Measure 50 Supporters Swing Into Action
They may not have the most money, but bipartisan Measure 50 supporters--Healthy Kids Oregon--are getting the drop on Big Tobacco with the first ad.
The tobacco companies don't like taxes, and they don't like being pitted as the heavies against kids or health care. Expect the campaign to be ugly and dishonest. The American Cancer Society, which supports Measure 50 and has battled tobacco many times in the past, confirms this: "Big tobacco will do, say, and spend anything to protect their profits. Their tactics in other states were consistently deceitful and negative, and Oregonians have the right to know about it."
In addition to deceptive attack ads, other questionable campaign tactics included misrepresenting the position of community leaders and organizations by making supporters look like opponents and employing community members to misstate community impacts. In one instance, the tobacco industry went so far as to claim increasing tobacco taxes would profit terrorists.
Here's the website--go donate, sign up to volunteer, or share your story. The only way this will pass is if supporters have the organization to defeat RJ Reynolds' money.
|
August 22, 2007 |
in the news 2007 | Comments (107 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Rick Hickey | Aug 22, 2007 9:39:02 PM
Who should realy be taking care of the Health Care needs of Children? Parents? The Employer pitching in to attract and retain good workers? OR the Taxpayers?
When I think of the mess our roads are in, the Portland Water Bureau mess, the lines at DMV, The lack of Gov't preparation and assistance after the Katrina Hurricane in the South, millions put off for months to get a Passport, Big problems at the V.A. Health centers and the nasty, overcrowded Gov't run Retirement centers, as well as the FACT that Illinois & Washington have proof that most signing up for this "Free" Health Care Plan are Illegal aliens, Not LEGAL Immigrants or Americans.
I am baffled as to why anyone would want big brother Gov't to take care of their Health Care? and let Employers avoid their responsibilty to help their Employees.
Democrats, how much of my Paycheck or soon my Child's, are you going to take? Shall I just give it ALL to you and you will take of me? (like that big S.S. check our Seniors buy their Dog Food Dinner with) We have many Russian, Chinese & Korean Immigrants here who fled that idea for a damn good reason. Even the Communist Dictator of Cuba imported his DR.
I also remind you that when Canada upped Cig.s to over $6.00 pack, to pay for their wait forever lousy treatment system (I know as my Father-in-law is Canadian), Crime went thru the roof and they lowered the Tax.
I thought you guys were big on Unions, who have fought for decades for Employers to provide some Benefits?
I know if Employers did not have a non-stop supply of desperate Illegal alien workers, they would have to provide some benefits, instead of only us working legitimate tax payers.
Fresh Del Monte should be a glaring example.
The Book "1984" is supposed to be Fiction, why are Democrats trying so hard to make it reality?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 22, 2007 9:41:04 PM
Wow, Rick. You're actually managing to help the pro-50 side with your bizarre rant. Keep it up. You might even encourage some of us to give money to Measure 50 if you're really good.
Posted by: ellie | Aug 22, 2007 9:51:35 PM
No kidding. Cigarette taxes = increase crime? Sounds like time for a Freakonomics investigation.
Seriously, I'm not enthused about adding more crap to the Constitution, but I don't necessarily want to be in the company of those kinds of people.
Posted by: James X. | Aug 22, 2007 9:54:20 PM
Uh, befactual? Please take a drag. The American Cancer Society is not conspiring against us from the next-deepest depths of hell. Also, your facts are wrong.
Here's what Measure 50 funds:
68% to the “Healthy Kids Program”
18% for the Oregon Health Plan
10% to tobacco prevention
3% to the Healthy Kids Safety Net
1% to rural health clinics
Ooh, look how evil this measure is! They sneaked pro-health and anti-tobacco causes into the so-called "Healthy Kids Program!" Why, this isn't a bill for healthy kids at all! It's a bill for ... uh ... health. And not smoking. So, yeah, health. And mostly healthy kids.
Now, as to the argument that a tobacco tax hurts tobacco users, you're right. In fact, it will hurt so much that they'll quit, as happens every time any state raises tobacco taxes. These people not only will pay less in taxes, they will also save all the money they were spending on tobacco. Also, they won't be paying for chemotherapy, lung removal, and/or the hole they need in their throat. The rest of us will save money from funding all that.
As for this being a constitutional measure, I would have preferred this be statutory as well. Too bad SB 3 was blocked.
