The Tax Man

I don't really agree with most of this David Brooks column on S-CHIP, and I certainly don't agree with his implication that the S-CHIP expansion bill is a bad thing on net, but this is true:

Third, it creates a fund-raising mechanism cowardly in the extreme. Politicians in Washington like to talk in the abstract about shared sacrifice. They could go to the American people and say: We need to insure more children and to do that we’re going to raise broad-based taxes slightly.

But that’s honest and direct, and therefore impermissible. Instead, this program is funded by raising taxes on smokers, who generally are much poorer than average Americans and much less educated. High school dropouts smoke at roughly three times the rates of college graduates.

Now Brooks tries to deploy this factoid into an effort to convince us, I guess, that the Republicans standing against this expansion are doing so out of earnest concern for the well-being of the American working class. And that, of course, is ridiculous. It is, however, quite true that it's very hard to really make sensible policy in this country within the constraint that everything has to be financed through gimmicks and whatnot rather than through broadish taxes. Now, of course, Brooks has conveniently left out the part of the story where the conservative movement of which he's a part has worked assiduously to try to convince people that it's simply not possible for the benefits of any non-lethal government program to exceed the cost of financing it through taxation, which -- rather than some characterological predilection for dishonesty -- explains why politicians now resort constantly to these sort of tactics.

Comments

Increases in the cigarette tax actually improve public health. It is well documented that increasing cigarette taxes (1) decreases the number of teenage first-time smokers and (2) increases the number of adult smokers who attempt to quit.

The real problem with financing S-CHIP with cigarette taxes is that cigarette tax revenues are likely to decrease over time, because more people are attempting to quit and fewer teens are picking up the habit.

Posted by Ephus | September 28, 2007 2:57 PM

if poor young stop smoking, the health of their children will probably increase.

Posted by cleek | September 28, 2007 3:38 PM

What Brooks is saying is: "We should keep taxes on poor people low even if it kills them."

Posted by Wagster | September 28, 2007 3:38 PM

Why are we worried about tax increases on cigarettes? Make the federal tax $50.00 a pack. It would not reduce consumption by a single cigarette smoked. Nicotine is more addictive than heroin and on a macro level far more dangerous to public health. Tax the dumb bastards that use them into poverty and then when they come begging for food stamps and rent assistance make testing for nicotine in their system a condition for aid. One offense and cut off the aid. Boom, out on the street! Then decriminalize shooting homeless people and cull them from the population. Smokers are the filthiest, stupid scum on earth.

Posted by steve duncan | September 28, 2007 3:48 PM

That Brooks column can be read as an argument for single payer healthcare, paid for out of general tax revenue. Of course that's not what Bobo thinks he's arguing for ...

Posted by P O'Neill | September 28, 2007 3:51 PM

I really don't understand why every program that improves peoples and helps them must have a dedicated funding mechanism. What sort of funding mechanism did Petreaus recommend for the $180 billion he's asking for to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Oh, right. We only have to worry about paying for social programs. Anyone who asks questions about where the money comes from for military operations is supporting the terrorists.

Everyone's worried about Social Security supposedly running out of money in 20 years. For the 6th year in a row the Department of Defense has run out of money in the middle of the year, and yet this is no problem. Congress can just write another check.

Democrats, please learn how to play politics. Please. Seriously.

Posted by Rob Mac | September 28, 2007 4:34 PM

The real problem with financing S-CHIP with cigarette taxes is that cigarette tax revenues are likely to decrease over time, because more people are attempting to quit and fewer teens are picking up the habit.

One certainly hopes that this would be the result. Otherwise, all we're doing is exploiting addicts because it's politically expedient. It certainly seems to be the case that making government more dependent on smoking dollars gives them a pretty strong incentive not to seek out any measures that will curb smoking too drastically or successfully.

Posted by Royko | September 28, 2007 4:38 PM

Right. Magically, Brooks does not follow his own logic and say: "Hey, politicians! Why don't you be direct and honest and say we need to raise taxes generally? Something which I would totally respect and support! Especially if the burden fell most heavily on rich people!"

Posted by bobbo | September 28, 2007 4:51 PM

Now, of course, Brooks has conveniently left out the part of the story where the conservative movement of which he's a part has worked assiduously to try to convince people that it's simply not possible for the benefits of any non-lethal government program to exceed the cost of financing it through taxation, which -- rather than some characterological predilection for dishonesty -- explains why politicians now resort constantly to these sort of tactics.

That's quite a sentence. Just so I understand, the subject of the third dependent clause ("which ... explains ...these sort of tactics") is what? Does the "part of the story" ...[insert 40 words] ... explain these sort of tactics? Or, does assiduously trying to convince poeple explain these sort of tactics? Or do the benefits of government programs not exceeding their cost explain these tactics?

Posted by Bababooey | September 28, 2007 6:44 PM

Echoing Rob Mac and Bobbo above: What the hell is Brooks talking about? Since Reagan, the dominant paradigm has been that the country has plenty of money--for tax cuts, wars, bridges to nowhere, or whatever else.

I can't think of one single politician who's dared to suggest "shared sacrifice" since Jimmy Carter suggested Americans should try to conserve oil (1978?)--and we all know how well that appeal turned out.

Posted by James Gary | September 28, 2007 7:04 PM

Bababooey,

what Matt means with "these sort of tactics" is trying to finance social programs by creating a dedicated funding mechanism (in this case, an ear-marked rise of the tobacco tax) instead of taking the money out of the general revenue. And since Brooks et al have tried tirelessly to demonise financing social programs by general revenue (at least as long as Democrats and not GOP'ers do try to do it), they are hypocrites when they deride the circumvention tactics they themselves have made neccessary to get things done.

Posted by Patrick | September 29, 2007 7:20 AM

"But that’s honest and direct, and therefore impermissible."

As you suggest following Brooks' quote, it is his party and disgusting surrogates like Limbaugh that have made raising taxes "impermissible"

Posted by Hedley Lamarr | September 29, 2007 4:36 PM