It's the virtuous underdogs vs. the nefarious moneybags. Good vs. evil.
There's one unmistakable plus that comes with raising the tobacco tax: As Warner explained, "if you raise the cost of cigarettes, smoking goes down, especially among children."
The unmistakable downside: Prop. 29, which would raise an expected $735 million annually, represents the kind of me-first lawmaking that helped dig the state government's $9.2 billion budget hole.
I cannot help but look at Prop. 29 and wonder: If raising state cigarette taxes should reduce smoking all by itself, why not put the new money in the state's cash-starved general fund? When Sacramento has to implement further cuts or new taxes to fill a gaping hole, why did Prop. 29's authors insist on raising money to bankroll their preferred programs -- mostly cancer research and anti-smoking campaigns, for which Washington and Sacramento already pay.
Prop. 29 is "ballot box budgeting." People and organizations with money write ballot measures that appeal to voters because they dedicate tax dollars to popular programs. It's like asking a child, "Which would you rather eat first, broccoli or ice cream?"
Of course, voters feel good when they vote to protect mental health services or after-school programs. They are not so happy when lawmakers have to slash spending because they don't have much flexibility on the budget. Because lawmakers have limited say on how $40 billion in special funds are spent, they must make most spending cuts in the $93 billion general fund.
Robert Stern, former president of the Center for Governmental Studies, agrees that Prop. 29 represents ballot box budgeting, but he says it's "a different type of ballot box budgeting." It is unlike the 2004 ballot measure that authorized $3 billion in bonds to fund stem cell research, for which the general fund pays interest. Prop. 29, at least, pays for itself.
Also, as American Cancer Society Vice President Jim Knox argued, "there is an obvious nexus to the product that's being taxed" and how the money is spent.
True, but it's still a tax increase to bankroll shiny new programs while Sacramento faces cutting existing programs.