Massive tax hike on loose tobacco

[whitelight]

I have a huge problem with this. If you separate the two then it's possible to make a reasoned assessment of the merits of each. When combined the politicians are telling us that there is not one dime of money in the Federal budget that is being wasted, not one dime that is being used for anything less important than expanding CHIP so a tax hike is necessary.

It reminds me of the Lotto deal in Michigan. We had the scratch games but the politicians wanted to add the ping pong ball games to raise more revenue. The people weren't very supportive until the politicians added “and the revenue will go to fund schools”. That was all that was needed to get enough support from the people so a few legislators could change their vote. Here's the twist. For each dollar in revenue the lottery generated for schools the politicians deducted one dollar from the budget that was going to schools and spent it on something else. In my opinion that is deceitful. In my experience that is business as usual.

You can make an argument for and against a tax hike on tobacco. You can make an argument for and against the expansion of CHIP. I really don't care where you are on these issues. What I want you to see is what your elected officials are selling. By telling you the only way to expand CHIP is to tax tobacco they are saying that things such as pig manure scent abatement and tattoo removal are more important.

Deceit? Of course, business as usual.

http://dpc.senate.gov/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=lb-111-1-7

Legislative History

This is not the first time the Senate has debated the CHIP Reauthorization Act. In August 2007 (110th Congress), the Senate passed the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act of 2007 (S. 1893) by a vote of 68 to 31. In September 2007 the Senate and House worked together to produce compromise legislation (H.R. 976). Unfortunately, President Bush vetoed the bicameral agreement reached between the leaders of the Senate and the House on October 3, 2007 and the veto was sustained after a failed vote in the House.

After continued negotiations, the Senate passed a second bipartisan Children's Health Insurance Program compromise bill (H.R. 3936) by a vote of 64 to 30 on November 1, 2007. President Bush vetoed the compromise legislation on December 12, 2007. On December 18, 2007, the Senate passed the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-173) to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program through March 31, 2009, ensuring enough funds to maintain current enrollment, which President Bush later signed into law. The maintenance funding is set to expire in March.

With the start of the 111th Congress, Democrats are committed to preserving health coverage for low-income children and extending additional coverage to children who are currently uninsured. S. 275, the CHIP Reauthorization Act, was approved by the Senate Finance Committee on January 15, 2009 by a vote of 12 to 7. A tax on tobacco products generates the revenue to pay for CHIP under this bill. Because the Constitution requires all revenue measures to originate in the House, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA 2009) (H.R. 2), will serve as the vehicle for the Senate to consider the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. H.R. 2 was passed by the House on January 14, 2009 by a vote of 289 to 139. Once the Senate proceeds to the bill, S. 275 will be offered as a substitute to H.R. 2.

---

The tax on loose tobacco goes from $1.10 per pound to $24.78 per pound.

[fenris1011]

I am actually glad this is happening. Got my last pack sitting in front of me. Then I am done. No way I can continue this habit. Too expensive and useless.

Edited March 7, 2009 by fenris1011

[whitelight]

I am actually glad this is happening. Got my last pack sitting in front of me. Then I am done. No way I can continue this habit. Too expensive and useless.

Thanks for starting your blog on my post.

[MasterPo]

Another example of the height of hypocracy.

If tobacco was such a bad thing - ex: 50,000 children a year dying from second-hand smoke?! - than just ban the stuff altogether!!

If there was a food or drug or toy or clothing that supposedly killed just 500 children a year the gov wouldn't waste 2 seconds banning it. But since they can tax the balls of smokes that makes it ok.

[whitelight]

Another example of the height of hypocracy.

If tobacco was such a bad thing - ex: 50,000 children a year dying from second-hand smoke?! - than just ban the stuff altogether!!

If there was a food or drug or toy or clothing that supposedly killed just 500 children a year the gov wouldn't waste 2 seconds banning it. But since they can tax the balls of smokes that makes it ok.

You still miss it. They are spending money they don't have and don't raise money for complete and total ****. While at the same time things that have some justification have to go begging.

[fenris1011]

Thanks for starting your blog on my post.

No problem.

[Cadetak]

Another example of the height of hypocracy.

If tobacco was such a bad thing - ex: 50,000 children a year dying from second-hand smoke?! - than just ban the stuff altogether!!

If there was a food or drug or toy or clothing that supposedly killed just 500 children a year the gov wouldn't waste 2 seconds banning it. But since they can tax the balls of smokes that makes it ok.

