Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Economy’ Category

For five long years now we have patiently (or impatiently in some cases) awaited the arrival of all that transparency touted by Gov. Bobby Jindal upon his part time occupancy of the governor’s office.

Now it seems that heretofore elusive aspect of the Jindal administration has finally arrived.

No, it wasn’t Superintendent of Education John White telling News Corp. Senior Vice President Peter Gorman (aka “Dude”) that he is White’s “recharger.”

Nor is the LSU Board of Supervisors which has refused to release the names of applicants for LSU president on the grounds that the applications are conveniently (convenient for the board and the administration, that is) submitted to a Dallas consulting firm which, being a private entity, is not subject to the public records law.

It wouldn’t be the Louisiana Office of Economic Development either. LED a couple of years back refused to surrender records to the Legislative Auditor’s office so that the state auditors could perform the function with which they are charged—auditing the state’s books.

And, needless to say, it is not Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, who found a way to punt on our request for assistance in prevailing upon the Department of Education to comply with the Louisiana public records law (the law, the AG’s office informed us, says it can intervene on behalf of the public meetings law but there is no provision for it to assist with public records).

That’s a classic case of legal hair splitting, but hey, the attorney general’s office is the official legal counsel for state agencies (a veritable horde of state-contracted legal counsels notwithstanding), so who are we to argue? We’re just the low-lifes who work, pay taxes and vote in this state. Never mind some 80 or so (we finally quit counting when we reached that number) legal opinions by the AG issued to various state agencies which opine that public records must be surrendered.

But we digress (as we often do).

No, it’s none of those. The shocker here is that the transparency that has suddenly and without warning opened up before our very eyes originates in none other than the governor’s office.

Yep, chalk one up for Bobby, our part time, absentee governor who would rather run for president than run the state.

Don’t believe us? Still harboring some doubts as to the veracity of our claim?
Well, we have the proof.

Jindal is proposing scrapping the state personal and corporate income tax and replacing it with…well, something. He hasn’t the vaguest idea what (he said earlier this month that he’s still working on details of his plan).

In general terms, Jindal is talking about an increase in the state sales tax and a dollar increase in the cigarette tax (remember when he refused to sign the renewal of the 4-cent cigarette tax because, he said, he was opposed to “new” taxes?).

Never mind that a sales tax would hit the low- and middle-income taxpayers the very hardest http://louisianavoice.com/2013/01/16/par-lsu-economist-richardson-cast-doubts-on-%CF%80-yush-plan-to-replace-louisiana-income-tax-with-state-sales-tax-increase/, abolishment of state income taxes has become the mantra of Republican governors nationwide because it would represent the ultimate tax break (read: political reward) for corporate campaign donors.

But rather than rely on the lack of merits in a weak proposal, Jindal has enlisted his minions to launch a letter-writing campaign in support of his as yet incomplete tax plan.

That’s correct: the plan isn’t even completed, much less polished and officially presented to the legislature and the public, but the letter-writing campaign has already started. Never mind that the plan has as yet progressed no further than a two-page outline pretentiously entitled “A Framework for Comprehensive Tax Reform.” It apparently suffices for the purposes of initiating a well-orchestrated PR campaign from the governor’s office or perhaps from Timmy Teepell’s OnMessage (Oops, we forgot; they are one and the same).

It officially began on Feb. 20 with the publication in newspapers statewide of a letter by LED Secretary and presumed future LSU President/Chancellor/High Potentate Stephen Moret.

Boiled down to its essentials, Moret’s 12-paragraph letter claims that Jindal’s undefined, unreleased, still-in-the-works, everything-still-on-the-table plan would somehow magically bump Louisiana from No. 32 to No. 4 in something called the State Business Tax Climate.

Fine for business climate, yes, but Moret conveniently neglects how that plan, still being formulated somewhere out there in the fog-enshrouded concepts of the policy wonks, would affect the working stiffs. An addition 2 or 3 percent on the sales tax for the purchase of say, a package of toilet paper won’t be such a burden. But tack that same 2 or 3 percent onto the cost of a new refrigerator, central air and heating unit or a new automobile and suddenly, in the words of the late Illinois Sen. Everett Dirksen, you’re talking about real money.

But no matter; Moret obviously had his marching orders: write a glowing letter about how the Jindal Plan (not to be confused with the Stelly Plan that he repealed, at a cost to the state of about $300 million a year) would be great for business—and everyone knows, as President Calvin Coolidge said way back in 1925, “The chief business of the American people is business.” (The stock market crash, of course, was only four years away when he said that, which subsequently put a lot of American people out of business.)

Exactly a week after Moret’s letter, on Feb. 27, the Baton Rouge Advocate (and probably a few other papers across the state) published a second letter endorsing the still mythical tax plan. This one was written by someone named Matthew Glans, who identifies himself as senior policy analyst for The Heartland Institute in Chicago (described by The Economist last May as “The world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change,” according to the institute’s own web page) and which also describes itself as an advocate of free market policies.

Probably its greatest claim to fame, however, came in the 1990s, when it worked with Philip Morris in attempts to debunk the science linking secondhand smoke to health issues and to lobby against government public-health reforms.

(The Heartland Institute bears an eerie resemblance to the fictional “myFACTS” currently being lampooned by Garry Trudeau in the comic strip Doonesbury.)

Glans calls Jindal’s plan “a strong step towards improving the state’s economic competitiveness and returning tax dollars to Louisiana citizens and businesses.”

At the same time he cautions against a system “that allows the government to choose winners and losers.”

“A tax system filled with tax increases on targeted items such as tobacco or subsidies for certain businesses (read: tobacco, in states like North Carolina), however, is not sound policy,” he says, adding, “A system that lowers rates across the board, like much of Jindal’s proposal, would spur economic growth.”

Strange how Glans, sitting in Chicago, could know so much about the part time, absentee governor’s tax plan when Jindal himself confesses that his “plan” is still evolving and stranger still that he would single out tobacco (and tobacco subsidies) as a potential victim of increased sales taxes.

Curious, too, that he is so knowledgeable when legislators remain in the dark.

But, hey, we wanted transparency from our governor.

And this “independent” letter-writing campaign is about as transparent as it gets.

Read Full Post »

Last March, Piyush Jindal’s alter-ego Timmy Teepell (or would it be the other way around?) was a guest on the Jim Engster’s Show on Baton Rouge’s public radio station WRKF and in the course of that interview he denied any knowledge of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) agenda.

Another guest on Engster’s show, Public Service Commission Chairman Foster Campbell, this week took Jindal, the legislature and the entire Louisiana congressional delegation to task for not displaying sufficient backbone to back Jindal down on his proposals to eliminate the personal and corporate income taxes in favor of a 3 cent state sales tax increase.

Campbell instead called for the passage of a 3 percent processing tax on oil and gas which he said would generate $3 billion a year “and let the people who can afford a tax pay it.”

When one reads ALEC’s 5th anniversary edition of Rich States, Poor States http://www.alec.org/publications/rich-states-poor-states/, one has to wonder at the veracity of Teepell’s claim. The annual report devotes 15 of its 125 pages to demonstrating how bad personal income taxes for states’ economies—and that’s before it even gets to the five-page chapter entitled Policy #1: The Personal Income Tax.

