EXTRA: Gas prices on the rise. So are the level of complaints we’re hearing

Just a thought as far as people complaining about the price of gasoline going up these days on account of the increase in the state of Illinois’ motor fuel tax.

Remember when gas prices soared this high in Chicago?

Yes, it costs less in surrounding states, which could make for an advantage if one happens to be in a bordering region at the time they need to make a automotive fuel purchase.

SUCH AS MY own circumstance earlier this week when I happened to be in Gary, Ind., and encountered a Mobil gas station charging $2.69 per gallon of gas. Other stations I witnessed in the land of Hoosiers had gas prices ranging from $2.79 to $2.95.

Yet the moment I came back to the land of civilization, the cheapest gas prices I saw were around $3.19 – with motor fuel at name-brand stations costing potentially $3.30 per gallon. With the additional cost that gas usually incurs in Chicago proper, the cost goes up further.

With the gaspricewatch.com website indicating Thursday that gas prices in the city topped at $3.45 per gallon. Much higher than the national average of $2.81 per gallon.

So excuse me (think Steve Martin in the white suit with arrow through his head) if I’m not overly swayed by a story published in the State Journal-Register of Springfield (which the newspaper picked up from the Register-Star newspaper of Rockford) that says prices on the Illinois side of the Illinois-Wisconsin border are now out of control.

An outrage? Not necessarily

THE PAPERS INDICATE gas prices at $2.78 per gallon at stations in Illinois, compared to $2.61 per gallon just north of the state line in Wisconsin.

My point is there are more drastic price differentials than what this paper is trying to pursue as evidence of an outrage. Things are worse elsewhere.

And as far as my own situation, I don’t know I’m willing to make the trip to Gary every time I need to fuel an automobile. It was a circumstance that benefitted me that one day.

Now if it turns out that the gas tax revenue increase does NOT benefit all the road repairs and other projects that the state of Illinois alleges the money will go do, THEN we can rant and rage. Until then, those of us with complaints ought to quit showing that we’re more full of gas than our cars.

  -30-

EXTRA: Gas tax hike kicks in Monday -- Happy Fiscal New Year!!!

I almost feel like I ought to be making a point to fill up the gasoline tank this weekend – what with new Illinois state taxes on the price of a gallon of gas going up as of Monday.

How long until you've seen gas prices this low?

It is part of the capital spending plan the General Assembly and Gov J.B. Pritzker approved earlier this year, meant to raise some $45 billion to pay for improvements needed in state construction projects.

FOR WHAT IT’S worth, the motor fuel tax for Illinois will increase from 19 cents per gallon to 38 cents – which is the first such increase since 1990 – literally back at the tail end of Jim Thompson’s time as governor.

On top of that, municipalities in Cook County were given the option of creating their own 3-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline – on top of what the state will charge,

The coming of the new Fiscal Year on Monday means that is when these new rates will take effect. We’ll start noticing the prices on the rise as of that date – with probably many of those people living near the Illinois borders with Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri and Kentucky going out of their way to buy their gasoline elsewhere.

Although Pritzker may have put the need for money into perspective when he said, “it means fewer blown-out tires, fewer car axles thrown out of balance, fewer fender benders and fewer life-threatening car accidents” by having better roads. Although I suspect many people are just too eager to complain about someone regardless of reality.

  -30-

EXTRA: Cheech & Chong gag obsolete? At least in Illinois!

The Illinois House of Representatives completed the legislative portion of the process by which marijuana use in the Land of Lincoln loses its stigma -- sending off to Gov. J.B. Pritzker the bill that will make it no longer any kind of illegal act for people to light up a joint/doobie/whatever you choose to call it.

Which makes me wonder about the old Cheech & Chong comedy skits involving the Sgt. Stedenko character. The overbearing, and inept, cop was forever trying to bust the comedy team -- and as I recall in one of their films, turned out to be a drug user himself.

BUT HOW WILL future generations view such moments? Will they wonder just why a cop was getting all worked up over someone wanting to indulge themselves in having a smoke for pure pleasure?

For the intent of Illinois' new law, which Pritzker is expected to sign off on some time this summer, will allow for people to purchase their "pot" from officially licensed vendors -- whose sales will be taxed, Meaning Illinois will get its "cut" of the proceeds. Which the cynics say is an immoral, if not ought to be criminal, reason to legalize something.

