Sacramento, CA -- What would you say if the government, seeking to fund more police, levied a special tax on
jelly doughnuts? Or what if a special tax were placed on hats in order raise money to fund the creation of
new public libraries? Most people would likely respond that while more police and libraries may be useful and
even necessary, why should devotees of hats and jelly doughnuts be singled out to pay for goods that
supposedly benefit the entire public? Yet, this discriminatory tax philosophy is what undergirds
Proposition 10 on California’s November ballot.

Proposition 10 is the brainchild of Hollywood actor/director Rob Reiner, who played the character "Meathead" on the sitcom "All in the Family." Under its provisions, taxes on cigarettes would be raised 50 cents per pack to pay for a slew of new government programs.

As opposed to previous increases in the tobacco tax which went to tobacco-related health programs, the
money raised under Prop. 10 would go to general programs, most in early childhood development, having
nothing to do with smoking. Regardless of the worth of such measures, why should smokers be singled out to pay for them? And why discriminate against smokers by making them the cash cow to fund some do-gooder’s wish list of social programs?

Exactly how much of an added tax burden does Prop. 10 heap on smokers? It is estimated that up to $700
million in new tax revenues will be collected in 1999-2000 alone. It is interesting to note that much of
these new tax revenues will come out of the pockets of the poor.

According to national statistics, the lower a household’s income, the larger the share of the household’s budget spent on tobacco products. In a report issued by the California State Senate’s Office of Research, it is estimated that if Prop. 10 passes, households with gross incomes at or below $15,000 per year, with at least one smoker, will have to pay an additional $170 in new cigarette taxes. This comes in addition to the $270 such households already pay in current cigarette taxes. And as usual, if tax revenues go up, added bureaucracy can’t be far behind.

Prop. 10 would create a state commission and 58 county commissions to dole out the new funds. Much of the new bureaucracy would be unaccountable to elected officials. According to the State Senate report, the
county commissions will not have to submit their strategic plans for approval by the county board of
supervisors. The commissions also are not subject to outside audits of their performance. The report notes
that, "Except for appointing commissioners to fixed terms, elected officials (the governor, legislators,
and supervisors) would have no control over the state and county commissions."

Finally, although Prop. 10 funds are supposed to go to early childhood development programs, the initiative
defines such programs in very open-ended terms. Such vagueness invites expenditures on programs having only the weakest relationship to early childhood development.

For liberals, always seeking ways to make the government grow, attacking the tobacco companies and
smokers makes for good politics. It is up to California voters, however, to decide whether good politics trumps
good public policy.

--By Lance T. Izumi

You are here: > Publications > Capital Ideas