Even after that chapter, state personal income taxes are mentioned at least once on 64 of the next 75 pages.

Likewise, corporate income taxes are also discussed on 10 separate pages before Policy #2: The Corporate Income Tax, another five-page chapter. Corporate income taxes are then mentioned on 56 of the remaining 80 pages.

As if that were not enough, Rich States, Poor States also zeroes in on its favorite tax, the sales tax. “We find that sales taxes have a neutral effect on state economies and therefore are a far preferable means for a state to raise needed revenue,” it said in the first paragraph of Policy #3, entitled (you guessed it) The Sales Tax.

In all, sales taxes are invoked on no fewer than 74 of the 125-page report which boasts that ALEC’s tax and fiscal policy is “to prioritize government spending, to lower the overall tax burden, to enhance transparency of government operations, and to develop sound, free-market tax and fiscal policy.”

And Teepell is unaware of this agenda. Really?

“When policymakers choose the levels and types of taxes for their state, they must confront not only the possible effects on the state economy, but the volatility of tax receipts as well,” the report says. “When tax receipts are volatile, that usually means an abnormally large shortfall of revenues when times are tough and spending needs are the greatest.”

Incredibly, the report claims that revenue generated from sales taxes “is the least affected by the boom and bust cycle—in fact, sales tax revenue changes only half as much as revenue from personal and corporate income taxes do.

“Not only does the sales tax do less to inhibit growth, it is a steady revenue source even during a recession,” says the report.

Then, ripping a page right of the Milton Friedman playbook, the report says, “Progressive corporate and personal income taxes do far more damage to the economy than do other taxes such as sales taxes, property taxes and severance taxes. In addition, they (income taxes) are substantially less reliable than those other taxes. How’s that for sound tax policy?”

Well, certainly inflicting a regressive sales tax on Louisiana’s poor is considerably more reliable than corporate income taxes when one considers all the tax breaks, exemptions and rebates this administration hands out to the tune of about $5 billion a year to corporate contributors.

But to address the sophomoric question, “How’s that for sound tax policy?” we turn to another publication entitled Selling Snake Oil to the States: The American Legislative Exchange Council’s Flawed Prescriptions for Prosperity.

A joint publication of Good Jobs First and The Iowa Policy Project, The November Snake Oil report takes ALEC to task for its Rich States, Poor States publication which, as might be expected, is heavily weighted in favor of its corporate membership.

“We conclude that the evidence cited to support Rich States, Poor States’ policy menu ranges from deeply flawed to non-existent,” Snake Oil says. “Subjected to scrutiny, these policies are revealed to explain nothing about why some states have created more jobs or enjoyed higher income growth than others over the past five years.

“In actuality, Rich States, Poor States provides a recipe for economic inequality, wage suppression and stagnant incomes and for depriving state and local governments of the revenue needed to maintain the public infrastructure and education systems that are true foundations of long term economic growth and shared prosperity,” it said.

The Snake Oil report said that results actually reflect just the opposite of the ALEC claims. “The more a state’s policies mirrored the ALEC low-tax/regressive taxation/limited government agenda, the lower the median family income; this is true for every year from 2007 through 2011.”

Jindal was elected in 2007 and took office in 2008 and his policies, Teepell’s denial notwithstanding, have certainly mirrored the ALEC low-tax/regressive taxation/limited government agenda and the state’s infrastructure and education systems just as certainly have suffered under staggering budgetary cuts.

Louisiana’s average median household income of $42,423 for 2010 was the nation’s 10th lowest and 29 percent of Louisiana’s children live in poverty, second only to Mississippi’s 32 percent.

The state’s working poor already pay little or no income tax, so elimination of the state income tax would have no effect on them. A sales tax increase, however, would hit the poor the hardest because they would be paying the same taxes on diapers, clothing, cars, gasoline, appliances and automobiles as the wealthy. Accordingly, they would be paying a much larger percentage of their income in sales taxes than higher income families.

Campbell, a former state senator and an unsuccessful candidate for governor in 2007, was elected chairman of the Public Service Commission last year.

Accustomed to being a political lightning rod for his candor, Campbell was in rare form on Engster’s show on Tuesday, saying that Jindal typically works for the benefit of big companies and corporations. “He’ll do anything he can to help those at the top end of the income bracket.”

Appearing to consciously avoid referring to Jindal as governor, he said, “Mr. Jindal knows the solution. When I ran for governor, I wanted to get rid of the income tax which I still think we ought to do. Progressive states like Florida and Tennessee don’t have state income taxes and neither does Texas. They seem to be doing better than us. But you have to replace it with something and Mr. Jindal knows what to replace it with but you couldn’t get him close to it.

“Mr. Jindal wouldn’t touch the oil companies and that’s where to get the money. We just need some politicians with some plain old-fashioned guts to ask ‘em to pay their fair share. I’ve never seen anyone stand up to the oil companies. We don’t have a congressman who’ll do it. Mary Landrieu won’t do it. David Vitter is joined at the hip with them and he absolutely won’t do it.

“Mr. Jindal would run out of the Capitol screaming if you asked him to touch Exxon with a tax,” Campbell said.

Campbell, a Democrat, then heaped praise on Louisiana’s first Republican governor since Reconstruction.

“The most honest governor by far, who tried to do the right thing, was Dave Treen. When he ran against Louis Lambert (in 1979), business and industry supported him but when he went after the oil companies, they all turned on him and put Edwards back in,” he said.

“He was absolutely right when he had the Coastal Wetlands Environmental Levy (CWEL) and he wanted some kind of fee from the oil companies for tearing up our coast.

“I like oil companies for furnishing jobs,” he said. “That’s great. But we have let the oil companies absolutely take over our state, damage our coastline and never asked them to pay for it.

The BP spill, bad as it was, was miniscule compared to the damage oil companies have done to our coastline and all our congressional delegation wants to do is go ask Obama to pay for the coastal restoration and Mr. Vitter (U.S. Sen. David Vitter is the leading cheerleader for that. The government didn’t drill the wells and Mr. Vitter knows that but he doesn’t want to ask the people he’s close to to pay for the damage. And neither does Ms. Landrieu. You see the ads on TV praising Ms. Landrieu. Do you know who’s paying for those ads? The oil companies.”

“We need to ask the oil companies who are making billions to pay something rather than asking the people of Louisiana which has (one of the) poorest populations in the nation. Rather than asking people at the bottom to pay the big end of the tax, why doesn’t Mr. Jindal ask companies like Exxon, Chevron, and Shell to pay their fair share? Fifty percent of the coastal erosion in this state is caused by offshore activity.

“In 1926, when we put it into the constitution, we could tax only domestic oil. That was fine back then when 95 percent of our oil was domestic. Today, it’s 96 percent foreign and 4 percent domestic.

“We have to tax oil and gas coming into the state of Louisiana,” he said. “I agree with Mr. Jindal that we need to eliminate the severance tax because it has been dwindling anyway since the ‘80s. Instead of the severance tax, charge a simple 3 percent processing tax which would raise $3 billion a year.

Campbell said former Gov. Buddy Roemer wants to tax oil that’s still in the ground. “That won’t generate the money. I asked Roemer, Edwards and (Mike) Foster (about the 3 percent processing fee) but they wouldn’t help.

