The Bitter Reality: It Is Kids Versus Smokers
I got an email from a friend today reporting that he'd voted against Measure 50. The rationale is one that has gained a lot of traction among liberals, based on my reading of comments throughout the blogosphere. It goes like this: "I hate cigarettes, but this tax is unfair. We should just fund children's health care and not make smokers pay." It combines a good-spirited sense of fairness with an interest in good public policy. But there are three reasons why it's dead wrong.
1. We never tax citizens equally. For a number of reasons, taxes fall unevenly on the population. If you own a home, you pick up a tax. If that home is in North Portland, it's lower than the tax people in Laurelhurst pay for a similar home. Almost every tax hits a segment of the population, not everyone. And that's a good thing--the alternative is a flat tax, which good liberals would recognize is far worse. There's nothing innately unfair about targeted taxes. If we're going to adopt the standard of fairness, we can't limit it to just this tax--it must be made a key measure by which we judge each tax. At least a cigarette tax targets a group who cost the state for their own health expenses.
2. There is no option for making everyone pay. People unfamiliar with the legislative process may not be aware of why this measure has come to citizens in the first place. In order to pass tax increases, you need a three-fifths majority in state House. Republicans steadfastly refuse any tax hikes, whether it be raising corporate income taxes or whether it is used to fund sick kids or education. But you only need a simple majority to send a referendum to the people. That's how we ended up here. It's not as if there's an alternative for good public policy that sorted out all the tax and revenue issues.
3. When you cast your ballot, either smokers will pay more for cigarettes or some sick kids will go without healthcare. That's not emotional manipulation--that's the actual reality of what this vote will decide. I agree completely that this isn't an ideal way to fund basic services, but thanks to ideologically-driven Republicans, it's the only choice. When I think about the decision, the argument that it's imperfect public policy is persuasive, but it is insignificant given the cost. We know as a basic fact that one in nine kids lacks health insurance. Voting no on Measure 50 directly affects those kids.
It sucks that our government won't take care of its most vulnerable. It sucks that smokers are being asked to foot the bill. But it sucks most of all that some kids will suffer injury or disease without health care if we don't hold our noses and vote for Measure 50.
|
October 24, 2007 |
Jeff Alworth | Comments (67 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 24, 2007 4:33:54 PM
As I recall from when Kulongoski first brought this Healthy Kids proposal up, taxing cigarettes was the plan all along... before it even got to the legislature. How does that now get blamed on Republicans?
Posted by: Ross Williams | Oct 24, 2007 4:38:29 PM
I got an email from a friend today reporting that he'd voted against Measure 50. The rationale is one that has gained a lot of traction among liberals, based on my reading of comments throughout the blogosphere. It goes like this: "I hate cigarettes, but this tax is unfair. We should just fund children's health care and not make smokers pay."
The truth is its the tobacco companies, not smokers, who will pay. He's just another sucker for their carefully tested message.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 24, 2007 4:46:06 PM
Harry blathers on...
What realyl sucks Harry is that smokers cause one of the largest long-term costs on our health care system. It sucks that people voting against measure 50 will lead to MORE kids taking up smoking vs. less taking up smoking. It sucks you are worried more about keeping low-cost cigs for poor minorities, which will kill them, than funding healthcare for those same poor families kids.
Sell your schtick somewhere else, I ain't buyin' it.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 24, 2007 4:48:15 PM
Kevin, so you like the idea of keeping cigs affordable for young kids to get hooked?
You like the idea of keeping cigs affordable for poor people so they can die long slow deaths from it?
How progressive of you.
Posted by: darrelplant | Oct 24, 2007 5:02:06 PM
Blockquote>"I hate cigarettes, but this tax is unfair. We should just fund children's health care and not make smokers pay."
That's a very creative interpretation of the argument, Jeff.
It ignores the fact that the tax isn't expected to make more than a few percentage points difference in the consumption of tobacco products in the state. It ignores the fact that the amount the tax is increased is set where it is so that it doesn't adversely affect what could become -- as the Tobacco Free Kids report I quoted the other day said -- a revenue stream that is "Stable and Predictable for Years to Come". Why? Because "large drops in cigarette tax revenue from one year to the next are quite rare because of the addictive power of cigarettes.... After a major cigarette tax increase, state tobacco tax revenues typically decline by only about two percent per year, on average, because of ongoing reductions in smoking levels."
If the tax hike was two or three times as high, you'd see a lot more smokers quit, but then the state's skim wouldn't be very good. And the idea that the tobacco companies are going to be paying for this and not the consumers? Ross, you must think the oil companies are strapped for cash now that gasoline's up to $3/gallon.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Oct 24, 2007 5:07:57 PM
How does that now get blamed on Republicans?
It gets blamed on Republicans because this was the most politically viable option available to democratic legislators. This question has already been asked, but I've yet to see a good answer, if you don't like funding health care through a tobacco tax, where else are we going to get the money? For one, even if it's regressive, the tobacco tax directly taxes a product that has been proven to have a HUGE financial burden on our health care system. And it's also interesting that the people that are most likely to smoke are the same lower income citizens who are most likely to be on the state health plan, directly passing on the costs of their poor decision to taxpayers like you and me. So where else can we get the money? An income tax? That might fulfill some of the "society pays for it as a whole" requirements that some people have laid down, but guess what? It's not going to happen. So, the state legislature took the option that was the most politically viable and went with it, and it almost worked! Had Sal Esquivel not flipped his vote at the last second, we wouldn't be talking about this right now. If enough Republicans in the state legislature were willing to put children's health ahead of their "no new taxes" ideology, this wouldn't be an issue.
