www.thecentersquare.com – By John A. Pappas | iDevelopment and Economic Association – (The Center Square – ) 2025-05-07 14:24:00
Louisiana’s legal sports betting market has generated nearly \$68 million in tax revenue over the past year, contributing to the state’s economic growth. However, House Bill 639 threatens this progress by proposing a tax increase from 15% to 32.5%, which would make Louisiana one of the highest-taxed sports betting markets in the country. The bill risks discouraging investment, reducing consumer benefits, and pushing bettors to unregulated offshore sites. Advocates suggest that legalizing online casino gaming could generate significantly more revenue. The bill could undermine Louisiana’s tradition of fostering economic growth and responsible governance.
Louisiana’s legal sports betting market is working – and working well. Over the past 12 months, it has generated nearly $68 million in tax revenue, drawn investment from national and local companies, and created a safe, competitive environment for consumers.
That progress is now at risk.
House Bill 639 would more than double the tax rate on sports betting – from 15% to 32.5% – making Louisiana one of the highest-taxed markets in the country. As the leading trade association representing online gaming operators and suppliers, including those licensed right here in Louisiana, we believe this bill is not just bad policy – it’s bad economics.
Our members – ranging from small startups to major platforms – entered the market under a fair and stable regulatory framework. HB 639 changes the rules midstream. It penalizes companies for investing in the state and could discourage further growth just as the market is beginning to hit its stride.
Louisiana saw record betting activity around Super Bowl LVIII, a testament to what a well-calibrated system can deliver. But raising taxes now sends the wrong message to businesses and bettors alike. Higher taxes mean fewer promotions, worse odds for consumers, and less incentive for legal operators to expand. It also risks driving people back to unregulated offshore betting sites – where there are no tax revenues, no consumer protections, and no local economic benefit.
If lawmakers are looking for a meaningful and sustainable way to raise new revenue, legalizing online casino gaming is a far better path. A 2024 study by Vixio and Light & Wonder estimated that iGaming, taxed at the same 32.5% rate, could generate up to $250 million annually, nearly four times the amount collected from sports betting today.
Louisiana has long embraced policies that promote economic growth and responsible governance. HB 639 threatens to reverse that tradition. We urge lawmakers to maintain a stable business environment and pursue smarter, more forward-looking strategies for growth.
John A. Pappas is State Advocacy Director at iDevelopment and Economic Association
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Right
This article presents a clear ideological stance against House Bill 639, which would increase the tax rate on sports betting in Louisiana. The language emphasizes economic growth, market stability, and business interests, which are often associated with center-right positions. The article frames the bill as harmful to business investment and consumer interests, highlighting the negative effects of higher taxes on both companies and consumers. It advocates for a more market-friendly alternative, the legalization of online casino gaming, further reinforcing a pro-business, free-market perspective. However, the article avoids partisan rhetoric, maintaining a focus on economic arguments rather than aligning with a specific political party.
lailluminator.com – Jacob Fischler, Julia Shumway – 2025-05-13 17:17:00
The U.S. House Agriculture Committee’s part of a Republican tax and spending bill proposes transferring 5%-25% of the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to states, depending on error rates, starting in 2028. While aimed at reducing federal spending, critics warn this could lead to significant cuts or even an end to the program in some states, especially those with high error rates like Alaska and California. The bill would reduce \$290 billion in federal spending over ten years. Democrats argue it jeopardizes food security, with critics emphasizing the negative impact on vulnerable families.
The U.S. House Agriculture Committee’s portion of Republicans’ massive taxes and spending bill would partially shift to states the costs of the country’s largest food assistance program, which some experts and Democrats predicted will lead to major cuts in the program — and possibly even an end to it in some states.
The measure will be taken up by the panel Tuesday night and is expected to be voted on late Tuesday or early Wednesday, after which it will be folded into a larger reconciliation package with 10 other bills passed out of committees and sent to the floor. The entire House is set to vote on the legislation before Memorial Day.
The federal government currently pays for all Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits. A provision in the Agriculture Committee’s piece of Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” to enact President Donald Trump’s agenda would transfer between 5% and 25% of that cost to states, depending on each state’s payment error rate, starting in 2028.
The program provided about $100 billion in food assistance to nearly 42 million Americans last year, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Eligibility currently depends on tests related to income, assets, work requirements and more.
