Editorials
Friday, July 10, 1998

Veto of delay in raising
state cigarette tax

LARGE increases in cigarette taxes are likely to discourage children from smoking, and the state of Hawaii is doing its part. The state tax increased by 20 cents a pack last September and another 20 cents on July 1, bringing the tax to $1. Governor Cayetano vetoed a bill that would have delayed the most recent increase by six months. If the increased cost of cigarettes prevents one child from taking up the dangerous habit, the veto will have worked.

The vetoed bill also would have established a cigarette tax stamp aimed at curbing the black market sales of untaxed cigarettes. However, Cayetano said federal agencies have found no evidence of a black market large enough to warrant the expense of monitoring and enforcing the implementation of a stamping system. The state can hardly afford to create a new bureaucracy to combat a problem that doesn't exist to any significant extent.

The effect of hiking cigarette prices on teen-age smoking can be strong when the increases are substantial. Studies have found that every 10 percent increase in price brings up to a 7 percent reduction in the number of children who begin smoking. Researchers at Cornell University found little difference between start-up rates among teen-agers in states that raised taxes by only 7 percent.

This month's tax increase in Hawaii amounts to 25 percent, but the increase in the total cost to consumers will not be great. Raising the price per pack from $3 to $3.20 amounts to 7 percent -- probably less than the minimum needed to provide the desired effect.

Tobacco legislation that died in Congress this year would have increased federal taxes on cigarettes by $1.10 a pack over five years. Rejection of the bill, which President Clinton described as "a vote against our children and for the tobacco lobby," should prompt Hawaii and other states to raise cigarette taxes by sizable amounts.

Securing firearms

WHEN tragedy strikes, politicians often feel an obligation to respond by passing a law. That makes them look sensitive to constituents' suffering, but the result may be no improvement or even a negative effect.

In the wake of a series of fatal shootings in public schools in several states, a bill has been introduced in the Senate that would hold adults criminally responsible if they allowed children easy access to loaded firearms that were used to harm someone -- for example, leaving a loaded handgun in a bureau drawer. The proposal, sponsored by Sens. John Chafee, R-R.I., and Richard Durbin, D-Ill., has President Clinton's endorsement.

The proponents seem to have ignored the fact that many people keep handguns in the home for protection against burglars. To serve this purpose, the weapons must be kept loaded and in readily accessible places, such as a bureau drawer.

Obviously this makes them accessible to children, for the wrong reasons. But people who feel they need such protection aren't going to be deterred by the highly remote possibility that their children will use the guns to shoot other people.

At a White House ceremony in which Clinton endorsed the bill, the mother of one of four girls killed in the March 24 Jonesboro, Ark., school shooting made a plea to gun owners to lock up their guns to prevent a repetition of the Jonesboro tragedy.

In fact, the guns used in that shooting spree were locked up in the home of the grandparents of one of the two students charged with the crime, but they broke into the arsenal. If this bill had been law when the shootings occurred, the grandparents presumably would not have been affected and it would have made no difference.

Ownership of handguns must be strictly controlled if this country is to have any hope of coping with the gun problem. But it is unrealistic to assume that any law will prevent people from keeping guns handy and ready for use if they feel they need them to protect themselves. And it may not be wise to try.

Reforming the IRS

IF there is something Americans can agree on, it's the Internal Revenue Service. Nobody likes the tax man. And the dislike grew stronger after a series of congressional hearings last year detailing IRS abuses.

So it comes as no surprise that a bill revamping the IRS and expanding the rights of Americans battling the agency has sailed through Congress by votes of 402-8 in the House and 96-2 in the Senate. President Clinton, who initially resisted some of the provisions but prudently changed course to avoid being run over by an aroused public, is certain to sign the measure.

This bill does not abolish the income tax, which will disappoint some. Nor does it lower most rates, although it does promise savings for some taxpayers.

There are three major provisions: Interest and many penalties would be waived if the IRS failed to contact a taxpayer about a dispute within 18 months of filing a tax return. The burden of proof in many tax court cases would shift from the taxpayer to the IRS. A nine-member oversight board, with private-sector representatives, is established to check IRS abuses.

Senate Finance Chairman William Roth, R-Del., one of the bill's authors, who brought a parade of witnesses before his committee to recite horror stories about the IRS, said it "will mean a new day for the American taxpayer." Roth was talking about a day when the IRS treats people with more respect and consideration.

Americans feel that if the government is going to take our money, at least it ought to be nice about it. Now, maybe it will. But the process will never be painless.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO

John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher

David Shapiro, Managing Editor

Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor

Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors

A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor