One followup, Mitch.

Mr. Pawlenty, if there is any cool, calculated politics going on (and this is not a game of tiddy-winks)...you are playing a dangerous game. If your thoughts are by offering a tobacco tax increase is going to make the Red Star or the Pravda Press love you next year....guess again. I absolutely guarentee they will endorse the DFL candidate against you. Bet the farm on it.

That being said, you must lead....not follow. Larry "the looter" Po-go-miller is not your buddy in this. We both know that, without a single penny of tax increases, government receipts are up 2 billion from the last biennium. We GOTS the money!

It's politically smart (but maybe too cute) because the Republicans that are most lukewarm on Pawlenty are also less likely to be personally affected by the cigarette tax:

From:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default.aspx?ci=14257

"Democrats are somewhat more likely than Republicans to smoke cigarettes. One in four Democrats (25%) smoke cigarettes, while 21% of Republicans do. Twenty-eight percent of independents smoke."

"Fewer than one in six who attend church at least almost every week (16%) say they smoke. This compares with 26% of people who go to church monthly and 32% of those who seldom or never go to church."

I have to second your comment Mitch. I don't smoke, but I still think revenue inhancement by any other name is a bad idea. Stick to your pledge Gov.
On a related note has anyone ever floated the idea of requiring the legislature to pass a budget as it's first order of business and barring all other introduction of bills until it is done. I'm thinking Constitutional Admendment here.
I get the Sessions report from the House each week and every week there are more new bills. We have had over 2800!! bill introduced in the House since the session started. No wonder they can't do a decent budget or do one on time.

I have to second your comment Mitch. I don't smoke, but I still think revenue inhancement by any other name is a bad idea. Stick to your pledge Gov.
On a related note has anyone ever floated the idea of requiring the legislature to pass a budget as it's first order of business and barring all other introduction of bills until it is done. I'm thinking Constitutional Admendment here.
I get the Sessions report from the House each week and every week there are more new bills. We have had over 2800!! bill introduced in the House since the session started. No wonder they can't do a decent budget or do one on time.

The thing that I am most concerned about is the long-term and wider ramifications of trying to call what is clearly a tax increase a “user fee.” There is a principled conservative/libertarian argument for user fees namely in that those who use a particular government service ought to bear the cost of it whereas the burden imposed by taxes has little or nothing to do with who uses what services (hence “robbing Peter to pay Paul”). This is ultimately more just and it provides an incentive to control costs or “prices” when the revenue for that service has to respond to quasi-market pressures because of the “user fee” is too high, the “customers” will quit using the service and it won’t receive enough revenue to continue operating. Something that we cannot do when we’re forced to pay for services via taxation.

My fear is that by trying to mislabel a hike in the cigarette tax as a fee, Governor Pawlenty has blurred that distinction and (a) people will wrongly say that there is no difference between raising fees and increasing taxes (which there is), (b) the debate will shift from “pay for the services you want” to “from each according to his ability”, and (c) future tax increases will not be labeled as “fees” (sort of like the idiots who think they’re cute by trying to call taxes “user fees for civilization”).

I’m not all that concerned about cigarette taxes per se (I’m against tax increases on general principle but this is probably one of the hardest ones to fight against and for so little benefit which is probably why the governor is giving in on this) but IMO it is far worse for Governor Pawlety to dishonestly equate a tax increase with a fee increase that it would be for him to say “I’ve kept it up to this point and did my best but I’m compromising and here is why.” I wouldn’t necessarily agree with the compromise but I would still respect his good faith.

I’m not all that concerned about cigarette taxes per se (I’m against tax increases on general principle but this is probably one of the hardest ones to fight against and for so little benefit which is probably why the governor is giving in on this) but IMO it is far worse for Governor Pawlety to dishonestly equate a tax increase with a fee increase that it would be for him to say “I’ve kept it up to this point and did my best but I’m compromising and here is why.” I wouldn’t necessarily agree with the compromise but I would still respect his good faith in making the decision.

If Pawlenty wants to play this type of revenue name game, he could do it all day long...how about a user fee on a box of shotgun shells, you could argue the lead shot is hurting the environment or we could extend it to a pack of pencils, they have lead in them and wouldn't we be doing the children a service?..or maybe we could add a fee on a pack of chewing gum, all that sugar can't be good for the teeth don't you know. The list is endless, just mix in a little moral justification, stir it with a commendable value and add a dash of sincerity and you can justify anything..

Stick to your pledge Gov...be the man we voted for....

If Pawlenty wants to play this type of revenue name game, he could do it all day long...how about a user fee on a box of shotgun shells, you could argue the lead shot is hurting the environment or we could extend it to a pack of pencils, they have lead in them and wouldn't we be doing the children a service?..or maybe we could add a fee on a pack of chewing gum, all that sugar can't be good for the teeth don't you know. The list is endless, just mix in a little moral justification, stir it with a commendable value and add a dash of sincerity and you can justify anything..

Stick to your pledge Gov...be the man we voted for....

Ooooooooooooh! Looks like Mitch has a little crush on the Governor!

Hey Tim... Sorry, Mr. Pawlenty, Mitch likes you...!

Leadership is a tough, and doing the right thing can even be tougher. If you stand on principle it's not too tough to know what the right thing is. Leadership is about standing on principle and not standing still.

Dan,

How do you prevent your little willie from chafing? Hand lotion?

Just curious.

Josh,

That's a really strange question. I've noticed an interesting thing... Republicans are obsessed with other mens penises. What's that all about?

Are you one of those closeted republican homo-sex-uals that we keep hearing about?

Dan, no, was just pondering why so many Dems think they're making a big cut by calling Republicans gay. You'd think you'd not be using it as an insult. Except that Democrats seem to be more homophobic than GOPers these days.

Just pointing out that your rhetoric is entirely masturbatory.

Josh,

I didn't call Mitch gay. I said he had a crush on Pawlenty and his silly little open letter to the Governor reads like the admission of a love struck puppy dog.

"we met last week, finally".

"you're the best stump speaker..."

If I didn't know any better I would have guessed that this was a historical fiction love story penned by Lynn Cheney

Dan,

Saying we met, and that he's a good speaker, are "lovesick?"

You don't get out much, do you?