But the change in cost structure could lead states to opt out entirely, said Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the left-leaning economic think tank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, leading some needy families unable to pay for groceries.
“The language is unclear, but it could end SNAP entirely in some parts of the country if states decide the new state funding requirements are impossible for them to meet,” Cox said in a statement late Monday after the bill’s release. “The bill’s massive cuts disguised as ‘cost shifts’ pass the buck to states – but ultimately would leave families holding an empty grocery bag when states aren’t willing or able to backfill for lost federal funds.”
Republicans plan to use the reconciliation package to permanently extend the 2017 tax law, increase spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars, overhaul American energy production, restructure higher education aid and cut spending.
“Our budget reconciliation text restores SNAP to its original intent—promoting work, not welfare—while saving taxpayer dollars and investing in American agriculture,” House Committee on Agriculture Republicans said on X on Monday night.
Funding tied to error rate
Under the bill, states’ responsibility would rise with the broadly defined error rate of payments, which includes fraud as well as paperwork mistakes by a beneficiary or caseworker.
States with an error rate of 6% or less would be responsible for paying 5% of benefits, and those with an error rate higher than 10% would shoulder one-quarter of the cost of benefits.
Two other intermediate categories would exist for states with error rates between 6% and 10%.
Based on current data, more than half of states would fall into the highest category of error rates. The national average is 11.7% and more than two dozen states and territories have rates higher than 10%.
The states are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia. The District of Columbia also has an error rate over 10%, as do Guam and the Virgin Islands.
Alaska’s nation-leading 60% error rate would be nearly impossible to bring under 10% by the time the provision goes into effect, Jones Cox said in a Tuesday interview.
Only seven states — Idaho, Iowa, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming — would qualify for the lowest state cost-share.
$290 billion in cuts overall
The measure would incentivize states to control the $13 billion per year in erroneous payments, a House Agriculture Committee summary of the legislation said. The bill as a whole would cut $290 billion in federal spending over a 10-year budget window, according to the summary.
While congressional Republicans can claim they are not cutting benefits with the bill, the program would shrink with a lower federal cost-share, Jones Cox said.
“They can say it’s not a cut, because they’re going to say it’s just shifting those costs to the states,” she said. “But it is a cut because states, if they cannot fill the gap… that brings down the program, period.”
The changes would force state budget officers to choose from among a host of unattractive options: cutting SNAP, offsetting costs with corresponding cuts to other programs or raising revenues through taxes or other measures.
States “have a few options,” Jones Cox said. “None look good.”
Republicans are using the complex reconciliation process to move the package through Congress with simple majority votes in each chamber, avoiding the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, which would otherwise require bipartisanship.
Reconciliation measures must address federal revenue, spending, or the debt limit in a way not deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian. That means the GOP proposals must carry some sort of price tag and cannot focus simply on changing federal policy.
Democrats slam bill
On a press call Tuesday, Democratic officials and an anti-hunger nonprofit blasted the proposal.
Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, expressed skepticism that U.S. DOGE Service head Elon Musk could find a more efficient use of the $2 per meal SNAP provides during the call with other Democratic senators, Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek and the nonprofit, Hunger Free Vermont.
“This is not a waste, fraud and abuse deal,” Welch said. “This is really about taking away basic nutritional security that is so absolutely essential to the well-being of our families and our kids in Vermont and in every single state across the nation.”
Kotek, who started her political career as a policy advocate for the Oregon Food Bank, said she saw firsthand the effect of food insecurity. More than 700,000 Oregonians receive benefits from SNAP, and every dollar spent on SNAP generates another $1.50 to $1.80 in economic activity at grocery stores, farmers’ markets and other local businesses, Kotek said.
“When you cut SNAP, you’re not cutting bureaucracy,” she said. “You’re cutting a child’s dinner. You’re cutting their breakfast. You’re cutting their family’s dignity.”
One in four New Mexicans rely on SNAP, said Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M. The farmers and ranchers he represents also plan their farming season based on what grocery stores and food banks will need, and farmers already planted seeds with the idea that those vegetables will be used for school lunches and other food programs.
“The way to look at this is it’s not fiscally responsible,” Luján said. “It’s taking away from the hungry across America to make billionaires and millionaires even wealthier, and it’s going to even explode the deficit.”
