forgotston.com

Public Affairs Research Council (PAR) issued a statement Saturday calling the just-ended Special Lege Session “a waste.” I agree.

PAR went to say that the insurance tax credit that passed (HB 120) was “wasteful.” To that I take strong exception.

Returning money to the people from whom it was taken hardly seems wasteful. Especially, in light of the fact that LA ranks 10th among the states in taxation of its citizens.

PAR strongly supported additional taxes on the middleclass via the “Stelly Plan.” Apparently, PAR believes that government is more deserving of our money than we are. Interestingly, much of current state windfall revenue was generated by Stelly.

Background

In October, I suggested the tax credit as an alternative to the governor’s proposal to write rebate checks to policyholders for the years 2005 and 2006 only. PAR had come out against the governor’s plan, but offered no solution of its own. My proposed solution was sent to PAR along with other individuals, organizations and members of the lege. I suggested that if they didn’t like my plan, to come up with their own plan. PAR was silent.

Again, I submitted the proposal (which was enacted by HB 120) for the tax credit to PAR and asked for input. The response was that if it reduced the surplus (money from 2005-06), PAR would be opposed. I explained that it did not affect the surplus, but would merely reduce the size of the windfall available for expenditure for the current fiscal year. I, again, asked for PAR’s position on the proposal. No response until today when PAR came out in opposition to the tax credit.

Where’s the plan?

PAR talks about the need for insurance reform. I agree.

HB 120 does nothing to exacerbate the current insurance crisis. It simply makes private insurance purchased by homeowners and businesses slightly more affordable.

PAR has belittled the amount that each policyholder would receive from the credit as not much money. It may be a surprise to PAR, but the amount of money involved means a lot to middle class families and small businesses. In fact, it, despite several leges sessions, it will be the first general tax relief that we have received since the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit us in 2005.

Apparently, PAR prefers that we get no relief if the entire insurance problem is not solved. That is similar to Governor Blanco’s threat that without pay raises for public employees, we citizens would get no tax relief.

Yet, PAR offers no solution(s) to the insurance crisis.

Plan for expenditures?

PAR opposes our tax relief, but offers no suggestions for the use of the windfall revenues. Apparently, they feel that it is best left in the state treasury while we mere citizens have to borrow money to rebuild our lives.

PAR claims to be a governmental research organization. PAR’s website states:

PAR is an independent voice, offering solutions to critical public issues in Louisiana through accurate, objective research and focusing public attention on those solutions.

Telling us what is wrong without offering solutions doesn’t require much research.

PAR needs to take a break from its Ivory Tower and walk amongst us commoners. It would be good research.

C.B.

Uncategorized CB 8:00 am

Sunday morning I read all of the newspapers from around the state, accounts’ of the just-ended “Waterloo Session.” A lot of the commentary has revolved around partisan politics. As a non-partisan person, I have a different view.

First, partisan politics is not confined to one party or the other. Both groups in the session appeared to vote along party lines. For one side to accuse the other of being partisan in a negative sense is simply hypocritical.

If one looks at the historical voting records of the LA leges from both political parties, one finds that, unlike is found in D.C., there is little consistency in how leges from either party vote. The LA leges have always been (and still are) more of “ins” versus the “outs.” No, I’m not talking about their navels.

The real division in the leges is defined by those in favor with whoever is governor and those on the outs with the governor. The “ins” are always the problem and the “outs” have all the solutions to the problems created by the “ins.” Once the “outs” become the “ins” the roles reverse.

In the instant case, rather than the leges voting along party lines, I suggest that most leges voted as their constituents wanted. LA remains a Populist state. It was merely coincidence that the constituents of those registered as Democrats wanted more spending on government and the constituents of those registered as Republicans wanted less spending, less taxes and more of their money returned to them. In some cases, leges who were looking ahead to next year’s election and to different seats in the lege began voting as their new constituency wanted.

Additionally, some leges, regardless of their reasoning, chose to simply exert some independence from the governor.

What happened during the “Waterloo Session” was not not partisan politics. It was, however, a novel (for LA) and long overdue approach by the leges. They simply voted independently of the governor and as their constituents desired. That isn’t partisan politics that is what is called Representative Democracy.

C.B.

Uncategorized CB 8:00 am

From Thursday’s Baton Rouge Advocate:

House Republicans handed the governor what she called a Waterloo defeat Wednesday by spurning most of her spending plans.

Waterloo defeat?

“We’re not going to come back to have another Waterloo,” said Blanco, likening this session to Napoleon’s famous defeat in Belgium.

One cannot have “another Waterloo.” The defeat at Waterloo was Napoleon’s last battle. Was this a Freudian Slip? Or a lack of knowledge of history?

C.B.

Uncategorized CB 8:00 am