Posted by: mark | Oct 24, 2007 6:17:52 PM
How about this: Every single person paying the tax could legally avoid it by quitting. Many of us have.
The biggest fear that the cigarette companies have is not paying the tax, but the tax will hasten the decline in people quitting. And here's the dirty secret: the State doesn't want them to quit either. Oregon is in bed with the tobacco companies, not just with the tax, but with Oregon's share of the tobacco "settlement." There was no big windfall settlement check; the tobacco companies agreed to pay the states on a per-pack basis. If no one smokes, not only do the Companies go broke, so do the states.
And don't think that we will make it up with health-care cost savings. Everyone dies from something and if people stop dying from smoking, they will live longer to die from Alzheimers or breast cancer or prostate cancer. All more expensive to treat than lung cancer.
I suspect that the data would show that the more likely one is to vote, the less likely one is to smoke. In the end, this is a tax on someone else. Probably will pass.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 24, 2007 6:47:32 PM
lestatdelc,
Setting your logically fallacious Strawman aside for the momment... If you'd followed the running debate here at Blue Oregon then you'd know that I've already stated that if all or even most of the money raised in a tobacco tax to be used to fund tobacco cessation then I'd never have raised an objection in the first place.
How taxing one group of poor, uneducated folks to pay for services to another group of poor, uneducated folks "progressive"?
It's not just regressive, it's morally reprehensible!
You can slice, dice and demagogue this six ways to Sunday and the fact will remain that the overwhelming majority of "progressives" who claim that they want to fund healthcare for kids won't have to pay a thin dime to actually provide healthcare for kids. Coincidence? I don't think so.
One of the things that most disgusts me about the Left is that unlike the Right, so very few of you have the courage of your convictions. Rather than fight to change the rules of the game so that a more progressive solution can become politically viable you just wimp out and willingly cooperate with a blatently classist meme because it's friggin' convenient.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 24, 2007 6:51:43 PM
It gets blamed on Republicans because this was the most politically viable option available to democratic legislators.
Why, Nick???
Why in the name of whatever you hold dear do you Democrats continue to bend over and grab your ankles rather than FIGHT to change the rules of the stupid game???
Why do you continue to let a damn MINORITY dictate the game to you???
WHY???
What's "progressive" about that???
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 24, 2007 6:52:55 PM
I don't mean this personally but y'all really disgust me sometimes...
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Oct 24, 2007 6:53:03 PM
Darrel, do we disagree?
RE: Republican fault. The salient fact here is that Republicans blocked the effort to try to fund children's healthcare in the regular session. They have adopted a dogma that no tax increases are ever warranted (and tax cuts, no matter whether the economy is humming or stagnant, are always warranted--but that's another post). It doesn't matter where the taxes come from or what they're funding: Republicans oppose them.
Posted by: Brian | Oct 24, 2007 7:27:35 PM
Hey Jeff,
By definition, instituting a flat tax system is the most "fair" approach. Not the progressive approach, but quite fair where all but the most vulnerable pay an equal percentage and the richest among us cannot hide behind a cumbersome tax code. Furthermore, many of the flat tax programs proposed would result in reducing taxation on lower income earners, which I think most here would agree is a good thing.
Regarding Measure 50, chalk up another NO vote from me. Label me a troll or accuse me of hating children. Whatever you have to do. For the record, I am not nor have I ever been registered Republican, don't smoke and like kids. IMO, the arguments opposing 50 made by conservatives, progressives and evil big tobacco win out vs those I have heard from pro forces.
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 24, 2007 7:34:05 PM
In order to pass tax increases, you need a three-fifths majority in state House. Republicans steadfastly refuse any tax hikes, whether it be raising corporate income taxes or whether it is used to fund sick kids or education. But you only need a simple majority to send a referendum to the people. That's how we ended up here.
The shit of it is, they didn't pass a tax hike--they passed a referendum. There's no reason in the world why it needed 36 votes, and the Parliamentarian told the House that. Legislative Counsel disagreed, and Merkley went with them. It was 100% possible to pass this out as a statutory referendum, however--leadership simply opted not to risk it. Me, I'd rather weather a spurious argument that a bill passed to voters somehow increases anyone's taxes, than have to deal with the very real argument that it doesn't belong in the Constitution.
You can slice, dice and demagogue this six ways to Sunday and the fact will remain that the overwhelming majority of "progressives" who claim that they want to fund healthcare for kids won't have to pay a thin dime to actually provide healthcare for kids. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Of COURSE it's not a coincidence. My family is paying well over $1000 a month for health care, and uses a tiny fraction of it--almost all of it in routine care. I have sympathy for what a bitch it is to quit smoking, but almost everyone still alive knew that when they started. The bottom line is the bottom line--smokers without health care are costing the rest of us a bunch of money. We have every right to seek some of that money back based on choice behavior.
And don't come back with the food angle; we need food to live, not tobacco.
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 24, 2007 7:35:31 PM
"By definition, instituting a flat tax system is the most "fair" approach. Not the progressive approach,"
Thanks for the oxymoron!
Posted by: djk | Oct 24, 2007 8:05:05 PM
Even if we imposed a broad, general tax to cover the cost of universal health care for every adult and child in this state -- working or not -- we STILL should tax cigarettes steeply and use the revenue to pay into the health care system.
