Thursday, February 05, 2009

Senator Murray Joins Democrats In ‘Sticking It To The Poor’

Washington States own Senior Senator, Patty Murray, tennis shoed lovable little mouse that she is, has joyfully announced how she and other Democrats have locked arms and decided to “stick it to the poor” people they claim to care about and want to help.

Of course that isn’t exactly what she says, but that is the obvious outcome of their strong support and passing of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, CHIP.

After all the bleeding heart fearmongering of children receiving no health care today and all the millions of dollars that will come to Washington State, Murray unwittingly reveals how their plan is going to hurt the very people they say they will help the most.

Murray announces,

“The $31.5 billion cost would be covered by a 61-cent per-pack tax increase on cigarettes and other tobacco products.”

Ah yes, the evil tobacco user ponies up again to pay for their vile habit. Democrats know that smoke-nazi nanny staters have effectively demonized tobacco and users to the point that the majority will not oppose any tax increases on those “despicable, evil, nasty, smelly good for nothing smokers.”

Just a couple of small problems in the Democrats desire to once again “stick it to the evil smoker.”

First, if they truly expect to continue funding this and other entitlement programs by tobacco taxes, is it wise to also encourage people to stop using tobacco? If they stop smoking and stop buying the product, where will those increased tax dollars to fund this program come from then?

If smoking bans continue to be added, more people will stop smoking and again, stop purchasing the product, thereby once again, decreasing the available funding for this Children’s Health Insurance Program.

But, that isn’t the main way Democrats will once again be pushing the poverty stricken deeper into poverty.

Until recently the American Heart Association had on their Smoking Statistics page the following;
“Studies show that smoking prevalence is higher among those who had earned a GED diploma (39.6 percent) and among those with 9-11 years of education (34.0 percent) compared with those with more than 16 years of education (8.0 percent). It's highest among persons living below the poverty level (29.1 percent).”

That’s right, it is the poorest among us, the very people Murray and fellow Democrats claim they must help by raising tobacco taxes, that will be primarily paying those taxes!

Quitter’s, an online site to help smokers stop using tobacco tells us,
“Ironically, studies show that the percentage of people that are low income and smoke is greater than the percentage of people who are at a high income level. If you consider the cost of smoking this is ironic, but many researchers believe this directly relates to the level of education one has received. The percentage of individuals below the poverty level whom smoke is a staggering 29.9%.”

Again, it is confirmed that the very people who will pay the increased taxes to fund this program are the very people they say they will help. The increase in tax they will have to pay will decrease available money to use on their families elsewhere, such as nutritious food or decent housing and clothes.

I know, all they need do is stop smoking and they won’t have to pay that tax, right? Of course that is so. But again, when they stop smoking and stop buying cigarettes, where does the tax needed to fund CHIP come from then?

Of course, not spoken aloud is the distinct possibility that helping children of the poor is secondary in this. It is very possible that the prime intent is actually more Socialist dependency on the government as to make up for the increased tax payments, those other areas mentioned above that will suffer can be made up by other Socialist programs, all the help the children, mind you.

This is a vicious circle with no end in sight now that the Dictatorial Democrats hold all the cards and can shove whatever Soviet style program down our throats they wish. It didn’t work in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Cuba or Viet Nam and it is doubtful it will work in the Union of Socialist States of America either.

Don’t be fooled by sneaker wearing little mousy Senators as their hearts bleed all over on how they need to help out the less privileged. The real goal is take from the citizens and to give out what government says you should receive, as dictated by aging holdover hippies and their minions.

This is NOT American liberty as envisioned by our founding fathers, but is rather the vision of Karl Marx, the father of modern Communism.


Anonymous said...

So Lew, I assume from this tirade that you are an unrepentant smoker.


LewWaters said...

No canuck, you may assume that I am tired of the demonization of legal product that they refuse to outlaw and use to create more of a Socialist state.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that they will raise taxes on the very people they say they must help, while also encouraging them to stop using the product, which dries up the funding for this all important program?

A vicious circle? You betcha!

Anonymous said...

Well, nobody ever said our senators/reps were the brightest crayons in the box...least of all us few remaining conservatives... ;-)

Anonymous said...

Lew, if the poor would stop smoking, they would have more money to spend on food for their children.

Cigarettes are a tax on morons.

Smokers are idiots. I had a good friend(from my days in university) a pack a day man who died from lung cancer. I attended his funeral last week. He was 59.


LewWaters said...

LOL, Canuck, but you exemplify just what I said above.

Yes, if the poor stopped smoking, they would have the money to afford more for their children. But here's the rub. Once they do, where do the funds to operate this socialist program come from?

