It took 15 days, cost approximately $900,000, and sent two bills to the governor’s desk. Neither of them reduced the height of the fiscal cliff.
In his Sunday night statement following the failure to pass a sales tax bill, House Speaker Taylor Barras blamed the Governor and House Democrats – and in particular the House Black Caucus – for “repeated attempts to block revenue measures” which “deteriorated any chances of reaching a solution.”
It was a theme that had surfaced a week previously, when the Speaker stepped from the dais to the well to speak on “personal privilege.”
“I’m concerned, for after meeting with members of the Black Caucus, there is a ‘new’ proposal that they have offered. It’s the first we’re hearing of it.”
In other words, they were being “uppity”. House GOP leadership didn’t like it, and believed this was a narrative many of their constituents would unquestioningly accept.
“We know what it is,” Rep. Barbara Carpenter (D-Baton Rouge) told me. “It’s institutional racism.”
“Institutional racism” is defined as the pattern of social institutions – such as schools, churches and legislatures – giving negative treatment to groups of people, based on their skin color.
The Black Caucus saw it for what it was, and called the complicit House members out on it.
Just minutes before the end of the session, Baton Rouge Rep. Denise Marcelle rose to speak.
“We were made out to be the bad guys and bad girls. How is standing up for people – the poor people of this state, a problem? You want to put your foot on their throats to balance the budget!” she said. “Mr. Speaker, you’re the leader!”
That’s one of the reasons Gov. John Bel Edwards said the special session showcased “a spectacular failure of leadership in the House.”
It wasn’t the only reason.
“The Speaker created the revenue problem by backing away from $220-million of revenue he had previously said he supported,” the governor said during his post-session press conference. “He then blamed others when they went to him to ask him to consider other revenue measures that would fill that void. And he said it was they and not he who had caused that problem.
“At least they were responsible enough to know that they needed to fill the entire cliff.”
The entire House Black Caucus was present in a show of solidarity, as the governor then gave specifics on the “deal” that had been crafted with Speaker Barras.
“The Speaker’s proposal to me on February 5th was that he would support and deliver 40 Republican votes in the House for $572-million in that revenue that we needed to maintain, plus the revenue to come from the federal reforms for $302-million. That was still $120-million short of the $994-million fiscal cliff, but there were other instruments and options available to us to close the difference. And I really thought it represented a good faith effort to come together and move forward to fix the cliff.
“I then met with the Speaker again at the end of that week — and the President of the Senate – to confirm each and every one of his proposals, and his support for them and his pledge of 40 Republican votes to pass them. I then sat with the Speaker and the President, and drafted a call, making sure that every single revenue proposal that he had indicated he supported – and every budget reform proposal – was included in the call.
“Unfortunately, when the session started two weeks ago, it didn’t take the Speaker long to go back on his word. The very first day he said he was only willing to raise an amount of revenue that was $220-million less than he’d previously told me. Of course, he continued to insist on the budget reforms, which were always conditioned upon fixing the cliff.”
Governor Edwards has been here before, and at the close of prior sessions that didn’t deliver what was hoped for, would express his disappointment in lawmakers not living up to his expectations. This time was different.
“Even the most casual observer of the way the House has conducted itself over the last two weeks can only conclude that it was totally dysfunctional,” he stated. “Just go back in your mind and relive the countless recesses; the inability to make a decision to move forward, to bring people together, to do the hard work that is necessary to reach compromise.
“Simply put, the failure of this special session is the result of a total lack of leadership and action in the House of Representatives – a spectacular failure of leadership in the House. Not a single bill to address the cliff moved out of the House of Representatives for consideration by the Senate. Completely unacceptable.”
He then went on to say, “The problem isn’t going to change. We know what it is. We’ve been facing it for awhile. The options aren’t going to change. They’re going to be the same ones that we had last year and this year.
“But we’d better change. We better get serious and collectively summon the courage necessary to address this problem.”
Was the governor talking about the fiscal cliff and the as yet unmet need for structural tax reform with those words, as he has before? Or was it a warning to House leadership that when the regular session begins next week, there will be a change?
“I am actually more optimistic than you might imagine,” he said with a grin. “We’re going to get these problems fixed.
“Are we united? Yes.”
LONNEGAN: “Your boss is quite a card player. How does he do it?”
JOHNNY HOOKER: “He cheats.” – The Sting – Best Picture, 1974
While Louisiana’s House was late convening Sunday night, the Senate Finance Committee came to order, only to hear its chairman Eric LaFleur (D- Ville Platte) announce, “We did have the Barras bill that we were going to hear today, but this afternoon, the Speaker asked that we not hear it.”
A peculiar request, unless House leadership was expecting to sine die.
LaFleur shrugged his shoulders and shook his head slowly, saying, “I think we’ll have to wait and see what the House does tonight, so we’ll just recess.”
Yet once the House did convene, it appeared they were going to try, making the procedural move to allow Walt Leger’s HB 8 be reconsidered later in the agenda. And then they re-called the Speaker’s HB 15 – a constitutional amendment tightening the state spending cap. It had failed to muster the necessary 70 votes last week.
Rep. Pat Smith (D-Baton Rouge) asked Speaker Taylor Barras (R- New Iberia), “Since this is one of the contingency objects (chained to other bills via amendment), if this were to pass, would you vote to remove other objects from those other bills?”
“I’m not prepared to answer that at this time,” Barras responded.
“You won’t make a commitment?” Smith pressed.
“You’re asking me to to make a decision on something that is not before us at this time,” Barras answered with finality.
And this time, HB15 passed, 74-28 – an apparent sign that some sort of compromise had been reached.
Next up was the quarter-penny sales tax bill, HB23. Members of the Black Caucus offered amendments to de-couple the bill from the two Medicaid restriction measures, HB2 and HB3, which were adopted, without objection.
So far, so good.
Then Speaker Pro Tempore Walt Leger (D- New Orleans) made a motion to return the sales tax bill to the calendar so his bill, HB8, seeking to eliminate the ability for taxpayers to double-count deductions, could be heard first.
“Without HB8 passing, you won’t have enough votes to pass your bill,” he advised Rep. Stephen Dwight (R- Lake Charles), the author of HB23.
According to economists, Leger’s bill would almost exclusively affect those with incomes of more than $100,000 a year and bring in an additional $79 million in annual revenue. Dwight’s legislation, which sought to maintain a quarter of the additional penny in sales taxes set to expire, would burden the poor but raise another $290 million a year. From the beginning, Democrats have expressed their apprehension about renewing any portion of the sales tax increase, but they were willing to compromise on Dwight’s bill if Republican leadership first reconsidered hearing Leger’s bill.
The House voted on Leger’s motion, and it failed to pass, 45-58. The Speaker was among those voting no.
They went back to questions on Dwight’s bill, with Rep. Barry Ivey (R-Central) asking, “Do you have a sense of what the vote is about to be on this bill?”
“I think it’s time to move this bill,” Dwight responded.
Rep. Julie Stokes (R-Kenner) had another question for Dwight. “My understanding is this bill won’t pass, and then the session will blow up. Is there anything we can do to return to calendar?”
“How many times are we going to return it to the calendar?” Dwight countered.
“But we’ve been hearing we were to take up 8 and then 23, and then there would be peace and harmony,” Stokes urged.
“I’m ready to run this bill,” Dwight insisted.
“Why not return it to the calendar, as a show of good faith, and hear 8 first?” Rep. Denise Marcelle (D-Baton Rouge) inquired.
Dwight hesitated, but after getting a head shake from the Republican Caucus leader, his resolve returned. “I’m ready to move this bill right now. Either I have the votes or I don’t have the votes,” he said.
“If you were operating in good faith, that’s what you should do – did you know?” Marcelle responded.
Then Dwight, reading from prepared notes, closed on his bill, saying, “This bill is centerpiece of this special session. We’ve worked hard on both sides of the aisle. We’ve done, I think, everything we could do. This is the right thing to do, so we can go home and tell our TOPS parents we made the difficult decision, the right vote.”
When the votes were counted, it failed to pass, 33-70. The Speaker, as well as Republican leaders Lance Harris (R- Alexandria) and Cameron Henry (R- Metairie), voted no.
Rep. Stuart Bishop (R-Lafayette) made an immediate motion to adjourn until Monday. Protests erupted from the floor, but the Speaker informed members is was a non-debatable motion, which then passed 60-43.
