BCT Editorial – 5/27/07

This page was last updated on May 27, 2007.

Building a future; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 27, 2007.

This is simply the latest in a string of editorials over the past year that lobbied against using slot machine tax revenue to offset some local property taxes.

As a reminder, I have no problem with legalized gambling. I would have no problem with all “mainstream” forms of gambling being legal. My problem is with using so-called “sin taxes” to fund government operations and the confiscatory tax rates placed on gambling revenue.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Instead of wasting revenue from slots machines to provide minor property tax relief, Gov. Ed Rendell and state lawmakers should use the funds to invest in the commonwealth’s future.”

[RWC] The first paragraph tells us pretty much all we need to know about the Times position regarding taxes. Cutting taxes is “wasting revenue.”

“That’s because the state faces enormous infrastructure demands that cannot be ignored.

“A commission appointed by Rendell last year concluded $1.7 billion will be needed to upgrade the state’s roads and bridges and to fund mass transit.”

[RWC] Let the fare box “fund mass transit.”

“In addition to that, the cost of maintaining existing highways and bridges is getting more expensive. The high price of fuel is driving up the cost of oil-containing asphalt, other road oils and crushed stone. As a result, state and local governments are using more money to maintain the status quo.

“But it’s not just the state’s roads and bridges that face huge funding gaps. Witness the consent agreement the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority signed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to fix its sewer overflow problem within 25 years.

“Under the agreement, Alcosan and its member municipalities - 83 in all - must come up with a plan that is expected to cost $1 billion. Almost all of the money to pay for the undertaking will come from its 320,000 customers.”

[RWC] Isn’t that how it should be? The best and least expensive way to address our needs is to require local governments and quasigovernment authorities to resolve their own problems and do so with local taxes and/or user fees. The quickest way to drive up the taxpayer cost is to permit local governments to dump their responsibilities on state and federal taxpayers.

“Alcosan’s problems are not unique. Sewer authorities throughout the region and state are struggling to pay for federal clean-water mandates. Acid-mine drainage also must be addressed.

“Roads and bridges, sewer lines and clean drinking water: these are the foundations of a modern society, and all are woefully underfunded.

“This brings us back to the revenue from slot machines, which could generate as much as $1 billion for the state. (We still think that estimate is overly optimistic, but it’s the figure that most people cite.)

“About one-third of that $1 billion is to be set aside for property tax relief. That was a major selling point for implementation of the state’s big-time jump into legalized slots gambling.

“But given the commonwealth’s enormous infrastructure needs, it doesn’t make sense to squander slots revenue on minor property relief. Most property owners would only see their school district taxes go down a couple of hundreds dollars.”

[RWC] It’s nice to know the editorial authors can turn up their noses at “a couple of hundred dollars” per year. What about the “working poor” editorials we read? Do the so-called “working poor” exist only when it’s convenient for an editorial?

“Given the overwhelming rejection of Act 1, it’s hard to argue that the people of Pennsylvania are panting for property tax relief. (We believe one reason this is even on the political radar is that property taxes are the only major levy that senior citizens in Pennsylvania pay.)

“Instead of wasting revenue on short-term politics, let’s use the revenue from slots to build a better future for Pennsylvania. The best way to do that is to put the money back into the state’s roads and bridges and its water and sewer lines.”

[RWC] Again, note how letting taxpayers keep some of their own earnings is “wasting revenue.”

“Making the switch won’t be easy, politically or legislatively, but it’s worth undertaking.”

[RWC] Editorial authors appear to share a common trait with many trial lawyers. Nothing shames them.

In “Mere words” and other editorials, the Times complained of profligate spending by Republicans. As I noted in my critiques of those editorials, “What hypocrisy! Other than for purely political reasons (usually Bush and/or Republican bashing), how many editorials did the Times publish advocating reduced spending and reducing “the massive federal bureaucracy?”

As if on cue, here’s another editorial advocating more spending without offsetting spending cuts. Again quoting a previous critique, “Op-ed inconsistencies [hypocrisy] like these tend to be the result of positions based on political calculations and/or unsound underlying economic, political, and social principles.”