“Dan - even I can see through your bull****”

Dan “the Dictator” Onorato, clearly on the “hopes to be governor” circuit, was kissing babies and making asinine statements at the state farm show outside of Harrisburg. 

According to the Post-Gazette, while at the farm show he was asked by a Philadelphia reporter whether the Drink Tax controversy had hurt his chances to be governor.  Dan “the Dictator” said no - the controversy was dead since the tax was lowered to 7%.  http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09012/941209-178.stm

Say what?  Dan - the Drink Tax was covered non-stop over the past two weeks when you had your rump slapped by a Judge for trying to bogart Drink Tax revenues for your own general pork projects.   If that was bad, just think what the conventional wisdom will be should the Referendum to lower the Drin Tax to .5% is placed on the ballot by the Supreme Court.  Or if a few of your quislings on County Council bite the dust this year  . . .

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has set the oral argument for the case involving the Referendum sought by Friends Against Counterproductive Taxation.  The Referendum looks to roll the Drink Tax back to .5%.  Lower courts had ruled that, despite the County Code’s apparent authorization, state law did not permit referenda to raise or lower tax rates.   The argument is set for March 4 in Pittsburgh. 

“Why don’t those nasty boys leave you alone, Dan?”

Joseph Sabino Mistick, erstwhile (read unsuccessful) judicial candidate, member of the Allegheny County political machine, and Luciano Pavrotti lookalike tells Drink Tax opponents in the Tribune Review that they have overplayed their hand.  http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_606454.html

First, he notes that the Drink Tax opponents should be satisfied with Dan’s (grudging) lowering of the tax to 7%, and appear ungrateful since they don’t.

Then, he somehow spins a court victory for Drink Tax opponents which prevented Onorato from transferring Drink Tax monies into a defeat.  Supposedly, this is because Dan the Dictator thinks he can direct Drink Tax monies overcollected in 2008 directly to the Pork Authority for capital projects.  That may be so, but it misses the point:  Because of this judicial decision, Dictator Dan cannot now or in the future stick his snout into the Drink Tax fund for his pet projects on the General Budget.  It also means it’s less likely that he will try to raise the tax back to 10%.   So please, Pavrotti, either think of the big picture or limit your comments to your local ward committee meetings. 

The Allegheny Institute (not to be confused with the hypocritical running dog Allegheny Conference) has given thoughtful analysis to the Drink Tax question.  Here is a link to it’s website.  http://www.alleghenyinstitute.org/drinktax.php?gclid=CIT3_4KSiJgCFQGHHgodPjIJDw

Dan “the Dictator” Onorato seems to be becoming completely unhinged by his latest court setback, when a judge declared illegal his plan to siphon away Drink Tax revenues from the Port Authority for his pet projects.   It seems that he has now taken to writing letters to the Post-Gazette in response to letters written by just plain old citizens.  You’d hope he’d answer letters directed to him as County Diminutive as quickly and in such detail, but that is certainly too much to ask.   http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09009/940598-35.stm

The Post-Gazette, one of America’s Great, Most Spendiferous Newspapers, earlier this week ran an article detailing how some taverns have not lowered their drink prices (for simplicity, many bars include the tax in the price of the drink) despite the lowering of the Drink Tax from 10 to 7 percent.   http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09006/939857-85.stm

Putting aside the fact that this story comes right out of the Dictator Dan/ Rich Fitzgerald/ Kevin Evanto talking points, the story features a gaping hole in its reporting.  

The Sports and Exhibition Authority is a joint County-City authority.  The SEA owns PNC Park, Heinz Field, and Mellon Arena.  The SEA contracts with Aramark, a Philadelphia company, to sell concessions at those public arenas.  When the Drink Tax went into effect, Aramark rather notoriously raised its beer prices in excess of 10% in order to “round up” to the nearest quarter in order to keep its transactions simple.  Thus a beer that cost $6.50 pre-tax went up to $7.25 — an 11.5% increase (the price would have been $7.15 with the tax at 10%). 

 Now with the tax at 7%, Aramark could easily lower beer prices by a quarter and not feel any ill effects on its margins.  3% of $7.50 is 22 cents.  Since the beer price was raised by an extra dime in the first place, Aramark is still overcharging for the tax if the price was reduced to $7.25. 

But the P-G never asked that question.  And thus the County Diminutive has never answered, ”Why doesn’t the County instruct its authority to instruct Aramark to lower its prices?”  Why wasn’t the question asked?  Who knows?  Dan hasn’t answered it because he would rather have the press pick on Mom and Pop bar owners than corporate fat cats like Aramark who stand to make an extra $25,000 per Steeler game leaving their pricing in place. 

The Post-Gazette, one of America’s Super Great, Unbelievably Keen, Indescribably Superlative Newspapers, has been on the wrong side of the Drink Tax issue from the start.  No surprise there, given the axis between Dan “the Dictator” Onorato to the Post-Gazette editorial page to the Allegheny Conference.

A few days ago, the P-G editorial page for once got it right when it criticized Il Duce for trying to grab Drink Tax revenues for general County pork spending.

