Another Republican-state's "cut taxes and watch the economy grow success story - NOT!

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
The right continues to insist that the solution is ALWAYS lower taxes, and then watch the magic happen. We've watched the amazing success of that philosophy in Kansas. But surely Louisiana, under Bobby Jindahl,would lead to a different result.

BATON ROUGE, La. — Already, the state of Louisiana had gutted university spending and depleted its rainy-day funds. It had cut 30,000 employees and furloughed others. It had slashed the number of child services staffers, including those devoted to foster family recruitment, and young abuse victims for the first time were spending nights at government offices.

And then, the state’s new governor, John Bel Edwards (D), came on TV and said the worst was yet to come.

Edwards, in a prime-time address on Feb. 11, said he’d learned of “devastating facts” about the extent of the state’s budget shortfall and said that Louisiana was plunging into a “historic fiscal crisis.” Despite all the cuts of the previous years, the nation’s second-poorest state still needed nearly $3 billion — almost $650 per person — just to maintain its regular services over the next 16 months. Edwards gave the state’s lawmakers three weeks to figure out a solution, a period that expires March 9 with no clear answer in reach.

Louisiana stands at the brink of economic disaster. Without sharp and painful tax increases in the coming weeks, the government will cease to offer many of its vital services, including education opportunities and certain programs for the needy. A few universities will shut down and declare bankruptcy. Graduations will be canceled. Students will lose scholarships. Select hospitals will close. Patients will lose funding for treatment of disabilities. Some reports of child abuse will go uninvestigated.

“Doomsday,” said Marketa Garner Walters, the head of Louisiana’s Department of Children and Family Services. If the state can’t raise any new revenue, her agency’s budget, like several others, will be slashed 60 percent.

“At that level,” she said in an interview, “the agency is unsustainable.”

But even if Louisiana’s Republican-dominated legislature approves certain tax increases, as most expect, the state still would grapple with problems. The taxes — which could include hikes on everything from groceries to salaries — would dig into the pockets of citizens in a state where 18 percent live in poverty and where the median income is 20 percent below the national average. And the taxes alone won’t close the gap. Nasty cuts will still be necessary, meaning Louisiana will be taking more from its 4.6 million people while offering them less.

Many of the state’s economic analysts say a structural budget deficit emerged and then grew under former governor Bobby Jindal, who, during his eight years in office, reduced the state’s revenue by offering tax breaks to the middle class and wealthy. He also created new subsidies aimed at luring and keeping businesses. Those policies, state data show, didn’t deliver the desired economic growth. This year, Louisiana has doled out $210 million more to corporations in the form of credits and subsidies than it has collected from them in taxes.

Initially, Jindal had been able to cut taxes because Louisiana was buoyed by billions in federal money, an influx to help with the recovery from Hurricane Katrina, which struck in 2005. But as that money ran dry, Jindal said he would veto any bills that would push taxes back to where they had been. Instead, to plug budget gaps, Jindal relied not just on cuts but also on controversial, one-off fundraising methods. The state sold off assets, including parking lots and farmland. It cleaned out money from hundreds of trust funds — among them, one intended to build reefs for marine wildlife. It pieced together money from legal settlements.

Initially, Jindal had been able to cut taxes because Louisiana was buoyed by billions in federal money, an influx to help with the recovery from Hurricane Katrina, which struck in 2005. But as that money ran dry, Jindal said he would veto any bills that would push taxes back to where they had been. Instead, to plug budget gaps, Jindal relied not just on cuts but also on controversial, one-off fundraising methods. The state sold off assets, including parking lots and farmland. It cleaned out money from hundreds of trust funds — among them, one intended to build reefs for marine wildlife. It pieced together money from legal settlements.

The math is daunting: For the fiscal year that ends June 30, Louisiana is facing a $940 million deficit, roughly one-eighth of what the state typically doles out from its general fund in a year. For 2016-2017, which begins July 1, the gap is $2 billion.

“This was years of mismanagement by a governor who was more concerned about satisfying a national audience in a presidential race,” said Jay Dardenne (R), the lieutenant governor under Jindal and now the state’s commissioner of administration. Dardenne said Jindal had helped the state put off its day of reckoning in a way that mirrored a “Ponzi scheme.”

Dardenne was elected separately from Jindal and said he wasn’t “part of his inner circle.”

Jindal suspended his presidential campaign in November, saying he couldn't stand out in a "crazy, unpredictable election season."

