Almost exactly a year ago Lingle and Hannemann were wrangling over whether it was the city or the state’s responsibility to collect the tax. The mayor said the state should but that provision was not written into the law. The governor threatened to veto the bill because it lacked the provision delegating the responsibility of collecting the tax to the city.

In the end the governor relented upon the proviso that the Legislature provide her “in writing” a promise to modify the law in the next session and upon verbal assurances from those in the majority party, allowed the tax increase to pass into law without her signature. In other words, she got snookered.

The first mistake the governor made was not honoring her pledge to not increase taxes and failing to veto the bill outright. Had she simply done this she wouldn’t be in the position she is today. The second mistake was believing those in the majority party would honor their word and modify the bill to assign the tax collection chores to the city. When the time came those who had given her such assurances abruptly reversed their positions and claimed they made no such promises. This too was entirely predictable.

The Legislature, in its typical dysfunctional fashion, failed to pass a bill this year appropriating funds to implement the collection of the tax at the state level so now the governor is saying the state cannot collect the tax. And the mayor, in response is threatening to sue.

Isn’t this a fine kettle of fish?

At this point taxpayers have to wonder how much this debacle is going to cost in legal fees. The mayor vetoed a bill banning street performers from certain sections of Waikiki at the beginning of the year because of a purported concern for legal costs but that apparently doesn’t concern him here, even though both the city and the state will incur such costs should this turn out to be a protracted scuffle.

There is a certain level of irony that the city and the state are squabbling over a mere $5 million dollars on a project that will probably cost $5 billion or more. It sort of demonstrates the fact that this state doesn’t have the resources to build the monstrosity it is contemplating in the first place and should shift its priorities.

The GE tax increase money could to go to any number of transit options but the mayor has stated several times that rail takes precedence over any other transit plans. This despite the fact that all parties involved are quickly proving they aren’t capable of managing such an extensive project. They cannot even agree on how to collect the tax.

This has turned into a long running tragicomedy where the antics of our elected officials provide the comedy and the method of fleecing the taxpayers for a boondoggle is the tragedy. The most that can be hoped for at this point is that the wrangling will continue long enough for the federal government to throw in the towel on its funding for the rail project and everyone can return to the drawing board to come up with some truly practical and efficient solutions to the traffic problems of Oahu.

Don Newman, senior policy analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Hawaii's first and only free market public policy institute focused on individual freedom and liberty, can be reached at: mailto:don@grassrootinstitute.org

This editorial is intended to provoke thought, discussion and an examination of issues. It does not reflect official policy of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. See the GRIH Web site at: http://www.grassrootinstitute.org

HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com

Offshoots

NEUTRALITY CHECK

Daily Policy Digest

REGULATORY ISSUES

When the Internet was created, its guiding principle was that everyone would be free to use it in a way that was privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental, but now many companies are advocating for more regulation, says Charles Giancarlo, senior vice president of Cisco System.

At issue is "net neutrality," the ideal that network designs and operators should not discriminate between network applications. But is regulation really needed to accomplish net neutrality? At this point, no, says Giancarlo:

The Internet is still in its adolescence, and it is undergoing rapid change. Regulation would lock in rules and practices that might seem correct today, but could create havoc tomorrow. Instead, we should allow the massive convergence to Internet technology to continue unabated, and regulators should address specific problems on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, we need to foster and maintain innovation of the Internet infrastructure, services and operating devices to ensure that consumers have access to safe and legal applications, says Giancarlo:

As the demands on the Internet grow, consumers, businesses and service providers are increasingly insisting that it be reliable and be able to meet new demands in the future, which is why it is critical that service providers be able to develop their networks to provide support for all communication needs. Moreover, new network technologies and management tools not only keep the Internet flowing, they also spur innovation; soon, personalized Internet HDTV will become possible and business tools, such as video conferencing, will become more significant as the quality of video and audio improves. Furthermore, Congress must protect freedom and openness on the Internet, while promoting responsibility and fairness among its users, and the ability of providers to compete on technology and services. With forbearance and wise policies, we can actually ensure that innovation and growth continue and that consumers win, says Giancarlo.

Source: Charles H. Giancarlo, "Neutrality Check," Wall Street Journal, June 8, 2006.

For text (subscription required):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114973113198074497.html

For more on Regulation:

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/regulat/reg.html

Sprout of the Day

"Once the government becomes the supplier of people's needs, there is no limit to the needs that will be claimed as a basic right."

— Lawrence Auster

Sprig

According to a study published in Health Affairs, Medicare costs totaled $335 billion in 2005 and are projected to reach $420.1 billion in 2006 and $792 billion in 2015.

Grassroot Perspective...