The Roman god Janus had two faces, both looking in opposite directions. The same could be said for Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato’s fiscal policies.
Onorato, a native of Pittsburgh’s North Side, rose from being an accountant, to private practice lawyer, to current Allegheny County Executive. He maintains a narrow lead in what should be a tight Democratic primary race for Governor.
During his tenure as County Executive, Onorato claimed to champion smaller government and fiscal responsibility. The faces, however, tell a very different story.
For instance, in the 2010 Allegheny County budget, Onorato made it clear that consolidation of public services is an eventual goal, but some of his other policy initiatives tell a very different story. The name Onorato is forever ingrained in the minds of restaurant and hospitality employees and owners — not because of his consolidation and fiscal responsibility initiatives but for dealing a heavy blow to local bars and restaurants, the direct result of his 10% tax on poured alcoholic drinks. According to the Tribune-Review, February in 2008 saw a 6.5% drop in licensee purchases of wine and spirits in Allegheny county versus the same month the previous year, while surrounding Butler, Westmoreland, and Washington counties saw a 10% increase.
This tax is quite contradictory to the values that Onorato’s executive biography romanticizes: fiscal responsibility and small government. Regrettably, the city of Pittsburgh has taken Onorato’s lead in proposing a soda tax that would be equally paternalistic while harming many more small businesses such as convenience stores.
In his executive biography, Onorato has also claimed that he has better aligned assessed property values with actual market values, but in actuality, the current AV/MV ratio lies at .8, where, according to basic statistical methods, the ratio should be a steady .95. Onorato has refused to touch property taxes, and instead has relied on the aforementioned drink tax to make up for budget difficulties. If backroom dealing continues, allowing politically motivated persons to appeal their assessment for a much lower and unfair one, then revenue fairness will never be achieved. This, it seems, would be a much more productive move than a paternalistic sin tax.
Fiscal responsibility and the push for smaller government are two values that I, as well as the Publius Foundation, hold in the highest regard. Some individuals take these values very seriously, while others – such as Mr. Onorato – seem to merely pay them lip service with one face while creating and implementing burdensome taxes with the other.
Nate Hanson is a student fellow at the Publius Foundation.