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.

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?

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.

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.

So that we all know what we're actually talking about, Here is Measure 50, which implements SB 3, seen here.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Okay, make that link to the blog here.

Okay, make that link to the blog here.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't know; what does that have to do with M50, which is neither a sin tax nor punitive? Maybe that's why no one answered, because it's a false frame.

I'd imagine no one's answered because everyone is scratching their head whether your really as much of a moron as your comment makes you out to be. "Sin Tax" has a dictionary definition that leaves no question this is a sin tax:

sin tax –noun Informal. a tax levied on cigarettes, liquor, gambling, or other things considered neither luxuries nor necessities.

And "punitive" has a dictionary definition that quite precisely describes the attitude of M50 proponents, at least those who have a normal IQ and coversational command of standard English, about this tax:

pu·ni·tive –adjective serving for, concerned with, or inflicting punishment: punitive laws; punitive action.

pun·ish v. pun·ished, pun·ish·ing, pun·ish·es

v. tr. To subject to a penalty for an offense, sin, or fault.

You can live in a nut world where you make up the meaning of words and delude yourself with rationalizations all you want. Our headcase-in-chief who does exactly the same thing will keep you company.

Kari, the people saying this is "regressive" or that it "hurts the working class" do not care about the working class or the poor. They don't like taxes. Period. If they were straight about it they'd make more sense.

And Kevin, you keep making magical data up. Here:

"Two years after the tax hike, per capita cigarette consumption in Oregon had decreased 11.3 percent. ... The rate of decline in Oregon was almost 50 percent steeper than the national average."

You should really just stop making things up when everybody here has access to Google.

Also, to those who call me not a true progressive: You are the ones who would rather poison a poor person than tax that poison out of their reach. True progessives realize that there are greater evils in this world than taxes.

James X - You are paternalistic and disrespectful of the dignity of others. You are willfully oblivous to the fact that people committed to reforming our health care system to bring about universal access for all oppose M50 for sound reasons that have nothing to do with your "anti-tax" framing. You are intellectual dishonest in that you misrepresent the arguments of people like Kevin.

You are the poster child for a really ugly streak in a component of the pro-M50 movement that has a lot more to do with the politics of health care, and preserving our broken system for the benefit of a group of interests that have a myriad of self-serving interests ahead of actually delivering health care, and, therefore, who collectively really are as ugly as the tobacco industry.

What makes it so bad is that those selfish interests are preying on the genuinely compassionate impulses of those who just are incapable or uninterested in really understanding the whole picture, and using people with attitude problems like you as their unwitting tools.

If that isn't reason enough to vote against M50, the fact that they have become so arrogant as to demand that we aid them by enshrining their cynicism and power in our state constitution should be.

am i the only one who really hates how this has devolved into a "more progressive than thou" debate?

it all smacks of fundamentalism to me, and that's something that doesn't interest me, either from the right or the left.

i don't believe that this tax is truly "progressive", either as a tax, or ideologically speaking. but a truly progressive means of revenue for providing insurance for kids is not politically viable. there's what we should do, and there's what we can do, and i've let go of the ideological purity that requires me to forego the latter in a failed attempt at accomplishing the former.

politics is about compromise. this is a flawed bill, no doubt. but i think it's as good a compromise as we're going to see, in terms of treating a serious problem in our society - which is kids with no health insurance.

and as for me, i don't distinguish between the children of citizens and the children of undocumented workers. a sick kid is a sick kid, and we're all better off financially if we get these kids out of the ER's, where they're currently being treated, and into a clinic or a doctor's office.

politics is about compromise. this is a flawed bill, no doubt. but i think it's as good a compromise as we're going to see, in terms of treating a serious problem in our society - which is kids with no health insurance. and as for me, i don't distinguish between the children of citizens and the children of undocumented workers. a sick kid is a sick kid, and we're all better off financially if we get these kids out of the ER's, where they're currently being treated, and into a clinic or a doctor's office.

trishka, I agree with you about compromise - and the problem is that this measure i not compromise it is an agreement to maintain the current broken system by pitting people who are suffering because of that system against each other.

