It’s not as thick as with their East Baton Rouge counterparts, but nevertheless an air of unreality lies about the Caddo Parish School Board, unwilling or unable to understand that some major changes are coming to education in the parish because it couldn’t cut it.
Last year, the state could have taken over Bethune Middle School but chose instead to place special conditions on its operation. Another 10 schools in the parish, about 14 percent of the parish’s schools, this year were eligible for takeover of which the state’s Board of Elementary and Secondary Education opted to take two and allow the other eight the potential to be operated like Bethune. The two, Linwood and Linear, scored above 50 only twice since the accountability rating system was implemented in 2002-03. In other words, many years of warnings and possibility of the Caddo Parish School District to change the situation have gone by.
Yet now that the state finally is intervening, from the rhetoric coming from some policy-makers in the district it seems only now do they seem to realize the implications – among those who aren’t living in a state of denial over where things are and how they got to this point. Whining has emanated from several board members about how the state gets to dictate certain expenditures and reimbursements regarding the eight schools, including extra costs associated with improvement plans and their monitoring coming out of Caddo’s coffers.
The district also clings to the fiction that the so-called “Caddo Plan” will be the basis of improvement plans for the schools and that the state should pony up for its additional expenditures. As noted previously, the idea calling for academic-themed schools, an opportunity to change personnel among schools, and increased technology expenditures only tangentially addresses the real problems hampering achievement at these schools and stands little chance of making any substantive improvement. In any event, the strictures of the memorandums of understanding the state has presented to the District indicate major modifications of the plan would be needed for it to be accepted by the state.
And even if some portion of the plan does get adopted, Caddo will have to pay for it. Even as school board members moan and complain about being on the hook for costs, the state showed it did not let go by the fact that the district (by 2007) had a general fund surplus of over $46 million, about a tenth of its yearly spending, in its general fund, and total fund balances of almost $115 million. These balances make the state’s question about why wasn’t money spent years ago to intervene in these schools pertinent, its implication that Caddo can pay the estimated $11 million this year for changes salient, and the excuse given by the District that it needed cash on hand for contingencies questionable.
It’s quite clear from some of the comments coming from some Board members that not only do they not get it, but that the attitudes behind these comments demonstrate why the District has been unable to improve these failing schools. District 12 member Dottie Bell screeches about how the state shouldn’t come in and tell “us how we're going to spend our money.” It’s lamentable that even after a few years on the board (and many as a teacher) that Bell doesn’t yet understand that the vast majority of operating funds of Caddo schools come from the state. And it’s never been the district’s or her money to spend, it’s been mostly state taxpayers’.
And District 2 member Eursula Hardy put money before children when she publicly stated that parents should not enroll their children in the new Linwood or Linear not because they are failing schools, but because Caddo would lose money to the Recovery School District as a result. It is these attitudes reminiscent of children playing with toys and refusing to share with others instead of focusing what’s best for children that has gotten education at the schools into its sorry situation.
No doubt unfortunate domestic situations make it tougher to educate effectively, that there are too many incompetent in knowledge and/or methods in these schools, and too many incapable administrators are in place in them, but the fact is the buck stops with the Board. It, and it alone, ultimately is responsible for the quality of education in the district, and any member who throws up his hands and says some kind of extraneous condition made success impossible with these schools needs to tender his resignation now because why else serve in a job where you don’t think you can succeed?
Clearly, the Board has failed in this regard, and throwing a Hail Mary pass called the Caddo Plan doesn’t change this fact. Given its record of non-accomplishment with these schools, it is comical even to suggest that unfettered local governance could do a better job that what the state offers in these desperate situations. Its obstinacy to the change serves it poorly, and it needs to settle down, take its medicine, and with state guidance get on with finally doing its job right.
20.5.09
Senate Democrats face responsibility or politics choice
A stark choice presents itself to the Louisiana Senate – do what’s in the interests of the state, or do what scores Democrats political points.
With the escape of HB 841 in amended form from the House, the Senate now deals with it. The bill, which originally made uncontroversial changes to workers’ compensation law, had on the House floor gotten an amendment by the author state Rep. Avon Honey to permit the state to spend money on expanded unemployment benefits and coverage that would change the nature of the program from insurance to welfare, to tap into the federal spending bill’s permitting of this. The state could do so with the legal changes now part of the bill.
Inattentive opponents, mainly Republicans, let the amendment on without objection and then voted unanimously to pass it. This was a bigger hurdle than the Senate, as Republicans have a working majority in the House while Democrats have a nearly two-thirds advantage in the Senate. Its presiding officer, state Sen. Joel Chaisson, also identifies as a Democrat in contrast to the House Speaker Jim Tucker whose confusion on HB 841 let it go through.
There’s only one chance that the bill in the Senate has to survive both houses, and that is to make no changes at all to it. This is because anything that creates a different version would allow the House to change it back, or to sit on it and not let it proceed in the process. That may be too difficult for Chaisson to achieve if this is his intent. While he has a majority, there are enough Senate Democrats with quibbles over the bill as is that enough of them may not support it for different reasons to get it through.
But if it does somehow make it unaltered, then it would go to the governor, where it awaits a sure veto by Republican Governor Bobby Jindal who has vowed not to let such bad public policy become law. There is next to no chance two-thirds of the Senate would override the veto, and there is no way that could be obtained in the House. Simply, this bill is dead in amended form, and in fact to allow it to continue is self-defeating for its original purpose.
Therefore, the only reason Democrats would pursue this bill with that amendment attached would be to try to score political points by forcing Jindal into vetoing the bill. This is done on behest of the national party, which fears Jindal’s stature as a national politician and competitor to them, and could use this to claim Jindal was against (with rich irony considering the source) workers in the hopes of reducing him as a threat. State Democrats, who until Jindal’s rise historically have run their agenda down the state’s throat, also would like to weaken Jindal with this to strengthen their own hand.
