As the 2015 regular
session lumbers closer towards its close, at first glance a great collision
seems in the offing. In order to manufacture a balanced budget as required
constitutionally, Jindal has said he will accept no tax increases without
offsets of these, while the Legislature has insisted on building a budget
dependent upon several such hikes that don’t appear to have enough commensurate
tax cuts elsewhere. Thus, it looks as if the grand
bargain would not materialize and one faction would have to overpower
politically the other in order to stave off large spending reductions that
no one, for no well-defined reason, seems to want.
But taking
another glance, perhaps maybe things aren’t so conflicted. It turns out
that the Jindal Administration generously defines, and appropriately as it
imposed the condition in the first place, the idea of an “offset” as a
multi-year concept. Secretary of Revenue Tim Barfield has stated that the period
in question constitutes not a single year, but five years. Thus, a
measure that raises taxes immediately, such as HCR 8
that would suspend into Aug., 2016 business utility sales tax exemptions partially
to the tune of $103 million in additional revenue, could be offset and then
some by the impact of HB 828,
which erases the corporate franchise tax over five years that by then would
grow to a forecast
$912.5 million, even though the next year’s forgone revenue totals only
$36.5 million.