Remember when Meet the Press was a respectable news program that asked tough questions? If you didn't like Tim Russert, it was probably because of the fact that his questions were aggressively confrontational, and the instance he felt he was getting the run around or a dodge, he would pounce on the interviewee. He was respected as a journalist and feared as an interviewer. Those that did not prepare for his questions ultimately paid the price of national embarrassment.
Now Meet the Press has become a joke. It has become just another megaphone for politicians to spout their talking points like broken records with not so much as a whimper from the host. David Gregory lobs softball after softball hoping to win brownie points with politicians, rather than doing the work of journalism.
Nonetheless, due to the tradition of the program and the people who appear on it, I find myself giving it the attention that it no longer deserves. Today, as I suffered through Gregory sticking his nose up Jindal's ass, I couldn't help but wonder if Russert would have let these blatant lies and ignorant self-contradictions go without being pointed out or clarified with follow up questions.
Let's examine Jindal's answers.
Gregory: Why would you turn this money down?
Jindal: Let's be clear, the best thing that Washington could do to help Louisiana and all of our states with our budgets is to get this economy moving again. I think we just have a fundamental disagreement here. I don't think the best way to do that is for the government to tax and borrow more money, I think the best thing they could've done, for example, is to cut taxes on things like capital gains, the lower tax brackets to get the private sector spending again.
How does $300 million for federal cars or $50 million for the national endowment of the arts, how is spending like that going to help our economy? How is that stimulus?
When Jindal makes an incredibly ignorant assertion, that spending money to buy cars for federal employees is not stimulative, a journalist would correct him by reiterating the definition of stimulus. Let me help you out Gregory, here is what a follow up question looks like:
But wouldn't you agree that the act of buying a car is stimulative, since it creates demand for that car to be built and maintained, thereby creating the jobs of building and maintaining that car where those jobs have been lost?
But instead, our pseudo-journalist moves on...
Gregory: Why would you turn down $100 million for federal unemployment assistance for your state?
Jindal: ...You're talking about temporary federal money that would require permanent change in state law.
Gregory: But it's a tax break.
Jindal: Well, it's... No. The $100 million we turned down was temporary federal dollars that would've required us to change our unemployment laws that would've actually raised taxes on Louisiana businesses. We as a state would be responsible for paying those benefits after the federal money disappeared.
Gregory: You could insert a "sunset clause" when this has to go away, but it would certainly be beneficial at a time when you're in economic stress.
Jindal: If you actually read the bill, there's one problem with that, the word permanent is in the bill. It requires the state to make a permanent change in our law. Law B- our employment group [lobby] agrees with me. They say "yes, this will result in an increase in taxes on our businesses."
Why would we take temporary federal dollars if we're going to end up having a permanent program?
How is it possible for someone to become a governor when they don't even understand the basic precepts of making laws? His excuse of why he is willing to screw his state's unemployed population is that (1) it may or may not raise taxes on businesses (he gives no concrete evidence, he just sites a business lobby that agrees with him) and (2) it would create a permanent program for his state.
While permanent programs do exist, fiscal policy from year to year rarely fits into this paradigm. Individual programs can be abolished with new laws, or with clauses within the laws that made them, as was pointed out. The excuse here is so unjustified that I can't help but to think this guy is just posturing for the sake of his own political future, rather than the well being of the people that reside in his state.
Gregory: Are there other parts of this stimulus money that would go to Louisiana that you will reject?
Jindal: ...we're going to look at every provision, see what's good for the state, see what's not, see what strings are attached. But the reality is, the bigger philosophical point is this: I just have a fundamental disagreement with this package. When it was originally proposed, it was talked about as ... targeted tax cuts as well as infrastructure investment...
Gregory: A third of this package is made up of tax cuts. (!!!)
Jindal: Well, but [...] there was so much wasteful spending. I think the president had a chance, if he had worked with the Republicans instead of allowing Speaker Pelosi to write this bill, if he had worked with the Republicans to say "let's really invest in infrastructure, let's do targeted temporary spending, let's do some tax cuts, let's get the economy moving...". I don't think we're going to solve our economic challenges with government spending.
