Anyone who didn't understand that a 10 percent tax -- coupled with a recession -- was going to generate economic casualties probably doesn't belong on county council (or in the governor's office).
Remember when those who enacted the drink tax claimed they were doing it to save Port Authority transit? A few years -- and a number of casualties -- later, PAT is collapsing financially, begging for a "reliable funding source."
Republicans For Harris
1 day ago
13 comments:
100% true on the bar side of your comment, but slightly off on the Port Authority side.
The drink tax was only to fund Allegheny County's annual contribution to PAAC; the funding issue now is that the state doesn't have the "stable funding" that the I-80 tolling was to provide. So to connect the state's failure to the drink tax is fatuous. The issue here isn't Onorato's tax, rather it is the (surprise, surprise) laziness and boneheadedness of the Harrisburgh squad who thought they could retry a bad idea with the other parent (Bush and Obama adminstrations both rejected I-80 tolling) rather than try to come up with a workable idea.
If you really want to rake muck with the drink tax, find out where ALL of the revenue is going. I think the Al.Co. contribution to PAAC is ~10M/year. Where is the surplus annual drink tax revenue going? Obvs. not to PAAC.
I agree with Anonymous here. This one really is the state's fault. My guess is that the state knew that I-80 tolling would be rejected even before they proposed it. They just proposed it as a way to push blame on others and cloud the issue. However, I don't think the Port Authority has taken nearly enough abuse over its $600 million tunnel and other waste. So, meh.
Unless something changed, a judge had ruled that drink tax money could not be spent on anything other than the transit system.
If PAT was going to be in a sling in a couple of years anyway -- although the public was told a combination of tough contract negotiations and the drink tax was going to fix the situation -- why put the bars and restaurants through economic hell? Because no one had the courage or maybe the smarts to understand that a broad-based tax coupled with a realistic long-term financial plan was the answer.
It resembles the city pension mess. A week after a bad plan that threatens the city business base gets rammed through council, the city would still need to fund a half-billion dollars in pension debt.
Finally, if all that new drink tax money was only enough to delay fiscal disaster at PAT for a couple of years, PAT sounds like a goner, because only mismanagement could explain that type of financial black hole.
The drink tax was set-up with the presumption of a stable state funding stream and that stream got hacked. There was never any hope that the drink tax or the new contract would work, for even one year, without that state funding. And given that the PA has no authority to raise a broad based tax, I don't see how you can blame them for that. I don't see how you make an argument against the PA on this one without making a general case against public transit.
Infy,
Good point on the city pension issue. Why is it that the only public official talking about this is the City Controller???
PAT has blamed the federal decision to prevent I-80 tolling (reliance on which was stupid) and "increased costs" such as rising fuel prices (???), increased pension contributions and "other legacy costs that increased faster than state funding and fare revenue."
Sounds like mismanagement, at least in substantial part, at an agency that has written volumes on the subject.
Would the funds mismanaged by PAT directors and managers, measured in nickels, fill that hole they dug under the Allegheny?
Yes, they still suck, but they have been steadily sucking less and the current shortfall isn't something that sucks because of their mistake. The current Port Authority team is clearly doing better than the PA legislature, which is admittedly not a high bar.
PAT may be more victim than victimizer in this circumstance, but the history is not favorable t PAT. Many of its directors should have been shamed into leaving town.
I've tried my best to shame many people into leaving town, but I can never get them to go farther than Butler.
It has been mildly surprising that the drink tax opponents haven't gone after Onorato as a gubernatorial candidate more strenuously. "Onorato Tax" on checks, etc. -- low cost, low effort, some impact. Did they run out of gas, or maybe they figure why waste effort bashing a guy who looks like he'll lose without their help? Or maybe they'll turn up the heat when people start paying attention to the race?
Are you sure that taxing drinks isn't a vote getter in the middle of the state what with the Protestantism and all.
In small pockets, perhaps, but in general an unfair tax is an electoral millstone. Even if they don't like booze, most of 'em dislike taxes more.
but in general an unfair tax is an electoral millstone.
I don't know if you've noticed this, but the state funds itself mostly by a sales tax and a flat-rate income tax. Whoever has been winning elections in the past sure hasn't done it by making a fair tax structure, assuming 'fair' includes any aspect of being progressive like the federal taxes.
Post a Comment