>>> SUPPORT FOR THIS PROGRAM IS

PROVIDED BY THE FOUNDATION FOR

EXCELLENCE IN LOUISIANA PUBLIC

BROADCASTING AND FROM VIEWERS

LIKE YOU.

>>> HELLO AND WELCOME TO

"LOUISIANA PUBLIC SQUARE," I'M

BETH COURTNEY, PRESIDENT OF

LOUISIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

>> AND I'M ROBERT TRAVIS SCOTT,

PRESIDENT OF THE PUBLIC AFFAIRS

RESEARCH COUNCIL OF LOUISIANA.

AFTER JOHN BEL EDWARDS IN

AUGURATION, HE CALLED PEOPLE TO

TAKE ACTION ON A $2 BILLION

SHORTFALL.

>> THEY GOT TO WORK AFTER

VALENTINE'S DAY AND WORKED

THROUGH A SPECIAL SESSION AND

ANOTHER THREE-WEEK SPECIAL

SESSION.

>> THEY WERE CORRECTING HASTY

LAWS THAT WERE PASSED.

>> THEY WERE IN SESSION A VERY

LONG TIME.

HOW DID THE LENGTH OF TIME AT

THE CAPITOL AFFECT THE LAWS

BEING MADE?

ARE THE STATE'S SPENDING

PRIORITIES IN THE RIGHT PLACE?

OVER THE NEXT HOUR, WE'LL HEAR

FROM FAMILIES WHO RELY ON STATE

SERVICES FOR THEIR CHILDREN,

LAWMAKERS WHO CALLED THE SHOTS

AND BUSINESS OWNERS CONCERNED.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS ON

"REGULAR AND EXTRAORDINARY:

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW."

>>> OF ALL THE FUNDING DECISIONS

LAWMAKERS MADE DURING THE THREE

SESSIONS THIS YEAR, THE STATE'S

COLLE

COLLEGE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM,

"TOPS," WILL SEE THE BIGGEST

CUT.

>> WE DO HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET

BUT THE POINT IS, WE DO NOT HAVE

ENOUGH MONEY TO FUNDS EVERYTHING

THAT HAVE BEEN FUNDED IN THE

PREVIOUS YEAR.

THERE WILL BE CUTS UPON VARIOUS

STATE AGEAGENCIES.

>> THEY WERE ALLOCATED 70% OF

THEY NEED.

THEY WOULD FULLY FUND IT IN THE

FULL SEMESTER.

COLLEGE STUDENTS AND THEIR

PARENTS MAY HAVE TO COME UP WITH

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN TUITION.

LAWMAKERS WERE WILLING TO TAKE

THAT BET BECAUSE THEY THINK

THERE'S POTENTIALLY MORE MONEY

ON THE WAY.

ZORA NEALE LEADS THE COMMITTEE.

HE SAID AS MUCH AFTER VOTING TO

PUT RESTRICTIONS.

>> THERE ARE MANY, MANY

OPPORTUNITIES THAT EXIST.

THE [INDISCERNIBLE] SO WE'RE

GOING TO GENERATE ALREADY FROM

THE PRICE OF OIL.

>> ABRAMSON SAID HE THOUGHT SOME

OF THE ONES PASSED WOULD BRING

IN MORE MONEY.

>> FROM A LEGISLATURE'S

STANDPOINT, OBVIOUSLY, TO REDUCE

THE TAXES OR MONEY TO BE RAISED

IN NEW TAXES, YOU WANT TO SAY,

WE'RE GOING TO GET MONEY COMING

LATER ON.

WE HAVE TO BE CONSERVATIVE AND

WE GAUGE THOSE x

EXPECTATIONS.

SO KED UP,pxx

DID THE NUMBER OF VOTES

LAWMAKERS WERE ASKED.

THEY RAISED $1.5 BILLION.

TO ETHINK IT'S

.FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS@Q||

TOLD REPRESENTATIVE ROB

SHADOIN, WHO WAS PROMOTING A

REVENUE BILL AROUND WEEK 17,

THAT LAWMAKERS NEED TO SEE THE

DUST SETTLE.

>> IT'S JUST REALLY HARD FOR ME

TO GO BACK HOME BECAUSE I

HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT

SINCE WE GET STARTED.

>> YOU MEAN, GO BACK HOME?

[LAUGHTER]

>> THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED ME, I

FEEL THEIR PAIN RIGHT NOW.

>> IT WAS ECHOED BY STEPHEN

WAGUESPACK, PRESIDENT OF THE

LOUISIANA ASSOCIATION OF

BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY.

HE SAYS OIL PRICES HAVE CAUSED A

DOWNTURN IN THE ECONOMY.

>> THERE ARE JOBS OUT THERE THAT

ARE HURTING.

WE ARE 16,000 JOBS DOWN.

WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT.

WE HAVE BEEN HERE FOR SIX

MONTHS.

>> IT MADE IT DIFFICULT TO

CONSIDER TAX POLICY CHANGES THAT

SOME CONSIDER REFORM.

JULIE STOKES EXPRESSED

FRUSTRATION.

>> WE CAN'T STOP TALKING ABOUT

THIS BUDGET PROBLEM LONG ENOUGH

TO DO ANYTHING REALLY GOOD.

>> SENATE PRESIDENT JOHN ALARIO.

>> WE HAVE TO STABILIZE THE

REVENUE SOURCES AND TRY TO BE

FAIR.

>> DARDENNE SAYS THE BUDGET

FIRST NEEDED TO BE STABILIZED.

NEXT SESSION, THE ADMINISTRATION

IS GEARING UP TO MAKE STRUCTURAL

CHANGES.

>> THEY HAVE REVENUES UP AND

DOWN AND CHANGES IN ITS TAX CODE

THAT HAVEN'T BEEN STRUCTURAL

CHANGES.

THEY'VE BEEN CHANGES WE NEEDED

TO MAKE.

>> IN THE FIRST SPECIAL SESSION,

ON TO CKED ANOTHER

4% SALES TAX, MAKING MORE

GOODS TAXABLE.

THEY ACCIDENTALLY DOING OFF MORE

EXEMPTIONS THAN THEY WANTED TO,

THAT CAUSED MORE CONFUSION ON

PRODUCE.SH IT WOULD

IN THE 2018 SESSION, LAWMAKERS

WILL BE LOOKING AT LEAST $1.1

BILLION SHORTFALL IN FUNDING.

>> IT CREATES THIS TERRIBLE

CLIFF AND WE'RE IN THE SAME SOUP

OF HAVING THE CRISIS OF NOT

HAVING ADEQUATE AVENUE.

THE PLAN AND HOPE IS NEXT YEAR,

THE STRUCTURAL CHANGES WILL

ADDRESS THE CLIFF PROBLEM AND

UNDO SOME OF THE TEMPORARY

FIXES.

>> DARDENNE SAYS THEY ARE

WALKING A FINE LINE BETWEEN

BEING SENSITIVE TO THE ECONOMY.

>> IT IS A BALANCING ACT.

WHAT'S THE RIGHT MIX OF BEING

FAIR TO EVERYONE AND NOT BEING

LIKE THAT.

TO HAVE A BALANCE, BROAD-BASED

TAX STUCKTURE, YOU HAVE TO HIT

THE VARIOUS ENTITIES.

>> ALL EYES ON THE STUDY

COMMISSION LEAD BY DR. JIM

RICHARDSON.

THEY ARE EXPECTED TO RELEASE

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE TAX CODE

THIS FALL.

>> JOINING US TO EXPLORE THE

"REGULAR AND EXTRAORDINARY:

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW" IS OUR

STUDIO AUDIENCE, IT INCLUDES

COLLEGE STUDENTS, EDUCATORS AND

ACTIVISTS.

WE HAVE THE ADVISORY COUNCIL

FROM NEW ORLEANS AND RAYNE.

IT'S BEEN NOTED HOW DIFFICULT IT

WAS TO KEEP TRACK OF ALL THE

NUMBERS SURROUNDING THE SESSION.

SO LET'S START THERE.

HERE'S THE BEST APPLES TO APPLES

COMPARISON WE CAN MAKE BASED ON

THE FIGURES.

FOR THE NEW FISCAL YEAR, THE

STATE'S COLLEGES AND

UNIVERSITIES WILL SEE A 2%

INCREASE IN THEIR FUNDING OVER

LAST YEAR BY ABOUT $40 MILLION.

K THROUGH 12 WILL SEE A DROP OF

$16 MILLION.

THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH WILL SEE AN INCREASE OF

8%, $280 MILLION.

LAWMAKERS HAVE LEFT THE

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 1%

SHORT, $6 MILLION.

THOSE NUMBERS DON'T PAINT THE

ENTIRE PICTURE.

WHAT ELSE DO YOU THINK SHOULD

HAVE BEEN FUNDING?

WHAT TAX INCREASES ARE YOU

EXPECTING OR IS THIS A SPENDING

PROBLEM?

