I'm not the only one who's ticked off by the "health impact fee."

Pawlenty was on Hewitt last night (Not like I listened. Good thing, too, otherwise I would have called in and reamed them both.) and Hewitt backed up Pawlenty and said:

{...}You know, I actually have no problem with that. I don't care what the anti-tax hard core says, I believe in taxing the heck out of cigarettes because of externalities and [unintelligible]. It's good economics.

Good economics? GOOD economics? What the hell is the matter with you, Hugh? You're advocating taxing the hell out of tobacco products to cover up a budgetary shortfall. How, precisely, do you plan on doing that when people will either quit or will buy their cigarettes online, thereby shortcircuiting your tax. How, exactly, is that action going to bring revenue in? And, do remember, Hugh you're trying to balance a budget here. You have to bring in income because you didn't cut or reduce spending and this is your chosen method of balancing the books. You might want to make sure it's guaranteed before you call it "Good Economics." Because it most assuredly ain't good economics to let the State of Minnesota's checks bounce.

Pawlenty then went on to confirm the reasoning I laid out in this post:

{...}Well, you know, I don't, I'm not a big fan of growing revenues through new mechanisms like this as I hope I've proven as governor but the bottom line was we had a historic government shutdown we had to find common ground and compared to the alternatives of the Democrats wanting to tax everything including income and business taxes and a variety of other things. This was the least offensive. And the good news is other states have done it and smoking has decreased dramatically, and so this has a health benefit as well.{...}

Yep. Let's not piss off big business or raise income taxes or even---GASP!---cut or reduce spending. Let's go with the path of least resistance, shall we? Let's raise taxes on nasty people who do things that disagree with our delicate noses---and yes, Tim, it's a tax. Smoking may be voluntary, but the paying of said "health impact fee" most assuredly isn't---because that's the easy way out. Furthermore, let's claim that we didn't raise taxes when we did! It's PERFECT!

As far as the "health benefit" is concerned, well, geez, Tim, I helped to elect you Governor. I didn't elect you to be my freakin' nanny. If I want to pollute my lungs that's my choice. Not yours. Furthermore I shouldn't be taxed to hell and back to make up for your shortcomings as a negotiator.

King Banian of SCSU Scholars has a fantastic post on this. Money quote:

{...}Last, if the budget deficit was as small as Hugh figures out -- and he's right -- why do both of these smart conservatives go right past the other solution, the one the tax pledge was supposed to produce: REDUCE SPENDING. In a $31 billion budget, you couldn't find $400 million of cuts? Why accept the level of spending as fixed??? And they're not cuts, they are simply reductions in the rate of increase in spending. This budget is for $30.5 billion (to be precise); the 2004-05 budget was for $28.2.{...}

Go read King's entire post. It's well worth your time.

Oh, and Lileks, you're on my shitlist, too, for agreeing with Hewitt.

{...}JL: As much as I like the anti-tax pledgers there are some times when you have to bend and if you want to stomp your feet and run away and read your Ayn Rand again, I mean that's fine, but politics is not about purity sometimes it's about getting things done.{...}

Oh, yes, where's my copy of Atlas Shrugged? It must be around here somewhere. Perhaps there's a chapter in there that I missed about "getting things done" rather than letting the state tax me further up the wazoo when the wazoo is pretty darn deep as it is.

Chad knocks some sense into Hewitt, who seems to believe "I mean...it's normal. You have to tax something, tax smoke"

{...}Not only is raising taxes "normal", we really have no choice because, according to Hugh, "you got to tax something." We do? Why exactly is raising taxes the only possible solution? God forbid if we could possibly have gotten by without increasing spending as much as we did. What would happen to the schools if we didn't pour an additional $800 some million dollars into them? A cynic might ask exactly what this additional educational largesse is really going to get us, but it's all "about the children" so it would be rude and unseemly to demand to see reforms or results, wouldn't it?

I'm trying to think of what other things it would be "normal" to tax at higher rates. You know, things that are voluntary and may have negative externalities. Things like, well I don't know, maybe snack foods. How about a Cheeto tax Hugh? Or a Diet Coke tax? A Docker's tax? The burden would fall chiefly on white, middle-aged men, so why not? How about a tax on crappy folk music? Talk about negative externalities.{...}

Negative externalities, indeed. It's a "fee" when it doesn't affect you. When it does affect you, it's a "tax" and geez, THEN, by golly, they've crossed the line.

The Republic of Kathyland---where I, Kathy, would serve as benevolent dictator for life---is sounding better and better every damn day I live in this state.

Oh, and we've already decided that the ciggies will be duty free in Kathyland.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:23 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 944 words, total size 6 kb.