A disappointment
Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008 By Mike Maurer
Goodness, is this a disappointment: The Columbus Dispatch lead editorial argues that Ohio needs the CAT tax because Ohio needs money and that tax is structured wisely, but surely the paper knows that this isn’t the question being asked.
Let’s agree for the sake of argument that what the editorial says is true, that a low rate, broad base tax is a good tax structure, and that government needs revenue, which is to say, it’s unusually short of revenue and is therefore in unusual need. As the editorial puts it, “The money has to come from somewhere.”
None of this has anything to do with what’s at issue. An appellate court ruled that the tax is unconstitutional. It’s illegal. Against the law. It doesn’t matter whether the money has to come from somewhere. It doesn’t matter that the state needs it. It doesn’t matter that it’s a good tax with a good structure. It’s against the law.
There are only two arguments to make here: The appellate court was wrong, or the law should be changed. As it stands, the paper seems to be calling for the law to be ignored. Justice Pfeifer notwithstanding, this is not the way law or government should work.
Of the available arguments, the far better argument is that the appellate court is right: You can’t let legislators call a a dog a CAT and night day and expect good government to result. The CAT tax is a sales tax, legislative gamesmanship aside, and they should be held to account for imposing a sales tax. That’s transparency and honesty, which must be the first priority. The Dispatch can be completely right about the financial need and tax policy, but if it is then it should argue to amend the constitution. When we give up law, what is left? Your good wishes? What do we do when your good wishes conflict with mine?
