China.” Only a Democrat could
take this step. Perhaps the problem
may be that he did not go far
enough, for this may be his only
chance of a tax increase through a
Republican House.
Jindal’s proposal two years ago
would have left the state with just
under a billion-dollar deficit, even
if politically popular tax breaks
like the film credit were eliminat-
ed. For that reason, most
Republicans opposed the swap, not
just Edwards and the Democrats.
If the new Governor’s fellow
Democrats balk at taxing food and
utilities though, Edwards—as a fall
back—could embrace the Jindal
Plan, that did NOT include those
taxes on the necessities of life.
And, having indicated that he
would embrace over all tax reform
as part of his plan, Governor
Edwards could use sales taxes to
that end, a much more politically
attractive idea to most Republicans
than raising income taxes.
In other words, what if the 2.5
cents were used to both plug a
deficit AND drastically reduce
some income taxes over time?
What if it bought Louisiana budg-
et time, saving drastic cuts this
year that might be irreparable?
Match African-American opposi-
tion to food taxes with the fact that
most Republicans are resistant to
any tax increases, and gridlock
ensues, unless Edwards approach-
es this sales tax increase strategi-
cally from the Right.
Cloak any argument in the fact
that Jindal had a point; Louisiana
sits between Texas and Louisiana.
Retirees often opt for these other
Sunbelt states over us due to the
absence on an income tax.
Louisiana’s high corporate and
franchise taxes also discourage
business development. And
Billionaires do not want to live
here because there is no “cap” on
the income tax, costing the state
sales and property taxes that other-
wise goes to Texas and Florida.
The Governor could then add
that Jindal was too
a m b i t i o u s .
Destroying the film
industry and putting
a huge inventory tax
burden on parishes,
while embroiling
Louisiana in deeper
deficits, traded one
problem for another.
Instead, to swing
reluctant GOP mem-
bers to his side, John Bel Edwards
could propose to increase the tax by
2.5 cents immediately, and then
phase out income taxes on retirees,
and the corporate income and fran-
chise taxes over the next four years.
Perhaps even ‘cap’ the maximum
amount that the state could receive in
taxes from any individual to $30,000
per person. A cap at that sum, econ-
omists say, would have almost no fis-
cal cost to the state, as we have few
billionaires. That might both encour-
age the return of very rich expatriates
to the Pelican State and encourage
taxophobic Republicans to back the
sales tax increases.
The cost of those tax cuts, which
amount to $250 million (for those
over 60) and $900 million respec-
tively, amount to $1.15 billion, or
two-thirds of the amount of the sales
tax increase. That leaves a real per-
manent increase in taxes of over 80
percent of the amount that the Stelly
Plan repeal cost the state in perma-
nent structural deficits, and still
eliminates two tax areas that econo-
mists say disadvantages Louisiana
in comparison to her neighbors.
But, the better news is that those
repeals would come gradually, over
the next four—or perhaps eight—
years. Edwards would be able to
plug the deficit in this fiscal year, and
the vast majority for next year with a
$.025 hike. Unlike his one-cent
increase, this would not be stopgap
measure. The 2.5 cent increase on all
areas outside of food, utilities, and
prescription drugs would provide the
new governor and legislature with
enough money to plug next year’s
deficit, and could buy each the time
to restructure the budget, removing
the dedications and cutting expendi-
tures with scalpel, not a bludgeon.
The question remains whether
John Bel Edwards would
embrace the unorthodox strategy
of turning a Jindal concept to his
own ends, especially as Louisiana
would tie Chicago for the highest
sales tax in the nation. It would
require a man used to knowing
his limits, and using his oppo-
nents desires to overcome them.
Often, his staff has complained,
Edwards’ virtue can also be a
vice. The same man who refused
to believe critics who said “a
Democrat could not win,” and
‘could never raise $2 million to
run’, ended up being the same
Governor who refused to
embrace a Republican candidate
for Speaker of the House.
