Smoking Gun

I am very bias on the matter of cigarettes. I say ban them all, but I’m smart enough to realize this will most likely never happen. I am in favor of the proposed increase on taxes on cigarettes as well, as this is the easiest way to deter people from continuing to use or beginning to use cigarettes. The point that those who oppose this tax use is that is an unreliable source of income. “It does not make any sense to fund a budget increase by taxing an act or product that you are trying to discourage,” stated Christopher Rants, Speaker of the House. I understand the argument to the point that if we increase the tax it brings in “projected” money and that if it doesn’t come in then the tax payers will bear that burden. I can admit to not being the most knowledgeable on politics, and I don’t really care to. My question is why are we immediately placing all the “projected” revenue into the budget? If the tax works as it is supposed to and decreases smoking usage, then it is more than likely that the increased revenue will never reach the projected amount. How about this for a change: The politicians across Iowa think outside the box for once. Don’t put ANY of the increase revenue into the budget. If it is as unreliable as the critics say it is, then any funds that we do get can be a bonus.