Smoking is a voluntary behavior. While not every smoker will get cancer, smokers, as a group, create a disproportionate drain on our health care system, whether its publicly or privately funded.
It makes complete sense to me to single out smokers, as a group, to pay a bigger share of society's health care costs than anyone else. They use a disproportionate share of the resources, so they should pay in more. Don't like it? Take yourself out of the high-risk group by quitting. Otherwise, shut up and prepay your chemotherapy with every pack.
(And before anyone asks, yes, I would support a tax on junk food if there was a reasonable, workable way to implement it. The devil is in the details on that one.)
Posted by: alijane | Oct 24, 2007 8:16:55 PM
We all support health care for children, it is the means that is bothersome. The program cannot be sustained.
Why can't we put all those kids on private insurance policies, give them a allotment on a card like the Oregon Trail card to cover out of pocket medical cost, or to cover things the OHP denies due to lack of funds?
Why not place a dollar or two fee on every medical appointment? There must be hundreds of thousands per day. It would spread the cost around over a broader base. Minnisota added a 2% fee on all health care services after a tobacco tax increase failed and it appears to be working.
Just some ideas for discussion. Maybe my simple mind does not comprehend this vast problem. Thoughts?
Posted by: darrelplant | Oct 24, 2007 9:00:20 PM
Darrel, do we disagree?
I think we do. You think this is a good plan.
I think raising the tax rate to a level where tobacco consumption is affected only about 3-5% in order to create a stable source of revenue puts the state in the same reprehensible position as the tobacco companies, making money through nicotine addiction.
The state could raise the rate to a level that really puts a dent in the smoking level, but the resultant drop in consumption wouldn't raise as much money. For the kids! Then the Legislature would have to get off their asses and work to convince voters that they should get rid of the supermajority rule on tax votes.
Posted by: Eric Lindsay | Oct 24, 2007 9:03:33 PM
I would really appreciate a promise by our legislators to redirect all cigarette taxes to cessation programs, once the Democrats are in a political situation to find more appropriate funding for children's health care.
Let's all work to help the house become 3/5 democratic!
Posted by: Brian | Oct 24, 2007 9:28:11 PM
"Thanks for the oxymoron!"
What is the oxymoron in that statement? Surely even the man behind the curtain at Loaded Orygun understands that fair & progressive are not synonymous.
Also, would you be the same torridjoe who is a full-time public employee for the city of Portland? If so, I have a hard time believing that you are dropping a grand a month on health insurance. Tell me you're playing fast & loose with the truth, Joe. If not, both you and the taxpayers of Multnomah County are allowing yourselves to be fiscally sodomized. How many kids do you have and what number of maladies do they suffer?
Posted by: Harry | Oct 24, 2007 10:39:51 PM
Brian, as torridjoe writes:
"My family is paying well over $1000 a month for health care, and uses a tiny fraction of it--almost all of it in routine care. I have sympathy for what a bitch it is to quit smoking, but almost everyone still alive knew that when they started. The bottom line is the bottom line--smokers without health care are costing the rest of us a bunch of money. We have every right to seek some of that money back based on choice behavior."
-----------
...and torridjoe speaketh the truth! (thanks, Mark) Yes, public employees do spend over $1000 of their hard earned money each month for healthcare. And they also "spend" the same or more each month into their retirement accounts. The reason why this is so, is that their compensation is much more than just their salary, if you add in their benefits (which are legitimately part of their overall compensation). So the next time you here people say that public employees only earn $xxK per year (regardless of if xx equals $35K, $55K, or $75K) remember that most of the time that is just the salary portion, and does not include the $10-15K benefit that is their healthcare benefit (also paid by the state), nor does it include the retirement/PERS benefit (also an additional $10-20K, as a percentage of their salary). So a public worker who is pulling down a $60K salary (is that what a public IT worker gets these days, torrid?), is probably getting $80K-90K total compensation, when you include healthcare and retirement.
But most public union types don't like to show what their total compensation is, for obvious reasons. Feel free to correct any mis-statements that I have made, and plug in the real numbers of your public employee salary and benefits package, since it is all public info anyway.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Oct 24, 2007 10:52:26 PM
Why do you continue to let a damn MINORITY dictate the game to you???
We're not letting the minority dictate the game, the Oregon Constitution (due to measure 25) states that tax increases require a 3/5 supermajority in the state legislature to pass.
Unfortunately, there's not a 3/5 majority of democrats in the state leg, and despite this the democrats got within 1 vote of passing this as a statuatory increase. Then, when 1 stinking republican changed his vote last minute, the democrats dictated the game by passing it on to voters, because they were willing to do whatever it took to get 100,000 children health insurance. I would say that is dictating the game to the Republicans by side-stepping their tactics. And I would further argue that the overwhelming amount of progress that was made this session on many other issues shows the resolve of house democrats to get things done.
Personally, I think that supermajority requirement shouldn't be in the constitution hamstringing the ability of state legislators to do their jobs. But the requirement is there, and it's just not going to be repealed any time soon by Oregon voters. We can't just ignore the constitution, and we shouldn't. That's not progressive either.
Posted by: torridjoe | Oct 24, 2007 10:56:07 PM
"I have a hard time believing that you are dropping a grand a month on health insurance."
Not personally, no--obviously the City, meaning all Portland residents, pay much of that tab. I wasn't trying to start a pity party for how much I personally pay for health care; that wasn't the point. It's that serious money is being laid out for the coverage of 4 mostly healthy people, some of which is unnecessarily subsidizing the extra costs of health care incurred by smoking. I say unnecessary because if you can recover it from the people directly responsible for incurring it, why WOULD you force it on the rest of society at large, who is already picking up some of the freight?
