Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Editorial: Smoke and politics
The governor and the state's junior U.S. senator are cool to a federal cigarette tax increase. They should rethink the benefits it'd have for the young.
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Virginia's two top Democratic officeholders have met a tax increase they don't like. They should get over their aversion.
The revenue would be used to expand health coverage for uninsured children, a signature issue for the new Democratic majority in Congress and a good one. Even most Republicans in Washington do not deny the need.
So what could cause U.S. Sen. James Webb and Gov. Tim Kaine to choke? The revenue in question is a 61cent increase in the federal cigarette tax, which would raise it to $1 a pack.
Virginia politicians of every stripe have a distaste for cigarette taxes. The state's own tax is only 30 cents a pack, though some municipalities, including Roanoke and Blacksburg, tack on a local levy.
The commonwealth's history, after all, is rooted in tobacco. This accounts for much of the hospitality the state continues to show an industry that has a disastrous effect on people's health. History, and the fact that the leading cigarette manufacturer in the country, Philip Morris USA, is headquartered in Henrico County.
Major tobacco companies oppose the tax proposal, which is advancing through the Senate and would raise an expected $35 billion to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program by almost half.
Granted, neither Virginia politician cites industry concerns in opposing the measure.
Rather, Kaine's spokesman tells the Richmond Times-Dispatch that the governor hopes Congress will rely on a mix of funding schemes, "because it is not a good idea to fund the reauthorization of SCHIP solely through a revenue source that most experts expect to decline year after year."
Oh? Kaine has no such reservations about Virginia's heavy reliance on new abusive driver fees to pay for transportation improvements. Yet the revenue the fees produce will decline year after year if they achieve their supposed purpose -- to improve road safety.
Webb's objection makes more sense. His spokeswoman says the senator dislikes the regressive nature of a cigarette tax increase. Since about half the smokers in the country make about the same money as families eligible for SCHIP, raising the tobacco tax "amounts to 'robbing Peter to pay Paul.'"
The added cost would hit lower-income smokers harder. They could avoid the increase and improve their health by cutting back or quitting, of course, but many try and fail. Smoking is physically addictive. Perhaps some of the tax dollars should go to helping people who can't afford nicotine-laced patches or chewing gum to wean themselves from the drug.
Hard as any extra tax burden would be on the nation's struggling middle class, one good would come from higher tobacco costs that would outweigh the bad. Child and adolescent consumers are very sensitive to price. The higher the price per pack, the fewer the young people who will start what, for many, becomes a lifetime of addiction and poorer health.
That plus expanded access to health care would doubly benefit the nation's children.