Posted by: James X. | Aug 22, 2007 10:05:58 PM
So that we all know what we're actually talking about, Here is Measure 50, which implements SB 3, seen here.
Posted by: James X. | Aug 22, 2007 10:14:32 PM
Sorry, some dyslexic typing at the end of my first post. Direct funding of the Healthy Kids Plan was what was blocked, in both the house and the senate, leading us to this.
Posted by: Zoe Walmer | Aug 22, 2007 10:36:36 PM
I've heard many supporters of this measure saying that one of the benefits of adding more taxes to cigarettes is that it will encourage (hopefully) vast numbers of smokers to quit. If this is true, is that lost potential revenue factored into the expected funds to pay for the healthy kids program?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 22, 2007 10:49:02 PM
Posted by: Zoe Walmer | Aug 22, 2007 10:36:36 PMI've heard many supporters of this measure saying that one of the benefits of adding more taxes to cigarettes is that it will encourage (hopefully) vast numbers of smokers to quit. If this is true, is that lost potential revenue factored into the expected funds to pay for the healthy kids program?
Yes. It is actually structured to be take into account the ratio expected to stop or reduce smoking (or more precisely, decreasing the rate of young people beginning smoking, who are most directly affected by higher per/pack costs).
So yes, this does take into account the reduction of smokers this will help bring about.
Posted by: James X. | Aug 22, 2007 11:26:21 PM
Zoe, cigarette taxes always raise revenue and reduce smoking. Here's the data. We also save money when people no longer need health services due to their quitting. I think that would be the ideal outcome, anyway.
Posted by: Scott Moore | Aug 22, 2007 11:51:50 PM
Sure, I've poked a little fun at the concept of this measure, but thanks to Rick's hysterically xenophobic take, I'm now prepared to start regurgitating whatever propaganda the Yes on 50 campaign puts out. Thanks, once again, Rick, for discrediting any shred of logic the libertarian position may have ever had.
Posted by: anonymous lurker | Aug 23, 2007 12:44:24 AM
The percentages James X cites about the disposition of the revenues are for taxes on cigarettes (Section 24 of SB-3). The percentages befactual cites are for taxes on cigars and other tobacco products like smokeless tobacco (Section 31 of SB-3). Both are right as far as that goes. The total percentages obviously lie somewhere between based on the relative consumption of these products. If anyone has those numbers it might add to the discussion.
Also SB-3 never was a statutory referral. It was quickly introduced late in the session on May 31 and passed on June 25, linked to the constitutional amendment referred to the people in SJR-4 (Measure 50) introduced on June 6, also passed on June 25. HB-3558 was the original "Healthy Kids" legislation that included a statutory referral.
Can anyone find any other instances in the Oregon Constitution of specific taxes and tax rates like Measure 50 would introduce?
Posted by: James X. | Aug 23, 2007 12:57:49 AM
Nice to hear from you, Scott. Lurker, thanks for the clarification! These numbers might be close:
Cigarettes, 96.331 percent;
Cigars, 2.783 percent;
Snuff, 0.539 percent;
Roll-your-own tobacco products, 0.171 percent;
Chewing tobacco, 0.111 percent; and
Pipe tobacco, 0.066 percent.
Posted by: befactual | Aug 23, 2007 8:18:33 AM
I stand partially corrected on the numbers, but also point out these numbers and James X attempted spin on them makes the arguments about what is really wrong with M50 even more.
It is wrong, in no uncertain terms, to tie and condition health care coverage for anyone to a moralistic tax (by Jame X own numbers we see that only about 18% of the revenues would go to low-income children and adults covered by the OHP) that is not shared equally. It is wrong to advocate that the burden for financing health care coverage should be shifted disproportionately onto a percentage of the population that, statistically speaking, are not them, who are down the income scale, and who they judge should be singled out to pay more. It is wrong to rationalize a condescending, moralizing attitude towards your fellow citizens that is counterproductive to real progress on health care, and to justify a cynical political strategy and failure to lead by the majority in the legislature this year.
Something we on the progressive side don't like to admit is that although the progressive movement has always been properly concerned with the health of people as a fundamental right, we have always had to struggle against exactly this kind of pathological, condescending, moralizing character defect. Progressives in the golden age for the Progressive Movement in the early part of last century were in the forefront of the Prohibition movement. They were lead proponents for fear-driven, draconian, decidely anti-constitutional public health laws that had far too much in common with the psychology, politics, and power motives behind today's paranoia-driven, anti-civil-rights, national security state politics. The attitude and history of Progressives towards even legal immigrants of the day is also not exactly something to be proud of.
