Editorials
Thursday, January 7, 1999

Cayetano is
right: Let’s
ban fireworks

IT'S good to see Ben Cayetano coming out for a ban on fireworks, even though his proposal is rather belated. Why didn't he say so during his first four years as governor, although he says he has long favored a ban? Presumably because it's a controversial position that could have cost him votes. Now that he's safely re-elected and says he won't stand for election again, he doesn't have that problem.

Even so, this is a stand worth applauding enthusiastically. Fireworks are a huge health and safety hazard, and a tremendous nuisance to boot. Last New Year's Eve was a nightmare of noise and smoke, perhaps the worst ever. The governor's description -- "utter madness" -- was no exaggeration.

Cayetano observed that the firecracker smoke left him hoarse. Like him, thousands of other people with respiratory problems were made miserable. The governor also noted that the smoke reduced visibility and made driving hazardous.

The rain probably kept property damage from firecracker-caused fires down. But the danger of extensive property damage, injury and even death from fires is very real. People also suffer burns and lose fingers and eyes while igniting fireworks. Pets are terrified.

The fireworks problem is nothing new but it seems to have gotten worse since the state Legislature pre-empted county ordinances and allowed unlimited sales, with the exception of aerial firecrackers. The ban on aerials has been flagrantly violated, with the result that there are essentially no limits. The police are helpless.

The need for a total ban on sales and use, with an exemption for religious and cultural purposes, such as the Chinese New Year, is obvious. But elected representatives have tried to avoid the issue, believing that many voters like fireworks. That is certainly correct, judging from the vast numbers that were set off New Year's Eve. Many people, some with low incomes, spend hundreds of dollars on fireworks.

That would be their own affair, except that there is no way to avoid inflicting discomfort and worse on others. Unrestricted fireworks use is an intolerable imposition on nonusers.

Now that the chief executive of the state has come out in favor of a ban, perhaps Hawaii's legislators will act responsibly. They should end this "utter madness."

Income tax cut

ON another subject, tax reduction, the governor also showed that he has his priorities right. He wants to reduce the state's highest personal income tax rate an additional 1 percent, on top of the reduction approved by the 1998 Legislature. Under the new law, the highest rate would gradually drop from 10 percent to 8.25 percent over four years. The governor's latest proposal would cut the highest rate to 7.25 percent.

Tax reduction is a way to stimulate the economy, and the Hawaii economy surely could use some stimulating. Cayetano says his proposal is important if the state is to attract "high-tech people." Tax Director Ray Kamikawa said the idea is "to ease the tax pain" on individuals and small businesses.

Fine, but can the state afford it without cutting essential programs to the bone? The income tax cut already signed into law is projected to reduce taxes by $759 million. The new proposal would take away $200 million to $250 million.

In the last legislative session, the Cayetano administration fought for an increase in the general excise tax to offset income tax reduction. When the excise tax boost failed, the administration pushed through the income tax cut anyway. But it wasn't clear how the state could afford it. In fact, the same Legislature declined to fund public employee pay raises for lack of money.

Is another income tax cut feasible with the economic outlook still very cloudy? We hope Cayetano is right on this one but we have to be skeptical.

Pro basketball

PROFESSIONAL basketball has not achieved the level of national attention enjoyed by Major League Baseball and the National Football League. The sigh of relief at news of a union agreement with the owners, ending a six-month lockout and averting cancelation of the season, was barely audible. Mainly it came from players and owners wanting to share the NBA's $2 billion pie, not from the fans.

The players and owners reached a deal in 1995 that was supposed to assure continuity for six years, with the players to get up to 51.8 percent of revenues. However, an escape clause allowed the owners to nullify the agreement and seek a new one if the players' share exceeded 57 percent, which happened last season. Under the new pact, the players will get 55 percent of the revenues for the last three years of the original agreement.

Pro basketball players' salaries are unequalled in all team sports -- an average of $2.6 million, a median of $1.3 million. By comparison, NFL players average $900,000 and big league baseball players round out at $1.45 million.

Under the new agreement the NBA salary levels will remain about the same. The union had wanted higher pay for the so-called lower- and middle-class players, but the owners refused and the union caved in.

Players with 10 years' experience will be allowed salaries as high as $14 million or 105 percent of their previous salaries, whichever is higher.

An abbreviated season has been salvaged, but neither side claimed victory -- for good reason. Both players and owners realized that their fans could easily turn their attention to college basketball. Pro basketball could ill afford to have its absence go unnoticed. We'll soon learn from the attendance and TV audience numbers how much damage the dispute and delay of the season did to the professional game.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO

John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher

David Shapiro, Managing Editor

Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor

Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors

A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor