Louisiana thrives when families can meet their basic needs—when people have access to food, health care, housing, and support in hard times. But a package of bills (House Bill 307, Senate Bill 100, Senate Bill 15) advancing in the Legislature would destabilize these safety-net programs, making them harder to administer and putting new barriers in the way of the very people they are meant to help. A new issue brief from Invest in Louisiana’s Sissy Phleger explains:
These bills embed immigration enforcement into Louisiana’s safety net, with little guidance and high stakes. Lawmakers should reject HB 307, SB 100, and SB 15. Louisiana’s public servants are already doing critical work under complex and shifting conditions. They deserve clear guidance, proper resources, and the trust of lawmakers—not vague mandates that expose them to unnecessary risk. HB 307, SB 100, and SB 15 must be stopped or seriously reconsidered before irreversible harm is done.
HB 307 is scheduled for debate in the Senate Judiciary B Committee on Tuesday. SB 15 is scheduled for debate on the House floor on Tuesday.
A misguided focus on work requirements
The cost-saving goals included in the House-passed reconciliation bill rely heavily on new or enhanced work requirements for participants of safety-net programs. The Washington Post’s Rachel Siegel, Daniel Wu and Fenit Nirappil explain how this policy shift represents changing views on who deserves federal benefits:
“We have never required a 64-year-old single widow who’s taking care of her grandchild to work in order to be able to receive SNAP benefits,” said Lauren Bauer, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, referring to the food assistance program for low-income families. “And I guess that’s going to change.”
Most recipients of safety-net programs are already working or qualify for an exemption. Work requirements increase hardship, but do not increase employment:
In Georgia, for example, just 12,000 of nearly 250,000 newly eligible recipients received Medicaid after the state implemented work requirements. That was in part because people who worked had a tough time proving it to state officials or their work didn’t meet certain qualifications. Finally, those against the policies say even people with jobs sometimes need help making ends meet — so pushing recipients to work wouldn’t necessarily solve their household budget problems. Homelessness is worsening among the employed, and inflation often falls hardest on poorer people.
Harmful changes to federal Child Tax Credit
The sprawling tax and spending bill moving through Congress would increase the federal Child Tax Credit from $2,000 to $2,500. But the credit would continue to exclude many poor families that earn too little to qualify, and most of the benefits would flow to upper-income families. Robert Greenstein, writing for Brookings, explains:
Increasing the full credit amount to $2,500 per child, for example—as the House reconciliation bill does—would result in no increase in the credit whatsoever for millions of children in low-income working families, and the poorest 20 percent of families with children overall would receive just 2 percent of the new CTC benefits. The top 20 percent of families with children, by contrast, would get nearly 10 times as much in new CTC benefits, with a family with two children not losing eligibility for the CTC until its income reached $500,000.2 And the top two-fifths of families with children would get twice as much in new CTC benefits as the bottom two-fifths.
Greenstein provides a better alternative:
The [Tax Policy Center] analysis shows that starting the phase-in of the CTC with a family’s first dollar of earnings (rather than its $2,501st dollar) and phasing in the credit at a 15 percent rate per child (rather than per family) would cost $48.5 billion over 10 years.3 Changes such as these and similar proposals would raise substantial numbers of children in working-poor families out of poverty or make them less poor. Tax writers also could consider providing the full credit to newborn children without regard to whether their families have earnings.
More GOP states embrace paid parental leave for teachers
The effort to provide paid parental leave for teachers and other public employees is starting to draw support in red states. South Carolina, Alabama, Iowa and Mississippi all recently passed laws to provide this crucial benefit. Stateline’s Anna Claire Vollers explains the economic argument that’s driving this bipartisan support:
For states such as Alabama and South Carolina that have some of the lowest workforce participation rates in the nation, paid leave can be a tool to keep more people — particularly women — working. And it can be a way to retain educators as many states struggle with teacher shortages in K-12 schools.
Legislation to provide paid leave for Louisiana teachers and support staff received initial support during last year’s legislative session. But the measure was ultimately pulled by its author because of concerns over cost.
Number of the Day
50.1% – Percentage share of Louisiana’s revenue that came from federal funds in fiscal year 2023, the highest in the nation. (Source: Pew Charitable Trusts)