M50 is wrong, and should be defeated by us, because it is far more the product of that pathological side of our character than it is a compassionate, non-judgemental, enlightened approach to building the broad support required for genuine progress on health care.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 23, 2007 9:15:33 AM
Absolutely, Mr. Befactual-who-got-the-facts-wrong, you're exactly right. Youbetcha.
For example, the estate tax on millionaires should be spent solely on services to other millionaires. I mean, it's only fair, right? Nobody has any duty to the rest of society. Any taxes you pay should be spent exclusively on services to yourself and people like you.
Raising hand to indicate sarcasm...
Posted by: andy | Aug 23, 2007 9:47:57 AM
Sorry, I just don't see why we need to extract money from a few people to pay for other people's kids healthcare. How about expecting parents to just pay for their own kid's healthcare? Is that just too responsible of an idea? How exactly is it progressive to take money away from someone who earned it and give it to someone else? I guess that is progressive if you're doing the taking. I wonder what it would be called if the shoe was on the other foot?
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 23, 2007 10:04:26 AM
"It is wrong, in no uncertain terms, to tie and condition health care coverage for anyone to a moralistic tax"
It has nothing to do with morals. It has to do with recovering costs that smokers place on all taxpayers by smoking.
and
"How exactly is it progressive to take money away from someone who earned it and give it to someone else?"
That's almost the definition of progressive, when it comes to taxation. Congratulations!
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 23, 2007 10:56:03 AM
It has nothing to do with morals. It has to do with recovering costs that smokers place on all taxpayers by smoking.
If M50 totally or even mostly addressed recovering the costs related to tobacco consumption then your assertion would be valid. But it does neither. Sure, tobacco-related health issues would obviously be one health need for some of those kids, just as any number of utterly unrelated health issues such as diabetes, broken bones and others.
I both like and respect you, TJ. But it is IMHO dishonest to frame it as you have.
Taking money from one person and giving it to another is the definition of progressive? That means that the infamous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska would be progressive, no?
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 23, 2007 11:18:02 AM
Kevin, certainly you agree that there is a pool of health care dollars being used to fund public health, right? And that part of that pool is tobacco-related costs, and part of that pool is child health care costs? So if smoking costs taxpayers in health care dollars, how is applying cigarette tax revenue to the dollars in the public health care pool not a cost recovery of tobacco-related costs? You're trying to say that how the revenue is applied with in public health care needs is at all relevant, when it's not. Smokers incur a public health cost. When smokers are taxed on the cigarettes they buy, they reduce that cost by providing revenue to partially cover those costs which reduce revenues available from the pool to insure children.
Imagine you're a landlord and your tenant breaks the water heater. Before the tenant pays you back for it, you have it replaced out of your maintenance budget. When they finally do pay you back, what you're saying with respect to M50 is that it would be illegitimate for me to use the water heater money to paint the bathroom or powerwash the exterior--it's only proper if I buy a water heater with that money.
"If M50 totally or even mostly addressed recovering the costs related to tobacco consumption then your assertion would be valid."
So you're saying that the tax should be even higher, so as to recover more than the 1/4th to 1/3rd of actual costs that M50 achieves? I wouldn't necessarily disagree.
"Taking money from one person and giving it to another is the definition of progressive? That means that the infamous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska would be progressive, no?"
I said ALMOST. The classic case of progressivism is tax code structuring, and the process of a progressive tax code is that you take money from those with more to ultimately provide for those with less. My point was not to write a letter-perfect definition of progressive, but to show that the comment I responded to represents an approximation of the very concept, rather than the opposite.
Posted by: BlueNote | Aug 23, 2007 11:19:31 AM
All I need to know about Measure 50 is that kids need access to health care, health care requires money, smokers are addicted to tobacco and are willing to pay a high cost (financial and physical) to satisfy their cravings, and smokers have relatively little political power.
Sin taxes are a bad idea, but in the big picture, kids without health care is worse than taxing the sin of smoking.
Following up a prior post which suggests that perhaps tobacco taxes should only be used to pay for tobacco related illnesses in kids, I have come up with some additional ideas . . . perhaps a tax on foie gras could go to pay the health problems of fat kids? How about a Sugar Pop cereal tax to pay for kid's dental problems? Skate board tax to pay for orthopedic care? Video game tax to pay for ADD?
