San Diego OpEd

Pork Barrel Starts With You!

No on Proposition 86: Tobacco Tax
By Mark S. Burgess
Posted on Oct 31 2006
Last updated Nov 01 2006

On any given day, newscasters, print reporters and the general public talk about how disgusting it is that politicians spend money for their own benefit: pork barrel politics.

From the Wikipedia:

“In United States politics, a pork barrel (or pork barrel politics) is a derogatory term describing government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes.”

Now, let it be said that many of our nation’s fiscal woes and political corruption will be greatly reduced when we figure out how to reward politicians for NOT spending money. Today, to get elected, it appears necessary to talk about all the great programs (read that: spending a share of the collected tax) you brought to your [city,county,district,state]. It’s only at the Presidential level that larger concerns seem to take priority. Couple that with the tendency of institutions to self-perpetuate and grow. How else would we be in a place where “tax cut” means simply to reduce the amount a particular tax will automatically grow if that rate isn’t cut, which is the case with much of the taxation at the federal level.

For the moment, let’s set aside the fact that the sheer number of propositions on the ballot this November starts a fire under the thought that maybe we should not return anyone to the state legislature, fire them all, as citizen groups have taken over making the state’s laws using propositions. However, Socrates rated Democracy as the worst form of government because he thought it impossible to educate everyone well enough to vote well. We need the legislature to propose, debate, reform and make the decisions to pass new laws where everyone voting is educated and not only a minority of the 30% of registered voters who vote, that being a minority of the population to begin with.

Who’s to blame for out of control spending?

Take the proposition on the California ballot Prop 86 “Tobacco Taxes”. From the yesprop86.com web site, replete with three kids center stage in a sepia tone photograph contemplating a cigarette with a large pull quote nearby “California Kids buy or smoke 86 million packs of cigarettes a year”, you’d think this proposition was aimed at collecting funds to help prevent kids from smoking.

Here’s the pitch from the yesprop86.com site:

• Proposition 86 will save lives and reduce smoking.
• Prevent 700,000 kids from becoming adult smokers
• Prevent nearly 180,000 deaths due to smoking among California kids now under the age of 17
• Prevent approximately 120,000 additional deaths due to smoking among current California adult smokers who quit smoking
• Save Californians $16 billion in health care costs

Now, here’s the No vote’s interpretation of the same proposition on their site www.noprop86.com:

• Allocates less than 10% of the tax revenues toward helping cigarette, cigar and smokeless tobacco consumers quit or keeping kids from starting.
• Gives the largest share of money – almost 40% – to huge hospital corporations, many of which are funding the campaign for the new tax. These funds pay for non tobacco-related care they already provide, not treatment of smoking-related illnesses.
• Lets HMOs pocket millions of taxpayer dollars.
• Exempts hospitals from antitrust laws, letting them collude to fix prices and limit competition.
• Allows continued overbilling of the uninsured – at taxpayers' expense.
• Has very little accountability to taxpayers for how and where the money is spent.
• Increases our deficit.
• Increases crime.
• Is unfair! Taxes cigarette, cigar and smokeless tobacco consumers to pay for programs that have nothing to do with smoking.

If you go the California General Election Official Voter Information Guide http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop86/analysis86.html and scroll to the bottom of the page to see the revenue allocations. When I read this, I was a little puzzled as to why children would need prostate cancer treatment funds. While I know kids end up in emergency rooms on occasion, I wondered why 75% of the 52% of the revenues generated by the proposition for healthcare go to hospital emergency rooms…an odd place to prevent kids from smoking. In fact, as I read through the allocations, the lack of stipulated oversight, read through the analysis of the potential drop in sales because of the massive price increase (which is similar to if gasoline went up over $5 a gallon overnight.) and thought about one more tax that makes a pool of money for politicians to spread around where they most needed favors, the fact that I enjoy an occasional cigar proved the least of my objections to this proposition.

Fact is, if you saw the guts of this proposition before you saw the title, you’d think you were looking at an omnibus spending bill for shoring up failing hospitals and installing a new edition of free, federally funded healthcare.

I’m still unhappy with the people behind the so called Emergency Services proposition from the last election. What should have been an overdue increase in the fee we charge visitors, was sold as something completely different. In that case, it failed. I can only hope the same thing befalls this proposition.

When we object to politicians doing “pork barrel” spending, we’re being irresponsible if we help them stock the pork barrel to begin with.

More by this author.

Share this article

Subscribe to OpEd

 · 

Comments

Posted by Daniel	November 3, 2006
Q: Does your vote count? 30% of eligible citizens vote. 90% vote by rote. Pull the curtain, stare straight ahead and pull the lever. The way it?s always been and the way it always will be. That leaves it up to the remaining 10% (3% of eligible voters) to do the deciding. Make sure you're informed, and vote! It's your duty. A: You bet!

Posted by road dog	November 9, 2006
I stopped voting a few years ago because I voted for issues I thought were important, and some of them won! (passed, by a wide majority of votes,)only to have some Judge slam it down, saying that it was deemed to be "Unconstitutional". {If it was "unconstitutional" then why was it placed on the ballot in the first place?} It will take a very long time for someone to convince me that the system "works". And please don't get me started on the judicial system....

Posted by edna	November 13, 2006
i yes let you know that your page , it's ugly , a lot links that betther than you have , loocks more interesting , this page loocks like apartment in a lot thnigs ,

Posted by Neil Clark	November 17, 2006
I'm trying to take the channel 10 survey about the illegal aliens cam. Why can't I find it?

Posted by John Falzone	November 29, 2006
It is well known that palm trees do not emanate from California. The trees were shipped in from Florida and other tropical areas. California is not a Tropical Rainforest. It is Mediterranean Scrub, Grassland, Temperate Rainforest and Taiga. Palm trees were brought to California for the wrong reason. Now, they will all have to be removed as they grow in the wrong climate. I know this and I live in Rochester NY. John Falzone

(1)sandiego.com, Inc. invites comments in which readers can respond freely and anonymously if they wish. Comments submitted by readers will be rejected that are deemed by the editors to be damaging to the future of this web site.
(2)Comparison is made from the IP Address identity of the computer placing the posts. Some networks share these addresses between users.