Tiger by the tail
Why shaky support in the House and a curious show of independence in the Senate might spell trouble for Landry's tax plan
Gov. Jeff Landry has a tiger by the tail. Maybe two.
His ambitious tax rewrite plan ran into trouble in the state House on Thursday when members barely passed a bill renewing most of the .45-cent temporary state sales tax.
Landry’s bill cleared the House with only one vote to spare, and, as Baton Rouge Advocate reporter Tyler Bridges noted, “Whether House Bill 10 would actually raise the $820 million was in question after the House adopted 47 amendments with little explanation.”
In his story in Friday’s paper, Bridges explained the more significant challenge Landry now faces:
But the bigger issue Thursday was that Landry and House leaders couldn’t secure the 70 votes needed to pass House Bill 9, another key component of the governor’s plan.
In its current form, HB9 would raise $500 million per year by extending the sales tax to 41 services that go untaxed today, including online dating, pet grooming and spa treatments.
Landy and House leaders tried to corral the necessary 70 votes by dropping a number of services that would be taxed, but that wasn’t enough.
The path forward for Landry and legislative leaders was not clear as business finished on the 9th day of a 20-day special session.
Could it be that House members — understanding that Donald Trump is about to impose 20% to 100% tariffs on thousands of products — do not wish to share in the blame for making everything else in Louisiana a little more expensive?
Maybe they don’t love the prospect of facing angry constituents and explaining why they imposed these new taxes on them. Perhaps they don’t believe it will be easy to share Landry’s convoluted explanation for why — when it’s all complete — most people won’t see a net increase in their tax burden.
Something most politicians learn quickly is the adage, “When you’re explaining, you’re losing.”
This plan has many moving parts. I suspect many House and Senate members are not looking forward to explaining them to skeptical constituents. They are also probably worried about how popular they will be, especially if they don’t result in the explosion of economic activity Landry promises.
With a Trump-induced recession on the horizon (his tariffs and mass deportation will inflict heavy damage on the U.S. economy), do Louisiana lawmakers want to do anything that makes it easier for critics to associate themselves with an economic downturn?
At the end of 2025, the average Louisiana taxpayer may not see a significant net tax increase. (I’m skeptical that this will be the case and it will not be for lower-income taxpayers.) But even if some ordinary people get a modest tax cut, would that offset the near-daily annoyance of being forced to pay an added 10% for all those services?
And what about the thousands of small business owners who will now be forced to open sales tax accounts with the state and local governments?
As someone who sells books online, I can attest to the bureaucratic nightmare of creating those online accounts. It wasn’t easy, and it took me days to sort it out.
Landry’s sales tax plan will anger and alienate hundreds of thousands of his constituents.
The plan is misguided on policy grounds. But on political grounds, it’s worse than just bad policy. It’s politically dumb.
Hold that Tiger
If you’re looking for further evidence that state Senate members of both parties are prepared to declare their independence from Landry, you might watch the statement that Republican Sen. Bill Wheat of Ponchatoula delivered in the Senate on Thursday.
With about 20 of his colleagues standing behind him to show their support, Wheat — a veterinarian — made a passionate statement separating himself from Landry on the question of whether a live tiger should attend LSU home games in Tiger Stadium
Wheat was miffed that some news reports — and, I’d guess, some of Landry’s staff — had suggested that he supported bringing the rent-a-tiger Omar Bradley onto the field for the LSU-Alabama game last Saturday.
Wheat was emphatic that he did not support Landry’s stunt.
Here’s the portion of Wheat’s statement that addressed Tiger-gate:
Approximately two-and-a-half months ago, I was asked to attend a meeting about bringing LSU‘s live mascot, Mike the Tiger, back on the field for game day. For many reasons, I felt strongly that this was not a good idea, and I shared my opinion.
That meeting concluded with an agreement that Mike the Tiger would not be used for this purpose. That was the last, and only meeting that I attended on this matter. I was never involved in any subsequent decision concerning the use of another tiger at an LSU game.
Unfortunately, due to some misleading and poor reporting, many people have got the impression that I advocated in favor of this action, and today I need to set that record straight.
Since graduating from that school and working for more than 40 years as a practicing veterinarian, I have passionately advocated on behalf of all animals and their well-being. And I’m very proud of my contributions to protecting the quality of their life. In this instance, I stood with Mike the Tiger and will continue to advocate for him and any tiger used for that purpose.
What’s important here is not that a well-meaning veterinarian wanted to set the record straight about whether he supported bringing a live tiger into Tiger Stadium.
It’s that more than half the state Senate — many of them Republicans — associated themselves with Wheat’s rebuke of Landry by standing with him to show their support of him and his statement.
Further, and perhaps most significant, Senate President Cameron Henry not only shared Wheat’s statement on his Facebook page but in a paid post, ensuring that his message of support for Wheat reached the broadest possible audience among his constituents and others.
This state Senate doesn’t appear eager to bow and scrape to Landry during this special or future session. Thursday’s support for Wheat might have been ostensibly about a tiger, but it was also an unmistakable shot across Landry’s bow.
He would be wise to read it as such.
Huey and Rose?
What’s up with the effort by Landry’s office to sell his tax plan by using a fictional couple and passing them off as real Louisiana taxpayers?
On Twitter this week, Landry’s office told readers about a married couple, Huey and Rose, and how much they would benefit from Landry’s tax plan.
As the owner of the supersleuth account FactCheckAGLandry discovered, the images of Huey and Rose were stock photos used in various advertisements.
These are not real Louisiana taxpayers. (Maybe the names Rose and Huey were a tip-off? Will we hear from Earl and Blanche next week?)
What does it say about the wonders of Landry’s tax plan that he and his staff cannot find a real couple willing to attest to its benefits?
I never understood why the flat personal income tax could not have been 3.5% and the entirety of the .45 cent temporary sales tax not allowed to expire. The numbers presented by Secretary Nelson indicated that would have been a wash and there was always opposition to extending the .45 cent sales tax. What is so magical about a 3% flat personal income tax. I don't know and I don't see why any politician, much less humanitarian, would not have wanted to reduce our high sales tax knowing it disproportionately affects lower income individuals. I fought the battle over taxing services and eliminating exemptions, exclusions, credits, etc. for too many years to not know these are tough sells that are also often regressive. The idea of taxing more services is just plain stupid, IMHO. The ultimate outcome will be interesting, including how whatever might pass resembles what was proposed.. Gov. Landry apparently missed the boat with a passenger list of more people believing in the ethical treatment of animals (even if they don't go as far as PETA) so Omar was a disaster for him even if his tax reform plan is not.
What’s with these people? What is the aversion to paying income tax? Heavens, I paid 5% flat tax in Massachusetts all my life. 3.5% sounds like a good place to start and won’t dent the high rollers. Why does the legislature want to pick the pockets of moms raising families instead of paying their fair share?