|
Vote “No” on AB78: A Tax Hike on Elk
Hunters
By Chuck Muth
March 4, 2015
One of the big
lessons I leaned as a kid attending a Catholic school in Baltimore is that some
people can rationalize anything. And I
mean anything. Including breaking in the
worst of the 10 Commandments.
And with that
in mind, it’s time for our biennial visit to the plain English of the Taxpayer
Protection Pledge, in which candidates promise their constituents that they
will “oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.”
AB78 is a tax hike.
The first clue
is the fact that the first line of the bill reads: “REQUIRES TWO-THIRDS
MAJORITY VOTE.” By law, any bill that
will result in more money going to the government - a.k.a., a tax increase –
requires a 2/3 supermajority vote of the Legislature to pass.
Thank you,
again, Jim Gibbons!
So anyone who
campaigned on not raising taxes, and especially anyone who signed the Pledge,
should vote against AB78 because it’s an effort to increase taxes.
Ah, but the tax
hiker rationalizers are relentless. And
are able to rationalize any tax hike. So
let’s look at their rationalization arguments in support of AB78.
First, they say
it’s not a tax hike, it’s a “user fee.”
And raising a true user fee would not be a violation of the Tax
Pledge. But calling a fee that is not a
true user fee a user fee doesn’t change that fact that it’s a really tax.
A true “user
fee” is something like the fee you pay to rent out a picnic area in a public
park for a birthday party. You have the
option of paying the government a fee to use their facility or you can take
your business to a private facility for your birthday party.
Ditto swimming
pools. If you don’t want to pay the fee
to use a public swimming pool, you have the option of paying to use a private
swimming pool. THAT’S a true user fee.
A hunting
license is a tax, deceptively called a fee, because you have no choice but to
buy it from the government. There is no
private sector alternative where you can take your business elsewhere.
Indeed, in 2013
the tax hike rationalizers declared that a proposed increase in justice court
fees was a “user fee.” No it wasn’t,
because you have no private sector alternative.
The government has a monopoly on the court system.
But, say the
tax hike rationalizers, it IS a user fee because you can avoid it simply by not
hunting elk.
Nice try.
By that logic,
the folks who tried to raise the marriage license fee in 2009 could argue that you
can avoid the fee simply by not getting married. Or those who want to jack up the business
license fee this session could argue that you can avoid it simply by not
starting your own business.
The real
question for conservatives shouldn’t be whether or not a hunting license is a
tax or a “user fee,” but why a government-issued license to hunt is needed in
the first place. Can you imagine someone
telling George Washington and Thomas Jefferson they needed a government
“license” to go duck hunting?
Here’s another
argument from the elk hunting license hike rationalizers: “The elk hunters want
it.”
No they don’t.
The
self-appointed “spokesmen” (lobbyists) for the elk hunters – who love wheeling
and dealing in the smoke-filled back rooms with the political power players –
want it.
Seriously. Give me a list of 100 elk hunters and let me
call them and ask, “Do you want the cost of your hunting license
increased.” I’d be surprise if two of
them said, “Yes.”
The elk hunters
want this tax hike? Really? Show me the list. Show me the names. Show me which elk hunters want the cost of
their elk tag hiked.
But let’s say
I’m wrong. I’m not, but let’s pretend.
If you really,
really, really believe that elk hunters really, really, really want their the
cost of their government-mandated hunting license increased, then do the same
thing the federal government does when it comes to publicly funding
presidential campaigns…
Make it OPTIONAL.
That’s
right. When a hunter goes in for his
hunting license, have a place on the application where they can check off, “I
wish to donate $5 to pay for the prevention and mitigation of damage caused by elk
or game mammals not native to this State.”
If elk hunters
truly want this increase, they’ll check off the box in droves, won’t they?
That brings me
to another point…
If the elk are
causing so much damage to the public lands, shouldn’t ALL of the public
pay for the cost of “mitigating” the damage rather than just elk hunters?
And if the elk
are the problem, rather than the hunters paying for the privilege of
eliminating the problem, shouldn’t we be paying THEM for eliminating the
problem?
But, say the
tax hike rationalizers, it’s just a small amount.
The Tax Pledge
says the candidate will oppose and vote against “all” efforts to increase
taxes, just as a marriage vow promises to forsake “all” others. It doesn’t say you can cheat on your spouse
as long as it’s just a small one-night stand.
A promise is a
promise. Make a promise; keep a promise.
AB78 is an
effort to increase taxes. Period. And it’s not about the “small” amount of the
increase per person. It’s about the
cumulative amount of new money going to the government so the government can do
more to “help” us.
Please, STOP
HELPING US!
True
conservatives don’t want government to do more with less. True conservatives want the government to do
less with less. Voting against AB78 is a
step in the “right” direction.
You can read this column online, as well as access archives
of past Muth's Truths columns by clicking here... www.MuthsTruths.com
Did someone forward you this copy of Muth's Truths?
Get your own FREE subscription...  |
No comments:
Post a Comment