The Legislature wants to drop the snack tax. At a cost of $26 million, this proposal is a lot like junk food itself — overpriced, yet devoid of nourishment.

After spending most of the decade on a starvation diet, Maine people crave and deserve real, stick-to-the-ribs tax relief. That, in case lawmakers have forgotten the sound of grumbling tummies back home, is property tax relief. And the best way to serve that up would be by keeping their 14-year-old promise, made in the 1985 School Finance Act, to fund at least 55 percent of the cost of education.

It’s never come close. The state’s responsibility has become the community’s burden and the result has been soaring property taxes. And gutted education programs and crumbling school buildings. And anger and resentment, directed not at the State House where it belongs but at Town Hall. Not to mention all those dejected kids who can’t wait to grow up and get out of Maine.

The snack tax was added in 1991, when Maine was broke. Snacks were removed from the sales-tax exemption on food for several good reasons: the sales tax base was too narrow, too reliant upon car and truck sales to withstand a recession; snacks are purely discretionary spending; the tax is extremely broad-based, collected a few pennies at a time from just about everyone, including tourists (who, contrary to the views of some legislators, do not deserve a tax break at Maine’s expense); many states focus their exemptions upon the necessities and tax the trimmings. The property tax, of course, does just the opposite.

A common argument merchants use against to snack tax is that it is confusing for grocers, that there’s too fine a line between blueberry and English muffins. These merchants sell a wide variety of merchandise, some taxed, some not. If there is confusion, print a clearer list. Or take a tiny fraction of that $26 million, buy every store a bar-code reader and hire a teenager to teach the grocer how to use it. Just don’t fritter away $26 million because of a bad argument.

A common argument legislators use against increasing General Purpose Aid to Education is that school districts won’t use it for tax relief, but will squander it on frills. To those legislators, frills must be roofs that don’t leak, textbooks that aren’t 20 years old, science labs that are from this century. If the Legislature can craft GPA legislation that ensures any increase offsets the property tax levy, fine. If not, so what? This state cherishes local control, so let the locals decide, at town meetings and school district budget votes, how to spend their — that’s their — money. Maine is no longer broke, but it is in debt. The surplus it enjoys has come at the expense of property taxpayers. The Legislature cannot repay that debt with cheaper Twinkies.

And before lawmakers get too dewy-eyed over the thought of a 10-year-old tyke priced out of the sweet-treat market, here are some far sadder sights: schools closing for lack of repairs; educational programs gutted; small towns turning into ghost towns; young adults fleeing; school kids made to feel like burdens; the elderly taxed out of their homes. Those bad things are really happening and none of it can be blamed on the price of candy.