The next edition of the log will come out in about two weeks to summarize which bills were enacted or vetoed and (which has seldom happened) whether an override will be attempted of any vetoes of these bills.
THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 242 passed Senate committee with minor amendments, passed the Senate 35-0, was rejected in the House, was passed out of conference and passed by the House 80-16; HB 311 was signed by the governor to become Act 75; HB 386 had the House concur with Senate amendments 101-0; HB 415 was reconsidered and passed by the Senate 21-10; SB 146 passed the House 92-2 and the Senate concurred with amendments 35-3; SB 323 had the Senate concur with House amendments 38-0;
THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 21 was signed by the governor to become Act 33; HB 219 passed the Senate 22-13 and the House concurred with its amendments 80-17; HB 631 passed the Senate with major amendments 37-0, the House rejected it 97-5, the House passed the conference bill 98-0, and the Senate concurred 37-1; HB 763 had the House concur with Senate amendments 101-0; HB 799 failed to pass the Senate 8-29; SB 47 passed the House 101-0 and the Senate concurred with its amendments 36-0; SB 190 was signed by the governor to become Act 128; SB 246 passed the House 101-0 and the Senate concurred with its amendments 38-0; SB 341 passed the House 98-0 and the Senate concurred with its amendments 38-0.
SCORECARD:
Total House introductions: 877; Total Senate introductions: 352
Total House good bills: 41; Total Senate good bills: 22
Total House bad bills: 48; Total Senate bad bills: 19
Total House good bills heard in committee: 27; Total Senate good bills heard in committee: 19
Total House bad bills heard in committee: 35; Total Senate bad bills heard in committee: 12
Total House good bills passing committee: 9; Total Senate good bills passing committee: 7
Total House bad bills passing committee: 14; Total Senate bad bills passing committee: 8
Total House good bills passing House: 7; Total Senate good bills passing Senate: 5
Total House bad bills passing House: 9; Total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 6
Total House good bills heard in Senate committee: 7; Total Senate good bills heard in House committee: 5
Total House bad bills heard in Senate committee: 9; Total Senate bad bills heard in House committee: 6
Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 5; Total Senate good bills passing House committee: 4
Total House bad bills passing Senate committee: 8; Total Senate bad bills passing House committee: 4
Total House good bills passing Senate: 5; Total Senate good bills passing House: 4
Total House bad bills passing Senate: 5; Total bad Senate bills passing House: 4
Total House good bills sent to governor: 5; Total Senate good bills sent to governor: 4
Total House bad bills sent to governor: 5; Total Senate bad bills sent to governor: 4
Total House good bills signed into law: 0; Total Senate good bills signed into law: 1
Total House bad bills signed into law: 1; Total Senate bad bills signed into law: 1
26 June 2005
18 June 2005
Legislative regular session through 6/17/05
THIS WEEK FOR THE GOOD: HB 242 passed the House 99-0 with significant amendments and passed Senate committee; HB 386 passed Senate committee with minor amendments and passed the Senate 36-0; HB 415 passed Senate committee but failed to pass the Senate 12-24; HB 613 failed to pass Senate committee; HB 654 passed the Senate 37-1; HB 712 passed committee with minor amendments; SB 44 passed the House 97-2; SB 53 passed the House 66-31 and the Senate concurred 36-0; SB 323 was passed with amendments by the House 96-0.
THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 275 was involuntarily deferred in committee; HB 317 failed to pass the House 43-55; HB 560 passed Senate committee and passed the Senate 36-0; HB 583 passed committee 14-0 and failed to pass the House 24-60; HB 631 passed the House 98-0 and passed Senate committee with minor amendments; HB 688 failed to pass the House 26-71; HB 731 passed Senate committee with minor amendments and passed the Senate 38-0; HB 763 passed the Senate 33-5; HB 799 passed Senate committee with minor amendments; HB 887 passed Senate committee with minor amendments, passed the Senate 26-11, and was concurred with by the House 72-27; SB 47 passed with minor amendments House committee 6-0; SB 190 was passed by the House 96-0 and was concurred by the Senate 38-0; SB 246 was passed with minor amendments by House committee 15-0; SB 341 was passed with minor amendments by House committee 15-0.
