Advocate calls flip-flop "a new low in subservience."

This editorial in The Advocate calls out the 11 lawmakers who would rather switch than fight, correctly saying that they "utterly caved to pressure."

Speaker of the House Jim Tucker deserves kudos for standing up to the governor. His passionate speech in favor of overriding the veto was what John F. Kennedy called a profile in courage - especially since Tucker owes his position to Gov. Jindal.

As for the obsequious eleven, The Advocate gets it right:

Members who switched set a new low in subservience. They abased themselves
before Jindal despite the manifest unreasonableness of his position on the merits of the issue. They showed themselves to be more concerned with the governor’s power than with the state’s interest.

House speaker considering better choices

The message of the Better Choices for a Better Louisiana campaign seems to be sinking in. Speaker of the House Jim Tucker is acknowledging that the $7.1 billion the state surrenders in the form of various tax breaks will be looked at in the upcoming legislative session.

According to this story by Advocate reporter Marsha Shuler, Tucker told the Louisiana Hospital Association that the state grants nearly as much in various exemptions as is actually collected for the general fund.

Unless the list of more than 440 exemptions is put into play, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to fill the expected $1.6 billion budget hole this spring.

That's old news to followers of the Better Choices campaign - it was last November 18 when the coalition held its press conference on the capitol steps. At that time, the coalition asked lawmakers to declare a moratorium on new tax exemptions and to take a close look at existing loopholes.

A lot more information about Better Choices is available. The Louisiana Federation of Teachers has set up a Better Choices for a Better Louisiana resource page, and the coalition has established its own Web site.

State budget in turmoil; revenues lower than expected

The state budget, HB 1 by Rep. Jim Fannin (D-Jonesboro), is bogged down in the Senate Finance Committee, and there is no clear picture of what the budget will actually look like after the session ends on June 21.

As proposed, the $25.4 billion budget includes deep cuts for higher education, health care and a number of other state responsibilities. But as reported in the May 21 edition of the Weekly Legislative Digest, the Senate and House of Representatives are at loggerheads over resolving a shortfall facing the state in the current budget year.

The stumbling block is over use of the state’s “rainy day fund” to shore up the budget. While both sides want to use the fund to avoid a constitutionally prohibited deficit, they disagree over how and when the funds should be repaid.

The situation grew murkier on Friday, when the state’s Revenue Estimating Conference met to announce yet another shortfall in state revenues. With just two weeks left in the fiscal year, state economists said that revenues have fallen by another $261.4 million this year.

The state already cut this fiscal year’s budget by $200 million last December, and by another $319 million in April.

Leading the most recent decline in estimated revenues is a $250 million shortfall in collection of personal income taxes.

As Greg Albrecht, chief economist for the legislative fiscal office, said, “Obviously, we have been dramatically wrong this year.”

That set up yet another confrontation between the House and Senate. Speaker of the House Jim Tucker (R-Terrytown) said the Revenue Estimating Conference should not accept the economist’s report until the end of the year, and use some constitutional sleight-of-hand to pay back the deficit in the coming year.

Senate President Joel Chaisson (D-Destrehan), on the other hand, said the constitution does not allow a deficit, and recommended that the conference recognize the shortfall, which would require more cuts over the next couple of weeks.

Because decisions by the Revenue Estimating Conference must be unanimous, the issue was left hanging at that point.

The Senate Finance Committee will continue its discussion of HB1 next week.

How bad can it get?

How bad can things get for public education in Louisiana? As the old song says, “You ain’t seen nothing yet.”

On Monday, the Senate Finance committee killed any hope of increasing funds for public schools when it refused to increase public education’s Minimum Foundation Program by the traditional 2.75%.

Then on Tuesday, the state’s Revenue Estimating Conference revealed that we face yet another shortfall of perhaps as much as $100 million this year. That’s on top of the $319 million budget hole already confronting lawmakers as they struggle to balance the state ledger.

