Feeding the Beast

Not only has the government raised every possible fee but now they are on a crusade to pass “revenue generating bills”. 

The beast that is the government must get fed. And to do so it must be at the expense of the taxpayers. 

Joe Camacho said it best and it appears that his colleagues agree. 

"'REVENUE generating bills' — I have repeated this phrase about a thousand times since inauguration day in January 2008.   I have asked repeatedly that each legislator should come up with a revenue generating bill that creates a new source of revenue, even if it is just a small amount.  If we had done our job we would not have the present budget short fall.”

Don’t you just love his logic? 

What is the problem? Budget Shortfall

What is the solution? Increase Revenues

How? Revenue Generating bills (taxes)

Damn, such a simple solution and he has called for it a thousand times. 

Well, it appears his buddies are all on the same page now. They are pumping out the revenue generating bills as quickly as possible. 

One in the pipes now and recently passed by the house (I have not seen the final version but the original is on “Revenue Generating Joe’s” website) is the Plastic Bag Bill.

The final version that was passed according to the author on last evening broadcast implements a tax at the point of purchase for each bag that is used by a consumer. The tax can be anywhere from $.05 to .25. 

Wrap that tax in a tree hugger’s outfit and viola you got yourself a perfect revenue generating bill. 

You may say, “Now c’mon Plato we are saving the environment!” 

Is this true?

If a retailer tosses the plastic out to avoid the new tax what will they replace it with? PAPER perhaps? 

Let’s look at paper bags:

Wait. Before I go down that road, where will we draw the line? Currently we tax containers on import $.05 so that the environment is saved. Now plastic bags. What next? Paper bags? Underwear? Furniture? All this stuff has the same negative impact on the environment (if not more) as plastic bottles and bags. Okay, done with the little tangent. I will revisit this later.

Paper Bags vs Plastic Bags:

Issue 1: Energy and natural resources 

It takes more than four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag as it does to manufacture a plastic bag. 

ENERGY TO PRODUCE BAG ORIGINALLY (BTUs) 

Safeway Plastic Bags: 594 BTUs 

Safeway Paper Bags: 2511 BTUs 

(Source: 1989 Plastic Recycling Directory, Society of Plastics Industry.) 

Of course, most paper comes from tree pulp, so the impact of paper bag production on forests is enormous. In 1999, 14 million trees were cut to produce the 10 billion paper grocery bags used by Americans that year alone. Paper bag production delivers a global warming double-whammy forests (major absorbers of greenhouse gases) have to be cut down, and then the subsequent manufacturing of bags produces greenhouse gases. 

Issue 2: Pollution 

The majority of kraft paper is made by heating wood chips under pressure at high temperatures in a chemical solution. As evidenced by the unmistakable stench commonly associated with paper mills, the use of these toxic chemicals contributes to both air pollution, such as acid rain, and water pollution. Millions of gallons of these chemicals pour into our waterways each year; the toxicity of the chemicals is long-term and settles into the sediments, working its way through the food chain. Further toxicity is generated as both plastic and paper bags degrade. 

POLLUTANTS PAPER V.S. PLASTIC 

Paper sacks generate 70% more air and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic bags. 

Source: "Comparison of the Effects on the Environment of Polyethylene and Paper Carrier Bags," Federal Office of the Environment, August 1988 

Issue 3: Recycling 

It takes 91% less energy to recycle a pound of plastic than it takes to recycle a pound of paper. But recycling rates of either type of disposable bag are extremely low, with only 10 to 15% of paper bags and 1 to 3% of plastic bags being recycled, according to the Wall Street Journal. 

ENERGY TO RECYCLE PACKAGE ONCE (BTUs) 

Safeway Plastic Bags: 17 BTUs 

Safeway Paper Bags: 1444 BTUs 

Source: 1989 Plastic Recycling Directory, Society of Plastics Industry. 

Although paper bags have a higher recycling rate than plastic, each new paper grocery bag you use is made from mostly virgin pulp for better strength and elasticity. 

Issue 4: Degradability 

Current research demonstrates that paper in today's landfills does not degrade or break down at a substantially faster rate than plastic does. In fact, nothing completely degrades in modern landfills because of the lack of water, light, oxygen and other important elements that are necessary for the degradation process to be completed. A paper bags takes up more space than a plastic bag in a landfill, but because paper is recycled at a higher rate, saving space in landfills is less of an issue.

Okay now that that is out of the way and the tree-hugger mask is removed let’s look at the real purpose of this bill and lets look at the real impacts.

The main purpose: Not to end plastic bag use – To generate revenue to feed the Government beast through a new tax source. Additional funds also can be garnered through penalties and fines.

The Real impacts:. This user tax disguised as an "environmentalist policy" will make life even harder for CNMI residents and business in general. At the moment numerous taxes are being avoided by certain entities. Our government cannot police the existing laws. This fact hurts legit businesses. They collect the taxes and remit them properly. Competing businesses do not thus giving them an unfair advantage. Who will enforce this tax? More government workers? 

