Before the $787 billion was dropped for the national stimulus bill, Louisiana was given $51 billion in reconstruction money after Hurricane Katrina occurred. This was one of the largest amounts given at one time to a single state. There have been positive effects such as a drop in unemployment and construction projects that are contributing to an “ongoing boom”. The government has offered Louisiana another $98 million in stimulus money, but the state’s Republican governor, Bobby Jindal, plans to reject it. As you can imagine, this has been a controversial decision, but it is clear that Jindal should not reject money that his state needs. New Orleans needs a new hospital which they are estimating to be about $500 million but FEMA has only offered them $150 million, this is just one example of how money can still be put to good use in the state of Louisiana.
Jindal is very much anti government spending. Considering the state of the current economy, it is understandable to be cautious about how what money we do have is being put to use. However, what is not understandable is how a governor would reject needed money for his own state. What Jindal needs to consider is where stimulus money is being the most effective. The government is not turning a blind eye to the rest of the nation, as seen by the $787 billion. Still, the federal stimulus money has not proven to be anywhere as effective as it has in Louisiana. If something’s working, you don’t stop it.
Above all, a governor has a responsibility to work for his state and ensure that the needs of the people are met. By turning down this stimulus, he is not fulfilling his responsibility to the citizens of Louisiana.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/us/05louisiana.html?ref=politics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This is a case that immediately makes me think of our discussion in class about elected representatives and their flexibility in office. We all overwhelmingly agreed that those that have made politics their profession have the right to make choices for their people. After all, they are the most educated and the best informed.
Now, we are presented with a situation that the governor disagrees with the choice of most (I generally do not like to assume, but I will assume here that most people would take the money for a state and a people that is in a bit of trouble). Do we go back on our earlier word and change our minds, or do we confirm our first thoughts?
I choose to hold my ground and trust in those that represent us. I realize this may be considered by some to be foolish and naive, but I have faith in the United States government system to balance out and eliminate any who do not act on behalf of freedom and democracy.
Bobby Jindal's impending refusal has not crossed these lines, and if he does, expect him to be removed from office in time. But for now, he has the right to refuse the money. He has the ability to survey the national economy and the problems within his own state and make his own judgment as governor of Louisiana. I'm sure he would accept the money if he felt it absolutely necessary. Jindal alone can make an educated decision.
Of course, he has a duty to protect the citizens of his state. But isn't it also refreshing to see a state politician take the rest of the nation into account when making a decision? It seems many politicians make the popular choice that will get them re-elected. Give immense credit to Jindal for sticking to his guns, staying true to what he believes in, and doing what he thinks is right.
This is not cause to criticize Bobby Jindal, it is cause to praise him. He has gone where few politicians before him choose to go. He has not faltered on his beliefs. I understand the counterargument that beliefs go out the window when the health and safety of millions is in your hands. However, as a man who experienced Hurricane Katrina, I would expect Jindall to know when money is absolutely needed and when it is not. Bobby Jindall does not believe throwing money at the issue is always the best solution. Some situations may call for it, others may not. As governor, he has the right to call this situation one that does not immediately require money.
I agree with Emily's argument regarding Jindal refusing the aid. If his state is in need of money/aid, which, lets face it, New Orleans is not back to where it used to be before Hurricane Katrina, then he should not refuse it. While we may dislike federal government aid, that is no reason to refuse money, when in fact it is truly needed. Jindal needs to think about the people in his state, and if he refuses this money and is unable to construct a new hospital in New Orleans, then I believe he is not doing his job to the fullest.
While I agree with the point that by electing officials, we are putting them in control of the state's decisions regarding all types of decisions, including whether or not the state takes federal aid, I thoroughly believe that the elected official should put the interests of the people first and act as the people would want the official to act. While I understand that this is not plausible in many instances, in a situation such as this one, Jindal should not make this decision on his own. He should consult the people of Louisiana and hear their feelings on an issue this important to the state as a whole.
In addition, after the federal government dropped 787 billion dollars in stimulus money, what is an extra 98 million dollars, if it could go towards building a hospital in a city that is truly in need? If Louisiana rejects this money to build a hospital for its citizens, then when would states actually need money? While this question cannot be definitively answered, it is an extremely important issue that government officials should think of when offering, accepting, or rejecting aid of all kinds.
