A modest proposal for defending the cigarette fee
We’re painfully aware of the decision the U.S. Supreme Court must make in terms of the Trump administration’s ban on refugees from Muslim-majority nations. President Donald Trump has made it clear through his words and actions that his unmistakable intent is targeting Muslims, but he will argue that the SCOTUS should only heed the carefully crafted words in his legal brief.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court will soon face the same dilemma. Voters amended the Oklahoma constitution to require a three-fourths legislative majority to raise taxes and to prohibit tax increases during the last five days of the legislative session. During the last week of session, new revenues were realized without the three-fourths majority. Multiple lawsuits have been filed on those measures, and the one challenging the state’s new “cigarette fee” might be the most likely to find success.
The state’s leadership will find itself echoing the Trump administration, arguing that the justices shouldn’t trust their lying eyes and ears about the so-called cigarette fee that was belatedly passed. And that won’t be an easy case to make. Even the Republican legislative majorities and Gov. Mary Fallin acknowledged that repeated tax cuts caused a financial crisis. All year long, Republican leadership warned that we have reached a point where revenues must be raised, and a $1.50 cigarette tax had been put up for multiple votes before lawmakers unveiled the cigarette fee.
After months of rare candor about the need for bipartisanship, Republicans even said that A modest proposal for defending the cigarette fee - NonDoc:
