The vast majority of the attention given to the Bush tax cuts has been focused on changes in top marginal rates, the treatment of capital gains income, and the estate tax.  But another, less visible component of those cuts has been gradually making itemized deductions more unfair and expensive over the last five years.  Since the vast majority of states offering itemized deductions base their rules on what is done at the federal level, this change has also resulted in state governments offering an ever-growing, regressive tax cut that they clearly cannot afford. 

In an attempt to encourage states to reverse the effects of this costly and inequitable development, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) this week released a new report, "Writing Off" Tax Giveaways, that examines five options for reforming state itemized deductions in order to reduce their cost and regressivity, with an eye toward helping states balance their budgets.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia currently allow itemized deductions.  The remaining states either lack an income tax entirely, or have simply chosen not to make itemized deductions a part of their income tax — as Rhode Island decided to do just this year.  In 2010, for the first time in two decades, twenty-six states plus DC will not limit these deductions for their wealthiest residents in any way, due to the federal government's repeal of the "Pease" phase-out (so named for its original Congressional sponsor).  This is an unfortunate development as itemized deductions, even with the Pease phase-out, were already most generous to the nation's wealthiest families.

"Writing Off" Tax Giveaways examines five specific reform options for each of the thirty-one states offering itemized deductions (state-specific results are available in the appendix of the report or in these convenient, state-specific fact sheets).

The most comprehensive option considered in the report is the complete repeal of itemized deductions, accompanied by a substantial increase in the standard deduction.  By pairing these two tax changes, only a very small minority of taxpayers in each state would face a tax increase under this option, while a much larger share would actually see their taxes reduced overall.  This option would raise substantial revenue with which to help states balance their budgets.

Another reform option examined by the report would place a cap on the total value of itemized deductions.  Vermont and New York already do this with some of their deductions, while Hawaii legislators attempted to enact a comprehensive cap earlier this year, only to be thwarted by Governor Linda Lingle's veto.  This proposal would increase taxes on only those few wealthy taxpayers currently claiming itemized deductions in excess of $40,000 per year (or $20,000 for single taxpayers).

Converting itemized deductions into a credit, as has been done in Wisconsin and Utah, is also analyzed by the report.  This option would reduce the "upside down" nature of itemized deductions by preventing wealthier taxpayers in states levying a graduated rate income tax from receiving more benefit per dollar of deduction than lower- and middle-income taxpayers.  Like outright repeal, this proposal would raise significant revenue, and would result in far more taxpayers seeing tax cuts than would see tax increases.

Finally, two options for phasing-out deductions for high-income earners are examined.  One option simply reinstates the federal Pease phase-out, while another analyzes the effects of a modified phase-out design.  These options would raise the least revenue of the five options examined, but should be most familiar to lawmakers because of their experience with the federal Pease provision.

Read the full report.

The vast majority of the attention given to the Bush tax cuts has been focused on changes in top marginal rates, the treatment of capital gains income, and the estate tax.  But another, less visible component of those cuts has been gradually making itemized deductions more unfair and expensive over the last five years.  Since the vast majority of states offering itemized deductions base their rules on what is done at the federal level, this change has also resulted in state governments offering an ever-growing, regressive tax cut that they clearly cannot afford. 

In an attempt to encourage states to reverse the effects of this costly and inequitable development, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) this week released a new report, "Writing Off" Tax Giveaways, that examines five options for reforming state itemized deductions in order to reduce their cost and regressivity, with an eye toward helping states balance their budgets.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia currently allow itemized deductions.  The remaining states either lack an income tax entirely, or have simply chosen not to make itemized deductions a part of their income tax — as Rhode Island decided to do just this year.  In 2010, for the first time in two decades, twenty-six states plus DC will not limit these deductions for their wealthiest residents in any way, due to the federal government's repeal of the "Pease" phase-out (so named for its original Congressional sponsor).  This is an unfortunate development as itemized deductions, even with the Pease phase-out, were already most generous to the nation's wealthiest families.

"Writing Off" Tax Giveaways examines five specific reform options for each of the thirty-one states offering itemized deductions (state-specific results are available in the appendix of the report or in these convenient, state-specific fact sheets).