It felt remarkably like the betting window slamming shut on Doyle Lonnegan at the climax of The Sting, and there’s no doubt that more than a few House members who were endeavoring to compromise in good faith felt stung.
Julie Stokes said, “There were a number of us that tried a number of things to stop that from happening.”
Houma Republican Tanner Magee (R- Houma) said, “This is embarrassing. I was told before I walked in that Democrats were blowing this thing up.”
Yet even if every House Democrat had voted for HB23, it would only have mustered 60 votes.
And Dwight told reporters that even though his bill was crucial to success of the session, he was never included in strategy meetings for getting the bill passed. Over the weekend, he said, it was the Governor’s staff keeping him apprised with updates on the vote count.
Rep. Ted James (D-Baton Rouge), the vice chair of the Black Caucus, remarked, “How many times have you heard that the Senate and the Governor have had an agreement in principle with the Speaker, only to have the deal blow up? Several times. It’s commonplace and it’s known around the Capitol. This session is no different.” Like many other members of the legislature, James took to Twitter to express his frustration.
“Ray Charles can see what’s going on. House Republican leadership wants us to fail,” he wrote.
And there is ample evidence in the aftermath of Sunday night’s debacle that James is right. Rep. Barry Ivey stated the reason clearly on the House floor Thursday afternoon: “The Republican leadership told me, ‘We don’t want the Democratic governor re-elected, and we don’t want to give him any kind of win’.”
All of this – the months of meetings with the Governor, the Speaker’s demand letter the end of February, the agreement a special session was needed, the “do-or-die” statement, and coming back Sunday for “one last effort” – was elaborately staged in order to brand the Governor a “failure”, while spinning the narrative that House Republican leadership had “done everything we could do.”
Gov. John Bel Edwards is wise to the game, issuing a statement: “House Republican leadership did not negotiate in good faith. A vast majority of the House wanted to solve this problem, but were not given the chance. We held up our end of the bargain, and the House leadership went back on their word.”
Speaker Pro Tempore Walt Leger stated: “Just to be clear, we helped the Speaker pass every one of his ‘budget reform’ bills out of the House. He couldn’t deliver votes on ANY of the revenue he promised to the Governor and President Alario…who crashed the session?”
Speaker Barras issued a statement of his own – as expected, directing blame at the governor.
“The Governor’s continual demand that the only solution to the fiscal cliff was to raise $994 million or nothing, while being unable to garner the support of his House Democrats, contributed to the collapse of this session. The Governor’s effort to only accept revenue increases to equal 100% of his calculation of the fiscal cliff caused frustration with his all or nothing demands. Louisiana deserved a better chance at moving forward,” he wrote.
At the end of The Sting, Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford) tells Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman), “You’re right, Henry. It’s not enough, but…it’s close!” Then the conspirators each pass the sign, each brushing a finger beside his nose.
And Speaker Taylor Barras couldn’t help verbally thumbing his nose at the governor over the success of the con just minutes after the House adjourned, saying, “This is a big turning point for our state.”
Before getting to the defensive line, a quick transactional note: The Saints signed former Panthers safety Kurt Coleman, cut earlier this offseason. Full financial details have not been disclosed, but the contract is being reported as three years and $18 million. I’ll dig into the ramifications more when we get to the defensive backs article, but it seems likely that Coleman will take the place of free agent Kenny Vaccaro.
One more thing: While the NFL Scouting Combine is currently going on, and some of the results from it will impact the Saints’ drafting plans, I want to finish this series of columns before the league year begins and free agency starts in earnest. We’ll discuss more about draft prospects and potential picks at a later date.
Now, onto this week’s subject, the defensive line.
DEFENSIVE ENDS2017 Players and Cap Information
Player
Age
2017 Cap Hit
2018 Cap Hit
Signed Through
Cameron Jordan
29
$12,047,000
$14,247,000
2020
Alex Okafor
27
$2,000,000
N/A
Free Agent
Trey Hendrickson
23
$641,572
$754,572
2020
Hau’oli Kikaha
26
$1,436,266
$1,675,644
2018
Al-Quadin Muhammad
23
$502,616
$592,616
2020
Mitchell Loewen
25
$466,666
$481,668
2018 (RFA)
George Johnson
30
$136,764
N/A
Free Agent
Kasim Edebali
29
$40,588
N/A
Free Agent
Alex Jenkins
25
$465,000
$480,000
2018 (ERFA)
With all the injuries the Saints had this season, most of these names are either injury fill-ins or practice squad players. The most important names on the list are the first five, so we’ll primarily focus on them.
Cameron Jordan is a bonafide superstar who earned a well-deserved All-Pro selection this season. He’s in his prime and there’s no question he’s a cornerstone of the Saints defense. The problem, historically, has been finding Jordan a capable running mate on the other side.
Alex Okafor was doing quite a good job on that front in both the running and passing game, among the league leaders in stops behind the line of scrimmage until he tore his Achilles. Okafor was on a one-year contract and in line for a substantial raise; after his injury, it may be another story. Medical science is getting better all the time, and Okafor isn’t that old, but Achilles injuries can sap explosiveness and take more than a year for a player to recover 100%. It’s not clear whether the Saints, or anyone else, will spend big money on Okafor with those risks involved. If the Saints can bring him back on an affordable deal, one that includes some security for the team if Okafor doesn’t recover to his old performance level, that’s probably a good idea, but they may be fine letting him walk if someone makes a serious offer.
Trey Hendrickson is the most likely starter opposite Jordan if the Saints don’t make another move. The third-round pick out of Florida Atlantic started working in the rotation in the second half of the year, even starting a few games. He has the athletic profile to succeed at the position, but needs some refinement, often winning on talent alone when he was at FAU. Still, most talented rushers see significant leaps in performance between their first and second years, so Hendrickson may well prove worthy of the mantle if given a chance.
Hau’oli Kikaha missed 2016 with a torn ACL, which happens to a team sometimes when it drafts a player who tore two ACLs in college, and in 2017 was mostly a backup, only starting when defensive line depth (and linebacker depth) got bad. It’s not clear what the projection for his future with the team is.
George Johnson and Kasim Edebali have such low cap hits because they were late-season signings filling in for the injuries the team had along the defensive line. (Not only was Okafor lost for the season, but Trey Hendrickson missed significant time down the stretch as well, and Kikaha had to fill in at linebacker occasionally with the injuries to that unit.)
DEFENSIVE TACKLES2017 Players and Cap Information
Player
Age
2017 Cap Hit
2018 Cap Hit
Signed Through
Sheldon Rankins
24
$2,909,465
$3,491,358
2019 (TO for 2020)
Tyeler Davison
25
$669,306
$1,959,307
2018
David Onyemata
25
$675,586
$765,586
2019
Nick Fairley
30
$2,000,000
$6,000,000
Free Agent
Tony McDaniel
33
$58,823
N/A
Free Agent
David Parry
26
$347,471
N/A
Free Agent (RFA)
John Hughes
29
$364,705
N/A
FA
Woodrow Hamilton
25
$86,400
$555,000
2018 (ERFA)
Devaroe Lawrence
25
$348,500
$480,500
2019 (RFA)
Notes:
The New Orleans Saints’ official roster page lists DT Jeremy Liggins as a practice-squad player, but I can find no record of him being on the team otherwise; most other sources indicate he spent 2017 splitting time between Seattle and Indianapolis’ practice squads.
Woodrow Hamilton’s contract info was not available on spotrac.com, so I took his cap numbers from overthecap.com. I assumed he will be an exclusive-rights free agent next year based on his lack of accrued time on an NFL active roster.
With Nick Fairley’s heart condition costing him the entire 2017 season, the next three guys on the list became the defensive tackle rotation and served capably well in those roles. (Sheldon Rankins even filled in some snaps at defensive end when injuries sapped the depth of the team there.) All three of them are young and should keep improving; in particular, we could see breakout third seasons from both Rankins (whose progress was slowed by a broken leg his rookie year) and Onyemata (who had relatively little football experience when he entered the NFL).