Anticipating a dark economic future, school boards around Louisiana are announcing Reductions in Force. In plain English, that means they are firing teachers and school employees.

The state has a “rainy day fund” that should be tapped to help stave off the growing crisis. But a deep and profound disagreement between the Senate and House of Representatives is keeping that fund off-limits.

Both Senate President Joel Chaisson (D-Destrehan) and Speaker of the House Jim Tucker (R-Terrytown) say they are willing to withdraw $198 million from the fund to help plug the budget hole. They have very different opinions about how and when the fund should be paid back, and that is stalling any movement on the issue.

Sen. Chaisson says the law allows the state to repay the rainy day fund when state revenues reach the peak of the post-Katrina economy of 2008. Rep. Tucker says the state must repay the rainy day fund next year, using revenues from a tax amnesty program.

If Rep. Tucker prevails, it means the rainy day fund cannot be tapped again next year, when another budget deficit is already projected. According to Sen. Chaisson, Rep. Tucker’s plan is therefore “absolutely pointless.”

The Revenue Estimating Conference must certify that rainy day funds are available for use. But decisions by the Conference must be unanimous. Both Sen. Chaisson and Rep. Tucker are Conference members, and until they come to an agreement, there will be no movement to fix the budget.

What are we to make of this awful situation?

LFT President Steve Monaghan says state leaders simply are not focused on the real issues.
“There is mounting evidence that this session is all about things that it should not be about, and is not facing the real issues,” says Monaghan. “They should be focused on the fiscal crisis, not just for teachers and school employees, but for all the citizens of Louisiana.”

For certain, this is a case of chickens coming home to roost. When the state seemed to be in good economic shape, lawmakers and governors doled out hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary and unwise tax giveaways to corporations and high-income earners. Anti-tax demagogues rolled over anyone who questioned the wisdom of severely reducing state revenues.

And as bad as the situation is now, the governor and legislature still refuse to consider any revenue measures. The mantra of the Jindal administration is “we must do more with less.”

The sad truth is, you can’t do more with less. You can only do less with less. Until the administration and legislature come to grips with that reality, Louisiana faces a bleak future indeed.

Post-holiday catch up edition

Much has happened during the short Easter break. The legislature is back in session, but unlike previous years, the opening was marked by dissension.

Leadership issues: Because former Speaker Pro Tem Karen Carter Peterson was elected to the Senate, the House had to choose a new pro tem. Normally, that's not a big deal. The guys gather in a back room, agree with the governor's pick for the post, and hold an election to make it official.

But as Times-Picayune reporter Ed Anderson writes here, this year there were actually two candidates: Independent Joel Robideaux of Lafayette, who had the nod from Speaker of the House Jim Tucker, and Democrat Noble Ellington of Winnsboro. Surprisingly, Ellington came within a handful of votes of beating Robideaux.

Retribution from Speaker Tucker was swift and harsh, as reported here by the Picayune's Jan Moller. Ellington and some of his supporters lost plum committee assignments, and Ellington was threatened with the loss of his digs at the prestigious Pentagon Barracks near the capitol.

Jindal losing his luster? A poll from LSU's Public Policy Research Lab revealed that Governor Jindal's direction for the state may no longer be supported by a majority of residents.

As reported here by Advocate bureau chief Mark Ballard, a solid majority oppose the governor's rigid opposition to taxes in the face of the state's economic crisis, and 51% say the repeal of the Stelly tax reforms was a mistake "because it cost state revenue and contributed to the current budget shortfall." Nearly 60% say the Stelly reforms should be reinstated.

College shake-up in the works? Higher education in Louisiana probably won't look the same after this legislative session. As Bill Barrow of The Advocate reports here, several plans are floating around the capitol that would restructure governance of colleges and universities. The most drastic would replace the state's four college boards with one 15-member board of trustees.








http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index.ssf?/base/news-7/127059361068810.xml&coll=1 college shakeup

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/89752752.html Jindal plan unpopular

Times-Picayune: Let retirees eat cake

It's two months until; Christmas, but the Grinch is already at work at the Times-Picayune. In this editorial, the state's largest newspaper fulminates against public employee retirement pensions as "reckless and unsustainable."

