The tobacco issue
April 12, 1998
Will Rogers said that when Democrats and Republicans get together, the Republic's in trouble. Nowhere is that more true than in the tobacco issue. The combination of the appeal of saving children combined with the prospect of half a trillion dollars in new revenue and demonization of the tobacco barons is too much for politicians to resist.
When something like this occurs, it's time for caution, but that's the last thing on people's minds.
The tobacco companies are taking yet more bad press for withdrawing from negotiations, but their withdrawal is quite understandable. The agreement reached last June contained something for both sides: the tobacco companies got some kind of upper bound on liability in exchange for agreeing to limitations on advertising and penalties for failure to meet certain goals in reduction of smoking among minors. The Senate bill removes the quid pro quo re liability for the companies and increased the tax level by about 50 percent. There's no longer any reason for the companies to talk.
Senator McCain and Budget Director Frank Raines rather disengenuously said they don't need the tobacco companies' cooperation. What they don't want to admit is that the Senate bill really is constitutionally questionable, and without the cooperation of the victims, it would face a serious and likely successful challenge on constitutional grounds.
The tax on cigarettes is highly regressive, falling disproportionately on lower income people because they smoke more. In addition, a large share of the proceeds will wind up in the pockets of trial lawyers, who are asking for a lion's share - $2.3 B (yes, that's billion) in Texas alone.
The truth is that the whole idea of a "settlement" is flawed to begin with. Will Rogers' observation is even more true when you add a powerful industry in addition to Democrats and Republicans. The government should act in the interest of the people, and making concessions to the tobacco industry is a bad idea. By the same token, the precedent of using the coercive power of the government to force an unpopular industry to surrender constitutional rights is also a bad idea.
It's a good thing that the tobacco companies pulled out, and I hope they stay out. Colluding with the government is the last thing the citizenry should want them to do.
At the same time, Congress should not be crafting legislation which infringes anyone's rights, no matter how unpopular they happen to be at the moment. If you need an example of that, consider the internment camps for the Japanese-Americans during World War II.
George Will pointed out on This Week with Sam and Cokie this morning that the tobacco bill is based on four assumptions, all untrue: (1) that people don't know that smoking is hazardous (they actually overestimate the hazard), (2) that smoking costs society (actually, it decreases health care costs by 32 cents a pack because people die earlier), (3) that people can't quit (many have), and (4) that advertising causes smoking (compare pot).
The spectacle of Congressmembers licking their lips at the prospect of all that money is nauseating. The ugly fact that people don't realize is that the government is getting ready to introduce a program of becoming a partner with this "evil" industry. It will get quite used to feeding on this fat hog, and the government will have the perverse incentive to keep people smoking so the revenue won't dry up.
In other words, the government's solution to the problem with this despicable industry is to join it.
The frenzied atmosphere in which tobacco legislation is being conceived is a classic scenario for making bad law, and that's exactly where we're headed.