By George C. Landrith

After more than a year of a lagging economy, a number of states are strapped for tax dollars. For most of us, less income means we spend less. But for government that is rarely the case. Rather than tighten their belts like the rest of us, government tends to look for creative ways to take more of our money. For example, some states have decided that continuing the years of litigation against Microsoft is a good way to generate revenues. Another approach some states are considering is increasing tobacco taxes, again.

Let me state up front that I don't own Microsoft or tobacco stock and I don't smoke. But as an American, I think it would be a good idea if state governments live by the same rules the rest of us live by. Government needs to learn to get by on less. Everyone else is reducing their expenditures. But not government -- who would prefer the rest of us to dig deeper into our pockets so that they don't have to control their spending.

With respect to the several states that persist in suing Microsoft, we are told that the litigation is to protect consumers. This is simply an attempt to make a lousy lawsuit sound laudable. Regardless of what one thinks of Microsoft's marketing, one is hard pressed to argue that giving away free e-mail applications and web browsers harms consumers. It is rather clear that the states that continue to pursue Microsoft are only protecting the state's ability to spend other people's money.

Yet, despite this rather obvious point, we are told that spending our tax dollars on continued litigation is for our benefit. Oh, really? First, we pay for the government's attorneys to litigate a pointless case. Second, we will have to pay for this screwy litigation again either because software costs more so that the developers can afford to pay their attorneys or we pay because of the harm this litigation has inflicted on the economy, jobs, retirement accounts, and the stock market. People are freaking out about the economic harm caused by Enron's collapse, yet the economic harm caused by the government's relentless pursuit of Microsoft has been at least 10 times greater. Enough is enough.

With respect to tobacco, folks who support raising tobacco taxes, generally say, "Tobacco needs to pay its fair share of taxes." Who could disagree with that? Everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. However, what is a fair share? The average farmer can earn about $1,400 from an acre of tobacco. So if the government gets half that much, would that be fair? Or how 'bout if the government got $1,400 from that acre of tobacco? Would that be fair?

Here are the facts. While the average farmer can earn $1,400 from an acre of tobacco, the government (local, state and federal) collects over $60,000 from that same acre of tobacco. So, to all those who want tobacco to pay its "fair share," I ask, is more than $60,000 per acre enough to satisfy your demands for fairness? If not what amount would satisfy you?

The government makes about 43 times what a farmer makes off the same acre of tobacco. But, how about "Big Tobacco" you ask? In 2000, a tobacco company made about 28 cents per pack of cigarettes sold in New York City. The government (federal, state and local) collected over $1.20 per pack. So government makes 400% what "Big Tobacco" makes and the government does nothing but collect the taxes. So who is greedy? Tobacco or "Big Government?"

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently released his budget plan and it included increasing the city tax on cigarettes from 8 cents per pack to $1.50 per pack. This new increase along with increases in the state cigarette tax, would push cigarette prices to about $7 per pack in New York City.

This is simply government run amok. If they can tax a pack of cigarettes into the $7 per pack price range, they can tax anything else as well. There are those who argue government should tax foods based on their fat content. I simply do not want the government involved in helping me choose what I eat for dinner. I don't want them rewarding me for eating my vegetables and I don't want them punishing me for eating cheese cake. Those are decisions that the government should not be involved in.

It is time for government to STOP looking at companies and industries with deep pockets as if they were a resource to be strip mined. When times get tough, the rest of us have to make adjustments. We cannot rob our neighbors or break-in to a local business to cover our shortfalls through thievery. There is no reason why government should do this either.

###

Mr. Landrith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was Business Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. He had a successful law practice in business and litigation. In 1994 and 1996, Mr. Landrith was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. He served on the Albemarle County School Board. Mr. Landrith is an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law. He is recognized as an authority on constitutional law and jurisprudence, federalism, global warming, and property rights. gcl@ff.org