So the question to Senate Democrats as a whole is whether they are more interested in the original intent of HB 841 making into law, or that they would rather irresponsibly waste time, effort, and taxpayers’ resources in trying to play politics. GOP House members already have suffered embarrassment on this. Do Democrats want to add Jindal to that list?
With the escape of HB 841 in amended form from the House, the Senate now deals with it. The bill, which originally made uncontroversial changes to workers’ compensation law, had on the House floor gotten an amendment by the author state Rep. Avon Honey to permit the state to spend money on expanded unemployment benefits and coverage that would change the nature of the program from insurance to welfare, to tap into the federal spending bill’s permitting of this. The state could do so with the legal changes now part of the bill.
Inattentive opponents, mainly Republicans, let the amendment on without objection and then voted unanimously to pass it. This was a bigger hurdle than the Senate, as Republicans have a working majority in the House while Democrats have a nearly two-thirds advantage in the Senate. Its presiding officer, state Sen. Joel Chaisson, also identifies as a Democrat in contrast to the House Speaker Jim Tucker whose confusion on HB 841 let it go through.
There’s only one chance that the bill in the Senate has to survive both houses, and that is to make no changes at all to it. This is because anything that creates a different version would allow the House to change it back, or to sit on it and not let it proceed in the process. That may be too difficult for Chaisson to achieve if this is his intent. While he has a majority, there are enough Senate Democrats with quibbles over the bill as is that enough of them may not support it for different reasons to get it through.
But if it does somehow make it unaltered, then it would go to the governor, where it awaits a sure veto by Republican Governor Bobby Jindal who has vowed not to let such bad public policy become law. There is next to no chance two-thirds of the Senate would override the veto, and there is no way that could be obtained in the House. Simply, this bill is dead in amended form, and in fact to allow it to continue is self-defeating for its original purpose.
Therefore, the only reason Democrats would pursue this bill with that amendment attached would be to try to score political points by forcing Jindal into vetoing the bill. This is done on behest of the national party, which fears Jindal’s stature as a national politician and competitor to them, and could use this to claim Jindal was against (with rich irony considering the source) workers in the hopes of reducing him as a threat. State Democrats, who until Jindal’s rise historically have run their agenda down the state’s throat, also would like to weaken Jindal with this to strengthen their own hand.
So the question to Senate Democrats as a whole is whether they are more interested in the original intent of HB 841 making into law, or that they would rather irresponsibly waste time, effort, and taxpayers’ resources in trying to play politics. GOP House members already have suffered embarrassment on this. Do Democrats want to add Jindal to that list?
19.5.09
Effect of bill sleight of hand only to cause embarrassment
Daydreaming Louisiana representatives suffered political embarrassment Monday afternoon when one of their colleagues put one over on them for a pyrrhic victory.
Of some controversy has been Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal’s refusal to accept money from the federal spending bill if the state would change its laws to expand the reach and definition of unemployment insurance. Democrats made noises about trying to pass legislation to force him to do so, but had those bills bottled up in committee – until now, when one sailed straight out of the House courtesy of many inattentive legislators who have argued in the past they needed substantial pay increases because they sacrificed so much for their legislative jobs.
State Rep. Avon Honey’s HB 841 seemed innocuous enough when it came out of the House Labor and Industrial Relations Committee he heads, dealing with workers’ compensation issues. But on the floor without any opponents realizing it, without opposition he amended onto it the substance of the bills that would force Jindal’s hand, and then got all 98 other members present to pass the bill. Only after did chastened opponents, mostly Republicans, figure this out and express indignation.
Honey, not known as a mover and shaker in the House, did slightly violate protocol in not bringing up the matter at all in his committee, but now only a major protocol violation can prevent the bill from causing a lot of extra work. A member of the voting majority – practically any member – could ask for bill reconsideration so the amendment could be undone and then it could be passed again to head over to the Senate, but reconsideration traditionally is considered the province of the author and is seldom used and just in the case of defeated bills. If there is no willingness to undertake this essentially unprecedented move, the Senate will have to strip the amendment, pass the bill, then send it back to the House which could concur.
In a way, the matter is self-defeating for Honey because the majority that opposes the sentiment of the amendment could choose to defeat it on return regardless of whether it is stripped. In fact, it might be a strategy that shamed opponents might consider to save face.
Caught napping as they were makes them look like either or both of they were not doing their jobs and/or supported those sentiments. For those whose constituents are not dead set against the expansion of welfare the amendment would provide, their Senate confederates could strip the provision, and then they could vote not to concur, making flowery speeches about how they were trying to help the less fortunate, etc. while making sure there are enough votes for concurrence. It could be a way to work against bad public policy but politically look like all those things the emotive, as opposed to thinking, voters look for: caring, compassionate, ad naseum, and make them look less like they were asleep at the switch.
The bill in its present form has no chance to become law, and the only long-term impact that may result of this incident is in a few years some opponents to the reelection of some of the surprised presumed detractors of the amendment will remind voters of the lack of quality of such an incumbent to fail to do their jobs to this extent. And the legislative hijinks continue.
Of some controversy has been Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal’s refusal to accept money from the federal spending bill if the state would change its laws to expand the reach and definition of unemployment insurance. Democrats made noises about trying to pass legislation to force him to do so, but had those bills bottled up in committee – until now, when one sailed straight out of the House courtesy of many inattentive legislators who have argued in the past they needed substantial pay increases because they sacrificed so much for their legislative jobs.
State Rep. Avon Honey’s HB 841 seemed innocuous enough when it came out of the House Labor and Industrial Relations Committee he heads, dealing with workers’ compensation issues. But on the floor without any opponents realizing it, without opposition he amended onto it the substance of the bills that would force Jindal’s hand, and then got all 98 other members present to pass the bill. Only after did chastened opponents, mostly Republicans, figure this out and express indignation.