The most comprehensive option considered in the report is the complete repeal of itemized deductions, accompanied by a substantial increase in the standard deduction.  By pairing these two tax changes, only a very small minority of taxpayers in each state would face a tax increase under this option, while a much larger share would actually see their taxes reduced overall.  This option would raise substantial revenue with which to help states balance their budgets.

Another reform option examined by the report would place a cap on the total value of itemized deductions.  Vermont and New York already do this with some of their deductions, while Hawaii legislators attempted to enact a comprehensive cap earlier this year, only to be thwarted by Governor Linda Lingle's veto.  This proposal would increase taxes on only those few wealthy taxpayers currently claiming itemized deductions in excess of $40,000 per year (or $20,000 for single taxpayers).

Converting itemized deductions into a credit, as has been done in Wisconsin and Utah, is also analyzed by the report.  This option would reduce the "upside down" nature of itemized deductions by preventing wealthier taxpayers in states levying a graduated rate income tax from receiving more benefit per dollar of deduction than lower- and middle-income taxpayers.  Like outright repeal, this proposal would raise significant revenue, and would result in far more taxpayers seeing tax cuts than would see tax increases.

Finally, two options for phasing-out deductions for high-income earners are examined.  One option simply reinstates the federal Pease phase-out, while another analyzes the effects of a modified phase-out design.  These options would raise the least revenue of the five options examined, but should be most familiar to lawmakers because of their experience with the federal Pease provision.

Read the full report.

Earlier this month the Louisiana Budget Project released a report on state income tax cuts that says "Louisiana’s fiscal chickens are coming home to roost." Put in a less entertaining way, Louisiana simply doesn't have enough revenue to meet the needs of Louisianans and this is likely to be the case for many years to come unless lawmakers act quickly.

One reason for the state's woes is the legislation enacted in 2007 and 2008 that repealed important parts of a 2002 tax reform, commonly referred to as the Stelly plan, after its sponsor, Rep. Vic Stelly. The plan eliminated the state sales tax on utilities, food, and medicine and imposed tax increases on the better-off. The package was initially revenue-neutral, but over time it would have created more revenue for the state.

The report finds, "The revenue loss caused by the Stelly rollbacks, coupled with the impact of the national economic downturn and shortfalls in mineral revenues, leave Louisiana with insufficient revenues to maintain services at current levels at a time of growing needs." LANO estimates, with ITEP's help, that if the Stelly provisions hadn't been repealed, the state might not have faced a budget shortfall in 2010.

This week the Oklahoma Policy Institute released a report urging, among other things, that one of the state’s more ridiculous tax breaks be eliminated — specifically, the state income tax deduction for state income taxes.  This deduction was created not as a result of careful consideration and debate among Oklahoma policymakers, but rather as an accidental side-effect of the state’s “coupling” to federal income tax rules.  And as the New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee politely points out, while the deduction may make some sense at the federal level, the rationale for providing it at the state level is “less clear.”

Citing figures provided by ITEP, the Oklahoma Policy Institute notes that only one out of four Oklahomans would be affected by eliminating this deduction, and roughly 58% of the overall tax hike would be borne by those richest 5% of Oklahomans.  This is a predictable result of the deduction only being available to itemizers.  In total, the state could collect an additional $118 million in revenue each year by eliminating the deduction — revenue that could go a long way toward preserving important public services.

State income tax deductions for state income taxes have been receiving a growing amount of attention.  Last year, Vermont limited its deduction to a maximum of $5,000, while just last week New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson signed a budget eliminating his state’s deduction entirely.  The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute (GBPI) also highlighted the benefits of eliminating this deduction in a policy brief released just a few weeks ago.

In total, seven states currently offer this deduction: Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Vermont.  Eliminating the deduction in each of these states is long overdue.

This week, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), in partnership with state groups in forty-one states, released the 3rd edition of “Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States.”  The report found that, by an overwhelming margin, most states tax their middle- and low-income families far more heavily than the wealthy.  The response has been overwhelming.