“I guarantee you it would pass by 80 percent. Mr. Kennedy (State Treasurer John Kennedy) knows that, Mr. Roemer, Mr. Jindal and especially Mr. (Dan) Juneau, the head of LABI (Louisiana Association of Business and Industry), know it. Mr. Juneau cannot stand a processing tax because the people who pay his bills don’t want it.”

Campbell said, “It’s the LABIs of the world who represent the big companies doing business up and down the Mississippi. LABI is not worried about the Mindens, the Homers, the Farmervilles, the Ringgolds, the Mansfields or the Rustons of Louisiana. They’re worried about the Chevrons, the Dows, the Exxons. Those are the people who put up the big money.

“Legislators who consistently vote with LABI are not representing their districts because LABI could care less about them.

“That’s who Mr. Jindal is dancing to. That’s why he wants to raise the sales tax on the people. Don’t put it on the oil companies that make billions,” he said in mocking the administration line. “They can’t afford it. They might leave the state.

“How are they going leave the state when they have 50,000 miles of pipeline that deliver oil and gas all across America? And they have the Mississippi River! They can’t leave the state. We need politicians with backbone who’ll say, ‘Now listen, you’ve had a great day in Louisiana, but it’s over. We have crumbling roads, poor education, pollution, a torn-up coast and now you’re gonna pay your fair share. Now get out there and start crying that you’re gonna leave the state and we’ll see what the people believe.’”

At that point, Engster finally got to ask, “Are you a member of LABI?”

“Absolutely not. They don’t represent small business. They say they do but they represent the big boys. Never forget that. Mr. Juneau takes his orders from the boys that put up the most money. They don’t worry about the hardware store in Mansfield. They say they do, but they’re fooling those people. They represent the biggest of the big, nothing more, nothing less.

“That’s who Mr. Jindal represents. Look what he’s doing: raising the sales tax on the poorest people living in America—and make sure, by the way, to get rid of corporate taxes.

“You haven’t heard Mr. Jindal say one word about Exxon paying its fair share and you won’t because he’s in their back pocket.

“Mr. Vitter won’t say anything about fixing our coast because he’s in their back pocket.

“Ms. Landrieu won’t say that because she’s in their back pocket.”

LouisianaVoice did a quick check of campaign contributions and found that Campbell may have been onto something when he talked about a lack of courage by the legislature and the congressional delegation and Jindal’s being beholden to the oil and gas industry.

Oil and gas interests contributed more than $1.5 million to 143 state candidates, including legislators and statewide elected officials since 2003, including Jindal, Kennedy, Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne, former Lt. Gov. and current New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, Commissioner of Agriculture Mike Strain and former Secretary of Natural Resources and current Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle.

Moreover, oil and gas contributed more than $1.75 million to six of Louisiana’s seven congressmen since 2002 and $1.99 million to the state’s two U.S. senators since 1996.

The breakdown for the congressional delegation, with the dates each was first elected in parentheses is as follows:

Senate:

• Mary Landrieu (1996)—$940,174;

• David Vitter (2004)—$1.05 million’

House:

• Steve Scalise (2008)—$257,785;

• Charles Boustany (2004)—$641,605;

• John Fleming (2008)—$405,450;

• Rodney Alexander (2002)—$254,559;

• Bill Cassidy (2008)—$194,300;

• Cedric Richmond (2010)—$0

Read Full Post »

The Public Affairs Research Council (PAR) and a member of the Louisiana Revenue Estimating Conference (REC), in separate news releases, have raised questions that cast serious doubts on the wisdom of Gov. Piyush Jindal’s proposed state tax reforms.

PAR released its Tax Advisory Group’s Tax Policy Guidance that cautioned that the impact of Jindal’s proposed tax changes should be “accurately estimated and firmly understood with fact-based evidence and confidence.” It also said taxes should be broad-based with “low rates and few exemptions.”

It also said the proposed elimination of the state income tax could “destabilize” the state’s revenue base and even set the stage for increased taxes in the future.

Almost simultaneously, LSU E.J. Ourso School of Business economist Jim Richardson, in an interview with Baton Rouge public radio station WRKF, warned that if the state income tax is replaced by a state sales tax increase, exemptions for items like food and prescription drugs would also have to be eliminated to offset the income tax revenue loss.

Richardson is a member of the state Revenue Estimating Conference which meets at least four times per year to adjust revenue forecasts for the state. The legislature is mandated to rely on REC projections in formulating the state general fund budget each year.

In addition to being a member of REC, Richardson was also a member of the PAR Advisory Group which drafted the organization’s Tax Policy Guidance.

Richardson said eliminating personal and corporate income taxes would create a gap of nearly $3.5 billion in state revenue. “If you make it up with purely sales taxes, you’re talking about doubling the rate.

Richardson—and PAR—calls the sales tax proposal a “regressive tax,” meaning a tax in which the burden falls more heavily on low income taxpayers. “That means a larger part of their income will be subject to tax,” he said. He said because a sales tax is flat, meaning everyone pays the same amount, no matter what their income, those with low incomes will end up paying a higher proportion of their income for taxes.

He said that while other states, such as Texas, do not have personal income taxes, Texas homeowners, for example, pay much higher property taxes. He said there is no valid model for eliminating the corporate income tax because “other state governments work differently.”

He also said that while shoppers may not notice an increase sales tax on low price items such as toiletries, an increased sales tax may well place luxury items out of reach for some. “Go buy a new car, a new refrigerator. Go buy something that has relatively high prices attached to it,” he said. Then you’ll notice it”

He said there aren’t many alternatives to a state income tax for raising revenue. “If there were, we would have already done it,” he said.

The PAR report took the potential of increased sales taxes a bit further by pointing out that with higher sales tax rates, Louisiana businesses would be at a competitive disadvantage to sellers in other states and, to an even greater extent, to untaxed online sales—especially for high-cost items.

“After having obtained the highest sales tax rate in the country,” the PAR report said, “Louisiana would be in unchartered territory as far as estimating how much revenue would be produced.”

The report pointed out that Louisiana already is a relatively low-tax state for individuals and cited the Tax Foundation which says that only three other states impose a lower overall tax burden on their citizens.

Louisiana’s property taxes, which provide a key source of revenue for local governments, are among the lowest in the nation, it says. By contrast, the state’s combined state-local sales tax rate is the third highest in the nation.

Corporate taxes, it said, are subject to many exemptions. “Based on profits, and therefore vulnerable to recessions, the corporate income tax provides a widely fluctuating source of state revenue that is hard to predict from year to year.”

The PAR report said that the corporate franchise tax should be eliminated and ways found to replace the annual revenue loss of about $74 million. “The franchise tax is a complicated administrative burden on business and is often difficult to calculate, which leads to time-consuming regulatory problems and litigation. The current tax is a deterrent to capital investments and a disincentive to companies considering a headquarters operation in Louisiana,” it said. “To offset the revenue loss partially, the state could consider a standard capped annual tax for corporations and/or other registered business entities.”
The report, in responding to Jindal’s proposals, said, “The individual income tax tends to grow with the economy and therefore is an important component of Louisiana’s overall balanced and stable tax structure and revenue base.

“A repeal of the individual income tax could create a more attractive perception of the state’s tax climate but such a move runs the risk of destabilizing the state’s revenue base and would likely set the state for increased taxes in the future.”