I also wholeheartedly agree with your view that a sick kid is a sick kid (and a sick adult is a sick adult) and we should work towards throwing out this broken health care system and replacing it with one that has is predicated precisely on that compassionate view. I think you should read SB3, which is what M50 is supposed to fund, before saying you support M50 as the best "compromise" we can get that just sees a sick kid as a sick kid:

SECTION 2. (2)(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5) of this section, the department shall adopt verification requirements to ensure that recipients of the Oregon Healthy Kids Program are legal residents.

The "Oregon Healthy Kids Program" includes all of the funds to which proceeds of M50 will be disbursed to support health care services.

i guess i misunderstood jack's post above complaining about money being spent on children of undocumented workers - i didn't realise he was complaining about a washington law, not M50.

Will someone please tell me why smokers alone should pay for incurring a public health cost, and/or what other sins of the flesh incur costs to taxpayers? Drinking, drugging, overeating? Where on earth did eveyone get the idea that smokers alone are the root of all evil?

Does anyone believe for a moment that if everyone stopped abusing their bodies tomorrow that the insurance companies or health care corporations would pass along a share of supposedly increased profits (yes they are in it for the money!)...in the form of reduced premiums or health care fee reductions? Dream on.

I have been self-employed most of my adult life, and health insurance finally got to a point where I simply cannot afford the premiums. I'd be cancelled or priced out of one policy....and arrive at the next application with pre-existing conditions. I've been flying without a net for 4 years now, and it's scary. If I get sick, I pay as I go, (which so far has proved to be cheaper) or go without medical care. Still, I pay taxes that ensure families with no clue about birth control, and no jobs, can receive free health care.

I am resigned to the fact that if I become really ill, or develop a condition that requires constant and expensive meds....I will simply get sicker, and die. No one will pay for free health care for me. There are millions like me across the country. So how do smokers (I'm assuming you mean uninsured smokers) or any other addicts drain the public coffers? If they are uninsured, they go without health care. They have nowhere to go.

I'll say it again....there are many forms of offenses against public health. If you are going to tax one....tax them all. And if you're going to tax cigarettes, those taxes should go to cover the cost of smokers' sicknesses that you say are draining the public funds. If you apply those funds to Healthy Kids, who's going to pay for those hordes of lousy smokers that everyone SAYS are filling up hospitals and not paying their way? How about using all that money to provide medical assistance and programs for uninsured smokers to quit smoking?

And as much as I love children, logically, I do not place the value of their health above any other human being's. It's counterproductive that people are rewarded with public funds for having children they cannot afford. In fact, if you really want to count beans, as so many of you here seem to, doesn't it make more fiscal sense to also provide health care to working adults who are productive taxpayers? I'm playing the devil's advocate....it seems if the taxpayers are so concerned about health care for children...they should ALL be willing to pick up thier portion of the tab, not just slap it on the minority who smoke, and on no other offenders, while offering them nothing at all in the way of real help with their addiction. It's one more form of taxation without representation.

If you don't like the tax, quit buying cigarettes. Don't be a sucker for the tobacco industry.

Kari, that's one of the most absurd, oversimplistic things you have ever written. Either you're dissembling or you're willfully ignorant about drug addiction. Generally, conservatives believe drug addicts should be punished and liberals believe that drug addicts should be helped. Which ideology most accurately captures your view?

James X quotes from a study: "Two years after the tax hike, per capita cigarette consumption in Oregon had decreased 11.3 percent.

Exactly. The people I care about are the remaining 88.7%, who are unable to quit their addictions and for whom we've just made life more difficult. Torrid is at least honest in expressing the very conservative view that citizens should pay back the government for the costs they impost on society. (I'm certain he will soon apply that to welfare mothers and food stamp recipients.) How can you continue to argue this is "good" for poor smokers when the vast majority of them will still have to pay the tax?

