Can you believe this guy? What a putz!

Jindal Admits Katrina Story Was False

By Zachary Roth - February 27, 2009, 12:39PM
Looks like the game is up.
Remember that story Bobby Jindal told in his big speech Tuesday night -- about how during Katrina, he stood shoulder-to-shoulder with a local sheriff who was battling government red tape to try to rescue stranded victims?

Turns out it wasn't actually, you know, true.

In the last few days, first Daily Kos, and then TPMmuckraker, raised serious questions about the story, based in part on the fact that no news reports we could find place Jindal in the affected area at the specific time at issue.

Jindal had described being in the office of Sheriff Harry Lee "during Katrina," and hearing him yelling into the phone at a government bureaucrat who was refusing to let him send volunteer boats out to rescue stranded storm victims, because they didn't have the necessary permits. Jindal said he told Lee, "that's ridiculous," prompting Lee to tell the bureaucrat that the rescue effort would go ahead and he or she could arrest both Lee and Jindal.

But now, a Jindal spokeswoman has admitted to Politico that in reality, Jindal overheard Lee talking about the episode to someone else by phone "days later." The spokeswoman said she thought Lee, who died in 2007, was being interviewed about the incident at the time.

This is no minor difference. Jindal's presence in Lee's office during the crisis itself was a key element of the story's intended appeal, putting him at the center of the action during the maelstrom. Just as important, Jindal implied that his support for the sheriff helped ensure the rescue went ahead. But it turns out Jindal wasn't there at the key moment, and played no role in making the rescue happen.

There's a larger point here, though. The central anecdote of the GOP's prime-time response to President Obama's speech, intended to illustrate the threat of excessive government regulation, turns out to have been made up.

Maybe it's time to rethink the premise.

Late Update: Politico's Ben Smith has updated his post with the following:

UPDATE: I'd initially misunderstood Sellers to be saying Jindal and Lee didn't meet while rescue efforts were still underway. In fact, she said, the conversation took place in the aftermath of the storm, but after the boat incident.
"Bobby and I walked into harry lee's office - he's yelling on the phone about a decision he's already made," Jindal chief of staff Timmy Teepell recalled. "He's saying this is a decision I made, and if you don't like it you can come and arrest me."

Teepell said the exchange took place in the week following Katrina, when Jindal visited Jefferson Parish multiple times.

"He was boots on the ground all the time," he said.

This doesn't seem to bear on the key question. As we said, the key elements of Jindal's story were that he was in Lee's office during the crisis itself, and that his support for the sheriff helped ensure the rescue went ahead. Neither of those things was true, it now seems.

Late Video Update: Here's the relevant section of Jindal's speech.

Hey, if Jindal screwed up and told a false story says a lot about his character. I am mostly Republican but I vote for the person not the party. If a person acts and votes in a manner that fits what I beleive then I vote for them. Telling the truth is very important to me.

Ooh a personal attack! Lemme In on this!

Where was your outrage when miss Hillary got off that plane in Bosnia under sniper fire? What about when Obama talked about starting his own Hitler-esque Obama Youth program?

Regardless of what he flubbed, he's exactly right! Whenever Gubmint gets involved, things get screwed royally.

Try attacking the message, not the man... oh wait you can't and keep any semblance of intellectual integrity. My bad!

Oh Goodie.......yet another political thread.  How did we survive this long without one .

Hmm could it be that yet another politician is a bold-faced liar? Yes it could be. Could it be that all of them pubs and dems are all just statists of one feather or another and we should trust neither of them? Yes it could be.

Could it be that despite the worthy and venerable source of the Kos and Muckraker reporting this story that his lying bears no relevance to the fact that government did not do right what they should have done right and did do wrong what they should have done wrong in many instances during katrina? Yes it is irrlevant.

Government is more of a problem than a help. We all know the importance of being prepared yourself and not relying on gov to help when that kind of help is sure to come late, inept,  or not at all. haven't we spent the last few years telling people that they need to be prepared and that they can only rely on themselves? Yes we have. But the government sends the opposite message everyday that they they imply "I am from the government and I am here to help." Welfare breeds a lack of self reliance. Social security has been more responsible for the lack of retirement plans among American  than anything else. And when you dial 911 you should count on there being at least 10 to 40 minutes before anyone can show up at your door.

Higher taxes for the rich. Are you rich turboguy? If not isnt it a good thing if your getting your taxes cut and the rich have to pay more?   Explain to me why youre opposed to that?

