Arkansas lawmakers, at the urging of Gov. Asa Hutchinson, seem to be rushing headlong toward another tax cut. It is on the agenda for the upcoming legislative session.
That will be welcome news to some Arkansans, but not to all.
Cutting taxes means a loss of revenue to the state and tighter budgeting for state services.
So, who will pay a price when the proposed tax cuts are made?
It certainly seems people least able to afford it will be hard hit by resultant budget cuts -- while the state's top earners will benefit.
Just look at what has already been happening, largely in the name of budget reduction in this state.
Since June, Arkansas state policy has cost thousands of Arkansas' poor the health insurance that had been available to them under the state's Medicaid expansion program.
The number of Arkansans kicked off the program recently neared 17,000.
The policy in question is the state's requirement that many Arkansans must provide evidence they worked, attended school or volunteered for 80 hours every month. If they don't, they risk losing coverage.
Further, until last week, the state made it unnecessarily difficult for Medicaid recipients to report compliance.
They had to get access to a computer or find someone who could enter data for them. The state is now promoting a telephone number they can call.
That's an improvement in the process, but it doesn't undo the fact that so many poor Arkansans are losing affordable access to health care they've had through the Arkansas Works program.
And don't forget: The work requirement hasn't even been fully implemented. It only applies to older participants now but will expand to younger workers soon.
Lawmakers' decision to require work wasn't necessarily intended to have such a dramatic impact on the state's working poor. The measure was a means to salvage the program at a time when many in the Republican-controlled Legislature were inclined to kill it.
Recently, even former Gov. Mike Beebe offered a public defense of the work requirement enacted on Gov. Hutchinson's watch.
The insurance program was called the "private option" when created during Beebe's administration.
"Continuation of the private option under any other name is something we all ought to be very grateful for," Beebe said. "I think you have to be very careful and make sure that you don't inadvertently drop worthy people out of the system when they need it, but I will acknowledge sometimes the pragmatic nature of getting 90 percent of a loaf is worth doing."
Hutchinson and his legislative allies did manage to keep the program alive.
It nonetheless needs review and revision to make sure that worthy people aren't being cut off from coverage.
That's not the only way the state is squeezing, or proposing to squeeze, some of its citizens to trim costs. A plan is afoot to restrict the help some of the state's old and disabled get to meet basic needs.
A pending state policy will reduce how much home care the state will pay for. The aid literally lets these vulnerable Arkansans stay in their homes longer, rather than moving into nursing homes.
Last week, state officials temporarily backed off the proposal. Nevertheless, some sort of cuts to what these challenged Arkansans get is still expected.
The give and take of state budget making is always difficult. Any governor or Legislature must struggle with choices.
But it looks like proposed tax cuts will come, at least in part, on the backs of the state's working poor and its old and disabled people.
Remember, the beneficiaries of the newest round of tax cuts will be the state's higher earners.
The governor has said he'll ask lawmakers to reduce the state's top individual tax rate to 5.9 percent, down from 6.9 percent now. It will cut maybe $192 million out of the revenue stream each year.
Hutchinson wants only three tax rates. Arkansans earning $18,001 and more would pay the top rate. That's a lot of people and includes even the millionaires and billionaires among us.
Under Hutchinson's lead, the state has already given tax breaks to Arkansans who earn less.
The latest cut would happen over time, four years under the governor's plan. A legislative task force has suggested a three-year implementation.
Either way, the question remains: Who will pay for it?
While most anyone would appreciate a tax cut, not all would want it to come at the expense of people who can least afford it.
Commentary on 12/26/2018