Smoke 'em if you got 'em, Michigan. Your worst fears of hefty state taxes on cigarettes are quashed, and we're so happy that we could cough up a lung.
Not on the merit that smoking is a positive activity, of course. It's unilaterally unpleasant, even to the habitual smoker. Our pleasure in the vote to sink Gov. Jennifer Granholm's 75-cents per pack tax proposal rests on a more fundamental plane - "sin taxes" are a bad idea.
To single out a specific group, essentially targeted based on their weakness - nicotine addiction - is simply unfair. A hefty tax on smokes is a legitimate cash cow to legislators, for they know full well that 75 cents is not enough to extinguish the habit. It's enough for smoker's to hold a grudge, to be sure, but it's also just enough for legislators to see a quick, marked upswing.
This year, Michigan faces a $250 million vacancy in the state budget. In the next fiscal year, the budget shortfall is estimated at about $1 billion. By the numbers, it's not only going to be a rough ride for the state's economy, it'll be a long one, too. Granholm's proposal to tax packs of cigarettes would have generated an estimated $97 million, which is certainly sizable, but not nearly enough to halt the hemorrhaging.
Furthermore, the state levied a previous 75 cent tax on cigarettes in August 2002. Look at how well that has carried the state through its economic slump, factor in Granholm's defeated "sin tax" on liquor earlier this month and feel free to make your own assumptions on the popularity and influence of "sin taxes" in our state.
That said, it's refreshing to see that some opposition to the proposal was motivated by its disproportional affect on low-income smokers, who would have been hit the most.
Granted, partisan battle lines will appear in every legislative decision, but for this proposed "sin tax," what is popular isn't always right.
When Granholm's proposal was introduced in February, polls showed that 60 percent of Michigan residents supported it. This was not a case of smokers versus nonsmokers, or even Democrats versus Republicans. This was a vote that needed to directly represent the affect a cigarette tax would have on constituents. Thankfully, it did, and did so in line with keeping "sin taxes" out of our state.
So, cut state expenditures, or levy taxes against a minority of the state population? Both are about as appetizing as a brimmed ashtray, but the latter stinks even more. Taxes that are directly aimed at a group on the basis of it's perceived jackpot potential are a gross misappropriation of legislation. The heart of the "sin tax" is to elevate revenue at the expense of lifestyle choices, and in that situation, the best interests of all Michigan residents are overlooked and underrepresented.
Tacking 75 cents on a pack of cigarettes won't break anyone's bank, and it definitely won't rescue the state from fiscal woes. So light up, Michigan smokers, it's your right to choose your own lifestyle free of how valuable lawmakers might consider it. Your wallet and your smokes are both safe - for now.