McDaniel, Parry, and Hughes were all signed at various points during the season to round out the depth at the position. I wouldn’t expect any of them to come back except in a similar situation. Lawrence and Hamilton are practice-squad players and futures guys.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the team tries to add one more defensive tackle to be part of the top rotation. (After all, Fairley was supposed to play a lot of snaps in 2017.) All across the defensive line, there are a lot of potentially useful free agents on the market this year. (With the Dolphins’ trade for Robert Quinn, they now have four highly-priced defensive linemen, in addition to some early draft picks, and may release one, adding another name to the list.)
I don’t know what the Saints will do, but whatever they’re looking for at the position, they can find a free agent fit. A big-money pass rusher like DeMarcus Lawrence would be ideal, but I’m guessing there’s no chance the Cowboys let him walk away in free agency.
There are a few veterans who have seen better days, for one reason or another, and might be worth a look to see if the Saints can get the best out of them. Dontari Poe is a free agent after signing a one-year deal with the Falcons; while he played well enough to warrant All-Pro consideration earlier in his career, suspicion is a back injury might have sapped his explosiveness and effectiveness. Still, he’ll only be 28 this upcoming season, so he may be worth a cheap flyer.
Former Jets defensive linemen Muhammad Wilkerson and Sheldon Richardson are both free agents, but they became known for repeated discipline problems during their time in New York as much as for their play (a major reason why the Jets traded Richardson to the Seahawks). Both should still be in their physical primes, but the Saints have tended to shy away from discipline problems. On the other hand, if those discipline problems mean the players come at a discount, they may provide surplus value on a contract.
More likely is that the Saints target a mid-tier free agent or two, players who might be value signings on their second contracts, like Alex Okafor this year. One interesting option is the Chargers’ Jeremiah Attaochu, who showed some potential early in his career but lost time due to injuries and the addition of Joey Bosa to the Chargers’ roster. The 49ers’ Aaron Lynch showed some potential early in his career, but has fallen out of favor after injuries and a PED suspension. Players like Star Lotulelei (Carolina) or Bennie Logan (Kansas City) might also provide bang for their buck on the interior.
There are a few veterans who might be good options for value signings on short deals, players for whom the idea of saddling up and riding for a shot at a championship. Players like Charles Johnson and Adrian Clayborn might serve as good secondary pass rushers on the edge.
The draft has some interesting options, although many of the best players may be gone by the Saints’ first-round selection. On the edge, the Saints might take a chance on the talent of LSU’s Arden Key in the first round, Washington’s Hercules Mata’afa, or, ideally, Boston College’s Harold Landy. Someone like Florida State’s Josh Sweat could be a good target with their third-round pick. On the interior, Washington’s Vita Vea would be a great addition if he makes it to the Saints’ 27th pick. Maurice Hurst, if his heart condition discovered at the Combine is cleared enough for the Saints to take him, would be a real steal at #27 overall.
Next week: Linebackers.
What is your earliest political memory?
For most people, even for most politicians, the answer is probably a vague recollection from their early teens: the first time they started paying attention to a campaign or the day the governor showed up to their school or when the president came to their hometown.
For Louisiana’s former U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu, it came in 1959, when she was just four years old.
“My earliest memory of politics is literally knocking doors with my mom and dad in Broadmoor,” she said. “I had a little rock that my dad gave me because my hands would hurt. It would be hard to knock on the wood doors. So, he’d give me a little rock, and he taught me how to tap. I loved it.”
For the first time in her storied career, former U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu agreed to participate with The Bayou Brief in a series of extended and remarkably candid interviews about her lifetime in public service. Mitch Rabalais had initially envisioned a type of historical retrospective, but because of the experiences and insight Sen. Landrieu has shared with The Bayou Brief, we hope this will provide the people of Louisiana and students of politics and history with a more intimate portrait and a better understanding of arguably the most accomplished woman in Louisiana political history.
Mayor Moon Landrieu with his family at the Gallier Hall reviewing stand on Mardi Gras, ca. 1975 (photograph by David Nelson).
****
In 1979, Mary Loretta Landrieu, the first of nine born in a family that would eventually dominate Orleans Parish politics for nearly six decades, became the youngest woman ever elected to Louisiana’s House of Representatives. She later served two terms as State Treasurer, then narrowly missed the run-off for governor in 1995, and went on to serve three terms as U.S. Senator.
Her father Maurice, eventually known as Moon, served as a state representative, a councilperson at-large, two terms as mayor of New Orleans, and then U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the Carter administration. Her brother Mitch also served as a state representative, followed by two terms as the state’s lieutenant governor, and currently, he is in the final two months of his own eight-year stint as New Orleans mayor. Their sister Madeleine recently stepped down as judge on the state’s 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to become the newest dean of Loyola University’s School of Law. Another brother, Martin, is a successful lawyer and partner of the firm Gordon Arata McCollam Duplantis & Eagan. And their youngest brother Maurice is currently an assistant prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Orleans.
“When my dad first started out in politics, of course, he had no name.” she said. “My dad came from no money, no status whatsoever. His parents didn’t go to high school, let alone college. His father graduated from third grade. My grandmother graduated from eighth grade. They didn’t go to high school. They worked their whole lives.”
Her father, she says, “came from a very, very modest background – poor, but he didn’t know it because everyone was about the same. He bought a little house on Adams Street, which is still there. So when he married my mother (Verna), who came from a more solid middle-class family, an Italian family however, so no social standing because of their Italian heritage. They were excluded from any social standing.”
During her father’s first campaign, as she recalls nearly sixty years later, they created a moveable billboard — an old truck they’d bought and wrapped with campaign signs.
“We had this old truck that he would park in different places in the neighborhood, like on the corner of Rocheblave and Napoleon. Then, the next day, he would park at Freret and Napoleon, and then the next day, on Camp and Prytania,” she said. “I remember that truck. He and my mom would go park it and walk home while knocking on doors, and then we’d go move it the next day.
“People thought we had this big army of volunteers helping us, but it was just my mom and dad moving the truck,” she says, breaking into laughter. “So, yeah, I remember the signs in our basement; I remember the handcards, and I remember when I was little, my dad telling me ‘Look, your legs are strong. You can run up the tall steps, so go put this on the door,'” she said, adding, “And I loved it.”
Moon Landrieu won that race and went on to embark on his own legendary political odyssey.
Most families share memories when they gather, whether it’s reminiscing about a favorite family vacation, or “Remember that Christmas when….?” But in the Landrieu family, shared memories almost always revolve around something political.
“They tell these stories. They are kind of legends in my house,” she explains.
For example, “I couldn’t have been more than eight years old, maybe seven,” she said. “My dad was in the legislature, and my mom used to ride up on the bus, because we only had one car. So he would take the car to Baton Rouge, or sometimes, he would get a ride with friends. And I can remember riding up in the bus with my mom and staying with him at that old hotel, the Heidelberg. It was where Huey Long and all those guys used to hang out. I was so young, and he would leave for work. He told me where he was, but I think he didn’t realize how little I was. And so I had no money, no food, no nothing. So, I just got up, went down to the dining room and ordered food myself.
“And the lady said, ‘Well, how are you going to pay?’ and I said I didn’t have any money, but my dad is so-and-so and he’ll pay you later today.”
In hindsight, Landrieu says, “I would never leave a seven-year-old at an old hotel, but he just left me there. So I guess I learned how to be independent at an early age.”
Occasionally, Moon Landrieu toted his daughter to work with him at the Capitol. When he had a meeting or an event to attend, he simply left his daughter to vote his machine – albeit with very strict instructions. “I used to sit in his chair. He told me to vote how Mr. Smithers (his seat-mate) did, and I would sit there as polite as I could be and just voted. You can’t do that these days.”
Mary Landrieu was casting her first votes in the legislature at the age of seven.
“Those are my earliest memories.”
****
Fifteen years later, in 1979 and at the age of 23, she decided to run for the seat her father had once held, after having worked the switchboard at the Capitol while a teenager. She believed that gave her even greater insight in the way things worked in state government.
“I had been listening for my entire life at that point, and I realized ‘You know, I can do this.'”
Jumping into the race was a formidable challenge.
The seat was then held by Clyde Bell, a three-term incumbent. The race also drew several prominent challengers as well: Russ Henderson, a community organizer and advisor to Dutch Morial; Henry Julien, a prominent African-American attorney; and Felicia Kahn, an accomplished activist who, now well into her nineties, is still a force of nature in Orleans Parish politics.
“They were all three times my age,” she said.