Banning tobacco has its negatives as well. Tobacco will become like marijuana, were supply is controlled by gangs and not a government, money is made by dealers and not business, and so on and so forth. You ban cigs then you mine as well ban alcohol, mine as well ban unhealthy food as well, and then of course gun ownership is just a given. Responsibility in these manners lies with each of us and not to be soley on the shoulders and blame of the government.

Don't smoke in front of your kids, that simple. Don't like tobacco don't smoke, even simpler.

[Lt_Ripley]

Banning tobacco has its negatives as well. Tobacco will become like marijuana, were supply is controlled by gangs and not a government, money is made by dealers and not business, and so on and so forth. You ban cigs then you mine as well ban alcohol, mine as well ban unhealthy food as well, and then of course gun ownership is just a given. Responsibility in these manners lies with each of us and not to be soley on the shoulders and blame of the government.

Don't smoke in front of your kids, that simple. Don't like tobacco don't smoke, even simpler.

exactly

[MasterPo]

exactly

You and Cadetak missed the point.

For 15 years now at least we have heard nothing but the evils of tobacco. It wasn't just bad on the smoker but supposedly study after study after study talked about H-U-G-E rises in cancer, asthma etc for those around the smoker. To this very day I hear commericals and read articles about 50,000 children a year dying from second-hand smoke. 50,000! That means (if true) in the last 10 years 500,000 - half a million! - kids are dead from this stuff!!!

If there was a food or toy or chair or whatever that killed just 100 kids a year it would be gone in seconds.

But not tobacco. We can get money from taxes on it! So it stays legal.

Total hyporcacy.

[Cadetak]

You and Cadetak missed the point.

For 15 years now at least we have heard nothing but the evils of tobacco. It wasn't just bad on the smoker but supposedly study after study after study talked about H-U-G-E rises in cancer, asthma etc for those around the smoker. To this very day I hear commericals and read articles about 50,000 children a year dying from second-hand smoke. 50,000! That means (if true) in the last 10 years 500,000 - half a million! - kids are dead from this stuff!!!

If there was a food or toy or chair or whatever that killed just 100 kids a year it would be gone in seconds.

But not tobacco. We can get money from taxes on it! So it stays legal.

Total hyporcacy.

I got the point. Where I live, you cannot smoke inside public areas and also cannot smoke within a certain radius of an entryway or pathway to a public building. I believe this is the same for most places in the country. So if a child dies it is because the parent exposed them to it. If we were smoking in the classroom, hospitals, restaurants, they were being sold to children, etc. then yes you would be correct but that doesn't happen.

Tobacco isn't legal for the sole reason that it is taxable...if that were true then drugs would also be legal so we could tax that. Banning tobacco would be effective as The Prohibition or the current ban on marijuana.

I'm not how accurate or relevant those numbers are. My quick google search for National Child Mortality Data seems to say that little over 50,000 children die a year...from all causes. I think your statistic is for people of all ages and not just children.

According to my link over 7,500 children die by motor vehicle accidents...do we ban cars?

Edited March 8, 2009 by Cadetak

[AROCES]

You and Cadetak missed the point.

For 15 years now at least we have heard nothing but the evils of tobacco. It wasn't just bad on the smoker but supposedly study after study after study talked about H-U-G-E rises in cancer, asthma etc for those around the smoker. To this very day I hear commericals and read articles about 50,000 children a year dying from second-hand smoke. 50,000! That means (if true) in the last 10 years 500,000 - half a million! - kids are dead from this stuff!!!

If there was a food or toy or chair or whatever that killed just 100 kids a year it would be gone in seconds.

But not tobacco. We can get money from taxes on it! So it stays legal.

Total hyporcacy.

It's all a talking point or propaganda to advance an agenda.

Seniors are dying, children are dying if we dont tax more. I actually never know anyone who's autopsy concluded 2nd hand smoke as cause of death.

Just think about it, if ever it happens lawsuit is a very attractvie opportunity and so far there is none.

[ninjadude]

It's all a talking point or propaganda to advance an agenda.

Seniors are dying, children are dying if we dont tax more. I actually never know anyone who's autopsy concluded 2nd hand smoke as cause of death.

Just think about it, if ever it happens lawsuit is a very attractvie opportunity and so far there is none.

read autopsies as a hobbie do you? The second hand smoke is a contributing factor to numerous additional health problems up to and including Cancer itself. There are numerous cases to cite.

[whitelight]

Par

Michigan is looking for ways to prevent revenue shortfalls when the price of gas goes up.