I don't doubt some people are going to wan to forevermore maintain the stigma of marijuana use -- mainly because they're going to object to the kinds of people they want to believe actually use the substance,

Which is why the most important part of this legislation, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2020, if Pritzker actually signs it into law, are the measures allowing for people to have their criminal records cleared of any offenses for past usage.

THE MARIJUANA POLICY Project estimates that some 750,000 people in Illinois will be eligible to have their records cleared for any times in the past they were caught by police using. It should be clear that people have to show they didn't commit other illegal acts while using pot -- their convictions will remain in place.

It should be noted that this change in law, when it takes effect, will not legitimize your neighborhood drug dealer. If anything, they're going to remain under police scrutiny. They will be, after all, selling pot products that compete with the officially-licensed vendors the state will want people to purchase from.

It will be something along the lines of the "illegal lottery" rackets that compete with the Illinois State Lottery games and are the remnants of the old policy rackets that allowed people to place nickel bets on numbers in hopes of winning a prize. The police still crack down on those people -- because they want us to buy lottery tickets from gas stations and convenience stores instead.

Which means that the cops are still going to crack down on the scuzzy-looking guy who tries growing his own pot product for sale. "Sgt. Stedenko," however, will become a less onerous law enforcement image -- and something more akin to "Barney Fife."

  -30-

DeLUCA: Our brains on drugs

EDITOR'S NOTE: Just a bit of evidence as to how some people will always remain opposed to the idea of legitimizing marijuana use. Amongst the legislators who voted "no" are state Rep. Anthony DeLuca, D-Chicago Heights, who couldn't bring himself to side with the desires of his political party's governor. DeLuca brought to mind that old public service announcement, reenacting that moment by frying an egg in a pan within the House chambers, then telling us, "This is your brain on drugs."

EXTRA: It’s only 7 cents!

Considering how irate some people got over when Cook County government imposed a penny-per-ounce tax on the price of a bottle of pop, perhaps it shouldn’t be a shock that some people are getting outraged over the possible fee to be charged for plastic bags.

Will this bag cost 5 cents outside of Chicago

It’s already been done in Chicago. The city charges such a tax on each bag used by a shopper – to the point where many people buying anything within the city limits go out of their way to refuse to use the bags.

MEANING THEY’RE NOT paying the tax, but also aren’t using as many plastic bags – which are a serious problem when it comes to trash disposal and recycling.

For what it’s worth, Illinois state government now wants to impose a similar fee. Which means most likely that people in rural places are getting all upset – mostly because they didn’t think of this idea first.

Meaning they’re not collecting the money that does get raised from such a tax.

Now as Gov. J.B. Pritzker puts it, he sees the state tax as a 5 cent fee per bag, with people being given the choice of whether or not they want to buy the bags. Meaning they could avoid paying the fee altogether if they bring their own canvas totes, or some other form of reusable shopping bag.

Trying to reduce these landfills is the point of the tax

PRITZKER ALSO SAYS the state tax would not apply to purchases in Chicago or any other municipality that has its own bag fee. Meaning places such as Evanston or Oak Park – suburbs that like to think they have a progressive character about them that makes life superior within their boundaries.

Which also means that many people are going to diss such a tax as some sort of elitist concept. The Age of Trump type of people probably will claim they’re fighting some holy crusade by refusing to plop down a few pennies for their bags.

Ironic what I do with plastic bags from high-end stores

Although after seeing how such a tax works in Chicago, it seems to me that the kind of people who don’t want to pay it manage to find ways to get out of it. Mostly by carrying their small purchases out of the store in their hands.

Or by becoming the kinds of people who take a tote bag or two with them when they go shopping!

OR YOU COULD be just like myself and decide that 7 cents is a petty fee to pay for the convenience of a bag.

Which I’ll admit sometimes gets me an astounded look from cashiers who have gotten used to people going out of their way to refuse the bags altogether!

Because I’ll admit that I have no problem taking the bags home and finding uses for them. As in I’m recycling them in ways meant to reduce the amount of non-degradable waste that winds up in landfills.

Although I must also admit that many of those bags do wind up getting put to a particular use – as in I keep a few of them in my pockets whenever I take the dogs, Rocco and Carmelo, out for a morning walk around the neighborhood.

THE DOGS ARE well-trained in that they know to “hold it in” and not make a mess while inside the house. They wait for their walk, and in fact the dogs have actually developed a ritual where we walk to a particular front yard where they seem to particularly feel comfortable depositing their “poop.”

Carmelo (left) and Rocco help me with plastic bag re-use

Which causes me to slip a plastic bag onto my hand as a crude glove – and use it to pick up the mess and deposit it into another bag. With all the bags then winding up in the trash outside and hauled away when trash pickup takes place each week.

Maybe it means I’m creating many dozens of doggy-poop missives that will wind up in area landfills. Or it could mean my 7 cent purchases are helping to ensure I’m in total compliance with municipal ordinances concerning the cleanup after one’s own dog.

Which is something I take seriously, because there’s nothing I find more disgusting than someone who thinks they can leave their dog’s poop just lying around. Something I find more disgusting than paying 7 cents for whenever I buy something at Walgreen’s.

  -30-

Illinois’ smoking age remains at 18

I almost find myself agreeing with Gov. Bruce Rauner, who recently used his veto power to kill off a bill that would have raised the age to 21 at which a person could legally buy a package of cigarettes or other tobacco products.

RAUNER: A VETO to smoking age hike

Currently, people have to be capable of showing they’re 18 or older in order to purchase cigarettes, or even those smokeless devices that supposedly allow one to experience the “joy” of smoking without exposure to tobacco.

RAUNER, IN ISSUING his veto of the measure, said that while he has no problem trying to discourage people from smoking, he doesn’t think this law will do a thing to achieve that goal.

In fact, Rauner is trying to view this as an Illinois economy issue – in that it would harm retailers who sell cigarettes by limiting the number of people they can legitimately sell their product to.

The governor actually thinks many people would just turn to surrounding states (if possible) to buy their cigarettes, since places like Indiana aren’t the least bit inclined to want to reduce their smoking ages.

In fact, the idea of people venturing across State Line Road to Indiana in order to make their cigarette purchases (at shops with generic names such as Smokes) is already a common practice. It would just have even younger people thinking in terms of doing their business elsewhere when it comes to cigarette purchases.

PERSONALLY, I’M AWARE that most people don’t even wait until turning 18 these days before picking up the nicotine habit. I recall my own school days when kids were usually around 12 or 13 when they first felt compelled to start smoking.

I can recall Junior High School days when those inclined to want to smoke knew exactly which local businesses (usually local gas stations, the grungier they were the better) would sell cigarettes to kids – and which were not.

Which means I don’t doubt there are some people more interested in their financial bottom line than in anybody’s health to continue their current practices – regardless of any stinkin’ law.

Are shops like this one in Hammond, Ind., the only real beneficiary of reducing the smoking age?

It may actually elevate the idea of selling cigarettes to minors (in some mini-minds) as somehow being a gesture toward personal freedom.

WHICH IS NONSENSE, of course. But it is one that is real.

It would take more than a change in the smoking age in order to actually stop teenagers so inclined to do so to actually not want to pick up a nicotine habit.

In my own case, cigarettes (and smoking, in general) was never a habit I ever sought to acquire. It was actually my father who (indirectly) made me not want to smoke because of the example he set.

No, he wasn’t any sort of tobacco teetotaler. My father was a cigarette smoker as a young man, and I can remember as a young child how much I hated the way he smelled as a result.

ACTUALLY, I WAS around many people who smoked in my family. But when I remember back, I think of the odor of my father as being the most repulsive.

My father has long-ago given up this habit, which I must admit makes being around him a bit more pleasant. But it’s such that I tend to think of being around people who smoke as being a tad too disgusting to endure.

So perhaps the key to discouraging cigarette smoking (and use of tobacco in general) is to make young people realize just how repulsive their action truly is.

Because actions such as what was pondered by the General Assembly this year (and vetoed by Rauner) is only going to make some people think of cigarettes as some sort of “achievement” in life they will gain the right to once they are “grown up.”

  -30-

Who will get hit with political blame as pop, beer prices rise in coming weeks?

It was with some interest that I read reports about how the price of a can of pop or beer will go on the rise in coming weeks due to the rising cost of producing the aluminum for the pop-top cans that are the all-too-popular way of selling such beverages.

Cost of the cans could boost price of the pop/beer

The tariffs being imposed by President Donald Trump are expected to result in rising costs that will be passed along to the consumer.

IT SEEMS THAT both Coca-Cola and MillerCoors are saying they’re going to have to boost the price of buying pop or beer respectively because they will need to recover the costs of producing the cans.