On Jindal’s watch, nearly every agency in Louisiana shed employees, and state lawmakers say some teetered because of the losses. The Department of Children and Family Services shrank to 3,400 employees, from 5,000 in 2008, and social workers began carrying caseloads larger than national standards. The state also cut funding for youth services and mental health treatment.

The story goes on, but is utterly predictable and utterly depressing. A Ponzi scheme, Dandenne said. That's what the new name of the Republican party should be: The Ponzi party.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
:rolleyes:

It's a shame, really, that so many here can't go beyond partisanship. While the situation in Louisiana, like the situation in Kansas, proves that the GOP's economic message is full of holes, let's not pretend that the Dems are much different. Places like Detroit and Illinois prove that.

But hey, on with the partisan hackery! Facts should only be applied to the other side!
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,418
10,305
136
:rolleyes:

It's a shame, really, that so many here can't go beyond partisanship. While the situation in Louisiana, like the situation in Kansas, proves that the GOP's economic message is full of holes, let's not pretend that the Dems are much different. Places like Detroit and Illinois prove that.

But hey, on with the partisan hackery! Facts should only be applied to the other side!

Faced with facts...more false equivalency bull.
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
9,903
6,474
136
How can this be? Isn't it possible to blame Obama?
 

Brian Stirling

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
4,000
2
0
Well, in addition to insanely stupid conservative ideology masquerading as economic theory we also have oil at rock bottom prices so any place where oil/energy make up a significant portion of the economy can expect to be hurt by the decline in oil prices.

Kind of a double whammy of bad policy and bad timing.


Brian
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,418
10,305
136
Well, in addition to insanely stupid conservative ideology masquerading as economic theory we also have oil at rock bottom prices so any place where oil/energy make up a significant portion of the economy can expect to be hurt by the decline in oil prices.

Kind of a double whammy of bad policy and bad timing.


Brian

Next to be on the list, Texas.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
In Republican states rainy day fund is for making it rain money on the rich.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
To be fair, what is the counter argument? We have those on the right saying lower taxes should increase economic activity, and they give logical arguments. You have the right saying that stimulus will boost economic activity and have logical arguments. The honest truth is that either of these policies do not exist in a vacuum, so trying one without dealing with the other issues and saying one fails is stupid right?

Shira, you are a fairly smart person, and may be smarter than me, but really, do you think that either side can be proven in this way? If we were looking at global warming you would not feel that this is even close to enough to establish much of anything. If we were to cut back on gasoline consumption by 20% and increased our coal consumption that offsets any decrease in CO2 by the reduction you would dismiss anyone who makes an argument against increasing gasoline consumption.

Take the politics out of this, and lets look at it rationally. You have some data points but what did they do to control for other factors? Do we have a casual explanation as to why this failed beyond it not being stimulus?

Ill give you that lowering taxes cuts revenue in the short run, but do you have a reason as to why their economy is contracting? I dont see why lowering taxes would do that.
 

MajinCry

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,495
571
136
...It's easy to figure out the answer.

Tax the wealthy, and give to the poor. That's how you raise the standard of living, provide public services and lower poverty.

Not taxing the wealthy and not giving to the poor means the removal of public services, higher poverty and lower standards of living.

It ain't rocket science; you just have to stop being harlots for the opulent, and instead be supportive of those who need, well, support.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
Well, in addition to insanely stupid conservative ideology masquerading as economic theory we also have oil at rock bottom prices so any place where oil/energy make up a significant portion of the economy can expect to be hurt by the decline in oil prices.

Kind of a double whammy of bad policy and bad timing.


Brian

I found it odd that the article (at least what was posted of it) made no mention of the insanely low oil prices considering how much of an oil producing state Louisiana is.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,405
6,079
126
...It's easy to figure out the answer.

Tax the wealthy, and give to the poor. That's how you raise the standard of living, provide public services and lower poverty.

Not taxing the wealthy and not giving to the poor means the removal of public services, higher poverty and lower standards of living.

It ain't rocket science; you just have to stop being harlots for the opulent, and instead be supportive of those who need, well, support.

You have to know, however, what support is. It's not giving for free. What people who have no fish to eat need isn't free fish, it's learning to fish. This means that the emotional damage that creates self hate must be addressed. Nobody who loves himself gives up on life. Nobody with emotional capacity doesn't use it lovingly.

The right is scum because they see the needy as scum who can't stand on their own feet, but they do not see it's the luck of the draw or the grace of God, for those who think that way, that separated them from the bottom of the pile. They have no sympathy for others because their self hate has been redirected toward others out of a need to combat their own inferiority.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,396
126
I live in the deep South for years and I am fairly familiar with La, Tx, and Ark affairs.OP and his article "FORGOT" a few facts.

