Reason Foundation

Recent Research and Commentary

Minnesota's Misguided Cigarette Tax

Minnesota failed to fix its budget with a cigarette tax in 2005. And the state will fail if tries again.

July 8, 2011

Anthony Randazzo, Carson Bruno

There is a sense of bitter irony in Democratic Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton’s new cigarette tax proposal, which is aimed at bridging the Gopher State’s budget gap. In 2005, then-Gov. Tim Pawlenty used an increase in cigarette taxes—which he called a “user fee”—to solve a state budget crisis that had shut down the government. Yet today Minnesota finds itself right back in state finance hell. As the Reason Foundation’s Anthony Randazzo and Carson Bruno explain, trying to cover a budget shortfall with a cigarette tax—or any sin tax—is never a good idea.

Smoked Out

Arizona’s unfortunate reliance on tobacco industry revenues to fund health insurance.

July 6, 2011

Peter Suderman

Arizona has a major public health problem: Too few people are smoking.

That’s not the only fiscal problem the state faces. But it’s one of them. Like many states, Arizona’s public finances are in miserable shape. And according to Associate Editor Peter Suderman, much of the state’s budget trouble can be attributed to a decade-old decision to finance an expansion of low-income health insurance coverage with revenue dependent on tobacco industry profits.

A little more than a decade ago, the state grew its low-income health insurance rolls, claiming the new enrollees would be paid for by revenue from a deal with tobacco industry. Now, with smoking rates (and tobacco industry revenues) falling, a budget crisis brewing, and a growing number of individuals eligible for Medicaid, the state has chosen to pare back its health coverage for low-income adults.

Unsafe at Any Speed

The government’s fuel-economy standards should come with a warning label.

July 1, 2011

A. Barton Hinkle

When Washington unveiled its graphic new warning labels for cigarettes last week, several wits asked whether the federal government would slap similar warnings on its own products. To cite just one example: How many innocent civilians have died from unnecessary wars?

True, everyone already knows war is hell. But as A. Barton Hinkle notes, government policies can kill people in far less obvious ways. Take vehicle fuel-efficiency standards. As Hinkle explains, higher fuel-economy standards would increase highway fatalities because the most effective method of increasing gasoline mileage is to make cars smaller and lighter, which makes them more dangerous. Shouldn't that come with a warning label?

Nanny State Propaganda

How long before the government places graphic warning labels on junk food?

June 29, 2011

A. Barton Hinkle

The logic of Washington’s graphic new cigarette warning labels holds that government should frighten people away from consumer goods that impose social costs. But as A. Barton Hinkle observes, if we apply that consistently, then there is no reason federal regulators should not adorn junk food packaging with garish photos of morbidly obese corpses, cutaways of clogged ateries, or glistening mounds of fatty tissue hacked out of cadavers.

Big Government Gets Ugly

Why the new cigarette warning labels won't stop people from smoking

June 27, 2011

Steve Chapman

It's not unusual for the federal government to provoke widespread retching among its citizens, but it rarely does so intentionally. The new warning labels required on cigarette packs, however, have that goal. And as Steve Chapman observes, while they’re designed to evoke disgust with smoking, they may also induce revulsion at excessive uses of power.

More »