When the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids ranks us 33rd in spending on smoking cessation programs, and says Oregon only spends 16% of the recommended CDC minimum on these programs, how can anyone argue that these drug addicts have access to the services they need to avoid this tax? How can anyone argue that the small amount of this tax that will go towards smoking cessation is even close to sufficient?

<q>If they are uninsured, they go without health care. They have nowhere to go.</q>

actually, that's not true. they do have someplace to go. they go to the emergency room, where by law they have to be treated.

it's an extremely inefficient way for us to provide healthcare for uninsured people, but it's the way it's done. it's a lie that we don't have universal healthcare in our country, we do. it's just a ridiculously inefficient system, the way we do it.

TANF and food stamps are entitlements offered based on income. You "impose" those costs on the rest of us simply by being poor and seeking help. Cigarettes are a choice behavior, with costs that incur as a direct result of that behavior. There's no connection.

So you don't think people's choices are what leads them to a lifetime of TANF and food stamps? What is it, then, genetics? People often end up on government programs because of choices they make in their teens. People often end up as tobacco addicts because of choices they make in their teens. I'm willing to forgive them for those choices and use government to help them. You seem to think it's fine to help the non-smokers, but for some reason you hate smokers so much you're willing to impose additional taxes on them.

There is a connection, you're just making a value judgement about smokers. . .one that is very similar to the judgements conservatives make about welfare moms having too many kids. What, didn't they have a choice?

You're right, miles. We should help the poor by making it cheaper and easier for them to poison themselves.

Also, "sin tax" is a frame, and it's one that does not apply here. I have no interest in the morality of smokers. The immorality here is that of an industry that exists for no benifit to the consumer, simply to kill them. Taxing cigarettes is letting the tobacco industry off easy. I personally think the tobacco industry should be treated like any other, where their products would be subject to consumer safety laws and class-action suits with no special treatment.

Hmmm...should I stick it to big tobacco and their customers or big government and it's insatiable appetite for taxation? Much as I oppose tobacco usage and the knuckleheads who still choose to engage in it, I gotta go with the latter. Thumbs down on 50.

...said the guy not talking about tobacco taxes anymore.

Also, "sin tax" is a frame, and it's one that does not apply here.

Knock off the high school communications BS. "Sin Tax" is a phrase that has a precise meaning (it has been quoted from an online dictionary) and it is a dishonest political tactic, typical of M50 proponents, to try to win by controlling the terms of discussion. We suffer from 8 years of right wing dirtbags doing that, and now morons on our side who lack the intellectual capacity and ability to do anything but be a dump chimp trying to do the same thing.

I have no interest in the morality of smokers. (James X)

You are the ones who would rather poison a poor person than tax that poison out of their reach (James X)

Finally, you continue to ignore the fact that on balance, HKs actually HELPS smokers. It offers greater incentive to quit--an incentive that has been shown in the past to be effective. (torridjoe)

You're a liar or stupid James X and torridjoe. You have plenty of disregard for the morality of smokers, who you obviously feel are of less character than you and that you need to paternalistically and arrogantly control. And torridjoe you have no moral authority or right to be "offering" a punitive "incentive" --- which is exactly what you are saying here after you tried to deny the plain meaning of the term earlier --- to anyone. An "offer" is something someone has the free will to refuse, that's why it is called an "offer". The "incentive" you would condescendingly force on people here is not refusable.

As for fatty foods and alcohol--in the first place, both have positive health effects if used in certain ways. Cigarettes have none. Used as intended, they kill you. Secondly, fat is a component and not a product by itself.