SCORECARD:
Total House introductions: 877; Total Senate introductions: 352
Total House good bills: 41; Total Senate good bills: 22
Total House bad bills: 48; Total Senate bad bills: 19
Total House good bills heard in committee: 27; Total Senate good bills heard in committee: 19
Total House bad bills heard in committee: 35; Total Senate bad bills heard in committee: 12
Total House good bills passing committee: 9; Total Senate good bills passing committee: 7
Total House bad bills passing committee: 14; Total Senate bad bills passing committee: 8
Total House good bills passing House: 7; Total Senate good bills passing Senate: 5
Total House bad bills passing House: 9; Total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 6
Total House good bills heard in Senate committee: 7; Total Senate good bills heard in House committee: 5
Total House bad bills heard in Senate committee: 9; Total Senate bad bills heard in House committee: 6
Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 5; Total Senate good bills passing House committee: 4
Total House bad bills passing Senate committee: 7; Total Senate bad bills passing House committee: 4
Total House good bills passing Senate: 3; Total Senate good bills passing House: 3
Total House bad bills passing Senate: 5; Total bad Senate bills passing House: 1
Total House good bills sent to governor: 1; Total Senate good bills sent to governor: 2
Total House bad bills sent to governor: 3; Total Senate bad bills sent to governor: 1
THIS WEEK FOR THE BAD: HB 275 was involuntarily deferred in committee; HB 317 failed to pass the House 43-55; HB 560 passed Senate committee and passed the Senate 36-0; HB 583 passed committee 14-0 and failed to pass the House 24-60; HB 631 passed the House 98-0 and passed Senate committee with minor amendments; HB 688 failed to pass the House 26-71; HB 731 passed Senate committee with minor amendments and passed the Senate 38-0; HB 763 passed the Senate 33-5; HB 799 passed Senate committee with minor amendments; HB 887 passed Senate committee with minor amendments, passed the Senate 26-11, and was concurred with by the House 72-27; SB 47 passed with minor amendments House committee 6-0; SB 190 was passed by the House 96-0 and was concurred by the Senate 38-0; SB 246 was passed with minor amendments by House committee 15-0; SB 341 was passed with minor amendments by House committee 15-0.
SCORECARD:
Total House introductions: 877; Total Senate introductions: 352
Total House good bills: 41; Total Senate good bills: 22
Total House bad bills: 48; Total Senate bad bills: 19
Total House good bills heard in committee: 27; Total Senate good bills heard in committee: 19
Total House bad bills heard in committee: 35; Total Senate bad bills heard in committee: 12
Total House good bills passing committee: 9; Total Senate good bills passing committee: 7
Total House bad bills passing committee: 14; Total Senate bad bills passing committee: 8
Total House good bills passing House: 7; Total Senate good bills passing Senate: 5
Total House bad bills passing House: 9; Total Senate bad bills passing Senate: 6
Total House good bills heard in Senate committee: 7; Total Senate good bills heard in House committee: 5
Total House bad bills heard in Senate committee: 9; Total Senate bad bills heard in House committee: 6
Total House good bills passing Senate committee: 5; Total Senate good bills passing House committee: 4
Total House bad bills passing Senate committee: 7; Total Senate bad bills passing House committee: 4
Total House good bills passing Senate: 3; Total Senate good bills passing House: 3
Total House bad bills passing Senate: 5; Total bad Senate bills passing House: 1
Total House good bills sent to governor: 1; Total Senate good bills sent to governor: 2
Total House bad bills sent to governor: 3; Total Senate bad bills sent to governor: 1
17 June 2005
Floor action, Jun. 17: SB 323; HB 415 & HB 613
DID YOU KNOW?
SB 323 introduces some limited reforms to indigent defense in Louisiana. It mainly is structural in terms of the process, not fiscal in nature (which is where the much greater reform is needed). But a big question came to the fore on the floor about how the bill would have a potentially large fiscal impact.
Rep. Troy Hebert offered an amendment to take the $35 fee to fund indigent defense out of speeding tickets, saying the average court cost in Louisiana already was $176. He pointed out that the $35 was discretionary for smaller court jurisdictions. But Rep. Shirley Bowler pointed out that there was a minimum fee of $17.50 for all moving violations, so that actually might detract from total funding of indigent defense. The resulting confusion sent the bill back to the calendar and Hebert back to the drawing board for his amendment.
