Pop the cap effort fizzles on Senate floor
Those rooting for North Carolina to raise the limit on alcohol in beer might be feeling a bit flat today.
The bill passed the House with relatively little opposition. It passed the Senate Commerce Committee, with only one member of the public speaking against it. But on the Senate floor, despite being backed by Democratic leader Tony Rand, it ran into trouble.
Sen. Jim Jacumin, a Connelly Springs Republican and Sen. John Kerr, of Goldsboro, and Sen. Larry Shaw, of Fayetteville, both Democrats, lead the effort to derail the bill.
It was Kerr who used a parliamentary motion to dislodge it from the calendar, over Rand's objections. Therefore there was no vote on the bill.
In theory, it has just been sent back to the Finance Committee and to staff to evaluate its fiscal impact. But with some many bills left to do, and Senate committees temporarily suspended until the budget is done, it's unclear if there will be enough time to bring it back this summer.
Even if General Assembly ends its work this year without passing the bill, they could still work on it during the 2006 short session. Still, for a bill that had an awful lot of momentum, this was an unexpected blow.
Update: A few more things, since there seems to be some interest in this:
Update 2: For info on the bill itself, click here.
Comments (12)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Bummer
Posted on July 7, 2005 12:22 PM
How about giving us the numbers of these three gentlemen so we might call and inquire as to why they are stupid?
Posted on July 7, 2005 2:01 PM
Sen. John Kerr: (919) 733-5621
Sen. Jim Jacumin: (919) 715-7823 (note: actually a Republican, not a Democrat as mentioned earlier)
Sen. Larry Shaw: (919) 733-9349
Be nice.
Posted on July 7, 2005 2:34 PM
Mr. Turner beat me by a half-minute, but I've added links to the Senators in question in the main text of the post. You also can listen to audio of their reasoning, should you be inclined.
Posted on July 7, 2005 2:39 PM
Finance Committee? Hmmm.
Higher alcohol content = less beer consumed (one would hope)
Less beer consumed = less tax revenue
Therefore, higher alcohol content is bad for the state.
Posted on July 7, 2005 2:46 PM
Doug,
Some of our readers in the pro-beer lobby might take issue with that analysis, probably starting with the "Less beer consumed = less tax revenue" equation. They would argue that the higher alcohol content beers would be speciality beers, which tend to be priced higher, which would lead to at least equivelent sales tax revenue.
Now if you want to raise the "malt liquor" question, you might have something.
--mark
Posted on July 7, 2005 2:54 PM
Higher alcohol content for NC = fewer people going out of state (VA, SC) to buy their specialty beer = more revenue spent in NC (gas bought here, meals bought here) = NC not looking like an ass for some antiquated blue law remaining on the books. It's not like I won't buy beer here - of course I will - but when I go out of state I get a little, erm, frenzied.
Posted on July 7, 2005 3:41 PM
Mark,
But how is beer taxed? I thought there was a flat per bottle or can tax (meaning same tax on good stuff as cheap stuff) rather than percentage of price tax. Or is there both?
Posted on July 7, 2005 3:43 PM
Sales tax applies to beer, does it not? The more expensive the product, the more you pay in sales tax.
As for excise tax: I'm not looking this up, but I remember the excise tax on beer being 5-cents per bottle or can and something like .48-cents per gallong on bulk beer. And yes, that's regardless of the alcohol content. Of course, the legislature could decide to levy a higher excise tax on higher alcohol beers if revenue loss is their real concern.
Posted on July 7, 2005 4:00 PM
"In theory, it has just been sent back to the Finance Committee and to staff to evaluate its fiscal impact."
You betcha, Mark. Fiscal impact, my Budweiser! It sounds to me like the ghost of Coy Privette is wandering the hallowed halls of our legislature. I'll bet you a six pack it's another way to "protect the people of North Carolina" from themselves because we are not smart enough to know what is good for us. First, it was the lottery, now it's beer. What's next?
Gotta go now and see if that trail of corn I left out this morning is still there so I can find my way back home. Duh!
Posted on July 7, 2005 4:13 PM
Finance Committee? Hmmm.
Higher alcohol content = less beer consumed (one would hope)
Less beer consumed = less tax revenue
Therefore, higher alcohol content is bad for the state.
You're not considering the many of us who drive out of state to buy such products. Also, to those of us who don't drink to get drunk, one beer = one beer = one beer. When I sit down to have a beer, then I would rather have a good beer instead of swill. Therefore, the people effected by this bill will probably be buying the same amount of beer, and tax is irrelevant.
Now if you're talking about (what-we-beer-geeks-call-) "lawnmower beer", then yeah, we might drink a few. But no one wants to tailgate and pound Trappists...
I just can't see how you can draw the conclusion that craft beer is "bad for the state".
Posted on July 8, 2005 9:37 AM
Jeff, I was trying to project how the Finance Committee might see it as bad for the state -- if indeed it could depress tax revenues.
I am all for drinking good beer rather than swill.
Posted on July 8, 2005 5:32 PM