The Chicago Tribune reported that the cost of a case of beer could rise by $1. A hike that could be copied by many other manufacturers of canned beverages.

We all saw last year the outrage that some people got worked up when Cook County tried to impose a tax on sweetened beverages – particularly pop. The carbonated beverage industry made sure to let people know that the prices went up due to government officials.

They also inspired the political outrage that wound up pressuring many of the Cook County Board members who voted for the pop tax (which as I recall boosted the cost of a bottle of Coca-Cola by about 20 cents) to vote to rescind the fee.

THERE WERE PEOPLE who were seriously worked up into a frenzy over the very notion that anyone would try to boost the cost of their pop bottle by anything!

Now, we could have the cost of cases of pop back on the rise not all that long after people thought they had somehow forced the price to drop back down. Considering that there also are hints that Cook County officials may wind up considering to restore some version of the sweetened beverage tax once Election Day has passed and incumbents will be safe from the wrath of gassy pop drinkers for four years, it’s likely that the price we now pay will shoot up soon – and significantly.

TRUMP: Will costs from tariffs cause outrage

So what happens?

Will the wrath be directed entirely upon county officials? Will we have some people who will want to blame the aluminum-related part of the cost increase on the county as well?

OR COULD WE wind up seeing this Age of Trump taken down by the Wrath of Beer-Guzzlers. How dare you do anything that causes the cost of my Bud to go up?

I could see where people who don’t get concerned about all the legitimately-stupid things Trump has done as president would get offended by something trivial; we all have a selfish side to us – and will only get worked up when something purely personal impacts us all.

Or could the Teflon nature (as in no-stick) of the Trump presidency continue to apply here. People will whine and complain about the higher prices they have to start paying for their favorite beverages, but won’t be capable of bringing themselves around to blaming The Donald.

It would amuse me if certain types of people wind up figuring out mental contortionist tricks allowing them to justify blaming Cook County for any price increases that occur on beverages of all types.

PRECKWINKLE: Will some be eager to blame Toni

AFTER ALL, THERE were people all geared up to do a serious campaign against county Board President Toni Preckwinkle based off the tax pop issue. Only they wound up having a political mediocrity like Robert Fioretti to back; which means she cleaned his clock with ease back in the primary election cycle, and there’s no one challenging her come Nov. 6.

Either that, or else they’ll just down another beer or a few while complaining about the additional cost they had to pay in order to put themselves in a state of intoxication.

  -30-

EXTRA: $1,000 a bullet?

I had a friend who once joked (semi-seriously) about an alternative to gun control he believed would actually work.

DAVIS: Trying again on ammo tax hike

“Give guns away, but charge people exorbitant prices for ammunition,” he said “Charge $1,000 for every bullet, and people will think twice before firing a shot.

“IT WOULD BE too expensive to go around killing people,” he quipped.

Which makes me wonder if Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., has heard the same theory. He is sponsoring a bill (and has the support of Democratic gubernatorial Chris Kennedy) that calls for federal excise taxes on gun shells and cartridges from 11 percent to 50 percent.

Make it too costly to waste a shot on something stupid.

As to whether it has a chance of passing into law, one should keep in mind that this isn’t the first time Davis has touted this concept. He tried in 2014, and the bill never even came up for review.

WITH THE CURRENT partisan leanings of Congress, it’s not likely anybody cares what Davis would want on this issue.

But it is an issue to consider, particularly since Davis’ bill would use money from the tax to fund anti-violence programs.

And it probably will take some drastic, completely unheard of, action to break the cycle of violence which certain segments of our society seem to be determined to live.

While the $1,000 per round may not be realistic, it seems the actual cost ($149 for 1,000 9mm shells is one price I found Monday on the Internet) is way too accessible to the public.

  -30-

EXTRA: Pop tax falls flat, while judicial temperaments soar sky high

Friday was the day that the Cook County tax on sweetened beverages (a.k.a., the pop tax) came to an end. With it being a new fiscal year for county government, a new budget takes over the finances.

Cost declines 21 cents

And this is the budget that made some $200 million in spending cuts to replace the revenues that were expected to be raised during Fiscal 2018 through pop sales.

A GREAT MANY people are trying to pass off the county’s action to rescind the tax as some heroic measure by which the Cook County Board listened to the electorate and took away that tax of 1 penny per ounce.

Which usually boosted the price of one of those plastic pop bottles by about 21 cents.

But there are those who are upset by the fact that the entities that comprise Cook County government got their spending cut. One of those is Chief Judge Timothy Evans (remember back when he was supposed to be Harold Washington’s successor, but wound up losing to Richard M. Daley?)

Evans is suing Cook County government, and in fact a hearing was held Friday on that lawsuit – although Friday’s hearing which will resume Tuesday was on the merits of bringing in a judge from outside of Cook County to preside over the case.

EVANS CONTENDS THE Cook County Board has no legal authority to cut employees from the courts payroll. He wants some 100 people restored to his payroll, and the county to find somewhere else to cut the $26 million it contemplated whacking from his portion of the county budget.

EVANS: Suing his own home county

Although county officials argue that the cuts they made to balance out the Cook County budget for Fiscal 2018 does not impact any front-line employees of the state’s attorney or public defender’s offices.

This is likely to be an ongoing argument. So for any of you who thought that the issue was resolved by reducing the cost of a bottle of pop back to previous tax levels, you appear seriously misguided.

And for what it’s worth, I’ve heard from some potential voters who say they admire county board President Toni Preckwinkle for at least trying to find a solution that didn’t involve cuts in government services.

PRECKWINKLE: She tried!

I DON’T KNOW exactly how this will all be resolved in the end – other than to say there are bound to be a few individuals for whom essential services wind up being whacked at in the name of balanced budgeting.

Just something to think about when you get all excited about saving 21 cents on a pop bottle – or 64 cents on those two-liter jugs some people like to buy!

  -30-

Retailers get defensive about pop prices

I stopped the other day at a place to get myself something to eat – a hamburger and Coca Cola (I took a pass on the fries) – and wound up getting into something of a quarrel with the manager over the price.

There might have been fewer questions if all posted the pop tax data as clearly as this McDonald's franchise did. Photograph by Gregory Tejeda

Admittedly, when I heard how much was being charged, I tried to question the cost. Which caused the manager to go into a long diatribe about how this “damned tax” on pop and other sweetened beverages was causing him to jack up his own prices.

ACTUALLY, I WAS curious about the cost of the burger, and it took me a couple of minutes before I was able to cut off the manager and inform him I wasn’t questioning the cost of the soft drink.

He eventually gave me the straight answer about the burger price, and it seems the high price of the bill was due to the hamburger. Which means that, from my perspective, I now know of a place I won’t try to eat at again.

It was expensive, a bit too much for just a burger and Coke!

But what caught my attention about the incident was the quickness of the fast-food franchise manager to come to the aid of his cashier and engage in such a quarrel. I sense that many people are complaining about pop prices and are haranguing the hired help about the tab (and no, I don’t mean the soft drink Tab, which I honestly can’t recall the last time I saw it for sale anywhere).

ARE RESTAURANTEURS GETTING that touchy that they feel the need to defend themselves against complaining customers, many of whom admittedly are just cheapskates who likely will look for any excuse to complain about the price? Which is how I perceive the We Ask America survey showing 85.94 percent of people wanting the tax repealed, and 77.59 percent less likely to vote for county board President Toni Preckwinkle's re-election.

It is with incidents such as this in mind that I am not surprised to learn that the Can the Tax Coalition is going around citing statistics saying that beverage sales are on the decline by 47 percent in Cook County.

I’m sure the coalition, which gets its money from the American Beverage Association and other support from the Illinois Food Retailers Association, wants us to believe that this is a matter of people making special trips to surrounding counties or out-of-state (if they live near the Illinois/Indiana border) to buy their pop.

Some of it may be.

BUT I ALSO wonder if some of it a matter of people deciding that with the potentially significant boost in price due to the penny per ounce tax on such beverages, perhaps there just isn’t as much of a need to consume so much carbonation.

Which would mean that the county tax may be serving one of its stated goals – to help boost the public health by reducing the level of sugar that people consume. Although I’ll be the first to admit that the purpose of any tax is to raise revenue – and not to reduce consumption of anything.

Not even the taxes that get assessed on tobacco products that can make the price of a package of cigarettes so absurdly high that it’s a wonder anybody bothers to smoke.

But they still do!

NOW I DON’T know for sure how much of this so-called decline in pop sales is due to people just drinking less pop. It may be wishful thinking on my part. I’m also sure that some people will start thinking of their consumption of carbonation as something resembling a revolutionary statement.

Which is sad, if that’s really the biggest issue they have to get so worked up over.