As for government intrusion are you referring to the Bush style intrusion where he had AT&T, Sprint and verizon listening into our phone calls, and e-mails, or government intrusion by Obama where he wants to restructure the US healthcare system?

I find it a bit ironic, to say the least, that the countries with the highest standards of living in the world have mixed economies ( capitalist and goverment projects a la socialist)

For example, case in point with our neighbors to the North:

In the matter of financial and fiscal responsibility, Canada ranks #1. Yes. They can have single payer health
AND economic solvency.

February 28, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
The Great Solvent North
By THERESA TEDESCO
Toronto

HAS the world turned upside down? America, the capital of capitalism, is pondering nationalizing a handful of banks. Meanwhile, Canada, whose banking system had long been notorious for its stodgy practices and government coddling, is now being celebrated for those very qualities.

The Canadian banking system, which proved resilient in the global economic crisis, is finally getting its day in the sun. A recent World Economic Forum report ranked it the soundest in the world, mostly as the result of its conservative practices. (The United States ranked 40th).

President Obama has joined the adoring throng. He recently said that Canada has “shown itself to be a pretty good manager of the financial system in the economy in ways that we haven’t always been here in the United States.” Paul Volcker, former chief of the United States Federal Reserve, commented that what he’s arguing for “looks more like the Canadian system than the American system.”

Most people don’t know that the vision behind Canada’s banking system, made up of a few large, national banks with branches from coast to coast, actually had its beginnings in the United States. Canada’s system is the product of a banking framework inspired by Alexander Hamilton, the first American secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton envisioned the First Bank of the United States, chartered in 1791, as a central bank modeled on the Bank of England.

Canadians found inspiration in Hamilton’s model, but not all Americans did. In the 1830s, President Andrew Jackson opposed extending the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, perceiving it as monopolistic. Money-lending functions were then assumed by local and state-chartered banks, eventually giving rise to the free-market, decentralized system that America has today.

Today, Canada’s system remains truer to Hamilton’s ideal. The five major chartered banks, the few regional banks and handful of large insurance companies are all regulated by the federal government. Canadian banks are relatively constrained in the amounts they can lend. Canadian banks are required to have a bigger cushion to absorb losses than American banks. In addition, Canadian government regulations protect the domestic banks by limiting foreign competition. They also keep banks broadly owned by public shareholders.

Since Canada’s financial services sector was deregulated in 1987, permitting the banks to buy brokerage houses, they have enjoyed vast earnings power because of their diverse businesses and operations. And in contrast to the recent shotgun marriages at bargain prices between ailing Wall Street brokerages and American banks, Canadian banks paid top dollar decades ago for profitable, blue-chip investment firms.

Canadian banks are known to be risk-averse, and this has served them well. While their American counterparts were loading up their books with risky mortgages, Canadian banks maintained their lending requirements, largely avoiding subprime mortgages. The buttoned-down banks in Canada also tended to keep these types of securities on their books, rather than packaging them and selling them to investors. This meant that the exposures they did have to weak mortgages were more visible to the marketplace.

The big five Canadian banks — Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and Bank of Montreal — survived the recent turmoil relatively unscathed. Their balance sheets remain intact and their capital ratios are comfortably above requirements. Yes, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government may buy as much as 125 billion Canadian dollars (about $100 billion) worth of mortgages, increasing banks’ capacity to lend. But this is small change compared with the scale of Washington’s bailout.

Few would have predicted that Canadian banks, long derided as among the least autonomous because of stringent government oversight, would emerge from the global mayhem as some of the more independent international players.

Since Mr. Obama seems to admire the Canadian banking system, his administration might want to take a page out of its playbook.

This would entail building a national banking system based on a small number of large, broadly held, centrally and rigorously regulated firms. Imitating the Canadian model would require sweeping consolidation of American banks. This would be a very good thing. Washington had difficulty figuring out the magnitude of the financial crisis because there are so many thousands of banks that it was impossible for regulators to get into all of them.

Washington is already on the path to achieving consolidation. Eventually, some of the larger banks into which the government is injecting taxpayer money will probably be deemed beyond help, and will either be allowed to die or be partnered with other banks. The market will take its cues from this stress-testing, and make its own bets on which banks will survive. It’s hard to predict how many will have survived when the dust settles, but the new landscape might consist of only 50 or 60 banking institutions. More radically, Washington could take over the licensing of banks from the states, or, at the very least, consider more stringent regulation of global and super-regional banks. After all, the Canadian system is considered successful not only because it has fewer banks to regulate, but because regulation is based on the tenets of safety and soundness.

