A TV commercial break does not go by in this election season without a 30 second spot where an extremely unflattering photo of Candidate A is shown on the screen and he is accused of raising taxes and not creating jobs. Candidate B does not explain by what magic he will provide governmental services without taxes or jobs without economic growth, but that's OK. It's easier to vote against scary-looking, tousle-haired, red-eyed Candidate A than to consider that Candidate B will be subject to the same economic facts--of-life if he is elected.
Not to be cynical, but the real name of the game is money. The Natural Gas Lobby has invested a whopping $350K in Tom Corbett's gubernatorial campaign. Tom, therefore, opposes any tax on natural gas extracted from new fields in Pennsylvania. The Lobby has invested a mere $60K in his opponent's campaign. Dan Onerato, feeling slighted, is "leaning toward" an extraction tax. Of course, that's subject to change if a few more bucks roll in to campaign coffers.
While a combined $410K seems like a lot of money, the new Pennsylvania fields may contain enough natural gas to last for 30 years. If the fields produce $1 billion per year in full production and the PA state extraction tax is 1%, that $410K "campaign contribution" will pay off to the tune of an additional $10 million per year. Not a bad investment.
The rationale for not taxing the natural gas is that "it will drive producers away." That's strange. Every other natural gas-producing state taxes it and the producers are still in business.
Obviously, this is a gross oversimplification. Still, this is the sort of thing that should be featured in those ubiquitous TV political spots rather than "My opponent roasts adorable puppies and eats them for lunch."
No comments:
Post a Comment