Later, Hebert proposed an altered amendment which simply would exclude the previous entities (mayor’s courts, Jonesville, and Plaquemines) from having to charge the fee of $35. The rationale was that most of their business was minor or non-moving violations of vehicles. It was amended without objection, and the bill passed 96-0. Of course, now the Senate must agree to those changes before it can become law and start the first step to sensible reform of the indigent defense system.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 415 went down in flames in the Senate. The bill is an attempt to save money by canceling only the January election opportunity for local governments. There remain five others. Yet it hardly garnered any discussion and failed 12-24. It remains on the calendar, but it is unlikely ever to see the light of day during this session.
Also, an attempt was made to resurrect HB 613 in the Senate. The bill looks to set up a limited voucher system that essentially would apply to Orleans Parish schools. This was because the Senate Education did not have a definitive vote on it, so Senate rules allow the measure to be brought directly to the floor. Moreso than the content of the bill, senators argued about whether this move, which is permitted, was appropriate in bypassing a Senate committee. On a nearly party-line vote, it failed 10-23.
QUOTES OF THE DAY
“I don’t know … if you can give me a minute I can make something up.”
Rep. Danny Martiny, handling SB 323, to Hebert on a question about why the $35 fee to fund indigent defense had been extended to the previously-exempt courts.
“I hope everybody can hear me …”
Rep. Tim Burns on HB 759 which concerns hearing-aid dealers, proving once again that one can overuse a punchline to the point of annoyance.
“What we really need to do is to get you all a listening school, we really need that. I think I’ll be joining you.”
Hebert during repartee around HB 883 which establishes polysomnography as a separate profession
“Couldn’t we just use one of those Bruneau moves for this legislation?”
Rep. John Alario, when Rep. Bryant Hammett had asked to suspend the rules to push forward consideration on a bill, referring to how last week Rep. Peppi Bruneau had resurrected an apparently dead HB 80.
SB 323 introduces some limited reforms to indigent defense in Louisiana. It mainly is structural in terms of the process, not fiscal in nature (which is where the much greater reform is needed). But a big question came to the fore on the floor about how the bill would have a potentially large fiscal impact.
Rep. Troy Hebert offered an amendment to take the $35 fee to fund indigent defense out of speeding tickets, saying the average court cost in Louisiana already was $176. He pointed out that the $35 was discretionary for smaller court jurisdictions. But Rep. Shirley Bowler pointed out that there was a minimum fee of $17.50 for all moving violations, so that actually might detract from total funding of indigent defense. The resulting confusion sent the bill back to the calendar and Hebert back to the drawing board for his amendment.
Later, Hebert proposed an altered amendment which simply would exclude the previous entities (mayor’s courts, Jonesville, and Plaquemines) from having to charge the fee of $35. The rationale was that most of their business was minor or non-moving violations of vehicles. It was amended without objection, and the bill passed 96-0. Of course, now the Senate must agree to those changes before it can become law and start the first step to sensible reform of the indigent defense system.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 415 went down in flames in the Senate. The bill is an attempt to save money by canceling only the January election opportunity for local governments. There remain five others. Yet it hardly garnered any discussion and failed 12-24. It remains on the calendar, but it is unlikely ever to see the light of day during this session.
Also, an attempt was made to resurrect HB 613 in the Senate. The bill looks to set up a limited voucher system that essentially would apply to Orleans Parish schools. This was because the Senate Education did not have a definitive vote on it, so Senate rules allow the measure to be brought directly to the floor. Moreso than the content of the bill, senators argued about whether this move, which is permitted, was appropriate in bypassing a Senate committee. On a nearly party-line vote, it failed 10-23.
QUOTES OF THE DAY
“I don’t know … if you can give me a minute I can make something up.”
Rep. Danny Martiny, handling SB 323, to Hebert on a question about why the $35 fee to fund indigent defense had been extended to the previously-exempt courts.
“I hope everybody can hear me …”
Rep. Tim Burns on HB 759 which concerns hearing-aid dealers, proving once again that one can overuse a punchline to the point of annoyance.
“What we really need to do is to get you all a listening school, we really need that. I think I’ll be joining you.”
Hebert during repartee around HB 883 which establishes polysomnography as a separate profession
“Couldn’t we just use one of those Bruneau moves for this legislation?”
Rep. John Alario, when Rep. Bryant Hammett had asked to suspend the rules to push forward consideration on a bill, referring to how last week Rep. Peppi Bruneau had resurrected an apparently dead HB 80.