Honey, not known as a mover and shaker in the House, did slightly violate protocol in not bringing up the matter at all in his committee, but now only a major protocol violation can prevent the bill from causing a lot of extra work. A member of the voting majority – practically any member – could ask for bill reconsideration so the amendment could be undone and then it could be passed again to head over to the Senate, but reconsideration traditionally is considered the province of the author and is seldom used and just in the case of defeated bills. If there is no willingness to undertake this essentially unprecedented move, the Senate will have to strip the amendment, pass the bill, then send it back to the House which could concur.
In a way, the matter is self-defeating for Honey because the majority that opposes the sentiment of the amendment could choose to defeat it on return regardless of whether it is stripped. In fact, it might be a strategy that shamed opponents might consider to save face.
Caught napping as they were makes them look like either or both of they were not doing their jobs and/or supported those sentiments. For those whose constituents are not dead set against the expansion of welfare the amendment would provide, their Senate confederates could strip the provision, and then they could vote not to concur, making flowery speeches about how they were trying to help the less fortunate, etc. while making sure there are enough votes for concurrence. It could be a way to work against bad public policy but politically look like all those things the emotive, as opposed to thinking, voters look for: caring, compassionate, ad naseum, and make them look less like they were asleep at the switch.
The bill in its present form has no chance to become law, and the only long-term impact that may result of this incident is in a few years some opponents to the reelection of some of the surprised presumed detractors of the amendment will remind voters of the lack of quality of such an incumbent to fail to do their jobs to this extent. And the legislative hijinks continue.
18.5.09
Political tantrum will not alter shape of LA budget
When analyzed particular in the light of recent history, the temporary defeat of HB 3 in the Louisiana House represents nothing more than a short-term lack of organization by legislative forces loyal to Gov. Bobby Jindal.
This bill, requiring a two-thirds majority of the seated membership for approval, enables debt to be incurred for capital spending projects of the capital outlay bill HB 2 (and any others that might come by if they are calculated into it). Until 2007 it typically was a formality that this would pass. But late that session, Republicans rallied by then-caucus leader state Rep. Jim Tucker defeated an attempt to pass a similar bill during a special session to spend a large surplus. Eventually, however, enough Republicans defected to let the bill through.
Almost two years later, now Speaker Tucker saw the same tactic used against his majority. Where the complaint two years past was against an operating budget viewed as too excessive, many of those in the Democrat majority then successfully deployed this last week against an operating budget they think is too small, while a few Republicans seemed perturbed at the actual distribution of capital outlay funds, dealing the Speaker’s forces a 62-24 setback.
While the shoe may be on the other foot for now, the situations are markedly different in cause and the result will end the same. Back then, only a few members missed the original vote and would not have made the difference. What made the difference eventually was enough Republicans (as their legislative histories showed, in name only) defected. This time, 19 absences of almost all supporters of the bill were the key. As long as Tucker has the foresight to make sure they are in the chamber at the appropriate time, there should be no problem here.
Tucker’s tactics in 2007 garnered some minor concessions because that peeled off enough defectors. Expect little in the way of these on this occasion, as the muscle is there to obviate their need. While those who have temporarily blockade the bill may make grandiose, if not wholly ignorant, statements about the governor running the state roughshod over the Legislature, the reality is they sadly are out of touch with the vast majority in the state, and other elected officials know it. This is why this tactic, essentially a political tantrum, will make no appreciable alteration to the budget nor to the philosophy behind it of proper priorities being structured within the parameters of more efficiency, less politics.
This bill, requiring a two-thirds majority of the seated membership for approval, enables debt to be incurred for capital spending projects of the capital outlay bill HB 2 (and any others that might come by if they are calculated into it). Until 2007 it typically was a formality that this would pass. But late that session, Republicans rallied by then-caucus leader state Rep. Jim Tucker defeated an attempt to pass a similar bill during a special session to spend a large surplus. Eventually, however, enough Republicans defected to let the bill through.
Almost two years later, now Speaker Tucker saw the same tactic used against his majority. Where the complaint two years past was against an operating budget viewed as too excessive, many of those in the Democrat majority then successfully deployed this last week against an operating budget they think is too small, while a few Republicans seemed perturbed at the actual distribution of capital outlay funds, dealing the Speaker’s forces a 62-24 setback.
While the shoe may be on the other foot for now, the situations are markedly different in cause and the result will end the same. Back then, only a few members missed the original vote and would not have made the difference. What made the difference eventually was enough Republicans (as their legislative histories showed, in name only) defected. This time, 19 absences of almost all supporters of the bill were the key. As long as Tucker has the foresight to make sure they are in the chamber at the appropriate time, there should be no problem here.
Tucker’s tactics in 2007 garnered some minor concessions because that peeled off enough defectors. Expect little in the way of these on this occasion, as the muscle is there to obviate their need. While those who have temporarily blockade the bill may make grandiose, if not wholly ignorant, statements about the governor running the state roughshod over the Legislature, the reality is they sadly are out of touch with the vast majority in the state, and other elected officials know it. This is why this tactic, essentially a political tantrum, will make no appreciable alteration to the budget nor to the philosophy behind it of proper priorities being structured within the parameters of more efficiency, less politics.
15.5.09
Government must cut cyber venture capital losses now
Two ships up and pulled anchor this, leaving even more tattered the credibility of economic development promises made by Bossier City elected officials, and to a lesser degree their Bossier Parish counterparts.
