Don’t use tax money to subsidize gas consumption
SO THE GOVERNOR and the House want to give drivers a $2.50-a-week break at the tank. For three months. Just in time for the fall elections.
Pardon our cynicism.
When members of Congress floated a similar idea a couple of weeks ago, they were appropriately shouted down by angry constituents who saw through their pandering and were insulted that this was our leaders’ answer to rising gasoline prices.
To his credit, Gov. Mark Sanford doesn’t pretend that temporarily suspending the state’s 17-cent gas tax will solve the nation’s energy problem. It is, he admits, just the latest way to package his plan to keep tax money from being spent on public programs.
He needs a way to sell it because it’s a bd idea. Think back a few years, to when the economy tanked and took tax collections with it. Mr. Sanford and legislators said the state had to live within its means — just as a family would — rather than raising taxes. So they slashed the Highway Patrol, reduced the number of prison guards, laid off mental health workers and forced schools to cancel summer school and even cut back on teachers.
And then the economy rebounded, and tax collections are up enough that the state has a surplus — which simply means the state is collecting more money than economists had predicted, though still less per person than most states. Now our governor and lawmakers no longer find the family budget a convenient metaphor. Little wonder. It’s hard to imagine that a family that suddenly came into some money after years of privation would say, “Let’s give the money back to the boss.” A smart family would invest the money.
The governor says giving out some kind of tax rebate is the only way to stop the Legislature from spending surplus money on ongoing programs (which will cause financial problems in the future) or pet projects that are at best local responsibilities and at worst pure pork.
We don’t want to see lawmakers spending tax money so irresponsibly or wastefully either. But there is an alternative: Use surplus money to pay for one-time needs. Actual needs. Like more school buses. Or textbooks. Or highway repairs. Jasper Rep. Rubin Rivers told the House last week that he could just hear the response from his constituents if the gas gimmick passed: “You mean you've got $100 million lying around, and you're not fixing our roads?”
Granted, $100 million won’t make a huge dent in our state’s backlog of crumbling highways that need resurfacing or dangerous shoulders that need widening or bridges that need replacing. But whatever it could cover on that very long list would do more good for more people than putting an extra $2.50 a week in everybody’s pocket. For three months.
At least in theory, higher gasoline prices will eventually force us to change our driving habits — to drive less, carpool more, buy more efficient automobiles, slow down. And that will mean we’re doing a little less to prop up Middle Eastern despots.
Suspending South Carolina’s gas tax won’t have a huge effect on the global marketplace, or even on America’s addiction to oil. But investing in our infrastructure could nudge us in the direction of making our state safer and more attractive for ourselves and would-be investors. That’s what our governor and our Legislature should be doing with our tax money, instead of subsidizing gasoline consumption.
Pardon our cynicism.
When members of Congress floated a similar idea a couple of weeks ago, they were appropriately shouted down by angry constituents who saw through their pandering and were insulted that this was our leaders’ answer to rising gasoline prices.
To his credit, Gov. Mark Sanford doesn’t pretend that temporarily suspending the state’s 17-cent gas tax will solve the nation’s energy problem. It is, he admits, just the latest way to package his plan to keep tax money from being spent on public programs.
He needs a way to sell it because it’s a bd idea. Think back a few years, to when the economy tanked and took tax collections with it. Mr. Sanford and legislators said the state had to live within its means — just as a family would — rather than raising taxes. So they slashed the Highway Patrol, reduced the number of prison guards, laid off mental health workers and forced schools to cancel summer school and even cut back on teachers.
And then the economy rebounded, and tax collections are up enough that the state has a surplus — which simply means the state is collecting more money than economists had predicted, though still less per person than most states. Now our governor and lawmakers no longer find the family budget a convenient metaphor. Little wonder. It’s hard to imagine that a family that suddenly came into some money after years of privation would say, “Let’s give the money back to the boss.” A smart family would invest the money.
The governor says giving out some kind of tax rebate is the only way to stop the Legislature from spending surplus money on ongoing programs (which will cause financial problems in the future) or pet projects that are at best local responsibilities and at worst pure pork.
We don’t want to see lawmakers spending tax money so irresponsibly or wastefully either. But there is an alternative: Use surplus money to pay for one-time needs. Actual needs. Like more school buses. Or textbooks. Or highway repairs. Jasper Rep. Rubin Rivers told the House last week that he could just hear the response from his constituents if the gas gimmick passed: “You mean you've got $100 million lying around, and you're not fixing our roads?”
Granted, $100 million won’t make a huge dent in our state’s backlog of crumbling highways that need resurfacing or dangerous shoulders that need widening or bridges that need replacing. But whatever it could cover on that very long list would do more good for more people than putting an extra $2.50 a week in everybody’s pocket. For three months.
At least in theory, higher gasoline prices will eventually force us to change our driving habits — to drive less, carpool more, buy more efficient automobiles, slow down. And that will mean we’re doing a little less to prop up Middle Eastern despots.
Suspending South Carolina’s gas tax won’t have a huge effect on the global marketplace, or even on America’s addiction to oil. But investing in our infrastructure could nudge us in the direction of making our state safer and more attractive for ourselves and would-be investors. That’s what our governor and our Legislature should be doing with our tax money, instead of subsidizing gasoline consumption.
posted by SCGOP at 11:37 AM
<< Home