Posted by: James X. | Aug 23, 2007 11:47:49 AM
Befactual, you'd have more credibility if you didn't pretend to care about what was funded. You don't care if it's 100%, 68%, 45%, or 14% this that or the other, so stop bitching about it. It's clear to all of us that your problem is that someone's paying taxes. Also, don't fake that this makes you some sort of progressive.
Rick said, "Who should realy be taking care of the Health Care needs of Children? Parents?"
Andy said, "How about expecting parents to just pay for their own kid's healthcare?"
I know, why don't we have the ponies pay for the healthcare with their magic bags of money? NOT ALL PARENTS CAN AFFORD HEALTHCARE. POOR KIDS SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED WITH SICKNESS BECAUSE OF THIS.
Posted by: James X. | Aug 23, 2007 11:58:08 AM
BlueNote, you do realize that's a slippery slope fallacy, right? That A would lead to B, and because B is wrong, A is wrong? Tobacco kills one-half of all its users. It's not like there's some fine, almost indetectable line between this product that has killed more people than the Holocaust, and a video game, a skateboard, a sugar pop, or a duck liver. A is not B.
Posted by: Miles | Aug 23, 2007 12:30:55 PM
It's not like there's some fine, almost indetectable line between this product that has killed more people than the Holocaust, and a video game, a skateboard, a sugar pop, or a duck liver. A is not B.
A very large number of people die from obesity-related illnesses. I'm not sure there's that much difference, in health terms, between a lifetime of tobacco use and a lifetime of eating the shit that most Americans eat. One difference, though, is that tobacco is highly addictive, whereas fatty foods are not. It seems worse to me to tax drug addicts, who often cannot quit and do not have access to smoking cessation programs, than taxing gluttons.
The classic case of progressivism is tax code structuring, and the process of a progressive tax code is that you take money from those with more to ultimately provide for those with less.
So what makes a tobacco tax progressive again? It takes from those with less (smokers are disproporionately low-income) to give to those with more (the kids covered by this plan are between 200% - 300% of the poverty level, or between $40,000 - $60,000 for a family of four). A lot of the people you're taxing are actually worse off than the families you're covering, and there's no income exemption for this tax (something that could have been built into a broader-based tax).
Look, I can't stand the arguments of "befactual" and Rick Hickey -- frankly, they're more likely to convince me to vote in favor of this thing. But can't we at least admit that it's not the best way to fund kids healthcare, in fact it's not even the 2nd or 3rd best, and it's certainly not progressive? It just happens to be a politically viable way to do something good for kids.
Posted by: James X. | Aug 23, 2007 12:39:34 PM
Eating fat is required for life. And I support a tobacco tax merely on the fact that it will reduce smoking rates. The people who can't afford it will quit, still more will reduce their habit. We could turn around and burn the money, and it will still improve the well-being of the state. The fact that we then take that money and use it to improve health care is just adding to the benefits.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 23, 2007 12:47:31 PM
(I think we were seeing some sarcasm from BlueNote, actually)
Posted by: TR | Aug 23, 2007 12:48:07 PM
Although I support the concept of measure 50, I will absolutely be voting NO! The simple fact is the Oregon Constitution should NOT be stuffed with this kind of content.
Posted by: Miles | Aug 23, 2007 12:49:43 PM
One thing that hasn't come up is the impact that the Bush Administration's new SCHIP rules will have on our healthy kids proposal. Read all about them here. Unless they're overturned, even if Health Kids passes the Administration won't give Oregon the approval it needs to fully implement it.
These rules basically shut down state expansions of SCHIP above 250% of poverty. I think Healthy Kids goes to 300% of poverty. Before going above 250%, the new rules would require that states enroll 95% of eligible children below 200%. No state currently does that. Not one. The rules also require assurance that the number of children covered by private health insurance hasn't decreased by more than 2 percentage points over the past five years -- seemingly not taking into account that could have happened due to market forces having nothing to do with state health programs.
The rules are basically a big f*** you to Congress, which is trying to expand SCHIP. The only way to overturn them is legislatively. The good news is that the rules are so extreme, a lot of Republicans may vote to override any presidential vetoes. The rules also prove Jeff Alworth's point from a couple of days ago, that "privatization" is like a religion to these guys, and they won't hesitate to sacrifice kids on the altar.