Looking back now, Landrieu admits that she was a bit naive. “It was a very challenging race, and I was probably the only one who thought I had a chance to win,” she said. Aside from her father’s campaigns, her political experience was limited to campus activities at LSU and that part-time job answering phones in the state Senate.
The campaign was also a somewhat disorganized effort, staffed almost exclusively by Landrieu’s friends volunteering their time. Her signs were handmade. “Baby blue and black,” she recalled. Her friend owned a screen print shop.
“It was a riot. We had a ton of fun.”
While she did have district-wide name recognition as the daughter of a former two-term mayor and current Secretary of HUD, Moon Landrieu was not an active participant in the campaign. “My father didn’t even believe that I was going to run until he came home and saw the 500 signs I had up in the district,” she said. “When he finally realized I was going to do it, he sat me down and gave me a few hints.”
Sec. Moon Landrieu and family in Washington’s Artillery Park.
Paramount in his advice was the suggestion that she go door-to-door, traversing many of the same streets she had walked with her little rock nearly twenty years earlier. Drawing on his own experiences, Moon Landrieu also told his daughter to be sure to campaign when it was raining. The reason? “When you knock on somebody’s door in the pouring down rain, they will know for sure that you are serious and they will give you good consideration.” He also told her it was best to walk on her own, not with an entourage.
Doors opened for her.
“I walked that district every single day for three, four, five hours for six months. Then, each night, I went home and wrote a thank you, hand-written note to everyone I met. I kept meticulous records, and it paid off.”
On election night, the candidate was very nervous as she arrived at Andrew Wilson Elementary School for the tabulation of votes.
“My mom and dad had a tradition of always going to their home box to get results for each race my dad was in,” she explained. “So I continued the tradition.”
When the polls closed, she asked permission to watch the count, and soon, her anxiety turned to jubilation. Laughing as she recalls getting the results from her home precinct, Landrieu said, “I think I got like 328 votes and my (main) opponent got eight. And I’m like, ‘Yes! I’m going to win!’”
At 23, she was the youngest member ever elected to the body, a record that still stands to this day.
State Rep. Mary Landrieu
In 1980, now embarking on her own legislative career, a glaring issue quickly came to Landrieu’s attention.
“There were no women, for example, in the whole Senate, and there were only two women lobbyists in the entire state” she said, her voice still rising with the emotion of the memory. “I was shocked. That was the word I kept using to myself and my friends.”
Many male colleagues were not above boorish behavior – often making crude jokes and catcalling when she went to speak at the rostrum. Once, a fellow member even placed a rubber snake in her desk as a prank.
“It was a rude awakening,” she recalled.
State Rep. Landrieu earned an early assignment on the powerful House Appropriations Committee.
****
After easily winning re-election in 1983, Landrieu found herself increasingly frustrated in the House. She decided to forgo a third term in 1987 and run for State Treasurer.
“After eight years, I had enough and said ‘I’m either going to quit, or go to an office where I could really make an impact.’”
The state’s longtime Treasurer, Mary Evelyn Parker, was retiring. Landrieu knew that Louisiana voters had been comfortable with a woman running the Treasurer’s office for 20 years, so gender would not necessarily be an issue in the race.
“It was the only job I thought people would elect me to, because there was a woman in it,” she explained.
Landrieu asked Parker for her support, but she refused, instead choosing to endorse her chief assistant, Tom Burbank. Also running were two of Landrieu’s colleagues from the House: Kevin Reilly of Baton Rouge, chairman of the Appropriations Committee and CEO of Lamar Advertising; and Buddy Leach, a former Congressman from Leesville who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Both had endorsements, name recognition, and large war chests.
Moon Landrieu attempted to dissuade his daughter from entering the race, believing she was better suited to run for Insurance Commissioner.
“He asked, ‘Why are you running for this office? You can’t even balance your checkbook!’ I simply said, ‘Dad, I have other plans. I have serious things that I want to do.’”
After acquiring a used Toyota at a discount from a Baton Rouge dealer – she is quick to point out that the car was missing one of its hubcaps – Landrieu set about criss-crossing the state.
“I knew no one,” she recalled. “I had a few of my sorority sisters. Outside of New Orleans, I think I maybe knew five people. Maybe a dozen.”
But Landrieu brought in an old family friend, Donna Brazile, fresh off of Jesse Jackson’s Presidential campaign.
Reflecting on the race earlier this year with The Bayou Brief, Brazile said, “I think the most fulfilling part to me was learning how to mobilize people outside of the New Orleans regional area, areas where she was not as familiar because she didn’t have strong name recognition in the north in Shreveport and Monroe and also in the center of the state, in Alexandria. So, it posed some significant challenges, but she was able to overcome all of them.”
State Rep. Landrieu in an interview with Louisiana Public Broadcasting, shortly before launching her campaign for State Treasurer.
Landrieu led the primary with 44% of the vote, and carried 39 parishes, over-performing expectations in the Florida Parishes, Acadiana, Central Louisiana, and the Northeastern corridor around Monroe.
Reilly, the second-place finisher, dropped out, eliminating the need for the runoff.
As Treasurer, Landrieu transformed the office, putting a very public face on a state department not often thought of. Mostly run by career bureaucrats during its history, the State Treasury was long seen as Louisiana’s least glamorous political post, often obscured by the characters and antics in other statewide offices.
She made it high-profile, ushering in sweeping changes, hiring women and African-Americans to top positions, and implementing a series of reforms that saved the state money and protected employees’ pensions.
And by the early 1990s, Landrieu was on the move. Unopposed for a second term, she was now determined to make a run for the Governor’s Mansion and crack Louisiana’s highest glass ceiling.
It would be her toughest political challenge yet.
“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right – as God gives us to see the right – let us strive to finish the work we are in.” – Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865
They like to refer to themselves as the “Party of Lincoln,” but Louisiana’s House Republicans would have this nation’s sixteenth president covering his face in shame over how far they strayed from his words yesterday.
The day’s House session began congenially enough, with members voting 73-18 to approve HB 27 by Rep. Pat Smith (D-Baton Rouge). It raises the tax on cell phones and landlines by one half-cent, to provide for telecommunications services for the deaf.
Next up, however, was HB 2 by Rep. Tony Bacala (R-Prairieville). The measure would give the Legislative Auditor access to state tax returns, in order to verify income for Medicaid recipients. After mentioning “fraud” repeatedly, Bacala’s intent was questioned by Rep. Gary Carter (D-New Orleans).
“Wouldn’t you agree the vast majority of fraud is by providers, not recipients?” Carter asked. “If the concern is Medicaid fraud, why are you focusing on the poor people seeking medical attention?”
“We have all the tools in the toolbox to go after provider fraud. We don’t have this tool,” Bacala replied. “This doesn’t kick anyone off Medicaid.”
But Rep. Denise Marcelle (D-Baton Rouge) expressed doubts.
“If it doesn’t kick anyone off, why is the Attorney General mentioned on page two?” Marcelle asked. “The only reason to include the Attorney General is to prosecute fraud.”
Bacala admitted that was his ultimate goal.
“There could be prosecutions for fraud,” he said. “We’re trying to make the program accurate, although the law at this point prevents us from determining individual recipient fraud.”
“It looks like you’re trying to find something wrong with the people receiving Medicaid and prosecute them,” Marcelle responded. “It looks like we’re throwing a net out, and don’t care what we catch.”
Then Rep. Raymond Crews (R-Bossier City) got up to try and help Bacala pass the bill.
“It says in Leviticus, ‘Do not show partiality to the poor.’ This bill should increase the public’s trust that we are being impartial.”
“Thank you, Brother Crews,” Bacala responded.
The bill passed, 71-31, and thirty Republicans signed on as co-authors.
The subsequent discussion of HB 3, instituting work requirements for Medicaid, further emphasized that attitude.
Author Frank Hoffman (R-West Monroe) stressed the “helpful” purpose of the bill, saying “Research shows working helps people stay healthy.”
But Rep. Gary Carter wasn’t buying into this premise, or this bill, either.
“It’s almost as if you are holding poor people hostage,” he remarked, before asking, “What does this legislation have anything to do with the fiscal cliff we are facing?”
“Helping people get a job increases tax collections for the state,” Hoffman responded.