I don't quite understand Harry's point; he's also wrong about retirement contributions for most workers that I'm aware of. (The rest of it is in the ballpark). But what would they be ashamed of the compensation package (which is after all public record for the most part)? It's not like private workers don't get some paid health care, vacation, options, cars, food, etc. where they are employed. And the base salaries are markedly higher. Stronger benefits are what keeps qualified people willing to work in government, because the pay is lower and the advancement has a lower ceiling.
Oh! And it's an oxymoron to say a flat tax is fair OR or progressive. It's a giveaway to the rich, and has to be set insanely high (like 30% or more) to remain revenue neutral. No thanks.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 24, 2007 11:45:16 PM
Same crap from Kevin different date.
The tired dung heap that amounts to nothing more that poor abused smokers are unfairly being and regressively taxed, so don't raise taxes on them despite the fact it does fund smoking cessation programs and insures low-income kids.
You can flap your arms all you want Kevin, but the bottom line of your sanctimonious crap is, you want to keep cigs cheap, not insure kids all because an excise tax in "regressive" because that is the outcome of your position.
YOU are arrogating the morally disgusting position that kids should go without healthcare and die because it would be immoral to raise the excise tax on a product which does NOTHING but kill people and drain health-care dollars while claiming to be "progressive" about it.
And you have the nerve to blather about being morally outraged?
Fucking pathetic.
Posted by: Miles | Oct 25, 2007 12:16:56 AM
In order to pass tax increases, you need a three-fifths majority in state House. . . . But you only need a simple majority to send a referendum to the people.
Actually, you also need three-fifths for a statutory referendum that raises taxes, which is why the Dems chose to pass it as a constitutional amendment rather than a statutory change.
But more importantly, my objection is this: The Dems were within one vote. Was is impossible for them to pick that up with some compromises, like reducing the top qualifying income from 300% to 250%, or reducing the size of the program a little bit? It seems to me that Dems chose an all-or-nothing strategy rather than compromise, which means that they are playing political games with the healthcare for these kids just as much as Republicans are. If M50 passes, they did the right thing, but if it fails, then compromise would have been much smarter.
Also, when they realized they didn't have the votes to refer it statutorily, another option besides the constitutional amendment would have been to mount an initiative campaign. Messy, sure, but it would have taken away the constitutional objection to the measure, and also allowed them to use another revenue source. (Say what you want about the constitutional objection, but I have three friends who voted against M50 SOLELY because it was a constitutional amendment.)
Posted by: Nate Currie | Oct 25, 2007 12:21:45 AM
Let me begin by noting that I've already voted in favor of Measure 50. I did so almost entirely because I feel getting health care for kids (and everyone else for that matter) is important enough that I'm willing to overlook the numerous flaws involved. It's still pretty easy to rebut these arguments.
1) Um, yeah, we never tax all citizens equally. So given the option of whom to tax unfairly, we choose poor people? That's sure "progressive."
2) This argument would've made sense if we were trying to get this thing straight through the House with a simple majority. However, the damn thing ended up being referred to the voters with a simple majority, something that could've been done with just the Democrats. So you had the votes to refer whatever you want. Even if you're not up for completely reforming the state's tax structure, why not add a 12% tax bracket for the obscenely rich? That could cover the costs too, and probably be easier to pass since you wouldn't have a few of the biggest corporations in the country spending millions to defeat it.
3) So, this is why I ended up voting for the damn thing, but even this is a somewhat fallacious argument. Ultimately, we're faced with a simple yes or no decision. There's no nuance. No real choices. No chance to say, "yes, but..." We have to overlook the fact that there are better ways to pay for kids' health care; we have to hold our collective noses for this crappy measure which could've been so much better.
So, yeah, I agree with your last paragraph. But the rest of your post seems so strongly in favor. I think deep down even the staunchest supports of Measure 50 know that it's a piece of crap, but we'll just hope that enough people vote for it anyway cuz it's for the kids, right?
Posted by: Nate Currie | Oct 25, 2007 12:24:45 AM
Let me begin by noting that I've already voted in favor of Measure 50. I did so almost entirely because I feel getting health care for kids (and everyone else for that matter) is important enough that I'm willing to overlook the numerous flaws involved. It's still pretty easy to rebut these arguments.
1) Um, yeah, we never tax all citizens equally. So given the option of whom to tax unfairly, we choose poor people? That's sure "progressive."
2) This argument would've made sense if we were trying to get this thing straight through the House with a simple majority. However, the damn thing ended up being referred to the voters with a simple majority, something that could've been done with just the Democrats. So you had the votes to refer whatever you want. Even if you're not up for completely reforming the state's tax structure, why not add a 12% tax bracket for the obscenely rich? That could cover the costs too, and probably be easier to pass since you wouldn't have a few of the biggest corporations in the country spending millions to defeat it.
3) So, this is why I ended up voting for the damn thing, but even this is a somewhat fallacious argument. Ultimately, we're faced with a simple yes or no decision. There's no nuance. No real choices. No chance to say, "yes, but..." We have to overlook the fact that there are better ways to pay for kids' health care; we have to hold our collective noses for this crappy measure which could've been so much better.
So, yeah, I agree with your last paragraph. But the rest of your post seems so strongly in favor. I think deep down even the staunchest supports of Measure 50 know that it's a piece of crap, but we'll just hope that enough people vote for it anyway cuz it's for the kids, right?
