* CA Prop 28: a case study in demosclerosis
Topics: Democracy
02 May 2000
From: Ervan Darnell
Last November, California voters rejected Prop 28, which would have
repealed the additional $.50/pack cigarette tax ostensibly directed for
children's programs (the state takes 5% off the top and lets counties
take an undetermined amount in administration and then spend it however
they want). This is a tidy example of how democracy operates by
tyranny of the majority and not as an effort at reaching a reasonable
group consensus (not that that would necessarily be a good thing
either). It is worth considering just what a bad idea this is
before turning to how it represents a failure of the system.
Consider the arguments against the repeal and for the tax, they
are[1]:
1) The government should subsidize children more.
2) The government should penalize smokers more.
And there is the big assumption, which is not even mentioned:
3) Somehow these two things should be welded together.
There simply is no justification for point (3). Why do smokers in
particular owe more for children than non-smokers? This is
especially so since they tend to have lower incomes.
As for point (1), the argument is that "investing in our youngest
children" (which includes things like new tricycles and having
adults plant gardens [2]) saves money in the long run. That's
almost certainly false as implemented here (witness the Head Start
studies which show it to have zero impact by 3rd grade). But even
if that's so, why the wait? Why not fund it immediately out of
general revenues? Why tie it to something that might
decrease? Especially, and here is the hypocrisy, why tie it to
something this very vote is intended by design to decrease (the amount
people smoke). The "no" campaign brags that it intends to
defeat its own purpose!
Point (2) is no better. The argument is that smoking is so terrible
society must stop smokers from smoking (and the usual bogus externality
arguments). Then why just a piddling tax? This is an argument
for prohibiting smoking, not just taxing a little bit (even if
prohibition is not successful, that's clearly the highest price that can
be imposed). There is another serious hypocrisy here, one that runs
through the whole anti-smoking (and drug war) mentality, it is this dual
claim:
A) Smoking is so addictive people do not have rational control over their
actions and therefore government force is necessary.
B) A $.50/pack tax increase greatly reduces smoking (the "no"
campaign claims 30%) [3].
Which is it? It cannot be both. The reality is that people
who have a problem are hurt by the tax because they truly are addicted,
they smoke the most, and they won't smoke less. People who don't
really have a serious problem, who can quit or smoke less, didn't need
the "help". It's a lose-lose argument. The drug war
is the same way: people shooting up are induced to criminal behavior by
prohibition but people recreationally smoking pot for just a little
weekend fun are the ones deterred. The guy without a problem loses
his pleasure and the guy with a problem just had it compounded.
With the "no" argument being so weak, it's interesting to see
how democracy fails nonetheless. This funding was not voted for in
isolation, which says that people really don't believe the investment
argument. It was only voted for when paid for by a minority.
The proposition was overwhelmingly defeated with only about 30% of the
population voting for it. That 30% is the 29% who are regular
smokers and the 1% who are libertarians. Essentially every
non-regular-smoker in the state said in effect: "screw the smokers,
that's not me; I don't care so long as their ox is gored and not
mine".
It's small consolation to know that the wheel keeps spinning and the
price for tolerating such a system is that nearly everyone gets cheated
in the long run. The system is doubly destructive
because even if one realizes that, there is no way to act on it one
proposition at a time. Why should I vote to help the regular
smokers? I'm cutting my own throat by raising my taxes (in the long
run to cover the lost revenue). Am I at least helping to establish
a principle of fair taxation? Absolutley not. My voting for
fair taxes for smokers would in no one shame them into voting against the
next tax that hurts me, even if they recognized that I helped them, which
there is no real way to communicate in any case because of the nature of
voting [4]. I don't mean that smokers are any less moral than the
general populace, just that there is no way to strike that bargain and no
way to enforce it if struck. Nor does voting against such an unfair
tax in any way establish that there is a bloc of citizens who will on
principle consistently oppose unfair taxation. Every election is an
act of bribing members away from any such coalition that might ever
exist; and of course most people like the idea of screwing minorities and
have no concept of why fairness even matters.
Candidates' campaigns ultimately operate in the same failure mode, but
with more rhetorical polish. It's not about building consensus;
it's about building majorities.
The best hope, and wildly improbable it is, is a constitutional amendment
prohibiting all excise taxes except for gasoline and all funds from it
must be spent on roads, combined with a clause requiring a 3/4 vote for
any future exceptions including an exception changing the necessary vote
margin.
-----------------------
[1]
http://www.noonprop28.org/facts2.html
[2]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/hotnews/stories/23/childrensun.dtl
[3] As Dan (Lindsey) pointed out, this statistic is nonsense because
smokers are simply buying out of state and that doesn't show up in the
statistics. So, the state gets less revenue ultimately, no
(presumed) benefit to smokers is achieved, they pay more than they did
previously to cover the postage, and another black market is
encouraged. Everybody loses (except pot smokers because police now
have to squander resources on illegal tobacco instead).
[4] If it matters, I voted to repeal the tax on principle
nonetheless.
===============================================================
Ervan
Darnell
|"Term limits are not enough.
ervan@iname.com
| We need jail."
![]()
border="0"
alt=""
src="http://adimg.egroups.com/img/3830/6/_/220122/_/957329980/EGDIRegroups1_468x60a8.gif">
Home