You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Economy
Obama tax pledge up in smoke - Pack a day habit will cost additinal $226. a year
2009-04-02
One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.

The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000. This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.

To be sure, Obama's tax promises in last year's campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always.

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases. The extra money will be used to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children. That represents a step toward achieving another promise, to make sure all kids are covered.

Obama said in the campaign that Americans could have both--a broad boost in affordable health insurance for the nation without raising taxes on anyone but the rich. His detailed campaign plan stated that his proposed improvement in health insurance and health technology "is more than covered" by raising taxes on the wealthy alone. It was not based on raising the tobacco tax.

The White House contends Obama's campaign pledge left room for measures such as the one financing children's health insurance. "The president's position throughout the campaign was that he would not raise income or payroll taxes on families making less than $250,000, and that's a promise he has kept," said White House spokesman Reid H. Cherlin. "In this case, he supported a public health measure that will extend health coverage to 4 million children who are currently uninsured."

In some instances during the campaign, Obama was plainly talking about income, payroll and investment taxes, even if he did not say so. Other times, his point appeared to be that heavier taxation of any sort on average Americans is the wrong prescription in tough times.

"Listen now," he said in his widely watched nomination acceptance speech, "I will cut taxes--cut taxes--for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."

An unequivocal "any tax" pledge also was heard in the vice presidential debate, another prominent forum. "No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised," Joe Biden said, "whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax."

The Democratic campaign used such statements to counter Republican assertions that Obama would raise taxes in a multitude of direct and indirect ways, recalled Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. "I think a reasonable person would have concluded that Senator Obama had made a 'no new taxes' pledge to every couple or family making less than $250,000," she said.

Jamieson noted GOP ads that claimed Obama would raise taxes on electricity and home heating oil. "They rebutted both with the $250,000 claim," she said of the Obama campaign, "so they did extend the rebuttal beyond income and payroll."

Government and private research has found that smoking rates are higher among people of low income. A Gallup survey of 75,000 people last year fleshed out that conclusion. It found that 34 percent of respondents earning $6,000 to $12,000 were smokers, and the smoking rate consistently declined among people of higher income. Only 13 percent of people earning $90,000 or more were smokers.

Federal or state governments often turn for extra tax dollars to the one in five Americans who smoke, and many states already hit tobacco users this year. So did the tobacco companies, which raised the price on many brands by more than 70 cents a pack.

The latest increase in the federal tax is by far the largest since its introduction in 1951, when it was 8 cents a pack. It's gone up six times since, each time by no more than a dime, until now.

Apart from the tax haul, public health advocates argue that squeezing smokers will help some to quit and persuade young people not to start. But it was a debate the country didn't have in a presidential campaign that swore off higher taxation.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#17  Yeah and it worked so good with whiskey it's worth doing all over again with smokes.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2009-04-02 23:44  

#16  I first noticed that when a 20 year old kid walked up to me last week and said, "Can you show me how to do a roll?" I didn't realize what he was trying to do. I thought it was pot, but then realized it was tobacco and paper. Another guy showed him how to do it.
Posted by: Oscar Snomorong1173   2009-04-02 18:55  

#15  I've noticed a lot of people have started "rolling their own". No taxes at all. They are also starting to grow their own tobacco plants.
Posted by: Oscar Snomorong1173   2009-04-02 18:52  

#14  The delemma is smoking funds the the childens health care. Stopping smoking is therefore anti-children, but that means taxes on alchohol and gasoline etc will have to be raised to cover the shortfall of money from those selfish quitters.
Posted by: Muggsy Glink   2009-04-02 18:28  

#13  It was some eddie murphey movie where he was a cop, beverly hills cop I think, he is undercover selling black market cigs - that movie was in mid '80's. Fortunately for the smokers round here, cuz GBUSMC is absolutely right, there is a ms-13 branch within 60 miles. More like a quick shop operation, you know big city variety with small town lines >:(
Posted by: swksvolFF   2009-04-02 16:08  

#12  Black market, HO-OOO!
Posted by: mojo   2009-04-02 15:05  

#11  legislation that would, for the first time, allow government regulation of tobacco products

OK isn't Taxation Regulation?
Posted by: Galactic Coordinator Angeart5117   2009-04-02 15:00  

#10  They're celebrating at Mohegan Sun.
Posted by: William Marcy Tweed   2009-04-02 14:16  

#9  If you get the taxes high enough the Mexican drug cartels will add smuggling of untaxed cigarettes to their enterprise.

