| For Immediate Release | For more information contact: |
| March 31, 1999 | Bill Walsh (651-296-0640) |
The debate over what to do with the tobacco settlement dollars is a perfect example of the difference between the two competing political philosophies at the capitol in St. Paul.
One philosophy says if there's a problem that needs a solution, big government must be the answer. Let's get some people together, put them on the state payroll, give them an office and a big pile of money and they will solve the problem. If the problem doesn't get solved, it only means we didn't give them enough money.
The other philosophy says if there's a problem that needs a solution, people closest to the problem must be the answer. Local people in local communities know more about how to solve their problems than big government in St. Paul or Washington. Let's give them a little pile of money and unlock their creativity so they can solve the problem. We will measure their results using real benchmarks, and if what they're doing doesn't work, we'll stop and try something else.
Today's problem is tobacco use. Since tobacco is a legal product in Minnesota for adults who choose to use it, the state is very limited in what it can do to protect people from their own choices. Governor Ventura said in his State of the State address that "taxpayers must [not] step forward to provide nearly unlimited resources to anyone who lives with the circumstances they brought about through their own decisions...the free ride is over." I agree. Let's not kid ourselves into believing new government programs can convince adults to stop using a perfectly legal product.
Everybody agrees the real problem, the problem government does have an interest in, is tobacco use by our children. Which philosophy should we use to solve this problem?
On it's face, setting up an "endowment" to prevent teen smoking and promote the public health sounds great. Spending other people's money is the easiest thing in the world for politicians to do. But as always, the devil is in the details. The supporters of the endowment philosophy have not answered some very important questions.
What specific programs will they create with this new money? Will these new programs duplicate other programs in state government? What is being done with the $202 million set aside for cessation programs from the lawsuit? What is being done with the $300 million that Blue Cross and Blue Shield has set aside for cessation and education programs from the lawsuit? What results will we get from this half-billion dollars in new spending? How much will smoking rates be permanently reduced because of this new spending? And finally, as Gov. Ventura has asked, is it really government's responsibility to protect people from their own behavior?
All of these questions need to be answered before we make such a huge commitment of taxpayer money. The lack of scrutiny these proposals have received so far is shocking. While legislators in one room of the capitol ask every detail on a $50,000 proposal to help farmers, another group of legislators in the next room are setting aside over $1 billion for these endowments without seeing any specific plans or goals.
As Republicans, we subscribe to the philosophy of solving problems closest to their source. That's why we quadrupled the budget for smoking cessation programs by allowing local communities to apply for grants to fight youth smoking in their backyard. I find it strange that this action was criticized recently by Senate Majority Leader Roger Moe, an endowment proponent. Under his leadership, state government has been spending only $2.5 million per year on these programs. We increased it to $20 million for the biennium and he claimed we did what the tobacco companies wanted!
It is also important to note that we funded these tobacco programs from the general fund with direct legislative oversight. I have some of the same concerns raised on your editorial page last week by D.J Tice about who will benefit financially from all of this new government spending. Many of the individuals and special interests clamoring for the endowments will end up benefitting form their proceeds as soon as they are created. Remember, always follow the money.
The bottom line is that the premise of the tobacco lawsuit was that Minnesota taxpayers were paying too much to cover smoking related medicaid costs. When the court awarded the settlement, the money was returned to the state's general fund, and it's still sitting there waiting for action. There are two options for money in the general fund: spend it, or give it back to taxpayers. Republicans in the House have chosen to give this money back to the taxpayers while still making a strong commitment to anti-smoking programs that are accountable and are based on real results.