A recent poll among Republicans shows Gov. Bobby Jindal has slipped from even the second tier of GOP presidential prospects. Yet he still has no trouble raising money out-of-state or making headlines on the national stage, though perhaps not the kind he had in mind.
During his fundraising trip to Washington last week, the governor gave an interview to Politico, an on-line magazine read closely in the capital, that briefly thrust him into the middle of the healthcare debate--uncomfortably, that is, between the Obama White House and Republican leaders in Congress.
With the Senate Finance Committee preparing to vote on a bill opposed by nearly all Republicans, Jindal told Politico, "I think now is the perfect time to pivot and to say, not only here's what we're against . . but here's what we're for."
The headline read, Jindal to GOP: Work with Obama.
Jindal's remarks were not much different from what he's said all along about healthcare, but his timing and calling for Republicans to "pivot" was seized upon by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, who in that day's press briefing said, "I think I saw one of the more popular Republican governors, Bobby Jindal, say today that it was time for Republicans to offer what they're for, not just talk about what they're against." And he urged the GOP leadership to listen to the young governor's call for cooperation.
They heard him, all right, none too happily. Jindal's remarks were likely galling to many Republicans, including the one who succeeded him, Rep. Steve Scalise of Metairie, who has written the president asking for a meeting to discuss areas of agreement and to offer alternatives.
If Obama and Jindal were to kick back over a beer, they would agree on insurance portability and coverage for pre-existing conditions, as the Republicans have. But they would disagree over the Medicaid expansion and penalties on employers who don't offer coverage, as the Republicans have.
So, besides his choice of softer words, Jindal's position on healthcare is the same as the Republican leadership's and just as irreconcilable with the president's. Yet the White House cast Jindal as Mr. Reasonable, whose example the GOP hacks should follow.
By then, the governor may have noticed he was being used. He sought to create some distance from his new admirers in the White House by responding in a statement, "The American people do not want to raise taxes, increase government spending or give government more control of our healthcare system."
But the story had moved on and congressional Republicans were no doubt pleased to see Jindal return home to resume his schedule of ribbon-cutting and medal-pinning ceremonies.
Besides image, however, there is another big difference between Jindal and congressional Republicans, that could explain his conciliatory tone. GOP congressmen can speak against, vote against and run against whatever healthcare bill the Democrats manage to pass. But Jindal, like other Republican governors, will have to take it and make it work within the budgets and frameworks of state government.
Provisions of bills being debated, if they become law, would fundamentally change public healthcare in Louisiana, spelling the end of the charity hospital system as we know it. Jindal's plans for overhauling the state's Medicaid program would have to conform to new federal rules.
Beyond that, Louisiana seeks special treatment from the feds on pressing healthcare issues. It desperately needs a $1 billion fix on its Medicaid match rate, caused by an artificial spike in personal incomes in the post-hurricane economy.
Also, if the state doesn't get all it seeks in arbitration with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to replace Charity Hospital in New Orleans, the president has said he would consider providing additional funding.
How those crucial matters are resolved could largely define Jindal's first term and shape his reputation as a problem-solving, can-do governor. Success greatly depends on cooperation from the Obama administration and, whether conservative voters like it or not, a good working relationship between the governor and the president.
So if Jindal's comments proved useful to the White House, it is hardly a bad thing for him or Louisiana. With so much on the line, I'd kiss up too.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Kennedy Steals the March on Government Change
He's been so busy lately, helicoptering to every corner of the state to deliver jumbo-sized ceremonial checks to parish officials, to pin medals on veterans and to attend church services that Gov. Bobby Jindal must have missed that, back at the Capitol, someone else was leading the charge to cut state government down to size.
Treasurer John Kennedy is merely the chairman of a subcommittee of an advisory panel for streamlining government, but he grasped its publicity potential and has stolen the march on not one but both blue-ribbon commissions on budget-cutting and restructuring.
Kennedy has been traveling the state too, not as deeply into the piney woods as Jindal, but rather to Chamber of Commerce luncheons and editorial boards to promote his big ideas for change, from a 15,000 reduction in state employees to a single board of higher education.
Going strictly by appearances, Kennedy is looking like a governor; Jindal, a lieutenant governor.
Appearances deceive, of course. The governor does focus intently on economic development opportunities. And his staff has been actively engaged with both commissions, particularly the Postsecondary Education Review Board, exploring how to make a big idea like a single college management board actually work.
But with Kennedy capturing the limelight by default, Jindal may have felt the need to re-assert his role of budget-cutter-in-chief.
If so, he chose a curious way to go about it, by giving both commissions specific dollar-amount goals for budget reduction recommendations: $802 million from the streamlining commission and $146 million from the college board.
Nothing wrong with defining the challenge and setting goals. He could have done that six weeks ago when these groups first met. Instead, at that time, he urged panel members to be bold and think outside the box.