Sports fans also tuned into the world of politics may have realized that the looming demise of the most successful non-baseball franchise in the area’s history, the Bossier-Shreveport Mudbugs minor league professional hockey team, also creates a big hole for Bossier City. For the CenturyTel Center to have any chance at all to pay its operational expenses, the 40-plus (because they reached the playoffs so often and sometimes went far) home game dates of the Mudbugs were crucial. With this anchor tenant gone, the gains unrealized from using the $56.5 million that the city blew on the arena for other purposes – roads work that could have been finished years ago, not having to raise water and sewerage fees on residents, etc. – now will be compounded by actual annual operating losses perhaps into the millions of dollars.
Maybe a last minute deal will keep the franchise alive (the tentative deadline being today), reviving the joy of area fans and relieving those in Bossier City government who were around to stump for the arena from more egg on their faces. But you would have had to been much more attentive to have learned that an even riskier gamble by the city, and parish and state, essentially blew up in the faces of Bossier politicians with the announcement that the U.S. military will place its cyber command headquarters at Ft. Meade, MD.
Sports fans also tuned into the world of politics may have realized that the looming demise of the most successful non-baseball franchise in the area’s history, the Bossier-Shreveport Mudbugs minor league professional hockey team, also creates a big hole for Bossier City. For the CenturyTel Center to have any chance at all to pay its operational expenses, the 40-plus (because they reached the playoffs so often and sometimes went far) home game dates of the Mudbugs were crucial. With this anchor tenant gone, the gains unrealized from using the $56.5 million that the city blew on the arena for other purposes – roads work that could have been finished years ago, not having to raise water and sewerage fees on residents, etc. – now will be compounded by actual annual operating losses perhaps into the millions of dollars.
Maybe a last minute deal will keep the franchise alive (the tentative deadline being today), reviving the joy of area fans and relieving those in Bossier City government who were around to stump for the arena from more egg on their faces. But you would have had to been much more attentive to have learned that an even riskier gamble by the city, and parish and state, essentially blew up in the faces of Bossier politicians with the announcement that the U.S. military will place its cyber command headquarters at Ft. Meade, MD.
14.5.09
Sham "equal pay" bill would create more discrimination
Some truly bad public policy ideas just won’t go away, and over time people, including policy-makers who should know better, forget the reasons why and fall for puerile argumentation on their behalf. This is the case with HB 705 that presumes to address a problem that basically doesn’t exist with freedom-crippling big government but, worse, it also is a Trojan Horse for reviving the con job known as “comparable worth” and threatens to create more pay discrimination in the workplace.
State Rep. Barbara Norton’s bill would define a prohibited employment practice for employers of four or more where pay differs on the basis of gender, and sets up a procedure receive damages if a violation is present. The important operative phrase is this:
No employer may discriminate against an employee on the basis of sex by paying wages to an employee at a rate less than that of another employee for the same or substantially similar work on jobs in which their performance requires equal skill, effort, education, and responsibility and which are performed under similar working conditions including time worked in the position. (emphases added)
State Rep. Barbara Norton’s bill would define a prohibited employment practice for employers of four or more where pay differs on the basis of gender, and sets up a procedure receive damages if a violation is present. The important operative phrase is this:
No employer may discriminate against an employee on the basis of sex by paying wages to an employee at a rate less than that of another employee for the same or substantially similar work on jobs in which their performance requires equal skill, effort, education, and responsibility and which are performed under similar working conditions including time worked in the position. (emphases added)
13.5.09
Political hijinks based on fates of education, tax bills
Political hijinks were on display yesterday around the Louisiana Capitol as committees tried specially to meet as the sun went down and members went on walkabouts.
Normally, during the session a third of the House’s standing legislative committees meet on Monday mornings, another third on Tuesday mornings. The final third, those considered less busy, meet on Wednesdays, while Thursday is considered a day to take care of extra business not otherwise covered earlier in the week. Only Appropriations tends to be irregular, sometimes meeting after adjournment of the floor and/or on Fridays and/or weekends. But yesterday, rare meetings of Education, a Tuesday committee, and Ways and Means, a Monday committee, were scheduled after floor adjournment, which occurred at nearly 7 PM.
Education was to take up several bills, most controversially two authored by state Rep. Steve Carter that would substantially affect operations of local school boards. It had heard many earlier that day, but not, as scheduled, Carter’s providing the rationale for reconvening later. Ways and Means also had several measures, but one stood out for its notoriety: HB 889 by state Rep. Karen Peterson that would raise tobacco taxes and dedicate them to a number of purposes including education and health care.
Two Republican members of Education, Carter and state Rep. Frank Hoffman (its vice chairman), also serve on Ways and Means. On a previous bill by Peterson which had tried to raise tobacco taxes even more and did not specifically dedicate funds, in committee Carter had voted for it and Hoffman against where it lost narrowly. Education’s meeting was delayed specifically to allow these two to participate in Ways and Means’, quite practically because the author Carter should be present for considerations of his bills. As it was, these two would be needed to make the quorum for Ways and Means.
But Carter and Hoffman never made it to Ways and Means, and neither committee met. Peterson asserted she heard the wayward legislators had been on the floor of the building containing the Governor’s Office. Gov. Bobby Jindal has expressed support of Carter’s two bills, but has criticized Peterson’s. Carter later answered ambiguously about his activities but said he was disappointed the bills had not been handled that day. Carter said he would try again, presumably next week. Education Chairman Democrat state Rep. Austin Badon said he got word he ought to adjourn without hearing them last night.
