I got a call the other day from a listener who asked me why we weren't calling Gov. Pawlenty's cigarette "fee" a "tax." Actually, this sharp-eared listener had heard a newscast that referred to a "75 cent charge" on a pack of cigarettes. I had to confess he was right. A "charge" certainly didn't make any sense. Most of the people who work on tax policy at the Capitol say the governor's proposal is a tax, even though Pawlenty insists it's a fee. So we've made a decision at MPR that we will generally refer to it as a tax and do our best to put it in context.

Now that we have that out of the way, the debate has begun at the Capitol about what should be done with a higher cigarette tax. MPR's Tom Scheck has the story:

Gov. Pawlenty's office hasn't released a specific bill yet on the proposed tax, but he says he would dedicate the entire $380 million to treat smoking-related diseases. What troubles health care advocates is that Pawlenty also wants to shift $280 million from his original health care budget proposal and dedicate that money to public education. Minnesota Human Services Commissioner Kevin Goodno says the proposal should satisfy Senate DFLers who want increases for schools and health care. "The net effect is it helps provide revenues and helps us move toward the position as an administration move closer to the Senate's position on education and the Senate's position on health and human services," said Goodno.

But others argue that Pawlenty is relying on accounting shifts in an attempt to dodge the charge he's breaking his no-new-tax pledge. Pawlenty calls the proposed charge on cigarettes a "health impact fee." Critics say he should be calling his proposal a tax since the money isn't all being spent on health care programs.

Sen. Becky Lourey, DFL-Kerrick, says Pawlenty and House Republicans should find another revenue source if they want to provide more money for public education.

"If you're going to do a fee, it should be directly related to the reason it's raised," said Lourey. "This is a health impact fee. I think the regular citizen would say 'well then it should be going to the things in health care budget.'"

And there may be some progress in negotiations on health care. Teeny, tiny progress, yes, but progress. The Star Tribune reports on an idea proposed by Sen. Linda Berglin, DFL-Minneapolis:

Specifically, the Senate plan would cut state spending on the General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC) program -- now funded by the state general fund -- by moving most of its enrollees onto MinnesotaCare. MinnesotaCare is funded by a separate fee paid by health care providers.

The idea shares some common ground with budget plans from the governor and the House, which tap the MinnesotaCare funding pool to pay for all of GAMC. Those plans also call for removing an estimated 47,000 adults without children from MinnesotaCare, in part, to make room for the GAMC program.

"I'm moving people into a permanent medical home in a way that doesn't cut anyone from eligibility," Berglin told Pawlenty and Sviggum. She said GAMC would become an "entrance point" insurance program for adults without children, who would move onto MinnesotaCare as they found jobs.

Both Pawlenty and Sviggum said they were interested in the idea, but they were concerned that it didn't move the Senate significantly closer to their budget targets. Said Pawlenty: "Let's see what we can do with this and get back to you."

On the political front, MPR's Laura McCallum has news of Attorney General Mike Hatch raising more money to run against Pawlenty:

Hatch says he won't make a final decision on the race until this summer, but he clearly relishes the chance to challenge Pawlenty.

"I'm not happy with the way the state's being managed -- absolutely not happy with it. It is very heavy on public relations and very light on the content," according to Hatch.

Hatch says Pawlenty has underfunded health care and education, and is critical of the governor's record on job creation.

Pawlenty hasn't formally announced his re-election campaign, but has said he plans to run for a second term.

McCallum says another DFLer, Bud Philbrook is also actively campaigning.

And more confirmation that Minnesotans like to vote. The Pioneer Press has the numbers to prove it:

It's official: Minnesota had the highest voter turnout — 79 percent — of any state in the nation in the 2004 general election, the U.S. Census Bureau reports today.

That marked a significant increase from the 2000 election, when 70 percent of Minnesotans 18 and older voted.

Wisconsin had the second-highest voter turnout with 77 percent. Nationally, the turnout was a much lower: 64 percent, up from 60 percent in 2000.

You know what they say: if you don't vote, you can't complain. So 79 percent of you, gripe away. The rest of you 21 percent, pipe down!