15 June 2005
Committee action, Jun. 15: HB 575
HB 575 is Rep. Charmaine Marchand’s annual exercise to have used means other than just high-stakes testing to determine whether children should be passed onto the next level. The bill wants to allow those who fail portions of it nonetheless to be passed along by resorting to highly subjective, additional means of “testing.”
Witnesses in favor of it trotted out the same old psychobabble, that the tests “negatively impact” students, that students get “anxiety” that causes “discipline problems” because they get so “frustrated” over trying to pass the exams. Testing “eradicates” thinking skills; children “drop out” because they “can’t pass the test … their lives would change dramatically if they were allowed to graduate.” Believe it or not, “our children are failing because of this test.” And, in the elegant words of one proponent, “How would you feel if your children was expected to take tests they were not prepared for.”
Witnesses against it addressed these points. They spoke on how relying only on the exams were producing results. Not only do they create an incentive to learn more, they also identify areas for remediation. In addition, they create incentives for schools to teach the necessary content to make for a sufficiently educated student. “It would be a disservice to students, to allow students to be promoted without demonstrating proficiency … social promotion does not help children or prepare them for the working world … the diploma should show they have mastery, and the exam shows that,” said BESE official Robin Jarvis.
Rep. Tommy Wright remarked it was a disservice if children pass classes in high school but don’t get diplomas. The whole academic career should not be evaluated on one exam, he argued. Jarvis replied that a main value of the test was to make schools more accountable and related a case where a school valedictorian could not pass the test and made a 14 on the ACT. It forces the schools to improve their services provided to students, and removing the imperative of the exam would cause education quality to deteriorate.
Rep. Regina Ashford Barrow again talked about the loss of self-esteem by failing the tests. Some “just don’t test well.” They said there is too much “teaching to the test” and not genuine instruction. “They feel dumb because they don’t pass the test, and they are not dumb.” She even suggested we could get rid of remediation and save money if we didn’t have the tests as a necessary criterion for graduation. Chairman Carl Crane, however, opined to abandon such efforts would be disastrous for education and economic development resulting thereof.
Jarvis pointed out that there is going to be a small portion of the student population with genuine learning disabilities, and the state has made and is making changes to assure that alternative methods are used for evaluation for this population. She also went over a number of issues that were considered “rough spots” in high-stakes testing that the state has been addressing. She also said states that were removing testing as a requirement were much better at providing education than Louisiana.
Rep. Jim Fannin argued that the bill would have children leading education, not parents and educators. He said it was legislators’ responsibility to facilitate this leadership by keeping the exams’ importance.
Wright offered an amendment to make the bill apply only to high school assessments for graduation. He said an exam should not be the “sole” requirement to graduate (although he didn’t seem to acknowledge that passing classes have something to do with graduating as well; you can score perfectly on the exam but if you don’t pass all your classes, you can’t graduate). Crane argued it would irreparably damage the accountability system. Only Wright voted for his amendment.
Marchand continued to insist that “the children are not failing the tests.” We are “leaving children behind” if they fail, that “we” are failing them. She argued the state needed a core curriculum (there is one already).
Barrow moved to report, but Rep. Hollis Downs’ substitute to defer passed with only Rep. Austin Badon, Barrow, and Wright voting against it. “See you all next year,” Marchand said as she left the room.
QUOTE OF THE DAY: “I appreciate what you’re trying to do, but I’m an all-or-nothing girl.”
Marchand, when explaining why she voted against Wright’s amendment to her bill.
WEDNESDAY: HB 242 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Health and Welfare Committee; HB 631 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee; HB 80 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee; HB 613 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Education Committee
Witnesses in favor of it trotted out the same old psychobabble, that the tests “negatively impact” students, that students get “anxiety” that causes “discipline problems” because they get so “frustrated” over trying to pass the exams. Testing “eradicates” thinking skills; children “drop out” because they “can’t pass the test … their lives would change dramatically if they were allowed to graduate.” Believe it or not, “our children are failing because of this test.” And, in the elegant words of one proponent, “How would you feel if your children was expected to take tests they were not prepared for.”
Witnesses against it addressed these points. They spoke on how relying only on the exams were producing results. Not only do they create an incentive to learn more, they also identify areas for remediation. In addition, they create incentives for schools to teach the necessary content to make for a sufficiently educated student. “It would be a disservice to students, to allow students to be promoted without demonstrating proficiency … social promotion does not help children or prepare them for the working world … the diploma should show they have mastery, and the exam shows that,” said BESE official Robin Jarvis.