When you cut taxes, you MUST control spending/expenditures.

Let take a look at one example.

TOPS (La State college scholarship program) started out about $55 million or so and it went up to $250 million in 2015 and could go up to $300 million within 5 years = http://theadvocate.com/news/legislature/12178395-123/legislation-reining-in-tops-costs

Then you add up all of the programs and spendings and you can get the picture = http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/...ate-treasure-says-new-tax-isnt-cure/80201328/

Plus the state has a weird "constitution protection" aka statutory dedications on a lot of spending except health care and high eduction so guess what will happend when the money is tight? Cut and more cut on those two programs while the rest very much escape with barely any cut.

Go look and see for yourself what was the budget under Foster (before Katrina) and then Blanco and then the latest budget = https://redstick.wordpress.com/category/governor-mike-foster/



How stupid can you get when you lost a bunch of taxpayers because of the storm but went ahead and increase the spending anyway plus tax cut (such as Stelly Plan). Spending was very much doubled from Foster to Blanco and it went up even higher under Jindal =

During the last two years of Gov. Kathleen Blanco's administration, the state budget reached record heights. In the 2007-2008 fiscal cycle, Louisiana had a spending plan of $28.6 billion. That was a major increase from the year before Hurricane Katrina, when total spending was only $16.5 billion,

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/louisiana_budget_how_did_we_ge.html

Of course we all know how Lousiana is doing under Democrat leadership in New Orleans and was under Governor Blanco. (sarcastic)
 
Last edited:

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
...It's easy to figure out the answer.

Tax the wealthy, and give to the poor. That's how you raise the standard of living, provide public services and lower poverty.

Not taxing the wealthy and not giving to the poor means the removal of public services, higher poverty and lower standards of living.

It ain't rocket science; you just have to stop being harlots for the opulent, and instead be supportive of those who need, well, support.

Liberals in rich blue states and cities will vote to bail them out anyway so who cares? Might as well enjoy the tax cuts now and progressive money later. Bankers aren't the only ones to learn the lesson of "too big to fail", politicians have also.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,519
6,952
136
Seems like a well planned strategy: First, cut taxes for the rich (for the campaign contributions), the middle (for the votes) and corporations (PAC money), thus creating the inevitable shortfall on revenues when services aren't proportionally reduced. As the squeeze on revenues from the tax cuts start manifesting itself, cut services that affect the middle class and the poor, then raise taxes again, but do it in such disingenuous ways so as to keep the cuts that the rich and corporations received, leaving the middle class and the poor paying for it all.

Wash, rinse, repeat until something gives with a big bang.

Then, let the dust settle by not budging an inch, and start the whole scam all over again.

The rich progressively get richer at the expense of.......who else?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,568
29,179
146
...It's easy to figure out the answer.

Tax the wealthy, and give to the poor. That's how you raise the standard of living, provide public services and lower poverty.

Not taxing the wealthy and not giving to the poor means the removal of public services, higher poverty and lower standards of living.

It ain't rocket science; you just have to stop being harlots for the opulent, and instead be supportive of those who need, well, support.

This doesn't sound as fun as getting elected to office, lowering corporate taxes as the same time you give out corporate gifts, leave office and your state penniless, but experience lifetime cushy jobs as a corporate consultant/lobbyist for the companies that you helped to rob your state.

I mean, sounds awesome. I need to switch parties...though to be honest, it probably doesn't matter which party one joins.
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,112
318
126
Which taxes did Jindal cut in Louisiana? Assuming the Tax Foundation's numbers are right, their corporate taxes haven't changed since 2007. For other rates things aren't documented as nicely, but apparently Lousiana has the third highest sales tax in the country when considering local taxes as well. Their income tax appears roughly average.

EDIT: It looks like Louisiana did raise the $12,500 income bracket to $25,000, and similarly the $25,000 bracket to $50,000+ earners. Also, looks like their sales tax stayed mostly constant. Hardly a corporate fat-cat-loving tax cut there.

The obvious and relevant problem is the state of the oil industry, but of course libtards think you can just magically increase local taxes and NO ONE will want to move to a different state, no way no how.
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,218
14,904
136
To be fair, what is the counter argument? We have those on the right saying lower taxes should increase economic activity, and they give logical arguments. You have the right saying that stimulus will boost economic activity and have logical arguments. The honest truth is that either of these policies do not exist in a vacuum, so trying one without dealing with the other issues and saying one fails is stupid right?