Although I do not advocate smoking at all, the scientific fact is that your wrong about smoking. Leaving aside the mood stabilizing effects, which are pharmacologicallly and psychologically beneficial beyond question, smoking is positively correlated with a significantly reduced incidence of Alzheimer's disease. And there is science why this is biologically true, traceable to nicotinic recepters in the brain and the observed release of certain neurotransmitters that have been demonstrated to have neuro-protective properties. (Which is why the mood-stabilizing effects are also biologically real.) And these beneficial effects are most pronounced when tobacco is smoked because that is a more efficient delivery system for nicotine than other methods of ingestion. It's the dirty little secret about tobacco use that no one wants to admit because it undermines the punitive trend people up the income scale have increasingly taken toward people down the income scale as prevalence of tobacco use has shifted down the income scale ---- For example, M50 and the entire national HK strategy which has been deployed to all the states.

So any argument based on the health benefits and cost savings of paternalistically "offering" people "incentives" to quit really ought to include the large costs for treating other disease conditions which will be unmasked and increased. Alzheimer's is a very expensive disease to treat on a per-case basis because patients can live for decades and require intensive personal care.

The false framing is that of the M50 proponents who are out to protect certain economic and political interests, and enforce their social status.

befactual, I'm thrilled that you're now arguing about the positive health benefits of smoking. Truly. I wish I could front-page your arguments. Also I would include a link like this. Or this. Or this. Or this. I'd love to know who told you otherwise, though.

Oh wait, one more. Gotta love Google.

I of course meant Parkinson's not Alzheimer's --- too much multi-tasking on health care issues. The evidence is mixed on Alzheimer's.

Of course, I was not arguing for smoking, as I said

Although I do not advocate smoking at all

Just noting the science. James X never can quite seem to understand plain English and what is being said. Indeed, if s/he had read the very first article s/he would have found this:

Indeed, they believe smoking may offer protection against the disease for people with the gene - APOE epsilon 4.

"It seems that if you have the gene, you're better off if you smoke," said Dr Monique Breteler, one of the senior researchers.

In fact, all of the article's cited reference one study which found increased risk, and work is ongoing to actually replicate that result.

Since James X likes Google so much, here's a few that demonstrate the point about smoking and PARKINSON's:

Research Review Confirms Parkinson's Protection from Smoking http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2007/research-review-confirms.html

Genetic Perversity: Smoking & Gene Avert Parkinson's http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/39034.php

Smoking, Caffeine May Protect Against Parkinson's Disease http://www.webmd.com/parkinsons-disease/news/20070409/study-less-parkinsons-in-smokers

As already noted, the long-term care costs of taking care of someone with PARKINSON's are significant as the disease takes it's course.

Oh, OK! Well, clearly those studies are "factual" and will not be refuted so we shouldn't tax cigarettes because they're actually healthy for some people.

Smoking may or may not prevent Parkinson's, so it's OK!
"Long-term care costs of taking car of someone with PARKINSON'S are significant as the disease takes its course." -- as opposed to lung cancer, heart disease, etc. caused by smoking, right?

Good goatherders -- I know I've had a glass of wine and want a cigarette, but I'm not that much of a fool! Smoking is bad for you, period. Period! Do I really need anything more than listening to regular smokers hacking up a lung to tell me otherwise?!?

"befactual" -- I really hope they're paying you enough money to spout that bs. In the meantime, I'm really going to have to reconsider my dirty little secret of a habit if it's going to fund all that so-called research. I mean, I'm all for having vices, but enough is enough.

ellie once again demonstrates the tactic the pro-M50 side always falls back on when they don't have an informed, principled response when the essential fraud of this constitutional amendment is exposed: Flail angrily and accuse those who really care about fixing our broken health care system as being in the service of the tobacco industry/anti-tax interests. To wit, I really hope they're paying you enough money to spout that bs.

I have never opposed taxes on tobacco here or advocated smoking. In this last little exchange I have just pointed out that torridjoe is wrong when, using a common rhetorical tactic of M50 proponents of trying to score points to justify their paternalistic and punitive attitude, and to induce people to vote for their constitutional amendment imposing a sin tax, he makes the emotional, absolutist claim that Cigarettes have none (positive health affects).

