No cancer stick tax increase? Layoffs galore coming. Get ready for it. And an FYI to “blevins” – axing Coldiron wouldn’t save the state any money. [Bluegrass Politics]
Do southern senators really want to start a new war between the states? Kentucky gets back $1.45 for every dollar paid in federal taxes but Michigan loses $0.31 per dollar paid. Mitch McConnell should probably think twice about his vindictive mission. [Huffington Post]
More on the 8664 snafu with the state transportation cabinet. We’ll have more on this a bit later. [C-J]
Even Toyota supports a bailout for the big three. [CNN]
Aww snap. David Schankula lays out a fancy argument for why Daniel Mongiardo should leave the Democratic Party. Something about being a fancy homophobe. [Barefoot & Progressive]
Occasionally we check out what sort of ignorance the Bluegrass “Institute” is spewing out. Now it’s some sort of tripe about the cigarette tax being a bad idea because bootleggers exist. Seriously. [Ignorant Spin]
Jim Carroll got to attend a White House dinner for media types last night and he’s written all about it. [Jim Carroll]
1 response so far ↓
1 David Adams // Dec 17, 2008 at 11:06 am
Jake,
Thanks for the mention and the link. I appreciate criticism from all sources because I like to think I might use it to improve my thought process.
Unfortunately, I’m struggling to find anything in your criticism to do anything with.
You suggest that I claim something about “the cigarette tax being a bad idea because bootleggers exist.”
I don’t remember even thinking anything like this and I know I never wrote anything like that.
What I said was that the bootleggers who find a financial opportunity in taking cigarettes out of the state will, if we raise the tax as proposed, find the same opportunity bringing cigarettes into the state.
Is this what you disagree with? Or is it something else?
The seventy cent tax increase has been promoted at various times as a way to improve education, create new health programs, fund unfunded health programs, fill in part of the budget deficit, help repair the state’s unfunded public employee, and improve public health costs by stopping people from smoking.
So far, this looks like a fabulous example of government over-promising and under-delivering.
It is not possible for the cigarette tax to do all the things it is supposed to do. Further, I think it is pretty likely that it can’t do any of them very well.
So let’s ask ourselves: what is it exactly we are trying to do?
If we are trying to have more money for government spending, a better solution is to better prioritize spending of the money we already have.
If we are trying to stop poor, sick smokers from draining Medicaid funds, perhaps we should consider taking welfare benefits away from people who smoke. That approach has serious problems, but I’m not sure they are any worse than the idea of a tax increase that can’t possibly fund the wish list it has already inspired.
If we are just trying to get lawmakers on the record supporting a tax increase so they will be easier to force into raising other taxes, then the cigarette tax looks great.
That’s what I’m opposed to.
Leave a Comment