Posted by: djk | Oct 25, 2007 1:48:42 AM
Also, when they realized they didn't have the votes to refer it statutorily, another option besides the constitutional amendment would have been to mount an initiative campaign. Messy, sure, but it would have taken away the constitutional objection to the measure, and also allowed them to use another revenue source. (Say what you want about the constitutional objection, but I have three friends who voted against M50 SOLELY because it was a constitutional amendment.)
I strongly recommend "citizen initiative" as Plan B. If Measure 50 fails by a NARROW margin, it's almost certainly because of the constitutional argument. The best response: keep the pro-measure 50 campaign organized and its fund-raising active, turn the measure into a statutory citizen's initiative and circulate it for the November 2008 election. Start with a list of donors and campaign volunteers for the signatures, and work from there.
In fact, the campaign should have the measure drafted and ready for submission to the Secretary of State before the election. If Measure 50 fails, they can be ready to move immediately with the petition.
Posted by: David Wright | Oct 25, 2007 2:05:14 AM
It's that serious money is being laid out for the coverage of 4 mostly healthy people, some of which is unnecessarily subsidizing the extra costs of health care incurred by smoking. I say unnecessary because if you can recover it from the people directly responsible for incurring it, why WOULD you force it on the rest of society at large, who is already picking up some of the freight?
TJ, glad to see that you're repudiating what I understand to be the "progressive" position on taxation -- i.e., take from those who have the most money to give to those who need the most services -- by advocating for people carrying their own weight.
I mean, if we can, why shouldn't we recover more of the costs of public schools from people who actually have kids and thus are directly responsible for incurring those costs?
Why shouldn't we recover more of the costs of public transportation from those who actually use public transportation and thus incur those costs, rather than from the public at large?
Why shouldn't we tax low-income folks more for the myriad services that are provided to them, rather than taxing higher-income people who aren't using any of those services?
Why indeed?
Why, for that matter, should anybody be charged for health "insurance" when they don't use health care? Why not just make people who actually use the system and incur health costs pay for their own problems?
I do not think you intended to advance that argument, but that is the clear implication of your line of reasoning.
As to Jeff's original post:
He's right about #1 -- it isn't general tax policy to even try to tax everybody equally. That sort of falls under the general universal constant of "Life ain't fair. Get over it."
He's dead wrong about #2 -- except in the strictest sense that there is no current alternative to vote for that would make everyone pay -- it's just exactly that, this is the only option that was advanced. Blaming the Republicans for this mess is pretty lame -- there was nothing stopping the legislature from offering a referendum to the people that raised the necessary revenue any way they wanted via constitutional amendment. It was simply politically expedient to dump the burden on smokers to improve the odds of passage. But if funding this program was really that popular and important of an idea, you'd think they'd be able to convince enough people to actually pay for it themselves rather than targeting a minority group to do it.
And as for point #3 -- as phrased, that is absolutely emotional manipulation. It would be more accurate to say that when you cast your vote, either smokers will pay more for cigarettes or some sick kids will continue to go without healthcare. You may still be morally outraged by that, you may not care one way or another -- but the point is that a NO vote on 50 is a vote for the status quo; it does not take anything away from anybody. Voting YES on 50 takes something away from some people and gives something new to other people.
In other words, after a NO vote "the children" will be no worse off than they are today. Implying as you did (when you say that voting NO will affect 1 in 9 kids) that they would be is clearly manipulative; voting NO affects nobody. It's far more accurate to say that voting YES will affect 1 in 9 kids. And 1 in 5 adults (or whatever the proportion of smokers happens to be). And 1 in 4 minorities (or, again, whatever the smoking population of specific sub-groups happens to be). Etc.
Posted by: wheels | Oct 25, 2007 3:13:31 AM
How about this for a campaign slogan: you're either for Measure 50, or you're for cancer. Honestly, this and the last few 50-related posts from Kari are not helping the case, at least from where I'm sitting. I've seen these anti-50 ads during the MLB playoffs, and they definitely make me angry, but putting the issue in terms of kids versus tobacco or just plain good versus pure evil makes me just as angry. Remember, y'all, that democrats are supposed to be smarter than republicans, so these sorts of Jedi mind tricks don't work on us and more often than not just piss us off.
Point of record: most minority groups, with the notable exception of Native Americans, typically smoke at an equal or lower rate than whites. Cigarette companies, being run by wealthy white Southerners, historically aren't very good at marketing to black people.
Posted by: Eric J. | Oct 25, 2007 7:25:48 AM
It all boils down to the guding selfishness of the Republicans that generated this debate over this measure. whether you vote yes or no, the real problem is the self-ceneterness of those who blocked the original idea in the session. I think another round of voting out these vermen is in order.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Oct 25, 2007 7:55:57 AM
You think this is a good plan.
Darrel, read the last paragraph. I don't think this is a good plan; I think it has serious flaws. I regard this with pure pragmatism, which was my intention of the post.
And as for point #3 -- as phrased, that is absolutely emotional manipulation.
David, where exactly is the emotionally manipulating phrase? I'll accept your revision with the word "continue" added--it's straightforward and honest. But so is the language in my third point. You can relate to those facts in any way you wish, but are they not the facts?
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 25, 2007 8:21:50 AM
lestatdelc lies: "you want to keep cigs cheap"
Isn't resorting to lies about your opponent supposed to be a classic tactic from the Right?
