State Rep. Karen Peterson, the second most powerful elected official in the House, wants to curb the use of cancer sticks while bringing millions of nicotine-stained dollars into the treasury.
She and other lawmakers plan to introduce legislation in April that would tack an additional $1-a-pack tax onto the price of cigarettes and other tobacco products. Puffers already pay 36 cents a pack in state taxes, and if Peterson’s measure passes, smokers will cough up $2.36 in state and federal taxes for every box of cigs.
The buck bump, says the New Orleans lawmaker, is the perfect prescription for two of Louisiana’s maladies: the generally poor health of its residents, and the declining health of state revenue.
Call it a sin tax or the ultimate user fee, either way the measure, expected to generate at least $209 million annually on cigarettes alone, has the enthusiastic endorsement of anti-smoking groups and health care institutions such as Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center and the Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center.
What it doesn’t have is the support of Gov. Bobby Jindal, who says a tax is a tax no matter how pretty the packaging. He is vowing to veto the measure if it blows through the Legislature.
Few argue the health risks posed by cigarette and tobacco use. And if you’re a legislator who likes to freely spend taxpayer money then a couple hundred mil comes in handy anytime, but even more so when the state is facing steep budget cuts.
The problem is Peterson’s proposal doesn’t really address what supporters claim is the bill’s true purpose: the escalating health care costs associated with tobacco-related illnesses, said to cost the state $1.47 billion per year. Peterson made it clear at a press conference last week that associated revenues will not be dedicated to health care-related expenses. She says the millions raised would plug existing revenue gaps.
The governor is correct: This is a tax disguised as feel-good legislation. Not all taxes are bad, however, and this bill would be more palatable if the money went to the prevention, study and treatment of diseases linked to tobacco. This group of legislators loves dedicated revenue streams, so I’m struggling to see the problem with dedicating this one, especially since health care and higher ed, which lack dedicated funds, are always the first to be cut in times of fiscal trouble.
A cynic might say Peterson wants government to profit off those who are slowly killing themselves at an 11-minute-per-smoke clip. I can see the marketing slogan now: “Fill our coffers while you fill your coffin.”
As problematic, scores of research studies say these taxes do little, if anything, to curb smoking.
So, if this tobacco tax isn’t going to make us any healthier and if it won’t prompt folks to kick the habit, then what you’re left with is a regressive tax proposal that hits the poor especially hard. The greatest percentage of smokers and dippers, says the American Heart Association, are people with less education and less income than their non-smoking counterparts. A large number of smokers live below the poverty level.
For those on food stamps, already scalping their vouchers for cash to buy items like cigarettes, the tax would merely cut their stamps-for-cash purchasing power.
Still, if legislators are so in love with sin taxes then why stop with cigarettes?
Let’s slap hefty taxes on artery-clogging fast-food restaurants, anyone selling liver-rotting alcohol products and, as long as Les Miles is head coach, LSU football games. Seriously, how many people have had heart attacks sweating out those down-to-the-wire nail-biters?
How about a mental health tax on local furniture dealers who drive us insane with those moronic, poor-quality television commercials that are more about getting their family members face time then pushing products?
Hell, somebody needs to tax whoever is installing fluorescent lighting in office buildings. Those radiating tubes are killing me.