Circumspection by politicians on this matter means no clear answer will be given. But inferring from the sequence of events, it’s logical that Jindal has tied the fate of Carter’s bills to Peterson’s. In the morning, there appeared to be no fairly reasonable chance that Carter’s bills would go forward, and in that instance authors typically work for postponements. Similarly, the rush to hear HB 889 comes because the House is getting ready to deal with HB 1, the general appropriations bill. Unlike her previous effort HB 75, which suffered defeat from a cigarette pack tax hike of a dollar putting prices well above those of border states and without a clear dedication of funds, the 50 cent increase would put packs at prices comparable to border states and the dedications make it appear funds would go to worthy areas of expenditure hard hit by the current revenue shortfall in state government. In other words, this bill has the potential to go much farther in the process than it previous incarnation
Still, that bill has no chance at becoming law because even if the required two-thirds vote in each chamber got it to Jindal, his veto would make some supporters reconsider and there would be no override. But this would make Jindal look bad, part of Peterson’s objective as the Democrat Party official wishes to follow her national party leaders in tarnishing Republican Jindal’s image given his threat to blossom into a future national leader, this blocking of a tax increase that has popular support that would put funds in areas where there is consensus more money should go. Therefore, his objective is to cut off the bill as early as possible in the process.
Opponents of Jindal and supporters of the funding, largely but not exclusively the same people, wanted this quick consideration in Ways and Means because it could materially alter HB 1: if there seemed to be some guarantee HB 889 would make it out of the House, HB 1 could be amended in it to add in all sorts of new spending. But if HB 1 gets significantly farther along in the process than HB 889 (and it is scheduled to be debated tomorrow), there is less pressure on to pass the latter. Also, every day that HB 889 gets delayed in hearing is one day closer to the end of the session where its opponents can run out the clock on it before it gets too far.
Therefore, it appears the strategy was for Hoffman and Carter to play hooky to slow down the process. While for Carter delay also may have given him a chance to shore up support for his bills, it may also have given Jindal Administration operatives a chance to impress on Carter that the toss-up support for his bills might turn negative if he did not reconsider his past support for higher tobacco taxes. If so, this puts him in a tight spot because the present bill seems more moderate than its predecessor.
All in a day’s, and night’s, work at the Capitol. Only about another six weeks worth to go.
Normally, during the session a third of the House’s standing legislative committees meet on Monday mornings, another third on Tuesday mornings. The final third, those considered less busy, meet on Wednesdays, while Thursday is considered a day to take care of extra business not otherwise covered earlier in the week. Only Appropriations tends to be irregular, sometimes meeting after adjournment of the floor and/or on Fridays and/or weekends. But yesterday, rare meetings of Education, a Tuesday committee, and Ways and Means, a Monday committee, were scheduled after floor adjournment, which occurred at nearly 7 PM.
Education was to take up several bills, most controversially two authored by state Rep. Steve Carter that would substantially affect operations of local school boards. It had heard many earlier that day, but not, as scheduled, Carter’s providing the rationale for reconvening later. Ways and Means also had several measures, but one stood out for its notoriety: HB 889 by state Rep. Karen Peterson that would raise tobacco taxes and dedicate them to a number of purposes including education and health care.
Two Republican members of Education, Carter and state Rep. Frank Hoffman (its vice chairman), also serve on Ways and Means. On a previous bill by Peterson which had tried to raise tobacco taxes even more and did not specifically dedicate funds, in committee Carter had voted for it and Hoffman against where it lost narrowly. Education’s meeting was delayed specifically to allow these two to participate in Ways and Means’, quite practically because the author Carter should be present for considerations of his bills. As it was, these two would be needed to make the quorum for Ways and Means.
But Carter and Hoffman never made it to Ways and Means, and neither committee met. Peterson asserted she heard the wayward legislators had been on the floor of the building containing the Governor’s Office. Gov. Bobby Jindal has expressed support of Carter’s two bills, but has criticized Peterson’s. Carter later answered ambiguously about his activities but said he was disappointed the bills had not been handled that day. Carter said he would try again, presumably next week. Education Chairman Democrat state Rep. Austin Badon said he got word he ought to adjourn without hearing them last night.
Circumspection by politicians on this matter means no clear answer will be given. But inferring from the sequence of events, it’s logical that Jindal has tied the fate of Carter’s bills to Peterson’s. In the morning, there appeared to be no fairly reasonable chance that Carter’s bills would go forward, and in that instance authors typically work for postponements. Similarly, the rush to hear HB 889 comes because the House is getting ready to deal with HB 1, the general appropriations bill. Unlike her previous effort HB 75, which suffered defeat from a cigarette pack tax hike of a dollar putting prices well above those of border states and without a clear dedication of funds, the 50 cent increase would put packs at prices comparable to border states and the dedications make it appear funds would go to worthy areas of expenditure hard hit by the current revenue shortfall in state government. In other words, this bill has the potential to go much farther in the process than it previous incarnation
Still, that bill has no chance at becoming law because even if the required two-thirds vote in each chamber got it to Jindal, his veto would make some supporters reconsider and there would be no override. But this would make Jindal look bad, part of Peterson’s objective as the Democrat Party official wishes to follow her national party leaders in tarnishing Republican Jindal’s image given his threat to blossom into a future national leader, this blocking of a tax increase that has popular support that would put funds in areas where there is consensus more money should go. Therefore, his objective is to cut off the bill as early as possible in the process.
Opponents of Jindal and supporters of the funding, largely but not exclusively the same people, wanted this quick consideration in Ways and Means because it could materially alter HB 1: if there seemed to be some guarantee HB 889 would make it out of the House, HB 1 could be amended in it to add in all sorts of new spending. But if HB 1 gets significantly farther along in the process than HB 889 (and it is scheduled to be debated tomorrow), there is less pressure on to pass the latter. Also, every day that HB 889 gets delayed in hearing is one day closer to the end of the session where its opponents can run out the clock on it before it gets too far.
Therefore, it appears the strategy was for Hoffman and Carter to play hooky to slow down the process. While for Carter delay also may have given him a chance to shore up support for his bills, it may also have given Jindal Administration operatives a chance to impress on Carter that the toss-up support for his bills might turn negative if he did not reconsider his past support for higher tobacco taxes. If so, this puts him in a tight spot because the present bill seems more moderate than its predecessor.
All in a day’s, and night’s, work at the Capitol. Only about another six weeks worth to go.
