Great Satan Inc does an excellent take down of Goldwater Institute’s complaint about tax dollars being spent on public ranges. Â They go into great detail as to how the Pittman-Robertson tax works, and how the funds are allocated. It’s pretty clear, as Kevin’s post suggests, that the conservative think thank didn’t think too much about this one.
Arizona has done a great job of managing its Pittman-Robertson funds compared to other states, and they have done it for the benefit of both shooters and hunters, which is to be commended. This is an issue Michael Bane has been talking about lately, and I think Michael’s idea has merit. But there’s a significant problem in other states that haven’t managed their PR funds well, and haven’t managed their fish and wildlife funds well. Pittman-Robertson money isn’t free to the states. It’s a matching program, and there are going to be some states that just don’t have the money to put up to get the matching federal funds. But this certainly isn’t all states, and there coud even be possibilities for restructuring how PR funds are allocated to the states that didn’t exist in 1937 when Congress originally passed it.
This unwittingly points out the problem with a government program being successful by staying within their budget. If you do that for very long, some grandstanding will come and snag any extra funds to pour them into his favorite program.
Having checked out Kevin’s links, I’m not sure I see the wrong-headed thinking that’s supposed to be on display.
Could it be a case of GI implying that the state maintains the ranges in an attempt to fuel outrage over state attempts to raise taxes?
Sleazy and Brady-like, yes ….. but possible?