In Michigan, The Detroit Free Press hit the nail on the head: “There’s nothing even remotely fair about the state’s heaviest tax burden falling on its least wealthy earners.  It’s also horrible public policy, given the hard hit that middle and lower incomes are taking in the state’s brutal economic shift.  And it helps explain why the state is having trouble keeping up with funding needs for its most vital services.  The study provides important context for the debate about how to fix Michigan’s finances and shows how far the state really has to go before any cries of ‘unfairness’ to wealthy earners can be taken seriously.”

In addition, the Governor’s office in Michigan responded by reiterating Gov. Granholm’s support for a graduated income tax.  Currently, Michigan is among a minority of states levying a flat rate income tax.

Media in Virginia also explained the study’s importance.  The Augusta Free Press noted: “If you believe the partisan rhetoric, it’s the wealthy who bear the tax burden, and who are deserving of tax breaks to get the economy moving.  A new report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and the Virginia Organizing Project puts the rhetoric in a new light.”

In reference to Tennessee’s rank among the “Terrible Ten” most regressive state tax systems in the nation, The Commercial Appeal ran the headline: “A Terrible Decision.”  The “terrible decision” to which the Appeal is referring is the choice by Tennessee policymakers to forgo enacting a broad-based income tax by instead “[paying] the state’s bills by imposing the country’s largest combination of state and local sales taxes and maintaining the sales tax on food.”

In Texas, The Dallas Morning News ran with the story as well, explaining that “Texas’ low-income residents bear heavier tax burdens than their counterparts in all but four other states.”  The Morning News article goes on to explain the study’s finding that “the media and elected officials often refer to states such as Texas as “low-tax” states without considering who benefits the most within those states.”  Quoting the ITEP study, the Morning News then points out that “No-income-tax states like Washington, Texas and Florida do, in fact, have average to low taxes overall.  Can they also be considered low-tax states for poor families?  Far from it.”

Talk of the study has quickly spread everywhere from Florida to Nevada, and from Maryland to Montana.  Over the coming months, policymakers will need to keep the findings of Who Pays? in mind if they are to fill their states’ budget gaps with responsible and fair revenue solutions.

A little over a year ago, we told you about a ridiculous law in South Carolina that provided for a sales tax "holiday" on purchases of handguns, rifles, and shotguns (later ruled unconstitutional for technical reasons, though only after the holiday had already taken place).  Little did we know then that the idea would actually catch on.  Louisiana enacted a similar "holiday" last month, upping the ante by exempting not only handguns, rifles, and shotguns, but also bows, crossbows, hunting knives, arrows, ammunition, rifle scopes, holsters, and much more.  Unbelievably, the idea is reportedly receiving attention in Texas and Kentucky as well.

The Louisiana holiday is scheduled to occur each year on the first consecutive Friday through Sunday in September.  During that weekend, neither state nor local sales taxes will be collected on a variety of items the legislature has declared worthy of being included in its "Second Amendment Holiday." 

But it's not hard to imagine how many of those exemptions will pose serious administrative problems.  With some exempt items, such as tree stands, there seems to be little room for confusion.  In other cases however, the state has decided to exempt a variety of multi-purpose items based on whether they were designed, marketed, or even simply purchased for use while hunting (e.g. some items must be designed with hunting in mind, while others need only be purchased by somebody with the intent to hunt).  Items falling into this category include off-road vehicles, animal feed, boots, bags, binoculars, chairs, belts, and various types of camouflage clothing. 

Apparently, according to this list of tax-exempt items, you can look at a bird through tax-free binoculars, but only if you intend to kill it.  Ensuring that these items are really purchased by individuals with "Second Amendment" intentions will no doubt prove impossible.

The bill's official fiscal note hints at a further complication involved with this holiday.  Specifically, it explains that the state will pay retailers $25 for each cash register they re-program to calculate "Second Amendment" items as being tax-free.  On top of that, the state will pay $25 more when the register is re-programmed, back to normal, at the end of the holiday.  Official estimates are that it could cost Louisiana taxpayers up to $100,000 to help retailers make the necessary modifications.  Since the holiday is only expected to result in $263,000 per year in tax savings, this $100,000 cost is not a trivial concern.  And keep in mind, Louisiana taxpayers not purchasing weapons will be helping to pay this $100,000 tab to benefit their soon-to-be well-armed neighbors.

