tells the homeowner "forget all that 'licensed and bonded' crap, they just say that so they can jack up the price." The homeowner, tempted by the hope of getting something for nearly nothing, gives his money to the con man. The con man pretends to work on the house for a while, until it collapses upon itself. At which point the con man disappears absconds, and the homeowner is left penniless amid the rubble of his home - and in even more desperate need of repairs.

We the American people are that homeowner. The GOP of the past 40 years is the con man. And your argument is akin to stating that since the con man didn't fix the house, the house no longer deserves to be fixed and should be left to its own devices in the hopes that it will pull itself up by its own drywalls and put itself back into proper order.

[JSquercia]

It is ironic that all those Conservatives who feel that Bush overspent NEVER said so . In the six years when they were in total control of the Government they approved that overspending .
Did they demand to know about the loss of several million Dollars in Iraq ? No they continued to hand out no bid contracts and fired the person who tried to stop the waste and fraud ,
What the Democrats are doing is classic Keynesian Economics which is to run a deficit and use it to create jobs . The statistics on bang for the buck are against the Republican Strategy of Tax Cuts which return 1.02 in stimulus for every dollar spent . Unfortunately the Democrats cut aid to Food stamps which generates 1.35 for every dollar
The other side of Keynesian Economics is that in good times they should use the surplus to pay down the debt and even raise taxes if need be . I remember Greenspan being worried that Clinton might cause a problem with his paying down the debt too fast

[amyers]

One of the many problems Republicans have right now is that they are selling their platform as ideology and not as something that works. They support small government for the sake of small government, they support tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts. They have become so indoctrinated with these ideas over the last three decades that they believe their product sells itself. This is why the GOP is so obsessed with the state of their "brand," and not with improving the message with which they attempt to win over voters.

It also doesn't help that 28 years of repeating the mantra "government is the problem" has led to a culture of weak policy behind their stale old ideas. Even if you think that addressing health care reform or education or poverty is something best left to private citizens and not government programs, those efforts need to be backed by strong policies that encourage the private sector to meet the desired objectives. Simply sitting back and declaring that the markets will solve the problem by themselves isn't going to work, because the markets will always put maximizing profits before maximizing service when left to their own devices.