They were against it before they were for it
IN a recent media conference regarding the administration’s tax-hike proposal, the lt. governor said “even the U.S. Congress always talks about a tax hike.” True. Many of its members are usually in favor of raising taxes. But other U.S. lawmakers prefer tax cuts.
The governor, for his part, said “I do not want to raise taxes.” And yet he is proposing it. Which reminds us of a U.S. senator who once said, “I actually did vote for [it] before I voted against it.”
According to the governor, he has “no choice.” Of course he does. He said so himself: the other option is to reduce spending, but it involves “difficult choices.” He means choices that are unpopular with voters. To quote a former president of the European Commission, “We all know what should be done, it’s just that we don’t know how to get elected afterwards.”
The House Ways and Means Committee, for its part, got it right when it decided to “defund” vacant government positions — not all, but most of them. However, they would still be about $7 million short. (Sorry CUC; tax hike or no tax hike, you will be stiffed, again. As for government vendors — good luck collecting what you’re owed. But be sure to pay your taxes and fees on time. Or else.)
The House proposal, in any case, still has to be approved by the full House — and the Senate.
As we’ve said before, the main reason for the tax hike proposal is not because the administration actually believes it could collect the additional $9 million it needs. That will depend on the state of the economy, and the reaction of the tax hike’s intended, well, victims. The primary goal of the tax hike proposal is to “authorize” the administration to “project” an additional $9 million revenue — regardless of whether it would materialize or not. This “projection” will then allow for the expenditure of an “additional $9 million” regardless of the actual collections.
Hence, the governor also wants an expanded reprogramming authority. Lawmakers are likely to say, OK. And these lawmakers will include those who used to complain about his predecessor’s reprogramming powers.
As the governor said a few months ago, “It cannot be business as usual.”
Except when it is.
A teachable moment
THE legislative process could, and should be informative if not educational. Consider, for example, Senate Bill 23-42, which would “ban the importation, production, distribution and use of single-use plastic bags in the CNMI.”
Similar measures were introduced before; none made it out of committee.
This time, we hope public hearings will be conducted to, among other things, discuss the bill’s likely consequences. We should note that S.B. 23-42 includes reasonable exemptions, but we believe it’s time to raise several questions regarding such measures.
For example, will there be additional costs involved, and who will pay them? According to the Foundation of Economic Education, a study by a University of Sydney economist indicated that following a ban on plastic shopping bags, people purchased garbage bags to make up for the lost supply. There was “a huge upsurge in the purchase of 4-gallon bags. These bags are typically thicker than the thin plastic shopping bags and use more plastic.”
Should we ban trash bags, too?
The plastic bag ban, moreover, caused “a jump in the use of paper bags — creating, according to the study, about 80 million pounds of additional paper bag trash a year.” But hey; at least paper bags are biodegradable.
“Yes, but the process of manufacturing those bags is still quite intensive, and there’s evidence that paper bags are actually worse for the environment, according to some studies.”
So we should ban paper bags, too?
“As for the environmentally friendly reusable bags, studies have found that they create few ‘green’ benefits. Worse, they are often highly unsanitary.”
Someone should also ask the bill’s proponents: who will enforce the ban? Would it be the same government that cannot enforce its anti-littering act, among other laws?
Is it also reasonable to assume, that once this bill becomes law, the government will end up hiring additional personnel for “enforcement”?
Final question: are there alternatives to an outright ban?
