If the states really needs more money, any tax levied ought to be across the board sales tax. Why penalize a certain segment of the population because the state can't operate within its means. There are many worthy services that have been cut, but MD still can't operate within their budget. I have to live within my budget why can't the state do the same?

The role of the tax system should be to raise revenue. It should not be a means to promote social or economic agendas, nor should it be a way to reward or punish certain groups.

Just wondering, are ther ANY time limits on the vast array of welfare-related programs?

For example, every time a story is run in this paper dealing with public housing The Sun article focuses on a resident who has lived there for 20+ years, or longer.

I always believed that public housing was a temporary measure designed to help people get back on their feet, get started towards bettering their condition or simply meeting a crisis with short-term intervention.

Apparently, it is none of the above. Once in, never out seems to be the rule of thumb.

I would imagine that the same applies to food stamps, health care, school lunch (and now even breakfast!) and down the line.

I would imagine monitoring these programs is extremely lax or even non-existent.

And if of the above were forced to be the short-term "quick fixes" the were originally intended to be we would no doubt have no need for any tax increases sat all.

If I give into any more taxes the government will end up with more of my money, that I worked hard for, than I will. I say quit taxing every aspect of our lives. Gas, tolls, liquor, tobacco, sales, income (fed, state & local) and even inheritance. Enough is enough. Start cutting usless government positions and spending. Do we need a $500,000 statue, or politician's names plastered on signs everywhere. Cut all the frivolous spending and let me keep a little bit of my own earnings to enjoy.

Taxes are not only for raising revenues but for making external cost internal for the user, to make behavior expensive that is expensive for society. An alcohol tax fits this bill, because alcohol, on average, causes high costs in the medical and justice system. Before raising it, however, these costs should be estimated and the alcohol tax set accordingly.

Don't forget all the hidden taxes in the form of regulations, monetary inflation, ect...

Peter T, I have not caused any high costs in the medical or justice system -- particularly not in Maryland -- because of my moderate drinking. Why should I pay a disproportionate share of the costs incurred by someone else's abusive drinking, when I've done nothing wrong? I live in Pennsylvania, but travel to and through Maryland often -- I just had lunch and a beer in Waldorf last week, for instance -- and don't understand why I should be helping to pay for drunk damages when you think non-drinking Marylanders should not. As Mary Albright implied in her comment, if the programs proposed to be funded by an increase in alcohol drinks taxes are of benefit to ALL Marylanders, then ALL Marylanders should shoulder the burden of paying them -- equitably, fairly, and cheerfully. Okay, maybe "cheerfully" is asking too much. But excise taxes are inherently unfair, and are a clear example of gutless government greed. If there is not support for an increase in sales or income taxes to support a measure, don't sidestep the issue by taxing a smaller group.

I hear this "argument" all the time: the alcohol tax has not been raised in years. So what? My response is, why is there an alcohol tax AT ALL? Of course, I know why: because it's a way to raise tax revenues without taxing the entire populace. 'Look, we're not taxing you unless you drink! It's your choice.'

But the idea that this money goes anywhere but into the general fund is laughable, though: booze taxes don't pay for anti-booze programs, they're just fungible revenue that goes in the pipe with every other dollar and flows downhill to Annapolis.

Alcohol taxes are inherently unfair. As a moderate drinker, I am no more responsible for an abusive drinker's health and criminal costs than a teetotaler is, yet I'm expected to pay for them. Why not raise the state gasoline tax to pay for everyone's speeding tickets? Why not put a big tax on junk food to pay for obesity treatments (and then who gets to define junk food?), or a tax on dying to pay for police escorts at big funerals, or a tax on tanning beds to pay for skin cancer treatments?

I'll say it again: If a government program is worth paying for, if it truly is of benefit to the citizens of the Free State, then it should be paid for by ALL the citizens. If broad tax support cannot be found for such a program, don't enact it.