ELECTIONS PROPOSITION 134 : Supervisors Endorse Alcohol Tax

Despite opposition from the alcoholic beverage industry, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors Tuesday endorsed a ballot proposition to increase taxation of beer, wine and liquor.

“It’s very unusual for the board to do this,” said Supervisor Maggie Erickson, who asked that the supervisors support Proposition 134, which goes to the voters in the Nov. 6 general election.

The proposed tax--equivalent to “a nickel a drink,” according to promoters--would bring the county $11.2 million a year for a number of alcohol-related services, Erickson said.

Supervisors said the additional money prompted them to support the tax measure, since heavy state funding cuts have hampered the county’s ability to support local programs.

Erickson said alcohol abuse costs state taxpayers more than $13 billion annually in health care, crime and other areas.

“Those who use alcohol have an obligation to share in the cost of this,” she said.

The proposed alcohol surtax would increase the existing tax on beer from 4 cents to 57 cents per gallon, on most wines from 1 cent to $1.29 per gallon and on liquor from $2 to $8.40 per gallon.

If approved, the measure would generate $730 million a year statewide. The money would be used for alcohol- and drug-abuse treatment and prevention, assistance to victims of alcohol abuse, mental health programs, law enforcement and medical services.

The alcoholic beverage industry --including several small wineries that operate in Ventura County--is strongly opposed to Proposition 134. The industry is supporting Proposition 126, which would increase taxes on beer, wine and liquor significantly less than would Proposition 134. The $195 million generated by the alternative measure would go into the state’s general fund.

“The industry agrees it’s time to raise taxes,” Matthew Klink, spokesman for Taxpayers for Common Sense and No on 134, told the supervisors.

Klink said Proposition 126 would raise taxes on the alcoholic beverage industry to the national average. But Proposition 134, he said, would make the California industry pay double the national average.

“It will have a negative impact on business,” he said.

A “safety net” written into Proposition 134 prohibits the Legislature from cutting state funds for alcohol-related services and replacing the funding with money generated by the measure.

Klink said the wording is really an “escalator clause” that would lock taxpayers into paying for the services along with annual increases as program costs and the population rises.

John Zaruka, owner of Wedgewood Banquet Center in Ventura, also expressed opposition to Proposition 134, saying that alcohol consumption would go down, furthering the need for retailers to raise prices.

Kermit Newman, deputy campaign director for Californians for Nickel-a-Drink and Yes on 134, urged the supervisors to support the measure. He said 30% to 50% of the care given in hospital emergency rooms is alcohol-related.