The inevitably complicated nature of sales tax holidays is just one of their many flaws -- as explained in this ITEP Policy Brief.  But despite all their problems, at least typical "back-to-school" sales tax holidays can be interpreted as a misguided attempt to make life easier for families with school-age children.  When it comes to these "Second Amendment Holidays," however, it's hard to see what exactly lawmakers are trying to gain, other than a pat on the back from the NRA.

Like just about every other state in the nation, Louisiana faces a serious budget deficit, one that some analysts believe could reach as much as $2 billion (almost one-fifth of its general fund budget) in the coming year. Unlike other states, though, Louisiana has an option for closing a substantial portion of that gap that would not entail cutting spending below current levels or raising taxes above what people currently pay.

What is this seemingly "free lunch"? Well, policymakers in Louisiana could significantly shrink the projected deficit by cancelling -- or at the very least, suspending -- the substantial tax cuts that have been enacted over the last two years but that have yet to take effect. In July 2007, Louisiana adopted a change in its personal income tax that will ultimately allow some Louisianans to reduce their incomes for state tax purposes by the full difference between their federal itemized deductions and their federal standard deduction (often referred to as "excess itemized deductions"). That change was to be implemented in three stages, with the final stage scheduled to occur this year.

In June 2008, the state made another change to the income tax, expanding the bottom tax bracket so that more of people's incomes would be taxed at a rate of 2 percent instead of the top rate of 4 percent. While this latter change was far more significant in size, it was also delayed in effect; Louisiana residents won't see any change in tax withholding until July.

Repealing these cuts -- or delaying them, as Lieutenant Governor Mitch Landrieu recently advocated -- would bring in at least $350 million more in tax revenue each year than is now expected, yet the level of taxes Louisianans would pay would stay exactly the same as it is today.

For more about Louisiana's budget situation, visit the Louisiana Budget Project's web site.

We've recently highlighted a variety of progressive revenue raising options gaining serious attention in New York and Wisconsin. This week we bring you yet another idea that's recently been the subject of debate, though this one applies to fewer states. Those seven states still offering income tax deductions for federal taxes paid (i.e. Alabama, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Louisiana, and Oregon), should immediately repeal, or at the very least dramatically scale back, that deduction.

The federal income tax deduction takes what is perhaps the best attribute of the federal income tax -- its progressivity -- and uses it to stifle that very attribute at the state level. Since wealthy taxpayers generally pay more in federal taxes than their less well-off counterparts, allowing taxpayers to deduct those taxes from their income for state income tax purposes is a gift to precisely those folks who need it least. And since most state income tax systems possess a degree of progressivity, those better-off taxpayers who face higher marginal tax rates are benefited even more by being able to shield their income from tax via this deduction.

Iowa Governor Chet Culver most recently drew attention to this problem while urging lawmakers this week to end the deduction. The idea has also recently garnered attention in Missouri, where ITEP recently testified on a bill that would, among other changes, eliminate the deduction. Finally, another bill making its way through the Alabama legislature seeks to end the deduction for upper-income Alabamians.

With three of the seven states that still offer this deduction considering its elimination, this is definitely one progressive policy change to keep an eye on.

States' collective fiscal outlook appears to be quite dim and could get even darker in the months ahead according to a report released this week by the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). The report notes that, in the aggregate, states experienced a $40 billion budget gap for fiscal year 2009, a chasm that has been bridged largely through reductions in spending.

Not every state's budget is shrouded in gloom, however. Some states derive significant revenue from severance taxes (taxes imposed on the extraction of natural resources like oil and natural gas) and have economies closely tied to these industries. These states, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wyoming for example, are enjoying substantial budget surpluses.

Given the volatility of energy markets, these surpluses are likely a temporary phenomenon, but that hasn't stopped states from considering and enacting tax cuts that would permanently reduce revenue. Earlier this year, Louisiana briefly weighed the idea of repealing its income tax altogether, only to settle on an oh-so-modest annual cut of $300 million. North Dakota has not only revived its property tax debate from a few years ago, but may also place on this November's ballot a measure that would slash the personal income tax by 50 percent and the corporate income tax by 15 percent. In this context, a plan backed by West Virginia Republicans to completely exempt groceries from the state sales tax appears far more reasonable in scope - and would certainly help to improve the progressivity of the state's tax system. However, it would still likely leave the Mountain State with inadequate revenues once oil and gas prices come back to earth.

