Posted on 04/23/2008 5:12:30 PM PDT by abb
BATON ROUGE, La. -- The Senate's tax committee on Monday approved a big income-tax break, despite objections from Gov. Bobby Jindal's administration that the state can't afford the $302 million loss of revenue.
The bill by Sen. Buddy Shaw would restore tax brackets that were changed as part of the so-called "Stelly plan" approved by voters in 2002. Under the bill, people who make between $12,500 and $50,000 would move from the 6 percent tax bracket down to the 4 percent bracket.
Shaw said he filed the measure because he received so many complaints from voters about paying bigger tax bills after the Stelly plan went into effect in 2003.
"The thing that I heard more than anything else ... was what the Stelly tax had done to them, that it really was a terrible thing for them," said Shaw, R-Shreveport.
The committee voted to send the measure to the Senate floor despite warnings from a Jindal budget adviser that the state can't afford to lose the roughly $302 million in revenue in the 2008-09 fiscal year, followed by amounts between $250 million and $300 million the next few years. Over five years, the state would lose a total of $1.39 billion in revenue, according to estimates from the Legislative Fiscal Office.
"This one is just out of the range of anything we could possibly handle," said John Carpenter, of the governor's budget office.
Shaw's bill is lawmakers' latest attempt to reverse all or part of the Stelly plan, which was aimed at reducing the tax burden on lower-income taxpayers and raising it on higher-income taxpayers. The constitutional amendment was named after its chief backer, former Rep. Vic Stelly, R-Lake Charles.
I wish you luck with that!
Have no fear - with SB543 the legislature has exempted themselves from most criminal, civil and administrative court suits.
This legislation allows a mandatory 60 court delay for any lawsuit past any legislative session (current law) and after any standing committee hearing (extension of current law).
So our fat cat Senators who control their own calendar can essentially delay any lawsuit while they are in office.
That is the REAL story on the ethics reforms.
I’m sixth generation Louisianan - I know how it works here. Jindal’s not the real deal and I’m greatly disappointed.
Stelly was my rep when I lived in Moss Bluff. There were a number of people in my community that would have loved to punch Vic Stelly square in the nose.
Sorry.
I always try to be optimistic.
I am 8th generation Bahstonian. Life sucks surrounded by retards.
At my age. I am starting to relinquish. Give up, Move out and leave it to the next generation.
Nobody seems to “get it”.
LA has the most public employees of any state in the union. Look around and you wonder what they are all doing.
Well, so much for Jindal. Turns out he’s a phoney.
From what I have seen, he is very smart and very accomplished for such a young age; IMHO, the MSM is itching to take him down - let's not do their dirty work.
http://www.rogersrants.com/blog/default.aspx?id=183&t=Jindal-Must-Act-on-Stelly-Tax-Bill
The Editorial Page of THEDEADPELICAN.COM
Home • Account • Search
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Jindal Must Act on Stelly Tax Bill
A bit of unpleasant news via the AP:
The Senate’s tax committee on Monday approved a big income-tax break, despite objections from Gov. Bobby Jindal’s administration that the state can’t afford the $302 million loss of revenue.
The bill by Sen. Buddy Shaw would restore tax brackets that were changed as part of the so-called “Stelly plan” approved by voters in 2002. Under the bill, people who make between $12,500 and $50,000 would move from the 6 percent tax bracket down to the 4 percent bracket.
Jindal has often been criticized for his approach to ethics: he says one thing, and does another. I’ve never been one to criticize on such a basis.
Being inconsistent is one thing.
But acting in ways that clearly and unambiguously parrot BOTH former governors Kathleen Blanco and Mike Foster are a problem for this writer.
Former Governor Mike Foster is responsible for the onerous Stelly tax plan. As the above article suggests, it raised income taxes on the middle class. Former Governor Kathleen Blanco had opportunities to roll it back, but didn’t in any meaningful way.
The problem with the tax has been repeatedly pointed out by CONSERVATIVES. Many folks voted for Governor Jindal operating under the assumption that he was, in fact, conservative.
In fact it was a conservative group called the Louisiana Family Forum that did a study on the Stelly Tax Plan, in which they pointed out the host of problems the plan did for working families (see it here).
We’ve been listening to Rush Limbaugh tell us who live down here that Jindal is the next Ronald Reagan.
DUMB QUESTION: What is exactly is Reaganesque about not cutting taxes aimed at the middle class? What’s Reaganesque about objecting to tax cuts because “the state” can’t afford it? Such an attitude could be perceived as “statist,” which again, doesn’t fit my idea of what they call “Reagan conservatism.”
The good news is that Mr. Jindal has chance to make things right.
But if he fails to act, it will not be forgotten and he will not likely be able to live it down.