Posted by: tl | Oct 25, 2007 9:06:58 AM
David Wright writes
...why shouldn't we recover more of the costs of public schools from people who actually have kids and thus are directly responsible for incurring those costs?
Why shouldn't we recover more of the costs of public transportation from those who actually use public transportation and thus incur those costs, rather than from the public at large?
Why shouldn't we tax low-income folks more for the myriad services that are provided to them, rather than taxing higher-income people who aren't using any of those services?
In the examples he provides, these are not voluntary options. Those who use public schools rarely have the option not to use public schools. Those who use public transportation often do so because they have no other choice.
Smokers do not have to smoke. I understand cigarette addiction can be very difficult thing to overcome, and I agree with those who want more dedicated to smoking cessation. However, smoking is not required by law (as public education is), and smoking is not required to get to work, run errands, etc.
I suggest your example is an unfair comparison.
Posted by: darrelplant | Oct 25, 2007 9:07:17 AM
Darrel, read the last paragraph. I don't think this is a good plan; I think it has serious flaws. I regard this with pure pragmatism, which was my intention of the post.
Jeff, you're advocating a yes vote for the plan. Your may say some words like "it's the only choice", but you're also throwing out arguments about how taxes aren't fair, how the Republicans are mean, and how it's kids vs. smokers. You don't say it's "bad", otherwise you wouldn't be voting for it.
By "bad" I don't mean simply "not the best possible option". I mean "bad" as in the sense that this is going to addict the state to tobacco revenue in pretty much the same way that cigarette smokers are addicted. I mean that it's bad to calibrate the amount of the tax to a value that only slightly affects smoking use. I mean that it's bad to put the state in the position where it's almost certain in the future to continue to tinker with the amount of the tax to try to wring every drop of blood out of the diseased lungs of smokers without seriously cutting into consumption.
Little TB joke there.
Posted by: Sally | Oct 25, 2007 9:42:23 AM
Creating new topics every day for M50 doesn't change the underlying problems people have with this bill. It effectively ignores their concerns by ignoring their arguments.
It's easy to pass a tobacco tax. Last time it passed by 70%. Let's use poor addicts to fund needed services. Let's ammend the constitution because that's easier than passing a statute.
Sin taxes should fund the extras, not the basic needs in a society. My husband and I will be voting "no" on 50, yes on "49". We received our ballots Tuesday.
Are the people in Oregon too selfish to contribute to children's healthcare? I disagree and I'm sure others would also. I'd like to see more money going to tobacco prevention and treatment instead of only the 16% recommended by the CDC.
Justifying the tax through "costs to society" doesn't wash. We won't tax alcohol because that's too unpopular. Too many people drink.
Let's look at the indirect costs of alcohol.
From: http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_industry/secondhand_impacts.htm
Secondhand Effects of Alcohol Use
• There is a strong association between alcohol consumption and physical assault;1 communities that have a higher density of liquor stores and bars experience more violent assaults.2
• Every year in the U.S., approximately 40 percent of fatal traffic crashes involve alcohol. Estimates from 2000 show that the societal costs of driving under the influence come to $1 per drink, with people other than the drinking driver paying 60 percent of those costs.3
• Alcohol costs the U.S. economy an estimated $134 billion per year in lost productivity and earnings due to alcohol-related illness, premature death, and crime.4
• Less than half of the economic burden of alcohol abuse falls on those who drink alcohol—government bears nearly 40 percent of the burden, with private insurance and victims also losing billions of dollars.5
The state of Oregon receives over $265 million a year from the settlement money and tobacco taxes. Does the money from alcohol taxes compare?
Posted by: David Wright | Oct 25, 2007 9:50:13 AM
TL,
You've heard of home schooling, right? And riding a bike or walking to get around?
School, public transport, and health care are pretty much equally optional. You don't literally have to use them, but going without in many cases presents a hardship. And "society" picks up a large portion of the cost of all these things without regard to who is actually using them. TJ thinks that smokers who cause more usage of the system should be charged accordingly, how would that be different than the examples I cited? So he (perhaps) chooses not to smoke, he should get a break on health care costs? I choose not to have kids, by that logic I should get a break on paying for schools. I'm not advocating for that position, BTW, simply pointing out that it's the natural extension of TJ's argument.
Jeff,
When you cast your ballot, either smokers will pay more for cigarettes or some sick kids will go without healthcare.
The manipulation comes in your placement of smokers and kids on opposite sides of the question. In fact, smokers and kids are on the same side of the question, and doing nothing at all is on the other side.
A yes vote affects both smokers and kids. A no vote affects neither. But by framing the question in your implied terms of "hurt smokers or hurt children" you essentially misrepresent the situation (NO doesn't cause anything to happen to kids that wasn't being done already). YES actually does something, while NO simply means something -- that the status quo will be maintained.
BTW, the inverse of your basic frame is "help children or help smokers", and that too is a false choice. Voting YES obviously would help children. Voting NO does nothing to actually help smokers. Again, smokers and kids are on the same side of the question. Hurting kids and helping smokers are simply not outcomes that are on the table. The question is: hurt smokers to help kids OR don't.
I'm reminded of the odious Republican tactic of claiming that voting against a tax cut is the same as voting for a tax increase. Sure, technically they're correct when they say that Democrat X voted for higher taxes (relative to what taxes would be had they voted otherwise), but that's awfully misleading and manipulative, don't you think?
Voting to leave taxes alone is not the same as voting to increase taxes. And voting to leave kids health care alone is not the same as voting to hurt children.
