Much to the chagrin of college students around Ohio, the state legislature is considering doubling the tax on beer as part of its two-year state budget. Although the proposed tax would negatively affect the pockets of thirsty college students, it is problematic for more reasons than just the extra financial burden for fun-seeking students -or any other Ohio citizen. The tax, if passed, could negatively effect the number of jobs in Ohio -adding to current employment problems -and simply would not generate enough revenue to be a feasible option to correct the state's budget woes.
The tax is projected to generate about $50 million in additional revenue for the state, but that sum is merely a drop in the bucket. State legislators have gone about fixing the budget in a backwards way: instead of reducing previous tax cuts to generate needed funds, the state government has created a tax that specifically targets one industry. That feat seems to contradict the current administration's goal of encouraging new business growth in the state.
The last time the government doubled the beer tax was in 1999, and, according to The Columbus Dispatch, about 60,000 people lost their jobs because of decreased consumption of beer. Fifty million dollars simply is not enough of an upside to take a chance on losing a similar number of jobs in Ohio.
Holding personal opinion of beer consumption aside, the tax is unfair in principle because it singles out a specific industry and, by extension, its clientele. Although not all measures designed to increase government revenues can equally affect all citizens, the government must tax goods that have the widest appeal.
Ohio is facing a significant budget problem and solutions to that problem must be formulated to adequately solve them. However, the proposed beer tax simply does not make enough sense to implement.
HED: Solomon unwise SUBHED: Policy restricts speech, reflects bias The Supreme Court announced last week that it will decide whether some universities may limit military recruiters' access to their students as a means of protesting the U.S. armed forces' ban on openly gay members. Justices are being asked to rule on the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, a federal law adopted in 1994 that requires universities to grant recruiters equal access. The penalty for failing to do so is the loss of millions of dollars in federal funding. The government is preventing public institutions from expressing their distaste for a discriminatory policy by threatening them with financial abandonment, and this amounts to a particularly loathsome deprivation of free speech.
Thirty-one law schools, calling themselves the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), united to sue the Pentagon in 2003, but were unsuccessful. Last year, the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals did block enforcement pending a full trial, identifying the law as a requirement incompatible with the schools' educational objectives. It is this judgment that the Bush administration would like to see overturned by the Supreme Court. While the appellate court only determined that it was reasonably likely that the law is a violation of free speech rights, the high court should fully expose it as such.
Most schools desiring to ban recruiters do so not because of political differences, but because their own policies leave them with no other choice. Schools' nondiscrimination policies typically bar all recruiters whose organizations unfairly base hiring on race, gender or sexual orientation. Such a policy is not uncommon, as anyone who has filled out a job application can attest, nor is it unreasonable. Therefore, the government should realize that any practice that cannot even stand up against such objective and fair standards must be flawed.
Such a realization is only possible, however, if the baseless idea that the enlistment of homosexuals is somehow incompatible with the goal of an effective military is cast aside. The Defense Department should realize that its policies have conflicted with those of educational institutions because its own are flawed. Its leadership should take responsibility, correct this flaw and open military service to all people. If the military makes this needed concession, its recruiters will not be faced with such resistance from higher education.
17 Archives
The Post Editorial Board
Beer tax comes with risk of lost jobs
