Quibbling with Jindal’s Roadmap (For The GOP)

“I plan to say some things that may challenge your assumptions,” warned Louisiana Governor and rumored 2016 contender Bobby Jindal. “You may not agree with all of it, but that’s ok, ours is a party that can handle real discussions.”

One of Jindal’s big takeaways, as I understand it, was that to win, we must “re-calibrate the compass of conservatism.” “Our principles are timeless,” he clarified. However, “we do need to re-orient our focus to the place where conservatism thrives – in the real world beyond the Washington Beltway.”

On this point, the governor is absolutely correct. Republicans cannot convincingly argue Washington is the problem when they have become part of a corrosive Washington culture.

But that was not Jindal’s big takeaway from his speech. “If you take nothing else away from what I say today,” he pleaded, “please understand this – We must not become the party of austerity.”

Austerity is the language of the left. It is the language of Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias, Jonathan Chait and Frank Rich. It is the language used by proponents of big-government – those who believe government spending equals economic growth – to savage those who believe growth and economic prosperity comes from the world beyond the Washington Beltway.

“[O]bsessing with zeroes on the budget spreadsheet,” as Jindal characterizes it, is not some misguided quest for austerity; rather, it is a fiscal reality – a fiscal reality that he readily acknowledges is “the bankrupting of our federal government.”

But downplaying the desire to balance our nation’s budget as merely “an obsession with government bookkeeping” misses the point. Balancing the budget is not only a moral imperative (the children!), but doing so will also require the very reforms that Jindal touted.

Similarly, we cannot separate the “nice goal” of balancing the federal budget from our “primary objective” to “grow the private sector.” As Jindal himself may say, the facts are in; trillion dollar deficits stifle economic growth.

The uncertainty caused by Washington’s reckless tax, spend, and borrow policies is keeping investment on the sideline. The world may not revolve around Washington, but far too many decisions regarding job creation do revolve around Washington.

Jindal is right to say, “We should let the other side try to sell Washington’s ability to help the economy.” Framing forthcoming policy decisions under the rubric of a balanced budget isn’t a defense of Washington, though. Instead, it is creating the environment necessary to “promote the entrepreneur, the risk-taker, the self-employed woman who is one sale away from hiring her first employee.”

Some “Washington Beltway” types viewed his speech as a “repudiation of Paul Ryan[’s] approach” and of the “DC tea party groups that obsess about the budget [and] deficits.”

For a speech focused on how to talk “like adults” and the need to “stop insulting the intelligence of voters,” its framing was bizarre. Balancing our nation’s budget and empowering individuals, creating opportunity and promoting growth go hand in hand. An imaginary – and needless – division, it is ripe for exploitation by proponents of bigger government.

The choice is not between “managing government” and embarking “toward the mission of growth.” Growth cannot occur when the federal government behaves with such recklessness it stifles the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans.

While I dedicated 550 words to quibbling with Jindal’s vision, I’d be remised if I didn’t clarify that, on the whole, his speech (here) is worth reading, and re-reading.

One of his most compelling moments was when he declared, “We must quit ‘big.’ We are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, or big anything.” These are all protected classes in America’s political system, and that must change.

As Heritage Action’s Mike Needham and Tim Chapman wrote in October 2011, “This corrupt nexus is at the heart of the dissatisfaction across the country towards Washington… The collusion between the Washington Establishment and “The Bigs” is now apparent to average Americans.”

For conservative ideals to prevail, the Republican Party must shed the “big” label and the impression that they too are creatures of this corrupt nexus. And they must win the argument on growth and balance.

“please understand this – We must not become the party of austerity.”

......For what it’s worth, if anything.......

AUSTERITY: as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/austerity

Definition of AUSTERITY

1: the quality or state of being austere
2a : an austere act, manner, or attitude
‘b : an ascetic practice
3: enforced or extreme economy

Examples of AUSTERITY

the austerity of the design
The austerity of their lifestyle was surprising.
They lived through years of austerity after the war.
the austerities practiced by monks

************

From above:
1: the quality or state of being austere

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/austere

Definition of AUSTERE

1a : stern and cold in appearance or manner
‘b : somber, grave —an austere critic—
2: morally strict : ascetic
3: markedly simple or unadorned —an austere office—
—an austere style of writing—
4: giving little or no scope for pleasure —austere diets—
5 of a wine : having the flavor of acid or tannin predominant
over fruit flavors usually indicating a capacity for aging

Jindal is full of crap. Completely. His premise is wrong. The dems are the party of austerity. They want fewer jobs, less take home pay and less opportunity. Conservatives want economic growth

Its only when you assume government is entitled to everything that you can believe less government means austerity. Only a liberal thinks like that

Having said that there is the issue of communications style. We dont need wonkish boring guys up there talking budget stuff. If thats what he meant i agree with that sliver. We need people who make this personal to voters - vote dem and you get austerity and less money and prosperity. We need big picture vision guys not wonks. Thats why I never thought Ryan was a good choice for VP

Jindal is full of crap. Completely. His premise is wrong. The dems are the party of austerity. They want fewer jobs, less take home pay and less opportunity. Conservatives want economic growth

Its only when you assume government is entitled to everything that you can believe less government means austerity. Only a liberal thinks like that

I live in Louisiana. I voted for Jindal. I would not want him to run for POTUS. He is a mechanical robot who excels in details and has absolutely no chemistry or ability to connect with voters the way a candidate needs to.

Obama ran against Romney in Ohio starting in January of 2011. He understands the campaign never ends. If you want to lose 2016, then pick a Bush, Jindal, or Governor from Alaska. All of them will be eviscerated. Jindal is not natural born (neither is our current pres.) Rubio is not natural born.

The next republican president will be young, hip, and connect with low IQ voters as such. He will be seen as youthful, athletic, a great family man and able to attack, maul and maim the left with a smile.

I don’t know who it is, but that is not Bobby Jindal. He talks like a rabbit and is a pundit before politician before personable.

Jindal is a Sec of Treasury or other cabinet position. NOT POTUS

I am a Louisiana citizen. I will never vote for Bobby Jindal again for any office that he chooses to pursue.

As governor of Louisiana, he has been a major disappointment to me. His administration has been almost as transparent as Obama’s. He has taken non-recurring funds to pay recurring bills in order to balance the state budget. He allegedly transformed our ethics laws to make it easier to root out corruption, but the new regs had to meet the same standards as a court case, thus virtually no one has been convicted of ethical violations except in federal courts.

Now, he wants our legislature to repeal our state income tax and replace it with a state sales tax. He claims that it will be done in a revenue neutral manner, but I do not trust him. Besides, a sale tax is the most regressive tax of all, and would bring undue hardship on people squeaking by on small pensions. Local governments would be hard pressed to get citizens to vote for higher local sales taxes on top of another state sales tax. That would force local government to pursue higher property taxes.

Tust me, Bobby Jindal is not ready for prime time.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.