My point here is to say I’m skeptical about this latest statistic, which the pop industry lobbyists touted on Wednesday as part of their effort in coming weeks leading up to the Cook County Board’s finance committee reviewing a measure to repeal the tax.

We’re going to get a lot of rhetoric from all sides of this equation from people who claim they’re looking out for our personal freedoms, but only care about them so long as they match up with their own financial interests!

  -30-

We’re in for a month of Hell; a slew of ads warning us of pop, tax evils

I’m sure the people who are all outraged over the price of pop these days, what with the cost added due to the Cook County tax on sweetened beverage sales, feel a great injustice was done on Wednesday.
 

Heart Association wants pop tax

For the Cook County Board, after listening to hours of debate from people arguing both the merits and drawbacks of the pop tax, decided that the way to handle a proposed ordinance repealing the tax was to send it to a committee.

SPECIFICALLY, THE COUNTY board’s Finance Committee will hold a hearing on the issue, and only then will the measure come before the full county board for a final vote.

The crackpots who are upset that the cost of a 2-liter pop bottle is now about $0.65 more than it used to be probably had fantasies that the county board would immediately take a vote on the pop tax repeal ordinance, and that the tax would be ancient history by now!

I mock their line of logic in that our way of government is meant to be deliberate and slow – things don’t just get rammed through the process into action. Or at least they’re not supposed to be.

So the fact that we have to wait for the Finance Committee to have its next meeting scheduled for Oct. 10, with the next full county board session set for the following day? That’s the way things are supposed to be.

WHICH MEANS THAT, Yes, it’s true that the tax will remain in effect for at least one more month. But that could mean the political momentum could continue to build to a point where a majority of the county board will feel compelled to approve a repeal of the pop tax.

Or maybe the healthcare interests that want such a pop tax on the grounds it would discourage people from drinking so many carbonated beverages will be able to make their case to the point where county board officials will feel compelled to leave well enough alone and let the pop tax remain in place.

That’s the democratic process in action. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. As for the people who are upset that the county board couldn’t be strong-armed on Wednesday to giving them what they want?

 

Retailers don't want to collect tax for Cook County

All I can say is that such talk sounds downright un-American!

I’LL ADMIT TO finding it annoying to open my mailbox to see the assorted fliers being sent to me to try to spin me and others to believe their side of the issue. It’s feeling like an Election Day is pending, and at a time when we’re bracing ourselves for the level of partisan nonsense we’re getting from the gubernatorial dreamers.

It’s like we never get a break from the politicking. Which is, I’ll admit, a hell-ish sense to have to feel.

But I’d be more bothered by strong-arm tactics. The sense that the process will allow both sides to make their arguments, with the majority sentiment prevailing, does provide a sense of relief.

Now as I have written before, I support the idea of this particular tax because I realize Cook County government has financial obligations to meet and needs the income. I suspect that people will really start complaining if those obligations, particularly the ones related to providing health care services to the public, are not met.

SO WHILE I am not enthused about the idea of a tax, the alternatives strike me as being worse.

Besides, the reality is that if sentiment against this tax is really so intense, then there will be a future chance to express ourselves. Because there are those future election cycles in which county board President Toni Preckwinkle and the county board members who voted for the tax will have to face re-election.

Political people who backed the pop tax could easily find themselves out on their keisters come the 2018 election cycle. It’s a political risk that elected officials have to take with every single vote they cast.

Turning out a politician who disappoints us? That’s about as all-American a concept as we have!

  -30-

Cook: Somebody must pay pop tax

Cook County Board officials estimate that some $17 million in revenue was lost during the month of July – which is when the courts considered legal actions that challenged the legitimacy of the penny-per-ounce tax on pop and other sweetened beverages.
 

Must be vintage if bottle only a dime

So now that the courts have ruled that the pop tax has legal legitimacy, county officials are talking about forcing someone to cough up the amount of cash they were denied during July.

SPECIFICALLY, THE COUNTY has filed a lawsuit against the Illinois Retail Merchants Association – one of the groups that was supportive of the effort by anti-tax activists to challenge the legitimacy of a pop tax.

The one that was supposed to raise some $67.5 million through the rest of 2017, and another $200 million for the 2018 fiscal year that begins Dec. 1.

Money they insist is needed by the county if its budget is to come out balanced in the end.

So losing a month’s worth of revenue is a significant loss to the county, so much so that it wants to file the legal action that many see as purely punitive towards any group that would dare speak out against the county.