His job, it goes without saying, is to deal with the box as it is. The streamlining commission should be free to come up with creative, innovative suggestions that, if any of them worked, could save big money. But it is the governor's responsibility to meet the projected $948 million deficit when he presents the executive budget next March. It would be interesting, also comforting, to hear what specific ideas he has come up with already.
When it gets down to the reality of writing a balanced budget, Jindal has his own streamlining commission. It's called the Division of Administration. Commissioner Angele Davis, who sits on the streamlining panel, probably already has considered most of the recommendations that will come up. She gave an impressive presentation on what she's doing now to control costs throughout state agencies, such as a moratorium on buying cars. It didn't come close to $802 million, but it was a start.
That's more than the education board has accomplished. Comprised mostly of out-of-state experts with their own busy schedules, that commission has met only once, has yet to elect a chairman or set a direction for what it wants to get done.
It's unrealistic to expect the educators to make serious recommendations on cutting 15 percent of state spending for higher education. They would better serve the state by sticking to their original mission to recommend broad, even sweeping changes in how management systems are structured. Once a new plan is in place, it would be possible--more than now--to reduce costs through the merger of programs, even campuses.
The big idea, a single board, is not a new one--and Kennedy is out there running with it already. Board members and the governor's staff, especially executive counsel Tim Barfield, have been having deep discussions about what kind of new regime could replace the current five boards.
Such a far-reaching, controversial proposal--requiring constitutional change--is more effectively advanced after the vetting and seal of approval of a blue-ribbon commission of outside experts.
If the governor gets that much out of the education board, he shouldn't be disappointed if it doesn't also tell him how to balance his higher education budget. It will have served a higher purpose.
At that point, the governor can put away his poster checks and medals and travel the state with a game-changing big idea to discuss, with the stage all to himself.
Treasurer John Kennedy is merely the chairman of a subcommittee of an advisory panel for streamlining government, but he grasped its publicity potential and has stolen the march on not one but both blue-ribbon commissions on budget-cutting and restructuring.
Kennedy has been traveling the state too, not as deeply into the piney woods as Jindal, but rather to Chamber of Commerce luncheons and editorial boards to promote his big ideas for change, from a 15,000 reduction in state employees to a single board of higher education.
Going strictly by appearances, Kennedy is looking like a governor; Jindal, a lieutenant governor.
Appearances deceive, of course. The governor does focus intently on economic development opportunities. And his staff has been actively engaged with both commissions, particularly the Postsecondary Education Review Board, exploring how to make a big idea like a single college management board actually work.
But with Kennedy capturing the limelight by default, Jindal may have felt the need to re-assert his role of budget-cutter-in-chief.
If so, he chose a curious way to go about it, by giving both commissions specific dollar-amount goals for budget reduction recommendations: $802 million from the streamlining commission and $146 million from the college board.
Nothing wrong with defining the challenge and setting goals. He could have done that six weeks ago when these groups first met. Instead, at that time, he urged panel members to be bold and think outside the box.
His job, it goes without saying, is to deal with the box as it is. The streamlining commission should be free to come up with creative, innovative suggestions that, if any of them worked, could save big money. But it is the governor's responsibility to meet the projected $948 million deficit when he presents the executive budget next March. It would be interesting, also comforting, to hear what specific ideas he has come up with already.
When it gets down to the reality of writing a balanced budget, Jindal has his own streamlining commission. It's called the Division of Administration. Commissioner Angele Davis, who sits on the streamlining panel, probably already has considered most of the recommendations that will come up. She gave an impressive presentation on what she's doing now to control costs throughout state agencies, such as a moratorium on buying cars. It didn't come close to $802 million, but it was a start.
That's more than the education board has accomplished. Comprised mostly of out-of-state experts with their own busy schedules, that commission has met only once, has yet to elect a chairman or set a direction for what it wants to get done.
It's unrealistic to expect the educators to make serious recommendations on cutting 15 percent of state spending for higher education. They would better serve the state by sticking to their original mission to recommend broad, even sweeping changes in how management systems are structured. Once a new plan is in place, it would be possible--more than now--to reduce costs through the merger of programs, even campuses.
The big idea, a single board, is not a new one--and Kennedy is out there running with it already. Board members and the governor's staff, especially executive counsel Tim Barfield, have been having deep discussions about what kind of new regime could replace the current five boards.
Such a far-reaching, controversial proposal--requiring constitutional change--is more effectively advanced after the vetting and seal of approval of a blue-ribbon commission of outside experts.
If the governor gets that much out of the education board, he shouldn't be disappointed if it doesn't also tell him how to balance his higher education budget. It will have served a higher purpose.
At that point, the governor can put away his poster checks and medals and travel the state with a game-changing big idea to discuss, with the stage all to himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