12.5.09
Indexing exemption won't work without other changes
It’s not entirely a surprise that Gov. Bobby Jindal would endorse bills generally indexing the homestead exemption, given his past actions in support, even sometimes grudgingly, of tax relief. But without change suggested by other bills, passage of this concept promises not to change much regarding individual tax liabilities and could make worse the state’s fiscal structure.
Louisiana presently has the nation’s highest homestead exemption at $75,000, which essentially relieves almost half of homeowners of the burden of paying parish (including New Orleans) and school property taxes and reduces it for all others. It has been this way since 1982, however, while the value of the exemption has been approximately halved. Other proposals would raise the limit, but Jindal’s endorsement of indexing by the rate of inflation from the present base assumes erosion of the buying power of the present level of the exemption has made it reasonable and small increases may proceed from here.
But the problem is that local jurisdictions presently can “roll forward” millages. If valuations increase the total take of property taxes, the millage automatically goes down to compensate unless a two-thirds vote of the governing authority (or an elected official such as a sheriff where appropriate) raises the millage anywhere up to its approved level. Indexing that takes away slightly revenues every year from a jurisdiction may prompt governing authorities to inch up millages, thinking voters won’t notice that the overall level doesn’t change on their tax bills (many of whom don’t notice anyway since they are paid through mortgage payments).
So this may look good symbolically, but mostly will have little substantive impact. It also represents a reversal of a healthy trend that the erosion of the exemption had created, spreading more of the tax burden around. Having a high exemption places too much property tax payment on a small proportion of homeowners and business, discouraging the latter. Therefore, assuming levels of revenue should stay the same, economic development would be enhanced by evening out the pain.
The former problem of implementation could be dealt with by passing any of several bills that would make it more difficult for authorities to roll forward, but that would exacerbate the latter problem. Both could be solved by adopting something like state Rep. Kevin Pearson’s HB 252 which would make the exception work at valuation levels between $10,001 to $85,000, and amending it to index at the higher level.
Bills like Pearson’s would spread more of the burden around yet maintain the greater amount of exemption. While some argue this would be injurious to lower-income homeowners, the fact is even in the highest-taxed parishes the extra tax on those presently not paying would be only about $12 a month. Amending this kind of bill to index would not change that and help anybody with property worth more than $85,000. Also amended to it or in separate bill passage could be the measures designed to make rolling forward more difficult.
Supporting indexing in and of itself may score political points among voters but likely will do little else. The HB 252 approach and other amendments to it would have a far more meaningful, and salutary, impact on the state’s fiscal structure.
Louisiana presently has the nation’s highest homestead exemption at $75,000, which essentially relieves almost half of homeowners of the burden of paying parish (including New Orleans) and school property taxes and reduces it for all others. It has been this way since 1982, however, while the value of the exemption has been approximately halved. Other proposals would raise the limit, but Jindal’s endorsement of indexing by the rate of inflation from the present base assumes erosion of the buying power of the present level of the exemption has made it reasonable and small increases may proceed from here.
But the problem is that local jurisdictions presently can “roll forward” millages. If valuations increase the total take of property taxes, the millage automatically goes down to compensate unless a two-thirds vote of the governing authority (or an elected official such as a sheriff where appropriate) raises the millage anywhere up to its approved level. Indexing that takes away slightly revenues every year from a jurisdiction may prompt governing authorities to inch up millages, thinking voters won’t notice that the overall level doesn’t change on their tax bills (many of whom don’t notice anyway since they are paid through mortgage payments).
So this may look good symbolically, but mostly will have little substantive impact. It also represents a reversal of a healthy trend that the erosion of the exemption had created, spreading more of the tax burden around. Having a high exemption places too much property tax payment on a small proportion of homeowners and business, discouraging the latter. Therefore, assuming levels of revenue should stay the same, economic development would be enhanced by evening out the pain.
The former problem of implementation could be dealt with by passing any of several bills that would make it more difficult for authorities to roll forward, but that would exacerbate the latter problem. Both could be solved by adopting something like state Rep. Kevin Pearson’s HB 252 which would make the exception work at valuation levels between $10,001 to $85,000, and amending it to index at the higher level.
Bills like Pearson’s would spread more of the burden around yet maintain the greater amount of exemption. While some argue this would be injurious to lower-income homeowners, the fact is even in the highest-taxed parishes the extra tax on those presently not paying would be only about $12 a month. Amending this kind of bill to index would not change that and help anybody with property worth more than $85,000. Also amended to it or in separate bill passage could be the measures designed to make rolling forward more difficult.
Supporting indexing in and of itself may score political points among voters but likely will do little else. The HB 252 approach and other amendments to it would have a far more meaningful, and salutary, impact on the state’s fiscal structure.
11.5.09
Agency request displays Shreveport's business-unfriendliness
The Shreveport metropolitan area recently was named eighth-best mid-sized city for jobs growth by Forbes magazine -- perhaps despite Shreveport's city government as it took Caddo Parish's government to step up earlier this year to help maintain a business-friendly climate.
The Caddo Parish Commission had the wisdom to reject raising fees for certain kinds of planning requests. The Metropolitan Planning Commission, which has jurisdiction over zoning matters within Shreveport and emanating five miles outside its borders into Caddo Parish, recently got Shreveport to approve higher fees. Ordinance #174 of 2008 increased most typical fees $100 and most requests for exceptions $150, passing without discussion or dissent.
But Commissioner Matthew Linn, who unlike Shreveport’s councilors owns and operates a business that has had to pay close attention to zoning matters, objected to the parish following suit over its area (much of the parish) covered by the MPC jurisdiction. He pointed out that many of these requests, which already cost hundreds of dollars without the change, now would be that much more and questioned whether this would discourage business formation. At the very least, he argued there should be a graduated scale of fees by business size, as small business is hit worst by the increases. He persuaded the Commission to table the request meaning, for example, now to apply for a variance to serve alcohol would cost $900 in most of the parish but $1,200 in Shreveport. (And that is an application, not a guarantee that favorable action would be taken.)
