Unbelievable. That was my first reaction when I heard How Robin Hayes keeps voting against the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill. I'm pretty sure you'll agree with Me after you read what his reasoning behind his vote is.
I didn't write this post to debate the actual SCHIP program, although I will do that soon, but I just wanted everyone to realize why Robin Hayes says he keeps voting against it. You see, even if you're a republican you'll have to agree that Hayes' logic on this one is extremely twisted.
Contrary to what I hear from most republicans, including our dearest President, Hayes is not against the SCHIP bill because it would "be a first step toward government run healthcare....bla bla....communists....9/11". That logic is crazy and dead wrong, but at least there's some logic to it.
No, Hayes is all for SCHIP, the only thing he disagrees with is the way it is funded. The way the expansion of the SCHIP program would be paid for is by raising the taxes on a pack of cigarettes by 61 cents. He fears it would hurt the North Carolina tobacco industry.
First of all, I don't think anyone is going to stop smoking because they would have to pay 61 cents more for a pack of cigs. Even if they do, is that a problem? I thought that quitting smoking was a good thing?
Tell me honestly, would you have a problem paying 3 cents more per cigarette you smoke if you knew that this money would pay for health care for millions of children?? Apparently Hayes thinks you'd have a problem with that.
Hayes quotes some economist that's been working for the tobacco industry for years and he estimates the damage to the NC tobacco industry would be $540 million. I seriously doubt these numbers because, like I said, I don't believe anyone is going to stop smoking because a cigarette costs 3 cents more. Even if you do believe this number, there is one thing Hayes forgets to mention.
He forgets to tell you that on Oct. 22, 2004, President George W. Bush signed legislation creating the Tobacco Transition Payment Program, better known as the tobacco buyout. This program pours approximately $3.9 billion into the North Carolina Tobacco farmers' pockets over a 10-year period. According to the program "Growers must use their producer payments to transition to a new era of tobacco production, out of tobacco production to other agricultural enterprises, or out of tobacco production to a non-farming occupation." So basically, it pays tobacco farmers to switch their business to growing something else.
The conclusion is that Hayes feels sorry for NC tobacco farmers because now, according to his own numbers, they'll only get $3.36 billion in taxpayers' money ($3.9 billion - the $540 million in "damages"). Awww... don't you feel sorry for them too?
I came up with a solution for Hayes that would let him support the tobacco industry and at the same time allow him to vote for SCHIP. Why doesn't he start a program to encourage as many kids as possible to start smoking? These kids would then support our tobacco industry and at the same time pay for their own health care program through the taxes they pay on their pack of cigs. Brilliant!
Seriously though, we need a representative in Congress who understands what "regular people" in our 8th Congressional district go through every day and how a lot of us are really struggling and having a hard time ensuring our kids have healthcare. Robin Hayes didn't have to struggle one minute of his life, he doesn't understand us and he never will. We don't need someone who was born with a silver spoon representing us in Washington, we need one of us. One of us last time came within 300 votes of firing Hayes from his job and next year he'll be giving Hayes his pink slip.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Congressman Hayes would prefer you smoke instead of having a healthy kid.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
So, we are supposed to pay for millions of "poor" kids to get healthcare by increasing cigarette taxes. Then, with the higher taxes we'll have the money to pay for it all. But quitting smoking is a good thing so the less smokers we have, the better.
So we're supposed to keep the higher tax rate to fund the program with less smokers all while bribing farmers to switch to other crops while telling folks that only smokers and tobacco companies will pay for the program.
Smokers die off, or quit, tobacco farmers switch to soybeans or kale, tobacco plants close or move overseas.
So tell me: How do we pay for a probram which costs "X" dollars when our income will only br "Y" dollars when "Y" is less than "X"
Talk about not logical thought process...
If you lose your job, do you never work again, or do you look for a new job?
If the necessary funds, raised through cigarette taxes, turn out to be insufficient over time I'm sure we could find some other way of financing the SCHIP program.