Posted by: andy | Oct 25, 2007 9:58:24 AM
I already voted no on 50. It was an easy protest vote for me to make. It seems obvious to me that 50 (and 49) were the product of lazy and cynical folks in Salem. They weren't willing to tackle the hard work of actually getting some consensus. They shut down discussions and pitched the ball over to the voters. I voted no for the sole reason of pitching the ball back to them. That is what we elected the idiots to do. And now that I've seen how worthless they are I'll vote against anyone who was responsible for these measures, and everyone who is in favor of them. I'm keeping my voter's pamphlet handy so I can refer back to it in the next election so I can see who to vote against.
Posted by: tl | Oct 25, 2007 10:06:42 AM
David Wright:
With all due respect, home schooling is a luxury choice available to few. I'm sure any family (other than those with significant financial resources) that chooses that option has to make some difficult financial trade-off decisions (just as any family that opts to have a stay-at-home parent). And this option would only practically be available for those families with two parents present.
And although biking year-round is possible and some do it, depending on where you live, where you work, if you have multiple jobs, and facilities to shower, change, etc., I think it's unfair to claim public transportation is a completely optional choice.
I wish I had figures (maybe someone else can help out here), but I'm guessing the cost to society to fund public education and public transportation may be great, but the cost to society is even greater in the absence of both in terms of an uneducated society, crime, unemployment, etc.
Again, smoking does cost the individual and the society, and it is optional. To my knowledge, no one ever died, lost a job, or failed to graduate from lack of smoking.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Oct 25, 2007 10:08:50 AM
Darrel, you're right, we do disagree on these points. They're not the ones I was addressing in my post, which is how the bill will go down to defeat, if it does--based on a gauzy sense of fairness by many liberals who fail to subject all taxes to this standard.
David, you're the one who's investing meaning into statements of fact, not me. What I wrote was this: "When you cast your ballot, either smokers will pay more for cigarettes or some sick kids will go without healthcare." All this business about which side that puts which team is an elaboration by you.
To both of you, the thing that's persuasive to me is pure pragmatism: while the remedy is a Rube Goldberg policy fix, the result will be insuring kids. The negatives of voting no (and I don't mean to suggest I agree with your speculation about the "state's addiction," Darrel) are outweighed by the negatives of voting yes.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 25, 2007 10:11:05 AM
Kevin, first your link goes nowhere, second, it is not a lie to point out that it is the bottom line upshot of voting no on 50 and arguing that it is an unfair regressive tax to to raise taxes on cigs. Arguments which you have trotted out for weeks on end here at BlueOregon. So accusing me of lying" about "my opponent" is laughably pathetic misdirection on your part.
You've got nothing Kevin, and you are arguing that not keeping cigs cheap for low-income propel is "regressive" since it would raise taxes on cigs which would disproportionately impact low-income people who smoke more, than high-income people who smoke less. Flap your arms all you like Kevin, but you have been in effect arguing that we need to keep cigs which kill poor people cheap because it is fair, even though those taxes go to not only smoking cessation programs but insures low-income children's healthcare coverage.
Bloviate all you like, but that is the bottom line.
Posted by: Eric J. | Oct 25, 2007 10:19:01 AM
Good for you, andy! Now you know why I usually vote NO on everything. Even Dems are just as lazy as Reps in the Oregon Legislature. The "lets give it to the voters so we don't have to responsible for our actions and not look bad for our re-election" attitude has to stop.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Oct 25, 2007 10:43:50 AM
It's easy to pass a tobacco tax. Last time it passed by 70%. Let's use poor addicts to fund needed services. Let's ammend the constitution because that's easier than passing a statute.
Sin taxes should fund the extras, not the basic needs in a society. My husband and I will be voting "no" on 50, yes on "49". We received our ballots Tuesday.
Are the people in Oregon too selfish to contribute to children's healthcare? I disagree and I'm sure others would also.
Where to begin? First of all, they tried the statuatory increase and it failed by one vote. One person was so arrogant as to think their ideological opinion was more important than healthcare for 100,000 children. So it's not like they went to the constitution right away. Second, it's entirely possible that people are too selfish to vote against a tax increase even if it does go to children. You might disagree because you are one of those people that are willing to shoulder the burden, but I assure you, there are many who are not. Also, we do tax alcohol.
Finally, you will have an option for all of society to fund universal healthcare in Oregon in 2009 when the legislature decides on a plan. Until then, this is stop gap measure because it is unconscionable that so many children go without health insurance in this state. You may have reservations about how the measure is funded, we've heard these arguments, many of which are valid concerns. Nobody is saying this measure is perfect. But, what it comes down to for me is are you really willing you prevent 100,000 children from getting health insurance because the measure doesn't go far enough? Do you really think that those children give a damn about whether their insurance comes from a tobacco tax or some other tax? You can say that we'll give them healthcare somewhere down the line, but then how many children will get sick in 2008 and can't afford to go to a doctor?
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 25, 2007 10:51:16 AM
lestatdelc,
Repeating the lie won't make it any less of a lie. Although I will concede that Karl Rove has proven that using that tactic can fool some of the people some of the time.
I told you directly here that I wouldn't have a problem if M50 put all or even most of the money into smoking cessation efforts. I said the same thing several days earlier to Stephanie here.
...you have been in effect arguing that we need to keep cigs which kill poor people cheap because it is fair, even though those taxes go to not only smoking cessation programs but insures low-income children's healthcare coverage.
