nuff said

I don't have a problem with supporting a tax increase to support children's health care, but this one is dishonest. This throws a tax at a despised minority for the simple fact that it can be done. Not whether there is any policy connection, or ethical, or any other mechanism than possible. Don't play stupid and talk about health effects, this has nothing to do with it, if it did the other health offenders would be included, problem is, they're popular.

Take all the nonsense out of the equation: Tax cigarette smokers and no one else to benefit all of Oregon's children. Well, something is wrong in that picture, you aren't asking smokers if they want to be taxed for this purpose, you're asking Oregoninans if they want to ram a tax down smokers' throats. If every smoker voted no, they'd lose, that simple.

Just a reminder, the state rep. from Dist. 20 spells her name Vicki BERGER.

I'm really tired of the moral bankruptcy of the Democrats, my party, in this. If they take this to a constitutional amendment, I will be making my displeasure known to anyone I can reach who calls themselves a Democrat. By happenstance, I came on something interesting just today:

Progressive capitalism: Tocqueville, RJ Reynolds, and taking back our American birthright http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/06/09/progressive-capitalism-tocqueville-rj-reynolds-and-taking-back-our-american-birthright/

Enlightened capitalists like Richard Joushua Reynolds, for instance, created an economic base in my home town that afforded generations of working class employees an opportunity to participate in the rewards of their work, increasing educational opportunities and providing genuine security for their families. (Yeah, I know - tobacco is a somewhat problematic industry, but we’ll save that chat for another time.) Thanks to RJR’s stock investment plans, there were line workers who retired as millionaires.

This plan was a childish, misguided political stunt that has exposed an ugly, selfish, elitist --- and politically incompetent --- group of interests in our state. Right now we need to be building consensus around comprehensive health care reform, starting with fair and intelligent steps to deal with the immediate problems we have. This has been as opposite a strategy to that as I can possibly imagine.

By not pursuing a fair and intelligent plan to deal with the problems we have now, those politicians and cynical, sanctimonious interests groups who pushed this plan --- particularly with the intellectually dishonest framing House Republicans support Big Tobacco, fail to support Healthy Kids headling this thread --- have wrecklessly and irresponsibly poisoned the health care debate, proving they either aren't really qualified to lead, or don't really have the best interests of the people in our state at heart, or perhaps both.

I wonder what it would take to change the rule -- and allow a 31-vote majority to send something to the voters.

How about a constitutional amendment to allow a simple majority of the legislature to refer a tax increase to the voters?

I'm with Nate. We shouldn't be cluttering the state constitution with stuff that properly is legislation.

Anon:

I don't think the Democrats are the ones who poisoned the healthcare debate. Let's be honest about our situation.

The Republicans oppose any kind of government health care program. They oppose it on principle. They oppose it on political grounds. They oppose it on religious grounds. I'm sure if they could lay their hands on a moral compass, they'd oppose it on moral grounds.

There is no way to approach the debate to get Republican House members on board. On this issue -- and a few others -- the Rs have made clear that it's total war. What can be done? I see two options:

1.) Garner some Republican support through intimidation. "Vote for this or we'll throw everything we have at you next election." I don't think that would be effective.

2.) Increase the Democratic majority so we no longer need Republican support for such common sense solutions as the Healthy Kids Initiative.

The R's are against anything that does not support thier constant and ubiquitous drivel of propaganda towards everything and anything. And besides - the constitution is a blueprint to interpret the law, not be the law in and of itself.

Just to correct some bad information in this post...

The 3/5 rule was put in the Constitution by the voters through Measure 25 in the 1996 primary election. It was not some parliamentary scheme cooked up by Gordon Smith as the post says.

It would require a vote of the people to change that provision in the Constitution. A constitutional amendment doesn't require 3/5, because technically an amendment is not a "bill," but a "resolution."

This is a rule that could only have been written by lawyers.

Actually, Kevin, it was written by people who were misled by unsubstantiated republican propaganda. The common people are now paying for this in more ways than one.

The Republicans oppose any kind of government health care program. They oppose it on principle. They oppose it on political grounds. They oppose it on religious grounds. I'm sure if they could lay their hands on a moral compass, they'd oppose it on moral grounds.

This kind of blanket statement, which is the predicate for everything else you argue, doesn't even come close to doing fairness to the actual facts. (If it did, I'd actually agree with much of what you said.) I do think, however, it represents the misguided mindset of a lot of people who have pushed this debate in the way they have for their own reasons that have nothing to do with actually fixing the health care problem in this state and across the nation.

First, "government health care program" is purposely too vague and propagandistic to meaning anything except be a launching point for the politicking that followed. As a Democrat, I'm opposed to many solutions that fit that politically loaded, but totally meaningless description. The last thing I want as a Democrat, to be frank, is someone of such limited talents as Kulongoski or several of the folks who brought us this being in charge of a comprehensive health care delivery system, much less some of the nutty Republicans who we Democrats have allowed to gain power in this country through our incompetence and arrogance.

While your observation about the particular Republicans in the House right now in the current state of the debate is arguably correct, it is your two solutions --- being predicated as they are on your false sweeping generalization --- that is the real problem.

There are plenty of Republicans on Medicare who are just fine with the government providing a single-payer national health insurance plan. All of the public interest polling one ever reads is that an overwhelming majority of people in this state and across the nation support major health care reform, with something like Medicare-for-All national health insurance being the preferred choice when it is described in neutral terms.
That stronghold of true Republican support --- small and medium-size employers --- consistently support a plan like this because it would radically reduce their operating costs. And even the AARP, that has had Republican-connected leadership for the last several years and who actually has been quite destructive in the health care debate in Oregon, has done so in the guise of defending Medicare to gain the political clout it brings them because it is popular with their membership.

If we actually focus on connecting with average people across the state on that basis, their leaders will follow. The deceitfully named "Healthy Kids Initiative" which, contrary to everything we Democrats say we represent, shifts the cost of insuring low-income children down the income scale rather than pulling everybody together to share in the responsibility of making sure everyone has access to affordable health, does just the opposite. It is those who have pushed this plan cynically in furtherance of other goals, with such condescending attitudes towards informed opponents, have set us back in that goal of connecting with people in the positive way needed to achieve real health care reform.

I'd suggest everyone needs to do a reality check, and look at the cozy relationship between the insurance industry and some (NOT ALL!) of the Democrats we elect to the federal government and in this state if you want to understand where the real problem is. This plan is as far from "common sense solutions" as one can possibly imagine. It is cynically expedient in the service of other selfish goals and little more. I'd submit that the kind of comments that have been offered by supporters here, to the extent they really are quite representative of comments others have made in this debate, demonstrates that the real problem is that at lot of folks behind this measure are the people who don't have that much common sense, to the harm of us all.

Actually, Anon, the republicans oppose it because it does not fit the propaganda they spew forth and beleive without thinking. All talk and no brain activity. Pure propaganda.

intellectually dishonest framing House Republicans support Big Tobacco, fail to support Healthy Kids headling this thread

how can it be intellectually dishonest when it's factually 100% true? Or do you not realize the lobbying and money dumped on all legislators, but ESPECIALLY Republicans in this state?

Because it is intellectually dishonest and it's not "100% factually true" (and you know it or you really are dumber than you even seem).

This framing is intentionally and dishonestly intended to tie into the easy framing of big business against the people. But whichever low-class act at Blue Oregon composed this headline knew good and well that many Republicans voted against this for a host of reasons that always come up in cynical legislation like this, many of which are honorable and have nothing to do with supporting "Big Tobacco". And a lot of Democrats voted for it for another host of reasons, many of which were dishonorable and in complete and selfish disregard for whatever really would be best for children.

Oh - I get it. It is "dishonest" and 'dishonoralbe" because it doesnt fit into your skewed, propagandic view. Anon's last post was nothing more that a spew of acidic propaganda. I suggest Anon quit sipping from the propaganda fountain.

