Rep. John Boehner once handed out tobacco lobby checks on the floor of Congress right before a critical vote on legislation dealing with tobacco. It is important to note that the so-called compromise really lets big tobacco off the hook by either reducing or eliminating the tax increase on tobacco meant to help curb smoking on one hand and aid the health of children on the other.

Big tobacco is unfortunately able to still win the day by holding onto a minority in Congress and a president who recieved big 2004 campaign and inauguration committee donations from Philip Morris and other tobacco giants. In Oregon, Philip Morris and Reynolds American are spending $10 million to block a statewide tobacco tax measure intended for children's health care there as well.

This conflict is not a partisan battle between Democrats and Republicans. Many Republicans support this tobacco tax increase. It's between the influence of the big tobacco lobby and the health and welfare of society.

"Rep. John Boehner once handed out tobacco lobby checks on the floor of Congress right before a critical vote on legislation dealing with tobacco." _ And Paul, this has what do to with the current bill? Nothing, of course.

"It is important to note that the so-called compromise really lets big tobacco off the hook by either reducing or eliminating the tax increase on tobacco meant to help curb smoking on one hand and aid the health of children on the other." - The tobacco industry doesn't pay this tax. The tax is paid by the consumer in the form of higher prices. And I really don't remember the last time anybody was forced to smoke. It is a decision, albeit a bad one, to smoke.

"This conflict is not a partisan battle between Democrats and Republicans. " - Let the 'compromise' bill pass and then debate the merits of expanding it with a tobacco tax. That would take the partisan portion out of the equation. But that isn't really what you want, is it?

It is said that 24% of Americans smoke. So tax that bunch, and say 3 or 4 % quit. There is a lost of income from the taxes. How is that loss going to be made up? The dummies will, if in power, just raise the tax rate on all Americans.

And if they continue with this so called sin tax, what will they tax next? And Oregon is thinking of a new tax on cell phones. What next?

Why hasn't the insurance companies, hospitals, Dr's, and yes, even the churchs become involved in this. I agree that children should have the best medical care they can receive, but why not cut spending on foreign aid? That right there would pay for it, and shouldn't we Americans take care of Americans first?

The bottom line is we don't need new or more taxes! Wish the dummies would wake up to that fact.

I remember a Senator from Tennessee who proclaimed far and wide on the campaign trail how proud he was to have worked on the family tobacco farm.

I wonder what happened to him?

"The bottom line is we don't need new or more taxes! Wish the dummies would wake up to that fact."

How are the Republicans going to offset the tax breaks? Increase deficit spending as they usually do?

Allen, so far the lure of nicotine addiction has continued to create new smoking addicts, so I doubt the bottom will fall out of the tobacco market tomorrow and enough of a tax base will always be there to mostly fund health care. In Oregon, there has been a steady cutback in coverage as tobacco funds grew tighter where many medical conditions and dental care are mostly not covered by the public health program. Co-pay and benefit cuts most often follow a revenue decline, not increased taxes.

How are the Republicans going to offset the tax breaks? Increase deficit spending as they usually do?

I gotta ask you again Barney, are you the Barney Grumble from the Emperor's site?

I ask because you're both hilariously wrong on just about everything you say.

As Democrats stage the ultimate political stunt Thursday with an override vote of President Bush's SCHIP veto,
Rob Bluey

How dare the Constitution allow these "ultimate political stunts"! I say damn Article 1, Section 7! If the President vetoes, it shall have no chance to become law, for he, and he alone, is "The Decider"!

[obviously, /sarc/ off]

Paul,

From the outset you have been the only one I have seen with the inane idea that this veto of the bill is some sort of political payback to the tobacco companies. However, you refuse to acknowledge that the tobacco companies would not be paying the tax and therefore are not intentionally put out by this piece of legislation.

There is no guarantee that if the tax is passed that people will stop smoking nor is there any guarantee that the tobacco companies' profits will be hurt. In fact, the existence of this expansion depends on the continuation of people smoking (how ironic). In fact, in order to sustain this bill, 1/3 of those it is meant to cover will have to become smokers in order to maintain its solvency, yeah, go figure.