Then, just when you thought it was safe to read the P-G, Editorial Page Editor Tom Waseleski comes out with this little bit of ill-reasonsed dribble on his blog:

“Tom Waseleski”

“The never-ending skirmish over the drink tax in Allegheny County is fraught with ironies.  One is that the tavern owners, restaurant operators and Republican County Council member who sued to ensure that every dollar of the tax went to public transit weren’t actually concerned about funding the Port Authority. They wanted to torture Dan Onorato, the county executive who initiated the tax. And they did, up to a point. . .

The latest irony comes in words from Kevin Joyce, owner of The Carlton restaurant and a stalwart opponent of the drink tax. . . .   The county cut the tax rate to 7 percent for 2009 after seeing that it generated more revenue last year than needed. What’s startling — or maybe not surprising — is that after a year of hammering away at the county for over-taxing taverns and restaurants, Joyce rationalized in today’s PG about the same establishments over-taxing their customers by not reducing drink prices after the tax rollback.

Joyce said, “A good case could be made for bar owners hanging on. There’s never been a tougher year than 2008 for the hospitality industry. From the drink tax, to the increased costs, then demand decreased, and then in the fourth quarter, the economy crashed and people weren’t spending as much disposable income.”

It’s true Joyce is in a tough business. So is anyone in government. Onorato feels his pain.”

Tom:  I’ll go through this slow so that you’ll understand.

Bars and restaurants are private businesses.  They can charge whatever price they want.   If customers think those prices are too high, or think that they’re being taken advantage of, they can and will go elsewhere.   The bar or restaurant will suffer diminished sales as a result.  People have a choice in this private transaction.

Allegheny County is a governmental entity.  It uses its taxing power to coerce customers and businesses owners into paying a percentage of each retail drink transaction to it in the form of the Drink Tax.  Unlike with a private business, the customer has not choice.  If he wants the drink, he pays the tax.  In the meantime, the County takes its cut without investing anything into the process and without taking any risk.  All it does is reap the reward when the transaction is completed.   If the tax causes prices to rise to the point where demand suffers, too bad.  Pay up.

“Kevin - now that you’ve enlightened me on state sales tax policies, I wonder if you might let me know the price of a loaf of bread . . . . “

Kevin Evanto, chief mouthpiece for County Diminutive Dan “the Dictator” Onorato, as quoted in the Pitt News:

 ”One thing that I think they confuse in the issue is they say that it’s a tax on the hospitality industry of bars and restaurants,” said Evanto. “It’s not. Visitors of Allegheny County, people not only from the counties around us but other states and countries who come here to visit and buy a drink in a restaurant or bar, they’re paying the drink tax. It’s a consumer tax. It’s no different than if you buy food at Giant Eagle or you buy a sweatshirt at the Pitt shop. You’re paying sales tax, it’s a consumer tax.”

Uh, Kevin?  This is Pennsylvania.  We don’t tax clothing at retail or food in a grocery store.  However, it is nice to see that our County administration is so in touch with the lives of everyday people. 

See the whole Pitt News article here.  http://www.pittnews.com/news/in_first_year%2C_drink_tax_revenues_overflowing

Is this Dictator Dan?  Hmm . . . ?

At Large County Council Member Chuck McCullough, a former County Solicitor, noted at a press conference yesterday that if Dan Onorato wants to divert Drink Tax monies to direct funding of Port Authority capital projects, he will at least need to obtain the approval of County Council to do so.  The $20 million in Drink Tax overcollection is not chump change.  In Court last week, County Budget Director Amy Greiser was practically coughing up a hairball contemplating 2009 without the Drink Tax Funds.  

Yet Dictator Dan posits that he can redirect that money to capital spending for the Port Authority all on his lonesome, without any approval by County Council.  http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09007/940034-53.stm

This behavior by Dan is not surprising in the least.  Dictators do not normally like to consult with legislative bodies about how to spend money. 

The pathetic part is that the County Diminutive’s trained gerbils on County Council are only too happy to go along with him.  No member of Council, save McCullough, has voiced any opposition to the Dictator’s diversion of Drink Tax funds from the Port Authority to General Budget.  This is a complete abdication of their duties as legislators to review and approve county spending.  The Drink Tax majority on Council, however, is so beholden to the great and almight Dictator Dan that they can’t even see their role as pathetic little Quislings. 

“Dan, you don’t have to be me to know that you got spanked in court last week.”

On Marty Griffin’s Tuesday show (Jan. 6), County Diminutive Dan Onorato claimed that the County did not lose a lawsuit filed by FACT and restauranteurs, and asserted that the Court just advised the parties on what the Drink Tax monies could be used for. 

Say What???

Dan:  To clue you in, when a court issues a preliminary injunction against you, you lost. 

Dan:  When your solicitor vows to appeal a court’s decision, you lost.  You do not file appeals when you won. 

Dan:  When everyone else, including the press, recognizes that a court found what you planned to do was illegal, you lost.

This behavior shows that the County Diminutive is either delusional or intent on flatly lying to the citizenry of this County.  Which one is right?  You choose.