Actually, Anon, the republicans oppose it because it does not fit the propaganda they spew forth and beleive without thinking. All talk and no brain activity. Pure propaganda.

Actually Eric J., that is not the case amongst elected officials I have spoken to on both sides. Even though I'm a Democrat, I found the Republicans on this issue to be much more interested about talking about all the health-care aspects of this. Sadly, I found the Democrats largely to be focused on the political points they were trying to gain and their own anti-smoking agenda, but otherwise kind of idiotic when it came to health care. And they heatedly resented the fact I had a problem with their hypocrisy. You prove the point again.

Oh - I get it. It is "dishonest" and 'dishonoralbe" because it doesnt fit into your skewed, propagandic view. Anon's last post was nothing more that a spew of acidic propaganda. I suggest Anon quit sipping from the propaganda fountain.

Eric J - First do you doubt I am a Democrat? Second, rather than childishly and irresponsibly allege comments are propaganda, point to what you claim to be propaganda and refute it on facts and grounds of Democratic Party values.

Um, while we're discussing facts:

Fact: Cigarettes kill by design. It is not a product flaw.

Fact: Taxing cigarettes is practically lovemaking to big tobacco compared to what government should do to such products.

Listen folks, there is a reason the D's and a few R's support this legislation--117,000 kids in Oregon have no health insurance. That makes it difficult, if not impossible, to find accessible, quality, affordable care when they need it. These kids often don't get their yearly physicals, they don't get immunized when they need to be, they don't get screened hearing, vision, dental issues. What they do get is sick and unhealthy. They miss school. Their parents have to choose between food and medicine. This happens every day in Oregon. The Democrats should be applauded for making every effort--even a regressive tax--to get health care to kids.

Instead of a sin tax or targeted sales tax, why not emulate San Francisco to work on the problem? Corporate, personal, and public costs through tax increases?

You can't rely on sin taxes for needed revenue. Bite the bullet and increase the minimum business income tax. After 70 years it's overdue.

Anon:

The Republicans had years, literally, to do something about healthcare in Oregon. They did nothing (except constrict the Oregon healthplan into non-existence). I don't remember it even appearing on their legislative agenda, let alone any real work being done on it.

I hope you asked the Republican legislators you talked to why, given their interest in healthcare, they did absolutely nothing during the time they held power. I also hoped you asked them which bills they sponsored this session. If you wish to convince me that they're anything but obstructionists on healthcare, show me some bill numbers.

Was Healthy Kids perfect? Absoultely not. Personally, I don't like programs tied to specific taxes (or vice versa). But it was better than nothing, which, thanks to the Republicans, is what 117,000 Oregon children got.

Anon, if you're talking about this stuff with legislators (on both sides) where, presumably, they know who you are... why are you anonymous here?

When I talked to the legislators, I was just one of the multitude of voters who are de facto anonymous to them, I just happened to be interested in hearing their reasons and providing my thoughts on that rather than assailing their supposed lack of concern for children in a counterproductive way, like some of the folks here. Just like here.

There's nothing intellectually dishonest about recovering costs from the precise people who cost us a quarter every time they light one up. It has nothing to do with income; the very wealthy smoker pays the exact same amount as the poorest. It has to do with the fact that they cost us money by smoking, money that otherwise would properly go to insuring Oregonians.

This of course demonstrates exactly the intellectual dishonesty. Those of us whose values place health care first and foremost don't let other unrelated values as issues take precedence or get in the way to the extent of poisoning the debate. Such as the type of particularly self-centered, anti-tobacco virulence of the idiots behind this plan that doesn't even show any obvious evidence of being motivated primarily out of concern for the others.

The Republicans had years, literally, to do something about healthcare in Oregon. They did nothing (except constrict the Oregon healthplan into non-existence).