SO, TELL US ABOUT WHAT YOU

THINK?

YOU WERE MONITORING THIS AS PART

OF THE LOUISIANA BUDGET PROJECT,

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I THINK FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE,

OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT THE

SOLUTIONS THAT WERE DEVELOPED

WILL CREATE A PROBLEM IN THE

NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS AND THAT

ALSO, WHILE THERE WEREN'T A LOT

OF OPTIONS FOR HOW TO FILL

BUDGET HOLES QUICKLY, THOSE THAT

WERE CHOSEN ARE OPTIONS THAT

AFFECT YOUR LOWEST INCOME FOLKS

IN THE STATE MORE THAN ANYONE

ELSE.

AND WHEN THERE WERE

OPPORTUNITIES TO PUT INTO PLACE

POLICIES THAT WOULD ACTUALLY

DISTRIBUTE THAT BURDEN WHERE

PROGRESSIVELY, LEGISLATURES WERE

UNWILLING TO PURSUE THEM.

>> SO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE

RAISED REVENUE IN DIFFERENT WAYS

AND NOT WITH THE SALES TAX?

DO YOU THINK THAT WAS A BAD

IDEA?

>> DEFINITELY WITH THE SALES

TAX.

>> IT SEEMS LIKE IT WAS A LOT OF

QUICK MONEY COMING UP THERE.

JAY, YOU ARE A BUSINESSMAN AND

REPRESENTING LOUISIANA

ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS AND

INDUSTRY.

HOW DID YOU SEE THIS SESSION

GOING AND DO YOU AGREE WITH

JANAY?

>> TO A CERTAIN EXTENT.

THE LEGISLATURES WERE PUT IN A

VERY DIFFICULT POSITION IN A

VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AND I

THINK THEIR GOAL WAS TO CREATE A

BRIDGE TO GET TO [INDISCERNIBLE]

FARM AND WHAT THEY DID, EVEN

THOUGH VERY DISTASTEFUL AND

UNPLEASANT AND COSTLY TO

BUSINESS AT A TIME AND

BUSINESSES ARE STRUGGLING, IT

WAS SOMETHING THAT HAD TO BE

DONE IN A SHORT-TERM BASIS WITH

THE REALITY THAT WE MUST DO

REFORM.

AND REFORM'S GOT TO TAKE PLACE

IN A REGULAR SESSION NEXT YEAR,

WHICH IS A FISCAL YEAR.

>> OKAY.

WELL, YOU KNOW -- YES, GO AHEAD,

EDGAR?

>> TO SAY THAT THE LEGISLATURE'S

PUT IN A POSITION FOR A SHORT

PERIOD IS MAYBE AN ACCURATE

STATEMENT BUT THIS DID NOT

HAPPEN IN A FIRST SPECIAL

SESSION.

IT HAS BEEN HAPPENING IN

PREVIOUS SESSIONS BEFORE.

>> IT HAS TAKING US YEARS TO GET

IN THIS BAD OF SHAPE, IS WHAT

YOU'RE SAYING?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

I AGREE THAT THE SALES TAX

INCREASE, THE MOST PROGRESSIVE

FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOW INCOME

AND LITTLE MEANS.

OUR COMMUNITY, TOGETHER WITH

LOUISIANA, WE UNDERSTOOD -- WE

DIDN'T LIKE IT.

BUT THIS IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF

REVENUE YOU CAN GET QUICKLY.

WE NEEDED IT FOR THE LAST FISCAL

YEAR SO WE DIDN'T LIKE IT, BUT

WE DIDN'T OPPOSE IT BECAUSE THE

ADMINISTRATION HAD NOTHING --

>> QUICK REVENUE IS WHAT YOU'RE

SAYING.

NATHAN?

>> I HAVE TO AGREE WITH EDGAR'S

STATEMENT.

ANYBODY WHO THINKS THIS WOULD BE

A LONG-TERM FIX IS MAYBE FOOLING

THEMSELVES AND IT'S JUST A

BRIDGE TO GET TO THE TAX REFORM

OF THE NEXT SESSION.

IMPORTANTLY TO NOTE IS OVER

EIGHT YEARS OF CUTS OR THINGS

LIKE THAT, WE CAN'T LET THE NEW

NORMAL DEFINE OUR EXPECTATIONS

SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FUNDING

FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR, FUNDING

FROM FOUR YEARS PRIOR, WE NEED

TO KEEP IN CHECK WHETHER THAT

WAS ACCEPTABLE TO BEGIN WITH.

>> YOU'RE FRESHLY GRADUATED

ECONOMIST.

>> YES.

>> WE HAVE STUDENTS HERE.

I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM STUDENTS

ON WHAT THEIR VIEW IS --

PERSPECTIVE COLLEGE STUDENTS,

WHAT YOUR VIEW IS ON "TOPS."

ARE ANY OF YOU AFFECTED BY THIS

OR DO YOU HAVE A VIEW ABOUT

WHETHER THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA OR

NOT?

LAYA, TAYLOR?

>> I FEEL LIKE WE DON'T

NECESSARILY LIKE IT BUT WE DON'T

HAVE MUCH OF A CHOICE EITHER

BECAUSE THE CUTS CAN ONLY COME

FROM SO MANY PLACES.

>> AND IN OTHER WORDS, YOU

THOUGHT IT WAS A NATURAL

PLACE --

>> IT SHOULD BE BETTER.

WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO CUT FROM

"TOPS"S AND HOSPITALS BUT THEY

HAD TO DO IT QUICK.

>> JUSTIN HERE IS BOTH A

STUDENT, COLLEGE STUDENT, AND HE

WAS A JOURNALIST WORKING THROUGH

THE MANSHIP SCHOOL, COVERING THE

SESSION.

SO, ARE YOU AFFECTED?

>> I JUST GRADUATED.

>> YOU GOT OUT JUST IN TIME.

[LAUGHTER]

>> I WROTE A COLUMN ABOUT MY

EXPERIENCE AT THE CAPITOL.

AYEAR AGO, I SAID WE SHOULD FUND

"TOPS."

IF MORE HOSPITALS ARE ON THE

CHOPPING BLOCK, I WOULD ARGUE

THAT "TOPS" SHOULD BE CUT

INSTEAD OF HOSPITALS.

ON TOP OF THAT, IF THE 2017

REGULAR SESSION DOES NOT PROVIDE

TAX CODE CHANGES AND STRUCTURAL

CHANGES ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE

CONSTITUTION, THEN "TOPS" AND

HIGHER EDUCATION WILL CONTINUEUE

TO BE PROBLEMS FOR OUR

LEGISLATURE TO FACE.

THE PROGRAM, AS IT STANDS TODAY,

REQUIRES ADDITIONAL REFORMS FOR

THAT TO HAPPEN.

>> ABOUT THAT, REBECCA, YOU ARE

A JOURNALIST COVERING -- YOU

COVERED THIS SESSION FOR THE

ADVOCATE.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS

ASSESSMENT?

>> I THINK IT'S WORTH NOTICE

THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT

"TOPS" HAS BEEN CUT AND WE'VE

BEEN CUTTING THE STATE BUDGET

AGGRESSIVELY FOR EIGHT OR NINE

YEARS.

IT'S DEFINITELY BEEN A PRIORITY.

IT WAS DIFFICULT TO MAKE THAT

CUT.

IT SHOWS HOW SEVERE THINGS HAVE

GOTTEN.

>> WE'RE FORTUNATE TO HAVE SCOTT

WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD

ASSOCIATION.

SCOTT, I KNOW YOU HAVE A LOT TO

SAY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS

SESSION.

ARE YOU BETTER OFF?

ARE YOU WORSE OFF?

>> IT'S A SAD DAY IN LOUISIANA

WHEN K-12 PUBLIC EDUCATION IS

NOT PRIORITIZED AND NOT KEPT AT

LEAST THE SAME LEVEL OF FUNDING

FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

ONE OF THE BIGGEST TAKE AWAYS

FROM THIS SESSION FOR ANYBODY

THAT'S A STAKEHOLDER IS THE FACT

THAT BASIC SERVICES AND STATE

GOVERNMENT WERE PITTED AGAINST

EACH OTHER.

HIGHER ED, HOSPITALS, CHILDREN

WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES, K-12

PUBLIC EDUCATION.

PRISON SERVICES.

BASIC SERVICES THAT STATES

PROVIDE WERE PITTED -- ACTUALLY

FIGHTING AGAINST EACH OTHER AT

THE END OF THE DAY, TO TRY TO

CHAMPION THEIR CAUSE TO MAINTAIN

THE SAME LEVEL OF FUNDING.

>> IT OFTEN ENDS UP THAT WAY,

THEY PIT ONE CONSTITUENTS

AGAINST ANOTHER.

LET'S TALK ABOUT HEALTHCARE.

WE HAVE A COUPLE OF FOLKS.

