Posted on 02/19/2003 7:23:11 PM PST by new cruelty
By Terence P. Jeffrey humaneventsonline.com [05/13/02]
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson just dumped a load of toxic waste on two of President Bush’s most pristine principles: Taxes should be cut, not raised, and tax cuts should go to everyone, not a privileged few.
Specifically, Thompson floated proposals for a new tax on tobacco and for a tax credit that would be granted only to people who engage in healthy behavior as judged by government bureaucrats.
Thompson floated the two tax proposals without notifying anybody in the White House.
An Associated Press reporter asked Thompson on May 3 whether the government should increase taxes on cigarettes. "Why not?" said Thompson. "I’m for it, but I’m talking as Tommy Thompson now, not as a member of the administration."
Two days later, the Chicago Tribune reported that Thompson, as part of "what he hopes to be the defining quest of his tenure," was "willing to consider the unconventional" in improving the health of Americans. Thompson, the paper said, was studying a special tax credit for people who, as the Tribune put it, "stay in shape."
The day after the Chicago Tribune ran this story Thompson taped an interview with Judy Woodruff of CNN’s "Inside Politics." Here is their exchange:
Woodruff: ". . . I read that among other things you are considering a tax credit for people who take good care of themselves. Are you serious about that?"
Thompson: "I am serious about advocating new ways in which we can try and make people healthier, Judy. And one of those things is exploring the possibility of a tax credit. The problem with it is how do we show proof that people are actually doing what they say they are? It’s very hard to monitor."
Woodruff: "You’re also looking at maybe a tax increase for people who use cigarettes?"
Thompson: "Well, I’m looking at a tax on tobacco and thinking that that’s certainly . . . all part of the thing to remain healthy."
HHS spokesman Campbell Gardett told me that Thompson may not have "meant to suggest a special tobacco tax" when he told Judy Woodruff he was "looking at a tax on tobacco." What he may have meant, said Gardett, "is that not smoking would be part of tax credit sort of idea." He did not contest, however, the accuracy of the CNN videotape or the quote published by AP. Wanting an increase in tobacco taxes, Gardett added, "is not a new position for HHS."
Thompson, he said, "did mean to suggest possibly new and interesting ways of giving people credit for taking care of themselves."
"These are ideas that he wanted to air, so he did," he said. "But these are very much his personal ideas." He stressed that Thompson had not yet discussed them with anyone in the White House or with any Republican in Congress.
He just put them out there in the national media first? I asked. "Yes," said Gardett.
Does he intend to go to the White House or Congress with them? I asked. "Well," said Gardett, "that would depend on what happens next. I don’t believe he has any immediate plans to, no."
The White House did not want to draw any more attention to Thompson’s personal ideas than Thompson already had. Asked to comment on them, White House spokeswomen Mercy Viana noted only that Thompson had said his statements reflected his own views and not those of the administration.
http://www.no-smoking.org/may02/05-15-02-4.html
I would be shocked pale if that were not already the case. Somebody, somewhere must have figured out the accounting here.
Just curious, can they train dogs to check for volume and frequency?
It's all about getting re-elected for the first four years. If there was no need to worry about re-election, the president would spend a lot more time pushing the "right" agenda instead of this constant political positioning.
If I am forced to quit smoking simply because government has tyranically forced the price of cigarettes up 'n up 'n up 'n up 'n up beyond all reason and my ability to continue to purchase same . . . WILL I BE ENTITLED TO REPARATIONS ???
.
Ummm, you're almost 70 years behind the times on this one.
The National Fireams Act of 1934 placed a $200.00 (then a prohibitive amount of money) tax on the transfer of privately owned machine guns. (Two hundred "1934" dollars equals over $2,700 dollars in 2003 dollars when adjusted for inflation.)
No apologies necessary. I went ahead and read the report on the site that you provided a link to. I noticed that it showed a potential loss of between 6,000-12,000 jobs near Winston-Salem. That would be devastating. I vacation in that area twice a year and it is beatiful. Real down to earth people. I can sympathize with your frustration over Liddy - We've got John Warner up here in Virginia. I got more courtesy from Tom Daschle's office than I got from Warner's when making calls about issues.
BWAAAA-HAAAA-HAAAA!!!!
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.