The bill was sent over to the Senate, on a 69-29 vote, and the House recessed, with the announced intention of voting on revenue-raising bills after lunch.
When they returned, they began with HB 8, authored by Speaker Pro Tem Walt Leger (D-New Orleans). The bill, which eliminates state deductibility of state and local income taxes paid, had become the crux of contention between the Black Caucus and most House Republicans.
The Legislative Black Caucus opposes sales tax increases without income tax adjustments, while the Republican majority was willing to hold their noses and vote for temporary sales tax hikes, in order to retain funding for TOPS.
“If you itemize deductions, this bill will no longer allow you to deduct this year the state and local taxes you paid last year,” Leger said, to explain his bill. “Federal law doesn’t allow you to deduct federal taxes paid. Why should the state allow it?”
Leger reminded House members this was a structural tax reform recommended by every one of the task forces the legislature had set up to look into Louisiana’s tax structure.
He then attempted to unchain the bill from two of the Republican-pushed budget reforms that the Black Caucus found most objectionable.
“Remove HB 2 and HB 3. Leave the rest,” Leger said. “Don’t force members who have expressed their will on those two bills to say no again. Those bills have already gone over to the Senate, but I’m afraid it will grind this whole process to a halt if we don’t remove these two.”
Yet the vote was 47-52 against removing those links from the chain amendment.
Discussion of the bill continued, while outside pressure on conservative Republicans was mounting.
State director of the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity, John Kay, tweeted out “I wouldn’t vote for income tax changes if I were y’all, #lalege.”
And Grover Norquist, promoter of the infamous “no new taxes, ever” pledge, tweeted, “Louisiana taxpayers are counting on the legislature to protect them from money-hungry John Bel Edwards.”
Some Republicans, though, got up and spoke in favor of the bill.
Barry Ivey (R-Central) said, “I support this. I can support revenue as a by-product of good policy.”
Rob Shadoin (R-Ruston) quoted Matthew 25:40: “’Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto Me.’ The least of these. Who’s their lobbyist? You are.”
Julie Stokes (R-Kenner), referencing her battle with breast cancer this past year, said, “I’ve never seen us at a bigger crossroads. This is it – this minute. Let’s come together and heal this.”
But Rep. Alan Seabaugh (R-Shreveport) was having none of it.
“This isn’t the time to do this,” he insisted. “We don’t know the numbers on the federal tax reforms yet. Once we have those, and new revenue estimates, then we might not even need any additional revenue.
“What we do know – everybody knows – is that the $994-million is not an accurate number. The governor got up here and told a bald-faced lie!” Seabaugh thundered. “You’re asking us to stick it to our constituents! It’s bad policy, and it’s bad re-election strategy!”
(It should be noted that Seabaugh is currently being vetted for an appointment to a federal judgeship).
Rep. Denise Marcelle spoke next. “I oppose this bill because of the amendment,” she said. “The person who put the amendment on the bill put it there to kill the bill.”
Seabaugh was the author of the amendment shackling Leger’s bill to all the others.
But Baton Rouge Democrat Ted James told the House, “I support the bill. I despise the amendment. I despise the spirit of the amendment. That amendment is hateful. But it’s not enough for me to ignore the needs of the people of my district, or the needs of the people of this great state.”
Then Leger spoke again, closing on the bill.
“We work very hard from this well not to call people names, act with dignity and respect. I have to say, Gov. Edwards is not a liar.
“We each came here to positively impact people’s lives. This is one of those moments. Let’s solve the problems before us to the extent that we can.”
The vote was 50-51, and the bill failed to pass. Seabaugh made a motion to table the bill, which would have completely removed it from further consideration, and Leger objected.
“Mr. Speaker,” he said, “There appear to be some machines that got voted by members who have not been here at all today.”
A “lockout” vote was called, yielding just 99 – not 101 – members present. The Speaker called for the caucus leaders to join him at the dais, and then told the House to “stand at ease for a few minutes.”
Those few minutes stretched into more than five hours.
In the interim, it was confirmed that Kevin Pearson (R-Slidell) and House Appropriations chairman Cameron Henry (R-Metairie) were completely absent, but had been each counted as voting against Leger’s bill. (Notably, House Ways and Means chairman Neil Abramson (D-New Orleans), who is now closer to the Republican caucus than his own party’s, was also conspicuously absent).
The various caucus groups platooned in and out of House chambers for repeated conferences.
Meanwhile, Gov. Edwards sent a note to Seabaugh, inviting Seabaugh to come up to his 4th floor office for a chat. Seabaugh didn’t go, explaining on Facebook, “Since the House is still in session, I am not going to leave the floor for any reason because I do not want to miss a vote. However, I have accepted his invitation, and will be going to have a personal pow-wow with him upon adjournment this evening.”
That never happened.
What ultimately did happen? The House gaveled in, and promptly adjourned until 5 p.m., Sunday.
And on Day 12 of the special session, Louisiana House members of the “Party of Lincoln” seemed to exemplify the complete opposite of Abraham Lincoln’s noble words, showing instead malice toward all and charity for none. Although there was firmness on the right, they did not finish the work they were in.
Less that 24 hours after a mudslide of negativity seemingly buried hopes of scaling the fiscal cliff, House Speaker Taylor Barras announced they would make one more rescue attempt.
“We will convene at ten a.m. Friday morning. My intent is to go through the entire calendar – up or down, do or die. We don’t want to leave any stone unturned.”
More that a few House members appeared stunned by the announcement, while others shook their heads and grumbled. A majority clearly expected they would be adjourning sine die Thursday, giving up and going home. The Speaker had narrowly forestalled such a motion, prepared by Representative Barry Ivey, Wednesday night.
Shutting down the session, however, requires concurrence by the Senate. And most members of the upper chamber are less than happy about being as yet unable to do what they were called into session to do.
One senator I greeted Thursday, telling him,”It’s good to see you in place, ready to work,” replied acidly, “We’ve been here all along—mostly stuck down in our offices, watching that farce play out on the other side.”
Senator Fred Mills (R-Parks), commenting on the lack of results as compared to the cost of the special session, said, “If you’re looking for a return on investment from a taxpayer standpoint, it has not been good.”
At an average of $60,000 per day, the eleven elapsed days of of the special session have cost approximately $660,000 thus far.
But Senator Francis Thompson (D-Delhi), who served in the House from 1975-2007 before moving to the Senate, said simply, “We don’t need to quit.”
In fact, the Senate Finance Committee, leading by example, worked Thursday, holding a hearing on SB 8, by Senator Rick Ward (R-Port Allen). The bill provides for the state’s fiscal transparency website. Unlike the highly touted “Louisiana Checkbook” proposed by Speaker Taylor Barras’ HB 29, this measure supports the upgrading and expansion of the current LaTrac website – a goal the administration was already pursuing.
Ward told the committee, “You’ve heard Ohio did their checkbook website for next to nothing, and that it only cost $850,000 to run. That’s per year – and they spent $150-million to get it ready to run.”
Commissioner of Administration Jay Dardenne said, “We expect to have the enhanced website online in a month. Some of the requested features – graphs and charts – will take a bit longer. The complete upgrade, including bringing every state agency into the system, will be complete by October 2021.”
Senator Jim Fannin (R-Jonesboro) says he doesn’t understand the big push to spend $30-million on a shiny new website, when they’re here in special session to address a revenue shortfall.
“It’s like we don’t have enough money for groceries, but we still buy a new set of golf clubs,” Fannin remarked. “Those same people that want this ‘checkbook’ are the same people saying ‘cut government.’ I support transparency, but the timing is terrible for this. When you don’t have any money, you don’t keep spending new money.”
Still, the measure was voted through to the full Senate for consideration.
So, what will the House be voting on today in its final effort to dig the session and the state budget out of the mire?
“The bills that remain on the calendar are four revenue bills,” Speaker Barras said. “We have two additional reform bills, a couple of other bills that members have entered that we will consider. Then we also have the constitutional amendment for the spending limit. And we have Representative Dwight’s bill.”
Despite the sales tax measure’s resounding 37-68 defeat Wednesday night, the Speaker is fixated on that being the only viable solution to the fiscal cliff.
“That bill, members, is the core to this debate, and the core to the dollars that are important to solving as much of this deficit as we can,” Barras told the full House Thursday night.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is “do or die”. The only question remaining is, “For whom?”