Ah, there's the rub. He doesn't believe government spending (i.e. stimulus) is going to solve the problem! Then why give us all that hosh-posh about working with Republicans if they fundamentally don't believe stimulus will stimulate the economy?
Earth to Gregory, is there anything resembling a tough question on your planet?
The notion that President Obama did not work with Republicans in building consensus for this initiative is such a blatant lie that any reasonable half way intelligent person would follow up with: But didn't the president go to the Republican caucus in both houses repeatedly and ask for their input, and weren't their concerns addressed, and weren't some of their ideas incorporated into this bill?
Too bad Gregory is just a fucking shill. He allows this insufferable lying to continue on without so much as batting his eye. C'mon Gregory, DO YOUR FUCKING JOB!
At least address the idiotic notion that government spending is not stimulative with some sort of follow up, FFS.
Gregory: Democrats would argue, with regard to a call for greater tax cuts, that over the course of the Bush presidency, you only had 3 million new jobs through aggressive tax cutting, that the change in median income did not appreciably go up at all, and yet there is this emphasis on tax cuts as the best way to cure what ails the economy... Is that wrong? Are those facts wrong?
Let me stop you right there asshole. No, Democrats would never argue that 3 million jobs were created through aggressive tax cuts of the Bush administration. We would argue, in fact, that there would have been more job creation had Bush not cut taxes so drastically for his buddies and his cronies. Those tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy, they prevented stimulus.
Also, we wouldn't say the median income didn't go up, we would point out that it actually went down!
Yes, your "facts" are wrong. But let's see Jindal's answer anyway.
Jindal: Well, a couple of things about those facts, when you look at our country's history, when President Kennedy, when President Reagan, and yes, when President Bush cut taxes, you know what? They created jobs for our country, they caused some of the best economic times and prosperity for our country.
aaaahahahahahhahahahahahahaahaha. ahem.
Jindal: I think it goes to the fundamental difference about our approaches to this stimulus bill. On one hand you have this idea that the only way we're going to solve this, and you heard even the president say that government may be the only entity that can help us solve this. You've got another view that says this spending is temporary, yet it is creating debt that my children and my grandchildren will have to pay.
Where was all this indignant outrage as Bush pushed us into an unnecessary war that put us into so much debt in the first place? Why is it that the future of Iraqis is more important to Republicans than the future of Americans? Oh, sorry, there I go trying to do Gregory's job again...
Gregory: ...businesses are not expanding, they are contracting, so why is it wrong for government to try to create demand for goods and services in the economy, when the private sector is too weak?
Jindal: Well, again I think you could've had a bipartisan stimulus package that was truly what the president outlined: targeted, temporary. If he'd come and said here's infrastructure, that is real infrastructure that really will grow our economy... combined with tax cuts that help small businesses...
Now we hear tomorrow the president is going to talk about reducing the debt and the deficit, you know, it's great we're going to close the barn door after the horse is gone.
Wait, you mean to tell me that the president is once again addressing your concerns regarding the deficit and the debt, and you are criticizing him for it? Let me get this straight, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Letting the country go to shit and criticizing the very people who try to fix your incompetence: IOKIYAR.
Gregory: There are a lot of Republicans that complain about the deficit now that didn't have a problem with deficit spending when it came to funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and you've had among the likes of Warren Buffet who said, "this is like Pearl Harbor for our economy", isn't it worth the deficit spending?
Jindal: How does a billion dollars for the census, how does new computers for federal government, $300 million for new federal cars, how is that stimulus? Why did it have to be done without the proper committee hearings? Why didn't the members of congress get a chance to read and debate this bill? Why didn't tax payers get to see it online like we were promised? Why the rush through the process? Why not do this in pieces? Why not start with what was originally described as targeted temporary stimulus?
How is stimulus stimulative? How does creating demand create jobs? How do you avoid answering questions by asking questions? Why not let Republicans who failed and were fired decide the future of our country? Why not give those same people a platform on what used to be a respectable news program?
I think I'll go vomit now.
(cross-posted from Progressive Junction)