—Chad E. Rogers
Can you explain more? And can you explain why you think your initial statement needed no explanation?
“He took over in January, and they have already had 3 legislative sessions?”
That was my reaction too! He’s been less than 6 months on the job.
Let him know he needs to support lower taxes and keep his promise.
What a shame - I had hopes for Jindal. Not anymore.
Update on SB 87.
Yesterday, State Sen. Joe McPherson, (D-Woodworth) was on Moon Griffon’s Louisiana’s statewide talk radio show. His estimation is that this bill will pass overwhelmingly.
The thinking is if it gets out of the Senate, then it will also pass the house.
We think Jindall has seen the handwriting on the wall and will now have to figure a way to get out in front of train, or he will be run over. It was disappointing to see him oppose these tax cuts for the taxpayers of Louisiana. Perhaps he will learn a lesson here.
Further updates as events unfold.
Of note.
http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=8229721
Word changes could affect ethics reform
Posted: April 25, 2008 06:35 PM
Updated: April 25, 2008 08:52 PM
BATON ROUGE, LA (WAFB) - A few key words passed by the legislature could pull the rug out from under Governor Jindal’s most important accomplishment - ethics reform. Legislators changed the standard of evidence needed to find someone unethical from “reliable, substantial” to “clear and convincing.” So, what does that mean?
The change from just “reliable and substantial” evidence needed to “clear and convincing” could mean fewer people get punished for breaking state ethics laws. So, what does Governor Jindal think of all this? We had trouble getting answers. Governor Bobby Jindal’s press secretary, Melissa Sellers, would not let us speak to the governor Friday for answers to our questions about ethics reform. The governor received the Golden Mic award from the Louisiana Association of Broadcasters, which is where 9NEWS tried to get comments from him. He’s been called Louisiana’s golden boy and he says he set the gold standard for ethics reform. “I think the legislature and the media got tired of me saying “gold standard,” but it was important we did indeed set that gold standard.”
However, political analyst Jim Engster says if Jindal does not speak up and help fix this crucial ethics standard of evidence change, his golden status could melt away. “Many would think it’s much easier to convict somebody of ethics charges under the old standard, so instead of the gold standard, we may have something less than that,” Engster says. He says starting August 15th, Louisiana’s ethics laws could actually get weaker, instead of stronger. The state’s legal standard for finding someone unethical would change from reliable, substantial evidence needed to “clear and convincing” unless legislators make an amendment this session. “There isn’t a lot of time to address this and the governor could make it happen in a hurry if he wants to,” Engster says.
As far as answering questions about if and when he’ll do that, Governor Jindal is not talking. His press secretary told us the governor was not doing interviews and closed the door behind them. “This governor likes to control the message, address large groups, talking about what he wants to talk about and going on shows like Jay Leno will give him a national forum and knows will get softballs rather than confronting legitimate issues of government, but sooner or later, he has to answer questions of ‘clear and convincing,’” says Engster.
Governor Jindal plans to appear on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno next week. He has until June 23rd to change the wording of his ethics laws and protect the integrity of the ethics special session he fought so hard to bring about.
Reporter: Caroline Moses, WAFB 9NEWS
Publication:American Press; Date:Apr 27, 2008; Section:Obituaries; Page Number:A3
Jim Beam
Stelly Plan reversal up for vote
Columnist
The income tax increases brought about by the Stelly Plan that voters approved in 2002 could be wiped off the books if a bill up for Senate debate Tuesday makes it all the way through the legislative process.
CPAs will tell you anytime someone owes additional state income taxes he is quick to blame the Stelly Plan that swapped higher income taxes for elimination of state sales taxes on food and utilities.
Former Rep. Vic Stelly’s goal was to eliminate the annual bartering that took place when legislators were asked to renew those terrible sales taxes on necessities. The taxes had been on the books since 1986. Renewing them every year or two was costing from $30 million to $40 million in favors for legislators’ votes.
Voters approved a constitutional amendment eliminating those sales taxes by a 51-to-49 percent margin. The plan cut the 3.9 percent sales tax on food and utilities to 2 percent on Jan. 1, 2003, and the last two pennies were removed July 1, 2003.
The food and utility sales taxes can’t go on the books again without approval of another amendment by the voters, and that isn’t likely to happen.
Brackets changed
Companion legislation in 2002 changed the state’s income tax brackets and took away 50 percent of the deductions allowed on state returns for excess federal itemized deductions. Lawmakers had already taken away the other 50 percent of those deductions.
The extra revenues were needed to offset the nearly $400 million the state lost in sales tax revenue. Most taxpayers have forgotten about that $400 million benefit but continue to gripe about the income tax increases.
Last year, the Legislature restored the ability to deduct 57.5 percent of those excess federal itemized deductions on state income tax forms. That jumps to 65 percent this year and to 100 percent in 2009.
Stelly said at the time he put the income tax changes in law instead of the constitution so the brackets could be changed in the future if the state’s financial condition improved. With billions of dollars in surpluses, the state has apparently reached that point.
Sen. Buddy Shaw, R-Shreveport, is sponsor of Senate Bill 87 that would return state income tax brackets to pre-Stelly levels. His legislation will cost the state about $300 million annually and $1.4 billion over the next five years. It got a 6-3 favorable vote in committee.
The Senate has made Shaw’s measure special order of the day for debate on Tuesday. If passed, it would move to the House.
Under the Stelly Plan, single income tax filers pay 2 percent on their net income up to $12,500, 4 percent on income from $12,500 to $25,000 and 6 percent on income over $25,000.
Shaw’s legislation wouldn’t change the 2 percent tax bracket, but would have individuals pay 4 percent on income from $12,501 to $50,000 and 6 percent on income over $50,000.
The income brackets for joint filers would be double those for single filers.
Estimates are that single filers would receive a maximum annual benefit of $500. Joint filers would save $1,000.
You would think passage of SB 87 would be easy in light of the surpluses that have been surfacing lately. However, a budget adviser for Gov. Bobby Jindal said the state can’t afford the annual $300 million cost of the proposed tax break.
“This one is just out of the range of anything we could possibly handle,” said John Carpenter.
If sentiments of some legislators prevail, Jindal’s forces are going to have a difficult time derailing Shaw’s bill. Here is what lawmakers have said about other tax cut ideas:
“We’ve spent $2 billion in surpluses during the past two years, and not one penny has gone back to the taxpayer,” said Sen. Mike Walsworth, R-West Monroe.
Walsworth and others want to make it constitutional to give taxpayers some of that surplus money.
Rep. Joel Robideaux, I-Lafayette, said, “We’ve spent $1 billion here and $1 billion there. Any additional money in this upcoming Revenue Estimating Conference should be returned to the people. After all, it is their money.”
Why, then, is there a problem?
Jindal’s allies in the House are already asking the governor’s staff to cut the proposed state budget by 5 percent because it contains too much one-time money for annual expenses.
Rep. Jim Fannin, D-Jonesboro, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said too many costs that have to be paid year after year will put the state in a bind if the financial picture doesn’t continue to improve.
Agency heads are already complaining about the suggested 5 percent cuts. Another $300 million annual loss from the Shaw bill could send some of them into orbit.
How about taxpayers?
Be that as it may, it’s going to be difficult to leave taxpayers out in the cold when the state is swimming in extra billions.
Legislators always manage to find money to increase the pay of public officials, to keep raising supplemental pay for first responders, to give sheriffs more money for their operations and to spend millions on state and local projects of a questionable nature.
Maybe the good times won’t keep rolling. However, this may the state’s best opportunity for legislators to gamble there will be enough surplus money in the years to come to sustain this proposed income tax break.
The Stelly Plan has taken a lot of heat since 2002, but it achieved its goal of taking a burden off the backs of our poorest citizens. It was the right thing to do at that time, and changing it now could also be the right thing to do.
Jim Beam, the retired editor of the American Press, has covered people and politics for more than four decades. Contact him at 494-4025 or jbeam@americanpress.com. For an autographed copy of “Positively Beaming,” a hard-bound book of favorite Jim Beam columns, call 494-4051.
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-28/1209273602102150.xml&coll=1
Ethics changes called into question
Some say standard of proof is too high
Sunday, April 27, 2008
By Robert Travis Scott
BATON ROUGE — The president of a government monitoring group said Friday he was concerned about a new, elevated standard for judging violations of ethics laws that some say could hamper the state’s ethics enforcement system.
Speaking at his group’s annual meeting in Baton Rouge, Jim Brandt of the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana said his nonpartisan organization was examining the potential impact of a change in the ethics adjudication process made during the special legislative session in February.
Brandt’s focus on the issue highlights a controversy that has arisen since the session, which was called by Gov. Bobby Jindal to implement a new regime of ethics laws.
The administrator of the Board of Ethics has said the change will make the state ethics code practically unenforceable, while the senator who made the change to a key piece of legislation said the ethics board had been operating under a legally incorrect standard for judging cases and a fix was needed.
Act 23 of the special session creates a new system for trying ethics cases by putting state administrative law judges in the adjudicatory role in place of the ethics board. The ethics agency will act as the investigator and prosecutor, but will no longer act as judge in ethics trials when the law takes effect Aug. 15.
snip
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.