You could get rid of the regressiveness by adding an earned lung cancer tax credit on the IRS 1040. Of course they would have to earn less than $250,000 and smoke to qualify. Save your cigarette receipts. /snarc
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2009-04-02 14:08  

#8  The American tax payer is flipping the bill for Obama's smokes. What does he care if the price goes up.
Posted by: Lftbhndagn   2009-04-02 13:04  

#7  Raising revenue under cover of morality, pure and simple. I would consider myself a centerist on the subject of smoking, but I see too much evidence to conclude that this 'is for the people's own good', which can be another subject altogether. The potential HHS secretary Sebelius would be the perfect face to continue the taxing/banning of smoking in the USA as that has been her pet project (state smoking ban) for the last year and half (timing it?).

The author of this article is, at best, stretching a thin arguement and comes across as more a nit-picker of the president than making a decent point IMHO, though does make a point - people can only fight and quit any kind of addiction only when they are GD good and ready (or get doped legal - ex those nicotine pills - or illegal - Rodney King quitting crack but hitting to booze hard for those who watch Doctor Drew - on something to replace that addiction). It has been my experience that poor people do find a way to get money to feed their addictions, and those who cut resources from their kids have a spiritual problem which cannot be solved in this manner.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2009-04-02 12:41  

#6  Â“Casting a cigarette tax as an imposition on the poor is nonsense.”

There is absolutely no disputing the FACT that Tobacco taxes are “Regressive” - NONE. The definition of a regressive tax is that they impose a greater burden, relative to resources, on the poor than on the rich. The pernicious nature of Tobacco taxes is as they relate to the physical addiction of the product. In other words, the consumers are much less likely to quit consumption and forgoe other, perhaps more important, products and services. You know…like baby formula.
Whenever the duplicity of these taxes is exposed the advocates have no choice but to justify through deceptive emotional appeals. In this instance they re-state the obvious in that it will reduce harmful consumption and therefore is a good thing. However, their primary goal is NOT to reduce smoking. Their motivation is to raise revenue for their pet programs. So what happens when the revenues eventually decline to adequatley fund their programs? Answer; They raise more taxes! After allÂ…itÂ’s for the children.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2009-04-02 12:32  

#5  You might get your wish, mom...

WASHINGTON – Anti-smoking forces are predicting a long-awaited victory when the House votes on legislation that would, for the first time, allow government regulation of tobacco products.

The House scheduled a vote for Thursday morning on the legislation, which gives the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate — but not ban — cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Action by the Senate, and President Barack Obama's signature, still would be needed before the bill could become law.

Supporters were convinced they could achieve both those steps. They said success was in sight after years of attempts to tame an industry so fundamental to America that carved tobacco leaves adorn some parts of the U.S. Capitol.

"We have come to what I hope will be an historic occasion, and that is finally doing something about the harm that tobacco does to thousands and thousands of Americans who die each year," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said Wednesday as lawmakers debated his Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

His bill wouldn't let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco outright, but the agency would be able to regulate the contents of tobacco products, make public their ingredients, prohibit flavoring, require much larger warning labels and strictly control or prohibit marketing campaigns, especially those geared toward children.
Posted by: tu3031   2009-04-02 10:36  

#4  Given that I spent last night gaming at a house full of pagan O-bots, one of whom kept blowing pipe smoke in my face, I'm feeling all sorts of schadenfreude this morning.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2009-04-02 09:45  

#3  Double, triple, and quadruple the taxes on cigarettes. Make 'em unaffordable. Quit subsidizing tobacco companies. Tobacco can burn in hell, and so can its promoters.

My family members who have died of smoke related illnesses include some who died young after hellacious suffering from lung and throat cancer, leaving young children alone and devastated. Another passed out from his heart problems while smoking, setting the house on fire and killing his mother too.

Casting a cigarette tax as an imposition on the poor is nonsense. If you're poor, you can't afford cigarettes, and you certainly can't afford the respiratory problems that make it hard to work and live comfortably. Use the tax to underwrite programs to help the poor quit smoking.
Posted by: mom   2009-04-02 09:42  

#2  Two cartons per day would be my recommendation.
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-04-02 09:41  

#1  Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then...

I'll bet he smokes "OP's"...and is a pain in the ass about it...
Posted by: tu3031   2009-04-02 09:33  

00:00