| It's one thing for a humble candy shop owner to acknowledge that he may have been a little less than forthcoming when testifying against a candy tax proposal, but if a candidate for the State House lied to the House Appropriations Committee, no spoonful of sugar will make that medicine go down easy with the voters of House District 23. Let's have a look, shall we?
When Rick Enstrom testified in 2010 against Bill Ritter's "candy tax" proposal (not a tax, in actuality, but the suspension of a tax exemption), a revenue-generating measure proposed to shore up Colorado's fragile budget while encouraging healthier choices, here's what he had to say:
The last thing we need or can afford in these difficult times is to negatively impact the price of our product to the consumer resulting in fewer sales and further reductions in earnings.
We paid over $3,300,000 to 340 different Colorado vendors last year that will be indirectly affected by this tax, and spent over $1,660,000 with FedEx, a huge Colorado employer that delivers our products and moves product between our stores.
(Enstrom's full remarks may be found at the Westword)
But as you'll see after the jump, the real impact on Enstrom Candies wasn't quite so sour... |
| ...actually, it was more like what's left at the end of an Everlasting Gobstopper: Zilch.
According to a paper that's asked not to be quoted on Pols sites, Enstrom not only didn't see any losses after the "candy tax" passed, he knew he wouldn't when he testified. In fact, he knew that most of his own products were actually exempted from the law he so vigorously opposed!
Why, if he knew it wouldn't affect him, did Enstrom also agree to be quoted in "Candy and Snack Today," appearing to contemplate raising prices as a result of the tax? Rick's quote makes him sound like he was swallowing a bitter pill, but exemptions for his own products made for a sweet deal for Enstrom's Candies. In fact, one could extrapolate that a tax harming Enstrom's competitors, but not Enstrom's primary business, was a boon to the businessman.
Again, none of this would be especially troubling, had Enstrom gone back to peddling sweets. There's room in the world for a right-wing Willy Wonka, even if his testimony before the legislature is as confusing as the appeal of butterscotch. (Or is that one just me?) But when Willy Wingnut aims to trade in his giant candy cane for a legislator's chair, he'd better be ready to explain his apparently misleading legislative testimony. If he can't, voters just might stick a candy thermometer in Enstrom's campaign and discover that he's already done.
Okay, okay, here's a little source link, just so you know I'm not making this up. But really, the Denver Toast doesn't want your clickthroughs if you come from Pols, so use it judiciously, eh?
PS. I'm sorry for the candy puns. It's just, if he ends up out of the race practically before he started, I want to have used the good ones in time. |