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Aug 23, 2007 12:56:16 PM
It's clear to me that the M50 opponents are not honest about their opposition. The reasons they site are silly, factually incorrect or -- in the case of Rick Hickey -- unintelligible. I don't trust people who won't state the real reason they favor or oppose something.
I'm undecided, but every anti-50 thing I see or hear makes me more likely to vote yes.
Posted by: James X. | Aug 23, 2007 1:03:36 PM
Stephanie V.: You're right, I read too fast. Sorry, BlueNote!
And I don't like the fact that this will be in the constitution, either, but when it comes to keeping Oregon's constitution clean, that ship has sailed. The only way to fix it would be to create identical statutory laws and then hold a convention to remove their counterparts from the constitution ... and to reform the initiative process while we're at it.
Posted by: David English | Aug 23, 2007 1:13:49 PM
I am personally undecided, but leaning toward voting against the measure. While I also support the idea of expanding healthcare for chlidren, I am not sure this is the best way to do it. In addition, I can see why those who are smokers are upset about the measure. The fact that this will amend the Oregon consititution also makes me uncomfortable.
For clarification, I'm not a smoker and years of smoking killed my father.
Posted by: Tyrone Reitman | Aug 23, 2007 1:21:24 PM
I'm not at all opposed to taxing tobacco sales, but this thread does bring up some going points about how we make decisions, and what trade offs and taxation methods are appropriate for providing state services. As a ballot measure we're obviously already at the point of voting Y/N, so no more compromise is really possible on this proposal.
In California just a few weeks back however a pretty novel process was used to discuss the broad issue of health care reform, by engaging a wide segment of the electorate in discussion about different alternatives. It was called "California Speaks", and brought together around 3500 everyday Californians from across the state to talk about legislation under consideration.
We've got a review of the process over at the Healthy Democracy Oregon blog. Those of you interested in alternatives to constructing policy decisions should check it out.
Posted by: Tyrone Reitman | Aug 23, 2007 1:25:12 PM
Okay, make that link to the blog here.
Posted by: Tyrone Reitman | Aug 23, 2007 1:26:21 PM
Okay, make that link to the blog here.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 23, 2007 1:35:54 PM
JamesX: And I support a tobacco tax merely on the fact that it will reduce smoking rates. The people who can't afford it will quit, still more will reduce their habit.
Claims are easy to make. Now back it up. I've cited studies in other M50 threads here which very clearly show that in fact those who can't afford it are less likely to quit than those who can afford it.
I know that you at least had the opportunity to read those studies because you commented in those threads. So I don't know if you just didn't see it or if you are just glibly making assertions for the good of the cause. Either way, I'd like to see you back up your claim.
Posted by: Matthew | Aug 23, 2007 1:59:15 PM
Has anyone else noticed the fact that the Yes on 50 and the No on 49 people are using the same "wolf in sheeps clothing" metaphor to make their arguments? Is this just coincidence on someone's part? Or is it a purposeful confusion of the issues?
Posted by: James X. | Aug 23, 2007 2:08:53 PM
Kevin, here. From CDC data:
"If lower-income smokers account for 60 percent of a state’s cigarette tax revenues with 40 percent from higher income smokers, a tax increase that raises the price of a pack by 25 percent will reduce the number of packs smoked by lower-income persons by about 7.25 percent and reduce the number of packs smoked by higher-income smokers by 4.25 percent."
But common sense could have told you this. People don't turn to crime to fund their smoking habit. If they can't afford it, they can't afford it.
Posted by: Fair and Balanced | Aug 23, 2007 2:20:12 PM
I hate that M50 will place specified tax rates in the Oregon Constitution, where they don't belong. But even more, I hate that Republicans blocked not only the bill that would have imposed the tax, but even a statutory referral of the tax to the people.
I'll still probably vote for M50, if only to establish the principle that all children should have both health insurance and good health care. Maybe in a few years, after we have seen what effect M50 has had on smoking and children's access to health care, we can repeal the constitutional provision and replace it with an improved statute.
There will be no escaping the dynamic in November that the progressive side will be pro-M50 and the bad guys against. It's too bad, but there it is. Sometimes you have to hold your nose and vote for a measure with obvious flaws.
Posted by: James X. | Aug 23, 2007 2:21:52 PM
Also, Kevin, the study you cited showed that over a 20-year period, smoking among wealthier people decreased more than smoking among poorer people. That has nothing to do with cigarette taxes. It does show, though, that cigarettes disproportionately kill poor people.
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 23, 2007 2:31:01 PM
"So what makes a tobacco tax progressive again?"
Who said it was progressive? It's neither progressive nor regressive; it's a USER FEE. You smoke? Then you pay for the costs you burden the rest of us with. Who better than those who create the costs of choice behavior, to pay those costs?
And if you're worried about addicted smokers, isn't it great that 1 out of every $10 collected goes to help those smokers quit?
Also, Miles--it's not clear to me what SCHIP has to do with Healthy Kids. I don't understand what authority the federal government would have over state statutes spending state money.
Posted by: Miles | Aug 23, 2007 4:46:57 PM
I'm pretty sure Healthy Kids counts on the federal match from SCHIP to fund the expansion that allows us to cover those kids. The cigarette tax revenue is being put up as the state share. In order to get the federal matching funds, we have to amend Oregon's SCHIP plan to cover kids up to 300% of poverty, which has to be approved by the feds. Until last Friday, those plan amendments were pretty routine. Now, the Bush Administration says they won't give them.
If I'm right about the mechanics, this is a very big deal. I think we get about $3 in federal funds for every $1 in state funds we put up in SCHIP, so it will be difficult to fund the expansion using only state money (at least the part that goes above 250% of fpl). Hopefully, Congress overturns the rules this month when they reauthorize SCHIP, but if they don't, it's not clear to me what happens to the Healthy Kids proposal.
Maybe someone who works on health policy in Oregon can confirm what I'm saying?
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 23, 2007 4:52:57 PM
"I'm pretty sure Healthy Kids counts on the federal match from SCHIP to fund the expansion that allows us to cover those kids."
Thanks for the explanation, Miles. I missed that connection as I read over the bill.
Posted by: trishka | Aug 23, 2007 4:58:30 PM
But can't we at least admit that it's not the best way to fund kids healthcare, in fact it's not even the 2nd or 3rd best, and it's certainly not progressive? It just happens to be a politically viable way to do something good for kids.
i would agree with this statement. it's fine with me to admit this.
Posted by: Ernie | Aug 23, 2007 5:06:20 PM
It's a bit ironic that some of the same people in this thread who opposed 2006's Measure 46 (campaign finance reform) in large part because it amended the state constitution have no problem with Measure 50. I have lots of anti-46 literature making that argument.
Posted by: Jack | Aug 23, 2007 5:53:14 PM
I'd vote against M50 simply because it's a constitutional amendment. Something like this does not belong in the constitution, period.
Moreover, I really find the apologies for this flawed measure to be deeply hypocritical. I've asked this before but got no answer, so here goes again. How is it "progressive" to saddle the working class with yet another punitive puritanical sin tax? And how many of the self-styled progressives here on BlueOregon smoke cigarettes? .......crickets.......
So in other words, you're putting someone else's money where your mouth is. You all feel very strongly about health care for kids, just not strongly enough to actually spend any of your own money. That is a shamelessly hypocritical position, especially when it will be primarily low-income Oregonians footing your bill.
And since no one ever answered this question either, I'll ask it again: How is this flawed constitutional amendment going to avoid the fate of Washington's recent failed attempt to reform children's health care? More than HALF of the spending under that brainfart bill will be used to cover illegal aliens and other non-citizens. So low-income citizens will get saddled with an additional tax so that the children of illegal aliens can get even more "free" publicly funded services. And the BlueBloodedOregon progressives here won't have to pay a dime. That's not only hypocritical, it's just plain wrong.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 23, 2007 7:10:53 PM
James X: Also, Kevin, the study you cited showed that over a 20-year period, smoking among wealthier people decreased more than smoking among poorer people. That has nothing to do with cigarette taxes.
The facts simply don't support your assertion, James.
Just to cite one example... M44, enacted in 1996, took Oregon up to having the 3rd highest cig taxes in the nation and it dedicated 10% to tobacco use reduction efforts - clearly an effort to link cig taxes with smoking cessation efforts. The fact that a mere 10 years later we are discussing a humongous cig tax increase which would merely put us on par with our neighbors in Washington state demonstrates that Oregon was far from the only state to enact significant cig tax increases during the study's 20-year period. Yet when we look at the 1983 - 2003 stats we see that despite a very high cig tax that the cessation gap between rich and poor increased.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 23, 2007 7:13:58 PM
So in other words, you're putting someone else's money where your mouth is. You all feel very strongly about health care for kids, just not strongly enough to actually spend any of your own money.
