2006
Week 3
January 20, 2006

Hi

Ever drop a rock in a pond, to see if there is a splash? I have, and there was.

The rock this week was to increase alcohol taxes by 630%. I dropped LB 1209 into the pond of bills. The splash is about right. Mostly on radio. I should charge them extra to give announcers another subject to talk about.

"So what is this about?" It proposes to set up a fund to pay for all of the costs associated with alcohol-impaired drivers on the roads in Nebraska. We would pay for the medical costs, death costs, loss of income costs, property damage costs.

"How much will this raise?" About $140 million a year.

""Doesn't that seem like a lot to you?" O my yes. It certainly is a lot. But that is the bill we are already paying, through insurance, personal losses and taxes.

"Is alcohol the sole cause of the losses?" No, the person who chooses to drive after drinking is also a cause. But without alcohol there would be no such losses. We expect that a product should bear the cost it creates in society. We have recovered some of our tax losses from tobacco, so it is alcohol's turn.

"Do you think that the person who drinks responsibly should pay?" Do you think the innocent party who is hit and whose family is devastated should pay instead?

"This will hurt bars and other retailers and they can not do much about it." Ah, now we get to the main point. They can do more about it than anyone else. They will be rewarded. As they do their part to make sure that intoxicated persons do not drive they will reduce the cost to the fund, which will reduce the taxes. If we all work together, the tax will return to zero, which is where it would be in Europe, where they do not have these losses. In Europe, everyone joins in a consensus that they are not going to let impaired persons drive and community pressure makes the point very clear.

There is a small problem with all of the above. It does not cover all of the costs, especially the domestic costs that alcohol causes taxpayers. The total is well over twice this figure. When taxpayers get upset enough will they ask for the protection of a 1,500% increase??? Or will folk change their tune and say they like paying General Fund taxes?

We are talking only $$$ here -- not pain and suffering.

Other questions for a legislator. Since we will be paying all of the insurance settlement for this type of loss, will insurance companies reduce our premiums? Tens of millions of dollars surplus in company treasuries would be noticed and could be a reward to everyone who has a car. Also, medical expenses of the family members riding with the offender should be covered by the proposed fund, but what about the offender's injuries?

The physician from Kearney, whose idea this is, wants it to cover the offender. "Alcohol created the problem and should pay the cost." His idea is simple common sense to him. He talked and talked and talked, until two of us agreed to help put common sense into a bill. This will give an earnest citizen, with a very worthy idea, a chance to state his concerns in a public hearing.

And make another splash. I certainly resisted dropping the stone, but the public who grumbles about all the taxes seems blithely unaware of what drives up taxes. Plus, it is simply outrageous that we assume it is o.k. for innocent families to pay most of these costs.

That is a quick study of one bill. My staff could add many more questions, to illustrate the complexities of bill drafting. We have to figure out how this could work, without slip-ups or fraud.

One more example of funding perplexities. Nebraska is not sending enough water to Kansas in the Republican River. Since we seem unable to get Republicans to make more water we may have to pay Kansas several million a year. Who pays?

The irrigators who are pumping the water on crops? They made it clear this week they are already paying more than they want to. The land owners in that area, who all benefit in some way or other? The governor has suggested adding something like three cents to property tax, to match 2 to 1 some money from all the rest of us in the state. Is that fair?

Or how about a tax on water? We all use it and are all contributing to the problem in one way or another. Water is not free. Though we pay to "mine" it we pay nothing for the water itself. Or should an irrigator in Lexington shut down his well so that the people downstream in Omaha have water to drink? Or, wild idea, perhaps all the people in the state should conserve on water? What would that take?

Or, maybe capture some of the splash from LB 1209 and bottle it for future use.

Keep your stick on the ice

Lowen