Stupidity Squared

(Bait and Switch Taxation)

In my last posting, Some People Just Aren’t Worth Their Salt, the Center for Science in the Public Interest caught my eye and I decided to do a little checking into their background and intentions.

First of all, like the names attached to most government legislation, the name of the “Center” made me suspicious of their motives. Their idea of “public interest” is probably quite different from my idea of “my interests.”

Now I’m sure that I am right.

Outside of a bunch of no-name PhD’s and Washington DC lawyers, the “Center’s” board of directors includes Miss Anne Bancroft. What the heck does Anne Bancroft know about anything but acting and cashing checks? Maybe marching in anti-war protests is also on her resume?

Next the words “Taxes” and “alcohol” caught my eye and I did a little reading about what the “Science Center” has going on in this area of “public interest.” Well, it didn’t take me long to figure out that their proposed solution was to raise state alcohol taxes to keep underage kids from drinking.

Instead of raising the price of legal adult’s cocktails, what about enforcing existing laws that are already on the books to keep kids from underage drinking? What about parents kicking their kid’s undisciplined asses, taking away their cars and cell phones and play stations and skateboards, and shoving their nappy heads off of the internet terminal and into the pages of a real hard bound book to learn something that might actually help them earn a living one day in the real world?

To support the “Center’s” thesis, they have three “state reports” published on their web site for 2004, Alabama, Connecticut, and Maryland.

I took the trouble to read the introduction to these “state reports” and guess what—the reports were not written by the states—they were written by the “center” on behalf of the states. The reports have basically the same wording if not the same logic and resulting logical errors. Here are some examples…

Alabama: “Entering fiscal year 2005, Alabama faces a revenue shortfall that may reach up to $510 million. In response, the Governor has proposed cutting the Medicaid program, reducing benefits of state workers, and instituting broad cuts in every state agency. Since Alabama must end the fiscal year with a balanced budget, it must cut services, increase revenues, or both. Raising beer excise taxes, last done in 1969, provides a rational, politically popular means of increasing state revenues.

Besides providing revenue, raising beer taxes may help reduce rates of alcohol-related problems, particularly among underage drinkers. Public opinion polls show that a strong majority support alcohol tax increases, especially when the money is earmarked for alcohol prevention and treatment programs.”

Connecticut: “Entering fiscal year 2005, Connecticut faces a revenue shortfall of up to $84.8 million. In response, the state government has cut education funding, raised tuition mid-year for state universities, and laid off state workers. The state faces continued decreases in revenues, and the deficit will likely grow. By law, since Connecticut must maintain a balanced budget, it must cut services, increase revenues, or both. Raising alcohol excise taxes, last done in 1989, provides one rational, politically popular means of providing needed new state revenues…(p)ublic opinion polls show that a strong majority support raising alcohol taxes, especially when the money is earmarked for alcohol prevention and treatment programs.”

Maryland: “Entering fiscal year 2005, Maryland faces an estimated revenue shortfall of $800 million. In response, the state government has steeply raised tuition for state public universities and has considered making further cuts to education and other state programs. The state faces continued decreases in revenues, and the deficit will likely grow. By law, since Maryland must maintain a balanced budget, it must cut services, increase revenues, or both. Raising alcohol excise taxes, last done in 1972 for beer and wine, and 1995 for liquor, provides one rational, politically popular means of providing needed new state revenues…(p)ublic opinion polls show that a strong majority support raising alcohol taxes, especially when the money is earmarked for alcohol prevention and treatment programs.”

Notice anything wrong with these three paragraphs? Besides being basically the same wording with a different state name tossed in, they all say that the respective state is facing a budget problem and is going to have to cut “programs” unless they find some more money to spend on the looser population. Can’t let that happen, can they? Nooooo!

And what is the proposed solution? RAISE TAXES, THAT’S WHAT.

Pick out a politically expedient group, declare that they are evil and even worse, that they are under taxed, and raise those taxes. Even worse, tell the public that you are going to use the money to keep kids from drinking and to treat all of the poor sots sitting around the public parks down town. That will guarantee that the tax increase will pass. Meanwhile, as a state lawmaker, with your fingers crossed behind your back, you actually intend to put most if not all of the money into the general budget to pay for the deficit spending you’re doing to buy the votes to get your sorry ass re-elected.

Isn’t that what they said originally—that there was a budget crisis? Forget about helping reform drunks and keeping The Beaver from drinking a Rum and Coke while the sitter isn’t looking, these morons just want more of our money to spend.

So you see, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (SCPI) should actually be called “The Center for Taxing the Ass off of Any Group Who Isn’t Paying Attention or is Politically Expedient to Tax.”

I’ve got to go take an Aspirin now.