The reaction of a representative of the MPC, however, spoke volumes about why economic growth is stagnant at best in Shreveport. “The city basically said [in approving the increase], ‘These are hard economic times. We want to reduce the percentage at which we subsidize these private ownership rights,’” said MPC staffer Rusty Jambor.
The presumptiveness and ignorance of this statement is astonishing on three accounts. For one, a service performed by government should have its fee reasonably related to the actual cost of the activity because if not, it is then government being subsidized by private interests forced by all-powerful government to come to it just to exercise their rights as free citizens. When government arbitrarily decides to squeeze revenue out of its citizens not in any response to the actual cost of services but just because it can, it becomes abusive.
(Nor is this rationale limited just to the western shores of the Red River. A few years back fees were raised on emergency medical services and on water and sewerage users in Bossier City to plug a perceived budget hole, their politicians arguing they shouldn’t dip into reserves and/or interest generated from monies saved from gambling revenues. But the draining of general fund reserves has continued and now the city is committing itself to expenses in the $130 million range to improve water and sewerage – the interest of which additionally must be borne by taxpayers, instead of using the fee hike in the provision of that service to cover it.)
Also, in making such an assertion does anybody stop to think about basic economics? If these are “hard economic times” that somehow force a government to raise fees, did it occur that the same hard times make business more sensitive than ever to higher fees? That these hikes may discourage not only application fees but applications whose successful implementation could lead to higher tax revenues? Not that the city should not already know this, as witness Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover’s admission in his 2009 budget message that higher recreation fees actually decreased overall revenues in that area.
Finally, it is a total misunderstanding to think that compelling payment for trying to do business has anything to do with “subsidizing” private ownership rights. Government itself is nothing but a leech off the free use of private property, as it never could exist without the taxes from activities involving property, so to think that reducing government’s burden on the exercise of those rights through lower fees translates into an increased subsidization of them is exactly backwards and denies the reality that private property rights precede government power. (You can look it up in the Louisiana Constitution.)
It’s not the amount of money in question – the change may stuff only a few tens of thousands more dollars into Shreveport’s coffers, and many fewer now forgone by the parish – but that attitudes such as this can exist within government. This business-unfriendly attitude appears to pervade Shreveport governance and explains the city’s trouble in keeping population and business activity. The worst thing it can do is begin a death spiral of making business more costly to do within its borders that chokes off and contracts business, and therefore city revenues, even more. No amount of plaudits from the media can change that reality.
The Caddo Parish Commission had the wisdom to reject raising fees for certain kinds of planning requests. The Metropolitan Planning Commission, which has jurisdiction over zoning matters within Shreveport and emanating five miles outside its borders into Caddo Parish, recently got Shreveport to approve higher fees. Ordinance #174 of 2008 increased most typical fees $100 and most requests for exceptions $150, passing without discussion or dissent.
But Commissioner Matthew Linn, who unlike Shreveport’s councilors owns and operates a business that has had to pay close attention to zoning matters, objected to the parish following suit over its area (much of the parish) covered by the MPC jurisdiction. He pointed out that many of these requests, which already cost hundreds of dollars without the change, now would be that much more and questioned whether this would discourage business formation. At the very least, he argued there should be a graduated scale of fees by business size, as small business is hit worst by the increases. He persuaded the Commission to table the request meaning, for example, now to apply for a variance to serve alcohol would cost $900 in most of the parish but $1,200 in Shreveport. (And that is an application, not a guarantee that favorable action would be taken.)
The reaction of a representative of the MPC, however, spoke volumes about why economic growth is stagnant at best in Shreveport. “The city basically said [in approving the increase], ‘These are hard economic times. We want to reduce the percentage at which we subsidize these private ownership rights,’” said MPC staffer Rusty Jambor.
The presumptiveness and ignorance of this statement is astonishing on three accounts. For one, a service performed by government should have its fee reasonably related to the actual cost of the activity because if not, it is then government being subsidized by private interests forced by all-powerful government to come to it just to exercise their rights as free citizens. When government arbitrarily decides to squeeze revenue out of its citizens not in any response to the actual cost of services but just because it can, it becomes abusive.
(Nor is this rationale limited just to the western shores of the Red River. A few years back fees were raised on emergency medical services and on water and sewerage users in Bossier City to plug a perceived budget hole, their politicians arguing they shouldn’t dip into reserves and/or interest generated from monies saved from gambling revenues. But the draining of general fund reserves has continued and now the city is committing itself to expenses in the $130 million range to improve water and sewerage – the interest of which additionally must be borne by taxpayers, instead of using the fee hike in the provision of that service to cover it.)
Also, in making such an assertion does anybody stop to think about basic economics? If these are “hard economic times” that somehow force a government to raise fees, did it occur that the same hard times make business more sensitive than ever to higher fees? That these hikes may discourage not only application fees but applications whose successful implementation could lead to higher tax revenues? Not that the city should not already know this, as witness Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover’s admission in his 2009 budget message that higher recreation fees actually decreased overall revenues in that area.
Finally, it is a total misunderstanding to think that compelling payment for trying to do business has anything to do with “subsidizing” private ownership rights. Government itself is nothing but a leech off the free use of private property, as it never could exist without the taxes from activities involving property, so to think that reducing government’s burden on the exercise of those rights through lower fees translates into an increased subsidization of them is exactly backwards and denies the reality that private property rights precede government power. (You can look it up in the Louisiana Constitution.)
