Once again, it was Stan that got me thinking - this time when he wrote:
I find the idea that this survey of people who paid $95 to attend SAVOR... was conducted and that the results might have meaning so strange I can’t think of anything flip to write.
I was wondering why it is so strange given SAVOR held in in Washington, DC at the end of May should be considered a lobbying event. Certainly, the follow up reception held on 2 June - which required a 111th Congress ID to get in, co-promoted by the macro industrial brewers of America [aka "our friends at Beer Institute"] - was lobbying. The unfortunate "rock star" reference is proof enough. The Atlantic magazine even makes a cheeky observation that this particular beer pairing is very different from the narrative in "Beer Wars" but that, really, it might be the tale more to be expected in the circumstances:
Brewers from across the spectrum, but particularly lower-margin, higher-price craft beers, have been hit hard by the drop in consumer spending and a dramatic up tick in material costs. Not surprisingly, the prospect of higher taxes was Topic A at last month's SAVOR Craft Beer Festival, here in Washington. To hear brewers talk about it, the excise plan would zero out profits at even the most successful outfits and drive all but the most aggressive out of business (small brewers argue they would be hit especially hard because their beers tend to have much higher alcohol contents than those produced by the major breweries).
Do you believe that? Do you believe most profits in craft beer would disappear through this one tax? It's the same argument presented by Jeff Becker of the Beer Institute that Jay repeated then retreated from a few weeks ago. But do you care? It is, after all, lobbying and not truth telling. And, as the Former President of Romania recently learned, top craft brewers are "not f$#*ing Mother Theresa" or anything.
Comments
Amy - June 10, 2009 1:33 PM
Hi Alan!
I was in Israel when you started discussing the proposed increase in United States federal beer tax so I am late to the party. Jay is right that the Civil War legislation taxed everything and that, after the War, only the tax on liquor and tobacco remained.
Today’s brewers are no different from their ancestors for arguing for the lowest tax possible and preferring no tax at all. Nineteenth century brewers, however, recognized that the federal tax gave their industry legitimacy and some protection against prohibitionist forces. Similarly, brewers, immediately after Repeal, were very cautious, both in marketing and in their relationship with the federal government. In the seventy-five years since Repeal, most brewers have abandoned both caution and a true appreciation of the special relationship they have with the federal government.
For much of United States history reformers have linked tobacco and alcohol as comparable sins. In the last twenty-five years, their paths have diverged. Despite that, brewers should observe the plight of the tobacco industry and realize things could be a lot worse.
In 1991, Congress initially proposed a 400% increase in the beer tax. There were also various proposals to eliminate the small brewers’ differential, which did not succeed. The final tax was much less draconian. Brewers might want to state that they are happy to help the federal government in a time of crisis and then negotiate for the lowest possible increase.
Alan - June 10, 2009 1:41 PM
Thanks for that, Amy. As someone who pays $15 CND for a six of craft beer and has public health care, the cultural debate in the US is, as I said at Lews, very much a case of "not my country" but illustrates the difference as well as the contest of the crisis.
By this I mean if the powers of doom to craft brewers have their way, all tax increase will fail and you will not have either the new egalitarian health service or, frankly, response to the deficits your nation face.
Beer historically has been a resilient source of taxation due to the acceptability in the mind of consumers to pay what has been asked of them. Beer has not failed as a result of tax compared to other forms of regulation or market forces. If that is the case and tax dollars are needed - why not tax beer? This is not a point of view based on morality but one based on efficient revenue generation.
Knut Albert - June 19, 2009 7:41 AM
Not Mother Theresa, perhaps, but with a postitive attitude to lesbians!