Jindal scraps tax swap plan
BATON ROUGE — Gov. Bobby Jindal told lawmakers on Monday that he's shelving his tax swap proposal rather than risk an embarrassing defeat of a restructuring plan that drew ire across the political spectrum and from business leaders.
But the Republican governor isn't giving up on his push to eliminate Louisiana's income taxes on individuals and businesses, just the part of the plan that had a specific list of ways to replace the lost revenue, including an unpopular sales tax hike.
Jindal told lawmakers on the opening day of the annual legislative session that he wants a plan to get rid of the income tax, suggesting he'd support a phase-out approach offered by several lawmakers — without offering any further parameters.
“Even if we park our plan, I'm calling on you, let's work together, let's pass a bill this session. Let's get rid of the income tax,” the governor told a joint meeting of the House and Senate.
Jindal's decision to scrap a tax package he announced nearly three months ago was a surprising acknowledgement of trouble for a governor who has regularly found success for his legislative agenda. However, Jindal's poll numbers have plummeted, and his relationships even with Republican lawmakers have grown rocky, so a shift in tactic could give him a victory to claim when the two-month legislative session ends on June 6.
Jindal had proposed to get rid of the income tax immediately. In exchange, he proposed increased sales taxes charged on more items, boosted tobacco taxes and removal of some tax breaks.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Feds arrest guardsman, cousin for terror plot on military facility
- Bergdahl, speaking for 1st time, claims 12 attempts to flee Taliban
- Global warming is slowing down the circulation of the oceans — with potentially dire consequences
- Blast collapses NYC apartments, injures 12
- Report: DEA prostitutes paid by cartel
- Jackson Jr. leaves prison for halfway house
- Tractor-trailer hits construction beams over Interstate 35 in Texas
- Damaged Jersey shore pier to be rebuilt
- Santorum: Obama opposition to fossil fuels ‘quasi-religious’
- House OKs overhaul of Medicare, keeps kids insurer
- Watchdog: Policy over visas broke, but not law