Wednesday was “make or break” day for full House votes on bills to forestall the July 1 fall off the fiscal cliff. But after convening nearly two hours past the scheduled 10.a.m. start time, the House immediately went into recess.
The hours ticked away, with caucus groups platooning in and out of the chamber in waves and other whirlpools of conversation swirling desultorily – then reforming here and there. Throughout the long afternoon, the official posted House status said, “Recessed until the call of the Speaker”.
Lawmakers were questioned about what was happening behind closed doors. Republican Caucus chairman Lance Harris said, “I believe the quarter-cent sales tax is going to get out, but it all depends on the Democrats.”
Author of HB 23 – the sales tax bill — Representative Stephen Dwight, said, “I’m willing to change my bill any way it can get 70 votes. I want to see it voted on, because the citizens of Louisiana deserve that the vote be made.”
But Houma Republican Tanner Magee was less than confident that a deal would be struck. Several times he said, “We should just cut our losses, save the state money, and sine die.”
Late in the afternoon, Democrat Sam Jones came down from the Governor’s office on the 4th floor to deliver a cryptic and unwelcome message to the Speaker: “The answer is no.”
Democratic Caucus chair Gene Reynolds explained, “There is no agreement. It’s about to crash and burn.”
Shortly thereafter, the bell rang and all the kids…or lawmakers…came in from recess, and Speaker Taylor Barras began shepherding his bills through the process, beginning with new limits on the state expenditure cap.
Representative Malinda White (D-Bogalusa) asked, “Why are we doing these items before the fiscal bills?”
The Speaker replied, “I wanted to do this first because we are still negotiating amendments to the fiscal bills.”
Speaker Pro Tem Walt Leger pointed out, “ We promised that we would deal with the fiscal cliff. This does nothing to address that.”
Speaker Barras responded, “I agree. This does not help the cliff. But what we spend and how we control it are part of what we do.”
The statute implementing the expenditure cap limits passed, 65-40, but it only required a simple majority. The constitutional amendment – which required a two-thirds vote (at least 70 in favor) – failed.
Barras then moved on to the bill creating the LouisianaCheckbook.com spending transparency website. The bill is heavily back by business and industry groups, who have gone so far as to purchase that domain and use it to promote the bill requiring the state to create the transparency website there.
There were efforts to amend the bill to require the website divulge the names of companies receiving state tax credits and rebates, or economic development incentives, but those items failed. Ultimately, the Louisiana Checkbook bill passed unanimously.
Finally, they began work on the revenue-raising bills, beginning with the sales tax measure. HB 23, by Stephen Dwight (R-Lake Charles) would add back one-fourth of the expiring fifth penny os sales tax, and clean many of the exemptions off the remaining four cents. It was expected to generate a little over $300-million per year – but only for three years, due to an amendment added in committee making the tax changes temporary…again.
There was a parade of proposed House amendments, most of which dirtied the clean pennies again. Then Representative Pat Smith (D-Baton Rouge) proposed an amendment that removed the committee-added sunset of the tax.
Proponents of the amendment argued that “temporary” taxes would harm the state’s credit rating, something confirmed by state Treasurer John Schroder earlier in the day. The amendment failed, 41-62.
The parade to the lectern at the front of the House continued with lawmakers getting up to speak on the merits or failings of the bill itself.
Speaker Pro Tem Walt Leger (D-New Orleans) commended Dwight on his efforts to present a bill “with the best intentions to bring us away from the fiscal cliff.”
“But I hear from my constituents – and I ask myself – ‘Why are we here?’ We are not here by accident,’ Leger stated. “We were suckered. Bamboozled. Fugabooed. We were told by the Speaker’s letter January 30, 2018, that this was ‘to steer our great state away from the cliff.’ We passed some budget reforms, relying on an explicit agreement that they were tied to revenue that would solve the fiscal cliff. Not some of it, but solve it. But we’re told today: ‘no agreement’.”
The emperor has no clothes.
Then Republican Barry Ivey took the mic, and elaborated on that theme.
“Republicans keep preaching, ‘We don’t have a revenue problem – we have a spending problem,’ yet the grand solution is just a temporary sales tax. The problem with hypocrisy and rhetoric is you will eventually paint yourself into a corner.
“Last year, I brought a package of bills that attempted to do comprehensive tax reform. Yet the Republican leadership told me, ‘We don’t want the Democratic governor re-elected, and we don’t want to give him any kind of win with tax reforms.’ Still, I tried and failed. And at the end of that session, I was told, ‘We aren’t going to do tax reform. We’re going to come back for a special session and renew the fifth penny.’
“We place partisanship before people, and there is a generational cost to all this: Louisiana won’t be competitive. But some people are content to sacrifice the opportunities of all constituents, for the sake of politics.”
Barry Ivey told the naked truth — publicly. Louisiana’s House leadership and its “Disciples of No” were never negotiating in good faith. There was never any intent to solve the state’s fiscal problems for the long term, because their end game is to brand John Bel Edwards a failure as governor.
Late last night, Lance Harris, head of the House Republican Caucus, tweeted, “It is a sad day when the leader of the Democratic party (Governor) can’t produce.
Yet as Republican Rob Shadoin of Ruston said, “We’re delivering nothing. The people of Louisiana deserve better than this.”
After Sunday’s progress on moving bills to the House floor, Twitter was chirping Monday morning with state lawmakers warning the process was about to come to a screeching halt.
Marcus Hunter (D-Monroe) sent the first alert: “No bills with Ways and Means Committee amendments will pass in their current posture.”
Nancy Landry (R-Lafayette) followed with an update: “The Black Caucus has issued an ultimatum to increase income tax by compressing tax brackets or they won’t vote for any bill. In other words, they are blowing everything up.”
And when the full House ultimately convened nearly two hours after they were scheduled, Speaker Taylor Barras handed the gavel off to Representative Alan Seabaugh, and spoke from the well under “personal privilege”.
“We had a full calendar debate scheduled for this morning. We have most all of the “negotiated” revenue bills. We have four of the five reform efforts we had talked about,” Barras began.
“I’m concerned, for after meeting with members of the Black Caucus, there is a ‘new’ proposal that they have offered. It’s the first we’re hearing of it. It is not one of the options that we’ve been talking about this past couple of weeks. What the caucus offered this morning was a new development.
“I’m more concerned about the engagement and direction that’s being offered from the administration. We’ve reached out, but the governor and his team need to be a little more clear on the direction they’re choosing to take – that they direct what intent they have, and what bills they intend to support. The direction that we’re getting is unclear.
“We have a limited number of days to do this, and I believe there’s a solution. It’s going to require trust and a reaching across the aisle to pull this off.”
With that, the House adjourned for lunch. When they returned, the Speaker announced House leadership had some work to do amongst members, so they would not reconvene until Wednesday morning.
That brought Ted James (D-Baton Rouge), the vice chair of the Legislative Black Caucus, to the wll on “personal privilege” of his own.
“I took some time over the lunch break to reflect on what was said at this podium, and tweeted about the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus ‘blowing things up’,” James explained.
“Our position on the sales tax has been very, very clear from the very beginning of this process. The bills that we want to discuss have been filed many times this year, last year, the year before last.. So it’s not ‘new.’
“But what was said at this podium is we’re going to blame a small portion of this body, because the Black Caucus is unified in opposing these things. Guess what? We’ve always been unified. We’ve always been in firm opposition.
“We recognize that we cannot cut our way out this. But we are not going to solve the problems that we created by asking the poor and the working poor to bail us out.
“I know that many times as a caucus, we compromise. And many of you entered this session thinking, ‘Oh, they’re going to bend. They’re gonna fold. That sales tax is gonna pass.’
“Mr. Speaker, we’re not frustrated, but we are serious. We are not solely responsible for the way this session is going. We’re not solely responsible for the budget deficit that we inherited. To lay the blame on the governor and the Black Caucus is just irresponsible.
“You guys can have different opinions, but you can’t have your own facts.
“It’s not a spending problem, it’s a leadership problem. We have a leadership issue. And until we address that, we will continue to have problems.”
In between all this public back-and forth on the House floor, Governor John Bel Edwards met briefly with reporters, and offered his take on the blame claims.