They are not reckless, but come from a carefully devised formula based on an employee's earnings and years of service. And they have been sustainable for generations, surviving even the most recent stock market crash without plunging Louisiana into the bankruptcy predicted by critics.

True, the state is obligated to pony up if there is a shortfall, but that is what any decent employer ought to do in defense of those who spent their working lives on its behalf.

But in siding with Speaker of the House Jim Tucker, the TP is adopting a "let them eat cake" attitude befitting its Brahman heritage.

LFT President Steve Monaghan has responded to the editorial with this letter:

Dear Editor:

The Times-Picayune and Rep. Jim Tucker couldn't have picked a worse time to endorse a scheme that would subject retired state employees, including teachers, to the not-so-tender mercies of the marketplace.

While millions of Americans saw their retirement hopes shrivel along with their 401(k), individuals fortunate enough to have a defined benefit plan – a genuine pension – were spared financial devastation. Rep. Tucker’s plan would eliminate retirement security for future teachers and other public employees and make them targets for the next Ponzi scheme.

The Times-Picayune acknowledges the sad fact that far too many Louisiana workers have little or have no retirement plan. But rather than demanding fair pensions for all workers, the newspaper supports the Tucker proposal.

Here is the flawed logic implicit in the first sentence of your October 20 editorial: If many Louisianans do not have sustainable pensions, then none should. The Times-Picayune and the Speaker of the House are endorsing a great race to the bottom, and seem to be comfortable with a world in which only the privileged few can expect a sustainable post-employment future.

On behalf of the teachers and school employees we represent, the Louisiana Federation of Teachers rejects that vision of the future. We believe that after a lifetime of work, all employees deserve the security of a fair, guaranteed pension. No American's retirement security should be subject to the vagaries of the stock market or the manipulations of a few unscrupulous insiders.

We hope that Speaker Tucker and the Times Picayune rethink their position, and join in a greater struggle for fair, decent retirement security for all workers.

Sincerely yours,
Steve Monaghan, President
Louisiana Federation of Teachers

Experts say retirement changes would cost the state

If Speaker of the House Jim Tucker was expecting overwhelming support for his scheme to put public employee retirement at the mercy of the marketplace, he might have been disappointed by the result of the first hearing on the subject.

The emerging consensus seems to be that changing state retirement systems to a defined contribution plan would cost more than the current defined benefit plan, according to experts cited in this story by Advocate reporter Sarah Chacko.

Opinions vary on why Tucker is so bent on taking away one of the good things about public service in Louisiana - the promise of a retirement plan that is not subject to the whims of the stock market.

Whether his zeal is out of disdain for the people who work in public positions - including teachers and school support staff - or it is out of allegiance to the private fund managers who stand to be the real winners in a defined contribution plan, or even out of a misguided belief that his idea would truly be good for the state, one thing is certain. His plan would not be in the best interest of the people who've made public service their life's work.

Committees study retirement "reform"

If you like the way the stock market tanked in the past couple of years, you'll love Speaker of the House Jim Tucker's ideas about changing the state's public employee retirement systems.

During the last legislative session, Tucker passed a resolution calling for a study of defined contribution retirement systems versus the defined benefit systems now enjoyed by state employees, including teachers and school support staff.

Under the current system, retirees get a pension based on their income and years of service. A defined contribution plan would put retirement income at the mercy of the stock market. Purveyors of 401k and other retirement plans strongly support the defined contribution option.

As this article by Advocate reporter Sarah Chacko notes, Tucker's plan would go into effect next year, and would affect newly hired teachers and other public employees.