Rep. Tommy Wright remarked it was a disservice if children pass classes in high school but don’t get diplomas. The whole academic career should not be evaluated on one exam, he argued. Jarvis replied that a main value of the test was to make schools more accountable and related a case where a school valedictorian could not pass the test and made a 14 on the ACT. It forces the schools to improve their services provided to students, and removing the imperative of the exam would cause education quality to deteriorate.
Rep. Regina Ashford Barrow again talked about the loss of self-esteem by failing the tests. Some “just don’t test well.” They said there is too much “teaching to the test” and not genuine instruction. “They feel dumb because they don’t pass the test, and they are not dumb.” She even suggested we could get rid of remediation and save money if we didn’t have the tests as a necessary criterion for graduation. Chairman Carl Crane, however, opined to abandon such efforts would be disastrous for education and economic development resulting thereof.
Jarvis pointed out that there is going to be a small portion of the student population with genuine learning disabilities, and the state has made and is making changes to assure that alternative methods are used for evaluation for this population. She also went over a number of issues that were considered “rough spots” in high-stakes testing that the state has been addressing. She also said states that were removing testing as a requirement were much better at providing education than Louisiana.
Rep. Jim Fannin argued that the bill would have children leading education, not parents and educators. He said it was legislators’ responsibility to facilitate this leadership by keeping the exams’ importance.
Wright offered an amendment to make the bill apply only to high school assessments for graduation. He said an exam should not be the “sole” requirement to graduate (although he didn’t seem to acknowledge that passing classes have something to do with graduating as well; you can score perfectly on the exam but if you don’t pass all your classes, you can’t graduate). Crane argued it would irreparably damage the accountability system. Only Wright voted for his amendment.
Marchand continued to insist that “the children are not failing the tests.” We are “leaving children behind” if they fail, that “we” are failing them. She argued the state needed a core curriculum (there is one already).
Barrow moved to report, but Rep. Hollis Downs’ substitute to defer passed with only Rep. Austin Badon, Barrow, and Wright voting against it. “See you all next year,” Marchand said as she left the room.
QUOTE OF THE DAY: “I appreciate what you’re trying to do, but I’m an all-or-nothing girl.”
Marchand, when explaining why she voted against Wright’s amendment to her bill.
WEDNESDAY: HB 242 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Health and Welfare Committee; HB 631 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee; HB 80 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee; HB 613 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Education Committee
13 June 2005
Floor action, Jun. 13: HB 40 and HB 688
DID YOU KNOW?
Would the 3rd time be the charm? Rep. Loulan Pitre’s HB 40, its third session being introduced, is an attempt to avoid having a December general election because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the blanket primary system used in Louisiana constituted a general election and had to take place on the national election date, the first Tuesday after the first Monday. It’s a clever, but cumbersome, bill.
Rep. Peppi Bruneau, as he has for years in committee, brought up the argument that the second-place finisher could outdistance a third-place finisher considerably but not make the general election. Rep. John Alario questioned that someone who won an absolute majority in the primary would still have to face an opponent in the general election. A close loser whose opponent won an absolute majority could actually come back and win the next election. Pitre admitted that these were not very palatable alternatives, but the cost savings and allowing Louisiana representatives to take office when all others did made it desirable. Rep. Donald Cazayoux asked why not go to closed primaries; Pitre said his would be a more incremental approach. He also said it most cases it would mimic a closed primary. “It’s not the most elegant system in the world, but it’s better than what we have now,” he said. Rep. Lelon Kenney brought up the interesting point that U.S. Sen. David Vitter actually would have had to face a runoff in 2004.
Bruneau insisted the present system was more fair, and argued that Sen. Cleo Field’s SB 53 would eventually address this issue by instituting closed primaries. Rep. Charlie Lancaster said this one was worse than SB 53, but better than the present. “We have destroyed the integrity of both major political parties … by keeping it a wide-open madhouse,” he argued. Lancaster argued a vote for this and SB 53 would promote the independence of the Legislature relative to the governor.
The bill failed 23-75.
(Personal privilege: After five minutes the same questions kept coming over and over. Can’t we pay attention?)
DID YOU KNOW?