M50 is bad public policy, it does not deliver the level or kind of positive health care benefits we need now, and it is counter to virtually every principle we need to be embracing to fix our broken health care system.

Befactual: Could you quit making stuff up or get a more appropriate alias? The "pro-M50" crowd does not "always fall back on" any argument. Measure 50 hasn't even existed till a couple weeks ago.

Also, please stop referring to yourself as a progressive. It hurts too much. The laughter.

And finally, and this time I'm being sincere, honestly. I think you may genuinely believe that, like the abolitionists you cited earlier, or like some sort of Catholic organization from a previous century, we believe that people who smoke are immoral, and that they must therefore be punished for their immorality. I think that's why you refer to this as a sin tax. (Yes, "sin tax" has a definition, but so does "death tax." Yet the existence of that definition does not mean that proponents of an estate tax want to punish death. They're taxing multi-million dollar transfers of money -- a normal thing to tax -- because that is one of the key mechanisms for preventing a de facto oligharchy of five families from controlling all a nation's assets. Slight difference from punishing people for dying.) Anyway, this idea that cigarette tax advocates think smokers are immoral is a failure to understand the motivations of your opponents, and will lead to further errors. As has been stated previously, proponents of a tobacco tax tend to be proponents because, a) tobacco directly kills people like no other product on the market, and b) one of the most effective ways to stop the killing is to raise tobacco taxes, which not only leads people to quit, but saves a new generation from ever starting. I have not heard any proponent argue, though, that supporting Measure 50 will stick it to those evil smokers. Evil tobacco corporations, maybe. But I genuinely detect no hatred of smokers.

Why can't we tax McDonalds, Burger King and Sony for the Healthy Kids measure? That's what's making kids unhealthy these days; sitting on thier rumps drinking and eating trash, playing video games all day long. I for one would gladly pay more tax for the Healthy Kids if they (elected gov) promised none of the money went to illegal immigrants or thier offspring.

Befactual, also, I think Ellie genuinely suspected you to be a lobbyist, and I can understand why, because I was thinking it for a while, too. I ruled it out, though, because I've never met a lobbyist with quite your tone. The reason I started suspecting it is because you and others (particularly Kevin) seem to have an almost polycephalus multitude of complaints against this measure, to the extent that none of them really seem like they could be the genuine driving motivation for your opposition. Certainly not all of them could. Ellie rationalized that you were probably therefore a lobbyist, while I wagered you were probably guided by the much more common situation of ideological opposition of taxation. Obviously, you could not present this ideological argument directly while still claiming to be a "fellow progressive," so it made sense to me. You in turn accused me of the logical fallacy known as straw man, but in reality, I was simply trying to solve a puzzle. A puzzle that is defined as this other fallacy:

A doublespeak argument is the name given to an argument, or debate, where one or more sides seems to be using reasonings that are not the real reasonings for that side. This is usually alleged to have been done because the real reasonings may be offensive or counterproductive in some way, and that side feels that its other reasonings will be strong enough to win the debate. Such an argument is fallacious because the reasons given, though valid and relevant, are false, and therefore if the argument were rendered null by a concession from the opposing side, the opposition would still exist.

James X, frankly the pro-M50 side has reached about as low as it can get in this entire argument. Virtually every deceitful motive trotted out in these debates has been imputed to thoughtful M50 proponents. The arguments made by those several people here vex pro-M50 people here, however, precisely because they are principled, moral arguments about placing universal access to affordable health care first.

In fact, the problem for the pro M50 side is that M50 is a malignant, counterproductive to real health care reform, piqued over-reach of power by too many piling their self-serving agendas onto what they believe could be argued to voters through dishonest public relations --- doublespeak if you will --- as opposable only by those in service of the tobacco industry or anti-tax nuts.