And they got away for it because Kulongoski was such an incompetent leader and discredit to the Democratic Party that he did nothing to stand up against what happen during those years --- and now. Including putting any kind of credible plan to provide health care for children or getting out there as a leader and building public support. Instead, this last election he and some really stupid Democratic strategists decided to make this a political game by using an issue they knew would appeal to largely credulous people like Bert to boost their election chances, regardless of how it would poison the health care debate.

The Democrats should be applauded for making every effort--even a regressive tax--to get health care to kids.

Think about that statement for a minute or two. What you're applauding is a regressive tax which would disproportionately affect the parents of the very children you're trying to help. Would you also applaud taxing welfare checks to help pay food and housing costs for homeless children?

Regardless of his political affiliation (I have no idea what it is, or who he is as should be case in this forum where ideas should be what counts), Kevin has hit the nail on the head here. Democrats who fail to admit the truth that this strategy is so far out of keeping with Democratic Party values are a disgrace to the party.

Listen folks, there is a reason the D's and a few R's support this legislation--117,000 kids in Oregon have no health insurance.

Liz this statement reflects in so many ways what is wrong with the tawdry political ploy that this plan was and what is really wrong with the supporters.

If those D's and a few R's, and a lot of the interest groups who pushed this plan of expediency, valued getting health care for children first and first and foremost like some of us do, they would jeopardized the chances of accomplishing that by putting other values --- including election year politics and an anti-smoking agenda --- ahead of that to the extent of poisoning the debate.

Remember, Kulongoski provided ZERO meaningful leadership on dealing with our health care problems from 2003-2006. Then he and the House and Senate leadership made the devil's pact between the anti-tobacco interests by directly linking the tobacco tax and health care for children, rather than committing to do whatever it requires to build consensus to find a firm and wide support for health care for chlidren and health care reform in general.

Also, as Kevin pointed out, the people pushing this for their own reasons were quite content with putting the financial burden of financing health care for low income children on the backs of low income folks, not too mention sending the message that only way we care to provide health care for children if their parents destroy their own health by smoking. Nothing could be further from the values we profess to embrace as members of the Democratic Party.

This was cynical Oregon politics by a lot of unprincipled leaders and interest groups with other agendas at it's very worst. Shame on them for how this has worked out, and for bringing undeserved disrepute on the Democratic Party. If your values place health care for children (and everyone else) above political interests and other self-centered goals, and unlike you I have no reason to believe you or anyone else doesn't, you would have publicly disavowed this plan from the outset, all along the way warned the governor and legislators behind it you were not on board with such a misguided idea, criticize them now for their failure (including letting some of them know that perhaps we would be better off if someone else had their job), and work as hard as you can for a plan which actually embraces a positive approach to health care reform including providing health care for children.

You could put your energies in the last days of this legislature behind getting SB27 passed, which is all about building and unifying public consensus around universal health care (not universal access to private health insurance as SB329), as just one suggestion. Personally, I'd much rather see the legislature pass some sort of directive to our legislative delegation get behind the Kucinich-Conyers-Sanders "Medicare-For-All" plan, but I see no evidence that most of the supporters of the tobacco-tax plan are in favor of such an genuine solution to solving our health care crisis that doesn't directly and intentionally benefit their personal agendas.

Hmm, a more intellectually honest opinion MIGHT be that several republicans refused to fall for the feel good empathy by passing a regressive tax to build up a non sustainable level of service in state mandated health care for children.

How is that for a run-on sentance?

Anon, you are confusing "agenda" with true intent. Why is it that people like you call anything that does not fit your acidic propagandic views as an "agenda"? Do you really think that these people hide in smoke filled rooms for the sole purpose of making your personal life misearble on purpose? Do you really think you are that self-important enough to be singled out? The intent of the bill is to help those who can not help themselves otherwise. You act as if there is some sinister and immoral strings attached to it which there is not. That is why I feel you are spewing ubiquitous propaganda because you don't know any better and feel like it is a pre-planned personal attack on you. Whether or not you are D or R, if there is any "agenda" here, it is anon's - not the bill.