YOU HAVE A SPECIAL INTEREST IN

HEALTHCARE.

KELLY OR KAREN?

>> I HAVE A SON WHO HAS TWO

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, DOWN

SYNDROME AND AUTISM AND A HEART

DEFECT.

YOU MAY HAVE SEEN US AT THE

CAPITOL, ADVOCATING FOR

SERVICES, MEDICAID WAIVER

SERVICES FOR OUR KID.

>> A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T GO WHAT

THAT MEANS.

>> MEDICAID WAIVER IS A WAIVER

OF REGULAR MEDICAID RULES TO

PROVIDE HELP AND SUPPORT TO

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES OR

SPECIAL NEEDS.

>> HOW DO THINKS COME OUT FROM

YOUR POINT OF VIEW?

>> WELL, IT WAS VERY SCARY.

IT WAS A VERY, VERY SCARY

SESSION FOR US.

PERSONALLY AND FOR THE FAMILIES

THAT I WORK WITH.

ULTIMATELY --

>> SCARY BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT THE

FUNDING WAS GOING TO BE TAKEN

AWAY?

>> WE WERE PUT IN A POSITION

WHERE WE HAD TO GO AD VTH NOT

ONCE, BUT TWICE TO GET OUR

SERVICES PUT BACK IN THE BUDGET.

FIRST DURING THE SPECIAL SESSION

TO HAVE THE FUNDED FOUND AND

PLACED BACK IN THE BUDGET AND

THEN IT WAS IN HOUSE BILL 1 AND

TAKEN OUT.

>> IN THE END, HOW DID IT TURN

OUT?

>> THE WAIVER SERVICES WERE

COVERED BUT MANY OTHER SERVICES

FOR DISABILITY SERVICES WEREN'T.

>> KAREN, THE LESSON FOR YOU

GOING FORWARD, WHAT WOULD YOU

LIKE TO SEE DIFFERENTLY IN THE

FUTURE?

THERE ARE ALL THESE PRIORITIES.

>> WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE

HAPPEN IS HAVE REFORM SO WE

AREN'T PITTING SERVICES AGAINST

EACH OTHER.

THAT WOULD BE THE IDEA IN THE

SAME RESPONSE.

WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT -- I

APPRECIATE WHAT SOME OF THE

OTHER PANELISTS SAID.

THEY UNDERSTOOD ABOUT "TOPS" AND

THE SITUATION WE WERE IN, OUR

CHILDREN, MANY OF OUR

CHILDREN -- NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT

SOME OF THEM -- COULD DIE

WITHOUT THE SERVICES THEY HAVE

AND THERE WERE MANY PARENTS PUT

IN THAT SITUATION.

>> DIANE, YOU WANTED TO JUMP IN?

>> I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS

THAT SPENDING IS NOT THE

PROBLEM.

THAT WE HAVE THINGS THAT ARE

NECESSARY AND PRIORITIES SO FOR

ME, PERSONALLY, I HAVE A SON

THAT'S GOT "TOPS."

WE'LL BE LOSING THAT.

I HAVE A FAMILY WHO HAS A

PERSONAL CARE ATTENDANT AROUND

THE CLOCK, THAT'S GOING TO BE

LOOKED AT BEING CUT.

MY HUSBAND WORKS FOR THE STATE

DEPARTMENT AND HE NOW WORKS FIVE

JOBS FOR FIVE PEOPLE THAT HAVE

BEEN LAID OFF.

>> HE'S TAKING THE

RESPONSIBILITY OF FIVE PEOPLE?

>> BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN -- ON

TOP OF ALL THAT, I WAS ASKED,

WELL, WOULD YOU ADD A PENNY TO

SALES TAX AT THE SAME TIME AS MY

AIR CONDITIONER WENT OUT SO I

SPENT THAT PENNY RIGHT AWAY.

SO, WHAT'S FRUSTRATING TO ME IS

WE ALL TALK ABOUT HOW, OKAY,

I'LL GIVE UP "TOPS."

I'LL GIVE UP THE FUNDING FOR MY

FAMILY MEMBER THAT NEEDS THAT

ROUND THE CLOCK CARE AND I'LL

PAY THAT PENNY.

IT'S IMPACTING ME IN A VERY

POWERFUL WAY AND I'M STRETCHED

TO THE LIMIT NOW.

BUT, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT, SO,

HOW DO WE GET REVENUE?

WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE GET

REVENUE BECAUSE THESE PRARTS ARE

TOO IMPORTANT TO BE --

>> THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR

SITUATION.

THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE THIS

PORTION OF OUR SHOW.

WHEN WE RETURN, WE'LL BE JOINED

BY OUR PANEL TO EXPLORE "REGULAR

AND EXTRAORDINARY: LEGISLATIVE

REVIEW"

>>> WELCOME BACK TO "LOUISIANA

PUBLIC SQUARE."

TONIGHT, WE'RE REVIEWING THE

LEGISLATURE'S RECENTLY-CONCLUDED

"REGULAR AND EXTRAORDINARY:

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW."

JOINING US NOW IS SENATOR ERIC

LAFLEUR, WHO IS THE CHAIR OF THE

FINANCE COMMITTEE.

HE'S A DEMOCRAT FROM LAPLACE.

MELINDA DESLATTE, SHE GRADUATED

FROM LSU.

DR. JIM RICHARDSON.

HE MAY KNOW THAN ANYONE ELSE

ABOUT THE DEFISHANYS IN THE

STATE'S REVENUE STRUCTURE.

HE SERVED ON THE COMMITTEE THAT

ESTIMATES HOW MUCH THE STATE CAN

SPEND EACH YEAR.

MALINDA WHITE, A DEMOCRAT FROM

BOGALUSA.

SHE'S NEW TO THE CAPITOL.

WELL, WE'VE REACHED OUT TO

SEVERAL PROMINENT REPUBLICAN

LAWMAKERS AND ALL OF THEM HAD

PRIOR COMMITMENTS.

BEFORE WE GO TO OUR AUDIENCE,

I'D LIKE TO ASK ALL OF YOU TO

ADDRESS A QUESTION.

YOU KNOW, WE ENTERED THIS FIRST

SPECIAL SESSION IN A SERIOUS

FISCAL CRISIS.

NOW WE'RE DONE.

ARE WE OUT OF THE CRISIS?

AND, WHAT WERE THE BIG SUCCESSES

OR FAILURE GOING THROUGH THESE

LAST FEW MONTHS?

WE'RE GOING TO START WITH YOU,

SENATOR LAFLEUR.

>> OUR FAILURE WAS THE INABILITY

TO FULLY FUND "TOPS" OR THE

UNWILLINGNESS OF THE LEGISLATURE

TO FULLY FUND "TOPS," WHICH I

THINK IS A VERY IMPORTANT

PROGRAM.

THE GOVERNOR MADE THE

APPROPRIATE PROPOSALS BUT THE

LEGISLATURE CHOSE NOT TO FUND

IT.

THEN THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF

OTHERS IN THE COURSE OF

GOVERNMENT THAT WILL LOSE A FEW

DOLLARS.

THE HH, DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS.

>> YOU'RE ON THE SENATE SIDE, DO

YOU THINK THE SENATE WOULD HAVE

FULLY FUNDED "TOPS."

>> YES, I FEEL COMFORTABLE ABOUT

THAT.

>> I WANT TO STIR UP

CONTROVERSY.

[LAUGHTER]

>> THE SUCCESSES AND FAILURES,

I'LL LEAVE TO OTHER FOLKS TO

DISCUSS.

IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT

THINGS ARE SETTLED AND WE'RE IN

A BALANCED BUDGET SITUATION, I

WOULD SAY THAT EVERYONE'S IN A

BALANCED BUDGET SITUATION NOW.

LEGISLATURES DON'T SEEM TO KNOW

WHAT THEY'VE PASSED IN TERMS OF

THE MONEY THAT THEY'LL GENERATE

AND WILL PAY FOR THINGS.

THERE IS A POTENTIAL BUDGET

DEFICIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR THAT

JUST ENDED.

IT IS AN OVERASSUMPTION TO

SUGGEST EVERYTHING IS FINE AND

DANDY.

>> YOU CAN BEEN COVERING

LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS FOR MANY

YEARS.

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THIS ONE?

>> LONG.

[LAUGHTER]

19 WEEKS IN A ROW OF THREE

SESSIONS IS MORE THAN ANYBODY

SHOULD BE ASKED TO DO, REPORTER

OF LEGISLATURE OR MEMBER OF THE

PUBLIC WATCHING IT.

>> DR RICHARDSON, YOU PROBABLY

ONE OF THE BEST WELL-KNOWN

ECONOMIST AT LSU.

HOW DID YOU VIEW WHAT HAPPENED

IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS?

>> A COUPLE OF THINGS I WILL SAY

THEY DID WELL, TRYING TO

REINCORPORATE THE INCOME TAX

BASE.

I THINK THEY DID A VERY NICE

THING.