The people I know who oppose M50 do not advocate tobacco use, support progressive taxation because it equitably shares the burdens of running our society, and are committed to fixing our broken profit-driven health care system. They understand we have a short-term and long-term problem of access to affordable health care we have to address starting now, and many are working on solutions for addressing both in a positive, practical way. It is the organized interests behind M50 who are cynically saying "Thank You for Smoking" in so many ways. Including enlisting misguided grassroots support, some by people with good intentions but who can't quite see the many layered picture of what has gone terribly wrong here, and some who may actually disagree with M50 but simply see this as a chance to gain whatever benefit they can for their own goals.

So I'll repeat what I think in sum are the principled arguments made by several against M50 in this thread:

It is wrong to tie and condition health care coverage for anyone directly to tobacco use by others. It is wrong to pursue a cynical strategy of playing on the paternalistic and judgmental shortcomings of too many, to shift the burden for financing health care coverage disproportionately onto a percentage of the population, statistically speaking, who are not them, who are down the income scale, and who they can single out and force to pay more. It is wrong, and counterproductive to real progress on health care, to justify and excuse this cynical political strategy and abject failure by the majority in the legislature to lead on health care reform this year.

Finally, it is wrong to enshrine the bad public policy represented by M50 in our constitution, rather than demand when our legislature meets again in just a few months that they do the real work of taking on all of the cynical interests who contribute to giving us and sustaining this broken system, and who conspired to give us M50 instead of addressing the immediate health care access problem we face in a positive, principled way. That starts with getting the SCHIP matching Federal money we need by funding SB3 out of the general fund and putting together a balanced tax package that places the burden of funding it on us all, and by legislating health care solutions that kick the profit-motive out of the system. Our supposedly progressive majority leadership and their enablers did exactly the opposite on both scores this last session. In a very real sense, this bad constitutional amendment and the attacks on principled opponents is a belligerent defense for that failure, rather than the commitment to fix that failure that we need.

I have no fear of posting my name here. This is a bad measure; financing health care (a laudable goal) on a cigarette tax is a zero sum game. Financing ANY cost that is rising at 2-3 times the rate of inflation on a declining revenue base is a fools errand.

Cramming a specific tax issue into the State Constitution is as bad an idea as defining who can, and can not, get married. I voted against that measure a few years ago. I will vote against this measure This is not 'progressive'. It has nothing to do w/'Big Tobacco'. The measure is ill conceived, regressive and amoral.

Kurt Chapman,

I am glad you champion progressive taxation, but if you have followed the difficulty of funding social services in this state, you should realize that ideal solutions are few and far between.

If you get a measure on the ballot adding higher income/corporate tax brackets for rich individuals and wealthy corporations, I'll help campaign.

Sorry Tom, personally I think that the state first needs to scale back the spectacular boondoggles and earmarks like the Sky Tram to OHSU and Dornbecker (sp?).

As to increasing corporate taxes and/or income tax, again the better and more stable approach is a meaningful sales tax coupled with a permanent reduction in the state personal income tax.

Kurt,

That sets off my bullshit detector. You complain that cigarette tax is regressive, but you support replacing income tax revenue with sales tax. That would be clearly regressive, in a magnitude exponentially greater than any change in tobacco tax! Check out the statistics. Even though Oregon's tax system could be more progressive, it is more progressive than states with sales tax and without income tax. Though it is possible to reduce the regressiveness of sales tax, in practice, it is never as progressive as income tax.

Sorry Tom, better get that meter re-calibrated :-). A sales tax exempting medicine and basic food items isn't regressive at all, especially if couples with a credit against whatever remains of the personal income tax. We will have to disagree on which is a better vehicle for collecting revenue I guess. It would, however be a far more stable income and revenue collection method.

State tax system hurts poor, data find

Sales and excise taxes are very regressive

Jeesh, I don't check back for a day or two and the thread balloons into War and Peace :)

Torridjoe and others, thanks for the response to my rather snarky questions. TJ, while I certainly don't disagree with your user fee argument, I'm really not seeing that argument made by any other supporters of M50. I'm hearing a lot of this: "If you don't vote for M50, you are a Social Darwinist who wants to see poor kids die, plus you want to suck off Big Tobacco." That gets me defensive, particularly given the glaring flaws of this measure.