LOL you unwittingly reveal that you know you are lying about my position. Otherwise what possible relevance would how much money goes into smoking cessation have to do with whether I just want to keep cigs cheap? If my position were as you've deliberately mischaracterized it then where M50 money would go would be utterly irrelevant to me.
What's interesting is that M50 itself has a special clause in it to allow cigar smokers (but ONLY cigar smokers) to totally evade M50 taxes. But of course if we're to believe your line of BS then the fact that cigar smokers are concentrated among the highest socio-economic demographics is irrelevant to whether M50 is a crass, heartless, patently regressive attempt to force the poor to fund their own services.
Posted by: Glen HD28 | Oct 25, 2007 10:52:19 AM
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but related to Jeff's opening statements about Republicans blocking progressive legislation for health, education etc:
Help Get More Good Democrats Elected!
We have 31 Dems in the OR House, a simple majority, but we need 36 to pass revenue related bills.
Go to the website of your County Democratic Party today and get involved. Drag along a couple of friends when you go.
In Washington County, Jessica Adamson has announced her run for HD26 (Gaston/Sherwood/Wilsonville) currently held by Jerry Krummel (R). Contact www.washcodems.org and ask how you can support her.
And put your money where your mouth is. You'll feel really great when we start to get things done in this state under a solid Democratic legislature!
Posted by: andy | Oct 25, 2007 10:56:16 AM
Nick, you're blathering on and on about the 100,00 kids without health insurance is silly and pointless. I grew up in Oregon as a kid without health insurance and so did most of my friends. Almost everybody went without health insurance in the 50's and 60's. Guess what, most of us survived just fine.
M50 is just another new tax to fund another new entitlement program. The question is if the taxpayers are prepared to add another new tax and create another new entitlement program. Maybe yes, maybe no. I voted no for a variety of reasons.
Saying it is for the kids just shows how dim you are. Everything is for the kids if you want to phrase it that way. Smaller school class size is for the kids. MAX is for the environment which is for the kids. Libraries are for the kids. Blah, blah, blah, everyone is for the kids.
The point is how much money do you have and how do you want to spend it? Saying it is for the kids therefore we must do it is lazy and stupid.
Posted by: darrelplant | Oct 25, 2007 10:58:46 AM
I don't mean to suggest I agree with your speculation about the "state's addiction," Darrel
Jeff, do you want to speculate on why the increase in the tobacco tax is pegged at $0.84/pack rather than, say, $3? Or why one of the groups advocating for Measure 50 identifies it as a stable revenue source for years to come?
Why do you think Tobacco Free Kids thinks it'll be stable, Jeff? If the number of smokers went down significantly as a result of the increase, there wouldn't be enough money to fund the programs the state intends to use the money for. If it was high enough to incur an annual drop of more than two percent, then it wouldn't be stable.
The state ought to be getting people off of cigarettes, not making money off of them. Despite the claims of the Measure 50 backers, the decrease in tobacco consumption expected from this bill is negligible.
I don't think people are voting against this out of a "gauzy sense of fairness". I think a lot of people are smart enough to understand that something about the state joining into a devil's pact with tobacco dealers to suck money out of smoker's lungs for the rest of their lives stinks like a jacket that's been in a poorly-ventilated bar. They may not know the particulars, they may not have researched the numbers, but they know something's wrong.
Posted by: Eric J. | Oct 25, 2007 11:11:38 AM
"I don't think people are voting against this out of a "gauzy sense of fairness" "
Actually, I think some people are voting against it because they are tired of holding thier nose while voting on a "darned if you don't, darned if you do" measure. They want to stop continuing to hold their nose. That's why I applaud andy in why he voted NO. Must the voters have all the burden? We vote in these vermin to represent us in their decision making and they just are not doing it. Even if one vote kept it from being a statute, it still exhibits a true measure of laziness for them not to even TRY to get that vote changed without the constituents involvement.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Oct 25, 2007 11:47:34 AM
Jeff, do you want to speculate...
No.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 25, 2007 12:33:43 PM
More blathering bullshit from Kevin. Because most of the money goes to insuring kids, you don't support M50, and for weeks you have argued it was unfair because it was "regressive". So the bottom line is that you are for keeping cigs cheap which will kill more poor people than rich people, and not insure poor kids because you want cigs cheap because it is "regressive".
You want me to labor the point by going back over the past several weeks to link to the numerous posts where you rail against M50 because it is "regressive" here, here, here, and here to cite ones just this past week and a half?
There is no lying on my part, you can blather on and on but the bottom line is, you oppose M50, so you are for keeping cigs cheap which will kill more people while not insuring children of low-income families. And you feign "disgust" with those who want to make it less likely young people will start smoking in the first place, while insuring low-income children. At least own up to the fact that you are for keeping cigs cheap which will kill more people and not for insuring low-cost children because M50 is "regressive" taxation, since that is the bottom-line of opposing M50.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Harry | Oct 24, 2007 4:32:18 PM
"It sucks that our government won't take care of its most vulnerable. It sucks that smokers are being asked to foot the bill. But it sucks most of all that some kids will suffer injury or disease without health care..."
--------
More suckage:
It sucks that most smokers are the poorest of our society
It sucks that most smokers are the least educated
It sucks that most smokers are non-whites
But what sucks the most is that smokers are the vast minority.
So therefore we can soak the poor, uneducated, minority, all in the name of funding a child's healthcare.
Is there really no other alternative to funding needed healthcare for kids?