As midterms descend upon the University like a crow to the carrion, students are beginning to show serious signs of stress.
The tension is palpable everywhere on campus. Strange classmates previously unseen in class are arriving in droves to salvage their hampered GPAs, and beer-drinking bar hounds are turning to coffee and slaving away their midnights at the library.
But just a few blocks north of campus, the state’s most prominent official is, as per usual, not on the same page with his constituents.
In fact, Gov. Bobby Jindal has already received his grades for his term in office, and while the rest of us sweat it out for another week, Jindal  looks out at the Mississippi River from his office with a calm smile.
In case you missed it, Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the conservative Cato Institute, published his “Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors: 2010” last week.
Each governor, with the five shortest-tenured excepted, was graded on his or her “fiscal performance from a limited government perspective.”  The governors who scored highest were “those who have supported the largest tax and spending cuts” between 2008 and 2010.
Of those assessed, Jindal placed second and was one of four to receive an A. The only other governors to receive A’s were Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
Yet something strikes me about this report — aside from how completely trivial and biased it is.
Fiscal policy should not be graded by means of simple tax reduction and budget cutting criteria.
It’s like dating a girl with nice lips even though she has no teeth. You’re acknowledging an important facet but missing the bigger picture.
Overlooking important bases of judgment for governing can come back to bite you.
Let’s look at it in context. Sanford graded out with the highest score because of his knack for lowering taxes as well as attempts to implement legal limits for state budgets.
But this columnist wonders if Sanford was thinking about his spending policy when he used public money to visit a South American mistress in 2008.
Ad hominem attacks aside, however relevant they may be, it’s not like South Carolina is some booming haven for businesses.
Sanford presides over the 44th-ranked economy in the country, according to a recent report by “The Atlantic,” yet receives top scores for his governing policies on finance.
Perhaps because Louisiana is the next worse economy, Jindal fails to capture top honors. Manchin isn’t doing much better in West Virginia, whose economy ranks 38th in the nation.
Only Pawlenty seems a reasonable selection, as Minnesota is the fifth-best economy in the country, due in great part to the government’s use of funds from the recovery bill to restore 200,000 jobs lost during the recession.
Meanwhile, Jindal spurned $98 million from the stimulus act last year — a sum which state education officials wouldn’t mind getting a piece of these days.
But consider this: Jindal is receiving high marks from Cato, an unabashed conservative policy group. While the state suffers in a slumping economy, Jindal grades high with conservative think-tanks because of his limited-government approach.
So while the state suffers, the governor’s reputation is only enhanced.
With this in mind, I’m forced to ask the questions many have considered but have not voiced publically.
Where do Jindal’s loyalties lie?
Is he making decisions based not on what’s best for his political career  rather than what’s best for the state?
As he looks out from his office in the Capitol, is he seeing the trouble in which his state is mired?
Or is he imagining what it would be like to look out of his office one day and see not the Mississippi River, but the Potomac instead?
I’m not sure — I just hope the questions on my midterms will be easier to answer.
Cody Worsham is a 21-year-old mass communication senior from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_Cworsham.
—-
Contact Cody Worsham at [email protected]