I'm very sure though we wouldn't need to do that for at least a decade or more.
Which brings me back to my original question: Do you honestly think anyone is going to stop smoking because a cigarette would cost 3 cents more?
Let me preface this by saying I HATE HATE HATE cigarettes!! I can't stress that enough. If they disappeared from the face of the earth today, it wouldn't be soon enough.
But, here is my problem - and I think the problem a lot of people from the south, including Hayes has. If you will do a little research you will find that the good people of D.C. (from both parties) like to find programs that they can use tobacco to pay for. It only effects a few southern states - so what???
Why not split the cost of the costs of the program between alcohol and tobacco? Percentage wise, cigarettes are one of the highest taxed items available.
Why should a few states or a handful of smokers carry the burden for this or any program??
Why not do away with the useless tax on our phone bills that was levied about 50 years ago to extend phone lines into rural areas - like that is still a problem. Replace it with a tax for this program, let everyone carry the burden.
First of all, let me tell you that Hayes is one of the only republicans that uses the tobacco industry as an excuse for not voting for SCHIP. All other republicans don't like SCHIP because they hate that "evil communist" universal health care and they think SCHIP is a step towards that. They seem to forget that every single other "western civilized" country in this whole world has some form of universal health care. So either they're all a bunch of communists or that argument is a bunch of baloney.
But universal health care is a whole other discussion.
So even if Hayes switched his vote we would still not get SCHIP approved, thanks to the republican party.
Now on to your comments.
"Why should a few states or a handful of smokers carry the burden for this or any program??"
A handful of smokers? About 44.5 million adults smoked cigarettes in 2005.
When it comes to kids,about 1 in 3 male high school students (32%) and 1 in 4 female high school students (25%) used some type of tobacco in 2005.
They were other congressmen from North Carolina who had problems with the way this expansion of SCHIP would be funded, but they were smart enough to see what was more important, tobacco industry or health care for kids.
One example of such a congressman is conservative Democrat Mike McIntyre of North Carolina's 7th District. He originally voted against SCHIP but decided not to follow President Bush and his veto.
Congressman McIntyre stated, “As a long-time advocate for children for over 25 years, and as one who has consistently supported family health issues, I will not support President Bush’s veto of the SCHIP bill, and I will vote to override his veto. My objection to the method of funding for this bill and my support of North Carolina’s farmers and the economic well-being of our communities are well-known, but I have always supported the SCHIP program and will do what is necessary to preserve it for the sake of children and families in need. As Chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee that oversees tobacco, I will also continue to do all that I can to support our farmers and our region’s economy. That commitment has not changed with this vote for our children.”
If Congressman McIntyre seems to believe he can vote for SCHIP and still support tobacco farmers in other ways, why can't Robin Hayes?
It is not about supporting the tobacco farmers - I wish cigarettes had vanished yesterday. My point is, why fund this (or any) program with a tax on one segment of the population? While there may be 44.5 million smokers, that is still a small group compared to say, for example, automobile owners. Regardless of the validity or need of the program, the funding should not be aimed at a particular group unless they are the beneficiaries of the program. Fishing licenses for example are simply a tax on fishermen, but the money is SUPPOSED to be spent on wildlife related causes.
In regards to this program - I cannot speak inteligently because I have not studied it very well. But, let me say I am very concerned with the governement getting involved in healthcare considering the marvelous record. You also mention all the other countries have such a program but, which country has the best healthcare program. My only exposure to thistype program is through a friend in Canada and he says their program sucks!
"My point is, why fund this (or any) program with a tax on one segment of the population?"
One reason I can come up with on this is that the segment of the population you're taxing (smokers) is responsible for a nice chunk of the health care costs.
"You also mention all the other countries have such a program but, which country has the best health care program."
As you might know I'm originally from Belgium, so I've enjoyed the blessings of the universal health care system they have there until i was 30. I can tell you it works really well there. In my whole life I have never heard anyone complain about it.
From what I gather the difference between Canada and the Belgian system is that in Belgium health care isn't really "run by the government". The government sets the rules and boundaries, but a lot of hospitals are private businesses, they just work within the universal health care system.
I also know that in Canada health care is organized differently in every state, it is not organized federally, so your friend might think that the system in his state sucks, while in another state within Canada everyone might love it.
I didn't really want to start a whole discussion about universal health care here, I will do that soon in a separate post, so I'm only touching on it here.
One thing I know for certain, and the proof is in the numbers, the universal health care system in Belgium provides health care for everyone at a lower cost than the American system, which leaves millions of people out in the cold.
And health care over there has the same standards as we do here, if not higher.
Of course, no system is perfect, but some are definitely way better than what we have here.
I appreciate all your input by the way.
I cannot disagree that smokers are causing a great deal of the health care costs, but this program is not aimed at stopping or helping them - it is for the children. So, if it is for the children, and you stated earlier that smokers shouldn't mind 3 cent per cig. tax, then can't everyone pay something if the program is really worth it.
I am also not debating the program - I just am very opposed to taxes aimed at segments of the population. Even with my hatred for cigarettes (they killed father and grandfathers) I am still especially sensitive to the federal government's propensity to tax tobacco while avoiding liquor.
If tobacco was grown in Mass, NY, etc, and liquor was brewed in NC, SC, GA - which do you think would be targeted with all these taxes?
BTW - what is the purpose of the wiggly word to sign in? It is a pain!
First of all, that "wiggly word" is something that a lot of websites, including apparently Google/Blogger, use to keep so called "spambots" at bay. It keeps away software programs that spammers use to automatically add a bunch of spam/ad messages as comments on blogs.
I agree it is a bit of a pain, but it's not a setting i can change, it is used on every Blogger blog.
Finally, I agree that they could use other revenue as well to fund the SCHIP program, I just think that using that as the only reason to vote against a program that will provide health care to millions of children is very stupid.
Thanks for putting up with the "wiggly word" :-)
Then I come to several conclusions:
1. If the program is worth it, then the politicians should find a broader base of financial support for funding.
2. Every politician from tobacco producing states should have voted against the program. Hate or love tobacco, it is still one of the major economic forces in several southern states and the elected officials from those states should take action to protect them. Example - if every one of the members of Concord's City Council hate racing - they better kiss major butt for the good of the community.
Do you think if this program was being funded with a $2 (about the same percentage) tax on a six pack of beer, that the reps from MO (A. Busch) or WI (Miller) would vote for it?
"Hate or love tobacco, it is still one of the major economic forces in several southern states and the elected officials from those states should take action to protect them."
It looks like you're wrong on that, after some very short research I managed to find a study that says that the share of tobacco farming and manufacturing in the GSP (Gross State Product) of NC is a mere 3%. In all other southern states it is even way less than that. Mind you, this is the share in 1999 and I have every reason to believe that it only has gone downhill since.
I must also repeat my point that I don't believe that raising the taxes on a packet of cigs by 61 cents will hurt the tobacco industry at all. They're not taxing the industry, they're taxing the users of the product and I don't believe that these users will stop buying the product because it now costs 3 cents more per cigarette.
"Do you think if this program was being funded with a $2 (about the same percentage) tax on a six pack of beer, that the reps from MO (A. Busch) or WI (Miller) would vote for it?"
Well, 6 representatives of those states you mentioned already voted against SCHIP, so it doesn't look like it would matter to them if it was funded by a tax on alcohol, they're already against it.
Which brings me back to the original point of this post, which was to question the reasoning Robin Hayes claims to have to vote against this.
Perhaps you should look closer at your data. It is actually over 4% (pg.14). It would also add validity to your point if info was available that put the 3 or 4% in perspective. That sounds small, but is it? What industries contribute more?
Your data also furthers my case as tobacco is the mainly produced in six states. KY, NC, TN, VA, SC, GA (pg.6). So these six will bear the brunt of whatever the effect is. 6 out of 50.
"Based on cash receipts from tobacco in 2002, the states most dependent on tobacco farming and
manufacturing include (share of total cash receipts in parentheses) North Carolina (37.1%)" (pg.6)
You don't "believe" it will hurt the industry - I am sure your beliefs are not very comforting to them.
I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that taxing the user will not effect the industry. If the tax hurts sells, certainly it hurts the industry. I believe it was Clinton who increased the tax on big ticket items such asa luxury yachts and boats and crippled the industry.
Finally, you missed my point about the politicians from MO & WI. Regardless of the program, if it raised tax on a six pack by $2, they would vote against it.
Enjoying your replies.
"I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that taxing the user will not effect the industry."
I come to this conclusion for the following reason (and I keep repeating this):
Who is going to stop smoking because every cigarette would cost 3 cents more?
Seriously now, answer that question honestly and you'll see that it doesn't make any sense to say that the tobacco industry is going to be hurt by this.
If someone smokes a pack a day, he would have to pay $18 more per month for his habit.
Do you seriously think that anyone is going to be persuaded to stop smoking because of this?
If no one will stop smoking because of this, how will the tobacco industry get hurt???
Haven't paid much attention to the SCHIPS lately but the 61 cents per pack (using your 44.5 million smokers) is about 14.5 billion per year based on 1 carton(10 packs) per week per smoker.
How much are they saying they need??? Oh, last I heard it was 35 billion. Where's the other 60% coming from.
And the tax increase on each smoker would be $317.20 dollars per year. That's 25.00 per month. That's half of my phone bill...
As for why they picked Cigarettes?
According to focus groups completed two months ago by congressional staffers:
Cigarrettes are Bad!
Funny Thierry, I was wanting to move to Belgium because their schools were so much better than the US schools.(Those damnable free markets I'm told) How's the climate? Maybe my company will consider opening a Belgian branch office for me to run...
How much
"Where's the other 60% coming from?"
The 61 cent cigarette tax pays for the expansion of the SCHIP program, the rest of the program is financed the way it used to be financed, I'm guessing out of the general income taxes we all pay, but I'd have to look into that.
"And the tax increase on each smoker would be $317.20 dollars per year. That's 25.00 per month."
That number of course all depends on how much you smoke, since you pay 61 cents more per pack of cigs you buy. But your point brings me back to my original question: Would anyone stop smoking because of this? I don't think so.
And if they don't, then Hayes argument that it would hurt the tobacco industry is nonsense.
And yes cigarettes are bad, which is why it's such a good idea to have smokers pay for health care costs for children.
Now to Belgium, the climate there used to be more moderate then here, especially in summer and we had a lot more rain. They have what is called a "moderate maritime climate".
On average it rains 200 days there in a year. Winters are a little colder than here and we have a little more snow, but nothing extreme. The average July temperature is about 75 I believe, which is why nobody there used to have air conditioning, they didn't need it. I had never been in a car with A/C until I got to the US.
However, ever since Al Gore invented that global warming, things have changed.
In the last 20 years the average temperature in Belgium has risen twice as fast as the average rise in the rest of the world.
They don't have very cold winters anymore and the summers are getting hotter and hotter. The hottest summer in Belgium in recorded history was 2003 and 2006 and 2007 are also in the top 5 of hottest summers ever. Air conditioning units are selling like hotcakes there now. So if you want to be in a different climate than we have in NC, you better move quick!
When it comes to schools it is true that according to every international study I've read education in Belgium is at the top of the world, way ahead of the US.
However, even privately run schools there are totally and only funded by taxes (damn commies) and government has very strict rules as far as to what needs to be taught in schools, private or public. Education is completely free until you turn 18.
I hope that answers some of your questions :-)
Post a Comment