First, we applaud her for looking to cut expenses by eliminating some jobs and ending duplicate programs. Of course, the devil is always in the details, but if the programs she has targeted truly are duplicative in nature, and the jobs to be eliminated are not absolutely necessary, those are expenses that long ago should have been axed.
We would go so far as to question how any governor, or General Assembly, would have allowed those expenses to creep into past budgets.
Second, we also have to applaud, to a degree, her decision to keep tax increases to a minimum. She proposes additional taxes on cigarettes — adding another dollar per pack — and a 5-percent surcharge on alcohol.
Folks who use these products might argue they are being unfairly targeted, and to a degree they might be correct. Smokers, in particular, have to feel as if they’re being picked on, with cigarette taxes going from almost non-existence just five years ago to what will be one of the nation’s highest, if Perdue’s budget is approved.
However, cigarette use and alcohol consumption are both activities that use discretionary income. Quite frankly, we don’t like to see any tax increases, but if the choice is between discretionary items and more basic needs such as food and gasoline, we’ll back the tax on discretionary items most every time.
We do have to question Perdue’s conflicting justification for the cigarette tax. On the one hand, she claimed it to be necessary to raise state revenue, and in another statement, she strongly implied the tax would be a deterrent for folks using tobacco, thus lowering health care costs.
Gov. Perdue, you can’t have it both ways. If the tax is to generate revenue, simply say so and be done with it. If the tax is a deterrent, then it will chase people away from tobacco use, thus being a minimal, at best, revenue source.
Post a Comment