The report said that eliminating the individual income tax would result in an annual revenue loss of $2.6 billion based on current-year collections. “It should be noted that in future years the state’s annual individual income tax revenue is expected to grow at a higher rate than that of its sales tax revenues,” it said. “Estimates of the amount of money needed to offset an elimination of the income taxes should not be based solely on the revenue experience of past years.

“If higher sales taxes are implemented, the pressure for new exemptions for sales taxes will be intense,” the report said. “Each new or revived exemption will erode the sales tax base upon which the state would have become more independent. The reform policy should therefore include tougher standards for the adoption of sales tax exemptions.”

Echoing Richardson, the PAR report said low-income individuals and families pay little or no state income tax and therefore will be adversely affected with an overall tax increase if higher sales taxes replace the personal income tax. “The state should find ways to lessen the negative impact on people in these categories if the proposal is adopted,” it said.

“There are some categories of people who have an exemption from (state) income taxes and could also be paying higher taxes overall under the proposal,” the PAR report said. “These include public employee retirees, military retirees and those on disability. Also, Social Security retirement benefits are exempt from Louisiana income tax.”

While saying that such exemptions may be debatable as good policy, the report said, the impact on those people nevertheless “should be noted.”

Read Full Post »

“If you’ve got some states doing it, it’s hard for the others not to do it. It’s like unilaterally disarming.”

—Former Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar, on his unsuccessful efforts to rein in the runaway trend toward tax incentives offered by states to lure industry.

Read Full Post »

Unless the Revenue Study Commission’s report on the state’s tax structure is destined to become just another government study that gathers dust, it must address one significant fact: that for every dollar in the state’s budget, 21 additional cents is given away in tax incentives, exemptions and credits.

The report is scheduled to be released sometime shortly after the first of the year.

The state, as has been the case the past several years, is facing a budgetary shortfall of about $1 billion for Fiscal Year 2013-14 and the Jindal administration on Friday, Dec. 14., announced another budget cut, this one $166 million—all in health care for the poor.

For the current budget of $25 billion, the state each year gives away almost $5 billion in various tax breaks which range from enterprise zone credits to 10-year property tax exemptions to sales and use tax rebates.

Louisiana corporate and industrial tax incentives were only $59 million as recently as 2001. The surge, of course, translates to less revenue in the state budget but Gov. Piyush Jindal has refused to offset the revenue losses with increased taxes elsewhere, choosing instead to cut services. As a consequence, higher education and health care have incurred devastating cuts.

Put another way, the Jindal administration continues to insist on transferring money from education and health care to businesses.

Louisiana commits $394 for every man, woman and child each year in tax breaks to manufacturers, retail outlets and movie production companies through the Louisiana Office of Economic Development (LED).

Those include:

• LED FastStart, which creates customized employee recruiting, screening and training solutions for eligible companies;

• Angel Investor Tax Credit of up to 35 percent for start-up and expansion investors;

• Digital Interactive Media and Software Development Incentive;

• Enterprise Zone tax credits of $2,500 for each new job created;

• Industrial tax exemption of 100 percent for up to 10 years on new manufacturing investment;

• Motion Picture Investor transferrable tax credit of up to 30 percent;

• Musical and Theatrical Production tax credit of 25 percent to 35 percent;

• Ports of Louisiana investor tax credit program to promote Louisiana ports;

• Quality Jobs program that offers up to 6 percent in rebates on annual payroll expenses for up to 10 years;

• Research and Development tax credits of up to 40 percent to existing businesses;

• Restoration Tax Abatement of 100 percent for five years for rehabilitation of existing structures;

• Sound Recording Investor Tax Credit of 25 percent;

• Technology Commercialization Credit and Jobs Program offering a 40 percent refundable tax credit and a 6 percent payroll rebate for firms that invest in the commercialization of Louisiana technology.

The New York Times recently conducted an extensive investigation into state tax incentives that revealed that Louisiana’s $1.79 billion in business tax breaks ranks 11th in the nation.

Local governments give up $9.1 million per hour ($80 billion per year) in tax incentives to business and industry, according to the Times story.

Movie maker Oliver Stone criticizes subsidies to industries but defends similar subsidies for movie production, the story noted.

Moreover, the $394 per capita cost is eighth highest in the U.S. and the 21-cent cost per state budget dollar is seventh highest in the country.

That $1.79 billion includes $1.61 billion in corporate income tax credits, rebates and reductions and $75 million in property tax abatement.

But one thing the Times story neglected to point out in its report is that the $1.79 billion in corporate tax breaks represents only about 40 percent of the total tax breaks given by Louisiana through other exemptions, including those for hazardous waste disposal, gift taxes, inheritance taxes, sales taxes on alcoholic beverages, tobacco, food and prescription drugs.

Only six other states had a higher ratio of tax incentives to state budget. Texas granted 51 cents per state budget dollar in corporate tax incentives. Following, in order were Nebraska (39 cents), Oklahoma and West Virginia (37 cents), Vermont (31 cents) and Michigan (30 cents).

Not surprisingly, Texas has the most corporate tax exemptions with $19.1 billion.

But Louisiana, like so many other states has plunged headlong into the ever-escalating race for industry and jobs and again, like other states, has placed a tremendous strain on state finances.

The current obsession with tax breaks began with the repeal of the Stelly Plan in Gov. Piyush Jindal’s first few months in office in 2008, a move that has cost the state approximately $300 million per year.

The repeal of the Stelly Plan, according to Jindal, was supposed to save individual taxpayers between $500 and $1,000 per year. But to save $500, a single filer would have to earn as much as $90,000 and joint filers would have to make more than $150,000 a year to save $1,000.

But the revenue losses caused by the ill-advised repeal of the Stelly Plan are dwarfed by the losses to the state treasury that have resulted in corporate tax incentives granted for projects that have produced few or no jobs.

In 2011, for example, the Board of Commerce and Industry approved exemptions totaling more than $2 billion in enterprise zone and property tax exemptions for new and expanded businesses that produced a mere 7,300 jobs, many of those low-salaried jobs.

But not even those comparatively few jobs turn out to be permanent.

• The Ormet Corporation kicked about 200 of its employees in Ascension Parish to the curb in November, only about a year after receiving tax credits worth about $1 million and a performance-based loan of $1.5 million from the state.

• International Paper Co. received more than $55 million in tax breaks while creating only 107 new jobs over the four-year period from 2008-2011. But that did not prevent IP from shutting down its plant in Bastrop in 2008 and another in Minden last May, putting 610 employees out of work.

• The $26.3 million in tax incentives received from the state by General Motors in 2008 and 2009 produced no new jobs and worse, failed to prevent closure of its Shreveport plant which sent 950 workers to the unemployment lines.

• Dow Chemical continued taking tax incentives from the state, even after announcing in 2009 that 2,500 workers would lose their jobs when three Louisiana plants that make ethylene and derivatives would close. Over the four years from 2008 through 2011, Dow accepted $70.3 million in tax incentives that resulted in not a single new job.

That could be because many established plants submit applications for renewals of existing 10-year exemptions, citing plant modernizations or improvements as justification for the continued tax break when in reality, many of the so-called modernization projects involve little more than landscaping, changing a few light bulbs or similar routine maintenance projects.