Shira, you are a fairly smart person, and may be smarter than me, but really, do you think that either side can be proven in this way? If we were looking at global warming you would not feel that this is even close to enough to establish much of anything. If we were to cut back on gasoline consumption by 20% and increased our coal consumption that offsets any decrease in CO2 by the reduction you would dismiss anyone who makes an argument against increasing gasoline consumption.

Take the politics out of this, and lets look at it rationally. You have some data points but what did they do to control for other factors? Do we have a casual explanation as to why this failed beyond it not being stimulus?

Ill give you that lowering taxes cuts revenue in the short run, but do you have a reason as to why their economy is contracting? I dont see why lowering taxes would do that.

What's the counter argument? It should be pretty obvious by now given that we have concrete examples both at the International level and at the state; during economic down turns government should be investing in its people. The question isn't necessarily how much spending should there be but rather what should government be spending money on. That's where the debate should be but Republicans are stuck in stupid as is their supporters who seek incapable of questioning anything a Republican politician claims.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
Don't think so, IRC Texas' rainy day fund is somewhere close to $16 billion.

It was $11.1billion at the close of the last legislative session. They raise the cap it can hold from $14billion to $16billion(for 2017). Its not a very good use of the money just little it sit doing nothing. Texas needs a lot of infrastructure work, TXDOT still needs full funding, the public education system needs to be fully restored to its pre-recession spending formula, etc.

What you are probably thinking is Texas the rainy day fund + the surplus money in the comptrollers accounts because the Republicans and the Comptroller continue to low ball the tax estimates to "keep" spending in check.

Of course not spending it is better than some Texas GOP proposals to drain in in the name of tax cuts.

But Texas does do stupid shit. Not many states turn $20million spending cuts into $250million in liabilities. But thats exactly what happened when they cut the family planning budget in 2011/2012.
 
Last edited:

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,527
5,045
136
I'm going to cut most of your writing, as one can read what you wrote in your post above. But.....

Go look and see for yourself what was the budget under Foster (before Katrina) and then Blanco and then the latest budget = https://redstick.wordpress.com/category/governor-mike-foster/



How stupid can you get when you lost a bunch of taxpayers because of the storm but went ahead and increase the spending anyway plus tax cut (such as Stelly Plan). Spending was very much doubled from Foster to Blanco and it went up even higher under Jindal =

During the last two years of Gov. Kathleen Blanco's administration, the state budget reached record heights. In the 2007-2008 fiscal cycle, Louisiana had a spending plan of $28.6 billion. That was a major increase from the year before Hurricane Katrina, when total spending was only $16.5 billion,
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/louisiana_budget_how_did_we_ge.html

Of course we all know how Lousiana is doing under Democrat leadership in New Orleans and was under Governor Blanco. (sarcastic)



Just a few things.......

First, the link you provided to the blog where you encouraged us to look at the budgets: https://redstick.wordpress.com/category/governor-mike-foster/

There is a huge error in his reporting. The author claims that "For the 2008-2009 budget, spending was estimated at $29,732,692,645, with an estimated deficit of $2,181,531."

Yet, when I look at the actual budget document, there was no deficit of $2,181,531 but a surplus of $2,181,531. At least that's whats written in the budget, which can be seen here:

http://www.doa.la.gov/opb/pub/FY09/FY08-09_StateBudget.pdf

If you look at Page 1, the Comparative Statement, it has a line entry called FUNDS LESS EXPENDITURES AFTER ADJUSTMENT, which is Revenue minus Expenditures, and for that 08-09 budget there is a surplus listed of $2,181,531. Why a surplus? Now, I may be wrong, but in financial statements, deficits/shortfalls/whatever you want to call them are denoted by enclosing them in parenthesis, which that figure of $2,181,531 certainly is not enclosed by parenthesis, but is shown as a surplus or positive balance.

So, the author of that blog just cannot read? I dunno.....



And about this part:
During the last two years of Gov. Kathleen Blanco's administration, the state budget reached record heights. In the 2007-2008 fiscal cycle, Louisiana had a spending plan of $28.6 billion. That was a major increase from the year before Hurricane Katrina, when total spending was only $16.5 billion,
That's true. The budget did increase. Ever wonder why? The reason can be found in both the budget document itself and in the second linked article you provided:
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/louisiana_budget_how_did_we_ge.html

Did you notice the next paragraphs just after the one you quoted above? Here they are:

"In 2007-2008, we were really rolling in money," said Jim Richardson, a Louisiana State University economist who sits on a panel that oversees state revenue.