I think you're walking a fine line between "user fee" vs. "sin tax." Can you honestly say---without dissimulating like you did on fatty foods (Big Macs and Cheez Whiz have "positive health effects"?)---that puritanism plays no role in the support for M50? Puuleeez. You're smarter than that. I'm smarter than that. Let's at least respect each other enough not to have that argument.

Overall folks, this has been an interesting discussion. Thanks all. One of the keener insights was that this bill will deflect momentum away from instituting real reforms that will help all of us, including older self-employed citizens like MCT (his post is worth rereading). As much as I dislike the Sicko Left's "solutions" to the "health care crisis," I don't think the ideological Right is any better with their head-in-the-sand approach.

Kurt, since cigarette taxes always both reduce cigarette sales and increase revenue, it doesn't seem like this would actually price the revenue source into oblivion. For the record, though, I do support anything that sends the tobacco industry into the oblivion.

Befactual, when you say M50 is an "over-reach of power by too many piling their self-serving agendas," which of the programs that M50 funds seem self-serving to you?

Kari, you may wish to speak with Kathy Rosenburg:

I propose putting scales at grocery checkout stands. A shopper approaches with his/her cart, is weighed and height measured and calculations are displayed to the clerk whether this person is overweight and by what percentage. So, if Mrs. Jones is 40% overweight, she would be required to pay a 40% tax on all items deemed "junk food.....ice cream, candy, chips, etc." I know this sounds outrageous but it's worth putting some thought into.

There wasn't even a "No, it isn't" in reply.

Kari, you guys are the tax-and-spend experts. I'm sure you can find some clever ways to double or triple or quadruple tax Big Macs and Whoppers. As a vegetarian, I encourage you to do so. Just keep your filthy hands off my french fries and onion rings :)

Is this really your argument for why we should tax cigs but not hamburgers? Does this not just highlight your hypocrisy? Last I checked, your BMI wasn't looking too good (hey, I'm in no danger of starving either, thanks to my beer and deep fried food habits). Are you throwing stones in glass houses?

The single-minded obsession with taxing cigarettes strongly suggests that the "puritanical sin tax" model I put forward earlier is the best explanation for the support for this measure. Progressives have a long history of this kind of puritanical social engineering (prohibition being the most obvious example).

Aside from TJ's arguments, I see no evidence that would falsify this hypothesis. So far one person has piped up and said she smoked one or two cigarettes per day. All the other people who are oh-so-concerned about children's health are putting other peoples' money where their mouth is. Why isn't M50 a program to enable self-styled progressives to voluntarily pay for their own schemes? Anyone who votes for it gets an automatic raise in their tax rate. Sounds fair to me.

Jack, I'm not speaking for others here, but don't mix me in with your group of people who want to tax anyone but themselves to fund health programs. Or your group that believes smokers are impure and should therefore be punished with taxes. I just want people not to smoke. Someone accused me of paternalism for this, but unless you approve of the sale of arsenic-laced milk that kills half its consumers, or the abolition of the Consumer Safety Commission and the Food and Drug Administration, I don't see how anyone who cares about the welfare of their community would not be a paternalist by this definition.

Thanks for the respond Kari. Fast food flat tax. Game system surcharge. We use the mechanisim in place now. Please don't hate the sinners (smokers & drinkers), but I love my smoke and drink.
Don't hate the player, hate the game...

Seemingly motivated by spite against smokers, these taxes serve only to oppress a subset of people too small to defend themselves against any legislation proposed. The amount by which they seek to raise the cost of smoking is insane. You might as well ask for a billion dollars a pack.

The majority of smokers are from sub-median income backgrounds, but none of this effects you - so who cares, right? Besides, it's a chance to force your personal morality on others, and that feels good, doesn't it.

