Home » Opinion » Editorials
January 16. 2013 11:21PM
The one thing liberals enjoy taxing almost as much as "the rich" is sin. It is not because they believe being rich is also a sin, although many do. It is because sins, like the rich, are hard to defend, and therefore easier to tax.
In New Hampshire this played out in the general election as Maggie Hassan and other Democrats campaigned hard on hiking the tobacco tax. Though they advocated increasing state spending by hundreds of millions of dollars, the only tax Hassan and many others would advocate raising was the tobacco tax, and then only by enough to raise about $20 million a year.
Now a couple of Democratic House members want to raise the state beer tax by 33 percent, from 30 cents a gallon to 40. The money, they propose, will go to the state's alcohol abuse prevention and treatment fund. "Government serves a necessary service that isn't provided by the private sector," bill sponsor Rep. Charles Weed, D-Keene, said. And here you have the political game by which the left imposes heavier taxes than the public would otherwise accept.
The trick is to impose the tax on something (or someone) that can be portrayed as bad while dedicating the money to something (or someone) that can be portrayed as good. It is not enough to propose raising taxes for the good cause. It is the combination of good vs. bad that makes the trick work because opponents are left not defending low taxes in general, but low taxes on the Bad Thing.
Never mind that, despite Weed's assertion, Alcoholics Anonymous and other services for people with alcohol problems do exist in the private sector. Never mind that the state's alcohol abuse prevention and treatment fund already has a dedicated source of revenue - state liquor sales proceeds (which politicians divert to other uses). Never mind that the beer tax is a regressive tax. It's not about actually funding essential government services or finding the right mix of revenue sources. It's about demonizing specific sectors of the economy to squeeze from each one as much revenue as possible. And it is not going to stop with tobacco and beer.
Beer tax hikes: What they're really about
In New Hampshire this played out in the general election as Maggie Hassan and other Democrats campaigned hard on hiking the tobacco tax. Though they advocated increasing state spending by hundreds of millions of dollars, the only tax Hassan and many others would advocate raising was the tobacco tax, and then only by enough to raise about $20 million a year.
Now a couple of Democratic House members want to raise the state beer tax by 33 percent, from 30 cents a gallon to 40. The money, they propose, will go to the state's alcohol abuse prevention and treatment fund. "Government serves a necessary service that isn't provided by the private sector," bill sponsor Rep. Charles Weed, D-Keene, said. And here you have the political game by which the left imposes heavier taxes than the public would otherwise accept.
The trick is to impose the tax on something (or someone) that can be portrayed as bad while dedicating the money to something (or someone) that can be portrayed as good. It is not enough to propose raising taxes for the good cause. It is the combination of good vs. bad that makes the trick work because opponents are left not defending low taxes in general, but low taxes on the Bad Thing.
Never mind that, despite Weed's assertion, Alcoholics Anonymous and other services for people with alcohol problems do exist in the private sector. Never mind that the state's alcohol abuse prevention and treatment fund already has a dedicated source of revenue - state liquor sales proceeds (which politicians divert to other uses). Never mind that the beer tax is a regressive tax. It's not about actually funding essential government services or finding the right mix of revenue sources. It's about demonizing specific sectors of the economy to squeeze from each one as much revenue as possible. And it is not going to stop with tobacco and beer.
- Another View -- Glenn Normandeau: Protecting endangered non-game species a NH success story - 1
- Charles Krauthammer: Redacted truth, subjunctive outrage - 0
- David Harsanyi: Get the IRS out of the speech business altogether - 9
- Another View -- Ryan Gallagher: The U.S. government spies on reporters all too frequently - 4
- John Stossel: Who has true grit anymore? - 0
- Another View: New Hampshire would take a risky bet on casinos - 6
- Ramesh Ponnuru: In flextime fight, liberals play to their stereotype - 0
- Jonah Goldberg: Benghazi's smoking guns - 1
- Another View: Nashua does need to conduct its own review of commuter rail - 1
Jonah Goldberg: The IRS was only following Obama's lead
READER COMMENTS: 0- Updated: Man fatally shot on Manchester street; neighbors shocked - 3
- Nashua mayor to recommend Bennett for corporation counsel - 0
- Claremont group disputes incinerator plant's permit - 0
- Goffstown artisan gives new face to Wolfeboro tower - 0
- Katie McQuaid's Scene in Manchester: Kiwanis and the kids - 0
- Town may have to fix grave error - 0
- Gate City Musings: Mayor just keeps on spending - 0
- Nashua set to begin budget review - 0
- Manchester 'homeless meter' program seeks to deter panhandling - 0
Manchester alderman urges review of police phone use
READER COMMENTS: 0
Sorry, no question available



