tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1769659900634709753.post-49886684844686494872007-10-27T21:36:00.000-05:002007-10-27T21:36:00.000-05:002007-10-27T21:36:00.000-05:00Perhaps 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?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>"Based on cash receipts from tobacco in 2002, the states most dependent on tobacco farming and<BR/>manufacturing include (share of total cash receipts in parentheses) North Carolina (37.1%)"</I> (pg.6)<BR/><BR/>You don't "believe" it will hurt the industry - I am sure your beliefs are not very comforting to them.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Enjoying your replies.Sam Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01217273789147051558noreply@blogger.com