In the past decade, red and blue states alike, from Mississippi to New York, have approved more than 100 tobacco tax hikes in a desperate hunt for budget revenue. But not one has passed in California, whose 87-cent cigarette tax dropped from third-highest in the nation in 1999 to 33rd today despite the state's ongoing budget woes. That confounds health advocates, who otherwise consider California to be a trailblazer when it comes to bans on smoking in bars and restaurants, and public campaigns urging tobacco users to quit. But longtime state budget watchers are hardly surprised.
They largely blame the state's supermajority requirement to pass tax hikes in the Legislature. That forces tobacco tax votes to the ballot, where industry can spend unlimited sums of money. "Certainly the state has been looking in every place possible for new sources of revenues," said Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California. "Most other places have a simple majority, and I think a two-thirds majority is a hurdle even for something seemingly as popular as a tobacco tax." The June ballot has a tobacco tax hike, Proposition 29, that would raise $735 million in its first full year, mostly for cancer and disease research.
The Legislature could not tap the funds for 15 years, and even then not without meeting certain requirements. The initiative has generated much of its support and opposition along predictable political lines, with Republicans and anti-tax groups opposed and Democrats and health organizations in support. Tobacco firms R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris have contributed more than $38 million against the measure. An early PPIC poll showed 67 percent of likely voters in support in March, but backers believe it will ultimately be a close contest under the weight of heavy industry opposition. Baldassare observed that support for tobacco taxes "fits the tax-the-other-person mentality."
The state Department of Public Health said last year that the adult smoking rate dropped to a record low of 11.9 percent, a precipitous decline from the 27.7 percent in 1985. As Gov. Jerry Brown prepares to release a revised budget today reflecting a deficit that has ballooned to $16 billion from the original $9.2 billion estimate, Proposition 29 opponents have seized on a budgetary argument to make their case. The No on 29 campaign states on its website, "Billions in New Taxes, but Nothing to Fix the State Budget." It also points out that funds would not go to schools, unlike other general fund revenues. Proponents have dismissed the argument, saying it is beside the point and disingenuous coming from foes who oppose other state tax hikes for education.
"This measure is not going to solve the state budget crisis," said Jim Knox of the American Cancer Society. "It is not a cure for global warming. There are a lot of things it doesn't do. This measure is intended to raise the tobacco tax to protect kids from smoking." Still, the budgetary argument has won sympathy in some unexpected places. The Los Angeles Times editorial board opposed the initiative on grounds that cancer research is not a priority during the budget crisis, even though it praised the health benefits that could result from a $1 per pack hike in cigarette taxes.
The left-leaning California Budget Project, which has not taken a position, concluded in a policy paper, "A key policy issue raised by Proposition 29 is whether it is desirable to dedicate hard-to-raise new revenues to a specific set of programs that would be 'locked in,' limiting the ability of the Legislature to make changes in response to shifting economic, budget and demographic trends."
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий