Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jindal, lawmakers push for Stelly tax elimination
neworleanscitybusiness ^ | 05/14/08 | neworleanscitybusiness

Posted on 05/14/2008 11:09:56 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3

BATON ROUGE - Income tax bracket changes under the Stelly Plan approved by voters in 2002 would go away in 2009 under a bill pushed by Gov. Bobby Jindal and some state lawmakers.

Today, Jindal was joined by Senate President Joel Chaisson, Speaker of the House Jim Tucker, Rep. Hunter Greene and Sens. Rob Marionneaux and Buddy Shaw in calling for the elimination of the bracket changes, a move they said will give taxpayers savings in their paychecks at the first of next year.

“This is another historic day for Louisiana," Jindal said. "For years, taxpayers all over our state have been demanding that we get rid of the Stelly tax increase. Today, the leadership you see here is on track to do just that. If the members of the House and Senate join us, this will be our sixth tax cut in four months."

Shaw, R-Shreveport, authored the bill, Senate Bill 87. The Jindal administration initially opposed the $300 million tax break that would have taken effect this year. But Jindal and lawmakers have reached a compromise: The income tax break would take effect next year.

The Stelly Plan changed the tax rate for income between $25,000 and $50,000 to 6 percent. The bill would lower the rate to the pre-Stelly 4 percent rate.

"This is real tax relief that working Louisianans will notice in their paychecks starting January 2009," Jindal said. "The elimination of the Stelly tax increase means over $300 million dollars in lower taxes next year – more than a billion dollars in tax relief over the next five years - and more money in the hands of families who will do a better job spending their money than the government would. This is another example of just how much you can get done if you don't care who gets the credit.”•


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: jindal; louisiana; taxcut

1 posted on 05/14/2008 11:09:58 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: abb

Care to reconsider?


2 posted on 05/14/2008 11:15:48 AM PDT by Norman Bates (Freepmail me to be part of the McCain List!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3
""This is real tax relief that working Louisianans will notice in their paychecks starting January 2009," Jindal said."

As opposed to those worthless layabouts making over $50,000 per year?

3 posted on 05/14/2008 11:23:40 AM PDT by Redbob (WWJBD - "What Would Jack Bauer Do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

Will sales taxes on groceries go back up again?


4 posted on 05/14/2008 11:38:40 AM PDT by rock_lobsta (Not Your Ordinary Crustacean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates

I’m sure abb is pining for the good-old days of the Blanco administration.


5 posted on 05/14/2008 12:51:39 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Bipartisanship: Two wolves and the American people deciding what's for dinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates

Jindal had this crammed down his throat. He had no choice. You would know this had you followed the debate.


6 posted on 05/14/2008 2:42:23 PM PDT by abb (Organized Journalism: Marxist-style collectivism applied to information sharing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

http://jeffsadow.blogspot.com/

14.5.08
Jindal finally on board tax cut train, but paid high fare

Finally, almost a month later, Gov. Bobby Jindal finally jumped on the train spawned by state Sen. Buddy Shaw’s SB 87 which would provide a tax cut for middle-class households to the tune of $302 million a year. The wonder is why he didn’t leap early into the engine cab rather than catch onto the caboose, and what prompted him to do so?

Despite information showing excess state funds beyond what Jindal’s 2008-09 budget had anticipated, despite the House cutting spending that would have partially offset the “cost” of the cut, despite legislative criticism of some of Jindal’s spending plans, the most Jindal ever committed to on this bill was after initial opposition he agreed he would sign in it if commensurate cuts were made. Meanwhile, others perceived that in allowing a poison pill amendment that altered the bill to make it wipe out individual, estate, and trust income taxes over 10 years that would give Jindal an excuse not to sign it, Jindal really wanted to kill it.

This line of behavior, given Jindal’s stated desire to reduce the size of government and his goal of reducing or eliminating income taxes in the future, could lead only to two assumptions about Jindal’s thinking on the matter. One was Jindal had very serious concerns about looming budget deficits and the use of “one-time” money (generated from non-recurring sources like federal grants, even if they would be considered “recurring” under the state’s definition for budgeting purposes) to fund recurring commitments and even given his enthusiasm for tax relief he felt he simply could not do it.

However, Jindal never tried to make a public case to justify his opposition on these grounds, which either was a sign of poor political skill or implied the other potential motive, that Jindal really didn’t care about delivering tax cuts when he had a decent chance to do so. Whatever the reason, Jindal today announced his support for the original bill with only one change, beginning implementation in tax/budget year 2009 rather than 2008.

What changed Jindal’s mind? Was it irreversible momentum that made him go against his better judgment about the budget and/or skepticism about tax cuts? Did further review satisfy him that a 2009 start would not be imperiling state finances? Or was there some kind of deal made? (Maybe some of all of the above?)

If a deal is involved with the House and/or Senate, likely it would involve either or both of two things. One is with the issue of earmarks slipped into the state’s operating budget that Jindal promised to review very stringently, the other is legislator pay raises to among the highest in the nation and the highest in the South despite this being a part-time job in a state that underperforms in almost every way, which one might presume Jindal would oppose on the principle of smaller government.

The House and Senate may have threatened Jindal to send the amended bill through and dare him to veto it unless they got these kinds of concessions. If they did and Jindal blinked, in a few weeks he unenthusiastically will pursue these ends. Thus the people would suffer unwise spending if so in addition to Jindal’s squandering of political capital. But if he shows zeal with his veto pen, nothing may have been brokered.

Regardless, Jindal took a big hit to his reputation on his issue. In order for him to reassure a number of conservatives and reformers that heretofore have supported him, in the future he may have to be act more boldly more quickly than he had planned on their agendas.

posted by Jeff Sadow | 5/14/2008 03:15:00 PM


7 posted on 05/14/2008 4:19:34 PM PDT by abb (Organized Journalism: Marxist-style collectivism applied to information sharing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson