I'm a smoker and I think this is absolutely apalling. This is a real wedge issue in 2008, IMO.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 6, 2007 02:18 PMSmoking's dumb.
Posted by snark at November 6, 2007 03:08 PMYep, snark, it is. But it could have paid for kids' health care, dangit. That would have been cool.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 6, 2007 03:27 PMTime to start taxing the hell out of booze, and stop looking for a cigarette tax every friggin time some yahoo wants more money. Is alcohol sacred or somthing?
Posted by Judith at November 6, 2007 03:56 PMI thought all those smoking settlements were to help pay for kids healthcare. Where did they go, up in smoke.
Posted by peter at November 6, 2007 03:57 PMWhen I was in hospice waiting to croak I had 8 smokers for company. It was pathetic watching them go out on the balcony in their oxygen supercharged wheelchairs to smoke with the stubbornness, determination and intelligence of a 2 time Bush voter.
In the coming days all 8 went off to sleep with the fishies. (I gaught betta)
Snark speaks with strait tongue.
Posted by TIKI AL at November 6, 2007 03:59 PMI don't know why a "sin tax" can't be used. A sin tax should include tobacco, alcohol, soft drinks, potato chips, fast food, etc. Why it falls only on the smokers to pay for illnesses due to alcoholism, diabetes and illness due to obesity is silly. No, I don't smoke, but I do see the hypocrisy of taxing tobacco only.
Posted by Jackie at November 6, 2007 04:07 PMSin taxes are terribly regressive.
Jackie, take a trip into an inner city neighborhood and tell is how many healthfood stores you find. Poor people eat what's easily available. And cheap. Taxing income in a progressive way that would allow for a coordinated approach to preventive medicine, which educates people about healthy lifestyles and keeps them from getting sick and developing dependencies in the first place, is a much more sensible route.
Posted by snark at November 6, 2007 04:20 PMagain...a very dumb decision by an extremely mentally challenged President....impeach this joke NOW
Posted by ed at November 6, 2007 04:43 PMSnark, I don't think I suggested everyone shop at health food stores. If you're poor - as you suggested, then fast foods shouldn't even be part of the budget. It sure wasn't for me and my kids. We had to settle for "McMoms." Fast foods and junk foods aren't cheap, they're convenient.
I don't argue against taxing tobacco, but I do think alcohol and junk foods should be taxed also. Junk foods include candy, snack chips, sodas, donuts, etc. Not peanut butter and jelly. Mind you, I drink my wine and enjoy the occasional fast food meal and I confess to being a dark chocolate addict. So I would be paying my fair share of taxes.
Posted by Jackie at November 6, 2007 05:07 PMDoes anyone think that Bush gives a shit about looking uncaring?
Also, Bush will never get impeached...forget it.
Posted by Parallax at November 6, 2007 06:54 PMFast foods and junk foods aren't cheap, they're convenient.
Convenient. Isn't that synonymous with easily accessible?
And they are relatively cheap. When you consider that they involve almost no prep time and include a lot of calories in a single serving. Ever hear of the "value menu"?
As I said, drastically increasing the "sin tax" on all those items would fall disproportionally on lower income people. Its also not effective at changing consumption habits and encourages black market activity. Net result is you just force lower income people to spend more of their limited resources on things that arent healthy for them. Taxing income progressively and providing preventive healthcare is a much more effective strategy.
Posted by snark at November 6, 2007 07:40 PMBush is right on target with Oregon voters, who are killing a ballot measure 50 which would tax ciggies for kid's health. Oregon, some progressive state indeed.
Posted by degustibus at November 7, 2007 02:22 AMWhat's to prevent people from growing their own tobacco. I believe this is the reason they've backed off taxing alcohol beyond reason. It's not that difficult to make.
Posted by JohnT at November 7, 2007 06:10 AMWhat's to prevent people from growing their own tobacco.
Tobacco is not easy to grow.
But I know something else that people like to smoke that is.
More seriously, making the tax on cigarettes ridiculous would do wonders for the black market in the cancer sticks.
Posted by snark at November 7, 2007 06:17 AMjeebus, just repeal Dear Leader's tax cuts for mega-millionaires
Posted by Gay Veteran at November 7, 2007 06:54 AMThe orignial bill in the House payed for a $50B increase to SCHIP funding with a tobacco tax AND curbing of the Medicare Advantage Overpayments boondoggle
Posted by eRobin at November 7, 2007 07:18 AMbut the Senate killed that part fast.
Posted by eRobin at November 7, 2007 07:20 AMin the original veto Bush made, I thought, a good point. Less and less people are smoking, so basing the funds on taxing something that will pay less and less is not good. Since I can't believe Bush could ever say something intelligent, I assume that was simply a cover for his veto. But it does make some sense.
Posted by T2 at November 7, 2007 07:38 AMFor the record, I meant I am a smoker, but despite that, siding with smokers over kids is appalling. I thought I was clear enough, but perhaps not.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 7, 2007 07:45 AMYou know, I think the title of the post isn't quite correct. Bush isn't siding with smokers on this veto. He's siding with the tobacco lobbyists and bigtime corporations. He doesn't give a shit about smokers, (like his wife, who is reportedly a chain-smoker, I believe). He's protecting the have-mores, as usual.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 7, 2007 07:51 AM