There is no time to waste. Reconfiguring the American banking structure to look more like the Canadian model would help restore much-needed confidence in a beleaguered financial system. Why not emulate the best in the world, which happens to be right next door? At the very least, Hamilton would have approved.

Theresa Tedesco is the chief business correspondent for The National Post.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/opinion/28tedesco.html?em=&pagewanted=print

Sorry for the double posts, I'm doing this on a PSP.

Continuing: Where'd you get that money? Why'd you buy that gun? You
don't need to worry, we're the government, and we're here to help.

As soon as you release the genie that is government oversight, you don't get to put him back. This little game you're playing where the guy you support can do no wrong ends when you figure out that your guy's not gonna be there forever, and you realize that gubment will overreach every time.

It's why I totally support a woman's right to choose. (I am vehemantly pro choice re:abortion) As soon as you give the Gubmint the ability to say you can not have an abortion, they are given the ability to say you must have one as well! I'm sure we all agree that would be deplorable.

Be ever so careful exactly what you wish for, my statist friend, you may get it, and it's not what you wanted at all.

Truth wrote: Higher taxes for the rich. Are you rich turboguy? If not isnt it a good thing if your getting your taxes cut and the rich have to pay more?   Explain to me why youre opposed to that?

America is based on the notion that all of us start off equal and have equal access to the protection of the laws. What you do with that is up to you.

If the law says that everyone's taxes go up that would not be sound but it would be equal and fair. If the law says that everyone's taxes go down that would be both sound and fair. But when the law says that the taxes on one guy go up while the taxes on another guy go down I don't care what excuse is given it is not fair and it is not equal protection under the law.

"America is based on the notion that all of us start off equal and have equal access to the protection of the laws. What you do with that is up to you.If the law says that everyone's taxes go up that would not be sound but it would be equal and fair. If the law says that everyone's taxes go down that would be both sound and fair. But when the law says that the taxes on one guy go up while the taxes on another guy go down I don't care what excuse is given it is not fair and it is not equal protection under the law."

OMG, are you serious!    First of all the notion that we all have equal opportunities here or anywhere in the world is simply far from being true. I would hope that I wouldnt have to explain that to you. Does the minority who lives in the ghetto have the same opportunity as someone living on Park Avenue in a penthouse? Of course not. Are these bankers on Wall Street who have been stealing billions of dollars going to jail? No they arent. Is Madoff in jail? That man stole 50 billion dollars, but the man who shoplifts goes to jail as cant afford to have a high powered lawyer to protect him.

As for taxes , it makes sense that you are taxed somehow proportionatly to the amount you earn. I think that's totally fair. I think its based on fairness. By doing this you level out the playing field a small bit and raise the total earnings and expand the middle-class. The American dream is based off of the dream to be middle class. problem is the divide between the haves and the haves not's has greatly increased over the last 30-40 years, much of this has to do with also giving tax breaks to the rich.
In the case of Obama, he only taxing the 5% that make more than 250k a year.

Your *egalitarian* vision is quickly lost when you try to apply the same measures you do across the boards of the social strata. True egalitarianism would be an attempt to bridge classes not to further increase its disparity.

Hey ABC, this is the general discussion forum, politics is legal.

Truth, if everyone were taxed 10% of their income the rich would still be paying more, right? Is that wrong?

the problem with your views is why the hell would anyone work extra hard when there will be no reward for their efforts? All your ideas will do is wreck investment, and ruin both productivity and work ethic.

Your ideas of "fairness" would put everyone equally in the poorhouse. Think up something that might work in reality...

Truth, the founding fathers are spinning in their graves at the thought of the government taking money disproportionally from one citizen to either give to another or to bring their income down so you feel that it's fair. If you want socialism/communism so bad, why don't you head on over to Russia or China? That way I don't have to worry about you inflicting your statist fascism on freedom loving Americans.

You know that the Forefathers fought a war specifically against what you're advocating, right?

And on your last paragraph: So your solution is... Tax them to the point they can't afford to hire anyone, thus creating more people that are totally dependant on the government, at equal scarcity, so you feel better. Good thinking!

Why don't we just nationalize everything and all work for the gubmint! That worked so well for the USSR.

Your problem is that you're just not happy unless your views are being inflicted on others. I say leave people alone, they know whats better for them more than you do.

Truth wrote: OMG, are you serious!    First of all the notion that we all have equal opportunities here or anywhere in the world is simply far from being true. I would hope that I wouldnt have to explain that to you. Does the minority who lives in the ghetto have the same opportunity as someone living on Park Avenue in a penthouse? Of course not. Are these bankers on Wall Street who have been stealing billions of dollars going to jail? No they arent. Is Madoff in jail? That man stole 50 billion dollars, but the man who shoplifts goes to jail as cant afford to have a high powered lawyer to protect him.

