One might say I lack objectivity because I'm a smoker, but I disagree. True, I'm selfishly against paying more for my tobacco fix and I also resent being told what to do by my government (and by my friends and family too). But my analysis might just strike a chord with people who believe in fairness and transparency. Of course I'm gonna vote against Prop 29, but here's why you should too.
Anyone remember Propositions 99 and 10? The measures that voted in $0.35 and $0.50 taxes on cigarettes, respectively? Well Prop 99 was advertised to voters as a way to make cigarettes prohibitively expensive, thereby discouraging and ultimately lowering tobacco sales. The expectation was if sales decreased, the tax was a success. But herein lied a problem. The tax itself is dependent upon revenue and as revenue drops, so does the amount of tax the government gets to play with. Well with Prop 99 it was all well and good because the biggest chunk of tax money went to education. And by education, I mean advertising. For the five years following Prop 99, California was drowning in anti-tobacco advertising. I'm confident that there wasn't a soul in California that didn't know smoking was hazardous to the health of humans in 2000. When the funding for the education started dwindling, lawmakers scrambled to find another revenue source. Well, why not more taxes? And hence, Prop 10 was born.
Prop 10 was unique in the manner that it had a big-name Hollywood celebrity who not only endorsed it, but co-created the plan of what to do with the new tobacco tax money. Prop 10 was sold to the public as a remedy for the tremendous strain smoking related illnesses costs. Unfortunately, barely a dime was earmarked for anything even remotely medical related, and it was for research, not treatment. The bulk of the Prop 10 tax money was being used to create a new governmental body in California that provided free preschool across the state. This program was of special interest to actor-director, Rob Reiner, who bankrolled misleading advertising in the tax's favor. He was eager to set up a new "First 5" office in every California county and start spending that tobacco money.
But a little known earmark for a good 10% of Prop 10's revenue, was dedicated to back-filling Prop 99's shrinking coffers. They solved the problem of reduced funding for anti-tobacco education by granting every child in California free preschool and ensuring the anticipated reduction in revenue would be replaced by smokers. Making smokers pay twice for these programs seems almost criminal but not quite as obscene as this. Assigning revenues from a tobacco tax to early childhood education is a slippery slope. At what point are voters going to want to de-fund preschool? But if people quit smoking, then there won't be a way to fund it unless we tax the remaining smokers again.
So guess what Prop 29 does? Yep, like 20% of it's revenue is dedicated to back-filling Prop 10's losses. But "First 5" is a behemoth program that needs constant if not growing revenue to meet its goals. And how can that be acheived but to tax cigarettes again, and again, and again, until no one smokes, but then again, no one goes to preschool for free either.
Why not tax diapers to pay for "First 5?" You have the kid, you can pay for its education by putting it in Pampers. People aren't gonna stop having kids so the revenue would never falter. And if smokers are somehow still paying to educate four year olds, maybe the diaper tax money could go towards solving our landfill problems? Let that soak in for a second...
