The repubs supported BIG TABACCO?

How about the repubs did not support a crappy piece of legislation? Remember, this is Teddys program that sent all of 42% of the proceeds of the tax to buy the insurance. Wow, the kids must be really important to get as much as 42% of the money. But hey, BlueOregon just is just printing the headline someone else wrote, right? Pathetic.

"Republicans Support Big Tobacco"

That's disingenuous spin. The argument against using tobacco funding is this:

It must be recognized that tobacco taxes are going to continue to be a diminishing revenue stream. Fewer and fewer people smoking. It is also not a progressive tax, because generally smokers are less well educated and are consequently underemployed.

If the children's health initiative is funded with a declining revenue stream, then it is doomed to go into a financial crisis just like the Oregon Health Plan.

Come up with a secure funding stream and it will get passed.

A tobacco tax is one of the most REGRESSIVE imaginable! Smokers are some of the poorest and most disadvantaged in our community: you can sit there with a smug puritanism about punishing bad behavior (or whatever), but the material consequence of this law is to make poor people poorer.

The Dems should be happy this bill failed. The one time in my whole life I considered voting for a Republican is if this bill passed, and the Republicans promised to repeal it if they got back in power.

It may not have been a good plan, but the fact is these sorts of decisions in the Legislature are all about getting votes and money - with money being more important than votes. Kids don't vote and they don't give money. People who would benefit from a reduction in estate taxes vote, but they also don't, as a rule, give campaigns a lot of money. People who smoke don't give money, but they sure do vote. Big Tobacco doesn't vote, but hell, they give a TON of money. Big Tobacco = Big Money = Big Campaigns = More Votes. So Big Tobacco wins. That's how it works.

Asking the voters directly is the only way this concept will ever really get off the ground. But be prepared for a VERY spendy Big Tobacco-financed campaign against it. Any weaknesses in the legislation, such as only 42% going to the kids, and that baby's going down because they will make sure everyone knows about it.

Yes, whatever will the cash-strapped smokers do when cigarettes become too expensive? Quit smoking? The horror!

Shame on you liberals for saving the lives of the state's poor.

As a fairly recently reformed smoker I would offer one observation:

Addicted smokers will buy cigarettes even if it means cutting back on their food budget, their clothing budget, their transportation budget, or any other. Addicted smokers will buy their cigarettes even if it means cutting back on the necessities for their children.

This approach might actually harm the children of poor families by making their parents spend more for their cigarettes.

If you really want to fund health care for Oregon's kids, why not do it in an equitable way (i.e. something that we all pay into, not just a disenfranchised minority)?

What did Ted plan on spending the other 58% on?

A better tax would be on organic foods. This way, those that are wealthy enough (don't beleive me, obtain demographic data on the typical organic grocery buyer)to pay twice as much for carrots & milk can foot the bill for those too poor to cover their children.

The tax could be levied in the form of a buyers card. This card would allow a buyer of organic products to purchase foods at a retail outlet. Without such card, organics could not be purchased. This would be very similar to an annual fishing license.

Unlike a regressive cigarett tax, it would be flat (annual fee) and apply to higher income earners.

I'm sorry I just find it hilarious that we're ignoring the real reasons for not wanting taxes on cigarettes. C'mon guys nobody is buying the "we can find better taxes elsewhere" stuff. I don't even have an opinion one way or the other on the tax itself, but we need to be honest with ourselves. I also don't agree that a majority of smokers are going to sell their homes before they give up the habit.

The evidence is quite clear that raising cigarette taxes reduces smoking. So raising cigarette taxes to to support Healthy Kids also happens to support healthy Oregonians in general.

I'm a smoker, a bartender, and considered to be low-income. Paradoxically, while I'm not at all thrilled with the proposed legislation to ban all indoor smoking, I am FOR increasing the tax on cigs to fund health care for kids.

I personally think it's worth 85 cents a pack so that all kids (including mine) get adequate medical care. And unlike Mr. Lister, I do not believe that ALL "[a]ddicted smokers will buy their cigarettes even if it means cutting back on the necessities for their children." Perhaps some would, but I, for one, would not. I can't tell you exactly what the price point would be for it to be too expensive for me to smoke, but believe me, there is one.

But I'm concerned. What did Ted plan on spending the other 58% on?

Sounds like those who are against the cig tax have been sipping at the propaganda fountain way too many times. Can we just get through one of these discussions without the opposition (mostly republicans and those who support big tobacco) spouting the usual ubiquitous drivel they obtain from sipping too much propaganda water?