But even worse is the gnawing appearance of quid pro quo. Many recipients of the state’s generous tax incentives also made generous campaign contributions to Gov. Piyush Jindal.

In all, 29 separate entities received 32 tax exemptions totaling $774 million over the four-year period. Those same 29 have made $135,700 in campaign contributions to Jindal.

Some of the recipients, followed by total tax breaks and campaign contributions to Jindal, include:

• CLECO ($169 million, $14,000);

• Calumet Lubricants ($105 million, $1,000);

• Dow Chemical ($70.3 million, $13,000);

• Exxon/Mobil ($13.3 million, $11,000);

• Century Tel ($24.6 million, $5,000);

• The Coca Cola Co. ($23.9 million, $2,500);

• PPG Industries ($23.2 million, $1,000);

• Marathon Oil ($27.7 million, $11,000);

• Monsanto Co. ($38.7 million, $5,000);

• Conoco Phillips ($37.2 million, $5,000);

• General Motors ($26.7 million, $2,500);

• Stupp Corp. ($25.9 million, $6,000);

• DuPont ($21.3 million, $1,000);

• Select Energy ($14.3 million, $5,000);

• Dynamic Industries ($13.6 million, $5,000);

• General Electric ($11.2 million, $5,000);

• Syngenta Crop Protection ($11 million, $1,000);

• Georgia Pacific ($10.7 million, $4,200);

• Targa Midstream Services ($7.88 million, $5,000);

• Weyerhaeuser ($3.98 million, $5,000);

• Bollinger Shipyards and affiliated companies ($9.36 million, $63,850);

• Chevron ($3.7 million, $1,000);

• Rouse’s Enterprises ($3.48 million, $5,000);

• The GEO Group ($3 million), $5,000);

• Wal-Mart ($2.59 million, $5,000);

• Walgreens ($2.59 million, $5,000);

• Bruce Foods ($2.5 million, $4,500);

• Turner Industries ($2.42 million, $5,000);

• Boh Brothers ($1.76 million, $1,000);

In addition to campaign contributions, which are limited to $5,000 per individual per election cycle, several of the recipients of tax incentives have contributed even more generously to the Supriya Jindal Foundation, established by Jindal’s wife six months after Jindal took office.

Among the contributors are charter members (who give a minimum of $250,000) Marathon Oil, Dow Chemical and Wal-Mart.

Chevron is among the foundation’s Platinum members who pledge a minimum of $50,000.

Read Full Post »

Get ready, Louisiana taxpayers. If you encounter a need for a one-on-one meeting with a Louisiana Department of Revenue spokesperson to discuss your state taxes in the near future, you soon will be out of luck. You’ll need to juke on down to Baton Rouge or New Orleans to get face time.

Though no announcement has yet been made of a target date, LouisianaVoice has learned that all other state revenue satellite offices are being shuttered.

The closures, of course, will not affect New Orleans where the state is locked into that overpriced lease agreement with Tom Benson as part of the notorious state giveaway to keep the Saints in Louisiana. That’s the deal whereby Benson purchased the old Dominion Tower across from the Superdome with the understanding that the state would move all its New Orleans offices there and pay about twice was it was paying for its former office space.

It was not immediately known how many state employees would be affected, but suffice it to say the timing of the decision, coming as it does a week before Christmas, couldn’t be worse for Revenue staffers in Shreveport, Monroe, Alexandria, Lake Charles and Lafayette.

Having already gone for more than three years without a raise, they now face the prospects of unemployment.

Of course, certain employees have nothing to worry about. The cutbacks will only apply to the grunts, the ones who actually do the day-to-day work, the ones who have to suffer indignities from supervisors and flak from unhappy taxpayers.

This is the same agency, by the way, that hired former State Rep. Jane Smith first as Assistant Secretary at $124,446 despite her professed lack of knowledge about revenue. Upon the firing of Secretary Cynthia Bridges over that alternative fuel tax (a bill authored by smith, no less, and signed into law by Jindal), Smith was briefly promoted to secretary by Piyush.

Jindal later hired former executive counsel Tim Barfield as secretary but circumvented the state law which limited the secretary’s salary to $124,000 by also giving him the title of Executive Counsel of Revenue and bumping his salary up to a cool $250,000.

Of course, it didn’t hurt that Barfield and his wife contributed $15,000 to Jindal’s campaigns in 2006 and 2010 and that one of his former employers, Amedisys, chipped in another $11,000 to the Piyush cause.

And apparently oblivious to the current state hiring freeze, the new secretary promptly went out and bought himself a chief staff in the person of Jarrod Coniglio, who “will take the lead for all of our day-to-day work and be a great help to us as we work to coordinate and execute with the highest efficiency, accuracy and customer service,” according to Barfield.

The price for his new aide that Bridges apparently never saw the need for? $115,003.

While on his shopping spree, Barfield also picked up a new press secretary: Douglas Baker at an annual salary of $105,997.

True to form in the Piyush administration, efforts to contact the newly-appointed Revenue press secretary for more detailed information about the office shut-downs and accompanying layoffs were unsuccessful.

Read Full Post »

Piyush Jindal loves to regurgitate reports that tell of Louisiana’s wonderful business climate (with all but non-existent corporate taxes, cheap labor and a glut of laid-off state employees looking for work, why would the climate not be pro-business?) but here’s a report we aren’t likely to hear him say much about or post on the state web page as is his custom when the reports are favorable.

Louisiana has the 10th worst-run state government in the nation, according to a study just released by 24/7 Wall Street, an independent research company.

While acknowledging that measuring the successful management of a state is difficult, 24/7, which each year conducts an extensive survey of all 50 states, considered data from a number of sources. These included Standard & Poor’s, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau, the Tax Foundation, Realty Trac, the FBI, and the National Conference of State Legislators.

Once all the data were extrapolated, each state was ranked on the basis of its performance in all categories, the study’s methodology report said.

“A state with abundant natural resources should have an easier time balancing its budget than one starved for resources,” the study said. “Despite this, it is the responsibility of each state to deal with the resources at its disposal. Each government must anticipate economic shifts and diversify its industries and attract new business.”

Those are particularly damning observations insofar as Louisiana’s ongoing fiscal crisis is concerned. Massive budget cuts have gutted the operations of many state agencies. Higher education, for example, once received two-thirds of its budget from state appropriations and the rest from tuition. That is completely reversed today as tuition increases of some 40 percent over the past several years coupled with budgetary cuts now has tuition providing two-thirds of all revenue for higher ed.

Another general criticism of poorly-run states that well may have been addressed specifically to Louisiana and the Piyush administration said, “A state should be able to raise enough revenue to ensure the safety of its citizens and minimize hardship without spending more than it can prudently afford. Some states have historically done this much better than others,” it said.

Piyush has steadfastly refused to consider any efforts to raise additional revenue, including tax increases. Instead, he has consistently pushed for more liberal tax incentives for businesses, a policy that has cost the state up to $5 billion per year, according to official estimates.

The 24/7 report cites North Dakota as the best-run state in the nation, the first time it has received that distinction. As of August of this year, North Dakota was the second-largest oil producer in the nation because of the use of hydraulic fracturing in the state Bakken shale formation.

