Bobby Jindal Is a Phony as Well as a Lousy Speaker

Not only did Bobby Jindal make a fool of himself in his Republican response to President Obama's speech to Congress, Jindal revealed a few days earlier that he's also a con man.

Even most right-wingers saw his speech as terrible. "I think it's insane. I think it's a disaster for the party," commented conservative columnist David Brooks. Another conservative, blogger Andrew Sullivan, remarked that the Governor of Louisiana talked down to his audience "as if he were speaking to kindergarteners." Even the Republican Party's real leader, Rush Limbaugh, was critical of Jindal's style, if not his substance: "We cannot shun politicians who speak for our beliefs just because we don't like the way he says it," the language-mangling Limbaugh remarked.

But days before his awful speech Tuesday night, Jindal said something totally misleading - something that made him an idol to wingnuts - at least until his unfortunate television appearance. He declared last Friday, then repeated it Sunday on Meet The Press, that he decided not to take a tiny fraction of the $3.9 billion in federal funds for which Louisiana is eligible from the national stimulus bill President Obama signed into law last week.

Jindall said he'd reject about 2.5 per cent of the money, amounting to $98 million, all of it in more benefits for unemployed Louisiana workers. Jindal said that although he'd accept the part of the stimulus that provides unemployed workers with $25 more a week, he'd turn down the part that requires the state to change its law to increase by about 4,000 the number of people entitled to unemployment compensation. Many of them are part-time workers.

Jindal told the Meet The Press audience he'd reject the money because, he said, "The word 'permanently' is in the bill. It requires the state to make a permanent change in our law." The state's business and industry association, representing employers, "agrees with me," Jindal added. "They say, 'Yes, this will result in an increase in taxes on our businesses, this will result in a permanent obligation on the state of Louisiana'." A state official estimated that the extra cost to employers could be $12 million a year, according to the New Orleans Times Picayune.

It comes as no surprise to anyone that businessmen in Louisiana or anywhere else would rather not pay more taxes to ease the plight of workers who lost their jobs. American capitalism should not, after all, be confused with philanthropy. But for executives, or Jindal, to argue that the law must inevitably force them to pay increased business taxes after the extra federal money runs out is ridiculous.

The stimulus law does provide that money for increased unemployment benefits can go to a state only if the increased benefits are "in effect as permanent law," and that the law cannot be "subject to discontinuation."

That means a state law cannot be written with a sunset provision that automatically drops the extra benefits when the federal funds run out after 2011. So Jindal is correct when he says that current Louisiana law would have to be changed. And Louisiana's Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu was wrong when, arguing against Jindal's position, she said that any new law could be sunsetted.

But the federal government could not stop the state legislature from repealing that change when the stimulus expires. So says Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy organization for low wage workers. Jindal himself admits as much. His office concedes that any such "permanent" state law could be changed, but adds that do so would be wrong. "You can't make a change with a nod and a wink that says we'll come back and change it later," the Times Picayune quotes one state labor official as explaining.

Apparently, to Jindal and his aides, changing the law is, somehow, like cheating. And, like most of today's Republican politicians, the governor would rather cheat the poorest unemployed workers in his state of an extra few dollars than cause its businessmen, his bigtime buddies, to pay a little extra in unemployment taxes.

So Jindal's argument that Louisiana would have to "permanently" change its law, while not an outright lie, is almost totally misleading. That has not, of course, stopped his becoming a hero to several other Republican governors, including those in South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi, who have also threatened to refuse to take some of those federal unemployment funds that would help thousands of jobless men and women. In the event that Jindal or any of the others do actually decline to take all they're entitled to, there are plenty of other governors - including Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger of California - who say they'd be only too happy to take all that money instead.

Comments

[argyle]

Jindal is done. Over, Bye. I really want to shake the hand of his media advisers. A culture of loyalty at the expense of competency has its drawbacks. Jindal's team should go work for Cantor and McConnell.

[CabaretArtist]

Looks like a closer look at Piyush's CV might be in order. What other lies has Piyush conjured up?

[afgail]

Bobby Jindal seems uncharacteristiclly dimwitted for a Rhoades Scholar. Did he pad his resume? Has anybody checked out his educational credentials?

[jimjaf]

with due respect to the memory of Huey Long, the idea of a Louisiana governor as our president is a bit of a stretch. and we're just in the opening rounds of the GOP beauty contest. Jindal took an ideological position that many pundits and liberals (including more than a few who fall into both groups) thought stupid. but the marathon is just beginning.