I love how nanny-stater fools like Teddy K believe insurance is what keeps kids healthy: not lifestyle choices or behaviors. The majority of below poverty level-parents are fat, smoke and have illegitimate kids (who are also obese). Giving them free insurance just makes it easier for them to smoke more, eat more and have more fat, illegitimate kids.

Great idea Ted: let's make irresponsible parents who neglect their children by refusing to insure them get a free ride on the insurance bandwagon. That'll fix everything.

...add chris to the propaganda sippers. Your uncalled for drivel about below poverty people is wrong wrong wrong. I grew up from poverty and I am not fat and I have a Mathematics degree. Quit sipping from the propaganda fountain, Chris, and join the real world.

"I grew up from poverty and I am not fat and I have a Mathematics degree..."

Well, that changes everything. Thanks for the enlightenment!

Sorry Kari, I'm not buying it. Obesity is more a factor of overeating, not simply eating fatty food. Calories are calories for the most part. Lower-income folks are generally overweight because of laziness and poor eating habits, not because all they can afford is fast food.

The recommended daily caloric intake for a 180 lb. person is 2340 calories per day, which equates exactly to three Big Macs and three sides of fries.

Theoretically, that 180 pound person could eat McDonald's every day and not gain weight.

Chris, you don't know what you're talking about. Quality of food is very important, and quality food costs money. You can eat package of mac 'n cheese for dinner for a buck or you can have a nice organic salad with healthy dressing, some fresh steamed organic veggies, whole grain bread, and a chicken breast for about $15 and the same number of calories (maybe even less). Which would you feel better about feeding to your kids?

Weight is the product of a lot of things besides caloric intake. You might want to do a little more research before revealing your ignorance about nutrition for all the world to see.

Funny, I never brought up one word regarding nutrition. I was pointing out that 99% of obese people eat too much -- no matter if it's steamed chicken breast or pancakes.

Grasping for straws are we?

You can buy a bag of lentils, a bag of brown rice and four cans of tuna for less than $10. All nutritious, affordable and feeds the whole family. So this "healthy food is expensive" premise is a crock.

Try harder next time, Becky

The argument that a cigarette tax is unstable and will lead to declining revenues is wholly unsupported by the facts.

Legislative Revenue Office economist Mazen Malik explained to the House Revenue Committee on February 7 why revenues from the cigarette tax are relatively stable.

His testimony, which you can listen to here, addresses HB 2201, the original Healthy Kids Bill (advance to the 43:20 mark for Mr. Malik's testimony).

That bill was defeated on the House floor by a vote of 32-24 on April 26.

A new version of the bill has been introduced, and some of the details of the Healthy Kids plan have changed, but the cigarette tax remains the same - an $0.845 per pack increase over current levels. Thus, his testimony is still applies.

Opponents of the cigarette tax have offered no supporting evidence for their claim that it represents an unstable and declining revenue source.

Just take it to the people for a vote. I think it was in 2002 that Washingtonians voted to increase the cigarette tax to pay for health care and it passed overwhelmingly. Same thing would probably happen in Oregon.

No one answered my question: Why not implement a tax that we all pay? I find it very disingenuous for someone to criticize others for supporting big tobbaco and not Oregon's children when they themselves AREN'T PAYING THE TAX! On the other hand, if we were to raise gas ~$0.10 a gallon we would have another STABLE income stream that would tax all of us (pretty much everyone drives) fairly. Added Bonus: it would discourage consumption of gasoline thereby reducing our greenhouse gas output! Everyone's happy, right?

Also I take offense to Kari's accusation that I am some how or another "pro-smoking." I'll bet you (like myself) are pro-choice, but I don't accuse you of hating babies. That's because it's a seperate issue. While I don't condone smoking and feel that the world would be a better place without it, I don't think a tax is the way to stop it.

Since everyone here is so pro-children, why doesn't BlueOregon set up a paypal account to fund healthcare for Oregon's kids? As a show of good faith (and to prove to Kari that I'm not just on here to lobby for big tobacco), I'll throw in $30!

Here's a little tidbit I'd like to toss into the discussion. Back when my spouse and I were actually each making a decent wage and weren't paying a criminal amount in rent, our monthly grocery bill was around $500/month. We ate a lot of the high-processed foods--many of them high in fat.

Today I've cut down our grocery bill to just under $300/month and we eat healthier to boot. And surprise, surprise--food costs have gone up in that time and as noted, our incomes, down. (I don't use coupons given most coupons are for the unhealthy foods--highly processed, high fat.) I buy a lot of items in bulk. I'm a morning cereal eater and I've found that the healthier cereals--many organic--are actually cheaper than their mass marketed counterparts. I do though seem to have this knack for hitting the store at just the right time when some of our more expensive items are on sale. Then I stock up.

As far as the tobacco tax, I was against it from the start. The health care crisis won't be solved by sticking it to the people with another tax, especially one that primarily targets low income earners. It's easy to do that though--those who live in poverty/are low income earners don't have a strong voice (yet) because they don't have the resources to stuff into the government's pockets and thus influence policy. It will be solved when government gets some balls and begins to regulate the hell out of the pharmaceutical companies and removes the profit from the health care system. Turn back time to what it was 20 plus years ago in this state--back when Business paid their fair share in income taxes.

Health care needs to be seen as a right for all--irregardless of ones ability to pay.

Joe,

I think we've been through this before, I don't for one second believe those $11/pack numbers. Every time a bill to raise the cigarette tax comes up, people start spouting off dollar costs per pack of cigarettes to the taxpayers, and they are almost always different. Besides, there are government studies that show the net loss to taxpayers per pack of cigarettes is closer to $0.20. Of course that takes into account the Federal government too, and that complicates things.

Since we can argue all day over whose numbers are right, let's try something else. Why not just discontinue state healthcare benefits to smokers? If they're costing the state millions, take them off the dole, simple as that.

Let's not forget though that there are several other people out there costing me millions of tax dollars every year. Why not increase the fine for being caught with any amount of marijuana? I don't know exactly how much we spend every year on drug enforcement, but I bet it's a lot.

One request: Can we PLEASE stop inferring that people who live in poverty are lazy? Has it ever crossed the mind of those who toss around that phrase that perhaps living in poverty is very taxing to the mind and body and this thus gives the illusion of laziness?

Given many if not most of the jobs that these people perform daily require a lot of mental and physical stamina, I'd say they are anything but lazy.

Chad,

Of course the overwhelming majority of Washingtonians voted to increase the tax. The overwhelming majority of Washingtonians don't smoke!

Joe,

What it really comes down to is this. I would not be as against this tax if the current cigarette tax revenues only went to smoking prevention programs and recouping healthcare costs from smokers. The problem is (last time I checked) that they don't. That's why I don't trust these things.

Obviously we can't just take smokers off the public system, I was being hyperbolic. But what's wrong with making them pay for their added healtcare costs at the time of treatment rather than through the tax? After all, plenty of smokers die of causes not related to smoking. It's not fair that the smokers who are not burdens on the state should have to pay for those that are.

Well health care for kids sure seems like a good idea. I'm not sure why we should tax cigarettes though. We could tax large screen TV sets instead, or maybe raise the tax on large potted plants. Hey, I have an idea. If kid health care is so important why not just have the kid's parents pay for the health care of their children? Why tax anything?

Torrid wrote:

"The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids studies show that the health care costs generated by a pack of cigarettes amount to $11.16. Of that amount, $8.26 is absorbed by health insurance plans and the employers and employees who pay their costs. The remaining $2.90 is shifted to taxpayers who pick up the costs of publicly financed health programs."

But how much of the "costs...shifted to taxpayers" is offset by taxpayer savings in social security benefits from people who die early?

If you want to judge the costs of cigarettes to government you can't leave out how much we save on socialized pension and health benefits when the recipients kick off a decade early.

Maybe the legislature should start subsidizing cigarettes for PERS recipients....

Kulongoski's Health Plan A Copout And A Red Herring

Republican legislators have done the right thing in opposing funding for the governor's health plan, albeit probably for the wrong reasons. Nonetheless, in the democratic process it's the vote not the explanation that counts. Republicans stand fast.

Our state is in a moral and economic health care crisis which affects Oregonians and Oregon's public institutions. The governor's so-called solution to this problem is nothing more than a ruse to avoid seriously dealing with the fundamentals of health care reform. Unless and until the governor and every member of the legislature publicly answer these two questions our state will continue to have enormous numbers of Oregonians without health care as well as skyrocketing and unstoppable public institutional health insurance costs diminishing delivered public services statewide by more than $160,000,000 per year.

