MyCSSMenu Save Document Sweepstakes Advantage Online Forum
May 23, 2012, 11:44:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
News:
 
  Sweepstakes   Home   Blogs Help Arcade Login Register Chat  

Pages: [1]   sort down
  Print  
Author Topic: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, Al Hunt, Michele Norris  (Read 126 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
cinphi
SA Member
SA Gold Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5056




Mood:Loved
Loved

It Is Well With My Soul




Ignore
« on: February 23, 2009, 05:27:28 AM »

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29331527/

Quote
GOV. JINDAL:  Well, let's look at the programs we turned down.

MR. GREGORY:  Yeah.

GOV. JINDAL:  You're talking about temporary federal money that would require a permanent change in state law.

MR. GREGORY:  But it is--it's a tax break.

GOV. JINDAL:  Well, it, it's--no.  The $100 million we turned down was temporary federal dollars that would require us to change our unemployment laws.  That would've actually raised taxes on Louisiana businesses.  We as a state would've been responsible for paying for those benefits after the federal money disappeared.

MR. GREGORY:  All right, but the Democratic senator from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu, says you're wrong.  This is how it was reported in The Times-Picayune Saturday:  "Senator Landrieu disputed the governor's interpretation and said the new unemployment benefits are designed to be temporary.  `The bill is an emergency measure designed to provide extra help during these extraordinarily tough times,' Landrieu said.  `To characterize this provision as a "tax increase on Louisiana businesses" is inaccurate.'" Her point being, you could insert a sunset clause when this has to go away, but it would certainly be beneficial at a time when you're in economic stress.

GOV. JINDAL:  That's great, except the federal law, if you actually read the bill--and I know it was 1,000 pages, and I know they got it, you know, at midnight, or hours before they voted on it--if you actually read the bill, there's one problem with that.  The word permanent is in the bill.  It requires the state to make a permanent change in our law.  Law B--our employer group agrees with me.  They say, "Yes, this will result an increase in taxes on our businesses, this will result in a permanent obligation on the state of Louisiana." It would be like spending $1 to get a dime.  Why would we take temporary federal dollars if we're going to end up having a permanent program?

And here's the problem.  So many of these things that are called temporary programs end up being permanent government programs.  But this one's crystal clear, black and white letter law.  The federal stimulus bill says it has to be a permanent change in state law if you take this state money.  And so within three years the federal money's gone, we've got now a permanent change in our laws, we have to pay for it, our businesses pay for it.  I don't think it makes sense to be raising taxes on Louisiana businesses during these economically challenging times.  And what it shows is what we're going to do in the stimulus is we're going to look at every program, every dollar.  If it makes sense for Louisiana, makes sense for our taxpayers, we'll use those programs and dollars.  If it doesn't, like on Friday we said, "This doesn't make sense for us.  This is not a good deal for us." It makes--my job is to represent Louisiana's taxpayers.  Makes no sense for us to take temporary federal dollars and create permanent state obligations.


This could be our next candidate in 2012 for POTUS. Great as far as I'm concerned.
Logged
Pages: [1]   sort up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!