Posted on 05/16/2004 6:45:26 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
House may vote on 75-cent-per-pack increase in state cigarette tax
By AMY F. BAILEY
The Associated Press
5/16/2004, 7:54 a.m. ET
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The state House could vote this week to increase the state tax on cigarettes by 75 cents a pack.
It's the second time Republican House Speaker Rick Johnson of LeRoy has hinted that the chamber could take up legislation imposing the $2-per-pack tax. He said he decided against holding a vote on the bill last week after support from Democrats appeared unclear.
Bills need 55 votes to win approval in the 110-member House, rather than 56, because there is one vacancy.
Republicans, who have a 63-46 majority, want to put up a minimal number of votes for the higher cigarette tax because many philosophically disagree with increasing any tax.
Johnson has publicly supported increasing the cigarette tax as a way to prevent young people from starting to smoke. But he hasn't been able to bring many in his caucus to his side.
Republican Reps. Craig DeRoche of Novi and Mike Nofs of Battle Creek, who are among those vying to take over as speaker for Johnson in January, have said lawmakers should reduce state spending before they vote to increase the cigarette tax. Johnson can't run for re-election because of term limits.
Johnson thinks he has 15 Republican votes for the tax increase, spokesman Keith Ledbetter said. If so, all but six Democrats would have to vote for the measure for it to pass. But Democrats have their own objections to the tax increase, saying it would unfairly affect low-income adults who might not be able to quit smoking or afford smoking cessation aids.
House Minority Leader Dianne Byrum, D-Onondaga, is working on getting enough Democratic votes to win approval for the higher cigarette tax, spokesman Mark Fisk said.
"It's safe to say that the majority of our caucus will support the governor's budget plan, but it's still early in the process," he said.
Johnson has said repeatedly that House Democrats must supply a majority of the votes for the cigarette tax increase because it was proposed by Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm as a way to help eliminate the projected $1.3 billion shortfall in the state budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
A higher cigarette tax would generate about $295 million, with $30 million raised for smoking cessation and chronic disease programs and the rest helping the state offer health care coverage to low-income residents through Medicaid.
A House GOP task force last week floated a $379.5 million package of cuts it said would be better than Granholm's proposals. It's unclear how many House members would support the GOP cuts.
The House this week also may take up two bills that would require school districts to emphasize abstinence in their sex education classes or face the loss of state funding.
The legislation would order parents to be more involved in their children's school sex education program and require that students learn the physical and emotional consequences of sexual activity.
Current Michigan law already requires public schools to adopt an abstinence-based curriculum. Parents are given the option of keeping their children out of sex education.
The state Senate could vote on bills designed to crack down on voyeurs who use cell phone cameras, electronic surveillance or other equipment to take obscene pictures of people without their knowledge or consent.
Two of the bills were introduced by state Rep. Fran Amos, R-Waterford, after she received complaints from women who said their pictures had been taken without their knowledge while changing in a health club locker room.
Several health clubs across the U.S. have banned or are considering a ban on cell phones with cameras as a result of similar incidents.
___
The cigarette tax bill is House Bill 5632; the sex education bills are Senate Bills 943 and 944; the voyeurism bills are House Bills 5692-93 and Senate Bill 918.
Your screen name perfectly sums up this article.
It IS funny,isn't it?
In about 7 minutes gays all over Massachusetts will be able to get a marriage license in Massachusetts but in July smoking will be banned just about everyplace.
Massachusetts is a sink,and the $1,51 tax on each pack of cigarettes has made tax evaders out of most of us.
New Hampshire loves the $1.51 tax per pack on Massachusetts cigs.
The low income folks are the only ones that pay the high tax on cigs. They go to their local convenience store and buy them 1 pack at a time.
Everyone I know buys them on the Internet,through toll free numbers,or go out of state.
Ain't amerika great - the sodomists can get married but I can't have a cigarette with my beer?
just start growing your own.
How about the billions the state is already collecting from the Tobacco Settlement? To which the smokers, who are paying taxes on cigarettes are paying 100%? Why do they need MORE tax money from the smokers?
Here is what Michigan smokers are already paying into the state coffers:
Michigan Smokers
MICHIGAN'S SMOKERS’ CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE ECONOMY - 2002
Damn RINO'S!
Rolling your own is also a wonderful way to save a LOT of money without paying into the glutton state coffers!
Thanks for the information, comment.
That's putting it mildly.
The Tobacco Settlement Money was supposed to be SPENT for this! But they piss it away on other little pet programs. Who do they think they are kidding!
Come on people. Do you still think your greedy so-called reps are really representing you? If you do, you are sheeple.
Amen, ampat!
They lie through their teeth to get our vote, then when in office, they could care less about us. They always have some excuse. They get the "lies and spin" down real fast once they are in office!
For the first year the higher taxes normally DO bring in higher revenue. Until the consumer figures out how to get around the higher tax thereby giving the state government NOTHING of the higher tax.
The black, or grey, market, the internet, tribal tobacco shops, adjoining states, etc.
Or, you can just stuff your own and only pay the sales tax, not the extra tax.
In fact, in anticipation of that method tightening up, I'll wager that some people buy from off-shore sources.
Of course, this would be unscrupulous, but there are some who do it, of course and don't declare their purchases. So, for them, tax "increases" just reduce the taxes they pay--and Michigan collects--to zero! Can you imagine someone doing that?
If they aren't, I don't vote for them.
I don't if people can buy them on the Mt Pleasant, Leelanau, or UP reservations or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