:::Ding, Ding, Ding:::
We have a winner.
Posted by: ellie | Aug 23, 2007 9:51:31 PM
How is it "progressive" to saddle the working class with yet another punitive puritanical sin tax? And how many of the self-styled progressives here on BlueOregon smoke cigarettes? .......crickets.......
I have no interest in getting into a philosophical debate over what is or is not "progressive." But I really don't think that smoking is limited to the middle class. To answer your second question, I smoke a cigarette or two a day sometimes (more when I'm out drinking with smokers). I would be all for a tax increase to pay for kids' health care -- I'm just not fond of putting it in our Constitution.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Aug 23, 2007 9:55:39 PM
I would like to raise taxes on myself and others to pay for a number of things, including providing effective healthcare for children, including children of people who immigrated illegally, whether or not the children are U.S. citizens, as many are.
However, I oppose Measure 50 because it is regressive. It is a class bill, one that demands working class people pay an unfair share of a burden that should be borne by everyone, and borne most by those best able to afford to pay -- like the costs of compulsory universal education and fire services.
It also violates the basic ethical principle that persons should be treated as ends in themselves and not simply as means to other ends.
The "user fee" argument is unpersuasive. Disproportionate smoking by working class people derives from economic inequality in the U.S. Use of tobacco/nicotine is a coping mechanism for stresses related to poor working conditions, time pressures and money anxieties, a response to status elements of cigarette advertising, and a means of forming relationships/socializing on the job.
In other words, the distribution of the bad health consequences is part and parcel of the distribution of other bad health consequences to working class people: a form of real class warfare.
All of these pressures of course are reinforced and made harder to escape by the addiction factor. Our society disproportionately exposes working class people to the risks of this addiction. To further penalize those who fall fall foul of those risks is just wrong.
I would support a cigarette tax increase, even in the constitution, if the entirety of the tax were dedicated to smoking cessation and prevention, i.e. to the benefit of smokers and current non-smokers, especially youth, at risk of being induced into the addiction.
But using people's addictions to generate money to pay for something we all should pay for is wrong. I would oppose it even if it weren't in the constitution.
Worse, it also is a cop-out of our responsibilities as progressives to persuade more of the public to look at such issues from the point of view of mutual support and solidarity -- in this case, to see provision of access to effective healthcare in a similar way to how we see requirement and provision of universal basic schooling or of fire prevention and firefighting services.
(P.S. Further against the "user fee" argument: smokers already pay such a fee to the health system in the form of higher insurance premiums. Those who can't afford insurance already pay a tax in kind in the form of later, less effective or absent treatment resulting in shorter lives and reduced quality of life due to non-fatal illness or injury. Their deferred and poorer quality treatment does impose large costs on the health system as a whole, but that is the fault of a system that rations access to healthcare by income. Those penalized by a system that denies, defers and raises the costs of their care should not have to pay an additional "user fee" for being so penalized. [MANY more people wait longer for treatment in the U.S. than in Canada, or are denied it altogether, btw].
I hope it is clear that I am arguing this from a leftwing social democratic perspective, and that I don't regard supporters of M50 as hypocrites seeking to avoid personal payment and to impose it on others -- I just think it is ethically wrong and amounts to not challenging ourselves to do the political work needed to move the whole healthcare issue forward.)
Posted by: Mikey | Aug 23, 2007 10:06:27 PM
I have to agree with the vote NO due to the "this doesn't belong in the constitution" argument even though I support raising tobacco taxes generally. However, I am also greatly concerned that most of the money raised by taxing mostly low-income smokers will just go to fatten the wallets of the HMO/Managed care company executives who are bankrolling the campaign. Trust me, I have no love for the slimeball tobacco pushers opposing the measure but unfortunately this is a seriously flawed proposal.
Posted by: befactual | Aug 23, 2007 11:04:19 PM
Also, Kevin, the study you cited showed that over a 20-year period, smoking among wealthier people decreased more than smoking among poorer people. That has nothing to do with cigarette taxes. It does show, though, that cigarettes disproportionately kill poor people.
No James, it only shows that a tobacco tax levied today will fall more heavily on lower income people than the same tax levied in the past. And that you chose to punitively and paternalistically towards the very people who you purport to be most concerned about.
So in other words, you're putting someone else's money where your mouth is. You all feel very strongly about health care for kids, just not strongly enough to actually spend any of your own money.
I would be all for a tax increase to pay for kids' health care -- I'm just not fond of putting it in our Constitution.
My sentiments exactly. Hats off to the people with heart and brains who see through the bullying of a very prominent segment of the pro-M50 side.
If I'm right about the mechanics, this is a very big deal. I think we get about $3 in federal funds for every $1 in state funds we put up in SCHIP, so it will be difficult to fund the expansion using only state money (at least the part that goes above 250% of fpl). Hopefully, Congress overturns the rules this month when they reauthorize SCHIP, but if they don't, it's not clear to me what happens to the Healthy Kids proposal.
You are correct Miles, I'm looking at the Center for Medicaid and State Operations right now. If Congress doesn't change SCHIP, Oregon will not get the matching funds to cover children in families with effective income levels between 250% and 300% of the Federal poverty level. And don't hold your breath that a Democratic Congress will make reverse these adminstration rules. Quoting from the letter:
Existing regulations at 42 C.F.R. 457.805 provides that States must have "reasonable procedures" to prevent substitution of SCHIP coverage for private coverage.
This is in large part an insurance industry protection measure. As you'll remember from Sicko, the biggest obstacle to comprehensive health care reform in D.C. are Democrats beholden to the insurance industry. (Even if renegade Dems manage to shame a slim majority the rest into overturning these enforcement rules, our nutjob-in-chief has already provided cover for Democrats beholden to the same corporate interest he represents by saying he would veto the bill.)
And don't kid yourselves that things are any different right here in Oregon: A large proportion of the legislature who gave us M50 also supported SB329, which proponents explicitly sold as reforming our health care system through market competition and requiring people who don't have health care coverage to buy private health insurance. M50+SB329 are as much about going along with the desires of the private health insurance industry, big pharma, and corporate medicine as anything else (looked at the list of organizations supporting them that they have in coming). And most of the M50 movers and shakers are happy to make that political deal with the industry and the legislators the industry influences if they get what they want.
M50 proponents accuse anyone opposing them, no matter their motives, of doing the dirty work of the tobacco industry. An argument could be made that M50 proponents are actually doing the work of the private health insurance industry by playing on the superiority complex of some to scapegoat an unpopular group like tobacco users (that just happen to skew lower income), and unfairly force them to cover just enough of our health care costs so that the public won't rise up and demand a enlightened, universal health care coverage system that properly and equitably apportions the financial burden on us all.
There will be no escaping the dynamic in November that the progressive side will be pro-M50 and the bad guys against.
Actually, if progressives of good will just think about all of what is really going on and reject M50, we can join together in the special session next year to put irresistable pressure on our legislators to enact responsible, truly progressive, health care reform.
Post a comment
Posted by: befactual | Aug 22, 2007 8:47:50 PM
I trust you will hold M50 proponents accountable when and if they misrepresent the case.
You can start with the BIG LIE of repeatedly calling M50 Healthy Kids right in this ad when factually it isn't AND only 45% of the revenues go to health care coverage.
Then there is their dishonest tactic of sliming opponents who find the whole idea of tying health care coverage for children to tobacco as outrageous, but easily explained as the most cynical of politics and a marketing tactic to deliver 55% of the revenues to the anti-tobacco lobby that makes their living looking down their nose, coldly and civilly of course, at others, as choosing to use bitter, divisive language a la Karl Rove. Philip Morris thanks you for doing their leg work.
Finally, there is the matter of supporting a taxing scheme which explicitly stands for the proposition of not sharing the burden for providing health care coverage on everyone BUT instead regressively shifting the cost of providing that coverage for children and low income adults down the income scale. Groups with whom the most salivating, socially-privilege proponents have virtually no identification.
And oh yeah, they are going for constitutional amendment, rather than have stood up against the bogus argument about a statutory measure because they would then have constitutionally guaranteed funding that will be all but impossible to overturn. Voters will rue the day if they give people like this constitutionally guaranteed funding.
It's not much of a stretch to argue that the two self-serving sides - the pro M50 anti-tobacco industry and the tobacco industry - are of the same dishonest and hypocritical piece in this one. One can't help but be struck by that and how in his Inferno Dante placed hypocrits in the 8th, and next to the lowest, ring of Hell.