Okay, Connecticut, you NEED to chill with this whole “tax and see” thing.  It’s terrible.  Plus, you now want to go after innocent animals looking for their forever home?  Don’t you know going after pet adoptions is classic Disney villainy?  Because it is.

So, here’s what’s got me all fired up.  Our lawmakers have this bill, called SB130, that’ll tax pet adoptions.  Basically, they’re demanding a 5 percent cut and say they’ll put the money into some animal welfare fund.   Yeah, I’m not gonna hold my breath on that.

Because, come on, we know that’s not what our lawmakers will do.  The special transportation fund, environmental conservation fund, the tobacco and health trust fund, energy conservation fund, and pension fund all say hello.  Along with countless others that get swept into the General Fund to pay for our politician’s irresponsible spending.

Obviously, the CT Humane Society saw the writing on the wall.   Our lawmakers already proposed going after nonprofits by doing away with their sales tax exemption, so this proposal shouldn’t be all that shocking.

Remember: everything is on the table to fix their budget fiasco.  Well, everything except holding off on giving themselves and their friends a raise next year.

But, the fact that our politicians looked at animal shelters and went “hmmm” should be 50 shades of alarming.

How can any dignified representative see an organization that SAVES LIVES and go “You know what?  Look at all the money those greedy organizations have.  And they’re NOT sharing.  Let’s take it!”  Cue the Disney villain laughter.

Pet rescues rely on adoption fees and donations to keep going.  Sometimes, the volunteers and workers will pay out of their own pocket to keep their operating expenses chugging along.

But, considering lawmakers want to slash their funds even more, they essentially want to cripple some of the most important nonprofits out there.  So, to demand a 5 percent surcharge on all their adoption fees is practically ludicrous.

No.  It’s heartless.

As someone who has rescued all her animals and knew how her adoption fees would help those shelters and rescues, this boils my parsnips.  I’d use stronger language if I could, so please imagine what I really want to say.  Chances are, you’d be correct.

And that same ire can be found in the Humane Society’s call to action:

“The State of Connecticut seeks to impose a tax that it’s calling a “surcharge” on every animal adoption. If you rescue a dog, cat, bird, horse, ferret, rabbit, guinea pig, hamster or other species from any rescue, animal control or organization that is saving animals’ lives, the State wants a cut.”

This is the first time I’ve ever heard of the Animal Abuse Cost Recovery account, by the way.  I’m sure I’m not the only one, by the way.  What does it do?

Well, from what I gather, the funds helps care for the animals seized by the state, either by feeding or relocating them to the proper caregiver/organization.

Okay, that’s great.  And if the money seized through adoption fees helps that cause, I may feel better about it.  However, there’s not much optimism left to give.

Especially since rescue organizations operate on a bare bones budget as is.  Literally, with these rescues, every dollar counts.

Why do you think they constantly gesture to their “please donate” button on their websites?  It’s because rescuing animals is expensive.

These rescues not only feed and exercise countless animals from guinea pigs to horses, they rehabilitate and pay for necessary operations to help every pet find a home.  Basically, these people pour out their hearts and wallets to give these neglected and abandoned animals another chance at life.

So, it’s apparent why there’s so much outrage over the state demanding a cut of their already strapped funds.

That’s why the Humane Society fully believes there’s an ulterior motive:

“SB 130 dictates that the surcharge levied on nonprofits and all adoptions go into the State’s Animal Abuse Cost Recovery account. This does not guarantee the money will be used to care for animals. Special funds have been raided in the past, and now the plan is to do it again to pay for 2017’s deficit”

Think about it.   This measure would fatten up a special fund and give it a dedicated and steady stream of revenue.  Because, let’s face it, people won’t stop adopting animals.

So, obviously, our politicians would be very tempted to tap into that aforementioned stream.  And they probably would.  Countless times.

But, here’s my real issue.

This bill will complicate the pet adoption process.  That guarantees severe consequences, either for those who rescue the animals, or those who put them up for adoption.

And, let’s not leave out those national rescues, either.  Will they want to do business in Connecticut should this bill pass?  I certainly hope so, but I can’t speak for them.

My parents rescued a collie from the Collie Rescue League of New England.  How would the CRLNE, a Massachusetts-based rescue, react to CT holding out its hand and expectantly wriggling its fingers while demanding they pay up?

Obviously, not very well.

In all honesty, I can see why this bill may have its heart in the right place. Or, it seems it does.  But, in all aspects, the cons outweigh the pros.

Honestly, it’s exhausting seeing the same thing happen over and over.  CT creates a fund to do some good, but then that fund gets emptied for miscellaneous reasons.  We all know what will happen should this bill pass.  Because it keeps happening.

Our politicians will help themselves to this new fund while the homeless animals lose the help they so desperately need.  Basically, our lawmakers targeted the most vulnerable creatures possible.  And, they expect to get away with it.

As the Humane Society put it:

“This tax is dangerous: It’s a tax on nonprofits. It’s a tax on rescuing. What tax will come next?”

So, if you oppose SB130, here’s how to contact your representative.  Tell them what’s really on your mind.

What do you think? Comment below