Mr. Butts sure does love the House Republicans

That's right, folks, the big fella is back in Oregon - and he's here to make sure that Republican legislators stick with Big Tobacco, in their fight with uninsured children who need health care.

Mr. Butts himself has been blogging - and working the halls of the Legislature. From his blog:

It's my job to make sure the Republican leadership holds firm and does not buckle on any future versions of the bill that may come up. Frankly, it hasn't been a tough sell. I have many friends here in Oregon. I don't like to brag, but minority leader Wayne Scott and I are closer than Paris and Nicole. In politics, as in life, it's all about relationships, and in the 2006 election I gave Rep. Scott 49,000 reasons to relate to me.

Meanwhile, he also recently posted a YouTube video highlighting his lobbying efforts - including a visit with Rep. John Lim (R-Gresham). Lim was the legislator who broke legislative rules and refused to vote on the Healthy Kids plan.

Here's the YouTube. Enjoy!

Check out Mr. Butts' blog. Discuss.

Comments

  • John Goes (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is idiotic.

  • Brian Simms (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Just like the Healthy Kids plan

  • Matt (unverified)
    (Show?)

    That...was...awesome!

    Hey, and I'm even a smoker, Mr. Butts is possibly the best thing to hit the capitol since the astroturf green carpet was laid down!

    Also, House Arrgh's should have passed this.

    ...and doesn't Jim Gardner lobby for the drug companies too?

  • Galen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What a handsome devil!

  • John Goes (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Actually, Brian Simms, I was referring to the "Healthy Kids Plan".

  • Hawthorne (unverified)
    (Show?)

    John,

    Do you go for the tobacco lobby on your own terms or do they pay you to spam for them?

    Just wonderin' I think that you have a future in this blog for corporations who are killing people thing. True being called a shill is kinda nasty, but it's nice work and hey, somebody has to do it, right?

  • John Goes (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yeah, you got my number. I am being paid by big corporations to post comments in blogs like these. Or maybe it has something to do with a decent respect for the free choice of individuals who choose to smoke. There is no apparent connection between people who voluntarily smoke and insuring children. There was once a time when even uninsured children would get emergency medical care, before the ascendancy of the AMA and other medical cartels who have rendered the Hippocratic Oath essentially null and void. But sure, if you want to dress up as a cigarrette and keep it on that level, feel free to think of someone like me as a shill for corporations. Keep it simple.

  • (Show?)

    Explain to me how smoking and health care aren't related?

  • John Goes (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Who said they weren't related?

  • (Show?)

    you just did, John--"There is no apparent connection between people who voluntarily smoke and insuring children."

  • John Goes (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Do I really need to point out that there is no connection between insuring children and smoking adults?

    http://www.galilean-library.org/int4.html http://sepdx.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/the-virtues-of-smoking

  • Bruce Smith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree with John. Why should funding healthcare for Oregon's kids be left to the smokers? I don't think it's right for us to look on smuggly saying, "Look what a great job we did, we're giving poor kids health insurance!" when it is eally the smokers doing all the work. (I know, I know-people CHOOSE to smoke. People also choose to drink and become alcoholics. Why isn't the alcohol tax higher?)

    The bottom line is this; you can either stop people from smoking, or you can use it as a revenue stream. These are two mutually exclusive goals, in my opinion. Look at our alcohol tax. Does it discourage drinking? I don't think so. For $5-$7 you can get enough to get plenty sloshed (or at least drive over the legal limit) on any given night. No one seems to have a problem with that though, and we just keep using the tax money to fund government programs.

    So when we say "A cigarette tax will help fuund healthcare for kids AND reduce smoking!" what do we really mean? It's like saying I'm going to drain this pond and use the water to fill this lake. In 5 years if the "reduce smoking" part of the claim comes true, where are we going to get the money to pay for health insurance for our kids? Even though a few smokers quit smoking, these kids are still going to be having health issues (like John said-smoking and healthcare for kids aren't related). Are we just going to raise the tax again?

    Another problem-last I heard, they were going to outlaw smoking in restaurants and bars. Some may disagree, but I think this will cut into cigarette sales (and by extension tax revenues). Now, it may not be a whole lot, but doesn't every penny count when it comes to our children?

    <h2>If the "progressives" out there really want to make a difference, they ought to stop pushing for this regressive (it's true) tax, and start looking into something a little more equitable. Why not a gas tax? Pretty much everyone drives, so it's equitable, and since it would cost more to drive, it would decrease traffic and emmissions. [To be clear, I don't actually want to impose another gas tax, but I think it would be a better, more fair, alternative.]</h2>
elsewhere

connect with blueoregon