If smoking is such a burden on health care and society, how come smokers don't have access to the health care plan they are paying for. How come those tax dollars don't pay to help Oregon smokers quit? Because it's pork barrel politics. Enjoy your bacon. No one really gives a damn about smokers, or the health risk presented to them by smoking.

As a non-driver, here's to hoping they raise the cost of gasoline by $10 a gallon.

Dr. A. Avery, Nonsmoker

First of all, smokers are an easy target since they are the minority here. Taxing fast food would be far more equal since it’s a vise more people have. These days obesity causes far more health related issues thana smoking.

I read the measure and I was not able to find anything preventing illegal aliens to be provided services.

Any regualr ballot measure has to be passed by a 2 thirds vote. Aren’t they sneaky to add it to the state constitution, so it only needs a majority vote? That also means once they finally force people to quit smoking (heaven forbid the take our rights away in a less sneaky manner) and the funds are not coming in that way…they still have to provide the services. Guess who hass to pay for it then?

Smokers have been discriminated against enough already. Aren’t you glad the government is there to tell you what to do and where to do it? Free market? What’s that?

PS…There is absolutely no proof that second hand smoke poses any health risks at all. If we were smart enough to do the research ourselves, rather than to take the word of some polititan with their own agendas…

Oh, but wait a minute! I don’t smoke! Tax them all! Quaranteen them to a camp in eastern Oregon where we can keep watch and that nasty smoke can’t waft so far to the west…

Not to forget that the Oregon Health Plan pays providers about 10 cents on the dollar for all charges, and many physicians can't afford the courtesy of seing these children at all any more...

Sorry...was I ranting like Rick? :)

"Kurt,

Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Aug 25, 2007 12:51:51 PM

That sets off my bullshit detector. You complain that cigarette tax is regressive, but you support replacing income tax revenue with sales tax. That would be clearly regressive, in a magnitude exponentially greater than any change in tobacco tax! Check out the statistics. Even though Oregon's tax system could be more progressive, it is more progressive than states with sales tax and without income tax. Though it is possible to reduce the regressiveness of sales tax, in practice, it is never as progressive as income tax."

If surreptitiously pushing our tax burdens onto the backs of a subset of people composed primarily of the poor simply because they cannot defend themselves against such legislation is 'progressive', sign me up for the regressive party. Why are otherwise rational Oregonians so willing to accept what is clearly an exploitative law.

Two words: Sales tax.

Oregonians are terrified of a sales tax. Almost every other state in the union has a sales tax. Almost every other state in the union has a better economy than Oregon. There's a connection here. Property taxes are so high that people are forced to move to other states when looking for homes they can sustainably afford. Our property and industry taxes are so stiff that we attract almost no new industry, while simultaneously driving off the few decent jobs that are left in Oregon.

We have many of the worst schools, we have an extremely high poverty rate, and we compete for the lead in the unemployment figures.

We have shifted our tax burdens to unsustainable markets time and again. It has cost us jobs, our most successful Oregonians (as they move to states with better economies), and it has left our schoolchildren unable to compete for the few jobs that are left here.

With a sales tax, everything is administered evenly. The poor, the wealthy, the middle class, even tourists must pay this tax. Better still, the sales tax is self-correcting. If you consume more, you pay more sales tax.

No one wants a sales tax, but it's time we admit that we need one.

We are legislating morality once again. But this time it's a morality whose opponents are demonized.

Oregon needs sustainable health care for all her people - not just children. We need to propose resonable solutions, and sweeping reform - not more tax bandaids at the expense of a specific minority, but real health care solutions whose costs are distributed fairly across all Oregonians.

To continue to increase taxes on only this health threat while ignoring other more popular health threats such as gasoline, junk food, fast food, alcohol, and cable television is proof that this measure is a malicious and selfish tyranny of the masses. The fact that it hides behind children and morality makes it dishonest, too. Just admit that you support it because it frees you of your personal tax responsibility to healthy children in Oregon, and prevents a sales tax. Admit that your support of this bill is purely selfish - that's all I ask.

<h2>Dr. A. Avery</h2>