ON THE BROADER PICTURE OF THE

OVERALL BUDGET, WE ARE STILL

VERY CLOUDY ABOUT IF WE REALLY

SOLVED THE BUDGET PROBLEM.

WE DID NOT DO IT FOR THE

LONG-TERM.

EVEN IN THE SHORT-TERM, MANY OF

THE TAX CHANGES, THE NUMBERS

THAT ARE BEING USED TO PROJETH,

VERY, VERY SHAKY, VERY SOFT AND

UNSURE OF OURSELVES ABOUT HOW

MUCH MONEY WE WILL GET IN THE

END.

YOU HAVE THE ONGOING ECONOMY,

WHICH IS DRAGGING A LITTLE BIT

BECAUSE THE ENERGY SECTOR, NOT

DOING NEARLY AS WELL AS IT ONCE

WAS.

TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, I THINK FOR

THIS FISCAL YEAR WE JUST ENDED,

WILL BE A T SURELY

DEFICIT OF FUNDS.

I WILL NOT BE SURPRISED IF WE

HAD TO BRING ANOTHER SESSION IN

EARLY JANUARY.

>> THAT'S A SOBERING THOUGHTS.

THINGS HAVE GOTTEN WORSE BEFORE

THEY'VE GOTTEN BETTER.

I APPRECIATE THAT

DR. RICHARDSON.

ABO

HOW ABOUT YOU?

>> WELL, AS A FRESHMAN

LEGISLATURE, I WENT INTO THIS

PROCESS AS A STUDENT OF THE

PROCESS.

THE THING THAT I FOUND MOST GOOD

FOR ME IN THE BEGINNING WAS TO

BE ABLE TO ATTEND WAYS AND MEANS

AND APPROPRIATIONS AND WATCH

BILLS GET VETTED OUT AND

UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS TO SO

MANY PEOPLE AND THAT HELPED ME

UNDERSTAND, WHEN WE WENT INTO IT

AND I JUST WANTED TO DIVE IN AND

HELP, I WASN'T SENT HERE TO SIT

ON THE SIDELINES AND I RAN A

CAMPAIGN ON NOT KICKING THE CAN

DOWN THE ROAD.

I IMMEDIATELY STEPPED IN WITH

WHAT THINGS THAT I KNEW ABOUT,

SUCH AS VENDOR COMPENSATION FEES

AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT I

COULD DELIVER ON AND IT WAS A

SPENDING CUT.

THE PROCESS, THOUGH, AFTER THREE

SESSIONS, I DEFINITELY FEEL LIKE

I'M NO LONGER A FRESHMAN.

[LAUGHTER]

>> I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S A

FRESHMAN ANYMORE AFTER GOING

THROUGH ALL OF THAT.

HOW DARE YOU, AS A LEGISLATURE,

TRY TO CAPITALIZE ON THINGS YOU

KNOW ABOUT.

[LAUGHTER]

>> HE CREATED AN ORGANIZATION TO

REVAMP THE FISCAL AREA OF THE

STATE.

DAVID. TO GO TO

YOU HAD A QUESTION ABOUT ALL THE

XEMPTIONS AND CREDITS ANDú|

WHATNOT THAT INTERFERE WITH OUR

REVENUE PICTURE.

>> I APPRECIATE IT.

JUST SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL

TAXPAYER, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT

SOME OF THE -- YOU KNOW, SOME OF

THE THINGS THAT WERE PROPOSED.

AND, I, LIKE MANY PEOPLE -- I'M

ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE

ADVANTAGE OF THINGS, MORTGAGE

INTEREST WRITE-OFF AND THINGS

LIKE THAT.

I THINK THE ELIMINATION OR THE

DECREASING OF THOSE TAX -- OF

THOSE CREDITS WHEN I DO MY TAXES

AND ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE

STATE, PERSONALLY, I GUESS I

THINK IT'S KIND OF A BAD IDEA.

IT HURTS THE MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE

AND I THINK IT HURTS ALMOST ALL

HOMEOWNERS, ANYONE THAT'S GOT A

MORTGAGE.

AND I WAS JUST A LITTLE BIT

CURIOUS IF THEY'RE STILL GOING

TO BEAT THAT DRUM?

IF THE GOVERNOR IS GOING TO

STILL BE BEATING THE DRUM NEXT

YEAR?

>> PARTICULAR PERSONAL OR

INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES?

>> DEDUCTIONS THAT YOU GET FROM

YOUR --

>> HOW OUR LEGISLATURES WANT TO

REACT TO THAT?

>> THE ONE THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED

WOULD HAVE EXCLUDED THAT

WRITE-OFF SO YOU STILL ENJOY

THAT WRITE-OFF, EVEN WITH THE

GOVERNOR'S WRITE-OFF.

>> CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND

THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> REPRESENTATIVE WHITE?

>> I ACTUALLY CARRIED THAT BILL,

ROB SHADOIN CARRIED IT IN THE

FIRST ROUND AND WHEN IT FAILED,

I WITH HAD A BILL THE SAME.

AND WORKED TO MAKE THAT BILL

SOMETHING THAT WOULD ACTUALLY

BRING ABOUT TAX REFORM IN A GOOD

WAY.

AND SO BASICALLY, JUST IN GIST,

IT WAS ONE THAT DID NOT ALLOW TO

ALL TAX DEDUCTIONS WITH THE

EXEMPTION OF STATE INCOME TAX

AND SALES AND USE TAX.

THAT WAS IT.

AND, THIS IMPACT THAT WE TALKED

ABOUT FOR SOMEONE MAKING

$100,000 A YEAR, IT WOULD HAVE

COST THEM $200.

IF YOU ARE MAKING $1 MILLION, IT

WOULD HAVE BEEN AROUND $2,500.

IN LIEU OF THE SERVICES IT WOULD

HAVE COVERED, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN

TREMENDOUS AND BROUGHT IN $88

MILLION CORRECTLY FROM THESE TAX

DEDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.

IT WOULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED YOUR

MORTGAGE INTEREST, YOUR

CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS.

>> YOU MAY GET ANOTHER CHANCE?

YOU MAY GET ANOTHER CHANCE TO

TALK ABOUT THAT NEXT YEAR.

FREDERICK, YOU HAD A QUESTION

ABOUT A TOPIC THAT EVERYONE

GROWNED AND SIGHED ABOUT WHEN WE

BROUGHT IT UP EARLIER, "TOPS."

>> I'M A RECENT HIGH SCHOOL

GRADUATE.

I GRADUATED THIS PAST MAY AND

"TOPS" IS ON EVERY HIGH SCHOOL

SENIOR'S MIND.

IT WAS ON MY MIND DEFINITELY.

WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW IS, IS

THERE A PLAN IN PLACE -- THE

QUESTION IS DIRECTED MORE TOWARD

TO LEGISLATURES.

IS THERE A PLAN IN PLACE TO

FULLY FUND "TOPS" IN SUBSEQUENT

YEARS AND AT THE PROMISE THAT

WAS MADE TO STUDENTS --

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

WE'RE GOING TO LET THE

LEGISLATURES ANSWER IT.

WHY DON'T YOU TELL US WHAT

HAPPENED TO "TOPS."

>> WELL, THEY DIDN'T FULLY FUND

IT.

WHAT THEY DID, THIS TIME, IS --

FIRST OF ALL, THEY PASSED A LAW

THAT CAPS THE SPENDING ON "TOPS"

SO THAT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY

GROW AS THE COST OF TUITION

GROWS.

IF LSU WANTED TO RAISE ITS

TUITION, THE LEGISLATURE DOESN'T

HAVE TO INCREASE THE PAYMENTS

FROM "TOPS" TO MATCH THE TUITION

COST.

SETTING THAT ASIDE FOR FUTURE

YEARS, THEY DIDN'T IMMEDIATELY

PAY FOR THE FULL PROGRAM NOW SO

STUDENTS WILL FACE A CUT FOR THE

AWARD IN THE UPCOMING SCHOOL

YEAR.

SMALL CUT IN THE FALL AND A

BIGGER CUT IN THE SPRING.

AND TO YOUR QUESTION, I DON'T

THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT

SUGGESTS THERE WAS A SUSTAINABLE

PLAN FOR THE LONG-TERM TO

CONTINUE TO FUNDING "TOPS" AND

TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY WHO

IS ELIGIBLE ACTUALLY RECEIVES

THE FUNDING.

>> HOW ABOUT OUR LEGISLATURES,

DO YOU AGREE?

>> THE CURRENT REVENUE MEASURE

IN PLACE WON'T FUND MOST

ANYTHING.

IF WOULD BE A CATASTROPHE IF WE

DON'T PICK SOMETHING ELSE OR

RENEW WHAT'S IN PLACE.

THE LEGISLATURE REJECTED IT.

>> DO YOU HAVE CHILDREN IN

COLLEGE?