Overall, I believe Jindal owes it to the citizens of Louisiana to take this federal aid and put it towards constructing the hospital that New Orleans needs so desperately. If this money is being rejected instead of being used to help the citizens of the United States, then when should federal aid be accepted? Jindal, as well as all elected officials, owe it to their citizens to convey their beliefs as their own, and do what is best for the state/city/country as a whole.
Perhaps Governor Bobby Jindal is taking this initiative as a political platform; he justified his decision by stating that expanding unemployment benefits, which are where some of the money would have gone to, would be meanwhile increasing taxes for businesses. Many people in politics have argued that Jindal has the presidency in sight for the United States, and that by rejecting this stimulus for the state of Louisiana, he is paving his way to the White House as a Republican candidate. This decision by Jindal is somewhat out of character, as he had previously accepted a stimulus to strengthen the state of Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina; maybe this goal of the White House is “clouding” his judgment. New Orleans Major, Ray Nagin, said, “he has a certain vernacular, and a certain way he needs to talk right now.”
Just because there is a possibility that he might run for President of the United States in four or eight years does not necessarily make this decision right. I agree with Emily in her original post that Louisiana is still in great need of this money, and for Jindal to simply turn away, and “think of the rest of the nation” just because he has the White House in mind is selfish, and he is not thinking about the quality of life for his people in the state. Jindal has a responsibility to the citizens of Louisiana, not the National Republican Party at this point in time; and in agreement with Emily, Jindal has failed to fulfill this responsibility to his people by refusing this granted money.
Two different topics have now formed in this thread and I will address them both, although the arguments coincide.
At first when I read this post I thought to myself, what would be a possible reason for declining money for your state? Then it hit me, to gain national acceptance. Katie hit the nail right on the the head. If he runs for President he will be loved by Louisiana because he was their governor who took them out of the Katrina crisis, and he now will have the ability to say that as a governor he still had the country's interest at heart. It's perfect.
Now whether or not it was a good decision... I would like to believe that if a Governor saw his state in deep trouble he would accept the money, which is why I tend to side with JCruise on this one. There would be no advantage to him if the state failed, especially if he plans to run for presidency, meaning that enough programs have been put in place for the state to survive.
What I still wonder though, is why would the federal government offer the state that much money if they don't need it? It would appear that the federal government would do a lot of research on a state before it offers the state billions of dollars. Something still doesn't make sense here...
I understand that Bobby Jindal, by refusing the offer of the $98 million dollars in stimulus money, could be setting the stage for a future run for presidency, but why he would turn his sights away from the present condition of his state and toward the future of his own personal political advancement is beyond me. We elect officials to keep our best interest in mind and use their knowledge to make decisions to do just that. If Louisiana is in a place where the decision to reject the money would not halt the improvements that are being made to the state, then I would support Jindal's plan to reject the aid. From the outside looking in, however, his refusal of the aid can be seen as a way to pave the way to presidency and not an act to help his state, which is his real duty as governor.
With the leaps and bounds that Louisiana has made with the $51 billion in reconstruction money given after Hurricane Katrina, I wonder why the governor would refuse a measely $98 million, especailly when he has witnessed first hand the positive effects the initial aid caused. Also, with the state in need of a new hospital, the money Jindal is expected to refuse could go towards building that new hospital. It is not like the state is saving money to create a new recreational park; this is a hopsital we are talking about. The health of the residents of his state should be high in importance to Jindal. Unless he has other ways of acquiring the money needed to construct this new hospital, among other things, accepting the $98 million seems to me like a smart idea.
JCruise is right. The governor should have his state’s best interest in mind. We do entrust our representatives to make the right decisions for us. But does this always happen? No. We can research and follow campaigns and even cross fingers, but elected representatives don’t always live up to what they promised. Rod Blagojevich, the 40th governor of Illinois, was accused of trying to sell at the time President-elect Barack Obama’s Senate seat. Ted Stevens, the senator of Arkansas, was convicted on 7 counts of bribery and tax. New York State Comptroller, Alan G. Hevesi, assigned a state work to chauffeur his wife. Governor Eliot Spitzer was linked to a high-price call girl ring. These are just a few examples of recent political scandals. Growing up in our generation, it hard for me to believe that politicians are going to always do what they should.
So let’s say the Governor makes the wrong decision and rejects the money. The question was brought up of where is this money that was allocated for New Orleans going to go? Is it going to be used for more bailouts that aren’t working? Or given to companies like AIG to be used as bonuses? This money should be going to where there is a clear purpose, need, and best return on investment. Bobby Jindal should accept this money.
Post a Comment