Louisiana Senate Approves Anti-Abortion Language, Denies $9 Minimum Wage


On Tuesday the Louisiana Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill to amend the state constitution to say that abortion is not considered a protected right.

The bill, which passed by a vote of 31-4 now goes back to the House for consideration due to Senate changes before being put before Louisiana voters in the fall.

In addition, Democratic Sen. Troy Carter shelved his proposal to amend the state constitution to set Louisiana’s minimum wage at $9 per hour, saying that he didn’t have the votes to pass the measure. This marks the fourth straight year a raise in the state minimum wage has been defeated.

“We give tax breaks to people who collect antique airplanes… but we can’t give the people of Louisiana a living wage. Shame on us if we continue to let this be our legacy,” Carter said.

The House labor committee killed a separate bill that would have allowed Louisiana’s cities the ability to set their own minimum wage earlier in the session.


Jenn Bentley is a writer and editor originally from Cadiz, Kentucky. Her writing has been featured in publications such as The Examiner, The High Tech Society, FansShare, Yahoo News, and others. When she’s not writing or editing, Jenn spends her time raising money for Extra Life and advocating for autism awareness.

Help Keep Big Easy Magazine Alive

Hey guys!

Covid-19 is challenging the way we conduct business. As small businesses suffer economic losses, they aren’t able to spend money advertising.

Please donate today to help us sustain local independent journalism and allow us to continue to offer subscription-free coverage of progressive issues.

Thank you,
Scott Ploof
Publisher
Big Easy Magazine


Share this Article

One thought on “Louisiana Senate Approves Anti-Abortion Language, Denies $9 Minimum Wage

  1. What would be better than raising the minimum wage by $X/week? A punitive “vacancy tax” on vacant land and unoccupied buildings, which property owners are so keen to avoid that it *reduces rents* by $X/week. Why would this be better? Because:
    (1) When you allow for income tax (and withdrawal of welfare, if applicable), a dollar *saved* is worth much more than a dollar *earned*.
    (2) By themselves, higher wages would be competed away in higher rents. Landlords might even try to raise rents by the *gross* increase in wages, not allowing for the Effective Marginal Tax Rate.
    (3) Nobody says lower rents would price workers out of a job! Indeed, the scramble to avoid the vacancy tax would *create* jobs. And the lower rents would create more jobs, because jobs can’t exist unless (a) the employers can afford business accommodation, and (b) the employees can afford housing within reach of their jobs, on wages that the employers can pay. (Implication: The tax should apply to both commercial & residential property.)
    (4) Why should employers pay for a problem caused by deadbeat landowners?
    (5) The economic activity driven by a vacancy tax would broaden the bases of other taxes, allowing their rates to be reduced, so that the rest of us would pay LESS tax!

Comments are closed.

Things to Do

Help Save Local Independent Journalism

Help us continue to bring you stories that matter by donating monthly or providing a one-time donation