Edwards’ aides begged him to
pick
a
Republican,
ANY
Republican, knowing that Walt
Leger III lacked the votes, and the
Governor’s power in the State
House would be subsequently
impacted from such a public defeat.
Edwards believed, though, he
would win on his terms, always, so
he suffered a major loss over Leger
losing to Barras. In doing so,
Edwards ended up with Abramson
and Henry commanding commit-
tees capable of killing his budget.
Courting Republicans to
achieve a Democratic end did
not prove his strong suit, yet per-
haps experience teaches—espe-
cially when it may be your only
chance to get any tax increases
through a Republican House.◊
Corrections and
Amplifications
In an article in last week's issue of
The Louisiana Weekly
titled
"Legal battle over statues continues after judge sides with City of
New Orleans," it was mistakenly reported that All Crane Rental of
Louisiana had been retained to handle the removal of four
Confederate-era monuments in New Orleans. .
“Our company has NOT been retained to provide the equipment,
or manpower, for this project,” a spokesman for the company said
in an email last week.
We regret the error and apologize for any inconvenience it has
caused.◊
THE LOUISIANA WEEKLY -
YOUR MULTICULTURAL MEDIUM
Page 2
February 8 - February 14, 2016
ABRAMSON
African leaders to press fight for
representation at the United Nations
HENRY
Can a Jindal tax be Edwards’ only option
By Christopher Tidmore
Contributing Writer
Governor John Bel Edwards
has a twofold problem, and their
names are Cameron Henry and
Neil Abramson.
The State Representatives
received the consolation prizes of
Chairmen of the Louisiana House
Appropriations and Ways and
Means Committees when each
withdrew from the Speaker’s
Race and voted for Republican
Rep. Taylor Barras, insuring the
defeat of Edwards’ choice
Democrat Rep. Walt Leger III.
Moreover, Barras stacked these
two committees with superma-
jorities of Republicans skeptical
of the new governor’s tax-rais-
ing agenda.
All spending in taxation bills must
originate in the state house, and
those GOP ratios mean Gov.
Edwards’ tax proposals are effec-
tively dead on arrival in the Special
Session starting February 14.
Both Henry and Abramson have
indicated that their supermajority
conservative committees will not
permanently raise taxes to deal
with this year’s $750 million
deficit, much less next year’s,
without long-term equivalent
budgetary and tax cutting reforms.
Edwards, in other words, may
need to agree to long-term tax cuts
in exchange for the passage of
massive short-term hikes through
the House. Unusual though, since
the new governor has already
embraced regressive sales tax
increases in his budget, there may
be the potential for a compromise
– which ironically would look sim-
ilar to Bobby Jindal’s notion: trade
sales taxes for income taxes.
The Problem
With deficits of $750 million
this fiscal year and $1.9 billion
running into 2017, the Louisiana
Legislature cannot cut spending
fast enough to plug the hole. Put
another way, if the legislature
chose to defund the entire state
contribution to higher education
that would only amount to $700
million per year. Even many
Republicans acknowledge that
extra revenues are needed, at
least in the short term.
At a press conference on January
19, 2016, Gov. John Bel Edwards
proposed a series of tax increases
to plug the hole, including a one-
cent increase in the state sales tax
that would apply to all purchases,
including food and utilities. The
25% increase in the state sales tax
would tax effect April 1, generat-
ing $216 million in revenues.
The Governor seeks to increase
cigarette taxes by 22-cents per
pack, boost business utility and
phone taxes, as well as tap the
rainy day fund and the BP settle-
ment. He also wishes to repurpose
10% of the state’s dedicated dis-
cretionary
funds—depository
accounts where corporations or
citizens pay to cover particular
government services—and utilize
those funds to balance the budget.
As Bobby Jindal proposed and
failed to get his GOP legislature to
consider, Edwards has put forward
a plan to drastically reduce the
State Inventory Tax Credit, which
would cause massive tax increases
on warehousing goods in parishes
heavily reliant on distribution indus-
tries, like Jefferson and Orleans.