In every single instance in which the laws are not applied with justice we should do everything we can to stop the injustice. That is the role of government. Are the poor abused? Then use the laws to stop that. Are the rich doing the abusing? Then use the laws to stop that. But most rich people are just as honest as the rest of us. When they have done nothing wrong it is an injustice to treat them any differently than the rest of us. Taxing them higher because you assume there is some injustice deprives them of the right to a fair trial.

Truth wrote: As for taxes , it makes sense that you are taxed somehow proportionatly to the amount you earn. I think that's totally fair. I think its based on fairness. By doing this you level out the playing field a small bit and raise the total earnings and expand the middle-class. The American dream is based off of the dream to be middle class. problem is the divide between the haves and the haves not's has greatly increased over the last 30-40 years, much of this has to do with also giving tax breaks to the rich. In the case of Obama, he only taxing the 5% that make more than 250k a year.

I am all for taxing people proportionally. The same percent of everyone's income should be taken. Obama wants to take an unproportional percent of everyones tax - some pay nothing while others pay much much more. It is immoral.

One man works one job for forty hours a week and he earns maybe $200,000. Another guy works a job and a half and earns $300,000. Why should he pay a higher rate? He has done no wrong. All he has done is work harder. If you can show that he has done wrong then by all means bring the full weight of the law against him. If you canot show that then it is an unjust application of the law to treat him differently. His civil rights are being violated.

Truth wrote: Your *egalitarian* vision is quickly lost when you try to apply the same measures you do across the boards of the social strata. True egalitarianism would be an attempt to bridge classes not to further increase its disparity.

The disparity in our country is the result of large numbers of middle class people moving into the upper class. This is a sign of prosperity. If we could keep doing what caused this then we would see the lower middle class move up and then we would see the lower class move up. This is what we want to see. This is the briding of classes. The wrong solution is to move the upper class into the middle class.

It is a strawman, but an applicable one because it's the end result of what you're advocating.

Yes I know the difference. The problem for your argument is that anyone can still get ahead.

You don't get to start at the top. The ceo of Mcdonalds started off flipping burgers and Gates started off in a garage. Build a better mousetrap and penalizing people for a good idea is a recipe for a stagnation of ideas.

If Gates had thought that his good idea wouldn't make him money would he have started Microsoft?

Turboguy wrote: I too agree with the murder law, however, murder is "Mala en se." Murder violates the rights of another. There is a method to my madness.

My personal madness is just that if you are alive and you are human you here should have the same rights as the rest of us here. Call me crazy.

"It is a strawman, but an applicable one because it's the end result of what you're advocating."

That doesnt even make sense.


As for the rest of your argument I have this to say; Look, i'm not advocating pure socialism, but I like the idea of social/democracy like these other countries have. I think you do need to level the playing field to keep greed in check and create opportunities for those who dont have as much access to them.

At the end of the day we are talking about tax cuts and find it strange and ironic that you are protesting tax cuts for 95% of americans,in which your included.

And no one is"penalizing people for a good idea" its a continuation of your stawman argument. Your arguing points that I havent even made much less defended, by putting words in my mouth.

Turboguy wrote: I see where you're going with that, Doc, and though I understand your position, I fear the .GOV far overreaching their bounds on that issue, and would rather err on the side of restraint of government. Thus far I like your madness. There is reason to it.

If every state made their own laws regarding this and that then it becomes unlikely that the abuses could ever be as sweeping. The fed is too strong. Hence the backlash we have recently seen in several states that are attempting to wrest control of their own state back from the feds.

Dr. Who,     so you find * luxury taxes * unconstitutional?

Truth wrote: Dr. Who,     so you find * luxury taxes * unconstitutional?

The state congress can tax any item they want to.

When they do it for the purpose of altering the fabric of society, yes, I find that to be unconsitutional.

If they want to tax cigarettes because they need income to do what they are authorized to do that is fine. If they tax cigarettes because cigarettes are harmfull to the population at large that is fine. when they tax cigarettes because they are dirty or to protect the health of the smoker or just because they are a vice, then that is no better than a blue law*.

A blue law is a law designed to make it hard to conduct business on Sundays so that people will go to church.

Government has no business legislating for the purpose of changing or promoting the values we hold dear.  What one finds to be a virtue is between him and his conscience.

When one person hurts another that is the business of gov.

The writer of our constitution said:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 2:221