LABI official: Some in business not warming to Jindal tax plan

Advocate staff photo by BRYAN TUCK -- Jim Patterson, vice president of governmental relations for the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, speaks Wednesday at the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce's 2013 LABI Legislative Issues Luncheon at the Petroleum Club in Lafayette. At left is LABI vice president of political action Brian Landry. Show caption
Advocate staff photo by BRYAN TUCK -- Jim Patterson, vice president of governmental relations for the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, speaks Wednesday at the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce's 2013 LABI Legislative Issues Luncheon at the Petroleum Club in Lafayette. At left is LABI vice president of political action Brian Landry.

An official with a Louisiana business association told about 250 people Wednesday that it’s been hard to gauge whether Gov. Bobby Jindal’s tax revamp plan is good for business because the details have been so sparse.

With a month to go before Louisiana’s legislative session, the lack of details on a plan could signal that some in the business community have not liked what they’ve seen, said Jim Patterson, vice president of government relations of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry.

“The governor’s people are trying to get a sense of what’s acceptable” to business, Patterson said at a Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce luncheon.

Some of the feedback by business to the Jindal administration has been “chilly,” Patterson said.

This week, Jindal’s office said the administration would release the tax details by March 15 to a House budget committee.

The session officially begins April 8, but the Legislature’s money committees meet year-round.

Jindal administration officials last year started making appearances around the state touting a plan to lower tax rates and eliminate tax exemptions, which officials said would be revenue neutral and would help business development in Louisiana.

In January, Jindal announced the state would pursue a plan to eliminate state income taxes and raise sales taxes on an expanded category of goods and services, which also would be revenue neutral.

Patterson said the Jindal team might be wrestling with how to make the projected revenue numbers work.

“If you squeeze it here, it bulges there,” Patterson said. “If you squeeze it there, it bulges here.”

The chamber luncheon was a pre-session event designed to keep members abreast of the legislative landscape.

Patterson said that because there have been few specifics released, LABI looked at Texas as a primer.

But Jindal’s people “don’t necessarily feel obliged to do it as Texas does.”

Sen. Page Cortez, R-Lafayette, told chamber members that legislators this year should insist on a tax system that’s transformed and operates in full view of the public.

Cortez also called for a slowed, methodical approach for composing complex laws.

The rush to pass education reform laws last year meant mistakes that resulted in court challenges and judges overturning the laws, he said.

“Slow down … and really ask the tough questions,” Cortez said.

Other legislators weighed in on what looks to be another legislative session filled with money woes.

Sen. Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, said he would continue his fight to pare down the state’s retirement liabilities by introducing bills to bring about pension reform.

He said Louisiana’s unfunded retirement liabilities in January reached $19.3 billion, up $800 million from January 2012, a “ticking time bomb that threatens Louisiana’s future.”

Guillory said the state should get away from providing its workers with “Cadillac” pension plans.

“If we do not invest in pension reform … we’re going to be in dire straits,” Guillory said.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (3)


1) Comment by RODEO CLOWN - 07/03/2013

I hold heartily agree with you. The unfunded accrued liability(UAL) is a nightmare that has been in the making for over 70 years. Granted, “the legislation that created the teachers’ system in 1936 was unfunded, meaning the system never really had the cash needed to support retirement payments. But who needs money? Payments were made nonetheless, creating an instant UAL. “When the Louisiana Legislative Auditor’s Office investigated the UAL last spring, the total price tag weighed in at $18.2 billion. "To put that figure into perspective, every man, woman and child in Louisiana would need to pony up somewhere in the neighborhood of $4,090 to retire the state’s entire pension-related UAL."(PELICAN POST, J. ALFRED, JAN. 12, 2012) Except for Jindal's attempt to “privatize” LASERS, as though the $18+ billion dollar UAL will somehow just evaporate. Jindal has provided zero suggestions, proposed zero financing, in effect treating this problem like the unwanted relative that just want go away. This is a headache, a big, fuggly, financial headache that will not and cannot go away. Bobby's “head in the sand” attitude has just made matters worse. The laying off of thousands of state employees will produce a “net” fund drain LASER'S can ill afford and actuarials will find devastatingly destructive. Perhaps, just perhaps, Jindal may wake up to the fact that there are some problems that can't be solved through privatization, putting a huge “FOR SALE” sign at the state boundaries will not reduce the cost of government, productive government requires more than handing out pink slips and decimating health care and education, and handing out billions in business incentives-which he has done-will not have the desired effect imagined.

2) Comment by agagent - 07/03/2013

Jindal bashers seem unaware of Louisiana’s unfunded pension liability, or they demagogue the issue in their criticism of pension reform. The public needs to know the facts, and a follow up article on the state's unfunded pension liability is needed.

3) Comment by agagent - 07/03/2013

It would be “nice” if the reporter did his job and ask why some businesses are “chilly” to the proposal. Do businesses say this because the details are not written, or they feel the concept is wrong? Could some businesses fear they cannot stand up to new competition? Is the reporter just playing up the negatives because he opposes the proposal? I am “chilly” toward the article for what it does not say.