Why tax? Why not incentivize?  Why not encourage businesses to stock reusable or biodegradable bags by giving them a tax credit for doing so? If the governments need money to fill in budget gaps let them liquidate the legislature’s slush funds, stop the tax breaks and sweetheart land lease deals for new investors, and investigate current government revenue which may be getting funneled out into personal bank accounts (i.e. Timmy’s rydlime deal). Make it easier for people to buy goods and services and easier for businesses to do business and the revenues will come. After all, shouldn’t government exists to foster and protect the citizens and their private property not the other way around

I am so sick of being nickled and dimed by our government in order for them to fill the coffers.

Joe, you want to balance the budget? Start cutting the size of government. Do a legit desk audit. Cut unneeded positions. Quit the political hiring. Dispose of your slush funds. Get rid of all government perks. Cut the bloated salaries of government workers. Focus on the expense column and stop looking at the revenue column. Our government is a fat cat that can gorge itself to death if it is allowed to.

Plastic bag tax… Hey Reps don’t stop there here are other great “revenue generating bill” ideas:

“Single Occupancy Room Tax” – Tax anyone who stays in a hotel room alone 5% of the room cost. This will encourage tourist to bring friends or take on the company of someone on-island …. Hmm that leads to the next one.

“Escort Tax” – Prostitution is illegal but escorts that spend the night (just cuddling of course) in bed is still honky dory.  Lets charge a flat fee $10 per night fro “escort” services.

“Buy Me Drinkie Tax” – Charge a flat tax of $2 tax per ladies drink (hell that is only a 10% tax).

“Remittance tax” – I think one of you guys has already got this one under control… go get ‘em

“Blogger Tax” – Tax a fee of $.02 per posted blog entry and $.01 per comment post. 

“Gas Station Air Tax” – You all use it. You know the pump for filling your tires. What a missed opportunity. $.25 per tire.

“Weather Tax” – All taxes are raise by 5% when it is raining. This will encourage people to stay home and not shop during “baby making weather”. Thus increasing the population and in the long run increasing the number of taxpayers. Hmmm … 

“Childless Person Tax” – An additional 10% annual income tax for all Childless individuals. This will encourage them to procreate and make more taxpayers.

“Legislation Tax” – Tax each lawmaker $1000 for each piece of introduced legislation… Oh my… axe that one.

“Rubber band tax”

“Stand-up Comic DVD Tax”

“Sugar Substitute Tax”

Job Entitlement

At what point did the people of the CNMI begin to believe that they were entitled to Government Jobs?

Most recently the entire Immigration staff and their valiant leader Grey headed up to the Legislature to voice their concerns. They met with members of the House and asked the Representatives, "What are they going to do about the situation they are in?" They stated that no one from the legislature went to their offices to assist them.

In true form, a few of the legislators had already drafted out a Bill mandating a lateral transfer of all 68 immigration personnel.

Is it just me or does this just scream - STUPIDITY!

Our government is currently struggling with depleted revenues. We are in a state where we need to be downsizing government. The federalization of immigration can be looked at as a step in that direction. No longer will local funds be required to run this section. What our legislature could not do (downsize) has been done for us. And rather than looking at this as a positive step the same legislature is now going to turn around and force the Government to hire all 68 individuals and maintain our current spending level. Why?

Simple. They want their votes. At what cost? At what point will our public servants come to grips with the stark reality of our times. We are broke. We need to quit with our old ways and begin to trim down the size of government. We need to make some tough calls and downsize. No one likes this fact. It is a tough pill to swallow but it must be done and be done quickly.

The Washington Reps office was affected by the federalization of immigration. The staff from Pete's office will be out of a job earlier than expected. Should our government also guarantee a lateral transfer of all of his staffers? When a department head decides to cut costs and layoff employees, should the affect employees also be afforded this luxury?

And while we are handing out government jobs, why relegate this mentality to the public sector? Blockbuster just closed with little to no warning given to their staff. Should we offer gov't jobs to all of their displaced workers? Carmen Safeway just closed up shop, what about giving all of their workers jobs in the government?

What on earth are our legislators doing? This is not a time to play Santa Claus and drum up votes by dishing out jobs for which taxpayers must ante up the cash to pay for. Times are tough everywhere. No one is ENTITILED to a job. When businesses close workers have to go about finding a new place of employment. The same should apply for Government Jobs. Pete's staffers and the immigration workers need to begin scouting for jobs. Sign up for welfare in the midterm and unemployment benefits if need be. But get out there and find a job with the rest of us that are out here working our hind parts off to bring home the bacon.

What is even more disturbing is that the immigration jobs are not gone. The Federal government is in the midst of hiring individuals to fill the same slots (only difference is that they will be funded by the federal government not the CNMI government) unlike the private sector jobs that have completely vanished upon the business closures. I hope that some of the individuals displaced from the private sector along with the immigration workers are making every attempt possible to qualify for the federal immigration positions.

I could go on and on about this but let me instead sum it up in very simple terms for our elected representatives:

The time has come for you to grow a spine, to look at the state of the commonwealth and do what is right for all of the people of the CNMI. To pass a budget that is fiscally sound and deals with the realities of our trying times. Do we have to cut government jobs? YES. Do it. You may believe that by passing that law for the lateral transfer that you garnered yourselves the 68 votes along with their family members. I hope you realize what it truly cost you in terms of votes. You have lost mine and at least 10000 other voters that see right through your cowardly act. You may want to pass a new bill that guarantees a transfer for all of you legislators that voted yes to this bill because come 2009 you will also be out of a job.