President Obama's budget request includes a proposed steep hike in tobacco taxesto help pay for expanded early childhood education programs. As a demographic group to tax, smokers make an easy target. And it's tough to argue that more families shouldn't have access to affordable, high-quality early education options for their children. But the president's proposal to raise the tobacco tax by 94 cents per pack remains a long shot.
I asked Rick Hess, resident scholar and director of education policy studies at theAmerican Enterprise Institute, to lay odds on the tobacco tax hike surviving. "I'd put it at about 5 percent," Hess said. "If it's a question of whether the president will get some kind of smaller tobacco tax boost and pre-K spending increase, I'd put the odds of that - as part of some kind of big bipartisan budget deal - at maybe 15 or 20 percent."
Using tobacco tax revenues to provide programs and services for needy kids isn't a new idea. The federal cigarette tax was raised sharply in 2009 - after a substantial fight by the tobacco industry - and went toward expanded health care coverage for children. Additionally, 14 states currently earmark cigarette tax revenues for education-related spending, and another 11 states add the tobacco-tax money to their general funds, which could include education among other expenditures. (For more on this topic check out the American Lung Association's comprehensive online database of State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues.)
The president's proposal could yield benefits on multiple fronts, by not only funding pre-K but also reducing tobacco consumption. In the call with reporters last week, Duncan said the tobacco tax would bring in upward of $75 billion over 10 years, and that 233,000 fewer youth would start smoking. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has praised the proposal, and said it could result in 1.7 million fewer kids growing up to be addicted adult smokers, prevent 626,000 premature deaths by reducing the number of youth smokers, and save the nation $42 billion in associated health care costs.
But tying a program's funding to a so-called "sin tax" - be it tobacco, alcohol or a state lottery - isn't without risk, both of the ethical and fiscal variety. On the ethical front, can you discourage a behavior choice at the same time that you profit from it, even if those dollars go to something as well-intentioned as high-quality preschool? And on the fiscal side, what happens when more people do, indeed, stop smoking, and the revenues inevitably decline?
Historically, sin taxes yield diminished or flat returns over a period of time, said Mike Griffith, a consultant who works with the Education Commission of the States, a legislative and research clearinghouse for policymakers. Revenues from sales and income taxes grow along with the economy but that's not necessarily the case with sin taxes. If a preschool program is largely dependent on tobacco revenues, eventually "you're either going to give each kid fewer resources, or serve a smaller number of kids," Griffith said. Scaling back social programs is particularly tricky when the funding comes from a successful ballot initiative. To voters, that's the equivalent of a contract.
'Nation's Report Card:' Students Struggle To Explain Scientific Principles
A Simple Solution For Growing STEM
Girls and STEM Education: Still Waiting For Liftoff
In the Washington Post Bryan Hatchell, a spokesman for R.J. Reynolds, "questioned the wisdom of paying for preschool with a tax that will drive down cigarette purchases, ultimately reducing the funding stream for the program." From education reporter Lyndsey Layton's story:
"If you're successful in driving down smoking, you're dooming programs to nearly immediate budget shortfalls," Hatchell said. "This means that states will be left holding the bag for funding, or even more new taxes will have to be imposed in the future."