In an interview with Chelyen Davis of the Free Lance Star, Governor Kaine notes that his proposal to double the cigarette tax is a “value vote.” He acknowledges that it will generate intense opposition, but maintains that even the debate will “help in clarifying.. what people’s political philosophies are.”
If the Republicans don’t want to go along with a cigarette tax hike, the Governor suggests that they’ll just have to make even deeper reductions in Medicaid spending.
What’s going on here? And what does it all mean?
On one hand, the Governor could be practicing Divide and Conquer. He might be hoping that the proposal will divide the House GOP, much like Warner’s tax package in 2004 did, and suburban Republicans will support the tax hike in lieu of having to author even more budget cuts.
Fat chance.
It seems to me that, since the Warner episode, GOP members of the House have been relatively united against tax proposals sent their way by Democrats. Why is this going to change now? Does anyone really expect an about-face from the House GOP in the last year of a Democratic Governor’s term?
I think we’re back to “Clarifying Political Philosophies.”
And there’s a lot of this going around.
In today’s politics, policy proposals are sometimes advanced on the basis of merit and feasibility. But these are also consistently put forward with the primary intent of placing your opponents in a politically awkward position.
I am certain that Governor Kaine believes that utilizing cigarette taxes to pay for maintaining health services is the right thing to do. I would be surprised, however, if he really thinks that the odds of it passing the House are very good.
The Governor does believe that the debate about his proposal will place the House GOP on the defensive. The medical societies and anti-cancer groups will testify about the health effects of cigarette smoking. Advocates for the poor and the elderly who receive Medicaid assistance will speak to the catastrophic consequences that will result from further reductions in the program. And everyone will agree that physicians will stop treating Medicaid patients altogether if they cannot reimbursed at a rate that begins to cover their costs.
All of this will receive considerable media attention. And none of it will hurt Democrats, at least in suburban and exurban Virginia where the party has made considerable inroads into the Republican base and where smokers (even highly taxed ones) get no sympathy these days.
In the strange cost-benefit analysis of politics, the Governor’s calculation is simple. We win even if we lose.
But there is a twist.
Not all Democrats, especially those who represent rural Virginia where tobacco is grown and the city of Richmond where the tobacco industry is a source of employment and community support (not to speak of political contributions), will either welcome this “value” debate or share the Governor’s calculus.
Rural Democrats are more politically vulnerable than almost any other group in the party today. In most statewide elections (Mark Warner being an exception), the GOP is carrying much of rural Virginia by large margins. And these Democrats are well aware that they’ll be the target of GOP efforts in the 2009 Assembly races.
They’ll be happy if Speaker Howell and his GOP colleagues bury the Governor’s ”value vote” pretty quickly.
Leave a Reply