BCT Editorial – 9/4/08

This page was last updated on September 7, 2008.

Bench mark; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 4, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Drink-tax decision shows judges understand how government operates.”

That the tax-happy Times supported a decision upholding a tax should come as no surprise. What’s sad, though typical, is the reasoning behind the editorial’s support of the Court’s decision.

Before I proceed, I want to be clear that I’m no lawyer and I don’t know if the Court’s decision is supported in law or not. I’m only addressing the editorial’s “logic.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Surprise, surprise. We live in a representative democracy.

“Actually, the decision by a panel made up of three Allegheny County judges to toss two ballot measures dealing with the county’s 10 percent drink tax off the ballot should have come as no surprise.

“As the judges pointed out, only county council can lower or raise taxes. (The judges became involved in the matter because the county elections board’s regular members, including county Executive Dan Onorato and two members of county council, had already taken positions on the issue.)”

[RWC] That would appear to be incorrect because the current limits on hotel, sales, use and real estate tax rates are/were voter-set limits.

“The county enacted the 10 percent drink tax and a $2-per-day rental car tax in January to help fund its mass transit system. It had only one other option under rules set by the Legislature — raising property taxes.”

[RWC] Not so. The county could have cut spending elsewhere or in the mass transit system itself. Indeed, if the county must run a mass transit system, why shouldn’t it be funded solely by fare box revenue?

“Then the games began.”

[RWC] Attempting to get your taxes reduced is a “game?”

“A group called Friends Against Counterproductive Taxation, which called its movement ‘Whiskey Rebellion II,’ collected enough signatures to put a referendum on the ballot that would have asked voters to slash the drink tax to 0.5 percent.

“Not to be outdone, county council cooked up its own referendum that would have asked voters to choose between eliminating the drink levy and raising property taxes.”

[RWC] The editorial failed to note the county question was likely illegal for at least two reasons. First, the charter doesn’t give council the authority to put a referendum on the ballot except when attempting to amend the charter. Second, the county’s question appeared to violate the prohibition of a two-subject question.

“Where did these people think they were? California?

“Fortunately, the judges, who understand the principles under which American government operates better than the anti-tax group or county council, ruled that neither question could legally be put to voters.

“The former apparently has not learned its lesson. The Associated Press reported Friends Against Counterproductive Taxation plans to appeal the decision to the county Court of Common Pleas or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.”

[RWC] Not only shouldn’t citizens use their right to a referendum, now the Times doesn’t want us to use our right of appeal. Does anyone care to guess what the Times position on an appeal would have been if FACT had won and it was County Council seeking an appeal?

“Let’s hope those judges have the same grasp of representative democracy and how it is supposed to operate that the three Allegheny County judges did.”

[RWC] So let me get this straight. When the county charter specifically provides for voter-initiated referenda, there’s something wrong with using that avenue?

Representative democracy and the referendum are not mutually exclusive concepts. Indeed, review the Pennsylvania Constitution and you’ll find it frequently refers to the referendum.