I'm Voting No on 29. Here's why.
Daily Republic June 01, 2012
By Kelvin Wade
Proposition 29 on next Tuesday’s ballot will add a $1 per pack tax to cigarettes sold in California. The money will fund smoking-cessation programs and cancer research. California is 33rd in the nation in cigarette taxes. The new tax will move us to 16th. The measure is expected to generate $735 million annually. So why am I leaning toward no?
It’s usually a no-brainer. When Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds help bankroll opposition to a ballot measure to the tune of $40 million, you vote for it.
And supporters of Proposition 29 say we need the dedicated revenue for smoking cessation programs because a Centers for Disease Control study came out last week showing that of the billions raised by settlements and tobacco taxes in California between 1998 and 2010, only 6 percent has gone to curb smoking. Ouch.
But opponents say we’ve seen this movie before. In 2004, we approved Proposition 71, allocating $3 billion for stem-cell research. Not only have we not seen any major results, but also there have been conflicts of interest with most of the money going to companies affiliated with the commissioners overseeing the money. There is nothing to stop the same thing from happening with Proposition 29.
I don’t think most of this matters to voters. I think many will support the measure because they hate smoking, hate the tobacco companies and hate cancer. It seems like a win-win to have those who smoke pay for new anti-smoking programs and research.
And I agree that if you’re going to raise taxes, sin taxes are great taxes to raise. These are taxes that you have a choice whether to pay. Taxing tobacco, alcohol and even fast food or soft drinks is a great way to discourage consumption, encourage healthier alternatives and raise funds.
But we’re in a crisis right now. At some point Californians have got to stop this ballot-box-budgeting kick we’ve been on. While Sacramento has driven us into a ditch, we voters are no better drivers. At a time when we’re facing a $17 billion deficit, finding new sources of revenues for new spending doesn’t make sense to me.
It’s like a household that doesn’t have enough money to pay their mortgage and the son goes out and gets a job and uses all of his money to pay the family car payment. While that car payment may be important, job one is paying the mortgage.
Governing by initiative hasn’t always worked out for California. There are plenty of worthy causes we can come up with and find dedicated revenue streams for. Perhaps if the state was financially healthy, I’d be all for it (especially If it’s a sin tax I know I’ll never have to pay! Woohoo!).
But we’re fiscally cratering as a state. I know we’re in a catch-22 of Sacramento Republicans refusing any new taxes while we have a public that fears new revenues will just go to more spending by an out-of-control legislature. So for now my dream of using sin taxes to help fill our deficit hole is just that . . . a dream.
Still, I just don’t see myself voting for new revenues that aren’t going to address our budget deficit no matter how much I’d enjoy sticking it to big tobacco.
The deficit is my priority. What’s yours? Peace.
Comments