Left whips up fear in attempt to scuttle revamp

Attempts to derail Amendment 2 on Louisiana’s March 29 ballot come in two types: as previously mentioned a disingenuous legal strategy, but also a more principled opposition yet which fails on the merits – where the former tries to scare the latter into agreement.

One dubious approach tries to have the entire measure thrown off the ballot for alleged infractions. Soon to be put to the test in court, those behind it as well as supporters of the effort inhabit the political left which wants to see the measure fail by any means possible as it offends their ideological sensibilities; i.e. it makes expansive government for redistributive purposes more difficult by, in the main, granting income tax relief to middle-class filers and above and makes it easier to cut out favoritism in the tax code.

However, another more thoughtful tack against focuses on the amendment’s paring of tax exceptions in the Constitution. The thinking is not only would this make for a less-unwieldy document but also create greater flexibility to change out of items that may have protection today which in the future may be determined to make less sense as exceptions and then can be altered or abandoned more easily.

Vote affirmative on consequential LA amendments

All four, including the most consequential in decades, amendments to the Louisiana Constitution on the Mar. 29 ballot deserve voter approval. Let’s see why.

#1 – would clarify disciplining of out-of-state lawyers and creation of multi-parish specialty courts. Essentially, a loophole exists that inhibits disciplining this cohort for some matters, which the change would close. Specialty courts, existing presently in areas such as drug cases, family matters, and for veterans, are confined to the 64 parishes or 42 judicial districts. Proponents say a regional approach could help in matters such as these and for potentially new kinds of courts, such as a business court seen in the majority of states. This would have the disadvantage of adding more elected judges in a state that seats a surplus of judges, but on the whole there are more plusses than minuses. YES.

#2 – would reduce the maximum rate of income tax, double income tax deductions for residents age 65 or older, slow down a governmental growth limit, merge significant constitutional funds while moving lesser ones into statute, give parishes more severance tax dollars, provide incentive to prevent state taxpayers from subsidizing local taxpayers, move some tax breaks into statute, and prompt a salary increase for teachers while paring unfunded mandates, among other items. Lengthy and complex, it serves as the linchpin to fiscal reforms enacted by the Legislature last year.