Of Beer and Taxes and the Dead Tree JS

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board strikes again.

Political non-starter? This makes no sense

It is a matter of government malpractice not to look at increasing alcohol taxes as the state is burdened with the costs of alcohol abuse and the state budget deficit looms so large.

Let's examine an alleged "political non-starter."

The state has a $5.7 billion budget deficit.

The state's tax on beer - at $2 per barrel, or 6.5 cents per gallon - is the third-lowest in the nation and hasn't been raised in 40 years.

Clueless.

I think Wisconsin's low beer tax has something to do with fostering the beer industry in Wisconsin.

MISSOURI'S beer tax is lower than the tax in Wisconsin.

Anheuser-Busch, the leading American brewer, is based in St. Louis, Missouri.

What a coinkydink!

This is just like the JS Editorial Board.

"What can we do to burden Wisconsin businesses?"

...it is a long established and accepted concept here and elsewhere that users should pay for services directed their way or to defray costs they create. For instance, fees from hunters and fishermen go to wildlife efforts. License and auto registration fees help out the Division of Motor Vehicles. Gas taxes, when they aren't poached, go toward roads.

There is absolutely no reason that increased taxes on alcohol shouldn't be directed to the undeniably huge costs alcohol abuse imposes on society. And if this, too, is poached, anyone want to argue that the budget can't use the help?

So why is this a political non-starter for virtually everyone from Gov. Jim Doyle on down?

Their fears are based on a false premise. The theory goes this way: Because of Wisconsin's tradition as a brewing state and its storied culture of drinking, raising the beer tax in particular is tantamount to political suicide. Wisconsinites would rise as one to unelect the latter-day prohibitionists.

This notion does Wisconsinites a huge disservice.

Properly explained and with funds earmarked, increased beer and other alcoholic beverage taxes would be accepted as having little impact on consumers' wallets but huge benefits for the state's revenue and health picture. And this could withstand predictable alcohol and tavern industry assaults.

OK.

I'll run with the Board's thinking.

I propose a newspaper tax.

Users of the Dead Tree version of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and other Wisconsin newspapers should be taxed. It would have little impact on consumers' wallets but would yield at least some benefits, albeit quite meager, for the state's revenue picture.

Moreover, it would address the environmental concerns of publishing on paper and delivery of the product. Shrinking the carbon footprint is good for the state's health picture.

The Board declares, "The state's culture of drinking is real."

The state's culture of using paper is real, too.

I think the state should raise taxes on newspapers and direct the money to environmental-related purposes.

Is that proposal a "non-starter" for the Journal Sentinel Editorial Board?

Coming out in favor of a newspaper tax would be the right thing to do, a profile in courage.