The oil and gas boom brought jobs to the state, whose 3.5 percent unemployment rate was the country’s lowest in 2011.

North Dakota and Montana (the 18th best-run) were the only states that have not reported budget shortfalls since fiscal 2009.

Louisiana, on the other hand, earned its 10th worst-managed state on the basis of having:

• The 26th largest budget deficit (14.3 percent);

• The seventh lowest median household income ($41,734);

• The third highest percentage of its citizens living below the poverty line (20.4 percent);

• The 10th smallest proportion of its budget dedicated to social welfare due in large part to a lack of tax revenue (and this was before the latest round of budget cuts, including Medicaid);

• One of the highest violent crime rates in the nation (New Orleans had the highest murder rate in 2011);

• The 20th highest debt per capita.

Louisiana’s ranking as the 10th worst-run state puts it just ahead of Mississippi, the 11th worst, the report indicates. Mississippi had the lowest median household income ($36,919) in the nation, the country’s highest percentage of people living below the poverty line (22.6 percent), and the country’s fourth highest unemployment rate (10.7 percent).

California, with the second highest unemployment rate (11.7 percent) ranked as the worst-run state in the nation despite having the 10th highest median household income ($52,287.

Following are the 10 best-run states and some of the factors that got them their high rankings, according to 24/7:

1. North Dakota (lowest unemployment rate);

2. Wyoming (sixth lowest percentage of families living below poverty line);

3. Nebraska (second lowest in both unemployment and per capita debt);

4. Utah (11th lowest unemployment rate, tied for 17th lowest percentage living below poverty line);

5. Iowa (7th lowest per capita debt, 6th lowest unemployment rate);

6. Alaska (second highest median household income, 4th lowest percentage living below poverty line);

7. South Dakota (3rd lowest unemployment rate);

8. Vermont (5th lowest unemployment rate, 7th lowest percentage living below poverty line);

9. Virginia (7th highest in median household income, 7th lowest percentage living in poverty);

10. Minnesota (13th lowest per capita debt, 11th highest median household income, 10th lowest percentage living in poverty);

….and here are the 10 worst-run states, along with some of the reasons for their less than desirable standings:

41. Louisiana (20th highest per capita debt, 7th lowest median household income) 3rd highest percentage living in poverty);

42. Florida (tied for 6th highest unemployment rate);

43. South Carolina (8th highest unemployment rate, 9th lowest median household income, 9th highest percentage living in poverty);

44. New Mexico (8th lowest median household income, 2nd highest percentage living in poverty);

45. Nevada (largest budget deficit in nation, highest unemployment rate in nation);

46. New Jersey (5th highest per capita debt, 4th highest budget deficit, 13th highest unemployment rate);

47. Arizona (3rd largest budget deficit, 13th highest unemployment rate, 8th highest percentage in poverty);

48. Illinois (11th highest per capita debt, 2nd largest budget deficit, 10th highest unemployment rate);

49. Rhode Island (3rd highest debt per capita, 3rd highest unemployment rate);

50. California (2nd highest unemployment rate, 18th highest percentage living in poverty).

Read Full Post »

Lyndon Johnson once said he had no use for any politician who, 30 seconds after entering a crowded room, could not tell who was for him and who was against him.

He would have little use for Gov. Piyush Jindal, the governor’s hand-picked committee chairmen or his chief budget officer, Commissioner of Administration Kristy Nichols.

It took them four hours Thursday to determine there were not enough “fer-votes” to push through an administration-proposed contract that would have Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana serving as the third party administrator (TPA) of the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) Preferred Provider Organization (PPO).

The upshot was a four-hour hearing that instead of ending with celebratory fireworks for the administration, ended first with considerable confusion over Mason’s Rules of Order, and then a whimper as Nichols pulled the bill from the flames just before it was reduced to a pile of metaphorical ashes.

At the end of the day, State Rep. Katrina Jackson (D-Monroe) had Nichols, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jim Fannin (D-Jonesboro) and Senate President John Alario (R-Westwego) circling the wagons in a desperate attempt to avoid further embarrassment.

But Jackson had lots of help. Several members of the two committees, primarily from the House Appropriations Committee, peppered Nichols with a barrage of questions with several legislators indicated that they had heard from hundreds of constituents and no one supported turning over the administration of the PPO to BCBS.

One of those, Rep. Rogers Pope (R-Denham Springs), a former Livingston Parish School Superintendent was critical of what he termed a lack of communication between the administration and education officials about the proposed changes.

But it was Mary Patricia Wray, legislative director for the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, who delivered the most withering criticism of the proposed contract, coupling it with a blistering attack of the Jindal administration’s onslaught against public schools.

“Some say the school districts will save money,” she said. “Some have mentioned savings of $35 million but one important fact has been overlooked. Many who tout these savings to school districts are the very parties who have crafted policies that have starved our public schools of the funding they so desperately need.”

Noting that while public school systems have received no increase in their per-pupil funding (Minimum Foundation Program funding) for more than four years, she said, “millions of dollars of funds constitutionally dedicated to our K through 12 public schools are going to leave this year to go to non-public schools of inferior quality.

“Moreover, this legislature approved a policy that provides un-capped tax rebates for donations to non-public schools while simultaneously our governor vetoed a bill that would have provided reasonably-capped rebates for donation to our inadequately-funded public schools.

“These priorities created the same emergency that their supporters now frantically want you to believe will be partially undone with your vote today—if you vote yes.

“So while the policies of the same administration that now asks you to support this contract have been consistently, habitually, and unapologetically to place funding public education at the very bottom of the priority, it seems a bit odd that they would take this moment to become proponents for the adequate funding of K through 12 education in our state.”

Wray called the proposed contract “fixing something that is not broken” and that it was “high on the administration’s list—and not because they suddenly care about adequately funding public schools they denigrate or supporting the institutions in which the teachers they humiliate are educating the next generation of Louisiana citizens.”

She said the policies of the Jindal administration “have starved government at every level. The lack of planning on their part should not and must not constitute an emergency for the people you serve. This contract may seem inconsequential but to the people served by OGB and to the people who elected you, it about doing the right thing, setting the right standards. Our public servants are more valuable than the rhetoric of the moment. They are more important than the flip-flop policy making that constantly puts them and their benefits in the crosshairs of our state’s budget crisis.”

But the real fun occurred over the last few minutes of the four-hour session.

It all started when Alario, after apparently realizing the numbers were there for concurrence by both the House Appropriations and Senate Finance committees, said, “We all know that change is difficult,” a rather odd observation given the Jindal administration has never considered the difficulties involved in change when he had the votes on such matters as education.

“I think we probably need to give a little more thought and a little more time on this issue,” he continued. “I’m going to suggest that we defer action on this matter today.”

Fannin immediately made an identical motion on behalf of the Appropriations Committee.

Before they could vote on Alario’s motion, however, Jackson offered a substitute motion to vote on the contract immediately. That motion passed the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 16-9. Voting for her substitute motion were Reps. Cameron Henry (R-Metairie), James Armes (D-Leesville), Jared Brossett (D-New Orleans), Henry Burns (R-Haughton), Roy Burrell (D-Shreveport), Brett Geymann (R-Lake Charles), Joe Harrison (R-Gray), Jackson, Edward James (D-Baton Rouge), Walt Leger (D-New Orleans), Helena Moreno (D-New Orleans), James Morris (R-Oil City), Pope, John Schroder (R-Covington), Patricia Smith (D-Baton Rouge) and Ledricka Thierry (D-Opelousas).