Perhaps the most responsible - and fair - approach to surpluses generated by skyrocketing severance tax revenue comes from New Mexico, where Governor Bill Richardson this past week put forward a proposal to dedicate the majority of the state's projected $400 million surplus to one-time tax rebates and to highway construction. Richardson's proposal does contain some permanent changes in tax law, such as an expansion of the state's working families tax credit, but they appear to be targeted towards those low- and moderate-income taxpayers who are facing the greatest challenges from the nationwide foreclosure crisis and from rising fuel and food prices.

Policymakers in Louisiana this week took one of the final steps towards enacting an unfair and unaffordable personal income tax cut. On Wednesday, the House of Representatives unanimously approved SB 87, a measure that would repeal one more element of the landmark 2002 Stelly Plan, returning the level at which a married couple's income becomes subject to the state's top income tax rate of 6 percent from $50,000 to $100,000. (Single people will also derive some benefits from the bill, as it would push back the start of their top bracket from $25,000 to $50,000.)

As new reports from the Louisiana Budget Project (LBP) and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) show, however, SB 87 not only ignores the Bayou State's perilous long-term fiscal condition, but also the impact of its current tax system on low- and moderate-income Louisianans. While Louisiana may be temporarily flush with revenue due to escalating oil prices, as LBP points out, general fund revenue is expected to decline by 1.5 percent on average over the next four years; indeed, the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana further notes, "even if oil prices remain high, state revenues are projected to drop by $377 million from 2009 to 2010". Cutting personal income taxes by $300 million or so, as SB 87 would do, would only add to Louisiana's long-term fiscal woes.

SB 87 also directs the vast majority of its benefits to the most affluent taxpayers in the state, when those taxpayers already pay a much smaller portion of their incomes in taxes than working Louisianans do. Roughly 75 percent of the tax cut that would be spawned by SB 87 would go to the wealthiest fifth of Louisianans, while taxpayers in the bottom two-fifths of the income distribution would see virtually no change in their taxes. Conversely, as ITEP's latest analysis demonstrates, the poorest 40 percent of non-elderly Louisianans paid upwards of 12 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2006, while the very best-off one percent paid the equivalent of just 6.4 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes. Of course... and leaving questions of fiscal responsibility aside -- far more progressive options for cutting taxes (such as reducing Louisiana's sales tax rate or lowering its bottom income tax rate) were available to the members of the Louisiana House, if only they had chosen to pursue them.

The House's version of SB 87 must now be reconciled with the version passed by the Senate earlier this year, but few should expect this to improve the measure any. The version passed by the Senate ultimately would have repealed the income tax in its entirety, making the House's approach seem positively responsible and equitable in comparison.

Last week, Louisiana's House Ways and Means Committee approved a measure (SB 87) to repeal one more element of the state's 2002 "Stelly Plan," marking further retreat from that landmark legislation's principles of tax fairness, adequacy, and stability. As reported by the Ways and Means Committee, SB 87 would raise the income levels at which married couples begin to pay the state's top 6 percent income tax rate from $50,000 to $100,000 (and from $25,000 to $50,000 for single people). As a result, the measure would reduce annual income tax revenue by close to $300 million per year, but would only cut taxes for the one-third of Louisianans who currently pay at the 6 percent rate. In fact, more than a quarter of the bill's benefits would accrue to the wealthiest 5 percent of Louisianans.

While the Committee's version of the measure is certainly an improvement over the version adopted by the Senate -- which would have repealed the state income tax altogether -- less expensive, more fair, and farther reaching alternatives are available.