(Parish Governments declared
‘war’ when Jindal tried to phase the
credit out two years ago.)
The new Democratic Governor
also wants to hike business utility
sales taxes (massively affecting
the chemical refining industry),
expand the corporate franchise
tax to LLCs (a tax that only six
states levy), and cut “loss” deduc-
tions in the corporate income tax.
Each would make Edwards the
mortal enemy of L.A.B.I. and the
Louisiana Chemical Association,
the two most powerful lobbies in
Baton Rouge.
He wants to raise Louisiana’s
$2.50-per-gallon tax on liquor and
11-cents-per-gallon tax on wine.
These taxes may fall below the
national averages, but the Alcohol
lobby has blocked every attempt to
boost these taxes in recent memo-
ry. It is not an accident that the tax
on beer has not increased practi-
cally since the 1950s.
Edwards’ calls to remove sales
tax rebates for convenience stores
and insurance premiums managed
to put him in the crosshairs of the
other two powerful groups of lob-
byists. Only the proposed 22-cent
boost in cigarette taxes is the most
politically palatable proposal the
Governor made, yet it would pro-
duce—at most--$75 million in the
last three months, too small an
increase by itself to save the day.
Long term, the new Governor
seeks elimination of federal
deductions in the state tax code,
restoring some of the rates under
the repealed Stelly Plan. Though,
at the Press Conference, he did
hold out the possibility of lower-
ing tax rates if these deductions
were eliminated. Louisiana’s
main fiscal prognosticator, the
Revenue Estimating Confer-
ence’s Dr. James Richardson,
floated the concept of restoring
the Stelly Plan’s rates of income
tax, which he said, “would
increase withholding on people’s
payroll checks ...generat[ing]
money fairly quickly.”
However, considering that much
of the current legislature, including
the new Governor, voted for the
repeal of the Stelly rates after a
bipartisan howl of outrage from
middle-class voters—who carried
the brunt of the tax increases—
such a suggestion remains both
politically toxic and likely dead-
on-arrival despite Edwards’
embrace of the idea.
As for reducing the sales tax
exemptions on food, utilities,
prescription drugs, and other
areas as Edwards proposed in his
one-cent hike drew opposition
from Democrats as well.
Progressives — and particularly
the LA Legislative Black
Caucus—fought for years to
remove the impact of these sales
taxes on the necessities of life.
For John Bel Edwards to con-
vince his strongest Democratic
legislative allies to support this
would be hard enough, especial-
ly amidst GOP opposition.
(Edwin Edwards barely managed
it at a time when Louisiana had a
Democratic Majority House and
Senate.)
B
oosting The Sales Tax
What has become immediately
obvious in recent weeks is the only
tax suggested by John Bel
Edwards of sufficient size to plug
the hole in the deficit in the short-
term and receive two-thirds
majorities of the GOP House is a
sales tax. However, it would take
a much bigger hike then the one
suggested by the Edwards
Administration to fill $750 million
in three months if most of the other
tax increases are off the table.
With the increasing discomfort of
the Black Caucus at the idea of
taxing food, utilities, and prescrip-
tion drugs, Edwards could lose key
Democratic votes if he includes
those “necessities of life” in his tax
increases—maybe even enough
votes to kill any two-thirds major-
ity needed to hike taxes under the
State Constitution.
Without taxing food, the amount
that the legislature would have to
increase sales taxes is suspiciously
similar to the sales tax hike/swap
proposed by Bobby Jindal two years
ago — 2.5 cents on the dollar.
Such a hike, excluding food, util-
ities, etc., would produce $1.875
billion over a year, or $468 million
in just three months. A $.025 also
presents a political problem for
John Bel Edwards, who loudly
opposed the idea of hiking sales
taxes to eliminate all income taxes.