>> I HAVE CHILDREN IN COLLEGE

FROM 2004, THREE CHILDREN,

STARTING IN 2004 AND JUST

GRADUATING IN 2016, THIS YEAR.

>> WERE THEY "TOPS" STUDENTS?

>> THEY WERE "TOPS" STUDENTS.

UNDERSTOOD THAT COMPLETELY.

WHAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IS HOW

THE FUNDING WORKED UNTIL I GOT

HERE.

I LISTENED TO A GENTLEMAN

EXPLAIN TO ME HOW HIGHER

EDUCATION HAD BEEN CUT BY 70%,

WHICH DROVE THEIR COST UP.

WHILE THEY COST WAS BEING DRIVEN

UP, I WATCH MY CHILDREN -- FROM

ONE TO THE OTHER, THEIR "TOPS"

GO UP SO REALLY, BASICALLY,

WE'RE SHIFTING TAX DOLLARS FROM

ONE TO THE OTHER TO COMPENSATE

FOR THE RISING COST AND REALLY

THE BURDEN WAS CARRIED ON THE

BACKS OF THE PARENTS AND

STUDENTS.

>> A LOT OF THAT SHIFTING FOR

BURD

BURDEN, ESPECIALLY FOR REVENUE,

THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY THINKS

THEY'RE TAKING MORE FROM US THAN

INDIVIDUALS.

MONIQUE, YOU'RE WITH THE

[INDISCERNIBLE] CHAMBER, IS THAT

CORRECT?

>> [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> YOU HAD YOUR HANDS FULL.

[LAUGHTER]

>> IT WAS A VERY LONG SESSION

AND I LEARNED A LOT.

[INDISCERNIBLE] AND SEVERAL

[INDISCERNIBLE] AND OUR

INVESTORS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT

THE ANTI-BUSINESS SETMENT THAT

[INDISCERNIBLE] THE LEGISLATURE

THIS YEAR.

WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE

ECONOMIC POSTURE OF OUR STATE.

THERE ARE LARGE INDUSTRY THAT

HAVE BUSINESS EXPANSION PLANS

AND WE WERE ON THE TABLE TO BE

CONSIDERED FOR THOSE EXPANSIONS.

WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE WILL BE THE

FUND SO THAT THE

FRONT OF THE BUDGET SHORTFALL

DOESN'T FALL TO BUSINESS?

>> I'D LIKE DR. RICHARDSON TO

TRY TO ADDRESS THIS BALANCE WITH

BUSINESS AND INDIVIDUALS.

>> WELL, IF YOU GO BACK AND JUST

SEE WHAT WE DID, WE FIRST

STARTED REALLY RAISING TAXES TO

MEET SHORTFALLS IN OUR BUDGET IN

2015.

AND ALMOST ALL OF THOSE TAX

INCREASES, THOUGH THEY WERE NOT

CALLED TAX INCREASES, THAT'S

WHAT THEY WERE, WERE REALLY

FOCUSED ON BUSINESS.

ON CUTTING BACK CREDITS.

CUTTING BACK EXEMPTIONS.

FOCUS.S KIND OF THE

AND THAT -- WHEN IT GOT INTO THE

NEW YEAR IN 2016 AND A NEW

GOVERNOR AND THEY NEEDED MONEY

IN A HURRY, THEY THEN WENT TO

THE SALES TAX, WHICH IS MORE

INDIVIDUAL ORIENTED, BUT ALSO

BUSINESSES PAY THAT, TOO.

IT'S JUST NOT INDIVIDUALS.

THEN THEY ALSO DID SOME MORE

CUTTING ON THE TAX CREDITS, AS

WELL.

SOME MORE HAIRCUTS, I THINK,

THEY CALLED THEM.

THAT'S WHERE THEY COULD GET

MONEY.

ALSO, EVEN IF YOU LISTEN TO BOTH

SIDES, THE DEMOCRATS AND THE

REPUBLICANS, THE GENERAL FAVOR

WAS, WELL, BUSINESS IS GOING TO

PAY ITS SHARE.

THAT'S KIND OF THE FOCUS.

I THINK AS WE THINK ABOUT

REDUING THE TAX STRUCTURE, YOU

TAXTHE MAKE S

STRUCTURE, ONE, IT GENERATES THE

REVENUE THE STATE THINGS IT

NEEDS TO SPEND ON IMPORTANT

PROGRAMS, WHICH COULD BE FROM

EDUCATION TO HEALTHCARE TO

PRISONS TO HIGHWAYS.

NUMBER TWO, IT ALSO HAS TO BE --

I SAY BUSINESS-FRIENDLY.

IT CANNOT BE SO ANTI-COMPETITIVE

OR ANTI-BUSINESS THAT YOU MAKE

PEOPLE THINK ABOUT WHERE THEY

WANT TO INVEST.

AS WE GO ALONG THERE, I THINK

THE GOVERNOR, THE LEGISLATURES,

THEY'RE VERY AWARE OF THAT

DELICATE BALANCE.

DO THEY ALWAYS COME UP WITH

ANSWERS?

NO, NOT NECESSARILY.

BUT I THINK IT WILL BE A DRIVING

POINT AS WE GO ABOUT REFORMING

THE TAX CODE OVER THE NEXT

SEVERAL YEARS, YES.

>> REPRESENT FROM

[INDISCERNIBLE], JAY, THINKS IT

IS A VERY INTERESTING BALANCE,

INDEED.

DO YOU WANT TO FOLLOW-UP WITH A

QUESTION WITH THAT?

>> I WOULD.

GIVEN THE FACT THAT THIS PAST

SEVERAL SESSIONS, WE HAD TAX

INCREASES.

WE HAD CREDIT CURTAILMENT AND

SOME OTHER PAYMENTS THAT WERE

EITHER ELIMINATED OR SHORTFALL

LIKE VENDORS COMP.

WE KNOW THAT WAS ALL A BRIDGE TO

GET TO TRUE REFORM.

WE HAVE A [INDISCERNIBLE] ABOUT

DR. RICHARDSON.

WE HAVE A TASK FORCE DEALING

WITH INVENTORY TAX AND SALES TAX

STREAMLINING AND MODERNIZATION

AND ALL OF THESE REPORTS ARE

GOING TO COALESCE CLOSER TO THE

2017.

DO YOU SEE AN APPETITE TO DO

TRUE REFORM, WHICH INCLUDES

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, WHICH

INCLUDES STATUTORY REFORMS AND

DEDICATIONS, CONSTITUTIONAL

DEDICATIONS?

SOME THINGS THAT WILL BE

DIFFICULT TO DO, BUT IT WILL

TAKE WILL TO DO IT.

DO YOU SEE THAT WILL?

>> IT IS THE QUESTION OF THE

HOUR.

I'LL ASK BOTH OUR LEGISLATURES

TO ADDRESS THAT.

>> I THINK THE WILL IS THERE.

ONE THING ABOUT TAXES IS WHO IS

GOING TO PAY THEM IS LIKE THIS

GENTLEMAN POINTED OUT, HE

DOESN'T WANT TO GIVE UP HIS

EXEMPTIONS.

THEY DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP THEIR

"TOPS."

WE ARE SELF-INTERESTED IN HOW WE

DO AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT

LEGISLATURES HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

THEY COME TO THE CAPITOL AND

SAY, MY BUSINESS CAN'T MAKE IT.

IT WILL BE DESTROYED WITHOUT THE

CREDITS THEY GET.

IT GOES ON AND ON.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, TO COME

UP WITH A FAIR SYSTEM.

I'M HOPING THAT THE LEGISLATURE

WILL AND UP WITH IT BECAUSE IF

WE DON'T, WE WILL -- IF THEY

DON'T COME UP WITH ANY REFORM,

THE ONLY THING WE'LL BE FORCED

TO DO IS RENEW IT.

WE HAVE THE HIGHEST TAXES IN THE

COUNTRY, IN A STATE WITH MORE

THAN A FAIR SHARE OF PEOPLE WITH

POVERTY.

AS YOU POINTED OUT, YOU'RE

WORRIED ABOUT YOUR CONSTITUENT

BASE.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHATEVER

SYSTEM WE COME UP WITH HAS TO BE

FAIR AND THAT'LL BE --

>> WE WELL OVER $1 BILLION IN

NEW REVENUE AND THROUGH

EXEMPTIONS AND WHATNOT THAT WERE

CANCELED, THAT TWO YEARS FROM

NOW, ARE GOING TO GO AWAY.

SO IS THAT, REPRESENTATIVE

WHITE, GOING TO BE AN

ENCOURAGEMENT OR SENATE TO DO

REAL REFORM?

>> I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT IS

THE INCENTIVE.

I THINK THERE WILL BE MANY

CONVERSATIONS AND DIALOGUES

BETWEEN LEGISLATURES, THE

GOVERNOR AND BUSINESS AND

INDUSTRY, THAT WE WILL HOPEFULLY

BE ABLE TO WORK OUT SOMETHING

THAT IS CONSIDERED FAIR AND BE

ABLE TO CONTINUE TO GROW THE

ECONOMY IN LOUISIANA WITHOUT

HURTING IT SO MUCH.

