Corporate Predictions Going Up In Smoke

Sure, I had to pick this topic because of the possibilities for the Title. But isn't it great that all the industry's predictions of failure just puffed off into the air from which they were created in the Texas legislature's tax on cigarettes.

People didn't stop smoking, which is the down side, but more than that, higher prices didn't mean state coffers were disappointed. My property taxes are ludicrously high, still, but I am just as glad that they aren't confiscatory yet, for me.

Budget experts predicted that adding the $1-per-pack tax – on top of the previous 41-cent tax – would boost revenues to $1.004 billion for fiscal 2007. But the cigarette tax brought in $1.248 billion in the fiscal year, which included eight months of the higher tobacco tax.

The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids had projected that Texas retailers would sell 339 million fewer cigarette packs as a result of the $1 tax increase. That projection was off by about 78 million packs.

"Obviously, we would love to see those (consumption) numbers go down even more. But what's important is that we know what it takes to continue to drive those numbers down – a fully funded anti-tobacco program," said James Gray, spokesman for the American Cancer Society in Texas.

If December cigarette sales produce the monthly average of tax revenue – $121.8 million – Texas will raise $1.46 billion in the first 12 months of the $1.41-a-pack tax.

"With any tax increase, you expect a drop in taxable consumption, and the drop was less than what we expected," said R.J. DeSilva, spokesman for Texas Comptroller Susan Combs.

DeSilva said some smokers have not yet changed their habits, but the comptroller's office expects cigarette smoking to start declining over the next few months. Revenue experts predicted that the tax will raise $340 million less next year than it did in the first 12 months.

Predictions by industry quite accountably always show that disaster looms if you don't serve their interests, as you readers have no doubt noticed.

Paid scientists routinely dispute global warming for their employers the oil companies, and are usually cited by the paid representatives of those same oil companies. How convenient.

The public needs representation, and reputable scientists usually give truths, which offsets to a large degree the lies that the hired experts present.

Expert testimony always reminds me of a court case I worked on, in which an expert witness changed his facts and his testimony after being made a higher offer by the opposing side. The absurdity of this was that his previous testimony (with facts) were part of the records, and the expert admitted that he was being paid by the plaintiffs he'd testified against previously. The judge chuckled.

Fortunately for Texas, our legislature which is not usually known to act rationally in this case needed to cut taxes for homeowners. That made it possible for enough of the legislators to notice that experts hired by the tobacco industry were predicting highly dubious results of the tax they had found most convenient to invent, a "sin tax".

Too bad our children's health, and our health, doesn't have strong enough advocacy yet. In its next session, maybe the 110th Congress will develop as good judgment as, say, the Texas lege.