“We had some members of the Black Caucus today to float an idea for a compromise, and you saw how the Speaker responded, which I think was unfortunate. The idea that individual members of the legislature or groups can’t get together at any time and start a conversation about the best way to resolve the impasse and fix the fiscal cliff, I think it’s disingenuous for the Speaker to have said that,” the governor told us.
“Clearly he was suggesting that I should somehow get the Black Caucus in line, and he also suggested that I haven’t been communicating with him, which is false. In fact, several days ago, I tried to sit down with him and initiate a conversation about where we were, and he never did respond.”
Who is being truthful, and who is prevaricating? Let’s look more closely at the claims made by the Speaker.
1. Compressing tax brackets is “new” and “the first we’re hearing of it.” False.
HB 9, by Speaker Pro Tem Walt Leger, was heard in House Ways and Means February 21, though it was never brought to a vote.
“Legislating with regard to income tax brackets” is the first item in the call for this special session, and was including in the governor’s proposals for fixing the fiscal cliff, which he released this past December
Changes to income tax brackets were recommended by the Tax Reform Task Force more than a year ago, while bills to make these changes were filed (and killed by the House Ways and Means Committee) in the 2017 regular session, both special session in 2016, and even during the 2015 regular session.
In addition, when describing this session’s HB 9, Leger called it a “return to Stelly tax brackets”, referring to the 2002 voter-approved “Stelly Plan”.
2. “We’ve reached out but the direction that we’re getting is unclear.” False.
The governor said he “tried to sit down and initiate a conversation” but the Speaker “never did respond.” We checked with the Governor’s staff, and that was on Friday, February 23 — the day the Speaker had originally been scheduled to present his bills for a full House vote.
Undoubtedly, the Speaker didn’t respond because he was otherwise occupied – attending an event that had been scheduled and announced on February 8. This:
3. The Black Caucus is the problem. False.
This has so much wrong with it, I don’t know where to begin.
4.“I believe there’s a solution that’s going to take reaching across the aisle.” True.
But it seems abundantly clear that the current House leadership believes that solution involves – as Ted James said – “They’re going to bend. They’re gonna fold.”
And while some House members were heard asking Monday afternoon, “Why don’t we just cut our losses and sine die?”
A growing number are agreeing with another of Ted James’ statements: “We have a leadership issue. And until we address that, we will continue to have problems.”
With all the “spin”, circular logic, and going right back to the starting point of the fiscal cliff, it certainly seemed circles were the theme in House committees Sunday.
Distaste for the overall agreement to advance Democrat-supported revenue-raising bills and Republican-supported Medicaid program-tightening bills to the House was evident on both sides.
Tension was high at the start, as House Ways and Means began with HB 8, Speaker Pro Tem Walt Leger’s (D-New Orleans) bill to cut the allowable state claim for federal itemized deductions in half. Through clenched teeth, he added an amendment that keeps the full federal allowance, with the exception of removing only the claim for income and sales taxes paid in the previous year. That would dramatically reduce the amount of revenue it would add from the original $89-million estimate annually, yet there was no discussion of a new fiscal note for the revised bill.
Representative Alan Seabaugh added an amendment chaining the bill to others (all pass or all fail). Yet when it came time to move the vote forward, Seabaugh objected.
“I have a philosophical problem with the bill,” the Shreveport Republican stated. “Why the urgency? Federal tax reform means the state will be collecting more. The price of oil is going up. This so-called ‘fiscal cliff’ the governor talks about talks about may not be there, after all.”
Leger simply replied, “The fiscal cliff is real. As for this bill, I can’t say it’s what I hoped, but it is a step. I hope you’ll move it to the House floor.” On a 10-7 vote, they did.
Next up was the sales tax measure: HB 23, by Representative Stephen Dwight (R-Lake Charles). It renews a quarter-cent of the expiring fifth penny of sales tax, and cleans exemptions from the other four pennies. It was chained to the other bills, as well.
That’s when the trajectory of the forward movement becan to curve back on itself. Seabaugh proposed another amendment, to make the changes temporary, yet again.
“Making them permanent means we’ve failed at tax reform,” Seabaugh declared.
Despite fellow Republican Chris Broadwater reminding him, “Temporary taxes make the credit rating agencies and businesses nervous,” Seabaugh pressed the motion to only extend the sales tax changes for 36-months – to June 30, 2021. That passed 10-7, followed by a 12-5 vote to move the bill to the House floor.
The other revenue-raising measures advanced on similar votes, with similar objections raised. The entire exercise prompted Republican Barry Ivey to say, “We are kicking the can down the road – again. This is not positive reform. It’s slicing and dicing, since we legislators don’t do anything before we absolutely have to. Business lobbyists want to obstruct reform efforts, and while I have always been pro-business, today I am standing up for the people.”
He voted against advancing every one of the bills.
The other components in the compromise package were heard in House Health and Welfare Committee. The strongest pressure revolved around HB 3, which would institute a work component for Medicaid. Many House Democrats deeply dislike the subtextual message of the bill, which some opponents referred to as the “welfare queen mentality”, or what New Orleans Representative Helena Moreno said is “promoting false stereotypes”.
Dawn Starns with the National Federation of Independent Businesses got caught in the whirlpool of those committee members’ distaste for the bill when she came to the witness table in support of the measure.
“NFIB supports reforms to the Medicaid program, because we don’t want the program to crumble under its own weight,” she stated.
“What type of reforms do you recommend?” asked Dustin Miller (D-Opelousas).
“Y’all are here to do that work, and we are certainly not the experts on the Medicaid program,” she responded. “Just like small business doesn’t want you all coming in telling us how to run things, we don’t want to tell you that. But what we do know is that the cost of the program is going to go up over time, and that the state faces a budget problem. And we know when we face a budget problem, y’all come to us and look for tax increases.”
“So where does this bill save money?” Miller wondered.
“We believe it will save money over time.,” Starns replied.
Monroe Representative Katrina Jackson had questions for Starns, as well.
“You’re here supporting this. What benefit does your organization get out of this legislation? “ Jackson asked.
“Since the ACA passed and Medicaid expansion, it’s been an undue burden on our members,” was the response. “Our members call and say they can’t keep their business afloat because insurance premiums have skyrocketed due to the ACA. Most small business owners can’t afford that, so they’d be reducing the number that they employ, cut back hours, that sort of thing.”
“You’re saying right now some of your members are reducing their workforce size so that they can provide insurance? Your businesses have laid people off, because they couldn’t afford the cost of doing business?” Jackson asked, incredulously. “So now you’re here, supporting a bill that’s going to make say make more people join the workforce, but you’re saying your businesses have reduced their workforce. Are they going to be able to offer them jobs?”
“You have a lot of changes happening. You have tax reform happening at the federal level, though in this state, unfortunately, we are going to see a tax increase at the state level,” Starns lamented.
“And so that tax reform doesn’t help you, is that what you’re saying?”
“Well, it doesn’t help us to the extent that it’s helping others,” Starns said, her voice becoming more shrill. “Other states are seeing a much bigger boom from it.”
At this point Jackson, an attorney, was getting fed up with the non-responsive answers. “I’m going to ask the complete question, okay? So I want you to listen. Your testimony today is that some of your member businesses have had to reduce their workforce. Are you telling me they’re going to increase their workforce to allow these people to work?”
“We represent 4000 Louisiana small business owners,” Starns replied, “And I don’t have those numbers with me.”
“Are they’re going to be able to employ these new people?” Jackson pressed.
“I get that you don’t like the bill,” Starns snapped back.
“It’s not about liking the bill,” Jackson said with a sigh. “When we encourage people to work, are your businesses going to be able to employ them?”
“Our members are telling us that access to a qualified workforce is their biggest challenge, now that federal tax reform has been dealt with,” Starns replied.
“Does the federal tax bill allow you to increase your workforce? “ Jackson asked, trying to get a straight answer, instead of deflections.
“Some will,” Starns said. “Some will increase the size of their building. Some will increase wages. They have a myriad of opportunities.”
“You just don’t have an answer whether you will increase your workforce, based on that legislation, right?”
“I don’t know how many times you’re going to want me to answer the same question,” Starns retorted.
“I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to ask the question before you’re going to provide an answer,” Jackson responded.
“I probably shouldn’t take anymore questions,” said Starns.
“You’re welcome to leave the table,” Jackson agreed.
(Afterward, Representative Jackson tweeted a request to meet with NFIB’s executive board, saying, “I find disrespect a hindrance to ever working together.” NFIB responded, “Happy to accommodate your request.”)
But back to the bill…it was amended to prohibit taking away anyone’s Medicaid benefits, and ultimately advanced to the full House on a 9-6 vote. HB 2, permitting Legislative Auditor access to state tax records in order to verify Medicaid eligibility, also advanced.
When the full House convened afterward, they punted consideration of any of the bills till Monday morning. The Senate, which convened a bit later, was left with nothing to do but wait on the House some more.
Meanwhile, chairman of the Senate’s Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee, J.P. Morrell, made his opinion of the”temporary sales tax” amendment clear.
“I’m not in support of temporary solutions to ongoing problems,” Morrell said. “This is how we got into this situation in the first place.”
The Saints’ offensive line was one of the best in the league last year, a performance unfortunately not reflected in any offseason accolades (guard Larry Warford made the Pro Bowl, but only as an alternate selection). The additions of Warford and Ryan Ramczyk elevated what had been a solid unit into an excellent one. The biggest concerns for the team in 2018 will be maintaining continuity and performance with the unit, and perhaps looking down the road for long-term solutions to replace aging players or impending free agents.
(Contract information is mostly taken from spotrac.com, with extra info supplemented by ourlads.com and overthecap.com when needed. Ages are as of the first day of the 2018 regular season, September 6.)
TACKLES2017 Players and Cap Information
Player
Age
2017 Cap Hit
2018 Cap Hit
Signed Through
Terron Armstead
27
$7,500,000
$13,500,000
2021
Ryan Ramczyk
24
$1,616,646
$2,020,808
2020 (TO for 2021)
Zach Strief
34
$6,100,000
$3,875,000
2018
Bryce Harris
29
$0*
N/A
Free Agent
As I mentioned in an earlier column, Ryan Ramczyk landing in New Orleans with the Saints’ #32 selection instead of their originally intended pick, Reuben Foster, ended up being a major blessing in disguise for the Saints. Even though he was originally supposed to have a “redshirt year” behind Terron Armstead and Zach Strief, Ramczyk immediately came in and played both tackle positions like a veteran, starting the season at left tackle while Armstead recovered from injury, moving to right tackle when Strief was lost for the season, and playing 100% of the snaps on offense, making him only one of two players to do so (Max Unger is the other). Ramczyk finished the season ranked as the #6 right tackle performance of the year on Bleacher Report’s NFL1000. He’s firmly entrenched as a long-term starter. (TO stands for team option, which all teams have on their first-round picks; the Saints will almost certainly pick up Ramczyk’s fifth-year option when the time comes, if they haven’t negotiated an extension before then.)
Terron Armstead is one of the most talented left tackles in the league, but his injury struggles have kept him from maximizing his full potential. He’s never played 16 games in a season and missed 15 games total in the last two seasons. The line has solutions for when he’s injured (Ramczyk or Andrus Peat), but still, $13.5 million is a large cap hit for someone who can’t stay on the field. Personally, I think Armstead is fantastic, and high quality left tackles in their prime don’t grow on trees. Still, the best ability is availability, and if Armstead continues to struggle through injuries, the Saints may try to get him to take a pay cut– he has similarly large cap hits for the remainder of his contract– or they can save $7.6 million in cap room next season by releasing him outright.
Zach Strief grew into a reliable mainstay at right tackle during his time in New Orleans, but Ramczyk firmly seized the job after Strief was lost for the season. Strief turns 35 a few weeks after the start of the 2018 season, and his age may affect how he recovers from injury. He’s in the last year of his contract, and his cap hit actually goes down in 2018, so if he recovers well enough that he can still capably fill in at swing tackle, it makes more sense to keep him, play him at right tackle if and when Armstead inevitably gets injured and Ramczyk moves to the left side, and then let him retire after the 2018 season (when they can also make a more definite decision about Armstead).
Bryce Harris was the emergency swing tackle signed off and on as the team suffered through offensive line injuries. (His actual full-season salary was $770,000, but my research suggests his salary didn’t count against the cap, probably because of the “top 51” rule.) He will probably again only be signed if the team is in an emergency on the line due to injuries.
GUARDS2017 Players and Cap Information
Player
Age
2017 Cap Hit
2018 Cap Hit
Signed Through
Larry Warford
27
$3,800,000
$9,000,000
2020
Andrus Peat
24
$3,107,317
$3,625,204
2018 (TO for 2019)
Senio Kelemete
28
$1,750,000
N/A
Free Agent
Cameron Tom
23
$273,529
$555,000
2018 (ERFA)
Landon Turner
25
$122,400
$555,000
2018 (ERFA)
John Fullington
27
$27,353
$555,000
2018 (ERFA)
Nate Theaker
24
$0*
$480,000
2018 (ERFA)
New Signings for 2018
Player
Age
2018 Cap Hit
Signed Through
Andrew Tiller
29
$790,000
2018
Warford was the Saints’ biggest free-agent signing of 2017, and in return for a player who had fallen out of favor in Detroit after a strong start to his career, the Saints got a Pro Bowl performance that filled in what was potentially the biggest question mark on the line after the team released eleven-year starter Jahri Evans. There’s no reason to think anything will change there; his cap number increases significantly due to his contract’s structure, but he’s not going anywhere.
Andrus Peat is a more interesting question. Drafted #13 overall in 2015, with the hopes his length and kick-step would make him a quality tackle, Peat instead showed difficulty playing on the right side and had to move inside to left guard, with Armstead entrenched at left tackle. He’s been a solid starter at the position, but he also broke his fibula in the Wild Card game against Carolina, which sets up some difficult questions for the future. The Saints will have to decide whether to exercise Peat’s fifth-year option, and Peat’s recovery from injury will play a significant factor in that decision, as will the fact that the NFL considers all offensive linemen for the average salary in that option, not just guards (who are less expensive than tackles, on the whole). If the Saints decline their option, finding a starter for 2019 and beyond takes on paramount importance.
Senio Kelemete could potentially be that option; the versatile swing lineman filled in at both guard positions and right tackle during the season, most commonly moving to left guard when Peat had to move to left tackle. He’s a free agent now, however, and while it would be a great benefit for the Saints to have him back in the same role, another team may want to pay him starter money, and that’s going to be tough to match.
The rest of the players listed are developmental and practice-squad players. Cameron Tom spent a fair amount of time on the active roster this season, though as far as I can tell he never played a snap. Landon Turner was a guard prospect I found intriguing in 2016 and was surprised he went undrafted, but he still hasn’t cracked the active roster.
Andrew Tiller was originally drafted by the Saints in 2012 and has bounced around the fringes of the league. They signed him to a futures contract in January.
CENTERS2017 Players and Cap Information
Player
Age
2017 Cap Hit
2018 Cap Hit
Signed Through
Max Unger
32
$8,000,000
$8,700,000
2019
Josh LeRibeus
29
$775,000
N/A
Free Agent
Jack Allen
25
$363,000
N/A
Free Agent (ERFA)
Gabe Ikard
27
$14,400
$630,000
2018 (RFA)
Max Unger continued his typically strong play in 2017; his age may become a concern soon, but he’s signed for two more years. He should still be a sturdy starter through the life of his deal, and I wouldn’t make any panic moves there unless he seriously falls off a cliff.
Josh LeRibeus filled in as a sixth offensive lineman on a number of plays; it’s not clear if the Saints intend to bring him back or not. Jack Allen is another guy I liked coming out of college, who went undrafted because he’s “undersized.” He was injured in the preseason and the Saints waived/injured him, reverting to IR when no one claimed him. (Hence why he’s an Exclusive Rights Free Agent rather than under contract again.) I wouldn’t be surprised if the Saints bring him back, and I even think there’s a chance he could be an option at center if Unger falls off or just when his contract runs out. Gabe Ikard was a late addition to the practice squad last season.
Again, there’s not much to discuss with the offensive line. Senio Kelemete and Josh LeRibeus are free agents, but if the Saints can’t bring them back, other options are out there on the free-agent market for depth, such as the Giants’ Justin Pugh. The starters are all locked in for at least two more years if the team picks up Peat’s fifth-year option, so analyzing what they might do this offseason is pretty dull. “Nothing much” is the most likely scenario.
Next week: The defensive line.