PERSONALLY, I DON’T expect the county ever will get any money from this lawsuit of theirs. I think it is more of an intimidation tactic.

As in when one considers that when a Cook County judge last week handed down the ruling that upheld the pop tax’ legitimacy, the retail merchants association made a point of saying it was “weighing our legal options,” then earlier this week filed their own appeal of Judge Daniel Kubasiak’s ruling.

One that was meant to get an appeals court to strike down the pop tax once again.

 

PRECKWINKLE: Willing to fight for pop tax

I suspect that when their appeals disappear, the county’s lawsuit against the association will also wither away.

SUCH TACTICS MAY be strong-arm tactics that border on intimidation – although to tell you the truth, it’s not like business-oriented groups such as the association aren’t capable of deploying their own collection of goons to try to intimidate government entities into going along with their demands.

But then again, I’m also waiting to see what becomes of the 300 or so county employees who were laid off from their jobs last month due to the financial shortfall caused by temporarily losing the county pop tax.

County officials weren’t exactly quick to say when those people would be restored to the payroll – which as far as I’m concerned is a sleazier move than any tax hike being imposed on people who just feel compelled to have their dose of a carbonated beverage as part of their daily sugar intake.

Perhaps this particular tax just doesn’t offend me much because it is for a product that we choose to enjoy, or can decide to do without. And realize that sentence was just written by someone who enjoys an occasional Coca-Cola. Although I also have been making my own effort during the past year to reduce the amount of pop I consume.

WE COULD CONTINUE to engage in a back-and-forth battle over the pop tax. Or maybe we could move on to issues of true significance instead of fighting over the resulting price increase.

Pop tax couldn't wind up here, could it?

Because the reality is that nothing costs the same as it used to. Everything is more expensive these days. Remember it wasn't long ago that gasoline cost less than $1 per gallon?!?

Yes, the idea of having to pay an extra 20 cents for that single-serve bottle of pop ($1.89 at a Walgreens, the last time I bought one) kind of stinks. It makes me think of when I was a young child some 45 years ago having to accompany my mother to a neighborhood laundromat and being allowed to buy myself a pop from the vending machine for about 20 cents.

As in the total price – not just the tax added on! I find that price hike much more offensive.

  -30-

Saving jobs? Or cheap pop!

Are we really on the verge of putting some 1,100 people out-of-work because we want to keep the price of pop and other sweetened drinks as low as possible?
 

Is this worth 20 more cents?

That’s the line of logic being offered up by Cook County government these days, where officials say layoff notices will have to be issued in coming days to a significant number of county employees.

THAT IS BECAUSE the penny per ounce tax increase on the carbonated drinks too many of us consume at too high a rate has been stalled by the courts, meaning it can’t be charged and Cook County government can forget (for now, at least) about raising the revenue it mentally had already spent to maintain its operations.

For the record, the county was expecting some $67.5 million for the rest of their fiscal year (through Nov. 30) and more than $200 million for the next fiscal year – which begins Dec. 1.

That’s a big hole to suddenly have crop up in the budget. I can see where county officials would be dismayed at the various restraining orders that have prevented them from charging the penny per ounce fee they wanted to start collecting back on July 1.

Those restraining orders, as of now, run through July 21 – at which time there will be more hearings in the Cook County Circuit Court and a judge could eventually issue an order that strikes down the pop tax outright.

 

Will county government services need to be cut?

NOW AS ONE who has experienced the “wonders” (sarcasm most definitely intended) of job layoffs, I’m not thrilled about the idea of any worker being let go for any reason – particularly one that isn’t their fault.

But I also don’t doubt that many people aren’t terribly sympathetic to the idea of the county wanting to preserve its operations – which some may have their own ideological hang-ups about in thinking have grown too big.

If you really are the type of person who thinks it’s a good thing that the county will have fewer workers, I’ll say you’re a cold-hearted person.

Having a pop not the same experience of old

But there may be those who view the tax bills they’re already paying and figure they don’t like the idea of paying one penny more.

WHICH IS WHY the notion of this particular pop tax being only one cent per ounce may sound terrible. Besides, that’s about a 20-cent increase in the typical plastic bottle of pop meant to evoke the image of the old glass Coca-Cola bottles we all used to drink from.

And as for the 2-liter bottles that are all so popular, that’s another 65 cents added to the price.

