Grocery credit bill stewing in Idaho House slow cooker

A bill that would increase the tax credit Idahoans receive to help offset the cost of groceries is tentatively scheduled for a vote in the state House today, but postponing that bill is becoming the norm, rather than the exception.

House Bill 494 — which increases a tax credit by $15 credit to citizens 65 and older and $35 credit for all other Idahoans — was approved out of the Revenue and Taxation Committee in mid-February and given its second reading on the House floor. But the third reading, which customarily follows the second reading within one day before leading to a House vote one way or the other, has been postponed seven times.

The delay is often done not as a political maneuver but out of the logistical need for time, particularly when the floor debate is expected to be contentious or take a noteworthy chunk of time.

“That bill keeps getting held,” Coeur d’Alene Rep. Paul Amador said from Boise, “because I think there’s ongoing negotiation and discussion going on right now to work out what to do next.”

The debate has lingered throughout the House since the session opened. Gov. Brad Little stressed grocery tax relief for Idahoans during the State of the State address, precipitating a variety of bills that urge everything from increasing the credit (like HB 494) to getting rid of the tax on groceries altogether.

The debate that could take place today isn’t about the merits of grocery tax relief, according to lawmakers, but the details that will — or won’t — get it done.

“For the most part, everybody agrees that taxing groceries is a pretty regressive tax, because groceries is something that everybody universally needs,” Amador added. “But there are concerns over who is actually paying that tax, and that’s where it gets tricky.”

Tricky in part because lawmakers have not yet firmly pinned down what constitutes a grocery. Different programs and services — such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as Idaho’s food stamps program, and the Women, Infants and Children Program — have competing definitions of what constitutes groceries.

“One of the easy solutions out there is following the food stamps guidelines,” Amador explained, “but that includes soda pop and chips and candy. If we were to use that guideline, the hit to our general fund would be about $90 million, and at the current time, I don’t know if we have enough to cover that.”

While Amador said he was encouraged by HB 494’s provision to offset costs but drawing from the Wayfair fund that channels revenue from internet sales, he said he wouldn’t side one way or another on any bill until he was sure the money was right.

“Being on the Appropriations Committee,” he pointed out, “I have a fiduciary responsibility to the people of Idaho to make sure this makes sense. I can’t vote for a bill we can’t afford, so we have to figure out a way to pay for this. That’s the first thing we have to figure out.”

But with legislators trying to cycle through the session and push through as much legislation as possible, the higher-profile bills like HB 494 might get their cans kicked down the road.

“Though I don’t have a crystal ball on this,” Amador warned, “I would not be shocked if it didn’t get pushed back an eighth time.”