Submitted by Audrey Silk, Oct 22, 2007 06:25

I can imagine hearing Mayor Bloomberg's head exploding when he reads this. But it's so right on the money (no pun intended). Maybe when he personally discovers stress kills too he'll try to tax it too.

And really, the losses could be even more pronounced when the math equation is corrected. It's absolutely true that "New Yorkers can be more than a little suspicious of numbers culled from health department surveys... — people are likely, shall we say, to underreport." Well, not just underreport WHERE they get their smokes, but also lie, when asked, if they smoke. When a segment of society is so demonized, so stigmatized, how many people fear answering truthfully when asked if they smoke? The alleged decline in smoking is likely even less than boasted by the mayor and his health commissioner.

And at one time, Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) agreed with you too that cigarette taxes of this magnitude are regressive and will lead to underground sales. When Mayor Bloomberg proposed the increase, Rangel issued a statement objecting to it on the grounds that "Low income people are the ones who will suffer from this. They are the ones who willl really feel the burden of a $1.50 tax."

He also said, "If the motivation is to provide a kind of treatment for smokers by punishing them economically, the attempt is not only unfair, it is likely to fail," Congressman Rangel said. "People stop smoking because they want to; if they want to continue they will find a way to get cigarettes they can afford -- even if it means illegally on the black market, on the internet or traveling to low tax states." (1)

Fast forward to the current debate on the expansion of SCHIP that was to be (will be?) funded by a 61 cent federal tax increase on cigarettes and Congressman Rangel's all for it! What happened? He issued a statement for this that said, " [I]n light of the heavy financial weight smokers place on Medicare expenditures and the overwhelming proof linking the increase in cost of tobacco products with a decrease in youngsters buying cigarettes; it's the right call."

Which is it Congressman? Does such a tax deter the behavior or not? Does it really make smokers quit, thereby allegedly saving on healthcare costs (for adults -- that does nothing to offset the necessary funding level for a program that covers children), or does smoking prevalence remain the same because it makes them turn to the black market instead?

If the tobacco tax is too high for NYC residents in Congressman Rangel's opinion -- and which this editorial concurs is regressive -- then what to make of adding 61 cents to fund SCHIP on top of that? Apparently the poorer aren't an important part of his equation anymore. Not the ones in his district and not across the nation.

Oh wait! Bloomberg wants to add another 50 cents to that!

Bottom line: Rangel should step back and Bloomberg should shut up.

Audrey Silk, Founder, NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (C.L.A.S.H.)

(1) July 3, 2002. News Release. "Cong. Rangel Says Cigarette Tax Unfairly Burdens the Poor." http://www.nycclash.com/Taxes.html

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.