Kevin Rennie wondered in
his blog “Daily Ructions” why, under “the grocery tax set to take effect
Oct. 1, six bagels won't be subject to the higher sales tax, but five bagels
will, because they're considered to be prepared foods for immediate
consumption.” And he then proposed a solution to the conundrum: “The
legislature needs to change this law.”
Governor Ned Lamont, Rennie wrote, is attempting “to erase the advantage
grocery stores that sell prepared foods have over restaurants,” an alibi that
seemed to him suspect. If Lamont were at all worried about the restaurant
business in Connecticut, “he would not have singled it out for an increase in
the sales tax from 6.35 percent to 7.35 percent. He wanted the money more than
he cared about the cost of dining out and its consequences for restaurant
owners, workers and patrons.”
And, truly, if Lamont and his handlers were worried about equity alone,
the governor and the tax hungry crowd of Democrat progressives in the General
Assembly could as easily adjust the disturbing inequity by eliminating both the
restaurant and the grocery tax, leaving Rennie to buy his bagels at the grocery
store without being harassed by Connecticut’s frothing tax man.
This is not likely because dominant Democrats in the General Assembly
whose thirst for more tax dollars is never assuaged by tax increases are once
again fighting a perpetual and losing battle against rising state employee
salary and benefit increases and expanding “fixed costs,” according to the Yankee Institute.
Over at CTMirror, Mark Pazniokas honed in on the problem, which appears to
have been caused by a statutory glitch: “At issue is the impact of two words in
the new budget, ‘grocery store,’ on a longstanding interpretation by state tax
collectors of one word, ‘meal.’”
A June provision in the state budget “increases the sales tax on meals by
one percentage point, from 6.35 percent to 7.35 percent.” Nothing untoward
there; the Lamont administration consistently has raised or extended taxes far
beyond the tolerance levels of most people. The erratic toll proposals
championed by Lamont and his progressive abettors in the Democrat dominated
General Assembly have been temporarily derailed by a populist uprising, the “No
Tolls” movement, but hope springs eternal, and the move to plaster the state
with toll gantries is still very much alive, though quiescent.
The problem, Pazniokas tells us, is that “the new law lumps in grocery stores
with restaurants and caterers when it comes to the taxation of meals, and while
the meaning of the word “meal” has not been changed, the new law
offers a troubling gloss: “A meal as defined in this subsection includes food
products which are sold on a ‘take out’ or ‘to go’ basis and which are actually
packaged or wrapped.” Hence, a head of lettuce bought at a grocery store is not
taxable, while lettuce in a bag is taxable.
Now, a workable solution to the problem would require a re-write of the
law.
No, says President Pro Tem of
the state Senate Martin Looney. “The call for a special
session is just the Republicans being alarmist and grandstanding.” Looney is
one of the two tax famished progressive gate-keepers in the General Assembly –
the other is House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz – who determine which bills will
clutter the legislative calendar. Both rather like ambiguous laws that provide
masterful Democrat leaders with great maneuverability.
Lewis Carroll the author of “Through The Looking Glass,” provided some
guidance to the problem of mis-definition in a discussion Alice has with Humpty
Dumpty.
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I
tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice
objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful
tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words
mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be
master—that's all."
Democrat progressives in the General Assembly know and obey their masters,
while some Democrat moderates silently resist the lash. But the problem
outlined above is entirely political and statutory. Even progressives subscribe
to the notion that whatever you tax tends to disappear, which is why they
approve taxes on cancer causing cigarettes and fossil fuel products. Their faux
“surprise” at the public uproar caused
by their clever statutory gloss is entirely contrived.
But it now appears that any remedy short of throwing Humpty Dumpty down
from the wall will not be sufficient. Legislative masters of the universe fear
only votes, and they know they have a safe number of them in their pockets.
Comments