Don’t burden viewers with CT-N tax
CT-N provides a valuable service, but in these difficult economic times we must recognize that it is not a core service.
L ayoffs are looming for many state employees, but not at CT-N where expansion and empire building is underway. CT-N is the cable public affairs network which broadcasts legislative hearings. The network is taxpayer funded with a budget of $3.2 million. Now they want the legislature to create a new tax so they can expand programming.
In these difficult economic times, should state government be spending any money on CT-N at all or is it time to look at a different model? CT-N is a non-essential government service. Could it be better managed and more appropriately funded through Connecticut Public Broadcasting?
The management of CT-N claims the network is badly in need of equipment upgrades and lacks the channel capacity to expand its coverage to broadcast more legislative hearings. To grow their budget by nearly twice its current level, they have proposed a new tax be added to the bills of all cable television subscribers. They say this tax should be paid whether subscribers use CT-N or not.
Although Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, and many leading lawmakers, have pledged “no new taxes” during the current budget crisis, this proposal is not only a new tax it is a new tax being created specifically to fund a new or expanded service. And — as originally proposed — it increases every year. The idea of raising specific taxes to fund specific programs runs contrary to longstanding state policy against dedicated taxation.
CT-N admits that most of the expanded coverage will never run on its statewide cable channel. Instead, it will be made available to viewers on an enhanced CT-N website. This makes the new tax not only unnecessary, but unfair. It forces cable television customers to pay for a service they may not even be able to access. Cable television customers in Connecticut have the second highest tax burden in the U.S. CT-N’s thinking is; no one will notice another small addition to their monthly bill.
Under the legislation, CT-N asks for re-classification as a “local cable access” channel. This may seem like a technical point to CT-N, but in fact it risks reducing the number of hours local community access channels have to provide local programming. The CT-N tax bill puts local coverage at risk.
The bill provides for no additional oversight. This small group of state funded employees has offered no assurances they will be subject to any additional scrutiny by anyone in government outside their own circle, if given this new funding vehicle. How dangerous might it be if other state agencies were allowed to follow the CT-N example in the future and make their own tax policy.
CT-N provides a valuable service, but in these difficult economic times we must recognize that it is not a core service. In addition to the many policy issues presented by this proposed cable TV tax, now is simply not the time to be raising new taxes to fund new programs that are unrelated to the health and safety of Connecticut citizens.