A new analysis, jointly released by Louisiana 's Agenda for Children and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, offers one such alternative. It shows that, by expanding the state's bottom income tax bracket -- instead of shrinking its top bracket -- and by strengthening its EITC, Louisiana policymakers could cut taxes for twice as many people... but at half the cost of SB 87. Such an alternative would lower the taxes paid by slightly more than three-quarters of Louisianans, while reducing annual income tax collections by roughly $130 million. The alternative would not only provide a larger average tax cut to middle-income Louisianans, but would also ensure that the bulk of the tax reduction it would produce would go to the bottom 60 percent of the income distribution. Other alternatives -- such as reducing Louisiana 's lowest income tax rate or lowering the state's sales tax rate -- would also be preferable to SB 87 from a tax fairness perspective

Given the highly regressive nature of Louisiana's current tax system -- as of 2006, the poorest 20 percent of Louisianans faced an effective tax rate that was more than twice that of the richest 1 percent -- the need for such an equity-enhancing alternative is clear. It's now up to Louisiana's elected officials to respond.

In the eyes of most fiscal policy experts, there are a few commonly accepted principles for judging tax policy -- neutrality, horizontal and vertical equity, and enforceability, to name a few. Apparently, in the eyes of one Louisiana legislator, "cutesy" now ought to be added to the list.

As the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported earlier this week, Sen. Joe McPherson apologized to his colleagues for casting the deciding vote in favor of an amendment to repeal the state's income tax, which currently yields nearly $3 billion per year. It seems that the Senator expected the amendment to lose, but "wanted to be on the record as doing away with income taxes." He later owned up to being "cutesy" with his vote.

The bill that Senator McPherson and his colleagues voted to amend would have repealed yet another element of the 2002 Stelly plan, which substantially improved the fairness of Louisiana's tax system. Just last year, Pelican State lawmakers voted to reinstate the "excess" itemized deductions that had been eliminated as part of the Stelly plan, a move that cost the state more than $150 million in tax revenue annually and that benefits only the wealthiest 20 percent of taxpayers.

The bill being debated now was intended to raise the income tax brackets that had been lowered under the Stelly plan. It would have (before being amended) reduced state revenue by roughly a quarter of a billion dollars per annum and, despite the claims of proponents, yet again help the most affluent. As the Times-Picayune notes, the bill's proponents portray it as a prototypical "middle-class tax cut", but preliminary estimates from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy indicate that more than 70% of the benefits from changing Louisiana's income tax brackets would accrue to the wealthiest fifth of taxpayers.

Louisiana is the number three film producing state in the nation, but behind the multi-million dollar films and flashy actors lies the dirty side of what can only be called the state's tax credit industry. As explained by an article in the magazine Fast Company, the FBI is investigating whether or not a company was improperly granted film production tax credits, which in Louisiana can be converted to cash by resale to another party that pays state taxes. One credit granted was worth more than the entire budget of the film produced. In 2002, when the state first developed these credits there wasn't even a system in place for the independent auditing of expenditures.

Louisiana's former Film Commissioner, Mark Smith, is currently under investigation and, in a perhaps predictable twist, now works for the movie industry. The lack of oversight is not the only reason to question the whole idea of tax credits for film production. Their impact on economic development is questionable, particularly since nearly all states now have some type of film tax credit.

Louisiana's 8-week legislative session came to a close late last month and Governor Kathleen Blanco has signed a variety of bills into law. HB 365 allows state income tax filers to claim the same itemized deductions they claim on their federal returns. The problem is, only the wealthiest 20 percent of Louisianans itemize. The estimated $157 million the provision will cost could be put to better use. SB 3 provides a "sales tax holiday" on the first Friday and Saturday in August and applies to the first $2,500 spent by consumers.The bill makes the holiday permanent and was introduced as a "back-to-school" benefit.The only improvement in tax fairness isSB 341, a progressive bill that provides for a refundable state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), equal to 3.5 percent of the federal EITC.This will distribute $40 million in refunds to low-income Louisianans (about 29 percent of all filers) on Tax Day.

Louisiana's 2007 legislative session came to an end yesterday. Fueled by large projected budget surpluses, lawmakers spent the session pondering all sorts of options for tax cuts, ranging from smokestack-chasing tax giveaways to tax breaks for struggling artists. In the end, lawmakers took an important first step towards tax fairness by enacting a refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, thanks in part to the work of the Louisiana Budget Project. But legislators took a step backwards as well, expanding the ability of the wealthiest Louisianans to claim the same itemized deductions they took on their federal tax forms. This move is estimated to benefit only 20 percent of Louisiana families. Left to be seen is whether Governor Kathleen Blanco might veto these high-end cuts.