Personally, I don’t that’s overly excessive – although I’ll also admit that I have been making an effort during the past year to reduce the total amount of carbonated beverages I consume.

I still enjoy an occasional Coke, but have to admit to finding ice water equally refreshing, Maybe I’m just getting boring in my old age.

BUT SERIOUSLY, IT would not be the worst thing in the world if people would think twice about the amount of carbonation they feel the need to consume. Which, if you think about it honestly, can create a gassy condition that can’t possibly be good for any of us.

If you think I’m somehow trivializing this issue, keep in mind that this is the essence of all the legalese that eventually will be spewed in open court as attorneys argue on the merits of the county being able to use a pop tax as a revenue-raising source.

At some point, a judge is going to have to decide on the merits of carbonated beverages in general, and the right of an individual to have a Coke (and a smile, according to the old jingle) for as cheap a price as possible.

Is that really a right? In order to properly express my thoughts on that concept, I’d have to guzzle down a Coke or two in order to get the proper tone to my belch!

  -30-

‘Pop tax’ on hold, yet people still panic

I couldn’t help but be amused when I was at a Jewel-Osco supermarket on Saturday, and not because of Jo-Jo the mascot or the other costumed characters who were present.
 

Waiting to see if tax takes effect July 13

But I happened to be present because I wanted to buy a container of lemonade, which is among the beverages that qualify to be taxed under Cook County’s new sweetened beverage tax.

THE PRICE TAG indicated that the lemonade was on sale, but also that the dollar amount on the tag did not reflect the additional $0.01 per ounce that is being charged to raise money for county government to fulfill its financial obligations.

One of those saying that the additional tax would be “added at checkout.”

Of course, nothing was added when I made my purchase on Saturday, but only because of the circuit judge who issued a temporary restraining order to prevent the new tax from taking effect on Saturday.

So no more tax monies will be collected, at least through July 12, when a court hearing is scheduled to hear legal arguments on the merits of the injunction. A permanent ban on the tax could be issued at that time.

THE POP TAX has become one of those things that gets people worked up. How dare the government think they can do anything to boost the price of a bottle of pop or whatever other sweetened beverage (such as my lemonade) that we might want to buy?!?

The activists are trying to make this into some sort of moral crusade. They have turned to the courts to try to prevent the Cook County Board from imposing the pop tax it approved late last year, with provisions that it take effect as of July 1.

Which is why the retailers such as Jewel made a point of warning people about the potential charge. My guess is they don’t want any customer to claim they were somehow tricked into paying more money for their beverages.

PRECKWINKLE: Cook needs pop tax monies

Just like I have heard some complain about the fee that retailers in Chicago now charge if one chooses to ask for a plastic bag to store their purchases in when they leave the store. It’s only $0.07 per bag, but I’m sure some people are going to argue about the “principle” of the issue.

ALTHOUGH IT’S NOT just city-based retailers addressing the issue. It seems that some of the larger supermarket chains that operate just across the Illinois/Indiana state line are already publishing advertising inserts advising people they ought to make a trip to their Hoosier-based stores so as to avoid paying the Cook County tax.

Some activists are trying to use those inserts as evidence of how Chicago-area businesses will lose out because of the tax – those businesses just outside of Cook County will prey on Chicago customers like leeches to suck up their money while depriving our own businesses of revenue.

I’ve heard figures as high as “40 percent” being tossed out – as in that’s how much pop sales could decline in Chicago and the Cook County suburbs. That could be a financial blow.

Except that I wonder how many people are going to want to make a lengthy drive to buy cheap pop. There may be those people who live near the border areas who will make the trip to the “next town over” to save a little money.

THEN AGAIN, THEY’RE probably the same people who make a point of making the same trip to get cheaper gasoline for their car or will feel the need to head out to the Land of Hoosiers for a dose of firecrackers and other explosives so as to terrorize the neighborhood little ol’ ladies and pets with the “rockets’ red glare” come Tuesday and Independence Day.

So we may have some people freaking out about the price of pop going up, while others will go out of their way to show just how minimal the cost increase will be. While we spend the next week-and-a-half in a lull, waiting to see whether the county’s pop tax will be permitted to exist.

Although personally, a part of me wonders if pop is something along the lines of cigarettes – another product that officials try to tax so as to raise revenue while also possibly persuading people to lessen their consumption.

Which might be for the best. Because personally, while I enjoy a Coca-Cola from time to time, I find that too much of it gives me gas.

  -30-