[katekid]

Bobby “Pinocchio” Jindal, you gotta luv em.

[afgail]

There is an obvious disconnect between Jindal's performance on the rebuttal to Obama's state of the nation speech and Jindal's proported education as a Rhodes scholar. Governor Bobby's speech was sorely lacking in both his scholarship on the stimulous package AND the mental acuity one associates with Rhodes Scholars. Is it possible that Piyush padded is resume? Already a proven liar about his role in Katrina, it would be no surprise if he had fudged his educational credientials as well.

[alanearth]

Jindal should be unemployed.

[LMPE]

I hate to say this, but it's too bad that Bobby Jindal wasn't governor of Louisiana when Hurricane Katrina hit. It could have permanently trashed his reputation.

Then again, because he got to "respond" to Obama's speech, we all got to see what an embarrassment he is.

[Rogan]

Be careful what you wish for. That wasn't the last big storm that's ever going to hit that coast.

[Dap]

Dear Mr. Goodman,
Precisely, ya always tell it straight forward, good on ya! Agape.

[andyg]

I don't want to break it you but Andrew Sullivan voted for barry. So his critism is not valid.

[LeftLeanWing]

but it does prove that he is smart and sane.

[Sandy Goodman - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for making an interesting point. First off, Sullivan didn't vote for Obama or any other U.S. candidate. He's a British subject, not an American citizen. But you're absolutely correct that he did enthusiastically endorse Obama. I'd argue that doesn't make his criticism invalid. Sullivan describes himself as a libertarian conservative, and the title of his latest book is "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It and How To Get it Back." He's a great admirer of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and his domestic policy beliefs are right-wing, free market and anti-union. But his complaint is that the religious right has hijacked the Republican Party and the conservative movement, and that W and Cheney went right along with that. He endorsed Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000, but Clinton in 1992 and Kerry in 2004. He was a vicious critic of Democrats right after Sept. 11, writing:"The middle part of the country—the great red zone that voted for Bush—is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead—and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column," and was an early supporter of the Iraq war, although Bush's incompetent prosecution of it caused him to change his mind. Is he a conservative? I make no apologies for citing him as such. You folks make up your own minds.

[lagumbo]

Governor Jindal is a small player on a big stage and he has boomed out. This man is a hypocrit. He will take some of the money, but not the money that will help unemployed works.? Where is the since in that. The workers make the state .If it was money to be given to the oil companies or big business, he would be their with his hands out. He doesn't give a damn about the workers of Louisiana. They should take to the streets to protest.

[PunDyt]

Jindal is a lightweight in a directionless party that's out of touch with most of the country.

[afgail]

Jindal seems uncharacteristicly dimwitted for a Rhodes Scholar. He believes in exorcism, does not believe in climate change and disapproves of monitoring volcanes. Worst of all, he doesn't think the citizens of Louisianna would benefit from extended unemployment benefits. Do you suppose he padded his resume?

[AdobePhsyko]

I'm really enjoying ,watching The New Repugs line up to make fools of themselves.
Can't wait for the next election cycle

[WIpatriot]

I can't wait for tomorrow...every day bringsnew, unforseeable humor.

[steve-oo]

Typical Republican, nothing new from this really really old 37 year old!

SELF DESTRUCT

[Tommygun264]

Jindal still wants to take 3.7 billion of the 3.8 billion offered his state. The fact that he wants to cut the money for unemployment isn't the lead, it's the last straw. He's not just heartless, he is a heartless hypocrite and that is what is getting lost in all the hubbub.

[jimbeaux1961]

He's talking about closing our state hospitals and universities while he turns down money. What a sweetheart.

[Hank10303]

This is part of a stimulus plan. If the plan works and the economy starts to pick up, then, there will be fewer people on the unemployment pay rolls. If there are fewer people on the rolls; and more people working; and businesses are making money, then why is it they can't handle a marginal increase in employor contributions to unemployement?

[Leslie52]

You're making too much sense, Hank10303, and the repubs can't handle it! But it makes sense to me.

[blaqntelligence]

That comment will make a repubs head explode. It makes sense.
What's a few poor folks going hungry? We peons don't understand the REAL problem.
More taxes for businesses is a no-no in Republican Fantasy Land.

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

You have to understand conservatives. Every convservative I've ever met believes there are ALWAYS plenty of jobs, and that everyone who is unemployed is just lazy.
Given that I imagine they don't worry to much about unemployment benefits. Get a Job!