Louisiana was benefitting, in large part, from recovery dollars related to hurricanes Katrina and Rita that poured into the state. Direct federal aid to the state shot up -- from $6.3 billion in 2005-2006 to $12.8 billion in 2007-2008. But also, people moved to Louisiana just to help with the rebuild, and some had more money to spend than usual. Sales tax and gambling proceeds were high at that time, said Greg Albrecht, the legislature's chief economist.
I bolded probably the most relevant part (and didn't bold the fact that sales tax and gambling revenues were very high then because of an influx of people to deal with the Katrina rebuild). Federal funds shot up...Katrina funds were pouring into the state. And in the 06-07 budget document, it states the budget only grew over the previous year's budget by $130.6 million once the $7.823 billion Federal Katrina disaster relief was taken out.
http://www.doa.la.gov/OPB/pub/FY07/State_Budget_Document_FY07_Budget_Highlights.PDF

Page 2A, Budget Summary



And, true, the 07-08 budget was over $29 billion, but once the $8.4 billion of Federal Katrina disaster relief was removed, the budget was $21 billion, still quite an increase but not as horrid as portrayed ($29B), and certainly not doubling the budget (from $15.5B in 01-02 to $21B in 07-08).

http://www.doa.la.gov/OPB/pub/FY08/FY08%20SBD%20-%20part%201.pdf




And, sure, the 05-06 budget was lower, mostly because Katrina hit during the 05-06 budget and all the Federal Katrina funding hadn't hit.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,396
126
@ Meghan54,

You can spin all you want but facts are facts. You can NOT dispute these facts that I stated previously.

2005, the state spent about $16.5 billion, now it is $25 billion or 40% increase, directly from the state treasurer = http://www.ksla.com/clip/12208130/s...es-gop-response-to-gov-edwards-budget-address

Here is the list of reasons the state is in trouble now (From NOLA.com link I posted above):

1. The state simply isn't set up to collect enough revenue to cover its expenses, even during oil and natural gas booms.

2. Tax breaks critics say haunt the state budget now

The healthy financial balance led Blanco to increase ongoing state costs -- including giving state employees pay raises -- and to sign off on tax cuts. Jindal, who came into office in 2008, approved more tax breaks the following year.

First, Blanco and the Louisiana Legislature moved forward with repealing the first portion of what's called the Stelly Plan -- a tax program approved statewide by voters in 2002. Jindal and lawmakers then fully trashed the initiative in 2008, during the governor's first year in office.

3.One-time revenue, ongoing expenses

The key: Jindal committed to not raising taxes. So as state revenue began to crater, he looked to other means to fill in the gaps. Along with cutting the budget, the governor and the Legislature relied on ephemeral pools of money -- state property sales, lawsuit settlements and the like -- to help cover costs for expenses that would continue over several years.

The tactic contributed to the budget crisis, according to economists. Many of these sources of revenue have now dried up, but the expenses they were covering remain.

4. "You can't touch this," budget-style, over $400 million in "statutory protection" program (see the link of the state treasurer's speech above).

Part of the problem is that some budgets can't be touched - and some taxpayers have been protected.

Lawmakers, governors and the voters have constitutionally shielded large swaths of Louisiana spending. Much of the state's primary and secondary education funding automatically increases -- and can't be cut -- if more students enroll. This past fall, voters adopted ballot measures that make it difficult to cut the Medicaid budget.
 
Last edited:

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
What's the counter argument?
Not needed. If an argument is not supported, you do not need a counter argument to invalidate it. I can give one, but it does not matter. Unless this was a valid test, then this example says nothing.


It should be pretty obvious by now given that we have concrete examples both at the International level and at the state; during economic down turns government should be investing in its people.

Again, no, we do not have "concrete examples". Give me an example of a country that cut spending after 2008. Most people seem to think that the UK cut spending, it did not. The US did not cut spending. In fact, the vast majority of countries all increased spending with varying outcomes.

The question isn't necessarily how much spending should there be but rather what should government be spending money on. That's where the debate should be but Republicans are stuck in stupid as is their supporters who seek incapable of questioning anything a Republican politician claims.

What does that have to do with this example? Did this state cut taxes and spending? From what I can tell, LA kept spending but cut revenue. Are you now saying this is not an example of what the supposed Republican problem is?