Maryland government proposes to raise alcohol tax to fund those with development disabilities

By Tess McLaughlin Staff Writer

Cabs fill the Evergreen Campus every Friday night, ushering a large portion of the Loyola student body to their desired destinations, often to establishments that serve adult beverages. After a weekend of fun it is sometimes hard to calculate where that $50 went you just got for Christmas. But what would Loyola say if they found out their nights out at Craig's and Mad River were about to get even more expensive? What if Maryland increased the tax on alcohol? Alcohol Tax. Two of the most controversial words thrown together into one concept, guaranteed to start a debate. The proposition of a tax on alcohol was brought to the forefront last year, and after being defeated, the proposed bill is being revived again for round two. The Maryland tax on alcohol has not been increased since 1972, which is an unusually long period of time for a sin tax to go without being adjusted. This proposed tax has a direct purpose: A large portion of the revenues raised from this tax would go to fund the Developmentally Disabilities Waiting List. This Maryland waiting list is almost 20,000 persons long and contains a generational spectrum, from children age four with autism to 40-year-old adults with downs syndrome or severe mental retardation. For a Loyola student, the alcohol tax would break down to about 10 cents per drink, or $3.00 more for a 30 pack of beer. But this seemingly subtle increase is creating quite a stir in our already declining, and imbibing economy. Many bars and restaurants are against the alcohol tax, noting that it would significantly affect their revenue. Many fear that with higher prices, people would instead cross the border into Washington D.C., hurting the Maryland economy. For others it is also hard to argue against a small increase in a luxury tax applied to a discretionary beverage, and one that would specifically benefit so many who struggle financially just to get through everyday activities due to their disabilities. Available data reveals that assisting someone with a developmental disability can cost anywhere from $15,000 to $200,000 a year, making it difficult to literally impossible for many to lend support to their disabled loved ones. There is considerable doubt that this bill will be passed in 2010. "No one increases taxes in an election year, regardless of political party. To do that would be a guarantee to lose your position," says sophomore Lisa Souders. Undaunted, the Arc of Maryland, an organization working to help those with developmental disabilities, continues to put a lot of effort behind the bill in hopes of pushing it through this time around. They have even gone so far as to support an increase in the bill, changing the tax from five to ten cents per drink. In a September 2009 Gonzales' poll, 83% percent of Maryland voters were in favor of the alcohol tax once they were aware of the objective. This perspective is according to the End the Wait Now campaign, a petition-based initiative helping to assist those in crisis mode. Crisis mode, considered the most frightening portion of the DDA waiting list, is defined as persons with a developmental disability whose primary caregiver could soon be ill or deceased. Without this money, it is unknown what would happen to these people who need care round the clock. The money from the alcohol tax is aimed at these people who are at the top of the Waiting List. A Loyola sophomore and Maryland resident who wished to remain anonymous gave her opinion: "If I know that the funds are being earmarked to a specific cause that I believe in, I know that the funds are going to something I care about as opposed to the general government who is doing other things I do not support." "What does alcohol have to do with developmental disabilities?" asks Loyola undergrad Meredith Maccone. Besides funding the DDA Waiting List, another large portion of the revenue generated from this tax will be given to programs dedicated to the prevention of alcohol abuse. Both of these causes are things currently seen as underfunded by their advocates. On the other hand, according to a Loyola freshman Matt Marzicol, there is a better way for everyone to win in this situation. "Instead of instituting the alcohol tax, it makes more sense to divert money to the General Fund to put towards the waiting list." Marzicol points out that the taxes collected will have to enter the General Fund as well and go through a process to become separated, eventually reaching those on the Waiting List. "In the given time frame, even if the tax was supported, diverting funds would be more immediate. [The tax] is not instantaneous," Marzicol continues. Would the government give the Waiting List the $200 million the alcohol tax it is thought to raise? With a deficit of $3 billion, and a slew of special interests all with much stronger lobbying groups in comparison to the DDA, it is doubtful that either of these plans is foolproof.