Call it a catch 22, but the whole measure is a vicious circle. They tax smokers to fund the program while hoping more smokers quit, thereby decreasing the funding for the program.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

As for smoking itself, I enjoy a cigar but do not advocate ending most smoking bans. Private business should be allowed to decide for themselves.

I've also known people who smoked heavily, some dying young, some living to a lot older. My parents smoked and my Dad died at 54 of a heart attack, my Mom at 72 of an Aneurysm on the brain.

My paternal grandmother, never smoked in her life, but was exposed to second hand smoke nearly all of her 92 years never developed lung cancer.

She said she had another form of cancer in her youth and was "cured" by a faith healer, though.

But still, the gist of my post is how ridiculous it is for Democrats to claim they must tax smokers to help the poor when the majority of smokers are the poor.

In reality, it is just another way they intend to force Socialism upon us down here.

Angie Lee said...

I must be offended. I am a smoker and far from a MORON or IDIOT with an IQ of 138. I am not rich, but my children are cared for and fed well, first and foremost, and NOT on the public tab. There is NEVER an issue of food versus cigarettes because food always rules.

Unlike most smokers who begin in their teens, I did not start until I was nearly 30. Working in the medical field, I know nicotine is a stimulant, as is caffeine. I use nicotine (a pack a day) and large amounts of caffeine (soda and pills) as well as prescription stimulants (Provigil) to attempt to counteract the debilitating effects of multiple sclerosis, my worst symptom being bone-crushing fatigue - to a point most people could never begin to imagine.

I have no worries about dying from lung cancer. Having only smoked a few years, it is the least of my concerns. The worry and the pain come in the form of knowledge of medical issues that will claim my life long before cancer or chronic lung disease has a chance to catch up to me.

I know that I have a very limited time in this existence; ANY day I would trade lighting a few fags to be awake and play with my children than spend it in a nearly comatose state, my children left with the memory of a mom who was there but missing. That is NOT the legacy I would leave them.

It is unfair to make generalizations about a group of people, when you may not know the motivations of INDIVIDUALS in that group.

The point of the article was that smokers are generally poor, but they are singled out - a bull's eye target painted on their backs - to support the very programs claimed to be to help them BECAUSE they are poor; but when they are forced to quit smoking (either because they just can't afford the tax or because of efficacy of stop smoking programs directed at them):


Contrary to what Congress seems to think (courtesy of The Fed), money does NOT grow on trees, nor does it come out of thin air. When a program such as this is classified as a MANDATORY budget expenditure, and the revenues previously used to fund it DRY UP, you have to get the money from SOMEWHERE. So in the end, SOMEONE will suffer - by either having to pay greater sin tax on something else, or some new tax directed at some other aspect of everyday life, or increased tax on something that already exists.

It's a LOSE-LOSE situation.

Anonymous said...

"It is unfair to make generalizations about a group of people" - Angie Lee

You're so right. It is just a generalization. However even though you have a high IQ, you are making a mistake smoking. A moronic(just a figure of speech word) mistake. Don't justify smoking on the MS need for nicotine, if you want nicotine, get it via the patch, stop sucking filth into your lungs. That's not helping. BTW, latest studies suggest low Vitamin D levels increase the risk for MS. Maybe it is not too late to start taking vitamin D, might help. Research it.


Anonymous said...

"...I enjoy a cigar.." - Lew

So you enjoy the occasional cigar? For special occasions like having babies? heh. Or maybe grandkids in your case. Anyway, I picture you enjoying a cigar (Cuban??) with a fine scotch. From what I understand, one does not inhale cigar smoke and so the lungs are spared.

Oh, BTW, I forgot to mention to Angie that my friend who died of lung cancer was very smart, smarter that me as an engineer. But he was hooked. And Lew, not all smokers get lung cancer as you know but 90% of lung cancer victims are smokers. Some people are more prone to cancer and if so, smokers with that trait, greatly increase their risk to getting cancer. Smoking is also a high risk factor in contributing to heart disease, heart attacks and strokes. That's what killed my father at 66. Another pack a day man.


LewWaters said...

Canuck, me and Cuba don't get along too well, especially since I originate from South Florida.

BTW, I don't drink either. Lost interest in it after Viet Nam and gradually stopped altogether.

In fact, my doctor has recommended I have an occassional drink after dinner to help my blood pressure. So far, I've maybe two shots out of a fifth of good Canadian Whiskey I bought two years ago.

As far as that goes, when I do have a smoke I go off away from others that may not smoke. Yes, it may one day give me problems, but so could riding a motorcycle again, racing cars or all teh solvents and abestos I have been exposed to all my live.

Bottom line is, none of us get out of life alive, so why not enjoy it a little while we are here?