Voting no on Jackson’s substitute motion were Reps. Fannin, John Berthelot (R-Gonzales), Robert Billiot (D-Westwego), Chris Broadwater (R-Hammond), Simone Champagne (R-Erath), Charles Chaney (R-Rayville), Lance Harris (R-Alexandria), Bob Hensgens (R-Abbeville) and Anthony Ligi (R-Metairie).

In the voting along party lines, seven Republicans were evenly split on Jackson’s motion with seven for and seven against. Two Democrats voted no and nine voted yes.

Reps. Patrick Connick (R-Marrero), Franklin Foil (R-Baton Rouge) and Jack Montoucet (D-Crowley) were absent.

After that vote, presiding chairman Sen. Jack Donahue (R-Mandeville) attempted to call a Senate Finance Committee vote on Jackson’s substitute motion before being informed that someone from Finance had to make a similar motion. When no one did, Jackson’s motion died.

When he finally realized that the next vote needed to be on Alario’s motion to defer action, he announced the motion and asked if there were any objections and Sen. Dan Claitor (R-Baton Rouge) voiced his objection, forcing a roll call vote.

Claitor was able to inject some gallows humor into situation. When he voiced his dissent, he referred to himself as a “former Senate Finance Committee member” in reference to two other legislators—Reps. Harold Richie and Morris—who were demoted from their vice chairmanships of the House Committee on Insurance and House Natural Resources and Environment Committee, respectively.

They opposed Jindal and were summarily demoted. Richie opposed tax rebates for those who donate money to private and parochial schools while Morris fought Jindal over the governor’s decision to use one-time money to fund recurring expenses in the state’s General Budget.

The Senate members then voted 11-3 in favor of Alario’s motion to defer action. Those in favor of deferral included Donahue, Norby Chabert (R-Houma), Bret Allain (R-Franklin), Ronnie Johns (R-Lake Charles), Gerald Long (R-Natchitoches), Fred Mills (R-New Iberia), Dan “Blade” Morrish (R-Jennings), Greg Tarver (D-Shreveport), Francis Thompson (D-Delhi), Mike Walsworth (R-West Monroe) and Bodi White (R-Baton Rouge).

Voting against Alario’s motion to defer were Sens. Sherri Smith Buffington (R-Keithville), Claitor, and Ed Murray (D-New Orleans).

Sen. Eric LaFleur (D-Ville Platte) was absent.

Before a vote could then be taken on Fannin’s motion to defer consideration of the contract for one week, Jackson threw another curve at the proceedings by making a second substitute motion—this one to reject the contract outright.

That brought things to a screeching halt as it appeared no one knew what to do: a vote would be suicidal to proponents of the contract since the House committee seemed almost certain to go along with Jackson.

Morrish, after several minutes of total confusion, was finally recognized and asked, “What happens if the House votes to reject? If the substitute motion passes, where will the contract stand?”

“The contract is rejected,” responded Donahue.

“Even without a Senate vote?”

“With no Senate vote,” Donahue repeated. “If either body votes to reject, the contract is rejected.”

As more confusion reigned and amid the chatter that was reminiscent of a crowded room scene from a movie (only without the rattle of ice and the clinking of drink glasses), the barely audible word “adjournment” was suggested by someone on one of the committees at least twice.

Finally, after a full five minutes of idle chatter, Donahue explained that because it was a joint meeting of two individual committees and not a meeting of the Joint Committee on the Budget, “the rules are different.”

The only thing that needed to be done, however, was to call a vote on Jackson’s motion to reject the contract which, of course, would be a disaster for the administration.

Donahue, obviously in a quandary, began stalling. At that point, the two committees had been in session for four hours and five minutes.

At precisely 4:09:40, Nichols quietly slid back into a seat at the witness table in front of the committees looking defeated. Again, the word “adjourn” rose above the din from someone on one of the committees.

But right on cue, at 4:10:32, Donahue called on Kristy. “Commissioner, do you have anything you want to bring to the agenda at this time?”

It was almost as if his line was scripted.

“Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask that the committee allow me to remove the contract from the agenda at this time,” she replied.

“I don’t think you need permission. You don’t need permission. You can just pull it from…”

“We’d like to come back at a later date,” she interrupted abruptly. “We’d like to pull it.”

It took another ten seconds for some to make the formal and more audible motion to adjourn.

In the words of the delightful Yogi Berra: It ain’t over ’til it’s over.

And in the immortal words of Walt Kelly in his wonderful Pogo comic strip: To be drug out.

Read Full Post »

Editor’s note: The information contained in this story was received via printouts from the Louisiana Department of Civil Service of those earning $100,000 or more for the years 2009 through 2012. Each year was listed separately. Accordingly, when the name of Patti Gonzalez of the Office of Risk Management did not appear until the 2012 printout, the indication was she had received a pay increase. This was not the case and there was no explanation as to why she did not appear in prior years but Ms. Gonzalez says she has not received an increase since March of 2010.

Likewise, no state elected officials received pay increases as their salaries are set in statute. Civil Service printouts did indicate pay increases for all but two statewide elected officials but this apparently was in error.

Rank and file state civil service employees have gone without pay increases, merit or otherwise, since 2009 but at least 104 managers, directors, supervisors and five statewide elected officials already making in excess of $100,000 a year have received increases over the past three years.

Not included in the tabulation were doctors, nurses, pharmacists, higher education professors or, with one exception, those who were promoted from one job to another and got raises.

Altogether, more than 3,200 state employees earning more than $100,000 per year accounted for an annual payroll of approximately $432 million—an average of about $135,000 each.

The average pay of a state civil service employee is approximately $39,600.

In most cases—but not all—the pay increases were 4 percent increases. A 4 percent increase for one making $100,000 would be $4,000. That would fund four such increases for workers earning only $25,000 a year.

There were those, however, who did better. Much better.

Michael Diresto went from $103,792 in 2011 to $118,792 this year, a $15,000 (14.5 percent) bump. He was listed by the Department of Civil Service as a “director” in the Division of Administration (DOA) for both years. On the DOA web page, he is identified as an assistant commissioner for policy and communications.

Bruce Unangst, executive director of the Real Estate Commission, also saw his annual salary balloon from $109,000 in 2011 to $125,000 this year, a 14.7 percent increase.

In the governor’s office itself, Executive Counsel Elizabeth Murrill did extremely well for herself. Her 2011 salary of $110,000 grew to $165,000 this year—before her transfer to DOA where presumably, it will remain the same. Her one-year pay hike was a whopping 50 percent, according to Civil Service records.

In the Department of Insurance, 14 employees earning $100,000 or more received 4 percent increases from 2011 to 2012 while four others, including an attorney supervisor, did not. Insurance Commissioner James Donelon this year also hired former state legislator Noble Ellington, who had no experience in insurance, as deputy commissioner at a salary of $149,900.

Five of 14 employees of the Port of New Orleans Port Commission who earn $100,000 or more were awarded pay raises ranging from 5.5 percent to 7.5 percent.

