“A million here, a million there, sooner or later it adds up to real money.” The late Republican senator from Illinois, Everett Dirksen, uttered those famous words so long ago that “billions” was not even part of the spending equation. But, as times would have it, the quote has been altered over the years using the word billion to more accurately reflect the spending world in Washington, D.C.
But Dirksen had another gem as well. He said when government talks about millions and millions of dollars and leaves out lesser amounts of spending—thousands, hundreds, tens of dollars—it is almost as if the smaller amounts don’t matter.
The Idaho Legislature left Boise March 29 with a number of members proud to say they did not raise taxes. The budget was balanced without dipping any deeper into the pockets of taxpayers.
Really?
Well, it depends on your definition of dipping into the pockets. What the Legislature did in some instances, when it found it necessary to provide funding for something specific, was identify it as a fee or a user fee. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a fee is “a fixed charge, a sum paid or charged for a service.” The dictionary says a tax is “a charge of money imposed by authority upon persons or property for public purposes.”
Well, call it what you will—fee or tax or even a banana—but not everyone escaped the wrath of the tax-man, er, fee-man. To wit:
- Think there might oil or gas under your back 40? The fee for well drilling and testing was raised to $2,500, but only temporarily, according to the legislation.
- The Legislature determined that massage therapy is worthy of regulation complete with creating an oversight board. The board can assess therapists up to $200 for a license.
- Interested in becoming a real estate agent? The license fee is now $150.
- The state’s police officer training facility, commonly called POST, is financed in part by offender fees, now costing the guilty party an extra $15.
- The state has a victim notification program, established with the idea that families should know the whereabouts of someone convicted of doing harm to a loved one. The court fee dedicated to that program was increased by $10.
- For years, the state’s judicial retirement fund has been funded at far less than the 100 percent needed to fully fund the program. One measure to bring it into more solid financial footing—court costs went up by $8.
- Idaho outdoors-types can purchase a Sportsman’s Pak that packages a number of permits and fees for hunting and fishing. The Pak license fee was raised by $6.15.
- Not to be left out of the formula, even the state’s grain crop producers were granted a self-imposed fee increase. Sale of a bushel of wheat can be assessed a fee of up to 5 cents per bushel above the current fee, barley sales can be assessed up to 4 cents extra per hundred-weight.
So, count your tax-saving blessings unless you are looking for oil on your own land, someone in the family wishes to become a massage therapist, someone else wishes to obtain a real estate license, another committed a crime against another person, you want to buy a Sportsman’s Pak and you have wheat and barley to harvest on the farm. That will cost you $2,889.15, not counting your wheat and barley assessments.
Note: Erik Makrush, policy analyst for the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF), contributed to this story. IdahoReporter.com is published by IFF.
Erik/Wayne:
I am confused about the message that the IFF is attempting to convey regarding the wheat and barley assessment. It appears that you are attempting to paint legislation regarding the added assessment authority of the Idaho Wheat Commission and Idaho Barley Commission as a tax increase affecting the freedoms of Idaho’s citizens.
The Idaho Wheat Commission and Idaho Barley Commissions were established (1959 and 1988 respectively) in code and given their taxing authority at the request of Idaho wheat and barley farmers. The goal/mission being a mechanism to fairly and equally tax themselves to provide research resources, to seek and develop domestic and foreign markets/customers, and to provide an educational component for production challenges faced by growers.
The legislation passed in the 2012 session does provide expanded authority for the Commission to increase the per bushel (wheat) and per hundredweight (barley) assessment provided a majority vote of the respective Commission.
The IWC has not sought an increase in its assessment since 1992 – in fact the IWC has REDUCED (from 2-cents to 1.5-cents) the assessment before when it was generating more dollars than was necessary for the IWC to conduct its business on behalf of wheat producers. The Idaho Barley Commission has not modified its assessment over its 24-year history.
Before pursuing the new assessment authority, both Commissions polled or conducted a referendum of as comprehensive a list of wheat/barley producers as was attainable. The results were significant and the majority of respondents agreed to support a proposed increase in the authority.
During the legislative session, the Senate and House Committees of jurisdiction held public hearings on both commission bills. Not one individual or group publicly appeared to testify against the bills. The wheat bill passed the Legislature on a combined 83-17-5 vote and the barley bill a 91-9-5 vote.
Given that the legislation does NOT affect the state General Fund, and thus not the general taxpayer, I am confused as to the reasoning for the IFF’s opposition and/or focus on this subject.
If the majority of an industry made up of stakeholders comes together and agrees to tax themselves to better their livelihoods and the future of their profession, they should be provided the opportunity to do so. Taking away or advocating against a self-sustainable right does not suggest “Freedom” as your organization’s name implies.
If I can provide you with any additional information or perspective, please feel free to contact me.
So, is the IFF against user fees too? If the wheat growers want ro improve their product or do joint advertising they shouldn’t be able to assess themselves? If we need training for public safety we shouldn’t collect it from violators?
I do not see the point of the article here. There is a cost to pooled services and to public services. If we do not have “user fees” those costs will need to be paid through taxes. Erik, am I hearing you say that we should raise taxes or do you mean that those desired (or even necessary) services should not be performed? That sounds more like anarchy than civilization.