Today, a joint meeting of the House and Senate Retirement Committees began the study required by Tucker's resolution.

College panel considers consolidation

As the Tucker commission wrestles with thorny options, consensus seems to be building toward the consolidation of overlapping degree programs in our colleges and universities. Established by the legislature last spring, the commission must report on ways to rein in higher education spending before the next session begins.

As this article by Monroe News-Star reporter Greg Hilburn makes clear, consolidation is not the only remedy under consideration. Speaker of the House Jim Tucker - for whom the commission is named - is quoted in the article as saying the closure of college campuses is possible.

The big problem, of course, is funding. Money for higher education could shrink by 40% over the next couple of years, panel members say. If that happens, they don't believe that across-the-board cuts would be the best way to handle the crisis. So they are planning now to make the deepest cuts in places that would cause the least harm.

Speaking of the overlapping curricula in North Louisiana, Tucker says:

"All five (northeastern Louisiana schools) have nursing programs,"
referring to the University of Louisiana at Monroe, Grambling State University,
Louisiana Tech University, Louisiana Delta Community College and Louisiana
Technical College campuses. "Is that reasonable? I don't know, but it has to be
evaluated."

Economist says bring back the Stelly Plan

As LFT President Steve Monaghan pointed out before the current legislative session began...

And as Lt. Governor Mitch Landrieu noted on May 5...

An economics professor and member of Louisiana's Revenue Estimating Conference has now confirmed: The legislature made a serious error last year when it reversed the so-called Stelly Plan tax reforms. And unless they undo that reversal, our state will continue its long, painful slide.

LSU economist Jim Richardson spoke to the Press Club of Baton Rouge yesterday, and as Advocate reporter Michelle Millhollon writes here, he said that last year's massive tax cuts were a mistake.

To briefly recap: the Stelly plan was an effort to make our tax code more progressive and less dependent on the price of oil (as it was in the 1980s, the last time an oil bust ruined our economy).

The Stelly plan reduced sales taxes on food, utilities and prescription drugs because those taxes were disproportionately high for poor people. It lowered income tax rates for the poorest citizens, and raised them slightly for the wealthiest.

But when some of those better-off citizens had to pay a bit more, they ran screaming to the legislature. And because the price of oil last year was over $150 per barrel, lawmakers felt free to ratchet back the Stelly Plan.

Now oil is hovering somewhere around $60 per barrel, and losing the Stelly Plan is costing the state $359 million.

That is why economist Jim Richardson, a member of the state's Revenue Estimating Conference, says that lawmakers should take another look at Stelly and perhaps reinstate its tax rates.

Which could very well be why Speaker of the House Jim Tucker, a Republican and great friend of tax cuts, says he does not believe the Revenue Estimating Conference needs to meet again before the end of the current legislative session.

It is customary for the conference to meet in May, but Tucker, according to this article by Times Picayune bureau chief Robert Travis Scott, does not want a meeting in which Richardson could express his views.

Tucker and Richardson are two of the three conference members; the third, Senate President Joel Chaisson, a Democrat, says he believes the conference should meet.

Retired teachers will protest system changes May 28

Retired teachers from around Louisiana will be at the state capitol on May 28 to protest proposed changes to their retirement system.

According to this Alexandria Town Talk article by reporter Robert Morgan, retirees are opposed to a proposed merger of the state retirement systems.

The last time a merger of retirement systems was considered, a flood of protests doomed a plan by former Senator Walter Boasso to consolidate the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana and the Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System. That was in the 2005 legislative session.

This year's proposal, House Bill 230 by House Speaker Jim Tucker (R-Terrytown) and Rep. Jeff Arnold (D-New Orleans), is even more ambitious. It would also bring in the other two statewide employee retirement systems, the School Employees' Retirement System and the State Police Retirement System.

Supporters say that consolidating the systems would make their management more efficient. Opponents suspect that the larger issue is the vast sums of money that a single board could funnel to favored investment firms.