In the second of two opinion pieces to appear in the Omaha World-Herald in support of LB 436, former Congressman John Cavanaugh offers his support for the bill that would increase taxes on a pack of cigarettes by $1.35. His argument in favor of this tax increase essentially amounts to acknowledgement that the state needs money to pay for the nearly $1 billion deficit it is facing so why not target an unpopular minority to scrounge up some funds and hey, we might even “save lives” in the process. He points out that 73 percent of Nebraska voters surveyed support this tax increase. I noticed in another article in the OWH that 19 percent of Nebraskans smoke, so essentially you have one larger and therefore more powerful group of people trying to stick some other guys with the bill. Don’t you just love democracy? When one group of people can use force to pilfer the funds from a weaker group in any other context we would call it theft. What is even worse about this state of affairs is that this is essentially modern day Robin Hood in reverse, taking from the poor (smokers tend to be underprivileged) and giving it to the relatively rich.
Concerning the financial toll this tax increase would take on smokers, I want to put in perspective the fact Cavanaugh points out that Nebraska currently ranks 38th in tobacco taxes per pack. According to data by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research of the University of New Mexico, Nebraska is the 37th lowest state in average wages (as of 2009). So not only does this tax target the poor it will hit them good and hard, as this tax would push Nebraska up to the 16th highest cigarette tax in the country even though Nebraskans make less money than the citizens of most other states. Seems to me 38th is right about where we should be if you base any merit on that standard.
Elsewhere in his article, Cavanaugh can’t help but make a “would somebody please think of the children” argument stating that some kids would be prevented from smoking if this tax increase is passed and also mentions that some adults would quit smoking as well. While I don’t doubt it would encourage some folks to quit and others not to pick up the habit in the first place, I always take a principled stance against this kind of social engineering. It is not the duty of some to compel others to live their lives the way they see fit. So I do not care that the majority of people in Nebraska support this tax increase. Fortunately we created things like constitutions in order to save people from the tyranny of the majority. In this case constitutional government will do just that, as Governor Dave Heineman has stated that he would veto any tax increases including a tax increase on cigarettes. Looks like all of the opinion pieces in the world aren’t going to do any good in trying to pass this legislation.
Not sure if you've noticed, but we live in a Democracy in which legislatures represent the people ... the majority of the people. If the majority wants something, it is the responsibility of the elected officials to make it happen.
ReplyDeleteNobody is forcing you to do anything. If the cigarettes are too expensive, it is still your prerogative to not buy them. Just like if they pass a special tax on Oreos, I might stop buying them. No skin off my back.
I personally would have to disagree. We live in a "constitutional republic" and not a true democracy. There is a substantial difference. For example, the majority of the south was for Jim Crow laws and such but that doesn't mean that Jim Crow laws were constitutional. The majority did not rule, and we are all better for it.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, John Adams described our government as such: "Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the 'tyranny of the majority' by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population." Further, he said we are "a government of laws, and not of men."
Also, thanks for posting! :)
ReplyDeleteYou got me on the republic - that's true.
ReplyDeleteBut what I said about nobody forcing you to smoke cigarettes still stands.
I just don't buy that line of reasoning. You could say that nobody forces people to do a lot of things that they do but it would still be reasonable to have an issue with excessive taxes of any good or service. Let's face it, the only reason we're not talking about raising taxes on alcohol or sweets right now is due to the fact that a lot more than 20% of the population consumes those things. So do you really think it's okay for the majority to stick it to a minority of people? If you do than you certainly have a different code of ethics than I do so we'll just have to leave it at that.
ReplyDeleteOne problem is that, in this case, the actions of the minority affect the majority. Smokers often think they're hurting nobody, but the reality is that second hand smoke is very dangerous to both the minority and the majority. And if the minority is not concerned about other people, maybe this would be encouragement for them to quit, which would be good for their own heath. But I assume you're a smoker, so this is probably falling on deaf ears.
ReplyDeleteAnd I can assume you're not a smoker so my arguments are probably falling on deaf ears. See how that goes both ways? For the record I'm against pretty much all tax increases because I think we're taxed far too much as it is. I don't think the government should keep sticking it to its citizens with higher taxes to try and solve the budget crises that were the result of too much spending, not insufficient tax revenue.
ReplyDeleteAs far as secondhand smoke goes didn't we already ban smoking in all establishments here in Nebraska so is that really much an issue? I don't buy that excuse anymore. Anyway, like I said in my post it sounds like Heineman is going to veto this bill if it passes anyway so there's no point in wasting too much breath on it.
Smoking is banned in commercial buildings only. Unfortunately, non-smokers cannot avoid second hand smoke in apartment buildings, on the sidewalk, in car behind a smoker, in an entryway to a business, etc.
ReplyDeleteI see your point that cigarette smokers shouldn't be the only ones to pay for high government spending. Cigarette smoking, however toxic, has nothing to do with government debt. Maybe your next post could be a suggestion for how to pay for the governments debts. A consumer tax? Increase property taxes? Increase the size of the IRS and audit more delinquent or fraudulent tax returns? I would like to hear your thoughts on that.