Posted on 10/14/2005 6:34:56 PM PDT by Crackingham
Gov. Matt Blunt has publicly opposed a cigarette tax increase, but some key GOP players are quietly working to make sure voters pass it in November 2006.
The Committee for a Healthy Future, the group promoting the ballot initiative to increase cigarette taxes by 80 cents a pack, has hired John Hancock, a spokesman and consultant for the Missouri Republican Party, as a strategist. Hancock was constantly at the side of Blunt, a Republican, during his 2004 campaign for governor.
The campaign also has hired two other Republicans as consultants: Jewell Patek, a former lawmaker who later served as an aide to Blunt when he was secretary of state, and David Barklage, who served as chief of staff to former state Sen. Peter Kinder, now lieutenant governor.
Blunt’s spokesmen have been saying since June that the governor is opposed to increasing the cigarette tax or any other tax, even though lawmakers are struggling to find long-term solutions to address health-care needs for the poor and uninsured.
Jack Cardetti, Missouri Democratic Party spokesman, said the involvement of top Republicans in the tax initiative campaign brings into question whether Blunt truly opposes the idea.
“If Matt Blunt really wanted to kill this proposal, he could make three phone calls and it’d be dead within the month,” Cardetti said.
Blunt’s spokesman, Spence Jackson, said the governor has nothing to do with the contracts Hancock and other Republican consultants take.
“Reasonable people often disagree on issues,” Jackson said. “This is obviously an area of disagreement.”
Proponents of the cigarette tax also have hired two well-connected Democrats –– Steve Glorioso, a Kansas City political strategist who worked on Claire McCaskill’s campaign for governor, and Chuck Hatfield, a Jefferson City lawyer who served as Attorney General Jay Nixon’s chief of staff.
Missouri, which has the third-highest smoking rate in the nation, has the 49th-lowest cigarette tax at 17 cents a pack. Kansas, with a tax of 79 cents per pack, has the 27th-lowest cigarette tax.
The proposed 80-cent tax increase in Missouri would raise an estimated $351 million a year, with $61 million of that going to anti-smoking programs, $100 million to treatment of chronic diseases and smoking-related illnesses among the poor and $190 million to increase Medicaid fees to health-care providers. The Missouri Hospital Association and other health organizations are bankrolling the campaign.
Blunt and the Republican-led legislature this year cut 90,000 people off Medicaid.
The governor, who has been fiercely attacked over the Medicaid cuts, has to know that the cigarette tax would help him politically, Cardetti said.
“He wants both the benefit of the added revenue and the benefit of not supporting a tax increase,” Cardetti said.
“This (Blunt’s opposition) is extremely disingenuous.”
Don't give 'em any ideas!
A buddy of mine saw a tractor-trailer load of cigs get hijacked in broad daylight on the BQE (Bronx-Queens Expressway.) Kids pulled up behind the truck in a mini-pickukp, cut the locks, and were passing cartons over the hood into the back of the truck. Driver probably never even knew they were there (or did he?)
What products cost society (and the government) money?
"What products cost society (and the government) money?"
First of all, I understand a system like this could never be really implemented because it would be too unwieldy and never should be implemented because no conservative in his right mind want the government integrated so deeply into the details of our lives. Government should be for broad sweeps, like defense, trade, border security etc.
To me, I don't mind taxes as much when they apply to products that, used as intended, do far greater harm than good, with a high cost and that is not essential.
Limited like that I don't have a lot of other suggestions.
Guns, for example are a benefit when used as intended. They are only harmful if misused.
Cars provide so much benefit and are essential... Alcohol is only harmful is misused. A glass of wine each day is actually healthy.
Cigarettes really stand out. I guess heroin and cocaine should be taxed if they are ever made legal. And I know in Atlanta there is a gay club that has bareback Hiv positive sex parties. The CDC should probably be by the entrance collecting a large tax.
It boggles the mind how people can justify in their minds increasing taxes on a product to both increase revenue and decrease the use of the same product at the same time.
You convinced me to trying rolling my own cigarettes, and were you ever right!! We are saving a lot and I really like the taste better. I felt kind of guilty ordering my tubes off the net, but our local smoke shop charges over $3/box of tubes and I ordered than for less than $1.75/ box (course I had to get a case). I'm still buying the tobacco locally, I really like the American Spirit brand(100% US Grown),additive free.
Thanks for the information and encouragement. LSA
I posted this on another thread She started, I'll say it again here:
Alcohol certainly can be compared to tobacco. It's a big problem. If you think most people drink moderately, why do we have 6.8 million binge drinkers and 2.1 million heavy drinkers under the age of 21? In this country, 76 MILLION people have at least one alcoholic in their family. My stepfather was one. He finally joined A.A. and quit-he stayed sober for 50 years almost to the day before he died. He told me many times-"I don't see what the big fuss is over smokers & tobacco. Alcohol is the worst drug in this country. Always has been. Always will be." Three million violent crimes are committed each year under its influence. It's not harmless.
Well, I don't want to 'encourage' anyone to smoke. LOL! But if you are going to do it, may as well do it as cheap as you can. The lawmakers know a lot of us really enjoy the "habit," so they think they can bleed our pockets dry. But, where there is a will there is a way of keeping our money away from them.
One gal in southern Maine figured it out that if Maine had just added one penny to each can of beer, the taxes on cigarettes wouldn't have gone up. But oh no! The lawmakers like their "brew" so they wouldn't touch it.
I would much rather pass a smoker on the highway then a drinker anytime! At least when we smoke, it doesn't make us all ga-ga in the head!
Smoking cigarettes has been shown to reduce instances of prostate cancer and also keeps irritable bowel syndrome under control (along with other dried leaves of the nightshade family such as tomatoes and eggplant).
"And taxes on cigarettes that cost us a great deal of money for health insurance and lost productivity."
Please offer actual proof of this assertion. In reality, this is the logic that lead the the MSA with most of the states, now that money is being used in the general funds or for just plain vote buying. If the costs you describe truly existed, then the money would be being spent on these items now. Since the costs still "exist" after the MSA, then the states must not be using that revenue on these costs. Therefore, they must not be a legitimate liability to the states.
"I agree the scope of government is far to large. But something has to be taxed to pay for it. My argument was that in selecting what to tax it should be done in a way to do as little harm as possible. By targeting items that do great harm to society we at least do some good."
How do you propose lowering the scope of government when you burden the minority of the population to carry the burden of government?
Stupid is as stupid does.
Ya know, it seems high damn time that the poor and uninsured take care of themselves. I know that sounds harsh but every time I turn around I'm asked to give away money I EARNED to take care of someone else who didn't earn their own care. When does it stop?
"
How do you propose lowering the scope of government when you burden the minority of the population to carry the burden of government?"
That's an excellent point and it's one of the problems caused by a one man, one vote system. In fact my signature used to be "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul."
"Please offer actual proof of this assertion."
Obviously I can't do the scientific research myself but I already posted a link above from the CDC on causes of death and saying that one fifth of all deaths in the U.S.A. are caused by smoking.
I also cited the personal example that my father in law is expected to die this week of lung cancer and that medical expenses during the years leading up to his death have exceeded his lifetime earnings, not just his lifetime taxes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.