n067  1455  13 Dec 82
BC-ROYKO-12-13
     A COMMENTARY column
     By Mike Royko
     (c) 1982 Chicago Sun-Times (Field News Service)
    
     I've never thought of drinking as an act of political significance.
But it now appears to be.
    An effort is being made to polarize politically the three main
groups of drinkers in our society - the beer drinkers, the wine
sippers and those who belt down hard liquor.
    It is being done by the Democrats in the Illinois Legislature who
claim that Democrat drinkers are being discriminated against by Gov.
James R. Thompson's proposed new liquor tax.
    Thompson recently proposed that the tax on all liquor be raised. But
the beer tax would be increased by a higher percentage than the tax
on wines and hard liquor.
    This immediately led to cries from the Democrats in Springfield that
Republicans were plotting against Democratic drinkers.
    Mike Madigan, leader of the Springfield House Democrats, said that
when his followers held a caucus: ''There were lots of shouts and
screams about 'our' voters.''
    I had never thought of drinkers as being part of one party or
another, but apparently the Democrats do.
    They believe that beer drinkers generally fall into the working
class, and would therefore be more likely to be Democrats.
    Wine drinkers, of course, have the image of being younger, more
liberal, and possibly more politically independent.
    And those who drink hard liquor - such as a vodka martini - are
presumed by the Democrats to be more likely to be Republicans, since
a martini costs more than a stein of beer.
    There are probably some flaws in this reasoning. What about the
person who sips his muscatel wine straight from a pint bottle? On
Chicago's West Side and in Uptown, these wine drinkers are
traditionally Democratic voters. They are so loyal to the Democratic
Party that some have voted long after they expired from liver
ailments.
    And some of the most loyal, working class Democrats I've known have
been people whose preferred refreshment was a snapper of Jim Beam or
a pop of Christian Brothers brand Would Madigan categorize someone who might dr-
ink a shot of Jack
Daniels - which would be a Republican drink by Madigan's standards -
and wash it down with a glass of beer, which would be a Democratic
drink? Is this person a ticket splitter? Can he see the ticket well
enough to split it?
    But for the sake of argument, let's accept the Democrats' arguments
that beer drinkers are Democrats, wine drinkers are effete
independents and the others are Republicans.
    If that is the case, Madigan could be providing the Republicans with
further ammunition for their argument that Democrats are always
looking for a handout.
    It appears that Madigan and the other Democrats haven't really
looked closely at the liquor tax rates. If they had, they'd realize
that the beer drinkers have not been paying their fair share all
along, and still wouldn't under the proposed new tax.
    Under the new law, the beer tax would more than double from 7 cents
a gallon to 16.5 cents a gallon.
    Table wine would go from 23 cents a gallon to 47 cents a gallon.
    And real belly-burning booze would increasse from $2 a gallon to
$2.70 a gallon.
    At first glance, it would appear that the beer drinkers are getting
the worst of the deal, since their tax rises by the highest
percentage.
    But it isn't that simple. Let's turn to an expert on liquor in all
forms to analyze these figures: Me.
    First, we must consider the most important question in judging booze
of any kind: How much alcohol is in it?
    That's all that really counts. Not the bouquet, the aroma, the
full-bodied flavor, the lightness, the heaviness, the color, the
lingering aftertaste. How much of it do you have to drink to get
smashed? That is the question.
    Beer has about 5 percent alcohol. Table wine has about 12 percent.
And most hard liquor has about 43 percent.
    So let us now compare the amount of alky with the amount of tax.
    Beer is 5 percent alcohol and table wine is about 2 1/2 times as much.
The new beer tax would be 16.5 cents a gallon, and the wine tax would
be 47 cents, which is almost three times as much.
     So wine drinkers will pay a slightly higher tax than beer drinkers
for their alcohol.
    Ah, but it gets far worse when we come to the real hootch.
    Under the new law, somebody who bought a bottle of 86 proof Old
Swamp Juice would pay taxes at a rate of $2.70 a gallon.
    That means the shot drinker would be paying more than 16 times as
much tax for his alcohol as the beer drinker.
    Yet, the shot drinker is getting only about eight times as much
alcohol per ounce, per pint, per quart or per however you want to
count it, as the beer drinker.
    So the conclusion is obvious: Beer drinkers aren't paying their fair
share of taxes.
    Is this what Madigan and the other Democrats feel is their due - a
free ride? Or more specifically, a free round?
    If Madigan isn't satisfied that a martini drinker pays eight times
as much liquor tax for his buzz as a beer drinker does, what will he
want next - a special tax on the olive?
    It is one thing for Democrats to say ''soak the rich.''
    But it's going too far when you soak him to the point where he can't
afford to get soaked himself.
    END
    
nyt-12-13-82 1757est
***************