IT MEANS JOBS, OPPORTUNITIES FOR

ALL OF US.

AND, AS A BUSINESSPERSON, I

COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT.

IT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING --

IT'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE TO

FIND THAT BALANCE.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY CHOICE

IN THAT MATTER AND THE MORE WE

COME TO THE TABLE TOGETHER TO

FIGURE THAT OUT, THE BETTER OFF

THAT WE WILL ALL BE AND LESS OF

AN IMPACT ON ANY ONE PARTICULAR

SECTOR.

>> AUSTIN, ONE OF OUR STUDENTS,

HAD A QUESTION ABOUT ONE OF THE

BIG TICKET ITEMS IN THE

EXEMPTION AREA.

AUSTIN, WHY DON'T YOU ASK THEM

ABOUT IT?

>> [INDISCERNIBLE] WHAT'S GOING

ON WITH THE FILM TAX CREDIT.

[LAUGHTER]

MY QUESTION IS DIRECTED TOWARD

THE LEGISLATURES.

SO, ESSENTIALLY, THE

[INDISCERNIBLE] WAS $180

MILLION, THAT WOULD BE DEDICATED

TO IT FOR THIS YEAR.

SPEAKING FROM A BUSINESS

STANDPOINT OR FROM THE IDEA OF

FAIRNESS, HOW DOES THAT OR WILL

THAT EFFECT BUSINESS NEGATIVELY

OR POSITIVELY BEING THAT IT IS

CAPPED AND THERE'S NO MORE MONEY

THAT CAN BE SPENT ON.

>> EVERY TIME YOU GIVE SOMEONE A

CREDIT, YOU HAVE TO LOOK, DO

THEY BRING ANYTHING EXTRA TO THE

TABLE, OTHER THAN LOBBYIST TO

BATON ROUGE THAT CRY ABOUT IT.

IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT OTHER STOKES

SOUTHERN STATES ARE DOING, IT'S

TOO GENEROUS.

I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH THE

CREDIT WE HAND OUT.

>> DR. RICHARDSON, DO YOU HAVE A

VIEW ON THE FILM TAX CREDIT?

>> IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE

STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE, YOU

FIND WHAT ERIC SAID IS CORRECT

AND THAT IS IN THE SENSE OF THE

DOLLARS THAT WE PAY OUT IN THE

CREDIT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE

THAN WE GET BACK.

SO IN THE COST RATIO, THE STATE

DOES NOT WIN.

THERE'S NO DOUBT ON THE OTHER

HAND, IF YOU LOOK AT SOMETHING

SOMETHING -- A CREDIT CREATES

ACTIVITY AND INTEREST.

IT DOES NOT BRING BACK THE

DOLLARS.

>> HAS HOLLYWOOD SOUTH GONE

SOUTH?

>> I THINK WE STILL HAVE

ACTIVITIES GOING ON BUT IT'S

VERY COMPETITIVE.

WITHIN ALL THE STATES TO TRY TO

LURE THAT FILM INDUSTRY TO THEM.

HOWEVER, I THINK THAT WHAT WE'RE

SEARCHING FOR RIGHT NOW IS A

TRUE AUDIT PROCESS SO THAT WE DO

SEE A GOOD RETURN ON INVESTMENT

AND REALLY LOOK AT THAT AND

ANYTHING TO DO WITH TAX CREDITS.

ARE WE EMPLOYING THE PEOPLE WE

SAY WE WERE WHEN WE WERE GETTING

THE TAX CREDITS TO BEGIN WITH?

I THINK THAT A REAL TRUE FOCUS

ON THAT WILL TELL THE TALE.

>> I THINK SOMEONE SPOKE

ABOUT -- I THINK --

SELF-INTERESTED, WHICH IS

ENTIRELY THE CASE.

I'M A STATE WORKER.

I HAVE AN OLDER BROTHER WITH

SPINAL DI

SPINAL BIFFDUH.

I KNOW HIGHER EDUCATION HAS BEEN

RAISED AT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT.

MY QUESTION WILL BE TO CHAIRMAN

LAFLEUR, AFTER THIS SESSION, ARE

YOU MORE CONFIDENT OR LESS

CONFIDENT IN THE LONG-TERM

HEALTH FINANCIALLY OF THIS

STATE?

>> I MEAN, MY CONCERN IS THAT

THE VOTES THAT WE TOOK, AT THIS

POINT, WERE ALL TEMPORARY IN

NATURE AND FAIRLY EASY TO MAKE

BECAUSE THEY WERE ONLY TEMPORARY

AND IT WAS ONLY A FIX TO GET US

TO THE FOLLOWING YEAR.

THE NEXT VOTES, IF THEY'RE GOING

TO BE STRUCTURAL CHANGES, THE

KIND THAT THE COMMISSION WILL

PRESENT, I GUESS WE'LL PICK FROM

THEIR MENU OF ITEMS.

I HOPE THE GUYS I SERVE WITH AND

THE WOMEN I SERVE WITH HAVE THE

POLITICAL WILL TO PUT THE STATE

ON A TRACK WHERE WE SEE EVERY

YEAR REGULAR REVENUE, NOT

NECESSARILY INCREASING AN

EXTRAORDINARY RATE, BUT AN

APPROPRIATE RATE TO SUSTAIN

GOVERNMENT AND THE BASIC

SERVICES WE PROVIDE SO HAVE KIDS

IN HIGH SCHOOL HAVE PLANNED OUT

FOUR YEARS GET WHAT THEY WORKED

FOR.

SO WE NEED SOMETHING THAT'S

LONG-TERM AND RELIABLE AND

THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY I

THINK DR. RICHARDSON WOULD AGREE

THAT THE CREDIT AGENCIES ARE

LOOKING AT US AS DOWNGRADING AND

WE'VE BEEN ON WATCH BECAUSE THEY

LOOK AT US AS A FISCAL HOUSE.

>> THAT'S NOT IN ORDER.

>> THE SENATORS AND THE

REPRESENTATIVES WILL HAVE A

TREMENDOUSLY TOUGH JOB.

IT'S MORE THAN THEM.

IT'S THE PEOPLE IN THE STATE.

MANY OF THE THINGS WE HAVE TO

CHANGE ARE CONSSTUGZAL SO WE'RE

GOING TO ASK THE REPRESENTATIVES

AND THE SENATORS TO GIVE YOU AN

OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK YOUR MIND

ABOUT WHAT WE SHOULD DO AND AS A

COMMUNITY, ARE WE PREPARED TO

VOTE FOR SOME OF THESE THINGS?

ANY TIME YOU SUGGEST A CHANGE IN

THE TAX, THERE ARE GOING TO BE

CERTAIN PEOPLE WHO LIKE IT,

PERSONALLY.

AND CERTAIN PEOPLE WHO MIGHT NOT

LIKE IT QUITE AS MUCH.

THERE'S NO WAY TO GET AROUND

THAT.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE

WHEN WE DO IT, THAT WE AREN'T

AIMING AT ANY ONE SECTOR OF THE

ECONOMY OR ANY ONE GROUP OF

PEOPLE OR TRYING TO MAKE IT JUST

AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE

HORIZONTALLY, ACROSS PEOPLE WITH

THE SAME INCOME OR VERTICALLY,

PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT INCOMES

AND THAT'S HARD TO DO AND PEOPLE

HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS OF WHAT'S

GOOD.

IT'S GOING TO BE A CHOICE OF THE

PEOPLE, AS WELL, IT'S A CHOICE

OF OUR LEGISLATURES.

>> DR. RICHARDSON, YOU TOUCHED

ON SOMETHING THAT KELLY HAS A

BIG GLOBAL QUESTION ABOUT.

>> MY INTEREST, OF COURSE, YOU

KNOW, SELFISH HERE, IT'S FOR

SPECIAL NEEDS COMMUNITY.

WE'RE -- AND I DO UNDERSTAND AND

REALLY SYMPATHIZE WITH EVERYONE.

I WAS A BENEFICIARY OF "TOPS," I

GOT PAID $800 A SEMESTER FOR

GOING TO SCHOOL.

I GET IT, IT'S NEEDED.

IT'S NECESSARY.

BUT THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH --

WE'RE NOT ASKING TO GO TO

COLLEGE, WE'RE ASKING FOR THEM

TO BE ABLE TO BREATHE.

WE'RE ASKING FOR THEM TO MAYBE

BE ABLE TO EAT LIKE YOU AND I

CAN EAT, LIKE YOU AND I CAN SIT

HERE AND TALK.

WE'RE ASKING FOR HELP TO GET

THEM TO THAT POINT.

IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY OF A

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO

SECURE FUNDS FOR THE WAIVER

SERVICES OR EXPAND THE BUDGET

FOR THE WAIVER SERVICES TO

INCLUDE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ON

THE WAITING LIST FOR 10-PLUS

YEAR.

>> THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE

AREN'T GETTING THE SUPPORT.

>> THOUSANDS THAT NEED -- THAT

ARE SITTING HERE DYING, WAITING.

>> AS FAR AS THE CONSTITUTION

THERE'S A LOT OF DEDICATED

FUNDING OUT THERE THAT WE CAN'T

TOUCH.

I THINK THAT SOMETIMES IT GETS

OFF-BALANCE.

THE WAY I SEE IT, YOU CAN PUT

YOUR MONIES ASIDE FOR SOMETHING

AND THEN SOMETHING ELSE BREAKS

LOOSE.

IT'S THE SAME WAY IN THE STATE.

DEDICATE NT TOp?

FUNDING, IN MY OPINION, BECAUSE

OF THAT.

AND WE'VE SEEN IT.

HOWEVER, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND

THE NEED FOR THOSE WAVERS.

I, TOO, HAVE A DOWN SYNDROME

UNCLE.

ALL ME KNOWS IS LOVE.

AND HE WOULD LIKE TO REMAIN

INDEPENDENT IN HIS HOME AND HIS

MOTHER, MY GRANDMOTHER'S 94

YEARS OLD WITH AN AMPUTATED LEG.

I GET IT AND I UNDERSTAND IT AND

I'VE SEEN IT AND THE FUNDING IS

VERY CRITICAL AND IMPORTANT.

THEY ARE ALL CITIZENS OF THIS

STATE AND MANY OF THEM -- THEIR

PARENTS AND THE CAREGIVERS HAVE

PAID THEIR DUES TO RECEIVE THAT

TYPE OF SERVICE SO I UNDERSTAND

AND I COMPLETELY GET IT AND WORK

VERY, VERY HARD IN TRYING TO GET

THE FUNDS FOR IT.

>> YOU'VE BEEN WATCHING THE

LEGISLATURE IN ACTION FOR SO

MANY YEARS AND THERE'S ALL TYPES

OF LOBBYIST THAT COME.

THIS IS A PARTICULARLY DIFFERENT

KIND OF LOBBYING GROUP AND

WHAT'S YOUR PERCEPTION OF HOW

IMPACTFUL THEY ARE?

AND EXPLAIN TO OTHERS WHAT IT'S

LIKE EVERY YEAR WHEN THEY COME

IN, IN FAVOR OF THE WAIVERS?

>> WHAT YOU HAVE EVERY YEAR

DURING THE APPROPRIATIONS AND

SENATE FINANCE PROCESS, YOU SEE

A LOT OF FAMILY MEMBERS WITH

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES WHO

SHOW UP IN YELLOW SHIRTS.

YOU WILL SEE THEM PACK COMMITTEE

ROOMS.

THIS ROOM, YOU SAW DIFFERENT

KINDS OF SHIRTS BECAUSE SO MANY

PEOPLE WERE FACING BUDGET CUTS.

THEY WILL BUTTON HOLE

LEGISLATURES.

I'M SURE SENATOR LAFLEUR HAS HAD

THAT HAPPEN AND WHITE.

THEY SPEND A LOT OF TIME

ADVOCATING FOR DISABILITIES

SERVICES.

YOU HAVE SEEN, IN THESE THREE

SESSIONS, YOU HAD FOLKS WHO

SHOWED UP IN EVERY TAX COMMITTEE

HEARING TO PITCH THAT MONEY WAS

NEEDED TO BE RAISED TO HELP THEM

COVER THEIR SERVICES.

ALSO, YOU JUST -- THE TESTIMONY

IS SO EMOTIONAL AND PEOPLE HAVE

SUCH PERSONAL AND REAL STORIES

AND PARTICULARLY IN SENATOR

LAFLEUR'S PLACE, THERE WERE

PEOPLE CRYING LISTENING TO THE

TESTIMONY OF THE PARENTS AND

SIBLINGS AND GROWN UPS WHO CAN'T

SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES IN SOME

INSTANCES AND NEED HELP FROM THE

STATE IN SOME FASHION.

IT WAS IMPACTFUL IN THE LEVEL OF

THE WAIVER PROGRAMS AND THEY

DIDN'T GET CUT.

THEY WERE REALLY THREATENED WITH

CUTS FOR QUITE A LONG TIME.

SO IT CLEARLY MADE A DIFFERENCE

TO SEE THOSE PEOPLE HERE EVERY

YEAR.

BUT IT IS JUST KIND OF A

COMMENTARY ON THE

[INDISCERNIBLE] OF THE LOUISIANA

BUDGET PROCESS FROM YEAR TO

YEAR.

THESE FOLKS IN THESE YELLOW

SHIRTS ARE SO WELL-KNOWN BECAUSE

UP YEAR AFTER

YEAR AFTER YEAR BECAUSE THEIR

SERVICES ARE NEVER PROTECTED.

>> SENATOR LAFLEUR, HAVE WE SEEN

MORE LOBBYISTS OVER THE YEARS?

>> YOU'LL SEE MORE LOBBYISTS

NEXT YEAR.

EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE

AFFECTED BY ANY TAX WE'RE GOING

TO BRING, SOMEBODY'S GOING TO BE

THERE TO.

>> EVERY TAX, EVERY EXEMPTION,

EVERY CREDIT.

>> THE PROBLEM WITH TAXES,

POLITICIANS, THEY'RE ALSO

RATIONAL THINKERS, TOO, AND THEY

LIKE TO TAKE THE PATH OF LEAST

RESISTANCE.

YOU HAVE TO TAKE DIFFICULT VOTES

THEY REQUIRE YOU TO DO MORE.

YOU HAVE TO GO TO EVERY CHAMBER

MEETING, ROTARY CLUB MEETING SO

YOU CAN EXPLAIN THE RATIONALE

BEHIND THAT VOTE YOU CAN GET THE

SUPPORT.

IT REQUIRES A LOT, A LOT OF WORK

BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO ENGAGE THE

PUBLIC.

YOU HAVE TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT

YOU'RE DOING AND WHY YOU'RE

DOING IT.

SO IF YOU ARE -- THE GUYS WITH

THE YELLOW SHIRTS, YOU DON'T

KNOW WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE UNLESS

YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE A CHILD

[INDISCERNIBLE] DISABLED FOR

SOME REASON AND REQUIRES THIS

EXTRA ATTENTION.

ONCE THAT GETS TO THE

LEGISLATURES, THEY TEND TO THINK

DIFFERENTLY.

IT'S THE SAME THING WITH TAXES.

YOU HAVE TO MAKE PEOPLE THINK

DIFFERENTLY ON WHAT YOU'RE

VOTING ON BECAUSE THEY THINK OF

IT AS TAX AND DON'T UNDERSTAND

THE RATIONALE.

POLITICIANS WHO ARE TRYING TO

MAKE A DIFFERENCE WILL GO HOME

AND TRY TO EXPLAIN THEMSELVES

AND RATIONALE AND FIND THE

SUPPORT.

>> OUR MOST RATIONAL

REPRESENTATIVE ON THIS PANEL,

REPRESENTATIVE WHITE, WHAT DO

YOU THINK?

>> THAT'S WHAT I WITNESSED THIS

YEAR.

IT TAKES A LOT OF COURAGE TO

MAKE THE HARD DECISIONS.

IT'S ALSO SELF-IMPOSED.

I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE FEEL

THAT AS A POLITICIAN, THAT THIS

DOESN'T IMPACT YOU AS WELL

FINANCIALLY AND IT DOES, AS A

BUSINESS OWNER, IT DOES.

YET AT THE SAME TIME, YOU HAVE

TO REALIZE THAT YOU WANT AND

NEED THESE SERVICES AND THEY

MUST BE FUNDED AND THEN YOU HEAR

ABOUT FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT --

FRIVOLOUS SPENDING AND THINGS

LIKE THAT AND YET WE STILL HAVE

TO WORK HARD AT FOLLOWING THAT

AND MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE

WEEDING OUT THOSE THINGS.

THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.

THE WORKINGS OF CONARTISTS ARE

NOT SO EASILY UNRAVELED.

THE COURAGE THAT IT TAKES TO DO

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I WAS

VERY SURPRISED BY THIS YEAR.

I WILL SAY, GO ON RECORD IN

SAYING THAT I WAS ELECTED TO

SERVE THESE FOUR YEARS.

I'VE BEEN CALLED A FOOL NOT TO

LOOK AT REELECTION.

I FEEL LIKE IF WE PULL TOGETHER

INDEPENDENTLY AND UNITE IN WHAT

WE DO AND WE CAN REALLY FIX THE

PROBLEMS OF LOUISIANA AND BRING

US UP TO THE LEVEL THAT WE'RE

NOT AT THE BOTTOM OF ALL STATE

RECORDS OF COMPARISONS, THEN I

BELIEVE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO

WORRY ABOUT OUR SUNSET DATES.