So please, go sell crazy at Whiz Blue, we don't buy that here.

There is no guarantee that if the tax is passed that people will stop smoking nor is there any guarantee that the tobacco companies' profits will be hurt.

There's no guarantee, but there has been a steady correlation between increasing tobacco prices and decreasing numbers of smokers. Whether there is causation, or if the decrease is due to other factors (at least in part), such as increased awareness of the dangers of smoking and better youth education, is undetermined as far as I can tell (though the tobacco companies certainly think so). But it seems reasonable to me, and I can say from personal experience, that for the smoker who is contemplating quitting, ever-increasing prices can be the straw that broke the Camel™'s back.

How strange, since every member of our government including Jr. have full coverage insurance and will have even after leaving office for life! So their on the public dole and were paying for their health care but covering more kids, well now that's different, I mean it isn't like any of them can vote so why cover them. Besides like the GOPERS told the parents of the little two year old who was born with a heart defect and required immediate surgery after birth. They had no insurance and received SCHIP. The gopers told em, well if you cannot afford insurance you shouldn't have had the kid! But, they said their the party of LIFE!
I see, only those who are Republicans and have money deserve to live the rest of us including our kids can simply die. Nice people aren't they. Oh, and don't forget they just all gave themselves big fat raises!

Seems to be a thread of folks who couldn't afford their psych meds posting here.

I haven't read the Republican bill, but wouldn't be surprised if it had its own set of poison pills that Democrats would refuse to swallow. I hope not. It would be nice to see some good come out of all this.

Well the veto override failed. Looking forward to seeing the text of the Republican alternative. Sounds reasonable so far....

But it seems reasonable to me, and I can say from personal experience, that for the smoker who is contemplating quitting, ever-increasing prices can be the straw that broke the Camel™'s back.

So if this tax increase is supposed to pay for this expansion of coverage (that has thankfully failed), what happens when that revenue stream dries up? How would we pay for it then? Or does it even matter?

So if this tax increase is supposed to pay for this expansion of coverage (that has thankfully failed), what happens when that revenue stream dries up? How would we pay for it then? Or does it even matter?

The revenue stream would not "dry up," unless you actually believe all smokers will quit as a result of a 61-cent/pack increase. There would likely be a shortfall in the future though, and the funding would have to be found in other places to cover it. I didn't like the tobacco tax too much from the beginning, but it didn't sound like there was any other feasible way to expand the program. I can think of a couple of ways I would do it, but they involve either raising (non-sin) taxes or cutting other programs, and there's no way they could override Bush's veto on those, if they could get them passed in the first place.

You people amaze me..... No problem spending hundreds of billions in Iraq but not a few billion to cover childrens health care. You obviously have never had to deal with a serious medical condition. my god have mercy on your souls..

wth, Don't fight the terrorists in Iraq and you'll be like the 3,000 on 9-11. You won't need health care and neither will your children. You can bury them by the dozen in a shoe box. Only the most crazy, like 'Stark' raving mad, would rather fight them in the streets of America vs fighting and killing them by the thousands in Iraq. They're fresh out of ugly virgins and recruitment of suicide bombers is dropping off. Being Saddams lover (Shrillary/Peeeloshi are available yet) doesn't quite measure up even for an Islamic nut. The health care bill will end up just like Medicare. More and more private doctors have a sign posted, 'we do not accept medicare'. What do you do then. Do what the poor/welfare riders have always done. Use the ER as a primary care giver and let the government pay anyway. That's the way it will be until Shrillary institutes her dictatorship/socialist health care and then no one will need medical care. Get sick, die, the grave will be no more cold than she is. Slick had to do a lot of ugly women, most by force, to get away from Shrillary.

JR, are you sure your real name isn't RJ Reynolds? But seriously, I've never seen Bush turn on any issue that his big donors hold dear. I've never seen that backbone or independence in Bush. In Reagan and others I've seen some independence and strength by comparison on some issues.

How about one that prophbits a school from injecting kids full of ritlin without the parents concent

Paul,

Your complete disregard of direct questions put forth to you rivals only that of Lee Ward. It's no wonder when all you have our children's tales and old boogeymen like "big tobacco" to make your case.