Louisiana Illuminator is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: info@lailluminator.com.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
This article presents a detailed examination of a Republican-led proposal to shift costs of the SNAP program to states, highlighting concerns raised by Democrats and left-leaning experts about potential cuts to food assistance for vulnerable populations. While it covers the Republican perspective and the stated intent to promote work and fiscal responsibility, the emphasis on potential negative impacts, criticisms from Democratic officials, and references to data from a progressive think tank indicate a slight lean toward a center-left viewpoint seeking to emphasize social safety net preservation and skepticism of budget cuts to welfare programs. The coverage remains relatively balanced but favors the concerns and voices of Democrats and advocacy groups more prominently.
wgno.com – RONALD BLUM, Associated Press – 2025-05-13 16:27:00
SUMMARY: Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred reinstated Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson, making them eligible for the Hall of Fame. Rose’s permanent ban, lifted after his death, was part of a broader policy change, with bans now expiring upon death. Jackson, banned for his role in the 1919 Black Sox scandal, was also reinstated. Both are now eligible for Hall of Fame consideration under the “Classic Baseball Era” category starting in 2027. Rose, a 17-time All-Star, holds multiple MLB records. Rose’s supporters, including President Trump, have advocated for his reinstatement, though it remains unclear if a presidential pardon would affect his eligibility.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Nolan McKendry | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-05-13 16:05:00
Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed an executive order on Monday to shield the state’s colleges and universities from penalties if they directly facilitate compensation to student-athletes for their name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. This order comes amid national uncertainty over NIL regulation and the NCAA’s pending \$2.75 billion federal settlement. It protects Louisiana schools from NCAA sanctions but prohibits state funds for such payments. The order will remain until federal legislation or the NIL settlement takes effect. Additionally, a 2025 bill could exempt NIL income from state taxes for Louisiana athletes, aimed at keeping talent in the state.
(The Center Square) − Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry signed an executive order on Monday that attempts to shield the state’s colleges and universities from penalties if they directly facilitate compensation to student-athletes for their name, image, and likeness rights, a move that places Louisiana among the growing list of states taking unilateral action amid national uncertainty over how NIL should be regulated.
The order, effective immediately, comes as the NCAA awaits court approval of a $2.75 billion federal settlement in In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, which would allow schools to directly compensate athletes for NIL-related activities.
In the meantime, a patchwork of state laws and a lack of federal guidance have left schools navigating a legal gray area.
“Louisiana is proud to be home to student-athletes who consistently compete and win at the highest levels of college athletics,” Landry said in a statement. “As national policies and developments continue to reshape the landscape of college sports, this executive order is about fairness — for our Louisiana students, our schools, and our athletes.”
The order protects Louisiana colleges from “adverse action” by the NCAA, athletic conferences or other governing bodies if they facilitate or offer NIL compensation. However, it also prohibits the use of state-allocated funds for such payments.
The move won praise from higher education athletic leaders.
“This will afford all higher education institutions in the state of Louisiana the ability to remain nimble and at the forefront of the ever-changing college athletics landscape,” said LSU Athletic Director Scott Woodward.
Southern University’s athletic director, Roman Banks, echoed the sentiment. “I want to thank Governor Landry for the leadership he has demonstrated… by providing stability in the current landscape of collegiate sports.”
The executive order will remain in place until either federal NIL legislation is enacted or the proposed NIL settlement becomes effective.
Landry’s action follows a broader push in the state to support student-athletes in the NIL space. A bill pre-filed for the 2025 legislative session — House Bill 166, sponsored by Rep. Dixon McMakin, R-East Baton Rouge — would exempt NIL income from state taxes for student-athletes enrolled in Louisiana colleges, beginning in 2026.
“We want to try to level the playing field and keep our best and brightest in our state,” McMakin said in an earlier interview, noting that other Southern states like Alabama, Texas and Georgia are advancing similar tax incentives.
Under his proposal, athletes could deduct NIL income from state taxes, provided the money isn’t tied to endorsements involving alcohol, tobacco, gambling or other restricted categories.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article reports on Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry’s executive order related to student-athlete compensation for name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights without adopting or promoting a discernible ideological perspective. It presents factual information about the executive order, its context amid national uncertainty on NIL regulation, and includes statements from relevant officials and athletic directors. The tone is neutral, avoiding loaded or emotionally charged language, and provides balanced coverage of actions and policies without endorsing or criticizing any political viewpoint. Thus, it adheres to neutral, factual reporting rather than expressing an ideological stance.