I BELIEVE WE WILL BE RE-ELECTED

AND DO THINGS THAT ARE RIGHT FOR

THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE.

THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT AS A

FRESHMAN AND I PRAY I CONTINUE

TO LEAD THAT WAY.

>> YOU'RE STILL ENCOURAGING AND

I LIKE TO HEAR THAT.

ONE OF OUR STUDENTS, TAYLOR, HAD

A QUESTION ABOUT VALUES AND HOW

YOU MAKE DECISIONS.

TAYLOR?

>> HI.

I WAS WONDERING WHICH ITEMS WERE

PUT AT PRIORITY WHEN DECIDING

WHAT MONEY GOES WHERE WITH THE

BUDGET THIS YEAR?

>> I CAN ANSWER THAT FOR MYSELF.

I HAVE A PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IN

MY DISTRICT AND A RURAL HOSPITAL

AND THAT IS IT.

SO WHEN IT CAME TO THE DECISION

BETWEEN FUNDING "TOPS" FULLY AND

FUNDING THE HOSPITALS, I WILL

TELL YOU THE EXAMPLE I USE MANY,

MANY TIMES.

IF ANY LEGISLATURE CAME THROUGH

MY AREA OR ANYONE CAME UP ON A

CAR ACCIDENT WITH A YOUNG PERSON

INVOLVED, YOU WOULD NOT THROW

$1,000 BILL AT THAT STUDENT AND

SAY, GOOD LUCK AT COLLEGE.

YOU WOULD GET THEM TO THE

HOSPITAL.

IF IT WAS -- THEY HAVE TAKEN

LOSSES IN THE PAST.

THEY WOULD MEANT AN HOUR, TWO

AND A HALF HOURS DEPENDING ON IF

YOU'RE INSURED OR NOT.

IT WAS A MATTER OF LIFE OVER

DEATH FOR ME.

I TAKE EDUCATION VERY HIGHLY AND

SUPPORT OF IT, WE HAVE TO

DELIVER OUR BABIES AND KEEP THEM

HEALTHY TO GET TO COLLEGE SO TOP

PRIORITY WAS OUR HOSPITALS.

>> TAYLOR, THAT'S A GREAT

QUESTION.

APPRECIATE IT.

THE GENTLEMAN NEXT TO YOU,

SCOTT, IS A REGULAR FOR

SUPPORTING SCHOOLS AND

WELL-KNOWN TO SOME OF THE FOLKS

HERE.

SCOTT, YOU HAD A QUESTION.

>> AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S

ABOUT DECIDING NEEDS VERSUS

WANTS AND PRIORITIZING

OBLIGATIONS AND CERTAINLY THE

BEST INVESTMENT THE LEGISLATURE

CAN MAKE IS K-12 EDUCATION

SHOULD BE A PRIORITY AND

UNFORTUNATELY IT DIDN'T RECEIVE

THE SAME LEVEL OF FUNDING AS IT

HAS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

BUT WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT THE

MECHANISMS IN PLACE WITH TASK

FORCE COMMUNITIES ON A NUMBER OF

VARIOUS TOPICS CAN BRING SOME

RATIONAL SOLUTIONS THAT WILL

BRING THE STAKEHOLDERS TO THE

TABLE AND THE RED AND BLUE AND

BASED ON THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS

OF LEGISLATIVE SESSION CAN

DISSIPATE AND MORE RATIONAL

THOUGHT CAN COME TO THE TABLE.

WE WOULD HOPE TO SEE THE PUBLIC

EDUCATION AS A PRIORITY, AS LONG

AS SEVERAL OF THE OTHER TOPICS

MENTIONED HERE TODAY.

THE MAIN QUESTION, K-12

EDUCATORS AND PARENT WANT TO

KNOW IS WHY WASN'T K-12 FULLY

FUNDED OR MAINTAINED AT THE SAME

LEVEL FROM LAST YEAR.

>> HOW ABOUT SENATOR LAFLEUR?

>> IMPORTANT PART OF THE BUDGET,

IT EATS UP MORE MONEY THAN ANY

OTHER ITEM.

IT IS $3.6 BILLION.

THE CUTS IMPOSED WAS A SMALL

AMOUNT.

IT WAS LESS THAN 1/10 OF 1%.

IT WAS NOT THE DOLLARS THAT WERE

CUT, IT WAS THE SYMBOLISM BEHIND

US NOT FULLY FUNDING IT.

WHEN YOU TELL ANY SCHOOL BOARD

THAT WE CUT $40 MILLION OUT OF

K-12 EDUCATION, THAT'S A BIG

NUMBER.

IN THE BIG PICTURE, IT'S A SMALL

NUMBER.

SYMBOLICALLY, IT'S A

REPRESENTATIVE THAT OUR

PRIORITIES ARE NOT VERY HIGH.

>> THAT'S THE FIRST TIME WE'VE

SEEN THAT HAPPEN.

>> REBECCA, YOU'RE GOING TO GET

THE LAST QUESTION.

>> I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD

BE WONDERING, MOVING FORWARD

WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT

STABILIZING THE BUDGET AND

REFORMS COMING NEXT YEAR, WHY

SHOULD PEOPLE BE OPTIMISTIC?

THERE'S BEEN A CLIFF EVERY YEAR

AND YOU HAD OPPORTUNITIES EVERY

YEAR.

>> WE [INDISCERNIBLE] AND THAT

BASICALLY SET US ON COURSE FOR

NON-RECURRING REVENUE WITH A

SMALL GROWTH EVERY YEAR.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER WAS, THE

REVENUE INCREASED IN TOO LARGE A

NUMBER, I DON'T THINK IT WAS ALL

ATTRIBUTABLE TO

[INDISCERNIBLE] --

>> AGAIN, OPTIMISM, I THINK,

REALISTICALLY, YES, THE

RESOLUTION THAT CREATED THE TASK

FORCE FOR STRUCTURAL REFORM WAS

OPTED BY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE,

REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS AND

THEY ALL APPRECIATE THAT IT'S

GOING TO MAKE HARD DECISIONS

THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO MAKE.

NOW, WILL THEY -- WILL THEY BE

UP TO IT?

I THINK THEY'LL DOING THEIR VERY

BEST SO I'M OPTIMISTIC FROM THAT

PERSPECTI

PERSPECTIVE.

DO I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE

EASY?

NO, I DO NOT.

>> WE'VE RUN OUT OF TIME FOR OUR

QUESTION AND ANSWER PORTION.

WE'D LIKE TO THANK OUR PANELISTS

FOR YOUR INSIGHT ON THIS MONTH'S

TOPIC.

>>> WHEN WE COME BACK, WE'LL

HAVE A FEW CLOSING COMMENTS.

>>> ROBERT, WE GET DOWN TO NO

ONE REALLY WANTS TAXES,

DIFFICULT CHOICES COMING UP IN

THE FUTURE AND I GUESS, IT WAS

INTERESTING THAT [INDISCERNIBLE]

WAS PASSED BY THE PEOPLE OF

LOUISIANA AND TURNED OVER SO

QUICKLY.

WE HAD ADDITIONAL REVENUE

FOLLOWING ALL THE HURRICANES.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT DISASTERS ARE

GOING TO BEFALL.

>> IT HAD A LONG-TERM IMPACT.

BUT NOW LOOK.

AFTER EVERYTHING THE

LEGISLATURES HAVE BEEN THROUGH,

THEY'RE OPTIMISTIC.

THEY KNOW IT'S TOUGH BUT THEY

WERE ENCOURAGING.

AT LEAST WE HAVE THAT GOING.

>> WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO

DR. RICHARDSON AND YOUR TASK

FORCE THAT YOU'RE ON, AS WELL.

>> COME UP WITH ANSWERS.

>>> THAT ALL THE TIME WE HAVE

FOR "LOUISIANA PUBLIC SQUARE."

WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO VISIT OUR

WEBSITE AT LPB.ORG/PUBLICSQUARE.

WHILE YOU'RE THERE, PLEASE

COMMENT ON TONIGHT'S SHOW.

WE'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU.

>>> ON NEXT MONTH'S "LOUISIANA

PUBLIC SQUARE," WE'LL TALK ABOUT

THE UNREST SPARKED BY THE DEATH

OF ALTON STERLING.

HOW LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERACTS

WITH MINORITIES.

TUNE IN ON AUGUST 15.

>>> GOOD NIGHT, EVERYONE.

>>> FOR A COPY OF THIS PROGRAM,

CALL 1-800LIFE 973-7246 OR GO TO

WWW.LPB.ORG.

>>> SUPPORT FOR THIS PROGRAM IS

PROVIDED BY THE FOUNDATION FOR

EXCELLENCE AND THE LOUISIANA

PUBLIC BROADCASTING AND FROM

VIEWERS LIKE YOU.