Yet, to quote the ancient Vulcan
proverb, “Only Nixon could go to
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO) is inviting its residents and community
stakeholders to attend a public hearing on Monday, March 21, 2016 to review and
provide comments on the amended Public Housing Agency (PHA) Annual Plan for
Fiscal Year 2016.
The PHA Plan amendment consists of proposed policy revisions related to Criminal
Background Screening, HUD’s Equal Access Rule, and the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act. Proposed revisions are contained in the following documents:
− Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (February 2016 Draft)
− Housing Choice Voucher Administrative Plan (February 2016 Draft)
These documents are posted on the Agency’s website at
and are
available for review and comment from February 5 through March 21, 2016 during
weekday hours of 8:00 am − 5:00 pm at the HANO Central Offices, 4100 Touro St. and
2051 Senate St. entrances, New Orleans, LA 70122. Draft Criminal Background
Screening Procedures are also posted on HANO’s website.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON
MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2016
6:00 P.M.
HELEN W. LANG MEMORIAL BOARD ROOM
4100 TOURO STREET
(Please Use Entrance on 2051 Senate Street Side)
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70122
COMMENTS MAY BE SENT ELECTRONICALLY TO E-MAIL ADDRESS
OR SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO:
Housing Authority of New Orleans
c/o Strategic Planning Department
4100 Touro Street
New Orleans, LA 70122
The HANO Central Office facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities
and the Agency will provide services or assistive devices that enable disabled
persons to participate in its programs, meetings, and activities. If you have a
reasonable accommodation request relative to attending the public hearing,
please notify our Client Services Department at (504) 670-3300 at least seven
(7) days prior to the hearing.
The Louisiana Weekly: February 8, 2016
(Special to the Trice Edney
News Wire from Global
Information Network) —
The
present composition of the United
Nations is a thorn in the side of
some African leaders who ques-
tion why none of the five perma-
nent members to the Security
Council is a Black African.
The Security Council is a pow-
erful decision-making body
within the house of nations. It is
charged with maintaining global
peace, admitting members to the
UN and approving changes to
the agency’s charter.
It has 15 members, but only five
are permanent and hold veto pow-
ers. They are Russia, China,
France, the UK and the USA.
Despite being the recipient of
most declarations on peace and
security, Africa can have only non-
permanent members who do not
influence major decisions.
At its 26th ordinary session in
Addis Ababa last week, the
African Union is expected to take
up the call for reform of the most
powerful arm of the U.N.
A Committee of ten, including
Kenya, Algeria, Libya, Senegal,
Sierra Leone, Namibia, Zambia,
Uganda, Equatorial Guinea and
Congo is resolved to put the issue
as first item on the AU agenda.
“The Security Council does not
reflect 21st-century political and
economic realities. This under-
representation is discriminatory,
unfair and unjust,” said Kenya’s
Foreign Cabinet Secretary
Amina Mohamed.
Kenya, alongside Equatorial
Guinea were the main lobbyists for
the “Africa Common Position” in
2005 which said in part: “Africa’s
goal is to be fully represented
in all the decision-making organs
of the UN, particularly in the
Security Council.
“Full representation of Africa in
the Security Council means: not
less than two permanent seats
with all the prerogatives and priv-
ileges of permanent membership
including the right of veto, and
five non-permanent seats.”
Also on AU’s agenda were
women’s rightss.
Zimbabwe’s highest court this
month outlawed child marriage,
ruling on an application by two
former child brides.
“I’ve faced so many chal-
lenges,” said Ruvimbo Tsopodzi ,
one of the applicants in a press
interview. “My husband beat me.
I wanted to stay in school but he
refused. It was very, very terri-
ble,” said the mother of one, who
was married at 15.
Until the ruling, the country’s
Marriage Act set the minimum
age at 16 for girls and 18 for
boys. The Customary Marriage
Act sets no minimum age.
Lawyer for the two women,
Tendai Biti, called the ruling
“historic and revolutionary.”
“It’s a great day for women,” she
said. However, celebrations
would not last long as long as
there were no penalties for those