1. The profit oriented private health insurance industry which has failed to deliver affordable health care to Oregonians and Oregon's public institutions must NOT be the model upon which a solution to Oregon's moral and economic health care crisis should be based: A. Agree B. Disagree

2. Should Oregon elected officials - public employees - voters - taxpayers have equal access to the same level of health care or should we perpetuate a multitiered health insurance class system in Oregon: A. Equal access to same level of health care B. Multitiered health insurance class system

House Speaker Merkley and Senate President Courtney joined governor Kulongoski in cowardly behavior when they refused to acknowledge the very existence of an alternative perspective to the resolution of Oregon's health care crisis as presented to them in the following letter:

March 12, 2007

Dear House Speaker Merkley and Senate President Courtney: The current legislative debate over health care reform in our state does not include our view that the profit oriented private health insurance industry must not be the model upon which a solution to Oregon's moral and economic health care crisis should be based and that Oregon elected officials - public employees - voters and taxpayers must have equal access to the same level of health care not a perpetuation of our current multitiered health insurance class system.

We request that you find a place holder bill in each chamber which would substitute in its entirety the language of the Oregon Community Health Care Bill (see attached) so that an alternative choice may be discussed and debated this session. The Oregon Community Health Care Bill is the only current fully formed piece of proposed legislation which supports our vision of health care reform. We would welcome others that also meet our requirements.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely, Richard Ellmyer - Oregon Community Health Care Bill author Sam Adams - Portland City Council Jeff Cogen - Multnomah County Commissioner Edwars "Chip" Enbody - Hubbard City Council Darrell Flood - Mayor of Lafayette Bill Hall - Lincoln County Commissioner Jim Needham - Mollala City Council Michelle Ripple - Wilsonville City Council Mary Schamehorn - Mayor of Bandon Pete Sorenson - Lane County Commissioner

Neither Merkley nor Courtney had the decency to respond to the letter's signatories much less consider their ideas for public debate and discussion. A failure of political courtesy, leadership and the practice of the process of democracy.

The Oregon health care debate is not about children. The Oregon health care debate is about following a path determined by the answers to the two questions above. Only after all of us have come to grips with our answers can we move forward toward a solution.

Richard Ellmyer Oregon Community Health Care Bill author and project champion President, MacSolutions Inc. - A Macintosh computer consulting business providing web hosting for artists and very small businesses. Writer/Publisher - Oregon Health Watcher commentary - Published on the Internet and distributed to 17,000 readers interested in public health care policy in Oregon. http://www.goodgrowthnw.org/health.html

Mr. Ellmyer - YOU are the coward. To print this drivel on Blue Oregon is shameful and smacks of heavy handed propaganda spewing to the 10th degree. You definately have sipped from the propaganda fountain way too much and should find something better to do than distribute this ubiquitous drivel. If we deny children of anything, we also deny ourselves. Republicans stand fast all right - in the manure of self serving drivel.

Shame shame shame.

Joe,

Yep, got out a couple of weeks ago. Thanks for the congrats! Maybe I'll see you at an alumni function sometime.

"House Speaker Merkley and Senate President Courtney joined governor Kulongoski in cowardly behavior when they refused to acknowledge the very existence of an alternative perspective to the resolution of Oregon's health care crisis"

This is why Ellmyer is a coward. Calling the Gov and the leaders cowardly wasn't called for either - but there it was writen. Someone has to stand up to these people who spew the trash.

Like I said, put it to a statewide vote and it will easily pass.

Sin taxes are the wrong way to support needed programs. The Oregon legislature has already blown the tobacco settlement money. Money that was meant to go to prevention and care. Instead they tossed it into the general funds.

If they want healthcare, they must fund it by raising taxes, licensing fees, or a sales tax.

Did any of you wonder what happened to all that tobacco money? From: http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settlements/state.php?StateID=OR

Summary: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that the state of Oregon spend between $21.1 million and $52.8 million a year to have an effective, comprehensive tobacco prevention program. Oregon currently allocates $3.5 million a year for tobacco prevention. This is 16.3% of the CDC's minimum recommendation and ranks Oregon 33rd among the states in the funding of tobacco prevention programs. Oregon's spending on tobacco prevention amounts to 1.1% of the $326 million in tobacco-generated revenue the state collects each year in tobacco settlement payments and tobacco taxes.

Current Status: Oregon's tobacco settlement payments are folded into the state's general fund and allocated through the biennial budget process. At the start of the 2005 Legislature, Governor Ted Kulongoski's (D) Recommended Budget included $5.1 million for the Tobacco Prevention and Education Program (TPEP) for the 2005-2007 biennium. The final biennial budget approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor allocates $6.9 million or just under $3.5 million each year to tobacco prevention and cessation. Actual spending differs within years in a biennium based on normal program spending fluctuation.

<h2>TPEP continues to be entirely funded by tobacco tax revenues. No tobacco settlement revenue is being used for prevention, with most of the MSA payments currently earmarked to repay general obligation bonds sold by the state to balance its budget.</h2>