Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum;
I Smell a Cigarette Tax

Posted 12:46 p.m., May 21, 2005

---

|

---

Some words are so unkind that you won't find them spoken here on the Kevblog. One of my closest friends uttered one just last night: "weasel." It was in the context of critiquing a proposal that Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty made yesterday to charge a 75-cent-per-pack "user fee" on cigarettes in the state. I mention the utterance strictly by way of illustration.

Now, importantly, this plan is based on a fee, not a tax. Don't call it a tax. It can't be a tax. Gov. Pawlenty, after all, is a Republican, and Republicans react to taxes the way Dracula reacts to sunlight. Taxes are very unpleasant to GOPers. (Democrats, on the other hand, take to them like tabbies to catnip. It's very cute to watch. Unless you pay taxes.)

But Republicans do like money. They especially like to spend it--just as much as Democrats! So when Republicans really, really, really need some ching and want to collect it from the citizenry, they have to give it a new name.

"I believe it's a user fee," Pawlenty said yesterday at a news conference, shortly before helpfully offering those in attendance access to a document that defines the crucial semantic differences between "fees" and "taxes" wrested from citizens by the government. "Some will say it's a tax," Pawlenty said. "I'm going to say it's a compromise."

He gave his proposal a pretty name, too. It's a "Health Impact Fee." It's called that because smokers, who detrimentally impact their own health, will now be forced to have an impact on education spending. Quite elegant, when you think of it.

I might have suggested "Blowing Smoke for the Schools," but "Health Impact Fee" is nice, too.

How is this a user fee? Didn't House Speaker Steve Sviggum just say on TV the other night that a "user fee" is money collected from people to pay directly for a benefit or service that those users are themselves enjoying? Will the government thus use this money to actually pay for folks' smokes?

Glad you asked, because I can explain this "user fee" concept.

See, smokers use cigarettes. Still with me? OK, now the governor wants to use them to clean up the mess he has helped to create by refusing to approach the state's fiscal challenges in any sort of responsible way--say, by combining meaningful budget cuts with moderate, straight-up tax hikes.

Now, three years into his first term, he's plumb run out of financial shifts and gimmicks. Most of the Indian tribes he approached to build a state-run casino have realized they don’t want to play ball, probably suspecting the plan would benefit them very little in the end, given how badly Minnesota needs money.

Of course, even if Democrats and skeptical Republicans (and there are a number of them, including the author of the No New Tax pledge, Taxpayers League chieftain David Strom) can be coaxed into going along with this idea, there are strings attached. These will make it difficult, at least for the Democrats, to climb onboard.

Pawlenty's proposal tosses a fresh $380 million into the 2006-07 budget, allowing for a 9 percent increase in K-12 spending during that period. But the governor, who made the pitch, won't allow the Legislature to enact it unless they also pass two of four other specified measures, any one of which has the potential for derailing the whole thing. These include:

• A state-sponsored casino at Canterbury Park.

• A constitutional amendment opening up Minnesota to California-style petition-driven initiative and referendum.

Note: Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson has already said that these two are out. That leaves:

• A school choice proposal, such as business tax deductions that pay the tuition for disadvantaged students who attend private school.

• A school year teacher-strike ban.

So it's pick two, any two. And if you don't, the coming fiscal train wreck is your fault, legislators. Our smiling governor will be off the hook. Maybe. Or maybe the governor has played one sleight of hand too many on voters this time.

Still, it's foolish to even consider counting out Tim Pawlenty. The man, it must be said, is an artist. Just what kind of artist I will leave it for others to observe.

Now again, the Kevblog refrains from insult. And in searching for a word to describe this sort of non-vacillation vacillation on taxes, "weasel" is really too nasty, too personal. It's out. I won't even consider using it.

So let's invent a gentler new term, so that a critique of the guv's proposal isn't so directly personal. How does this one work for you?

Fee-sel.

As in, "The governor is now trying to fee-sel his way out of his no-new-taxes pledge."

That's not too personal, is it?

-- Kevin Featherly

|

---

Share with a friend:

---

Visit the Kevblog archive.

---

---