Posted on 11/18/2005 6:37:03 PM PST by Amerigomag
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Hollywood director Rob Reiner warned the California Hospital Association Friday to withdraw or rewrite a ballot proposal it's pushing for 2006. "If the initiative remains in its current form, I will have no other option but to actively and aggressively oppose it," Reiner said in a letter to C. Duane Dauner, the association's president.
Reiner championed a 1998 ballot proposal slapping a 50-cents-a-pack tax on cigarettes to fund health and education programs for children up to 5 years old, now known as First 5 California. In his letter, Reiner argued the hospital proposal, which calls for a $1.50 tax on each pack of cigarettes to fund emergency rooms and other health programs, would slash First 5 funding. Reiner, who finds himself in the awkward position of arguing against a tax increase that could decrease smoking, pegged the loss at $34 million.
When asked if the hospitals' campaign would drop or revise its proposal considering Reiner's complaint, spokeswoman Kris Deutschman said, "We have to move forward with the priority of keeping emergency rooms open. We would invite and encourage all parties to come join us." In a later phone call, she said the group would be eager to discuss the issue with Reiner.
(Excerpt) Read more at fresnobee.com ...
$10,000 remember...It's for the children
They're (anti-smoking crusaders) definetly losing the battle. You got the high taxes on smokes and then you got the stupid cigarette smoking bans. Only a matter of time before cigarettes becomes part of the WOD, with BATF agents doing no-knock raids on suspected smokers.
They're working on it.
California Secretary of State - Elections & Voter Information - Initiative Update
1159. (SA2005RF0097)
Cigarette Tax. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Summary Date: 10/31/05
Circulation Deadline: 03/30/06
Signatures Required: 598,105
Proponent: Dorel Harms, RN
(916) 443-6972
Imposes additional 71/2 cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($1.50 per pack), and indirectly increases tax on other tobacco products. Tax revenues allocated to specified purposes, including private hospital and physician emergency services, indigent healthcare, breast cancer research, tobacco use prevention, tobacco smuggling prevention and nursing education.1160. (SA2005RF0098)Excludes tax revenue appropriations from constitutional appropriation limits and minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98). Establishes criteria for receipt and use of tax revenues. Increases penalties for tobacco tax crimes. Provides that hospitals collaborating on emergency services are exempt from state antitrust laws.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments -- An increase in new state cigarette tax revenues of about $1.4 billion annually, declining slightly annually thereafter. Those revenues would be used for various health and education programs. Unknown but probably significant savings in state and local government health care costs over time due to expected reduction in consumption of tobacco products.
Imposes additional 5 cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($1.00 per pack), and indirectly increases tax on other tobacco products. Tax revenues allocated to specified purposes, including tobacco use prevention programs, enforcement of tobacco-related laws, and research, prevention and treatment of various conditions, including breast and cervical cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, stroke, asthma, colorectal cancer and obesity.Excludes tax revenue appropriations from constitutional appropriation limits, minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98), and reduction by the Governor (Proposition 76).
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments -- Increase in new state tobacco tax revenues of about $1 billion annually by 2007-08, declining slightly annually thereafter. Those revenues would be used for various health and tobacco-related programs. Unknown but probably significant savings in state and local government health care costs over time due to expected reduction in consumption of tobacco products and due to other factors.
I wonder how Robbie would feel if I proposed a $1 tax on all movie tickets to help Iraq veterans and their families?
"Reiner, who finds himself in the awkward position of arguing against a tax increase..."
Reiner. A colassal @$$hole.
It's Rob Reiner vs The Anti-Smokers Who Are Trying To Get The Money That Reiner Considers His.
Who will win the battle for the smokers' money?
;^)
As much as I loathe Bill Maher; I get the impression Reiner is cruising for one of those 'Get Over Yourself' awards Maher used to hand out long ago.
ROBBER REINER'S LIES
AND HOLLYWOOD MONEY
WON AGAIN!
(Talk about Big Fat!)
Situational ethics?
When Reiner put River Phoenix in his movie, Stand By Me, and had him
smoke throughout, Phoenix was only 14 years old. Guess it's okay to
have kids smoke when it's for Reiner's benefit.
Whores. All of them.
I believe you're right. A real-life microcosmic demonstration of the Laffer Curve theory of taxation.
Sounds like Meathead is in charge of things in Kalifornia.
I agree with you. We should all write to our respective Legislatures and tell them we quit, their own personal money tree has quit producing!It's dead! Roll your own if you have to for a month or 2.
| If was Archie Bunker, I'd have shot him in the A$$ with rock salt when he first wanted to date my daughter. |
 |
I'm not from California---explain to me why the smokers have to pay for all of it?
Why penalize only the smokers?
Why not just increase the income tax or the sales tax?
with any luck, the smokers.
I am so frickin' sick and tired of this crapola, I can't see straight.
You and I have been saying it for how long now? It is ONLY about money. It has got not a single thing to do with "health" - except for the "health" of the wallets of the antis.
I'm in California and here's how I see it. There are more non-smokers than smokers. When there is something on the ballot that will only tax smokers, it gets passed by the people who will not be affected by it.
If a politician raises taxes on cigarettes he does it knowing there will be few recriminations from his constituents because most of them are non-smokers.
Smokers are out-numbered.
Oh,now I get it----tyranny of the majority.
Yep, and they are MEAN!
I have to go now and circulate some petitions to try and get junk food heavily taxed! For the good of the [fat] chiiiiildren.
;^)
Please do.
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.