It’s not the amount of money in question – the change may stuff only a few tens of thousands more dollars into Shreveport’s coffers, and many fewer now forgone by the parish – but that attitudes such as this can exist within government. This business-unfriendly attitude appears to pervade Shreveport governance and explains the city’s trouble in keeping population and business activity. The worst thing it can do is begin a death spiral of making business more costly to do within its borders that chokes off and contracts business, and therefore city revenues, even more. No amount of plaudits from the media can change that reality.
10.5.09
Even with revenues woes, suspending tax cut bad idea
There is persistent talk that Louisiana should delay implementation of individual income tax cuts passed last year, and that now has an action plan associated with it with the filing of HCR 94 by state Rep. Michael Jackson that would suspend the cuts effects until probably the last week of August, 2010. This provides an explanation for past actions regarding the reduction and another opportunity to remind why this would be a bad idea.
The lowered rates actually went into effect at the beginning of this year for those employed who took a tiny amount of initiative. Typically, governments that levy income taxes create tables by which employers, charged with automatic withdrawal and remittance to the government for all but the lowest-salaried employees, use to determine what amounts are to be deducted. But the law curiously set a date of no earlier than Jul. 1, 2009 for the state to revise these tables, meaning workers had to fill out forms on their own to turn into employers to begin receiving any reduction beginning Jan. 1, 2009. While some have objected to this, it is not inconsistent with conservatism: conservatives believe that people, not government, should take charge of their own lives so to file the paperwork on their own was not too much of a burden to ask rather than be dependent on government to do it, in essence, for them.
But now another gambit to the delayed implementation has become clear: the state constitution allows both houses of the Legislature to pass a resolution suspending a law for sixty days past the adjournment of the next regular session by the same rule (in this case, majority vote) without any gubernatorial intervention. It could be the delayed implementation was a means by which to facilitate this strategy, as having fewer people actually receiving currently the break (with the remainder having to wait until income tax filing for 2009 in 2010) could mean less popular outrage at a suspension for reasons of financial exigency (as is stated in the resolution).
No matter, for three reasons this is a bad idea. First, lower taxes inevitably lead to economic growth which will mitigate revenue problems for government. But starting and stopping them not only delays the effect, it makes it less pronounced as the populace will become wary of the permanence of these cuts and therefore less likely to use the proceeds for economic development purposes, as caution will reduce their willingness to invest them.
Second, it siphons off pressure on elected officials to reduce the size of government. As is becoming apparent in the ongoing budget process at present, there is room for savings. Low priority or no priority jobs have been identified in state government, for example, and now are intended to be cut. Grabbing back the tax cut might take away the impetus to do that.
Third, it would intensify the immoral nature of the taxation enterprise in the worst way. Taxation is a necessary evil, but it does not become immoral until it happens for unnecessary purposes and disproportionately punishes some people. The point above would indicate that unnecessary purposes are being funded through deprivation of people’s liberty by seizing their earnings, and worse is that the suspension would cause greater injury to those who already contribute the most. As of the latest report (which makes compiling exact numbers difficult because it doesn’t break returns down into single or otherwise categories), about a third of income tax filers benefit for sure under the reduction – who already pay a staggering nearly 84 percent of all income taxes. Anything that allows that minority who pull the majority riding in the wagon most of the time a little more rest has a positive moral component to it.
Tough fiscal times for the state do not justify the temporary reversal of this tax cut, so let’s hope HCR 94 goes nowhere.
The lowered rates actually went into effect at the beginning of this year for those employed who took a tiny amount of initiative. Typically, governments that levy income taxes create tables by which employers, charged with automatic withdrawal and remittance to the government for all but the lowest-salaried employees, use to determine what amounts are to be deducted. But the law curiously set a date of no earlier than Jul. 1, 2009 for the state to revise these tables, meaning workers had to fill out forms on their own to turn into employers to begin receiving any reduction beginning Jan. 1, 2009. While some have objected to this, it is not inconsistent with conservatism: conservatives believe that people, not government, should take charge of their own lives so to file the paperwork on their own was not too much of a burden to ask rather than be dependent on government to do it, in essence, for them.
But now another gambit to the delayed implementation has become clear: the state constitution allows both houses of the Legislature to pass a resolution suspending a law for sixty days past the adjournment of the next regular session by the same rule (in this case, majority vote) without any gubernatorial intervention. It could be the delayed implementation was a means by which to facilitate this strategy, as having fewer people actually receiving currently the break (with the remainder having to wait until income tax filing for 2009 in 2010) could mean less popular outrage at a suspension for reasons of financial exigency (as is stated in the resolution).
No matter, for three reasons this is a bad idea. First, lower taxes inevitably lead to economic growth which will mitigate revenue problems for government. But starting and stopping them not only delays the effect, it makes it less pronounced as the populace will become wary of the permanence of these cuts and therefore less likely to use the proceeds for economic development purposes, as caution will reduce their willingness to invest them.
Second, it siphons off pressure on elected officials to reduce the size of government. As is becoming apparent in the ongoing budget process at present, there is room for savings. Low priority or no priority jobs have been identified in state government, for example, and now are intended to be cut. Grabbing back the tax cut might take away the impetus to do that.
Third, it would intensify the immoral nature of the taxation enterprise in the worst way. Taxation is a necessary evil, but it does not become immoral until it happens for unnecessary purposes and disproportionately punishes some people. The point above would indicate that unnecessary purposes are being funded through deprivation of people’s liberty by seizing their earnings, and worse is that the suspension would cause greater injury to those who already contribute the most. As of the latest report (which makes compiling exact numbers difficult because it doesn’t break returns down into single or otherwise categories), about a third of income tax filers benefit for sure under the reduction – who already pay a staggering nearly 84 percent of all income taxes. Anything that allows that minority who pull the majority riding in the wagon most of the time a little more rest has a positive moral component to it.
Tough fiscal times for the state do not justify the temporary reversal of this tax cut, so let’s hope HCR 94 goes nowhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)