Can I Get Some Tea Parties Over This?

Woe is government. With the economy on the brink of ruin, government revenue streams have been going all dodo on us. Some legislators have come up with a brilliant solution: raise beer taxes!

In Oregon, one of America's craft-beer breadbaskets, cash-hungry politicians are pushing to raise the state's excise taxes on beer by ... wait for it ... 1,900 percent!

Well, Lew Bryson is having none of this foolishness. Over at his fine blog Seen Through a Glass, Lew lays the smackdown on the notion of beer taxes, and excise taxes in general, in a fiery post designed to get the rest of beer-loving America to stand up for our suds.

It worked on me. I shot off a letter to my national and state representatives voicing my opposition to hiking beer taxes, with Lew's missive providing valuable inspiration. We should all do the same – Congress.org makes it mighty easy.

Update: Before I get to the letter, here are three fine beer-tax-related posts from Brookston Beer Bulletin. They're all particularly germane to this discussion.

• Cross-Border Beer Buying (and its impact on state coffers)
• Beer Excise Taxes By State (my, my ... way to go, Southeast)
• Sin Tax Tyrannies

Typically great stuff from Jay at BBB. OK, Here's my letter:

Dear [Insert Pol's Name Here],

As governments across the U.S. grapple with dwindling revenue sources and ballooning deficits, many leaders have proposed raising excise taxes on particular goods -- specifically, beer. This "solution" has me deeply troubled.

To begin with, raising taxes during a recession strikes me as seriously flawed policy. You are, in essence, taking more money from people who have less of it, and at the same time placing an extra penalty upon consumer activity -- something that, as we know, is a critical engine of our economic health.

In addition, the notion of taxing certain goods to pay for programs and government services that ostensibly benefit all of us is inherently unfair. If we are all to benefit, then let us all shoulder our reasonable share of the burden. I believe in progressive taxation, not in arbitrarily handing a chunk of the bill to people who happen to buy one kind of good over another.

And in beer, once again we have found an easy and supposedly uncontroversial target for extra taxation, on the grounds that higher taxes may discourage use of the product, which would be a good thing anyhow. This is the thinking behind so-called "sin" taxes.

This approach fails to hold up to critical examination. If the objective of raising excise "sin" taxes is simultaneously to bring in additional revenue while also discouraging access to an unhealthy or immoral good, then these are incompatible goals. If a tax is sufficiently high to curb demand, then revenues will fall -- unless, of course, the tax is so astronomical as to make up the difference. In this case we would be dealing with a monstrously high tax of outrageous proportions. Better to just muster the courage to ban the offending good altogether rather than hide behind taxes.

A final word on increasing beer taxes: As a consumer of high-end, specialty beers, I, along with like-minded consumers, already pay significantly more for the same quality of beer than do mainstream beer drinkers. The unique craft brews and imports we enjoy already cost around two times (or higher) more than typical American industrial beers. Raising excise taxes on all beers will price many of these special beers out of consumers' price range -- hurting not only consumers but a number of American small businesses in the process.

Meanwhile, it cannot be overstated that the high-end beers that can least afford price hikes are already of no interest to "problem drinkers" whose consumption is the target of such "sin" taxes in the first place. The beers enjoyed by connoisseurs, by virtue of their price and richness in flavor, are highly unlikely candidates for abuse. It is the mass-market, inexpensive mainstream beers that fall into this category; already they are inexpensive and accessible enough to be far less affected than high-quality artisanal beers.

I must emphasize that I oppose, on grounds of principle, any increase whatsoever in such excise taxes, even an incremental one. Again, if we are all to benefit, then let us all pay our fair share. Tax schemes that work otherwise are not only unfair but, to be honest, the mark of political cowardice.

I hope I can count on you to stand in firm opposition to any increase in beer excise taxes. I will give my support to any officials who fight against unfair tax increases that disproportionately target an arbitrary category of law-abiding citizens. I will not hesitate to withhold my support from those who do not.