At the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH), several employees received pay increases from 2011 to 2012 despite the pay freeze. They included Executive Director Robert Marier, who went from $196,102 to $205,899 (5 percent); Associate Director Cecilia Mouton, from $185,640 to $194m916 (5.1 percent); Executive Director John Liggio, from $119,044 to $125,068 (5 percent), and Executive Director Lisa Schilling, from $107,702 to $134,638 (25 percent).

None of the four changed job classifications, according to the Civil Service report. One who did change classifications got a 14.8 percent increase, a lower percentage than Schilling. Courtney Phillips was promoted from a Medicaid Program Manager 4 at $102,814 per year to Chief of Staff at $118,019.

One other executive director, six DHH attorneys, a deputy director, a deputy secretary, a budget administrator, an economist and a program director received no salary increases from 2011 to 2012.

Debra Schum, listed as an executive officer in the Department of Education (DOE), got a 20 percent pay raise, from $110,000 in 2011 to $132,000 this year while Kerry Lester, also an executive officer with DOE, got a $5,000 increase, from $150,000 to $155,000 during the same time frame.

But what is particularly interesting about the DOE payroll is the seemingly inordinate number of new hires of people at six-figure salaries, especially in the Recovery School District.

State Superintendent of Education John White has brought in no fewer than 10 new employees at salaries in excess of $100,000 this year alone—and that’s not even counting Deirdre Finn, a part time contract employee who will be paid $144,000 a year to work as communications manager for the department—from her home in Florida.

The idea of hiring a commuting employee, apparently borrowed from DHH and Carol Steckel, who is being paid $148,500 a year as a “confidential assistant” to DHH Secretary Bruce Greenstein to commute back and forth from her home in Alabama, seems to be catching on.

David “Lefty” Lefkowith is being paid $146,000 to commute back and forth from Los Angeles to work at DOE as a “director,” according to Civil Service records. He describes himself in a DOE video, however, as a “deputy superintendent.”

Other new, six-figure employees added by DOE this year include:

• Gary Jones, Executive Officer, $145,000;

• Melissa Stilley, Liaison Officer, $135,000;

• Michael Rounds, Deputy Superintendent, $170,000;

• Hannah Dietsch, Assistant Superintendent, $130,000;

• Francis Touchet, Liaison Officer, $130,000;

• Stephen Osborn, Assistant Superintendent, $125,000;

• Sandy Michelet, Executive Director, $120,000;

• Kenneth Bradford, Director, $110,000;

• Heather Cope, Executive Director of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, $125,000.

For the Recovery School District (RSD), both the high turnover and six-figure salaries are significant. That’s because there is substantial turnover despite the high salaries and that turnover has stymied any progress the already troubled RSD might have realized.

No fewer than 20 employees earning six figures have left the RSD since 2009, records show.

For the three years from 2010 to 2012, there was a turnover rate among those earning $100,000 or more ranging from 29 to 44 percent from the previous year Civil Service records indicate.

Of 24 RSD employees earning six figures for the current year, 15, or 62.5 percent, are new hires, records show. These include:

• Stacy Green, School Nurse, $145,000;

• James D. Ford, Administrative Superintendent, $145,000;

• Dana Peterson, Administrative Superintendent, $125,000;

• Adam Hawf, Administrator, $120,000;

• Mark Comanducci, Executive Director, $115,000;

• Helen Molpus, Administrative Chief, Officers, $115,000;

• Kizzy Payton, Administrative, Business Office, $110,000;

• Hua Liang, Administrative Chief, Officers, $110,000;

• Nicole Diamantes, Administrative, Other Special Programs, $105,000;

• Isaac Pollack, Administrative, Principal, $105,000;

• Desmond Moore, Administrative, Principal, $105,000;

• Betty Robertson, Other Business Services, $105,000;

• Robert Webb, Administrator, Other Special Programs, $105,000;

• Sametta Brown, Administrator, Regular Programs, $100,800;

• Ericka Jones, Administrative, Principal, $100,000;

• Eric Richard, Administrative, Principal, $100,000.

Read Full Post »

A new survey by 24/7 Wall Street has revealed that the Monroe Metropolitan Area, which includes 11 northeast Louisiana Parishes, is the sixth-poorest metropolitan area in the U.S. and at 27.9 percent, has the eighth-highest percentage of households living below the poverty line.

Accordingly, The LSU Health Sciences Center in Shreveport sent out notices to 41 employees of E.A. Conway Medical Center in Monroe Tuesday that they will no longer have jobs after Nov. 30.

Merry Christmas to E.A. Conway employees who will soon be unemployed. Great timing.

University Medical Center (UMC) Chancellor Dr. Robert Barish simultaneously notified E.A. Conway employees and State Civil Service Director Shannon Templet that 25 of the 41 employees targeted for layoffs are nurses.

Others include four police officers, two nursing assistants, two administrative coordinators, and (one each) respiratory care therapist, speech/audiologist specialist, EKG technician, radiologic technician, social worker, electriction, mobile equipment operator and printing operator.

The layoffs, Barish said, are the result of a reduction in federal Medicaid dollars to the state and are necessary “after other budgetary measures were taken, as a layoff avoidance measure, that did not meet the total dollars needed to match the reduction.”

The overall impact of the layoffs and cutbacks to E.A. Conway will be $8.5 million, he said.

With such a high poverty rate, many of the 178,000 residents of the Monroe Metropolitan Area rely on Conway for health care. Now, those health care services will either be cut back drastically or delayed for many who need them most.

Merry Christmas to tens of thousands of northeast Louisiana residents who will soon find medical care more difficult to obtain.

While median income across the nation decreased by $642 per year from 2010 to 2011, it went into a free-fall in the Monroe Metropolitan Area, plummeting by $5,434.

At the same time, the area’s poverty rate rose by an eye-popping seven percentage points. Moreover, the 11.4 percent of households earning less than $10,000 in 2011 was the third-highest percentage of all metropolitan areas.

The cutbacks and layoffs at Conway would appear to have been implemented with no planning and little consideration given to the needs of the areas served just as other policy moves have been made.

The Jindal administration, for example, privatized the John Hainkel Home and Rehabilitation Center in New Orleans in 2011 and in June of this year, Department of Health and Hospitals Secretary Bruce Greenstein quietly notified the facility that it was revoking its license, ostensibly because of deficiencies found during inspections.

A more likely reason for the action is that 73 of the home’s 82 patients pay for their care at the Hainkel Home through state Medicaid funding. Ergo, close the facility and if those 73 patients are unable to enter another facility that accepts Medicaid patients, Jindal gets to cut Medicaid costs in a furtive move that flies under the radar.

And it won’t be a simple task for those patients to find a new care provider. The Hainkel Home is one of the few remaining options in New Orleans for Medicaid patients and Veterans Administration patients. Most nursing homes will not accept Medicaid and V.A. patients and are actively purging current Medicaid and V.A. patients from their populations.

So, while Piyush Jindal continues to push for corporate tax breaks and exemptions for campaign contributors, he embarks on a campaign of slashing budgets and cutting services as a means of making up revenue lost by what can only be described as to poor—or perhaps contrived—administrative decisions.

Such are the methods of the Piyush Jindal administration.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,790 other followers