When the price (of gas) peeked in mid summer the amount of gasoline being sold dropped so the government received less revenue then expected. So what they want to do is change the tax from 18 cents per gallon to a percentage of the price.

Seriously.

The chief executive of my state is telling me that it costs 18 cents a gallon to maintain roads when gas prices are $1.80 and 45 cents a gallon when (gas) prices are $4.50.

Read a ****ing paper, you can't make this **** up.

[MasterPo]

It's all a talking point or propaganda to advance an agenda.

Seniors are dying, children are dying if we dont tax more. I actually never know anyone who's autopsy concluded 2nd hand smoke as cause of death.

Just think about it, if ever it happens lawsuit is a very attractvie opportunity and so far there is none.

I agree. But this is the drivel that is always being quoted on MSNBC, CNBC, et al. even on Fox News when so-called "experts" come on.

And most people accept it as fact. I know a woman who swears she can smell the smoke from her neighbor's house 50 feet away, cross an open yard, through both her's and her neighbors closed windows!! She insists it causes her shortness of breath.

[AROCES]

read autopsies as a hobbie do you? The second hand smoke is a contributing factor to numerous additional health problems up to and including Cancer itself. There are numerous cases to cite.

Reading about it does not mean it's a hobby.

No proof on that yet, like I said if that was a fact we would have hundreds of litigations now on it.

[AROCES]

I agree. But this is the drivel that is always being quoted on MSNBC, CNBC, et al. even on Fox News when so-called "experts" come on.

And most people accept it as fact. I know a woman who swears she can smell the smoke from her neighbor's house 50 feet away, cross an open yard, through both her's and her neighbors closed windows!! She insists it causes her shortness of breath.

Could be just an allergy. Been to a bar full of smoke and everyone came out alive.

[Cadetak]

Could be just an allergy. Been to a bar full of smoke and everyone came out alive.

I'm a smoker and do not even have a shortness of breath.

[whitelight]

You still don't get it . It has nothing to do with smoking.

We have elelcted people who will devote millions to making pig manure smell less but when it comes to providing medical care to children of poor working parents they need to find a revenue source to pay for it.

So, perfumed hog manure is more important than the health of poor children.

That is the record of our elected officials. And with the Senate vote today, it's a fact.

Edited March 11, 2009 by whitelight

[Ghost Ship]

Uptight do gooders from hell will soon control the world. It's begun with Tobacco and will end with microchips placed >>>>Everywhere<<<<.

[Cadetak]

You still don't get it . It has nothing to do with smoking.

We have elelcted people who will devote millions to making pig manure smell less but when it comes to providing medical care to children of poor working parents they need to find a revenue source to pay for it.

So, perfumed hog manure is more important than the health of poor children.

That is the record of our elected officials. And with the Senate vote today, it's a fact.

FYI medicine and healthcare would a heck of a lot more money then perfumed hog manure. Its not like some politician had a choice between health and poo and decided to pick poo.

The insurance company for my old job had to pay out 2million in hospital costs last year and the place only had a few dozen employees. I'd imagine the bill to be quite large for an entire country and not easy to get funds for.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Cadetak

[Graylady]

I don't see why they should ban tobacco when its a Billion dollar marketing business..

This is a great proposal....

It won't stop the people who are addicted to chemicals...

[zitro1987]

I'd rather have tax on tobacco than tax burdens on the middle class.

[MasterPo]

I'd rather have tax on tobacco than tax burdens on the middle class.

Meanwhile there are all sorts of "stop smoking!" programs offered by the gov, hospitals, non-profit orgs, health insurers, etc.

Pretty hard to tax something you want people to give up!

Hyprocracy.

[Cadetak]

Meanwhile there are all sorts of "stop smoking!" programs offered by the gov, hospitals, non-profit orgs, health insurers, etc.

Pretty hard to tax something you want people to give up!

Hyprocracy.

Sort of but not really but I understand were your coming from. I mean money goes towards abstinence programs and safe sex practice too and we can understand that "hypocrisy".

I mean murder is illegal but we are at war and have the death penalty.

I do not believe the government is required to have a full stance on smoking. For people who smoke we can buy cigs and get taxed, for people who don't there are regulations against smoking in inside public places, for people who want to quite there are funded programs, for kids it is illegal. What basis isn't covered?

Edited March 12, 2009 by Cadetak

[preacherman76]

The problem as I see it is, this is over taxing. There should be a restrain on how much the goverment can tax a product, and the way I see it, they have WAY over stepped thier boundries on this one.

Edited March 12, 2009 by preacherman76