Thank you very much for your attention on this important matter.

The Session #19 – Deutsches Bier

Been meaning to do this Session thing for a while now, but dammit if I don't forget every month. And it almost happened again, but for a chance visit to Lew Bryson's blog today that jogged my memory.

This month's theme is "Deutsches Bier" – German beer – and how the world is a better place for it. (And it is, thank you.) Our September Session is being hosted (and shortly, aggregated and summarized) by lootcorp 3.0.

I'm tempted, really tempted, to use this opportunity to rail against Germany's famed Reinheitsgebot, a.k.a. "German Beer Purity Law" of 1516. I'm tempted to point out that it's an outdated (by, oh, around 500 years) piece of legislation whose original purpose was to protect the production of bread, not beer. Tempted to point out the fundamental flaw in this attempt to fix the acceptable constituencies in beer before we even knew about yeast. Perfectly tempted to go on about stifling creativity, expression and the free market for no good reason. I'm tempted to do all these things, but I won't. I'll leave that to this guy.

If we are to equate wild, rambunctious and unrestrained brewing practices with greatness (can you say "Belgium"?), then maybe we ought also to bemoan the Reinheitsgebot for keeping one of the world's great brewing traditions needlessly handcuffed and kept from achieving its true potential.

On the other hand, how about arguing that by forcing German brewmasters to limit the scope of their focus, perhaps, and by instilling a strict adherence to the doctrine of "beer purity," maybe that silly old law is to be thanked for the roster of outstanding, technically masterful beer styles Germany has to offer today.

Ooof. Such philosophical and academic exercises are downright meaningless when you're in the streets outside Zum Uerige, sipping fresh Altbier poured from a firkin. Or downing beautiful golden Helles from a giant mug in the Augustiner Biergarten. Or enjoying barbecue with a smokey, velvety, seductive Rauchbier. Or fighting back the pucker instinct gifted by a gloriously sour Berliner Weisse. (Take that, Belgium.)

Germany, I say give me your Doppelbocks, your Dortmunders, your Schwartzbiers. Your Weizenbocks, your Kölsches, your Märzens.

Let's be honest – how often do we demand that our beers have adjuncts and extraneous flavorings in them? What's in an IPA that would offend the German Beer Police? (You thought I was going to say "Beer Nazis," didn't you?)

The Olympics ended last month, so I hope you'll follow me on this: Without taking a moral stand on the Reinheitsgebot issue, we can step back and regard Germans beers like we do the Chinese athletes churned out from that country's gymnast-and-diver mills. Sure, there may be some government meddling involved here. OK, things might have turned out differently. But damn – they're still something to marvel at.

Brothers, Take Arms

How do you feel about sticking it to The Man? About artful wordsmiths who wield the brute force of rationality and wit to pull back the curtain on nanny-state heavy handedness?

Like those things?

Then head on over to "Why The PLCB Should Be Abolished," the fine new blog from Pennsylvania drinks writer Lew Bryson. The target of Bryson's scorn is the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the state-run wine and liquor monopoly that Bryson, in no uncertain terms, wishes to see go the way of the dodo.

You don't have to be a Keystone Stater to appreciate Bryson's compelling arguments and irreverence. The blog, though it only recently launched, is imbued with a sense of urgent frustration at a system that Bryson has for decades failed to see purpose in.

I've often considered myself something of an armchair champion of sensible alcohol policy. The State newspaper even saw fit to indulge my ramblings on the subject not long ago. Perhaps I'm spoiled, having lived in New Orleans for several years -- I've yet to encounter a more liberal (or liberated) approach to booze regulations. And, in fairness to the Crescent City and this here cause, I believe NOLA's reputation as a pitiable town of lushes has its roots elsewhere.

Here's hoping Pennsylvanians take to Bryson's call to arms against their antiquated system and father-knows-best posture on booze. I may not have a dog in this fight, but I wish them all the best still.