No to tax hikes
THE fiscal year 2023 budget law does not include the tobacco and sugar-sweetened beverages tax hike provisions offered by the House because its conferees could not cling to such an ill-considered proposal without risking a partial government shutdown in an election year.
But some House members say they will continue pushing for a tobacco-beverage tax hike amid all this economic uncertainty. Fine. As long as they also conduct public hearings, seek comments from the business community, and review at least some of the studies and/or articles explaining why a tobacco-beverage tax hike is unlikely to raise more revenue or improve public health. They should also look into the tax hike’s well-known unintended consequences that may lead to even bigger problems.
Now if House members truly want to provide CHCC with more funds, then they should reduce the government’s unnecessary expenses starting with its duplicative or redundant offices and programs. The resulting savings can all be allotted to the hospital.
You say tobacco and sweetened beverages aren’t “necessities”? Neither is a bloated, overspending, overreaching, can’t-even-enforce-many-of-its-laws nanny state. Meanwhile, let’s all be grateful for checks and balances, a bicameral legislature and regular elections.
Next time, get your act together
CERTAIN politicians running for office believe that the recently concluded budget talks were all about “taking a stand.” Sure. The version of the budget signed into law is much closer to the original proposal that was also backed by the Senate. But no one’s keeping score. It wasn’t a competition.
Both houses could have reached a compromise in August or early September by doing what they eventually did a day before the deadline: get together with their legal counsels and the secretary of Finance, and hash out an agreement.
Government employees should not go through the ordeal of a possible government shutdown again just because some of their elected officials couldn’t tell the difference between a molehill and a mountain.
‘This’ and ‘that’ will cost a lot
THOSE who listened to the litany of promises that the candidates recited at their recent gubernatorial debate should wonder: who’s picking the tab?
The candidates’ go-to answer to most of the questions was to talk about “comprehensive” this and “prioritizing” that, “expanding” this, “creating” that while “providing” this and, not to forget, that. You don’t need a calculator to realize that their campaign pledges will require spending tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars each year, what with all those things they say they would build, create, invest in, provide, accomplish, implement.
And all that on top of this cash-strapped government’s most pressing and recurring financial obligations: government payroll, settlement fund payments, medical referrals, healthcare, utility payments, education, public safety/justice system, emergency/disaster response, among many other things.
And how do you “improve” the economy by raising the costs of doing business?
This, in any case, was one of the very few convincing statements made by the candidates:
“Thank God for being a U.S. citizen.”