The stealth tax, HB 688, got pulled off the calendar. It’s sponsor, Rep. Cedric Richmond, argued it was a tax cut because the landline tax on phones was 5 percent and it would be lowered to 2 percent. But what he didn’t emphasis this 2 percent tax would apply to wireless communications as well. Bruneau pointed this out – “a new tax on cell phones” – and reminded the body that this would be a tax increase of $49 million. He said there was no rational reason to create this tax since there was no use of public property. Richmond said it really wasn’t $49 million, but Bruneau read the explicit phrase from the fiscal note. Bruneau also argued that since money was going to the state in essence by making rebates to new statewide district created on the basis of per phone rather than per population, it was really a tax vote needing a two-thirds approval. But Speaker Salter said his legal advice said otherwise.
Nor did he address the fact landlines were being traded for cell phones, so this would be a new tax increase for a number of people. Rep. Tommy Wright also pointed out that cell bills were considerably higher. The bill failed 26-71.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 437 never got called of the calendar. It may well be dead as a result.
TUESDAY: HB 799 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Judiciary B Committee; HB 273 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee.
QUOTES OF THE DAY: "I was told it was a technical amendment, so I didn't read it."
Rep. Taylor Townsend, being queried on an amendment offered to his HB 707.
"That was a poor joke."
Speaker Joe Salter, when a member asked the question "what the dollar a pack of cigarettes is going for?" on an unrelated bill.
Would the 3rd time be the charm? Rep. Loulan Pitre’s HB 40, its third session being introduced, is an attempt to avoid having a December general election because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the blanket primary system used in Louisiana constituted a general election and had to take place on the national election date, the first Tuesday after the first Monday. It’s a clever, but cumbersome, bill.
Rep. Peppi Bruneau, as he has for years in committee, brought up the argument that the second-place finisher could outdistance a third-place finisher considerably but not make the general election. Rep. John Alario questioned that someone who won an absolute majority in the primary would still have to face an opponent in the general election. A close loser whose opponent won an absolute majority could actually come back and win the next election. Pitre admitted that these were not very palatable alternatives, but the cost savings and allowing Louisiana representatives to take office when all others did made it desirable. Rep. Donald Cazayoux asked why not go to closed primaries; Pitre said his would be a more incremental approach. He also said it most cases it would mimic a closed primary. “It’s not the most elegant system in the world, but it’s better than what we have now,” he said. Rep. Lelon Kenney brought up the interesting point that U.S. Sen. David Vitter actually would have had to face a runoff in 2004.
Bruneau insisted the present system was more fair, and argued that Sen. Cleo Field’s SB 53 would eventually address this issue by instituting closed primaries. Rep. Charlie Lancaster said this one was worse than SB 53, but better than the present. “We have destroyed the integrity of both major political parties … by keeping it a wide-open madhouse,” he argued. Lancaster argued a vote for this and SB 53 would promote the independence of the Legislature relative to the governor.
The bill failed 23-75.
(Personal privilege: After five minutes the same questions kept coming over and over. Can’t we pay attention?)
DID YOU KNOW?
The stealth tax, HB 688, got pulled off the calendar. It’s sponsor, Rep. Cedric Richmond, argued it was a tax cut because the landline tax on phones was 5 percent and it would be lowered to 2 percent. But what he didn’t emphasis this 2 percent tax would apply to wireless communications as well. Bruneau pointed this out – “a new tax on cell phones” – and reminded the body that this would be a tax increase of $49 million. He said there was no rational reason to create this tax since there was no use of public property. Richmond said it really wasn’t $49 million, but Bruneau read the explicit phrase from the fiscal note. Bruneau also argued that since money was going to the state in essence by making rebates to new statewide district created on the basis of per phone rather than per population, it was really a tax vote needing a two-thirds approval. But Speaker Salter said his legal advice said otherwise.
Nor did he address the fact landlines were being traded for cell phones, so this would be a new tax increase for a number of people. Rep. Tommy Wright also pointed out that cell bills were considerably higher. The bill failed 26-71.
DID YOU KNOW?
HB 437 never got called of the calendar. It may well be dead as a result.
TUESDAY: HB 799 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Judiciary B Committee; HB 273 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee.
QUOTES OF THE DAY: "I was told it was a technical amendment, so I didn't read it."
Rep. Taylor Townsend, being queried on an amendment offered to his HB 707.
"That was a poor joke."
Speaker Joe Salter, when a member asked the question "what the dollar a pack of cigarettes is going for?" on an unrelated bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)